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

[Russell C McGregor]

The list was too long to read it all. I started to get bored with all the very unlikely situations she came up with. I am sure others are making equally longs lists of every possible situation they can imagine.

Good point. The results of a thought experiment are not "consequences."

All of these can be handled on a case by case basis according to the discretion and inspiration of the Bishop who would be aware of all the details of a particular case. If not they can make a quick call to church leaders for advice.

True.

I think it might even possible that church leaders are letting this stew for a while to see what kinds of situations people might come up with that might need to be considered as they proceed to make some clarifications about the policy.

That's always a possibility. Knowing what is doctrinally and morally right is one thing; knowing how to apply the principles to actual families, every one of which is unique in some way, is another.

[Ron]

I apologize if this has already been posted. (I haven't read all 9 pages) This is a post from The Times and Seasons outlining some of the intended and/or unintended consequences of this policy.

 

Would it make you feel better if these consequences are unintended and hadn't been considered prior to the release of the new policy?

 

Or would it make you feel better if the Brethren fully intended all of these consequences of the policy?

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise/

 

 

I like this one, at least its a positive:

 

46.  If this list sounds like a deluge of negative outcomes, here’s a positive one: the many, many members who are troubled by this policy seem to be working double time to ensure that any gay folks and their families in their circle are shown that God’s love extends to them.

 

[Ron]

I apologize if this has already been posted. (I haven't read all 9 pages) This is a post from The Times and Seasons outlining some of the intended and/or unintended consequences of this policy.

 

Would it make you feel better if these consequences are unintended and hadn't been considered prior to the release of the new policy?

 

Or would it make you feel better if the Brethren fully intended all of these consequences of the policy?

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise/

 

This is a good list that I think will help some on this board understand what I mean when I keep saying the policy is harmful.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm just sad that thousands of members are officially resigning from the church over this. I don't know how many total will leave because of this.

[Danzo]

When has it been quite common for worthy already baptized members of the church to have to wait until they are 18 for anything?  

 

For a long time, minors have need the permission of their parents to be baptized. This results in many case were someone has to wait until they are 18 to be baptized. I know a couple myself.

[Danzo]

What are the reasons for it being quite common to have to wait until they are 18? If the age of accountability is 8, that's 10 years of being prone to the influence of Satan, without having the Holy Ghost with you. And if you say the Holy Ghost is with them anyway, then that cheapens the importance of sacred ordinances.

 

Most of the time it is because a parent hasn't given permission for baptism. I know several cases.

[Danzo]

I'm just sad that thousands of members are officially resigning from the church over this. I don't know how many total will leave because of this.

 

I don't think they are resigning because of this.  I think They are resigning because they don't believe in modern prophets (at least not in modern prophets telling them things they don't want to hear).

Edited November 13, 2015 by Danzo

[Ron]

I apologize if this has already been posted. (I haven't read all 9 pages) This is a post from The Times and Seasons outlining some of the intended and/or unintended consequences of this policy.

 

Would it make you feel better if these consequences are unintended and hadn't been considered prior to the release of the new policy?

 

Or would it make you feel better if the Brethren fully intended all of these consequences of the policy?

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise/

 

 

 

13. I’m already hearing stories of parents filing to change their custody arrangement; they are concerned that their current joint custody might result in their child being denied church membership. It is also not hard for me to imagine situations where, in a divorce, the faithful LDS parent demands/requests/maneuvers the gay parent out of the child’s life and/or the gay parent (who in many cases still has a great love for the church) removes him or herself from the child’s life in order not to jeopardize the child’s membership in the church. (In other words: if I have no idea what my mom is doing, her gay marriage can’t affect my future in the church.)

 

 

 

:(

[CV75]

I apologize if this has already been posted. (I haven't read all 9 pages) This is a post from The Times and Seasons outlining some of the intended and/or unintended consequences of this policy.

 

Would it make you feel better if these consequences are unintended and hadn't been considered prior to the release of the new policy?

 

Or would it make you feel better if the Brethren fully intended all of these consequences of the policy?

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise/

These are not consequences, but projections of situations and rationalizations that some people are better equipped to handle than others. Knowing that the Holy Ghost so equips people makes me feel good, and knowing that LDS members have a community to help them if they are not so equipped makes me feel good too. Nothing could make me feel better.

 

I think the blogger should have recognized this as the closing point. Instead we are treated to an "epiphany" of the charity I and so many others see being extended every day, anyway, and long before now. And they are certainly not motivated by being "troubled" -- that is a losing proposition.

[CV75]

I like this one, at least its a positive:

It is so sad that that is the only positive outcome recognized and listed when there are so many others, and so many others to be projected in counter to each of the other 45 points.

[Danzo]

I apologize if this has already been posted. (I haven't read all 9 pages) This is a post from The Times and Seasons outlining some of the intended and/or unintended consequences of this policy.

 

Would it make you feel better if these consequences are unintended and hadn't been considered prior to the release of the new policy?

 

Or would it make you feel better if the Brethren fully intended all of these consequences of the policy?

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise/

 

There are forty six possible unintended consequences in this article.

 

Can we just pick one, or do I have to address the whole list?

 

On the other hand, at this point, there are very few unintended consequences just potential ones.

 

I am quite sure that there will be further clarification on this as time goes on, perhaps one of the reason the new policy is so strict is so that possible scenarios can be presented and dealt with by the first presidency to insure consistency before being spelled out in the handbook of instructions.

[Steve-o]

I am sure others are making equally longs lists of every possible situation they can imagine. All of these can be handled on a case by case basis according to the discretion and inspiration of the Bishop who would be aware of all the details of a particular case. If not they can make a quick call to church leaders for advice. 

 

Can a bishop handle these on a case by case basis? The policy doesn't seem to allow for local interpretation. Exceptions must go through the first presidency.

 

Which of these scenarios are not plausible? They all seem plausible to me.

[Russell C McGregor]

This is a good list that I think will help some on this board understand what I mean when I keep saying the policy is harmful.

Yes, that someone can lean back in her chair and imagine a laundry list of possible (not actual) bad outcomes.

 

That's all the "harm" in evidence.

 

[JAHS]

I'm just sad that thousands of members are officially resigning from the church over this. I don't know how many total will leave because of this.

These people have a lot more reasons than just this one for leaving the church. They just want to go out with bang and make a statement by doing so to make the church and its leaders look bad.  

[Russell C McGregor]

I'm just sad that thousands of members are officially resigning from the church over this. I don't know how many total will leave because of this.

 

There might be lots. Maybe half a dozen; maybe even more.

 

But I wonder if anyone would actually leave the Church over this policy if they actually had a testimony of the restored Gospel.

[Ron]

There might be lots. Maybe half a dozen; maybe even more.

 

But I wonder if anyone would actually leave the Church over this policy if they actually had a testimony of the restored Gospel.

 

Maybe this policy was the trigger that caused them to lose their testimony of the restored gospel.

[JAHS]

Can a bishop handle these on a case by case basis? The policy doesn't seem to allow for local interpretation. Exceptions must go through the first presidency.

 

Which of these scenarios are not plausible? They all seem plausible to me.

Some are plausible but not likely for the majority of people. Only a few exceptions must go through the First Presidency. The introduction to the Church Handbook indicates that Bishops can handle most of these through inspiration:

 

"Church leaders should seek personal revelation to help them learn and fulfill the duties of their callings.

Studying the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets will also help leaders learn their duties. The Lord has admonished leaders to treasure up in their minds continually the words of God so they will be receptive to the influence of the Spirit (see D&C 84:85).

Leaders also learn their duties by studying the instructions in Church handbooks. These instructions can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an understanding of principles, policies, and procedures to apply when seeking the guidance of the Spirit."

[Ron]

Yes, that someone can lean back in her chair and imagine a laundry list of possible (not actual) bad outcomes.

 

That's all the "harm" in evidence.

 

I've heard stories of some of the bad outcomes having already occurred or occurring as we speak.

[JAHS]

I've heard stories of some of the bad outcomes having already occurred or occurring as we speak.

Can you provide stories of problems that have happened where the Bishop actually told some members their kids cannot be baptized (get priesthood, missions, etc)?  Most of the ones I have heard are people who are afraid it will happen based on their interpretation of the policy.

[Storm Rider]

I've heard stories of some of the bad outcomes having already occurred or occurring as we speak.

 

So within in a week everything occurred for a "bad outcome".  Wow, talk about moving at lightening speed.  Has that ever happened before in the Church?  It would have to be the most organized stake in the Church.  Get the clarification, train on it, implement it, call in all those who were gay married and active, call them to repentance, call a court, make a decision, and then excommunicate them.  All in one week.  Yup, totally believable to me.  

[The Nehor]

It's not that a manual exists, but that the manual gets so detailed to the point that it may be considered burdensome, much like the Law of Moses.

Most members go through their entire lives never once reading it. How is it burdensome?

[Russell C McGregor]

Maybe this policy was the trigger that caused them to lose their testimony of the restored gospel.

 

But Ron, that's not rational.

 

If one is convinced of the verity of the Church's foundational truth claims, then the institutional Church doing something they don't like doesn't change that. Because neither the Church nor any of its authoritative documents anywhere states that everything the Church does will be comfortable and in line with current social mores.

 

Nobody concludes that the Gospel must be true because it satisfies their expectations of what a true gospel must be like; they become convinced that the Gospel is true, and then use that as their yardstick for measuring the rightness or otherwise of social values.

 

Thus, those who are using current social values as their yardstick for measuring the rightness or otherwise of the Church's teachings and actions are doing so without consulting a testimony of the Gospel.

[Ron]

But Ron, that's not rational.

 

If one is convinced of the verity of the Church's foundational truth claims, then the institutional Church doing something they don't like doesn't change that. Because neither the Church nor any of its authoritative documents anywhere states that everything the Church does will be comfortable and in line with current social mores.

 

Nobody concludes that the Gospel must be true because it satisfies their expectations of what a true gospel must be like; they become convinced that the Gospel is true, and then use that as their yardstick for measuring the rightness or otherwise of social values.

 

Thus, those who are using current social values as their yardstick for measuring the rightness or otherwise of the Church's teachings and actions are doing so without consulting a testimony of the Gospel.

 

It is perfectly rational.  When a church leader or leaders promotes a policy that causes cognitive dissonance it can cause a "crystallization of discontent" and be the moment that their beliefs fall.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Ron

[Danzo]

Can a bishop handle these on a case by case basis? The policy doesn't seem to allow for local interpretation. Exceptions must go through the first presidency.

 

Which of these scenarios are not plausible? They all seem plausible to me.

 

They probably want all cases reported to the First Presidency so they can better make policy for each case. I think its reasonable that they want the church to be fairly consistent in its application of the "exceptions"

They will probably update the handbook when they feel they have a good understanding of a what the criteria for the exceptions are.

[Danzo]

Maybe this policy was the trigger that caused them to lose their testimony of the restored gospel.

 

All in one week?

 

these people jump to conclusions pretty fast