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

[filovirus]

No more confusion than a child of heterosexual couples who are living together outside of wedlock whose children attend church.

Family unity and togetherness has been a central theme of the church for many years. Whether the church approves or not of same-gender marriage/cohabitation, the only recourse the church has to rectify what they consider a grevious sin is to suggest the dissolution of a family to make things right. That goes against a doctrine they are trying to instill in the world. I believe the Lord wants children to have a stable family, even if He sees it as a mockery of a Celestial family.

These children are now in a tough predicament, follow the Lord's teaching knowing their family will never make it past death, or to reject the Gospel and hope for a better outcome, one in which they will be with their parents forever. Such a tough decision!

Whether the policy will change or not is up to the Lord. I can see benefits of the policy as it is, as well as benefits of a change to soften the policy where a child may have others in their life to teach correct principles. I can only imagine the agony the Brethren felt coming up with the policy, even more the agony of our Saviour knowing how many people it would affect and hurt.

Either way, I am sure the Brethren are taking it to the Lord again in fasting and prayer. I trust God will wisely direct them.

[KevinG]

I didn't acuse anyone of anything... it is noted that you acused me of acusing the bretheren however.

So "Will the brethren now have blood on their handsto boot?" wasn't accusatory?

Wow.

Edited November 13, 2015 by KevinG

[Zakuska]

wondering and acusing are two very different things kevin.

If Í were "accusing" I would have said 'now the bretheren have blood on their hands'.

I simply asked if the bretherens discission is now going to get escalated by the drama queens in the LGBT community to the point that we might actually see some emotionaly unstable person actually follow through with the threats.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

Tell that to the leaders of our Church who have remarried after their first wives past away. I can tell you with the utmost surety that they find great comfort in the doctrine and are grateful it was revealed and for the sacrifices of the early church.

It helps to recognize that he is projecting his own disdain when he assumes leaders regret the actions of our pioneers.

[Kenngo1969]

The fact that it has been removed only points to the fact that church leaders probably contacted them to quit promoting bright ideas to people who are emotionally distraught and unstable right now.

 

Or, perhaps it was ... I dunno ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... That thing that news organizations don't like to be called ... It's right on my fingertips ... Oh, yeah ... Ummm ...

 

INACCURATE?

[KevinG]

wondering and acusing are two very different things kevin.

If Í were "accusing" I would have said 'now the bretheren have blood on their hands'.

Roll your eyes all you want. That was pretty low. Somehow I doubt you would so blithly dismiss someone wondering out loud if there would be blood on your hands if your saying no to your daughter had resulted in her suicide. Edited November 13, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I simply asked if the bretherens discission is now going to get escalated by the drama queens in the LGBT community to the point that we might actually see some emotionaly unstable person actually follow through with the threats.

Funny but asking if they might now have blood on their hands certainly gave a much different impression.

Not a phrase I would use to innocently ask ifnthey were aware someone might try emotional blackmail by threatening to take their life. I think you know better and are weaseling out of a very poor choice of words.

Speaking of poor choices of words... Do you really feel it is appropriate to call homosexuals in crisis " drama queens"?

Edited November 13, 2015 by KevinG

[Zakuska]

Roll your eyes all you want. That was pretty low. Somehow I doubt you would so blithly dismiss someone wondering out loud if there would be blood on your hands if your saying no to your daughter had resulted in her suicide.

Whatever kevin. Lets not make this thread about each other and questioning each other motives per areis request.

Yahoo reports the same spike. So no kenngo its accurate and has been removed per request.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/lgbt-advocates-see-spike-suicide-225021092.html

Edited November 13, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

Whatever kevin. Lets not make this thread about each other per ares request.

Yahoo reports the same spike.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/lgbt-advocates-see-spike-suicide-225021092.html

I didn't argue the spike. Just your horrible choice of questions and descriptions. And whatever is such a great, mature, and meaningful response.

Ares also asked us not to accuse the brethren. Your comment wasn't suddenly made innocent by adding a question mark. Tell you what. Report me and Ares can make the call.

.

Edited November 13, 2015 by KevinG

[Kenngo1969]

So "Will the brethren now have blood on their handsto boot?" wasn't accusatory?

Wow.

 

So "Will the brethren now have blood on their handsto boot?" wasn't accusatory?

Wow.

 

 

wondering and acusing are two very different things kevin.

If Í were "accusing" I would have said 'now the bretheren have blood on their hands'.

I simply asked if the bretherens discission is now going to get escalated by the drama queens in the LGBT community to the point that we might actually see some emotionaly unstable person actually follow through with the threats.

You know, you should go to law school, Zakuska (and I'm being totally serious).

 

Attorneys ask questions all the time even when they know their opponents are going to jump nearly out of the building objecting to them, and the judge is going to sustain the objection.  Why?  Because even by simply asking the question, they've planted the idea in jurors' minds: "Hey, what does the opposition have to hide?  Why do they not want us to know tha answer to this question?"

 

For example, if I were to ask, "Isn't it true that you believe Kenngo1969 is an utterly despicable, utterly reprehensible, completely irredeemable human being?" opposing counsel would then jump out of the building when getting out of his chair to shout, "Objection!"  And His Honor would say, "Sustained!"  But guess what?  Even though the judge sustained the objection and the witness didn't answer the question, what are jurors now thinking?  "Geez, what kind of a person is this Kenngo1969, anyway?"

 

With all due respect, posing the question the way you did and not expecting us to draw any conclusions from it is the rough equivalent, in my opinion, of peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining out.

[Ares]

Objection sustained.

[The Nehor]

Since Bishops are the Aaronic Priesthood leaders in their ward (thus filling the spot of moses and aaron) and they are supposed to be following every jot and tittle in this handbook of instructions for administering the church per dictate of SLC... it does get pretty burdesome.

Only if you imagine that these jots and tittles show up regularly which they do not.

[Thinking]

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

 

It's burdensome when your sister would like to show slides of her son at his funeral, but learns that showing slides in the chapel is not approved (CH1). Some things you learn after you plan them.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Thinking

[Zakuska]

It's burdensome when your sister would like to show slides of her son at his funeral, but learns that showing slides in the chapel is not approved (CH1). Some things you learn after you plan them.

Thanks. Good thing to know. Looks like we'll be planning all our funerals at the funeral home rather than the local ward building as to not have Moses and Aaron crash our family mourning time with overly burdensome law of Moses nit picks like that. This might also stop any well meaning Bishops from high jacking the funeral proceedings surmonizing and promoting the church. Edited November 13, 2015 by Zakuska

[Bernard Gui]

I have a personal pet theory that like the law of Moses, we could be governed without the handbook of we would stop trying to find ways around God's plain laws and doctrines.

Every time one of those church bulletins is circulated with a new policy I wonder to myself, "who was stupid enough to think (whatever the subject of the bulletin is) was a good idea in the first place?"

Indeed. Many instructions and policies come about because someone messed up or took things to extremes.

For example, in the 1948 MPHBI, men are instructed not to wear hipboots or waders while performing baptisms, and ushers are told not to ask ladies to remove their hats in sacrament meetings, even if they block the view of those sitting behind them. Someone was doing those things, and to correct them, a policy had to be written.

Usually, they come about because even though we are taught correct principles, we are often unable to govern ourselves with fairness, mercy, justice, good judgment, and common sense. There have to be guidelines in any organization to keep us on the straight and narrow. Otherwise apostasy creeps in on little cat feet.

I truly do not understand the heartburn some get over having to read and follow a handbook. As a bishop, I learned my calling well by following it. It is full of our collective wisdom, carefully thought out policies, and protections for members, leaders and the Church, often the results of hard-learned lessons.

Although, sometimes the policies and procedures of the Physical Facilities Groups leave me shaking my head.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

It's burdensome when your sister would like to show slides of her son at his funeral, but learns that showing slides in the chapel is not approved (CH1). Some things you learn after you plan them.

We showed them in the cultural hall and foyer. No problemo.

[Zakuska]

Indeed. Many instructions and policies come about because someone messed up or took things to extremes.

For example, in the 1948 MPHBI, men are instructed not to wear hipboots or waders while performing baptisms, and ushers are told not to ask ladies to remove their hats in sacrament meetings, even if they block the view of those sitting behind them. Someone was doing those things, and to correct them, a policy had to be written.

Usually, they come about because even though we are taught correct principles, we are often unable to govern ourselves with fairness, mercy, justice, good judgment, and common sense. There have to be guidelines in any organization to keep us on the straight and narrow. Otherwise apostasy creeps in on little cat feet.

I truly do not understand the heartburn some get over having to read and follow a handbook. As a bishop, I learned my calling well by following it. It is full of our collective wisdom, carefully thought out policies, and protections for members, leaders and the Church, often the results of hard-learned lessons.

Although, sometimes the policies and procedures of the Physical Facilities Groups leave me shaking my head.

with all dew respect. How you get from wearing or not wearing hats in sacrament, and no wadders to baptize some one with ending in Apostasy is anyones guess. Edited November 13, 2015 by Zakuska

[Bernard Gui]

Thanks. Good thing to know. Looks like we'll be planning all our funerals at the funeral home rather than the local ward building as to not have Moses and Aaron crash our family mourning time with overly burdensome law of Moses nit picks like that. This might also stop any well meaning Bishops from high jacking the funeral proceedings surmonizing and promoting the church.

You certainly have that right. Who would want a bishop or stake president to talk about the Plan of Salvation to non-members at a funeral, of all places. Outrageous, I say, outrageous!

[Bernard Gui]

with all dew respect. How you get from wearing or not wearing hats in sacrament, and no wadders to baptize some one with ending in Apostasy is anyones guess.

Those were examples of people not using common sense leading to the need for regulations.

White waders and hip-boots only? Should they cover the pants or go up to the shoulders? Do I still need to wear white clothes underneath ? Should they be official Church issue and provided by the ward? Should temple ordinance workers wear them too? Zippers or buttons? What if they leak? Should they be new and used only for baptisms, or can you get by with your fishing or irrigation gear if you just spray them off real good before you enter the font? What if Brother Arlon Grumbsby can't afford nice new waders like Brother Praxford Pratt-Young's? What if we can't find big enough waders to fit Brother Porter Lee Chumster? Will he feel bad? What if your waders smell of salmon eggs and trout guts? Wait, bishop! Papa needs to run home to get his hip-boots. Excuse me. My waders straps just slipped off and I forgot to put on my pants.

Or should we just say, please don't wear them at baptisms when some brethren start to do it?

"Sister, would you please remove your hat?"

"No."

"----------------"?

"How dare you talk to my grandma like that!"

"Brethren, can I get some muscle over her to help remove this hat?"

Apostasy? Substituting crackers or oatmeal cookies for sacrament bread. Candles or flowers on the sacrament tables. Rock bands booming out praise music in sacrament meetings. Special robes and jewelry to set apart leaders. Elaborate decorations and images in chapels. Misuse of church funds. Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

[Deleted] Off topic. -Ares

Edited November 13, 2015 by Ares

[Buckeye]

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY

47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200

November 13, 2015

To: General Authorities; Area Seventies; General Auxiliary Presidencies; Stake, District, Mission, and Temple Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:

Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.

Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.

When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.

All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.

May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry.

Sincerely yours,

 

https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?cid=HP_WE_11-11-2015_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-A_〈=eng

[Calm]

Darn, almost got here first...that is what happens when I let my concern for my family get in the way of my board participation.

 

This sounds to me like it should be reassuring to most people.  I will be curious to see the reaction.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Calm

[Buckeye]

In short, the policy was written poorly. It will apply in many fewer instances than if it were literally applied. It does not apply to children who live with a gay parent unless that arrangement is over 50% of their time. And it does not stop the church progression of children who have already been baptized. 

 

So Daniel2, looks like your kids will be fine after all. Thank God.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

Darn, almost got here first...that is what happens when I let my concern for my family get in the way of my board participation.

 

The last shall be first ... 

[Calm]

Also this:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook

 

If there’s one thing that virtually all Christians agree on, it’s Jesus Christ’s tender love of children. Both the Bible and Book of Mormon deliver touching accounts of His love for “little ones,” blessing them and forbidding His disciples from keeping children from Him.

 

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the family is reverenced and children are its centerpiece. Yet last week an instructional letter from Church leadership addressing the sensitive topic of how to respond to same-sex relationships sparked a wave of inquiries from Church members. Most of the questions were about children.

 

Because the letter was an instructional document to leadership throughout the world, and not a Church-wide announcement through LDS.org or through Church Public Affairs, there was no additional information or context on the usual Church websites. That prompted questions from many Church members, who were mostly reading media headlines portraying the instructions as a rejection of children and refusal to name babies. Members understandably had specific questions about how the announced change might affect their loved ones.

The episode demonstrates clearly the dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete news reports, tweets and Facebook posts without necessary context and accurate information. The Church quickly responded to many of those concerns with a video interview with Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. By the end of the weekend, that interview had been viewed by millions. 

 

Today, a letter clarifying what the Handbook changes mean and do not mean has been posted on the primary Church website, LDS.org.

One difficulty was a general lack of understanding of the Handbook itself, which is a guide for lay leaders of the church in 30,000 congregations across the world. A purpose of the Handbook is to provide bishops and other leaders with a standard reference point when they make decisions. Because it is a policy and procedural manual, the Handbook is not written in language that is necessarily contextual or explanatory. Church leaders are encouraged to use the Handbook in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Sensitivity to individual circumstances is learned through the Spirit, Christ’s teachings and example as found in the scriptures, from talks and teachings of General Authorities, and from the leaders’ own experience and exposure to real-life situations.  No handbook can answer every question or address every circumstance.

Here are the key points to understand as background to the recent changes and additions to the leaders’ Handbook:

 

• It is not a sin simply to feel attraction to another person of the same sex. Some faithful members of the Church experience those attractions yet participate in the Church without breaking the Lord’s commandments. They serve missions and attend the temple.  The Church teaches its members to embrace these brothers and sisters and encourage them in their faithful lives in the Church.
• There is no change in the doctrinal position that sexual relations between people of the same sex is sinful.
• There is new information in the Handbook that addresses a narrow range of situations involving the children of same-sex couples.

 

With same-sex marriage now legal in the United States and some other nations, the Church felt the need specifically to address such marriages in the Handbook to draw a firm line and encourage consistency among local leaders. In particular, Church leaders are concerned for children–whether biologically born to one of the partners, adopted or medically conceived. In reality, very few same-sex couples would bring children for the formal Church ordinance of naming and blessing, since this creates a formal membership record. But Church leaders want to avoid putting little children in a potential tug-of-war between same-sex couples at home and teachings and activities at church.

 

This sensitivity to family circumstances is practiced elsewhere. For example, the Church doesn’t baptize minor children without parental consent, even if the children want to be associated with their LDS friends. A married man or woman isn’t baptized if the spouse objects. Missionaries don’t proselytize in most Muslim countries or in Israel, where there are particular sensitivities with family. In some African and other nations where polygamy is practiced, anyone whose parents practice polygamy needs special permission for baptism so they know that a practice that is culturally acceptable for many in the region is not acceptable in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Of course, there are always situations that fall outside general guidelines and principles, which is why local leaders may ask for guidance from more senior leaders in particular cases where they may have questions.

 

The vast majority of Church members understand that there has been no doctrinal change with regard to LGBT issues.  Church doctrine is consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. There is a strong tendency today for many to talk of Jesus Christ as if His teachings on love were somehow inconsistent with his teachings on divine commandments. Of course the Savior’s love was never withheld from anyone and His words on the cross exemplify that. But, He also expressed love by teaching clear doctrine and standing firmly against sin with sometimes-tough lessons for which people rejected Him. That is where Church leaders stand today – holding firm to the doctrinal position of right and wrong, while extending love to all people. Church members who believe in modern prophets and apostles understand and appreciate the intent of their leaders to guide the Church through the complexities of diverse societies and rapidly changing social circumstances.

 

Edited November 13, 2015 by Calm