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

[Russell C McGregor]

For the record: six days ago, in a now closed thread, I wrote the following:

If the Church were baptising minor children living under the thumb of same sex couples, they would be expected to sing songs like the following:

I have a family here on earth
They are to good to me,
I want to share my life with them
Through all eternity...

Except that what they are being told at home is their "family" is something that will never, ever, be able to become an eternal association.

And whose fault is that?

Not the Lord's; He arranged matters so that each of those children was born to one mother and one father.

Not the Church's; It has been consistent in teaching correct principles regarding marriage and family.

It is entirely and only the fault of those who, in the plenitude of their narcissistic arrogance, assumed that they could re-engineer those principles to suit themselves.

The new policy means that no child will have to face that unpalatable fact until they are legally able to handle the consequences of the choice before them.

It's an inspired, merciful policy.

No wonder those on the wrong side hate it.

I was then scolded because I had only thought of children living in the custody of a same-sex-married parent. My argument didn't address those whose SSM parent was not the primary caregiver of the child, so I was ignoring that aspect of the policy.

 

Only now we see that the policy really does only address children living in the custody of a same-sex-married parent.

 

Funny, that.

I wonder if anyone will admit that maybe I (in common with other loyal LDS posters) was onto something when I assumed at the outset that this policy was only intended for children primarily living with an SSM parent. Could it be that those who sustain the brethren have a better feel for where they are coming from?

The Church's critics love to invoke Ockham's (or Occam's) Razor, when it suits them: when in doubt, go with the simplest explanation. Well, which of the following explanations is simplest?
 

1. The critics leaped to conclusions and thus misunderstood the policy; or
2. The critics got it right, and the loyal LDS got it wrong; the leaders of the Church hastily backtracked to make it look as if the loyal LDS got it right, and the critics got it wrong; even getting a letter out over the signatures of the entire First Presidency; then lied about it, 

 

The critics love to taunt us with questions like "Why is it so hard to admit that the leaders are wrong?" Well, why is it so hard for critics to admit when they get it wrong?

[Storm Rider]

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.

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).

 

Rock, that is the problem.  "They" did do anything but release a policy to leaders of the Church.  They did not release to the Church as a whole; they released it to leaders - relatively few leaders.  There was no training, there was nothing to explain the policy or discuss how it would be implemented.

 

Lo and behold, some compassionate filled mouth, that I am sure was filled with only the very best of intentions, then took it upon himself to release not to leaders, not after any training, not after any discussion of how this policy would be implemented, but released it to the public at large.  What happened next?  Off to the races with much gnashing of teeth, fear mongering, etc.  

 

Who is at fault?  This is where the story gets even more interesting.  Well, of course the Church and not   the mouth that jumped the gun.  Why is the Church at fault for causing the problem?  They did not talk to the public; they did not do anything to the public.  The entire episode was done for no other reason than the mouth that cannot shut up; cannot be patient; cannot wait until any training was done or explanation given.  

 

Misinterpreting?  The only individuals who should have seen the policy were never given even a week, even a day or two, to read, ask questions, and receive clarifications.  

 

You think this could have been avoided?  You can bet your sweet bippy it could have been avoided.  Will this type of uproar be avoided next time?  Don't hold your breath.  We have too many people in our society that are too primed to protest, to screech and yell, to whine and complain.  

[Bobbieaware]

For the record: six days ago, in a now closed thread, I wrote the following:

I was then scolded because I had only thought of children living in the custody of a same-sex-married parent. My argument didn't address those whose SSM parent was not the primary caregiver of the child, so I was ignoring that aspect of the policy.

Only now we see that the policy really does only address children living in the custody of a same-sex-married parent.

Funny, that.

I wonder if anyone will admit that maybe I (in common with other loyal LDS posters) was onto something when I assumed at the outset that this policy was only intended for children primarily living with an SSM parent. Could it be that those who sustain the brethren have a better feel for where they are coming from?

The Church's critics love to invoke Ockham's (or Occam's) Razor, when it suits them: when in doubt, go with the simplest explanation. Well, which of the following explanations is simplest?

• The critics leaped to conclusions and thus misunderstood the policy; or
• The critics got it right, and the loyal LDS got it wrong; the leaders of the Church hastily backtracked to make it look as if the loyal LDS got it right, and the critics got it wrong; even getting a letter out over the signatures of the entire First Presidency; then lied about it,

The critics love to taunt us with questions like "Why is it so hard to admit that the leaders are wrong?" Well, why is it so hard for critics to admit when they get it wrong?

Bullseye! In all my posts on related threads, my thoughts and comments were always focused exclusively on gay married parents with sole custody of children because the wording of the original policy change was focused on gay married parents with sole custody of children. After all, the wording of the original policy change singled out gay marriage as being grounds for apostasy and the convening of disciplinary councils. So the clarification came as no surprise to me.

In answer to your last question, the critics find it hard to admit they get things wrong because they don"t want the words TRUE, RIGHT or CORRECT associated in any way with the LDS Church and its leaders.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

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.

By very nature, the spirit of the adversary is always uncharitaable and never wants to see the Lord and his Church viewed in a positive light.

[Teancum]

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.

A few questions:

1. In our church, homosexual relations are considered sinful - serious violations of the law of chastity. Present and past church teachings about this are unequivocal. The same standard applies to heterosexual relations outside of marriage. Given current trends and changing attitudes, should homosexual relations be removed from the list of violations of the law of chastity?

2. Outside the church, there appears to be almost universal approval of people living together or having multiple partners before marriage. Should the law of chastity be done away with completely or in part, since it is no longer the standard of almost all modern society, including many religions that at one time upheld it?

3. Now that same-sex marriage is legal, should the wording of the church marriage covenants and promises be changed to include same-sex partners?

4. If you are upset with the church's policies on same-sex marriage, what would satisfy your disaffection? What specific laws, policies, practices should the church change? Do you seek incremental changes? If so, where do you hope this will lead?

No I don't think the the law of chastity should be repealed. But it has been redefined before. As we all know the church once defined lawful spouse as to include more than one wife. Then that was repealed. While I am all but certain it will never happen the church could define spouse to include on of the same gender.

Edited to add...I would not excommunicate persons in same sex marriage or relations. But I would prefer we don't excommunicate anyone. I just don't like it as it is extremely lunatic.

Perhaps restrict things like temple participation for those not keeping the LDS commandments and/or the sacrament. But why restrict participation? I guess one can still participate though if excommunicated if they want. I know many think the new policy is so church members don't get cozy about same sex marring and relations. And there may be truth to that. But if even an ex'd member can attend I am not sure this will "keep the gays away." On the other hand maybe they just won't hardly come at all for the most part to a church that clearly is very opposed to how they live so missions accomplished.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

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.

Those were pretty significant modifications don't you think? A relation with a concubine was not a relation sanctioned by marriage.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Teancum

[CV75]

"Who can really tell?"

Anyone who read the policy. It wasn't a mystery that we've been trying to solve all week. It was plain, simple text.

 “Anyone?” LOL… Many read the policy and didn’t come to the same firm conclusions you and what you portray your local leaders as having gotten from the “plain, simple text.”

 

 One hysteric accused me of being disingenuous for not accepting illegitimate scenarios and communication techniques he imagined were dictated from his initial interpretation of the “plain, simple text” and for my having the gall to feel charitable about the whole matter. Boy was he wrong… I wonder if he is still exercising his right to carry on his frenzy!

 

The "clarification" changed the policy.

 This makes no sense. That’s not what clarification means / does. Clarification only made the “plain, simple text” less confusing and more comprehensible. It was an amazingly simple clarification, and a week’s turnaround is also pretty amazing in my book, having been accomplished with the additional media coordination that normally would not accompany handbook clarification.

 

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.

 Now, now don’t go eat worms! There are ways to get your objection on record if you really want to. It probably wouldn’t meet the criteria for participating in common consent, but at least you’d actually be on record.

[bluebell]

I agree, the Brethren certainly aren't stupid nor duplicitous. That's why I trust that the policy they published was an accurate representation of what they wanted.

But they are not saying what they said before. The "clarification" has changed the meaning of the policy.

I'm curious, for those on here who supported the original policy... For those who said it was inspired and compassionate to withhold ordinances from children who had at least one parent in a homosexual relationship. Isn't it a negative to have the policy changed now? Less compassionate? Less inspired?

It hasn't changed the meaning of the policy, it clarified the meaning for those who were confused.

The policy is still exactly what elder Christofferson said it was when he clarified the day it was leaked.

[Teancum]

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.

I thnk better said is the vast majority of active, believing and participating members sustain the LDS leaders and the policy. Likely there are a lot of lass active members out there who don't care either way.

It is an interesting thing to see how even now with the modification how polarized people are about this. Was the modification planned all along? If yes why not have it in the original policy....at least this is one idea. And this is viewed by many as disingenuous or speaking evil of the LDS leaders. I wonder if those who feel this would give anyone else a pass in a similar situation.

Then there are those who feel that the despicable John Dehlin and other agitators leaked this policy and caught the brethren off guard. Had they been able to roll out this policy in their own way and time all this would have been taken care of and the policy could have been adjusted as things moved along. Perhaps. Those on the other side of this discussion challaneg that position and are more cynical perhaps.

I guess we will never know for sure.

One thing that does seem certain to me is this. The changes to handbook one are rarely if ever publicized. I don't think the brethren intended this to be so public. But that is really the case it surprises me. They had to know given to tone in society on the issue of SSM and even the lightening rod issue it is among church membership that this would somehow get out. So to me it just seems that it was poorly planned and that the brethren were caught a bit flat footed on this. That does not make them bad or malicious. I don't think they had initially planned what they have now modified. Again that does not make them bad and I am glad they were willing to make the modification. But for me at least it is hard to see good planning or even inspiration in this process, I know many here disagree with that. I don't thnk I'll of you if you do disagree with me about it.

[california boy]

Interesting question.  Are there any scriptures that teach that marriage is only between one man and one woman?  Are there any scriptures that condem marriage of a same sex couple?

 

It seems much easier to justify that God defines the law of chastity as no sex except with who you are legally and lawfully married than it is to justify that it is ok to marry another man's wife.

 

It seems much easier to justify that God wants His children to find a spouse to share this life with rather than forbid marriage.  "It is not good for man to be alone" also goes against one of the first utterances of God to man. Forbidding to marry was one of the signs of the last days.  I guess it is to be expected.  The question?  Is it right to forbid marriage?  Where in the scriptures was that ever taught?

[HappyJackWagon]

It hasn't changed the meaning of the policy, it clarified the meaning for those who were confused.

The policy is still exactly what elder Christofferson said it was when he clarified the day it was leaked.

The only ones who were "confused" are those who believed the policy meant what it said.

 

The clarification is a bit disingenuous in a couple of ways.

 

1- It claims people misunderstood because of the misleading news headlines. Give me a break. We scoured over this policy hoping we were misreading it but ultimately had to come to the conclusion that it meant what it said.

 

2- It claims that the policy was unclear because it was only intended to be read by those leaders who would implement the policy. That makes a lot of sense.

 

 

Until the wording of the policy changes the policy has not changed. It must be rewritten with language that means what this letter is saying or nothing has changed.

 

And lets remember that just because this no long effects active children, it is still a discrimanatory policy. It still limits a child's participation in ordinances based on parents SSM. It limits the local leadership in the way they can reach out to these families. It doesn't trust SSM couple to make the decision that they want their child to be a part of the church. Why? Because the church knows  better. It's very condesending.

 

This policy CONTINUES to tell the LGBT community that "we don't want you at church because it will normalize your behavior in the eyes of the members AND we don't want your children there either."

 

The church is all about the family, but only as they currently define it. They don't want "counterfeit families" legitimized in any way. This policy is still offensive and unkind. The only difference is it's offensive and unkind toward fewer people and families so the outcry will die down while the actual written policy remains unchanged.

[JLHPROF]

Interesting question.  Are there any scriptures that teach that marriage is only between one man and one woman?  Are there any scriptures that condem marriage of a same sex couple?

 

It seems much easier to justify that God defines the law of chastity as no sex except with who you are legally and lawfully married than it is to justify that it is ok to marry another man's wife.

 

It seems much easier to justify that God wants His children to find a spouse to share this life with rather than forbid marriage.  "It is not good for man to be alone" also goes against one of the first utterances of God to man. Forbidding to marry was one of the signs of the last days.  I guess it is to be expected.  The question?  Is it right to forbid marriage?  Where in the scriptures was that ever taught?

 

We've been over this.  There are no scriptures banning it because it doesn't exist.

There was no more reason to ban two men being "married" than to ban two computers being "married" or two dogs, or two trees.

 

There's no scripture banning necromancy, flying spaghetti monsters, or forbidding intermarriage with martians either.  Because they don't exist either.

 

To bring it back to less ridiculous examples, there are no scriptures banning baptism by sprinkling because baptism refers to immersion so there was no need to ban something outside the meaning of the term.

 

If God's definition of marriage is man and woman joined, why would he need to recognize that it could ever possibly be something else and set limits?

Edited November 14, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

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?

How about just leaving it in between. Let everyone exercise agency. Let SSM couples who have children that may want to be baptized and who they may want to have baptized council with local leaders to make sure the child will be supported in church activity, In the ward I am in we have done this for all sorts of situations where parents are not living church standards or attending but want the child part of the church.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Ditto on that.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Absolutely.

 

I'm still shaking my head at the willingness of some members of the church to throw the Brethren under the bus on the slightest pretext.

[JLHPROF]

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 respond "We have already changed it in the past, but some aspects are clearly part of eternal design".

[jwhitlock]

For the record: six days ago, in a now closed thread, I wrote the following:

I was then scolded because I had only thought of children living in the custody of a same-sex-married parent. My argument didn't address those whose SSM parent was not the primary caregiver of the child, so I was ignoring that aspect of the policy.

 

Only now we see that the policy really does only address children living in the custody of a same-sex-married parent.

 

Funny, that.

I wonder if anyone will admit that maybe I (in common with other loyal LDS posters) was onto something when I assumed at the outset that this policy was only intended for children primarily living with an SSM parent. Could it be that those who sustain the brethren have a better feel for where they are coming from?

The Church's critics love to invoke Ockham's (or Occam's) Razor, when it suits them: when in doubt, go with the simplest explanation. Well, which of the following explanations is simplest?

 

1. The critics leaped to conclusions and thus misunderstood the policy; or
2. The critics got it right, and the loyal LDS got it wrong; the leaders of the Church hastily backtracked to make it look as if the loyal LDS got it right, and the critics got it wrong; even getting a letter out over the signatures of the entire First Presidency; then lied about it, 

 

The critics love to taunt us with questions like "Why is it so hard to admit that the leaders are wrong?" Well, why is it so hard for critics to admit when they get it wrong?

 

As the critics are telling us, it is "so clear" what the policy really meant when it was initially given. And of course, their interpretation was what was "so clear".

 

But what others of us had figured out was closer to reality and to the clarifications that were made to the policy.

 

I think we're going to see more things like this coming out of the leadership of the church. The self-sifting process is underway.

[jwhitlock]

Rock, that is the problem.  "They" did do anything but release a policy to leaders of the Church.  They did not release to the Church as a whole; they released it to leaders - relatively few leaders.  There was no training, there was nothing to explain the policy or discuss how it would be implemented.

 

Lo and behold, some compassionate filled mouth, that I am sure was filled with only the very best of intentions, then took it upon himself to release not to leaders, not after any training, not after any discussion of how this policy would be implemented, but released it to the public at large.  What happened next?  Off to the races with much gnashing of teeth, fear mongering, etc.  

 

Who is at fault?  This is where the story gets even more interesting.  Well, of course the Church and not   the mouth that jumped the gun.  Why is the Church at fault for causing the problem?  They did not talk to the public; they did not do anything to the public.  The entire episode was done for no other reason than the mouth that cannot shut up; cannot be patient; cannot wait until any training was done or explanation given.  

 

Misinterpreting?  The only individuals who should have seen the policy were never given even a week, even a day or two, to read, ask questions, and receive clarifications.  

 

You think this could have been avoided?  You can bet your sweet bippy it could have been avoided.  Will this type of uproar be avoided next time?  Don't hold your breath.  We have too many people in our society that are too primed to protest, to screech and yell, to whine and complain.  

 

Unfair. You're providing perspective and context to how the policy came out in order to make your point. That's not playing by the rules of the mob.

[BlueDreams]

The only ones who were "confused" are those who believed the policy meant what it said.

 

No....I was confused. But personally my confusion wasn't tied to the policy itself (as I mentioned, especially after Christofferson's interview) I assumed it applied only to SSfamilies (ie. those with primary custody). It came from the rampant assertions about what it covered after. At some point the idea seemed to be reified in the minds and blogs and articles of those who expected it to cover joint custody. I still felt it probably wasn't so because it didn't make sense to me, but I also didn't have evidence (the evidence I felt pointed to it was the same that others asserted didn't) to really push back so I basically stepped out because it was pointless (and getting really nasty) and hoped for clarification soon.

 

So no, the only ones confused weren't as you mentioned.

 

With luv,

BD 

[california boy]

One thing you have to admire in this whole issue is how many members were so willing to support every single part of the original policy no matter how harmful it appeared to be to so many families and situations.  The church certainly has very loyal members.  There is no disputing that.  

[jwhitlock]

One thing you have to admire in this whole issue is how many members were so willing to support every single part of the original policy no matter how harmful it appeared to be to so many families and situations.  The church certainly has very loyal members.  There is no disputing that.  

 

We supported it because after putting it into context, it did not appear to be harmful to families and situations. Quite the opposite.

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

Yes, I do remember. And when you first mentioned it, I was still equally as skeptical this was permanent. As you mention, it was guidance or expectations given only to your 1 local area. And that wasn't enough for me. Others that I had heard were saying something different. Including things like they weren't sure just yet. Or we'll wait and see. 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I think accountability lies a bit in all of us. It's probably from my systems perspective....it's a rare day that I think blame is entirely in one area/individuals court. Honestly, I am glad they didn't act so reactively as the rest of us were. I would rather they have had time to at least pick up the major concerns/uncertainties for those in the stakes (at least enough to get the gist) and then also not have this be a PA explanation but rather a signed clarification from the FP. 

 

But at this point it's useless to debate. It will probably end with you saying the church is to blame and me re-saying, the church has blame but we (media, blogs, FB chains, board prophecies, etc) also have a share in it. I'm not a fan of endless circles. 

 

With luv,

BD

[california boy]

We supported it because after putting it into context, it did not appear to be harmful to families and situations. Quite the opposite.

Quite the opposite of what??

[rockpond]

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.

 

Well, Dehlin is no longer LDS and not bound to "normal LDS usage".

 

If one is ineligible for baptism that can also be described using the term "unworthy" which Dehlin is being reported to have done here.  I understand why that seems inflammatory and I understand that many members did not like this reprehensible policy being exposed but that does not mean that Dehlin deliberately misrepresented it.

[bluebell]

The only ones who were "confused" are those who believed the policy meant what it said.

 

 

 

One of the reasons that i assumed the policy was not going to be implemented in the worst possible translation was because i didn't believe that our prophet and apostles would do that.  I trusted them, and believed them to be good, reasonable men.

 

So, i wouldn't say those who understood the policy wrong were confused.  They lack confidence and trust in our leaders on some issues.

 

he clarification is a bit disingenuous in a couple of ways.

 

1- It claims people misunderstood because of the misleading news headlines. Give me a break. We scoured over this policy hoping we were misreading it but ultimately had to come to the conclusion that it meant what it said.

 

 

I think that's part of the point.  You didn't have to come to that conclusion-many people didn't. 

 

 

2- It claims that the policy was unclear because it was only intended to be read by those leaders who would implement the policy. That makes a lot of sense.

 

 

Could you quote the part of the clarification that you are referring to, because i just read it and i'm not seeing what you mean.

 

Until the wording of the policy changes the policy has not changed. It must be rewritten with language that means what this letter is saying or nothing has changed.

 

 

Very true, though you might want to explain this to rockpond because he's very adamant that the clarification is a complete change of the policy.  

 

And lets remember that just because this no long effects active children, it is still a discrimanatory policy. It still limits a child's participation in ordinances based on parents SSM. It limits the local leadership in the way they can reach out to these families. It doesn't trust SSM couple to make the decision that they want their child to be a part of the church. Why? Because the church knows  better. It's very condesending.

 

 

Like i said earlier, given what you think of our leaders, i'm not surprised that you judge this as condescending.  I don't see it that way.  It seems smart to me and very loving.  They would rather not get between children and their parents or cause contention and disharmony in a family, even a family that they believe is fundamentally built on a sinful act.   

 

This policy CONTINUES to tell the LGBT community that "we don't want you at church because it will normalize your behavior in the eyes of the members AND we don't want your children there either."

 

 

You can't just make up things on this board. Let's just call this a formal CFR-either support the bolded part with a reference from the church or retract it. The pretense is getting old.