Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The problems or conflicts that will be avoided by this policy are minimal if any. Only a true believing mormon would agree that the policy will do more help than harm to gay parents, their children and their extended families.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 This issue was begging for Brother Jake's explanation. I think he nails it:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fYJI74u7jlQ&feature=youtu.be Cute, but snarky about the very serious matter of making covenants in an environment that does not support them, or creates enmity between a parents beliefs and actions, and a minor child's covenants.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The problems or conflicts that will be avoided by this policy are minimal if any. Only a true believing mormon would agree that the policy will do more help than harm to gay parents, their children and their extended families. Yes you keep saying that. You use true believing mormon like it was a bad thing. I'll accept that label and wear it with pride. 2
Analytics Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 After reviewing Elder Christofferson's comments above, please understand that this does not eliminate the conflict. It does however take the child out of the middle until they reach the age of majority. The whole intent is to avoid pitting the child's parents and the covenant the child makes against each other.While I sincerely think it is commendable for the church to want the children of gays to be protected from its own teachings (at least until age 18), I can't help but remember growing up in a part member family and being taught at church that Jesus came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law, because a man’s foes should be they of his own household.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) While I sincerely think it is commendable for the church to want the children of gays to be protected from its own teachings (at least until age 18), I can't help but remember growing up in a part member family and being taught at church that Jesus came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law, because a man’s foes should be they of his own household. As long as a parent insists on calling sin acceptable, there will be conflict with the teachings of the restored gospel. The delay of entering any child of that household into the serious covenant of baptism will not eliminate that conflict. It will however avoid putting that child in a covenant that condemns the teachings of their parent. Which brings me full circle to the absolute mystery as to why someone who believes and participates in gay marriage would desire to be, and have their children be, in a covenant that condemns their actions? While Christ warned that a man's foes would be of their own household (something I am keenly aware of as many friends and relatives opposed my making my covenant in the LDS Church) I think it would be cruel indeed for us to turn up the heat on an already difficult situation for a child in our church. Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG 1
stemelbow Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 You may discuss the general topic of the change in policy here. ANY accusations about the worthiness or Christianity of another poster will get you banned. This includes accusations about church leaders kicking out children, LDS being anti-gay, or people who disagree with the policy being apostate. I appreciate the rules for this thread, very much. I'm not sure how the discussion has gone in the direction it has. Some of us suspect harm to be had by this policy. For such prediction posters here have been accusing us of accusing the brethren of lying. I see it starting out in this thread from the outset. I haven't seen anyone who says the brethren are lying, but I have seen some of us claim they are wrong. The most difficult part of this is when people have come out and said this policy hurts them. Instead of people accepting it's possible we get a lot of, "well they were sinners already. They can't blame the policy for their problems". With such reasoning their is little actual conversation. Those who the policy hurt are being condemned by those who support the policy, in these threads, in these conversations. It's really a terrible argument on their part, in terms of logic. But it's been maintained. I've seen it in this new thread again. I brought up a story of a family I know, and left it as anonymous as I could. But the people in the story were being condemned as dysfunctional--as if that wave of the hand objection to them redeems the policy. I'm saddened by the policy. I find it problematic. I see nothing redeemable about it. I've heard all the argument supporting it and find them lacking, in most cases severely so. I'm sure the brethren are trying to do some good with this, but it's not doing anything good. The children and families and their loved ones were much better off without the policy. The Church, which is our people, is better off without it. I have yet to see a credible argument supporting it. I've seen a lot of belly-aching and condemning. I've seen a lot of screwy backwards logic. I haven't seen one good reason for the policy, even when someone linked to gay grown-ups who have supported it. 1
CV75 Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 While I sincerely think it is commendable for the church to want the children of gays to be protected from its own teachings (at least until age 18), I can't help but remember growing up in a part member family and being taught at church that Jesus came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law, because a man’s foes should be they of his own household.That particular teaching from Matthew 10 is not about children, but about married adults (man, father, mother, in laws). “Household” refers to multi-generational, patriarchal line, home and business where only the emancipated made decisions. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Parents are responsible for teaching their young child to love the Lord more than them. In the case of two separate sets of parents in two separate homes, the variance arises when one set does this and the other doesn’t, especially since from the child’s perspective it is still the same household. Parents will incorporate the “household of God” or the Church (Ephesians 2:19) into the child’s household (or not), and in the case of same-gender couple, they are definitely not. But in any case, the parents are primarily responsible for teaching them (D&C 68:25; 83:4), not the Church. It is conflicting reactions to the message of Christ that creates variance, not Christ or His Church. This is different than a part-member home on this point in that same-gender marriage is such an exceptional abomination, LDS covenant-wise. The policy recognizes that unity and variance are to occur at mature decision points when the child becomes an adult in his “household.”
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) What about the single parent whose gay spouse left them and they are trying to raise her children in the gospel? The new policy will create conflict and harm, rather than prevent it. It could give the child a green light to leave the church and side with the gay parent. Also I'd imagine the gay parent feeling even more alienated from the spouse and their family. Edited November 12, 2015 by Ron
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Stemelbow, You missed many comments on how Elder Christofferson was in effect doing CYA for the church. You missed many comments that accused those who defend the policy and the church as disingenuous or denying reality. Even your comments that accuse other of "screwy backwards logic" and the policy of having "nothing redeemable about it" are more inflammatory and accusatory than helpful. Some of us are trying to reason why it is helpful, why it is necessary, and why it is in the long run the right thing to do. But when the response ranges from petulant rebellion to down right insulting, there is no communication, there is no understanding, and there is no reconciliation. You mentioned the posts of those who are adult LDS children of gays and not having good reasons. I wonder if you would do us the kindness of addressing the actual reasons instead of throwing away their messages as containing not one good reason for the policy? Here they are again: The following essays are from LDS children who were raised by gay parents. Their perspective on the changes made to the Leadership Handbook regarding same sex marriage, apostasy, and baptism of children is worth considering as we discuss the impact of this new policy on the church and its membership. http://www.puttingitplainly.com/i_am_that_kid/ (quote from article) "How can the church, a society, or even greater … our God, ask an 8 year old, a 12 year old or even a 16 year old to take on such a task while intimately living in a circumstance that conflicts with religious teachings they are pursuing. (Lest we forget this policy applies to an individual who is in fact pursuing religious association with the Mormon church.) Association is not being denied but our wise Father in heaven is looking to reduce the conflict and storm in the mind of the child by easing the transition and treading upon actual baptism lightly and respectfully. Two worlds so conflicting in any circumstances take an extreme amount of courage, strength, mental capacity, and emotional understanding to gracefully intertwine into a healthy existence. That picture looks so different for everyone, but the one person who can see that picture is a wise and kind Heavenly Father, whom I do believe loves us individually and has no malice in His motives to help us individually navigate. His intent is messaged to us through living prophets and apostles who also have no malice or ill intent, they are kind, loving people." http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/guest-stand/i-am-the-daughter-of-lesbians-and-i-am-a-mormon/ (quote from article) "...feeling like we have to choose between our families and something else is excruciating. There were many times in my childhood that I felt torn between my beliefs and my mothers’ choices. I have personally spoken out disagreeing with the way I was raised and homosexual marriage and it has been one of the hardest things I have ever done. I cannot imagine what it would be like for a child to sit in a bishop’s office and disavow the marriage or relationship of his or her parents. Having children wait until they are eighteen takes this huge burden off of the children’s shoulders and ensures that the children are at a point in their lives where they can make eternal decisions with greater understanding." Truly no one is as qualified to judge and respond to this issue as someone who has lived through it. Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG 3
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 What about the single parent whose gay spouse left them and they are trying to raise her children in the gospel? The new policy will create conflict and harm, rather than prevent it. It could give the child a green light to leave the church and side with the gay parent. Also I'd imagine the gay parent feeling even more alienated from the spouse and their family. The other side of that very problematic situation is that a spouse could use this as a wedge to seek custody of a child from a gay parent. Semelbow shared an incident where this has already happened. He blames it on the policy (we obviously see it differently).
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) The other side of that very problematic situation is that a spouse could use this as a wedge to seek custody of a child from a gay parent. Semelbow shared an incident where this has already happened. He blames it on the policy (we obviously see it differently). Who is we? I think only a subset of true believers would blame the family. Edited November 12, 2015 by Ron
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Who is we? I think only a subset of true believers would blame the family. We being Stemelbow and KevinG And I never blamed the family. I blame the sins, contention and rebellion some members of the family engaged in (on both sides of the argument), but not the family. Obviously the policy compounds the pain, but not out of a desire to hurt, out of a desire to minimize damage, and protect the church (members and organization) and the family members involved. Re-read Elder Christofferson's words. Take them at face value. Re-read the stories of LDS adults raised in Gay families who support this policy. Then consider them. You may disagree with the actions. However simply writing them off as wrong headed, or disingenuous, or ridiculous, or any other negative adjective, is not discussion or understanding. It is just belligerence. Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) We being Stemelbow and KevinGOk got it I thought you were saying we blame the family. Edited November 12, 2015 by Ron
stemelbow Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 You missed many comments on how Elder Christofferson was in effect doing CYA for the church. You missed many comments that accused those who defend the policy and the church as disingenuous or denying reality. Even your comments that accuse other of "screwy backwards logic" and the policy of having "nothing redeemable about it" are more inflammatory and accusatory than helpful. Some of us are trying to reason why it is helpful, why it is necessary, and why it is in the long run the right thing to do. But when the response ranges from petulant rebellion to down right insulting, there is no communication, there is no understanding, and there is no reconciliation. You mentioned the posts of those who are adult LDS children of gays and not having good reasons. I wonder if you would do us the kindness of addressing the actual reasons instead of throwing away their messages as containing not one good reason for the policy? Fair enough. I"ll re-consider it. Here they are again: The following essays are from LDS children who were raised by gay parents. Their perspective on the changes made to the Leadership Handbook regarding same sex marriage, apostasy, and baptism of children is worth considering as we discuss the impact of this new policy on the church and its membership. http://www.puttingitplainly.com/i_am_that_kid/ (quote from article) "How can the church, a society, or even greater … our God, ask an 8 year old, a 12 year old or even a 16 year old to take on such a task while intimately living in a circumstance that conflicts with religious teachings they are pursuing. (Lest we forget this policy applies to an individual who is in fact pursuing religious association with the Mormon church.) Association is not being denied but our wise Father in heaven is looking to reduce the conflict and storm in the mind of the child by easing the transition and treading upon actual baptism lightly and respectfully. The reason I see this as lacking credibility as a reason is because people, children and adults have already come out saying they've been hurt or negatively effected by the policy. This would make sense if there were not already negative impacts. But since their are, I'd say, cases in which the mind of the child has heft added to it, I'm not sure there is any easing going on. If there is, it simply can't outweigh the added weight it puts on other children. Two worlds so conflicting in any circumstances take an extreme amount of courage, strength, mental capacity, and emotional understanding to gracefully intertwine into a healthy existence. That picture looks so different for everyone, but the one person who can see that picture is a wise and kind Heavenly Father, whom I do believe loves us individually and has no malice in His motives to help us individually navigate. His intent is messaged to us through living prophets and apostles who also have no malice or ill intent, they are kind, loving people." http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/guest-stand/i-am-the-daughter-of-lesbians-and-i-am-a-mormon/ (quote from article) Sadly the worlds seem to more conflicting due to the policy. I'm not sure how this is missed. "...feeling like we have to choose between our families and something else is excruciating. There were many times in my childhood that I felt torn between my beliefs and my mothers’ choices. I have personally spoken out disagreeing with the way I was raised and homosexual marriage and it has been one of the hardest things I have ever done. I cannot imagine what it would be like for a child to sit in a bishop’s office and disavow the marriage or relationship of his or her parents. Having children wait until they are eighteen takes this huge burden off of the children’s shoulders and ensures that the children are at a point in their lives where they can make eternal decisions with greater understanding." Difficult, because I as a faithful TR carrying LDS can accept the homosexual relationships of others and not feel the slightest need to disavow it. The policy change puts the onus only on children of homosexual parents. It does not mean I have to disavow it. This isn't a very credible argument, for without the policy no child of a gay parent would have to disavow the parent being gay. Truly no one is as qualified to judge and respond to this issue as someone who has lived through it. But no one has, beyond a week, anyway.
JAHS Posted November 12, 2015 Author Posted November 12, 2015 Better cancel your plans fo watching the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas performances. "Petition asks Mormon Tabernacle Choir guests to cancel appearances over policy change" http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3166230-155/petition-asks-mormon-tabernacle-choir-guests
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 And I never blamed the family. I blame the sins, contention and rebellion some members of the family engaged in (on both sides of the argument), but not the family. That is blaming the family!
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Better cancel your plans fo watching the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas performances. "Petition asks Mormon Tabernacle Choir guests to cancel appearances over policy change" http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3166230-155/petition-asks-mormon-tabernacle-choir-guests The petition is asking guests not to sing with the choir. The performance can still happen without guests, right?
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Better cancel your plans fo watching the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas performances. "Petition asks Mormon Tabernacle Choir guests to cancel appearances over policy change" http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3166230-155/petition-asks-mormon-tabernacle-choir-guests Evidence of my point that only a subset of true believers think the new policy is not harmful to families.
JAHS Posted November 12, 2015 Author Posted November 12, 2015 The petition is asking guests not to sing with the choir. The performance can still happen without guests, right? It would have to be dramatically adjusted which there really isn't time for now. These guests are featured singers. I seriously doubt they will cancel.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Thank you for considering those viewpoints. I have also considered both sides. The day of the announcement I was shaken and had to prayerfully consider why and what impact it would have. You see I love and cherish my gay friends. Some from childhood. And we have had many open and heartfelt discussions about what it means to be a Saint, and what it means to be Gay. In some ways it is easier for me and one of my childhood friends. He has no desire to be a Latter-day Saint and I have no desire to live in a homosexual relationship. We respect and love each other. If the day came where he and his partner asked to be baptized it would be a very difficult and delicate discussion. No doubt leading to some hard and painful choices. But painful does not necessarily mean harmful. Having changed my own life to repent of sins I know that process and it is not easy, or painless, or even fair. No one claims the policy does not hurt. Correction often hurts, even when done out of love and genuine concern for the person being corrected. The difficult decision to reaffirm that entering into same sex marriage, or actively teaching same sex marriage is acceptable within the bounds of the gospel, is apostasy, must be weighed against the eternal consequences for those families, and others in and out of the church. One alternative was to continue down the non-tenable path of silently ignoring people claiming that same sex marriage is compatible or may some day be compatible with God's laws on chastity, entering into those relationships, and claiming a form of continuity with the church. There are numerous instances where people claimed to be faithful Saints, drew a following, then led them away from gospel principles. Recent examples include Dehlin and the Ordain Women movement. It is no coincidence that Dehlin was the first to take the Handbook of Instructions for Church Leaders and make a press release out of it. In order to retain its order and sustain its doctrines the church excommunicated those individuals who deceived others (perhaps themselves too- I do not question they believed in what they were doing). The church faced with a movement to consider gay marriage as an alternative lifestyle for those who believe in the restored gospel claims had to draw a line. In doing so it will hurt. But that hurt is not exclusively the fault of the policy. In fact the policy, as stated, and as explained, is genuinely trying to restore eternal blessings, while minimizing the enmity between young children and their parents. I can see the disagreements, and other points of view. But claiming ignorance, spite, wrong-headedness, rediculousness, callousness, dishonesty, or other such things about the prophets, seers, revelators and other true believing Mormons is not a productive response. 2
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) deleted- I'm not going down that rabbit trail. Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Evidence of my point that only a subset of true believers think the new policy is not harmful to families. Is the opposite true? If we allowed families to enter into same sex relationships (lets take the preceding affair and divorce out of it for a moment and say its a couple who married then adopted in a same sex relationship) while allowing them to stay in a same sex marriage and raise children in the church be more beneficial to the world and in the eternities than drawing a line against what the church considers a grevious sin? I guess I'm asking you a couple of questions. What if anyting in gay marriage do you consider sinful? How would you engage or control the issue of people entering into arrangements opposed to our doctrines, then claiming to be at least in part in fellowship with the church? When this situation inevitably led to a serious breach between what the child is taught at church, and their own parents beliefs and actions, how would you handle the situation with care and love? Its easy to poke holes in the brethren and TBM beliefs. But what are your alternatives? Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The petition is asking guests not to sing with the choir. The performance can still happen without guests, right? I dunno. Is the Tabernacle Choir really good enough to draw an audience on its own? (A little levity there)
california boy Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Peggy Fletcher Stack wrote an article tyring to explain the difference between doctrine and policy with regards to the gay marriage policy. "Doctrines remain fairly constant, while policies are revised, updated and tweaked as circumstances arise.Here's how Patrick Q. Mason, head of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University in Southern California, describes the relationship between the two:"Mormonism has a set of theological principles, which crystallize into particular doctrines, then are implemented and enforced through a series of policies."A policy, Mason explains in an interview, "becomes the administrative fleshing out of the church's doctrines."Still, the line between the two can be blurry and difficult to distinguish. Mason, the historian, cautions members to remember that this is a policy, not a doctrine.In fact, Mormon apostle D. Todd Christofferson, in a video explaining the new rules, refers several times to the guidelines as a policy." I think the main point in the article being that policies can be changed or modified as needed. http://www.sltrib.com/home/3166492-155/new-mormon-edict-on-gays-is Policies also do not come from God. By their very nature of being policies rather than doctrine means they come from consensus of a committee. The biggest policy that has gotten the church into these divorced situations where one parent is gay originated from a long held policy that gays should marry with the promise their attraction to the same sex would go away or at least diminish. Now this new policy comes along that will cause the children of those VERY families that have been so devastated from this idea that gays should marry someone of the opposite sex should not have their children participate fully in the gospel. I will make a prediction to prove that this policy did not come from God. The proof? The church will significantly change this policy before long. If it came from God, there would be no need to change the policy. I am not suggesting that these men are not sincere in their desire to try and lead the church the best they can. I am only suggesting that decisions made by these leaders do not always come from God but from a vote amongst themselves. For some reason, it seems like church leaders are blinded when it comes to gay issues. We have seen this blindness before in past policies and political activism of gay issues. They don't patiently wait for a revelation from God, they decide amongst themselves in hopes that they are guessing at the will of God. Just think how different the church history on how it treats gays would have been if the leaders had patiently waited for a revelation from God on how the church should treat His gay children. This history is not over. As long as church leaders are just guessing on the will of God, mistakes will be made, and unfortunately those affected by those mistakes will suffer. On the other hand, those who are not affected will charge forward, forgetting past policy blunders as quickly as they were given. Why would they be concerned with something that never changed their own personal lives. Those that defend each and every action by the church leaders without question are following men, and not necessarily following God. It is easier than thinking such policies out for themselves. I know because I used to be one of those members. I blindly followed the policy of marrying someone that I could not emotionally connect with. I have children from that marriage. And I have a divorce as a result of following unquestionably a policy that I felt was not right for me, but was following blindly what the church asked me to do. Those that are crusading for this latest policy are all sitting on the sidelines. They have no skin in the game. They have no children from a previously failed church policy. So it is easy for them to blare out complete unquestionable obedience to something that will NEVER be a part of their own lives. They are able to casually dismiss the countless stories that have come up of harm this new policy has and will create. And they place the blame on those faithful members who followed previously "inspired" policy for getting themselves in this position of having children even though they are gay. Not one person on this board is defending this new policy has a gay child or is gay themselves. It is easier for them to follow church leaders at all costs than it is to be touched by the sad situations the latest "gay" policy is causing. I wish each and everyone of you who so valiently support church policy had to live with the results of that support rather than just observe it in others. You may find there is a lot of truth in what suffering those members are trying desperately to convey to those of you who have no skin in this game.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) These individuals have quite a bit of "skin in the game" and they agree with the wisdom of the policy. The following essays are from LDS children who were raised by gay parents. Their perspective on the changes made to the Leadership Handbook regarding same sex marriage, apostasy, and baptism of children is worth considering as we discuss the impact of this new policy on the church and its membership. http://www.puttingitplainly.com/i_am_that_kid/ (quote from article) "How can the church, a society, or even greater … our God, ask an 8 year old, a 12 year old or even a 16 year old to take on such a task while intimately living in a circumstance that conflicts with religious teachings they are pursuing. (Lest we forget this policy applies to an individual who is in fact pursuing religious association with the Mormon church.) Association is not being denied but our wise Father in heaven is looking to reduce the conflict and storm in the mind of the child by easing the transition and treading upon actual baptism lightly and respectfully. Two worlds so conflicting in any circumstances take an extreme amount of courage, strength, mental capacity, and emotional understanding to gracefully intertwine into a healthy existence. That picture looks so different for everyone, but the one person who can see that picture is a wise and kind Heavenly Father, whom I do believe loves us individually and has no malice in His motives to help us individually navigate. His intent is messaged to us through living prophets and apostles who also have no malice or ill intent, they are kind, loving people." http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/guest-stand/i-am-the-daughter-of-lesbians-and-i-am-a-mormon/ (quote from article) "...feeling like we have to choose between our families and something else is excruciating. There were many times in my childhood that I felt torn between my beliefs and my mothers’ choices. I have personally spoken out disagreeing with the way I was raised and homosexual marriage and it has been one of the hardest things I have ever done. I cannot imagine what it would be like for a child to sit in a bishop’s office and disavow the marriage or relationship of his or her parents. Having children wait until they are eighteen takes this huge burden off of the children’s shoulders and ensures that the children are at a point in their lives where they can make eternal decisions with greater understanding." Truly no one is as qualified to judge and respond to this issue as someone who has lived through it. Elder Christofferson has quite a bit of skin in the game. His brother. And he explained the policy. Your assertion that not one person on this board defending the church has not had to live with same sex attraction or homosexuality in their family is false. Changes in policy do not disprove their value. I change communications all the time in my line of work to communicate with a variety of audiences, at a variety of times, while staying consistent with the value of what my core mission is. Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG
Recommended Posts