Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[JAHS]

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.  

 

Which policy was that? Can you provide a reference?

[TheSkepticChristian]

ERaR said 

 

 

While pondering the question again today it came to me the reason for the policy is to protect the Church from having a whole generation growing up believing that SSM and homosexual behavior is acceptable behavio

 

So why do missionaries baptize the children of unmarried parents that cohabit? Not only that, missionaries baptize thousands of children that become inactive in less than 6 months because their non-LDS parents don't take them to church. I think the church shouldn't allow children to join the church alone without an adult family member, that is far more reasonable. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Ron]

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?

 

My alternative is go with the status quo.  The entire policy is not needed.  Deal with each case of gay marriage on its own, don't lump them all together.  If a particular gay marriage is causing harm to the church, then deal with that on an individual basis.  

Edited November 12, 2015 by Ron

[KevinG]

 I think the church shouldn't allow children to join the church alone without an adult family member, that is far more reasonable. 

 

Absolutely!  I've long advocated this.  I have seen the personal destruction and pain caused by hasty baptisms of youngsters with no LDS support system in their home.  Stopping at permission and not asking for at the very least, a commitment on the part of the parent to sustain church teachings and activity for their child, is short sighted in my mind.

[KevinG]

My alternative is go with the status quo.  The entire policy is not needed.  Deal with each case of gay marriage on its own, don't lump them all together.  If a particular gay marriage is causing harm to the church, then deal with that on an individual basis.  

 

Not as a matter of refutation of your words, but to explain another viewpoint...

 

I'm not sure the status quo was working to eliminate misconceptions of what was or was not acceptable in terms of church behavior.  remembering that this is a policy that reinforces doctrine and the way the church is governed this policy draws a clearer line and may prevent some from falling into the erroneous belief that same sex marriage is or will some day be compatible with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I see that reflected in what Elder Christofferson said,

 

"To some degree it came from questions that have surfaced in different parts of the world and the United States. With the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord and how we respond to that. So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt."

[Ron]

Not as a matter of refutation of your words, but to explain another viewpoint...

 

I'm not sure the status quo was working to eliminate misconceptions of what was or was not acceptable in terms of church behavior.  remembering that this is a policy that reinforces doctrine and the way the church is governed this policy draws a clearer line and may prevent some from falling into the erroneous belief that same sex marriage is or will some day be compatible with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I see that reflected in what Elder Christofferson said,

 

"To some degree it came from questions that have surfaced in different parts of the world and the United States. With the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord and how we respond to that. So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt."

 

So the harm to families by the policy is collateral damage so the church can make it clear that gay marriage is wrong?

Edited November 12, 2015 by Ron

[stemelbow]

No one claims the policy does not hurt.

Well that was my whole point. The policy will hurt people, it seems. I'm concerned about that. I can't accept it as a good idea on such grounds.

[Ron]

Not as a matter of refutation of your words, but to explain another viewpoint...

 

I'm not sure the status quo was working to eliminate misconceptions of what was or was not acceptable in terms of church behavior.  remembering that this is a policy that reinforces doctrine and the way the church is governed this policy draws a clearer line and may prevent some from falling into the erroneous belief that same sex marriage is or will some day be compatible with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I see that reflected in what Elder Christofferson said,

 

"To some degree it came from questions that have surfaced in different parts of the world and the United States. With the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord and how we respond to that. So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt."

 

I agree this was likely the primary motivation for the policy.  But the part about how this will help and protect gay parents and their children was an afterthought to justify how harsh the policy is.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Ron

[Ron]

Evidence is mounting that this new policy was a mistake and that most (other than a subset of true believers) believe it to be a harmful policy.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/wildcard/mormons-plan-to-quit-over-churchs-new-policy-banning-baptism-in-gay-families/2015/11/12/41659e4e5dc76cfeed0f69e6f9008b16_story.html

Edited November 12, 2015 by Ron

[DJBrown]

Well that was my whole point. The policy will hurt people, it seems. I'm concerned about that. I can't accept it as a good idea on such grounds.

 

 

Evidence is mounting that this new policy was a mistake and that most (other than a subset of true believers) believe it to be a harmful policy.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/wildcard/mormons-plan-to-quit-over-churchs-new-policy-banning-baptism-in-gay-families/2015/11/12/41659e4e5dc76cfeed0f69e6f9008b16_story.html

 

 

Hmm.  As if surveys or advocacy groups constitute the revealed will of God.

[DJBrown]

I agree this was likely the primary motivation for the policy.  But the part about how this will help and protect gay parents and their children was an afterthought to justify how harsh the policy is.

 

I think this places accountability on the shoulders of the parents and protects the children- as in lengthening the period of time in which they are not entirely accountable.  

[Mars]

 

Evidence is mounting that this new policy was a mistake and that most (other than a subset of true believers) believe it to be a harmful policy.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/wildcard/mormons-plan-to-quit-over-churchs-new-policy-banning-baptism-in-gay-families/2015/11/12/41659e4e5dc76cfeed0f69e6f9008b16_story.html

 

 

i feel sadness that they're so angry, but i don't understand the rationale.

 

if they are angry that the church wants children of gay parents to wait to get baptized, and the answer is to leave the church, does that mean that this policy was a final straw, of sorts, that changed the goal of wanting to get baptized?

[KevinG]

So the harm to families by the policy is collateral damage so the church can make it clear that gay marriage is wrong?

 

No.  The policy seeks to minimize damage to both.  Read Elder Christofferson's words, and the explanations of those who support the policy change.

 

No one is advocating using these families as collateral damage.  In fact the policy as written seeks to minimize damage and the official explanation states as much.

 

You are free to disagree with that.  But please don't mis-characterize what others are saying.  It makes it appear you are arguing in bad faith.

[JAHS]

 

Evidence is mounting that this new policy was a mistake and that most (other than a subset of true believers) believe it to be a harmful policy.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/wildcard/mormons-plan-to-quit-over-churchs-new-policy-banning-baptism-in-gay-families/2015/11/12/41659e4e5dc76cfeed0f69e6f9008b16_story.html

 

Where does it say "most believe"?  

Edited November 12, 2015 by JAHS

[KevinG]

Well that was my whole point. The policy will hurt people, it seems. I'm concerned about that. I can't accept it as a good idea on such grounds.

 

My girls used to think their mom brushing out their hair in the morning hurt, and was a bad idea.  

 

The alternative was letting them run around with rats nests, and tangles, eventually leading to hot spots, scalp disease and greater pain and suffering.

 

Mom loved them and brushed their hair anyway.  She used cremes and sprays, and was as gentle as possible.  But she insisted they care for their hair.

 

There was much stomping of feet, complaining, and cries of "Ow!  You are hurting me!"  But the brushing was necessary and continued apace.

 

Edit to add:  I do the same to my long haired cat.  Even though he tries to bite and claw me.

Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I agree this was likely the primary motivation for the policy.  But the part about how this will help and protect gay parents and their children was an afterthought to justify how harsh the policy is.

 

Again - Elder Christofferson's own words:

 

Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. 

[bluebell]

Yes in my opinion it is so wrong it seems absurd.

 

I understand that.  I'm wondering if you think those people i mentioned are absurd for viewing the policy in a different way than you do (for not finding it absurd), even though they have personal experience to support their opinions on it?

[KevinG]

Where does it say "most believe"?  Most of the 14 million members?

 

A good illustration of the difference between polling and propaganda.

 

We won't really know the outcomes of this policy until they happen.  I would not be surprised if this results in some self sorting among members.  But capitulation to a movement to declare sin an acceptable lifestyle choice is not a good option in the long run.

 

Here is the source of the quote on coming changes...

 

"...there will be additional clarification on these changes from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] in the coming days,'” the Tribune quoted Dehlin as saying."

 

Not quite an unimpeachable source when it comes to understanding the direction and mind of the Prophets, Apostles and Seers.

 

I wonder if Scott Lloyd has set a clock on this prediction?  Although does Dehlin mean coming days as measured to man, or measured to God?  That could create quite a variance in expectations.

Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG

[bluebell]

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.

 

Exactly.  Jesus was sent to set a man at variance, not a child.  

[bluebell]

Fair enough. I"ll re-consider it.

 

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.

 

 

Is there some reason that the opinions of those who said that the policy is negatively affecting them should be given more weight and considered more reasonable than those who have said that the policy would have saved them some suffering or turmoil if it had existed when they were young? 

 

I certainly understand giving both points of view equal weight, but i don't understand how one point of view is more valid than the other.  Am i misunderstanding what you are saying?

[SmileyMcGee]

 

"I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years."

 

"We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

 

To me, this could be interpreted as protecting the child from an increased likelihood of breaking covenants, which makes sense of the prohibition against baptism until 18. It does not explain the ban on a name and blessing, since there are no covenants or obligations associated with naming and blessing a child. 

 

"And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."

 

This is where I see the poor rationale: that somehow the policy prevent them from having difficulties, challenges, and conflicts arising. The policy does not prevent church attendance, acceptance of doctrine, etc. The doesn't need to be baptism for conflict and challenges to exist. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Rivers]

What if a policy in the CHI conflicts with a commandment?

[JLHPROF]

What if a policy in the CHI conflicts with a commandment?

 

Then we assume further light was received. 

[SmileyMcGee]

But if after the placement of such a restrictive policy the gay parents still opt to have the child raised in the Church -- even after they've received the clear message that the Church believes it's a very bad idea to raise children in a religion that will teach such a child the parents are living in gross sin -- they will have nobody to blame but themselves if the child eventually condemns their lifestyle. The policy is geared toward getting gay parents to realize raising a child in the Church is so problematic that it precipitated a policy that requires the exclusion of the child from actual Church membership for no less than 18 years. In the developmental stage, when the leaders of the Church were considering what the policy would finally look like, they very likely realized they could not altogether exclude such children from Church participation without causing a firestorm of controversy and opposition even worse than what's now taking place. So rather than exclude such children from Church participation altogether, the leaders wisely adopted a policy that puts across a very strong message that if even after the implementation of the policy the gay parents still insist on having their child raised in the Church, they will have nobody to blame but themselves if the child eventually repudiates their lifestyle, for they knowingly placed the child in an environment where it was not at all unlikely such a repudiation could take place. Meanwhile, due to the divine law of compensation, in the long run such children will lose nothing when it comes to eventually having a full and complete opportunity to receive the Gospel and enter the celestial kingdom of God.

Bobbie, 

 

Do you really think that the Church leaders (or I, in my posts) have suggested that this policy exists for SS couples who desire to have their children raised in the church? 

[KevinG]

 

 

"I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years."

 

"We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

 

To me, this could be interpreted as protecting the child from an increased likelihood of breaking covenant, which I makes sense of the prohibition against baptism until 18. It does not explain the ban on a name and blessing, since there are no covenants or obligations associated with naming and blessing a child. 

 

"And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."

 

This is where I see the poor rationale: that somehow the policy prevent them from having difficulties, challenges, and conflicts arising. The policy does not prevent church attendance, acceptance of doctrine, etc. The doesn't need to be baptism for conflict and challenges to exist. 

 

 

I understand that point of view.  I think there are some other assumptions on the part of the church authorities that feed into the decision.

 

It is better the child is not held accountable to a covenant that their family does not support in the first place.

 

Attendance and study would then be a option not an expectation of that child.

 

Again Elder Christofferson:

 

When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that.