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

[Ron]

This is a real laugh riot.

 

Here we have critics of the church telling us, as fact, that here's what the Brethren intended, how they actually thought, how they realized they've messed up, how we are required to interpret the policies they make, how it was all driven by the lawyers, how they are living in fear of what they've done, how the vast majority of church members are totally offended by the policy, how people have been hurt, how people might have been hurt, how people will still be hurt, how the world is so much more in tune with what is right than the leaders of the church are, etc., etc., etc.

 

The level of absurd rationalization against the church has really brought people's true allegiances out of the woodwork and into plain view for all to see.

 

If nothing else, it has been instructive. I think critics have made Keely Mullen's rationalizations for how to pay for free college tuition look reasonable by comparison.

 

It seems to me that most other than hardcore mormons seem to agree with the "absurd rationalizations" of the critics.

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-1111-wednesday-mormon-children-gay-parents-20151111-story.html

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/11/12/mormon-lgbt-policy-change-triggers-widespread-backlash

Edited November 14, 2015 by Ron

[CV75]

My understanding of the intent and interpretation of the policy came from our stake president operating under the direction of the area authority, not from social media.

Who can really tell? We all developed an intent and understanding prior to your hearing anything from your stake president, and then again prior to your area authority receiving today’s guidance and now with today's guidance.

 

The reference to social media in the newsroom article has to do with the inaccurate portrayals accepted by some members and contributing to some members’ conclusions and confusion, and not to do the instructions given by your stake president.

 

So this was a change and, it seems likely due to feedback from membership and leaders.

I don't see how clarification and guidance that gives rise to a change in one's understanding and perspective translates into a change in the actual policy.

 

I thank for Brethren for listening/responding although I'll still go on record as objecting to what's left of the policy.

You sound like you're receiving an award LOL. How will the Brethren document this objection in the record? Or are you referring to an imaginary record of an imaginary, "unofficial common consent"?

[bluebell]

And children will be penalized for the "sins" of their parents.  This "policy" is very far from Christ's teachings.

 

Children will face the consequences of their parents sins, and that concept is a part of Christ's teachings.  

[bluebell]

I was actually doing ok without embracing SSM.  But rejecting them?  Yes, thats a big deal for me.

 

So, you didn't think that the church was rejecting SSM before this policy came out?

[CV75]

No, not exactly.  To be breaking the law of chastity they would have to be under a covenant to live that law.

But yes, any endowed church member not married by priesthood authority had a marriage of questionable validity.  Important to remember where the law of chastity covenant is administered - in the temple.

The law of chastity is required of everyone even before they go to the temple, and is a requirement for a recommend. That starts with baptism.

[sunstoned]

Presumably if today's update had been what was intended all along, the original wording of the policy would have reflected that, not to mention the original clarification of the policy by Elder Christofferson

It is not a calcification.  The policy has been changed.   

[Russell C McGregor]

Presumably if today's update had been what was intended all along, the original wording of the policy would have reflected that, not to mention the original clarification of the policy by Elder Christofferson

Funny you should mention that.

I find this in Elder Cristofferson's interview:

 

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.

What do you think the highlighted passage might mean, Gray?

You're the one (well, one of several) who wants the wording to spell out the intent. What intent does this spell out to you?

[bluebell]

Apparently they also didn't write it to be understood by area authorities, stake presidents, and bishops. Which of course is ironic since those brethren are the intended audience.

Or, more plausibly, we just accept that they meant what they said... Since according to most here it was an inspired change. And since it was like checked, double-checked, and vetted by legal.

Then they realized it was a mistake.

They are capable of making mistakes and still being prophets, seers, and revelators, right?

 

I do believe that they are very capable of mistakes, but i don't believe they are capable of the motivations that many have placed upon them.  Nor do i think they are capable of being as stupid as many have implied they are, or as duplicitous.

 

They are still saying exactly what they said before--the policy has not been changed, and absolutely nothing in the clarification contradicts what Elder Christofferson said during his interview the first day the policy came out--they have just clarified how it is meant to be applied.  

[jwhitlock]

The mentality of those demanding the heads of the leaders of the church on individual platters for their unforgivable bigotry (yes, that sentiment has been expressed by at least one poster here) as expressed through their "clear policy of hatred" is something that shares a common methodology with other events in our country.

 

They have evidently taken a page from the book of those enlightened and progressive students across the country demanding resignations and reparations for contrived offenses at their colleges.

 

Warms the heart to see such consistent concern expressed from those in the great building.

[Russell C McGregor]

It is not a calcification.  The policy has been changed.   

 

Wrong!!

But thanks for playing.

[Storm Rider]

Funny you should mention that.

I find this in Elder Cristofferson's interview:

 

What do you think the highlighted passage might mean, Gray?

You're the one (well, one of several) who wants the wording to spell out the intent. What intent does this spell out to you?

 

Please don't confuse a good agenda with facts and reality.  You are just no fun.  

 

We need to ride this agenda until it drops dead and then we can find something else to whine and complain about.  You must always remember - the Church is wrong and those who rebel are always right.  Now just listen and ignore anything that conflicts with what they say.  

[Calm]

You make a great point. I guess I was focused on the main issue rather than the details you were sharing. One instance is always one too many.

 

What misrepresentation hurt the people you refer to?

Thank you.  I can't share the details because I am paranoid about sharing them and I don't want to explain why I am paranoid because that would contribute to the situation I am paranoid about happening.  If it was my own family, I would be fine about talking about it but as it turns out, my daughter wasn't interested in talking about it, too many other things on her mind.  So who else am I going to have a fight with about it under my roof?

[bluebell]

 

http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/11/10/mormon-boy-denied-priesthood-ordination-because-his-mom-is-living-with-a-woman/

 

 

I'm aware of this example (we'd discussed it on this board for days i think, at least it seemed like days).  What i mean is, i think the clarification was always coming and that the policy is being implemented now the way that it was always going to be implemented.  But, the church didn't get a chance for the change to be as smooth as it could have been if it could have controlled how the policy was received.  

[Storm Rider]

I didn't see where they are claiming that the clarification was the original intent. The wording of the original doesn't mesh with the clarification today 

 

Yet it does mesh with Elder C's comments.  Isn't that strange.  Almost like they really know what they are saying and intending.  Just bizarre.   It sounds so much more.....reactionary when you tell us what the Brethren say and intended to say.  I just hate that reality conflicts with your position so often. 

Edited November 14, 2015 by Storm Rider

[Gray]

 

 

 

 

I'm aware of this example (we'd discussed it on this board for days i think, at least it seemed like days).  What i mean is, i think the clarification was always coming and that the policy is being implemented now the way that it was always going to be implemented.  But, the church didn't get a chance for the change to be as smooth as it could have been if it could have controlled how the policy was received.  

 

 

Well, bottom line is that today's letter contradicts what was written in the original policy revision leaked last week. So by definition it's a policy revision. I can't read anyone's mind, I can just look at the two documents and see where they contrast rather starkly.

[Gray]

Yet it does mesh with Elder C's comments.  Isn't that strange.  Almost like they really know what they are saying and intending.  Just bizarre.   It sounds so much more.....reactionary when you tell us what the Brethren say and intended to say.  I just hate that reality conflicts with your position so often. 

Elder Christofferson didn't mention any of the changes revealed in the letter released today

[Zakuska]

The clarification is a step in the right direction and it does open the door so leaders can at least consult SLC now for more clarification in specific cases.

Are these letters added to the hand book as addendum?

Because I can still see a Bishop or SP handling the situation with Aaron like precision.

The bit about Muslims/Israel is not insufficient, it is disingenuous.

Agreed.

From CALMs post above: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66431-church-clarifies-new-policy/?p=1209560560

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.

Have church leaders been reading MD&D message boards? :shock: Daniel2, I think you're famous!

If the church is ever going to conquer Islam and get a toe hold in any Islamic country they're going to have to come up with a bigger carrot.

Lets face it... Which religion would you choose?

The one that offers you 72 Virgins or the One that only guarantees you one little ewe lamb?

(Speaking from an Islamic point of view of course)

What of the parents? They can't be baptized at all? When the church finally does open up in Muslim countries are we really going to see heavenly Ezra-esque divorce courts again? These poor Muslims are going to have to choose which one of their 72 Virgins is the bestes and which kids will be with them in their eternal inheritances and which kids get to become fatherless and cast to the desert.

The church is sending mixed messages, Is Polygamy acceptable to God or not? Or will the hand book be burned and the policy changed again at that time?

I can see Brother Joseph and Brother Brigham rolling over in their graves right about now.

What message are we sending them?

"Hey gentlemen... we're sorry... but your lifestyles aren't acceptable to our modern standards... please take your children born in sin and leave and could you take those filthy Israelite fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with you too!"

All I can say is Family home evening at Adam-Ondi-Ahman is going to be absolutely amazing! Make sure to bring your popcorn! There's going to be a lot of Modern LDS people suffering with cognitive dissonance you can bet your bottom dollar.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

Its everything, children, families, and the fact that the church that my family is so embedded has moved to being much less tolerant.

News flash: Never in its entire history has the Church of Jesus Christ tolerated homosexual behavior among its members. How is it less tolerant now just because an addition to the handbook expressed that position?

[Scott Lloyd]

BTW, I can't believe I am whole-heartedly agreeing with ScottLloyd the TheNehor

Don't worry, the grime will wash off.

[Scott Lloyd]

Because the original intention was in the original policy release.  What we have now is their reaction to the public outcry.  Even with the most recent "clarification" there is still the issue of many children who will be restricted from membership until the age of 18, and only after they disavow their parents.  This policy still will damage families.

Somebody else calling the Church leaders liars. This is getting really old.

[jwhitlock]

Somebody else calling the Church leaders liars. This is getting really old.

 

But Scott, they understand the character of church leaders far better than hard core Mormons do.

 

Either that, or there's a projection issue here.

[Scott Lloyd]

You.  Clear enough?

Hey Gray, when you've ticked off calm(oriah) that's a pretty good indication you've gone beyond the pale.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

But Scott, they understand the character of church leaders far better than hard core Mormons do.

 

Either that, or there's a projection issue here.

I think there ought to be a commandment forbidding evil speaking of the Lord's anointed. Wait -- there already is!

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Don't worry, the grime will wash off.

Ya reckon? At least there is hope than.

[jwhitlock]

I think there ought to be a commandment forbidding evil speaking of the Lord's anointed. Wait -- there already is!

 

Golly, you mean if church members tell us that our leaders are vindictive and out of touch with the policies they make, they're breaking some kind of covenant?