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

[Bernard Gui]

Please stay on topic.

[Bernard Gui]

1.  No.  God does not take a public poll on what is a sin.  Homosexual acts are a sin to God even if every single person on earth thinks they are ok.

 

2.  Same answer as 1

 

3.  The wording of the Law of Chastity does not need to be changed.  It is clear what is acceptable and what is not.  They are developing robots that one possibly could have sex with.  Even though the law does not specify robots, I think we all should know it includes that as well.  The only time sexual relations can occur in between man and woman in marriage.  No other situation that man can conceive in his mind can be added to that. 

 

4.  I don't like the church policy because I don't think it is needed.  The number of examples of same sex married kids will be extremely small.  The Church can work with each individual case on its own merits.  It should treat married gay people the same way is it treats unmarried gays and unmarried heterosexual.  The policy should simply state that even though the law recognizes gay marriages, the Church does not and will treat such unions as the same it has always done before the Supreme Court made its decision.

Thanks for the responses. #4 is intended for those who want the church to change the law of chastity. How would you respond to those people?

[Bernard Gui]

Yeah, we better just repeal it. I am sure it really just doesn't matter.

A surprising number of members appear to want that. Do you see any room for compromise?

[The Nehor]

Thanks for the responses. #4 is intended for those who want the church to change the law of chastity. How would you respond to those people?

 

I would tell them they are utterly wrong and that they seek to destroy all that is good and holy in this world. They also probably like ska bands and fried tomatoes.

 

 

Can I add another thread to my banned list?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I love ska music! Less Than Jake, RX Bandits, Catch-22 just to name a few. No wonder I have trouble keeping the law of chastity.

[The Nehor]

A surprising number of members appear to want that. Do you see any room for compromise?

 

Nope. The Law of Chastity does not appear to be a situational law. There have been variations with polygamy and concubines and the like but the core tenet of sex only within marriage seems supreme.

[Mystery Meat]

The mistreatment of the Brethren on this thread shows a clear lack of charity by people who should know better. That's a shame. A charitable person does not assume the worst about someone's intentions, call them liars, or hurl the types of accusations we have seen on this thread.

 

If ye have not charity, ye are nothing.

[Mystery Meat]

I hope anyone who wanders in here realizes that the amount of discussion and disagreement on display is not anywhere near reflective of the attitude of the Church membership. The vast majority sustain the brethren and the policy based on my experience.

[why me]

In the past, most churches believed that homosexual or lesbian sex was a sin because it was two men or two women having sex. Of course, with the advent of gay rights and gay marriage, the situation has changed. But for most churches it was the homosexual act itself that was the sin and not because they were unmarried. Now, many churches have loosened their stance on gay sex or for that matter chasity. Should the lds church follow suit? If so, there would be a tremendous backlash among devote members. I do believe that the church would come crashing down. It would cause too much confusion.

Edited November 14, 2015 by why me

[BlueDreams]

Yes, they are possible definitions. If someone is going to accuse Dehlin of misrepresenting the policy -- it is on them to prove that he was using a different definition. Until then, you can't state that he misrepresented it.

 

They are litterally the definitions of the word:

not deserving effort, attention, or respect.

(of a person's action or behavior) not acceptable, especially from someone with a good reputation or social position.

having little value or merit.

 

In an LDS context, which this is, it's usually applied in a negative connotation of meaning they faily to meet the basic behavioral requirements expected on a temple recommend interview or a baptismal interview. We generally give different terms for people who are considered unable to be baptized/go to the temple for differing reasons (think people with severe disabilities, waiting periods for investigators and then recent converts, age to enter the temple, people who can't serve a full-time mission, etc....none of these have anything to do with being "worthy" or not). Worthiness is only really attributed to matters concerning sinful individual choice.  So, yeah, it's disingenuous at the very least, considering the context for which it's used and the people who are pruportedly deeming these children "unworthy."

 

It's so disappointing (though not surprising) to see so many scramble to blame others for "misinterpreting" a clear policy rather than looking to the actual authors of the policy for the pain and confusion they caused (and continue to cause).

 

 

No it's not. I'm not saying the church/leaders handled this perfectly. I wish this had been clearly part of the handbook (as to who exactly this was directed). But honestly...it's as though no one else can even have some fault in this fiasco. It's as though, from the start, there weren't several (including myself) who thought this was probably applying to just SSM/cohabitating couples with kids in their primary custody. I remember distinctly feeling pretty certain that was the case after Christofferson's interview because of the wording. I also remember people breezing right past it because it still felt like the handbook was really saying x. Most that I've seen here aren't scrambling to to blame others. They're just pointing to the really obvious point that several of us (here and otherwise) jumped to the worst conclusions super fast. Several that I read feared the worst conclusions. They assumed the worst meaning out of the handbook words and poo-poohed every other possible meaning as really just ignoring what was really said. And they allowed fear and rumors to create a reality where we were already beginning to see the heart wrenching fall outs of children unable to have this or that ordinance/mission call over the policy. And of course then this reiterated that this policy was purely harmful and that these weren't maybe on hold until the local leaders felt more certain about the new policy...something they probably naturally would have in training or in letter very soon anyways. And soon that became proof that it was true and the church really was applying this to everybody who could feasibly be effected by this as more outlandish hypotheticals fueled the crazy fires even further. Meanwhile, few seemed all that interested in waiting and seeing what would come in further clarification over this.

 

Yet no one else has any accountability for making things go into hurtful, fearful, and uncertain places? Sorry, I'm just not buying it. I'm usually fairly middle in the road with a lot of these discussions. But on this one point I'm not. The policy in and of itself did not have the power to cause this mess. And if it had disseminated as other policy changes had (considering this is pertinent socially, this may have even warranted a letter once all bishops and SP's were on the same page with the training/context to apply such) I can't imagine it would have caused nearly as much of a problem. There would still be hurt, there would still be some pain, and there would still be uncertainty. But not to this level, not even close. I'm not saying Dehlin was the only problem and feasibly maybe not even the biggest. But he certainly didn't help qualm the doomsday march.

 

With luv,

BD      

[why me]

From LDS.org:

 

 

It appears to me that the only possible resolution to the same-sex attraction and marriage problems is to repeal the law of chastity.

 

I believe that when your quotation was written it was naturally assumed that marriage would only be between woman and man. Of course, with the legalization of gay marriage, it seems to be rather old-fashioned. I would think that if it is changed, it would be a very conservative change, focusing on the sinful nature of homosexual sex. That would be my conclusion if it were too change. I don't think that the church could ever support homosexual marriage or homosexual temple sealings. When it comes to LBGT issues, the church has a line in the sand. To break it would mean a lot of confusion among devote members.

[BlueDreams]

I missed all this Dehlin stuff.  It is not clear to me how he "leaked" anything, but of course I got a pdf of the handbook page released from the church at the time the church sent it out so I was out of the loop on how most people heard about it.

 

Would you mind just sending me a link or two about Dehlin's involvement in the alleged "leak"?  Was the Interpreter involved somehow?  I am totally confused.

 

I mean the policy is the policy- I am not understanding what difference it makes who publicized it first or how they spinned it.  It was poorly written and badly needed clarification- that was clear, and now we have it.  Is that part of the issue?  The leak caused its release before it was fully formulated?  I tried to follow some of these posts backwards looking for the place it first appeared but could not find it.

 

Along with what JAHS said, here is an article I found when I typed in his name in the news: http://www.news3lv.com/mostpopular/story/Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints-Dehlin/Z3urFHf5OEal0CVa5uabCw.cspx

 

From this and what JAHS said, I would assume that he initially posted it on his blog and somehow from there (or social media repeating the story enough) it was picked up at some point quick by news outlets....there's less of a gap between the news and social media these days, so technically Dehlin would have never had to actually reached out to any of them for this to be picked up in time if it began to circulate enough.

 

With luv,

BD

[Duncan]

Along with what JAHS said, here is an article I found when I typed in his name in the news: http://www.news3lv.com/mostpopular/story/Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints-Dehlin/Z3urFHf5OEal0CVa5uabCw.cspx

 

From this and what JAHS said, I would assume that he initially posted it on his blog and somehow from there (or social media repeating the story enough) it was picked up at some point quick by news outlets....there's less of a gap between the news and social media these days, so technically Dehlin would have never had to actually reached out to any of them for this to be picked up in time if it began to circulate enough.

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

That is interesting! the plot thickens!

[rockpond]

They are litterally the definitions of the word:

not deserving effort, attention, or respect.

(of a person's action or behavior) not acceptable, especially from someone with a good reputation or social position.

having little value or merit.

In an LDS context, which this is, it's usually applied in a negative connotation of meaning they faily to meet the basic behavioral requirements expected on a temple recommend interview or a baptismal interview. We generally give different terms for people who are considered unable to be baptized/go to the temple for differing reasons (think people with severe disabilities, waiting periods for investigators and then recent converts, age to enter the temple, people who can't serve a full-time mission, etc....none of these have anything to do with being "worthy" or not). Worthiness is only really attributed to matters concerning sinful individual choice. So, yeah, it's disingenuous at the very least, considering the context for which it's used and the people who are pruportedly deeming these children "unworthy."

No it's not. I'm not saying the church/leaders handled this perfectly. I wish this had been clearly part of the handbook (as to who exactly this was directed). But honestly...it's as though no one else can even have some fault in this fiasco. It's as though, from the start, there weren't several (including myself) who thought this was probably applying to just SSM/cohabitating couples with kids in their primary custody. I remember distinctly feeling pretty certain that was the case after Christofferson's interview because of the wording. I also remember people breezing right past it because it still felt like the handbook was really saying x. Most that I've seen here aren't scrambling to to blame others. They're just pointing to the really obvious point that several of us (here and otherwise) jumped to the worst conclusions super fast. Several that I read feared the worst conclusions. They assumed the worst meaning out of the handbook words and poo-poohed every other possible meaning as really just ignoring what was really said. And they allowed fear and rumors to create a reality where we were already beginning to see the heart wrenching fall outs of children unable to have this or that ordinance/mission call over the policy. And of course then this reiterated that this policy was purely harmful and that these weren't maybe on hold until the local leaders felt more certain about the new policy...something they probably naturally would have in training or in letter very soon anyways. And soon that became proof that it was true and the church really was applying this to everybody who could feasibly be effected by this as more outlandish hypotheticals fueled the crazy fires even further. Meanwhile, few seemed all that interested in waiting and seeing what would come in further clarification over this.

Yet no one else has any accountability for making things go into hurtful, fearful, and uncertain places? Sorry, I'm just not buying it. I'm usually fairly middle in the road with a lot of these discussions. But on this one point I'm not. The policy in and of itself did not have the power to cause this mess. And if it had disseminated as other policy changes had (considering this is pertinent socially, this may have even warranted a letter once all bishops and SP's were on the same page with the training/context to apply such) I can't imagine it would have caused nearly as much of a problem. There would still be hurt, there would still be some pain, and there would still be uncertainty. But not to this level, not even close. I'm not saying Dehlin was the only problem and feasibly maybe not even the biggest. But he certainly didn't help qualm the doomsday march.

With luv,

BD

Remember that I, as a bishop's counselor, was told by my Bishop that the Stake President had told us clearly that we were to implement this policy as it was written. We asked about the most extreme case we could come up with (gay father no longer a part of childrens' lives, active mom, kids at all stages of baptism/ordination) and we were told that it was all to stop... No further ordinations/baptisms for that family.

This had gone behind online discussions, beyond just "fear and rumors" here.

I'm not sure who you think should have accountability for the mess beyond those who wrote and published it. They had the ability to fix it. It took them a week to clarify their meaning? They have a full time PA department that could have done that in a heartbeat. Problem was, they had to change what they actually meant and that, apparently, required a week's worth of discussion and, hopefully, prayer.

The hurt, fear, and uncertainty lies on the Brethren for this. They wrote it, they published it, and they took a week to retract some of it.

[mfbukowski]

Along with what JAHS said, here is an article I found when I typed in his name in the news: http://www.news3lv.com/mostpopular/story/Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints-Dehlin/Z3urFHf5OEal0CVa5uabCw.cspx

 

From this and what JAHS said, I would assume that he initially posted it on his blog and somehow from there (or social media repeating the story enough) it was picked up at some point quick by news outlets....there's less of a gap between the news and social media these days, so technically Dehlin would have never had to actually reached out to any of them for this to be picked up in time if it began to circulate enough.

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks!

Confidential leak? Ridiculous. Probaby 20 people in every stake got a pdf, I was going to post it myself. Revisions like that come out all the time.

He is just grandstanding, taking credit by denying he is taking credit. It hit the morning after everybody and their brother got it, there was no need for pretending confidential sources, like he has special connections. Multiply the number of stakes by 20 and you can see how "confidential" it was.

[Mystery Meat]

They are litterally the definitions of the word:

not deserving effort, attention, or respect.

(of a person's action or behavior) not acceptable, especially from someone with a good reputation or social position.

having little value or merit.

 

In an LDS context, which this is, it's usually applied in a negative connotation of meaning they faily to meet the basic behavioral requirements expected on a temple recommend interview or a baptismal interview. We generally give different terms for people who are considered unable to be baptized/go to the temple for differing reasons (think people with severe disabilities, waiting periods for investigators and then recent converts, age to enter the temple, people who can't serve a full-time mission, etc....none of these have anything to do with being "worthy" or not). Worthiness is only really attributed to matters concerning sinful individual choice.  So, yeah, it's disingenuous at the very least, considering the context for which it's used and the people who are pruportedly deeming these children "unworthy."

 

 

No it's not. I'm not saying the church/leaders handled this perfectly. I wish this had been clearly part of the handbook (as to who exactly this was directed). But honestly...it's as though no one else can even have some fault in this fiasco. It's as though, from the start, there weren't several (including myself) who thought this was probably applying to just SSM/cohabitating couples with kids in their primary custody. I remember distinctly feeling pretty certain that was the case after Christofferson's interview because of the wording. I also remember people breezing right past it because it still felt like the handbook was really saying x. Most that I've seen here aren't scrambling to to blame others. They're just pointing to the really obvious point that several of us (here and otherwise) jumped to the worst conclusions super fast. Several that I read feared the worst conclusions. They assumed the worst meaning out of the handbook words and poo-poohed every other possible meaning as really just ignoring what was really said. And they allowed fear and rumors to create a reality where we were already beginning to see the heart wrenching fall outs of children unable to have this or that ordinance/mission call over the policy. And of course then this reiterated that this policy was purely harmful and that these weren't maybe on hold until the local leaders felt more certain about the new policy...something they probably naturally would have in training or in letter very soon anyways. And soon that became proof that it was true and the church really was applying this to everybody who could feasibly be effected by this as more outlandish hypotheticals fueled the crazy fires even further. Meanwhile, few seemed all that interested in waiting and seeing what would come in further clarification over this.

 

Yet no one else has any accountability for making things go into hurtful, fearful, and uncertain places? Sorry, I'm just not buying it. I'm usually fairly middle in the road with a lot of these discussions. But on this one point I'm not. The policy in and of itself did not have the power to cause this mess. And if it had disseminated as other policy changes had (considering this is pertinent socially, this may have even warranted a letter once all bishops and SP's were on the same page with the training/context to apply such) I can't imagine it would have caused nearly as much of a problem. There would still be hurt, there would still be some pain, and there would still be uncertainty. But not to this level, not even close. I'm not saying Dehlin was the only problem and feasibly maybe not even the biggest. But he certainly didn't help qualm the doomsday march.

 

With luv,

BD      

 

Rockpond is arguing in bad faith if he claims that Dehlin's repeated use of the word "unworthy" is a fair and accurate word choice to describe the Church's position. But this is his fight and he will never concede a point. He has long since left reasonable ground behind and is just throwing haymakers to see if anything lands.

 

Anger, no matter how misplaced, will do that to a person.

[Robert F. Smith]

The children will face the consequences of an ill advised and discriminatory that was put into place by fear.   

Children are under the control of their parents, be they same-sex, unmarried, or poygynous.  The LDS Church chooses to be very gracious in not creating a rift within those non-traditional families (a rift caused by setting the children up for decisions on whether to honor LDS doctrine that their parents are living in blatant sin -- which is excommunicable).  It is love not fear which chooses not to put those kids on the spot.  When the child becomes an adult is the only decent time to broach the subject of choice of baptism or no.  Painful, yes.  Necessary, yes also.

 

You just haven't thought this through, sunstoned.

[Russell C McGregor]

If the shoe fits........

 

It fits someone. It just doesn't fit them.

 

There is an extraordinary amount of hubris in view when the direct testimony of those who actually know contradicts the airy speculations of those with an axe to grind -- and so the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that the direct testimony is a lie.

[Russell C McGregor]

If this is what they had intended all alone the church could have clarified in their initial "interview" with E. Christofferson

 

They did.

I quoted it, verbatim.

 

It's in post 354 on page 18 of this thread.

 

Very tellingly, none of those who are voicing shock and outrage at all the dishonesty have chosen to address that quote.

 

I wonder why.

 

(Okay, I confess. I don't wonder why.)

[Russell C McGregor]

Unworthy: ineligible, unqualified

Dehlin's statement that the policy made children unworthy (ineligible, unqualified) for baptism was accurate.

The damage, confusion, and pain was caused by the policy itself. Sorry, you can't make Dehlin your scapegoat.

 

As you ought to know, if what you tell us about yourself is true, ineligible and unqualified are not synonyms for unworthy in normal LDS usage. A person's worthiness for baptism or ordination or anything else is not even canvassed until their eligibility is established.

 

Saying that the policy renders or declares any child "unworthy" is a deliberately inflammatory falsehood.

 

One that you apparently want others to believe.

[Meadowchik]

I listened to a podcast Dehlin made today and he states that he has no clue who leaked it to the media.

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Yet he acted as a newssource for the leak itself and said it was brought to him by people who wanted someone like him to know.

Dehlin proceeded to broadcast the policy and in an interview said it deems children not worthy to be baptised.

I've been told by someone who got wind of it before Dehlin broadcasted, yet from that person's perspective, Dehlin certainly made it worse. Rational consideration of Dehlin's actions as a source, along with his connections and audience, all affirm this.

[Russell C McGregor]

Remember that I, as a bishop's counselor, was told by my Bishop that the Stake President

None of whose names we know, so we cannot test your claim

 

had told us clearly that we were to implement this policy as it was written. We asked about the most extreme case we could come up with (gay father no longer a part of childrens' lives, active mom, kids at all stages of baptism/ordination) and we were told that it was all to stop... No further ordinations/baptisms for that family.

And was this before or after Elder Christofferson plainly described the policy in terms of children living with an SSM couple?

 

I'm not sure who you think should have accountability for the mess beyond those who wrote and published it. They had the ability to fix it. It took them a week to clarify their meaning? They have a full time PA department that could have done that in a heartbeat. Problem was, they had to change what they actually meant and that, apparently, required a week's worth of discussion and, hopefully, prayer.

There is no evidence before us that they changed what they actually meant.

The clarification, apparently, required a single Thursday morning meeting.

 

The hurt, fear, and uncertainty lies on the Brethren for this. They wrote it, they published it, and they took a week to retract some of it.

The hurt, fear, and uncertainty lies on the utterly unprincipled exploiters for this. That they are now trying to blame the Brethren is simply due to the fact that they have egg on their faces.

Which probably improves their looks considerably anyway.

Remember also that I, whose name you do know, was told personally by my Stake President that no action was going to be taken under the auspices of the handbook changes until the stake presidencies and bishops received training therein, and that the question of children who had a non-custodial parent in a same sex relationship was one that was going to be clarified.

And now it has been.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

I'll stop if you admit that the unclarified version of the policy had potential to hurt families.

Ron, answer me this:

Suppose the Church declared that the children of people in same sex marriages were to be baptised, ordained etc. without any regard to their home situations, while the Church maintained its clear teaching on the wrongness of homosexual acts and the apostate status of same sex marriage. Can you tell us, with a straight face, that you would not be twanging away on your one-string fiddle about the "harm to families" the Church was causing?

As in, really?

[Russell C McGregor]

As for my objection, I don't expect the Brethren to care. In fact, it seems that those who were behind this policy would probably rather have me out of the church.

I don't think so.

I actually think that they'd rather have you in the Church; meaning, all the way in. Not with one foot in the Church and one in Babylon.

If you continue to operate on the assumption that the Church will eventually legitimize homosexual acts, recognise same sex marriages and even perform same sex Temple sealings, you will simply irritate the Latter-day Saints in the short term, and frustrate yourself in the long term.

If you can accept that the Church is not going to change on those points, and remain an active, participating, sustaining member even so, then I earnestly encourage you to stay.

[Tsuzuki]

Nope. The Law of Chastity does not appear to be a situational law. There have been variations with polygamy and concubines and the like but the core tenet of sex only within marriage seems supreme.

Does polygynous and polyandrous common law marriage count?