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

[jwhitlock]

Quite the opposite of what??

 

Quite the opposite of being harmful to families and situations.

 

Can you show us actual harm that was done?

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

 

This pretty much sums up the difference in perspective between those who understood the policy and those who found fault with it.

[bluebell]

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.  

 

I admire passive/aggressive and underhanded compliments.  Some people take it to the level of art.   

[BlueDreams]

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.  

 

I supported it, because I could see where it could be feasibly needed even in some of the other potential contexts people were bringing up. But honestly, it had more to do with my overarching testimony of the church....not the feasible ramifications of a policy that could change and had still not been fully clarified to the body of the Church. I have believed in a church that have had far more detrimental policies....ones that if still in place could have easily effect me and my service in it. But I know this is the Lord's church...I believe even then that it was His church no matter just how wrong the leaders had it policy-wise at the time. Plus I had common sense trust that this may make more sense with clarification that I assumed would come.

 

So, yes, I was Loyal and I would have remained and supported the church no matter the outcome (even if the worst possibilities would come true....i didn't believe they would, but still).  But mostly it was a faith that if I was patient and waited clarity would come and I trusted the Brethren to not be so tone deaf and cruel as people assumed their policy would make them to be.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited November 14, 2015 by BlueDreams

[california boy]

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?

 

Except I am not supporting that gay marriage is included.  I am only pointing out that there is no scripture that says marriage is ONLY one man and one woman.  How the church justifies other variations on the law of chastity is a bit more problematic.

 

Do I expect the church to ever change their position to be "The law of chastity is no sex outside the bonds of marriage."  No.  So it is a mute point.

Edited November 14, 2015 by california boy

[rockpond]

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

 

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

 

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 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.

 

Yes, my stake president's direction for us to implement the policy, as written, with no exceptions came after Christofferson "plainly described the policy".

 

The evidence before us that they changed what they meant is the fact that the "clarification" wording differs from the policy.

 

Those who you call "exploiters" are the ones who drove the change produced by the "clarification" letter.  I don't believe for a moment that yesterday's change would have happened so quickly had it not been for all the members speaking out against the policy.

 

I find it interesting to see how everyone just falls in line saying "this is what they always meant" after I had been told time and time again that this policy (the Nov 5 version) was divinely inspired and it was the compassionate and loving thing to do to deny ordinances to all of these kids who had a gay parent.  I had people testify to me of the truth of the policy as it was written.  And now they are telling me that this new "clarification" (the Nov 13 version) is what was meant all along.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I am all in on the gospel.

 

I'm not all in for a church that can't find a place for our homosexual brothers and sisters... who have testimonies of the restoration... who love the gospel... who desperately want to be a part of the church... and we just sent the message that we don't want them.

[rockpond]

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.  

 

If what happened over the past week had been avoided, we'd still be stuck with that reprehensible policy.  Instead, we are stuck with a slightly less reprehensible policy.

 

Do you think that our prophet should receive a revelation pertaining to who receives saving ordinances of the gospel and then keep it a secret?  Distribute only to a select few?  Not tell the families that are being impacted?

 

It's time we go back and study what the Book of Mormon teaches us about desiring kings to rule over us.

[mfbukowski]

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

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

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 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.

Exactly right. Our stake mirrored yours, with the same conclusions

[rockpond]

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.

 

I disagree.  The text of the policy in the handbook is different than what the "clarification" letter says.

 

If they originally meant this:  "children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship" why didn't they say that?

 

If they originally intended for this exception to the rule:  "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."  Why didn't they include it?

[JAHS]

I am all in on the gospel.

 

I'm not all in for a church that can't find a place for our homosexual brothers and sisters... who have testimonies of the restoration... who love the gospel... who desperately want to be a part of the church... and we just sent the message that we don't want them.

The only message the church is sending is that gays can't get married to each other. I know a few gay members who are fully church active and have found a place in the church. They are active temple recommend holding members who have agreed to not act on their sexual preference.

[jwhitlock]

If what happened over the past week had been avoided, we'd still be stuck with that reprehensible policy.  Instead, we are stuck with a slightly less reprehensible policy.

 

Do you think that our prophet should receive a revelation pertaining to who receives saving ordinances of the gospel and then keep it a secret?  Distribute only to a select few?  Not tell the families that are being impacted?

 

It's time we go back and study what the Book of Mormon teaches us about desiring kings to rule over us.

 

So, do you believe that SSM is approved of by God?

 

Do you believe that children will be ok with what they're taught in Primary and YM/YW about eternal families, knowing that Daddy and Daddy will never be an eternal family?

 

Do you believe that the church is wrong about the law of chastity and that it should be revised to approve of homosexual behavior, or abolished completely?

 

Do you believe that the Brethren are currently guided by the Lord in the policy decisions that they make, or do you believe that revelation has pretty much ceased in the church?

 

Do you think that the policy should be considered in the context of strong statements about loving and respective others that have come out of the church in great number, or that such context should be ignored when interpreting the policy?

[rockpond]

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 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

 

If you agree that the church has some blame, it would be nice if they would get the PA statement revised so that it doesn't push blame on everyone else and accepts some of the fault for having produced a bad document.

[bluebell]

I disagree.  The text of the policy in the handbook is different than what the "clarification" letter says.

 

If they originally meant this:  "children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship" why didn't they say that?

 

If they originally intended for this exception to the rule:  "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."  Why didn't they include it?

 

I don't know.  They have not said and any answer i thought of would be just that, an answer of my own imagination.

 

Happyjackwagon doesn't think the policy has changed at all, maybe he can explain it better than i have.

[rockpond]

The only message the church is sending is that gays can't get married to each other. I know a few gay members who are fully church active and have found a place in the church. They are active temple recommend holding members who have agreed to not act on their sexual preference.

 

Good thing we are in the privileged class that gets to act on our sexual preference through marriage and rearing children.

[rockpond]

So, do you believe that SSM is approved of by God?

 

Do you believe that children will be ok with what they're taught in Primary and YM/YW about eternal families, knowing that Daddy and Daddy will never be an eternal family?

 

Do you believe that the church is wrong about the law of chastity and that it should be revised to approve of homosexual behavior, or abolished completely?

 

Do you believe that the Brethren are currently guided by the Lord in the policy decisions that they make, or do you believe that revelation has pretty much ceased in the church?

 

Do you think that the policy should be considered in the context of strong statements about loving and respective others that have come out of the church in great number, or that such context should be ignored when interpreting the policy?

 

Yes.

 

I'm not sure but I think that we ought to be able to teach the gospel in church without offending ANY children.

 

I fully believe in the law of chastity as it is taught to us in its pure form in the temple.  No exceptions.

 

I don't know.  They no longer publish revelations if they receive them.  I do believe that they are guided but definitely not with this policy.

 

I believe the policy (both Nov 6 and Nov 13 versions) stand in contradiction to the previous statements about loving others.  In many ways, the policy invalidates those statements.

[BlueDreams]

If you agree that the church has some blame, it would be nice if they would get the PA statement revised so that it doesn't push blame on everyone else and accepts some of the fault for having produced a bad document.

 

Ugh!...this probably won't go well, but I don't think the document is all that bad. I think it was caught, midstream of the process they had in mind for gradual dissemination, a period of clarification, and then training before actual implementation. From what little I picked up from others who had some dealing with this, that would have been a fairly normal, streamlined, and careful process. Unfortunately it was cut midstream by public hysteria, altering the course quite drastically.

 

The mistake I had in mind wasn't the actual document but in sharing more prominently to expect more clarification about the parameters/context. I think Christoffersen's interview was meant to do so, and looking over again (and again) it should have been fairly clear that the context was those being raised in SShomes, not just having some form of joint custody. But because he didn't spell it out word for word, it left space for many to assume that the worst was still about to happen.

 

Again (and again) I don't expect you to see this. I have read the exact same 3-4 official/unofficial things from the leaders that you have 3-4 times (certain ones, probably even more). I just didn't, don't, and will not read it as you have. It's like staring at one of those optical illusions where, because we share different angles, we see something completely different.   It's just getting redundant at this point.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

I believe the policy (both Nov 6 and Nov 13 versions) stand in contradiction to the previous statements about loving others.  In many ways, the policy invalidates those statements.

 

Or there are differing definitions about what Love entails and it's balance with other principles. We have a cultural problem where boundaries and love seem to contradict because boundaries tend to "hurt" people and be "mean..." I say this not specifically about you, but several people I've met in my therapy office as well as in the overarching church-body. Boundaries, limits, etc are often hesitantly placed at best in our daily lives. It also reminds me of Oak's talk, "Love and Law." This policy doesn't invalidate it to me, it reiterates what has been repeated time and again. 

[jwhitlock]

Or there are differing definitions about what Love entails and it's balance with other principles. We have a cultural problem where boundaries and love seem to contradict because boundaries tend to "hurt" people and be "mean..." I say this not specifically about you, but several people I've met in my therapy office as well as in the overarching church-body. Boundaries, limits, etc are often hesitantly placed at best in our daily lives. It also reminds me of Oak's talk, "Love and Law." This policy doesn't invalidate it to me, it reiterates what has been repeated time and again. 

 

The policy is directed towards balancing love and law. Unfortunately, it appears that too many people reject the concept of balancing both of those things, assuming instead that they are totally inconsistent with each other.

 

Hence, the antipathy towards the policy by some.

[BCSpace]

Fred Karger makes some pretty bold statements in this blog. 

 

"Insiders have indicated that over the last seven years the Mormon Church may have lost up to 1 million members because of all it did to end gay marriage. These formerly loyal Church members decided to side with their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) family members and friends instead of their Church. Because of the way the Mormon Church works, you're either with them 100 percent on everything or you're out."

 

Really? I'm only 99.9% with the Church. Does that mean i'm out?  A million members? I wonder how he came up with such an exact figure. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-bleeding-me_b_8299882.html

 

We could easily lose a million members and not notice.  At least half are inactive and/or non believers anyway.

[HappyJackWagon]

1- 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.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.  

 

 

4-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.  

5-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.   

 

 

6-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.

 

Formatting is wonky right now so I numbered to respond to your points.

1- Yes. You "assumed" which was all you could do because if you read the policy, line by line, the language clearly states a policy different than what the church is now clarifying. If this wasn't the case they wouldn't be clarifying.

2- I agree. It is not the reader's fault for not understanding the policy to say what the church is now saying because the policy didn't say that. The church is claiming that it is misunderstanding based on readers only reading media headlines but this is not correct and minimizes the damage caused by the church either writing a policy that doesn't convey their true intentions OR individuals who clearly understand what the church said but is now trying to distance itself from because of the blowback.

3- We only had to come to that conclusion if we read precisely what the church wrote and expected that they meant what was written. I understand why many people assumed that the church must mean something else because what was written was so bad, broad, and harmful, but assuming they didn't mean what they wrote was erroneous.

4- It is condesending. If I, or anyone tells you that you can't raise your child a certain way, even though as parent you believe it is best, then it is condesending for me to claim I know better than you. That is what the church has done.

5- It is in no way loving to tell a child who wants to be baptized that they can't be or that even though the parent supports that baptism, the parent doesn't know what is best for you. The new policy requires that at 18 the child disavow the behavior of SSM. This was never a requirement before and isn't a requirement for any other member. So the church just created a new conflict. What they are really admitting, though, is that a child attending church will be indoctrinated with anti-gay teachings that could cause cog-dis for the child. Of course this is true whether the child attend as a member or a non-member. The cog-dis will exist either way, so this really doesn't protect the child from anything.

6- I thought it was clear that I was giving my interpretation of what the church's message. It wasn't intended to be taken as a direct quote from the church. I admit it is not. It is my interpretation of the message.

This ENTIRE problem would have been avoided had the church simply created a policy that said, any child receiving church ordinances is required to have approval from both legal parents. Done. Instead, the church is creating a wedge between children and parents and also between teh church and the LGBT members in general. The church has created the problem via their own policy. If they were truly only concerned about protecting the child, my suggestion would have supported the ability of parents and children to decide for themselves what is best for them, require approval of parents for ALL children desiring ordinances and Voila, problem solved.

[rockpond]

Or there are differing definitions about what Love entails and it's balance with other principles. We have a cultural problem where boundaries and love seem to contradict because boundaries tend to "hurt" people and be "mean..." I say this not specifically about you, but several people I've met in my therapy office as well as in the overarching church-body. Boundaries, limits, etc are often hesitantly placed at best in our daily lives. It also reminds me of Oak's talk, "Love and Law." This policy doesn't invalidate it to me, it reiterates what has been repeated time and again.

I don't have a problem with boundaries. They are necessary. But this policy goes beyond. Consider a missionary following an Internet referral to a house where she and her companion discover that the couple is gay and married. They are apostates from the moment these sister missionaries meet them. And we have nothing to offer them. They might as well turn around and leave.

For me, the exclusion this policy creates cannot coexist with love, compassion, and tolerance.

[Jeanne]

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.

Then why the bishop interviews with 8 year old's before baptism?  Why do that?  For  understanding of the covenant of course..but also for worthiness.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

This ENTIRE problem would have been avoided had the church simply created a policy that said, any child receiving church ordinances is required to have approval from both legal parents. Done. Instead, the church is creating a wedge between children and parents and also between teh church and the LGBT members in general. The church has created the problem via their own policy. If they were truly only concerned about protecting the child, my suggestion would have supported the ability of parents and children to decide for themselves what is best for them, require approval of parents for ALL children desiring ordinances and Voila, problem solved.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  It's saturday, this is getting old, and i'm sure we both have much better things to do with our time than try to figure out 20 different ways to say the exact same things to each other.

 

I am never going to see this from your point of view or think that you are not wrong.  You are never going to see this from my point of view or think that i am not wrong.  Let's cut our losses.

 

[Jeanne]

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?

The children already know this..and the fact that they show up to church anyway should speak volumes.  Children also know if their parents drink or smoke but love primary,...what is deprived also extends outside of church walls.  These primary friends are school friends..it really means something to be a part of the group..whether they understand fully the covenants or not.  Full church members of 8 years old don't fully understand those covenants either.