bluebell Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 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. As far as i know, that policy is still in there and written as it was from the beginning (but maybe the wording has been changed now), just with the clarification added as well. And, nothing in the clarification contradicts how Elder Christofferson described the way the policy would be used and that was from the same day the policy was leaked. It's weird that a contradiction would be the exact same as they way the church explained it in person from day one. 2
jwhitlock Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Ya reckon? At least there is hope than. I'm still trying to get my head around your tagline about going to an outhouse and hearing the gospel. I must have an overactive imagination.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 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?Oh, we can get rid of that -- right after we repeal the law of chastity.
Avatar4321 Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Elder Christofferson didn't mention any of the changes revealed in the letter released todayShocking isn't it. There are no changes and he didn't mention nonexistent changes. It's a conspiracy 2
Deborah Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 The original wording states specifically that a child living with a couple in same sex relationship could not receive baptism and then notes the exceptions where a mission president or stake president could obtain permission if they have interviewed the child and feel that an exception is warranted. The new wording does clarify this further as applying to children actually living primarily with the same sex couple but as some of us were saying from the beginning this is a policy and individual situations can be reviewed by local leaders for determination by the First Presidency. There was no need to assume the worse in every situation. But seriously how many children will this actually involve. Most couples actively living in same sex relationship have already been excommunicated. Do you really think they will want children living with them to be baptized. 4
sunstoned Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 That wonder makes sense, if we all assume that the apostles sit around in the office all of every day, meeting together and discussing what they read on the internet.Given that that's not at all how they really work, I find the one week to be very timely. In fact, it looks as if the clarfication was put into the works virtually as soon as anyone realised there was a question to be answered.Its called damage control Russell. And I am sure they were scrambling to get something out there quickly.
Deborah Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Its called damage control Russell. And I am sure they were scrambling to get something out there quickly. Actually it's called allaying the fears of the excitable and those who don't understand what the handbook means and how policies in it are put into play, because some apostate leaked it to the public when it was meant for church leadership who would have been properly educated in its implementation. And please don't tell me it would have been leaked anyway. You don't know that given that the number involved would likely have been very few and it would have been handled tactfully and with compassion without anyone necessarily knowing it was some kind of policy. 4
Ron Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 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? 1. Labeling them apostate.2. Mandatory disciplinary council3. Forcing their children disavvow their lifestyle and move out to be baptized. Have you forgotten about those parts of the new policy? 2
MiserereNobis Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 (edited) Are you all more understanding now of bureaucratic controversies in the Catholic Church -- that Church that has to set policies for 1.25 billion members? (sometimes it's nice being small, eh? ) Edited November 14, 2015 by MiserereNobis 2
carbon dioxide Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 But seriously how many children will this actually involve. Most couples actively living in same sex relationship have already been excommunicated. Do you really think they will want children living with them to be baptized.Which is why I wonder why they bothered with the policy change in the first place. I think most members probably would not personally know a gay couple who are married with a kid who wants to be in the church. Just consider the married gays to apply only to civil issues and not religious. Don't even considered the gay couple married as far as church things are concerned and treat the parents and the kids the same way the church did in 2014. The Church can maintain its standards by not allowing membership to gay parents who are married while allowing membership to the kids. Same as heterosexual couples who are not married and their kids.
sunstoned Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Children will face the consequences of their parents sins, and that concept is a part of Christ's teachings. The children will face the consequences of an ill advised and discriminatory that was put into place by fear.
carbon dioxide Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 1. Labeling them apostate.2. Mandatory disciplinary council3. Forcing their children disavvow their lifestyle and move out to be baptized. Have you forgotten about those parts of the new policy? Apostate label or not, the results are still the same. SSM couples would have to be exed. Lets suppose a different situation. Say Joe and Susan are married BUT they are both porn stars. Jimmy their son wants to be baptized. Should Jimmy be required to disavow the lifestyle of their parents to join the church? I think so. Disavowing the lifestyle does not mean you disown the individual.
Avatar4321 Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 1. Labeling them apostate.2. Mandatory disciplinary council3. Forcing their children disavvow their lifestyle and move out to be baptized. Have you forgotten about those parts of the new policy?I don't see how that's any different than before.Are you suggesting someone who lives contrary to the gospel while a member of the Church hasn't committed apostasy?Are you suggesting that engaging in homosexual behavior wasn't going to bring Church discipline before?Are you suggesting people seeking to be baptized didn't need to repent of and recognize sinful behavior before? 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 A lot of people have already resigned over this with a mass resignation event in Salt Lake tomorrow. Thousands have been reported as having had left and about 1000 are expected to show up tomorrow. That's a lot of lost membership numbers. Luckily there's still 15 million on the records.
sunstoned Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Somebody else calling the Church leaders liars. This is getting really old.If the shoe fits........
Avatar4321 Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Which is why I wonder why they bothered with the policy change in the first place. I think most members probably would not personally know a gay couple who are married with a kid who wants to be in the church. Just consider the married gays to apply only to civil issues and not religious. Don't even considered the gay couple married as far as church things are concerned and treat the parents and the kids the same way the church did in 2014. The Church can maintain its standards by not allowing membership to gay parents who are married while allowing membership to the kids. Same as heterosexual couples who are not married and their kids.Is it really a policy change or is it just the same thing that should normally happen written down?Perhaps the Church was writing it down to prevent over zealous members from targeting children of gay couples to baptism in order to pressure them to repent. I've seen people do crazier things.
Avatar4321 Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 A lot of people have already resigned over this with a mass resignation event in Salt Lake tomorrow. Thousands have been reported as having had left and about 1000 are expected to show up tomorrow. That's a lot of lost membership numbers. Luckily there's still 15 million on the records.I'm sure they are feeling foolish then
BlueDreams Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Compare the original policy of a week ago with the new updates.... Except the latter isn't the handbook. It's the letter clarifying the parameters for what's in the handbook. That's what I meant by did they actually change the handbook? It sounds more like they were giving public clarification/context for what's now in the handbook. Clarification that may have come to the local leaders when they received training as to how to implement it later. But again, this feels like I'm reading/looking at this completely differently from those who firmly assumed it applied to all children as opposed to ones living primarily with a same sex parent. With luv,BD 1
Tacenda Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Apostate label or not, the results are still the same. SSM couples would have to be exed. Lets suppose a different situation. Say Joe and Susan are married BUT they are both porn stars. Jimmy their son wants to be baptized. Should Jimmy be required to disavow the lifestyle of their parents to join the church? I think so. Disavowing the lifestyle does not mean you disown the individual.I think it's a given that they'd disavow anything contrary to church policy if they want to be baptized.
bluebell Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 The children will face the consequences of an ill advised and discriminatory that was put into place by fear.Again, is just making stuff up the standard you are going with now? Because conversations with that low of a bar are never helpful.
Avatar4321 Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 This has been a weird week of argumentFaithful member: This policy applies to the children living with same sex couples and local leaders can be inspired by the Spirit as necessaryCritic: no it doesn't! It extends to all children with a parent in a same sex couple even if they don't live with the parent and the strict language has to be followed with no allowance from the Spirit.Church clarifying: This policy applies to the children living with same sex couples and local leaders can be inspired by the Spirit as necessaryCritics: Look how awesome we are! All our activism forced the Church to change the policy! Faithful member: what the...? 3
JAHS Posted November 14, 2015 Author Posted November 14, 2015 The children will face the consequences of an ill advised and discriminatory that was put into place by fear. They are facing the consequences caused by an ill-advised gay marriage of their parents.Just like other kids suffer for having alcoholic, or abusive or adulterous parents.But God will not hold them accountable for those sins. He will give them every chance to some day have the opportunity to come into His Kingdom.If not at 8 then at 18 or later.
sjdawg Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 Do you actually believe they did not anticipate these questions that the clarification covers when they were making up the new policy? Now you are insulting their intelligence. The policy was meant for bishops and stake presidents as a basis for gay marriage situations. Of course there will be clarifications needed and advice for the many unique situations that are bound to come up. If this is what they had intended all alone the church could have clarified in their initial "interview" with E. Christofferson I'm still not a fan of the policy but this is certainly better than the previous interpretations.
Avatar4321 Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 If this is what they had intended all alone the church could have clarified in their initial "interview" with E. Christofferson I'm still not a fan of the policy but this is certainly better than the previous interpretations.THEY DID. We have even seen the relevant portions of the interview quoted.
jwhitlock Posted November 14, 2015 Posted November 14, 2015 1. Labeling them apostate.2. Mandatory disciplinary council3. Forcing their children disavvow their lifestyle and move out to be baptized. Have you forgotten about those parts of the new policy? Boy howdie, you nailed it there. The church is certainly all about forcing children to do things - especially against their parents' wishes. What other gems of incredible insight do you have into what the church does that we hardcore Mormons are clueless about?
Recommended Posts