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

[california boy]

This is a situation where there are going to be people, including children, hurt no matter what decision is being made.  The question is what action will result in the least conflict, not which action will prevent conflict.

 

If, however, the decision was to just judge on an individual basis, I believe there would be more false expectations set up leading to more conflict and hurt in the long run.

 

There will likely be a higher number of tragic situations that might be better if the rule wasn't there immediately because this is something new, but I think long term there will be less.

 

I may be wrong.  If I am, I hope the leadership will figure this out quicker rather than slower and change the policy.

 

I am completely not understanding your position on this issue.  Are you saying that children should not be allowed to be baptized because it will be hurtful for them to join a church that teaches against what their parents are doing????  Should children whose parents smoke, drink, are dating and having sex or breaking any other commandment also not be allowed to join the church because it would be hurtful to them as well?  

 

If the parents are willing for their child to join the church and the child wants to join a church that condemns the marriage of their parents, then why not let them join?  If the parents think it is a problem, is all they have to do is not give permission for their child to be baptized.  

[Mystery Meat]

I am completely not understanding your position on this issue.  Are you saying that children should not be allowed to be baptized because it will be hurtful for them to join a church that teaches against what their parents are doing????  Should children whose parents smoke, drink, are dating and having sex or breaking any other commandment also not be allowed to join the church because it would be hurtful to them as well?  

 

If the parents are willing for their child to join the church and the child wants to join a church that condemns the marriage of their parents, then why not let them join?  If the parents think it is a problem, is all they have to do is not give permission for their child to be baptized.  

 

As a gay man, do you feel at all like a disavowal of homosexuality is a disavowal of who you are at your very core?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

One more comment...I see that my age is likely showing. Certain assumptions made based on the culture I grew up in that is not the culture I am now.

For example when I read this " There are thousands, maybe millions of members whose parents aren't living the commandments" my reaction is, yeah, but children can encourage of hope for parents to quit sinning in all their situations and look forward to a better family relationship save one, that where the parents are in a gay marriage/relationship. If their parents repent, the marriage will cease to exist.

to me this makes sense. Somehow I am missing a connection you others are making. Maybe tomorrow reading more comments can help me see.

I am perfectly happy to say as an individual if I think a policy of the Church is wrong. I am open to being wrong in this case, I am basing my judgment on my experience with polygamist families, apostate families and mixed faith families and how I see the children get caught between two undesirable choices. If there is a better way, I look forward to learning of it.

Now off to sleep or at least stop writing as the page is turning pink and the letters green.

I think what you say makes sense for a child that has been raised by two homosexual parents their whole life. I don't think the church has a lot to offer in that hypothetical situation. That said the vast majority of kids impacted by this new policy will be born in the covenant children (who have been raised in the church) of recently divorced parents where one parent has left to live with a same sex partner. This policy causes nothing but pain in such a situation. Edited November 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rivers]

Wow. I am surprised at how long this thread has become in such a small amount of time.

I find this to be a strange policy. I understand that it's the same type of policy we have regarding children of polygamists but that is odd to me as well.

[canard78]

Same principle it seems to me as children in polygamous families.

I think it is wise because it could create situations where grandparents get their grandchildren blessed or baptized and then later on this causes contention plus older children would be placed in positions that they might feel they had to choose between honouring their parents or the Church.

So... A child of gay man/woman who is living or has ever lived in a gay relationship can't be blessed (even if he mum is fine with it).

And... A teen who wants to be baptised can't be until they are an adult.

What's more, they have to move out of their parent's home and disavow their parent's current or former relationship...

And you're ok with that?

I have huge admiration for you Cal. But I'm sad to see your loyalty to the church being so strong that you can't see that this policy is utterly vile.

What you've described is exactly true. Older children (18+) of a man or woman who is living or who has ever lived in a gay relationship will have to move out of their home and disavow their parents' relationship. They will have to choose between honouring their parents or the church.

[california boy]

One more comment...I see that my age is likely showing.  Certain assumptions made based on the culture I grew up in that is not the culture I am now.

 

For example when I read this " There are thousands, maybe millions of members whose parents aren't living the commandments" my reaction is, yeah, but children can encourage or hope for parents to quit sinning in all their situations and be able to look forward to a better family relationship save pretty much only one, that where the parents are in a gay marriage/relationship.  If their parents repent, the marriage will cease to exist.

 

to me this makes sense.  Somehow I am missing a connection  you others are making.  Maybe tomorrow reading more comments can help me see.

 

I am perfectly happy to say as an individual if I think a policy of the Church is wrong.  I am open to being wrong in this case, I am basing my judgment on my experience with polygamist families, apostate families and mixed faith families and how I see the children get caught between two undesirable choices.  If there is a better way, I look forward to learning of it.

 

Now off to sleep or at least stop writing as the page is turning pink and the letters green.

 

I will let you sleep.  But I don't see how this has anything to do with this policy.  Children are not responsible for their parents salvation, only their own.  We don't ask those that want to be members if by being baptized, will their parents be able to live the commandments.  I have a very good relationship with my children.  Me being gay does not effect their ability to love and appreciate me as their father.  There are many people whose parents are not members and don't keep the same standards as their children.  Do you really think it prevents strong family relationships???

 

In short, I see absolutely no reason for this new policy decision.  I do see a lot of destruction and tearing of family relationships because of this policy.  This is bad.  It makes it pretty difficult for a gay father to continue to encourage his children to be a part of the church.

[Zakuska]

No, God is.

correct so why is the church trying to judge the hearts of men when its Gods job to do that not ours?

[The Nehor]

correct so why is the church trying to judge the hearts of men when its Gods job to do that not ours?

 

They aren't.

[california boy]

As a gay man, do you feel at all like a disavowal of homosexuality is a disavowal of who you are at your very core?

 

My kids are all members of the church.  Most are still active in the church.  What they believe has nothing to do with my relationship with them.  I don't feel any different about myself or them because of their beliefs.  If they had to say they don't believe in gay marriage in order to be baptized, it would make no difference to me.  Oddly enough, some do believe gay marriage is ok.  Is it odd that they can remain members, but couldn't join the church with those same beliefs?

 

I also don't expect the church to change their position on gay marriage.  That is also irrelevant to me.  

Edited November 6, 2015 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

Just out of curiosity, how often does this happen?  If an inactive member is baptized into another church, is a disciplinary council held?  It sounds like it, if it is mandatory, but I'm wondering about the actual practice.

I have had a calling that would put me in a position to know about disciplinary councils or participate in them now for about 20 years and have never heard of one for "apostasy".

 

In Utah where you have academics who decide to leave the church and make a big fuss about it, they happen, but in the real world with ordinary people who decide to change churches they virtually never happen.

 

"Oh I hear sister x is now attendying (Local EV church)"  "Really??  Wow I hadn't seen her for a while- we should stop by there and see how she is doing.  Who is her home teacher?"

 

Upon visiting her, if she really really was opposed to the church and not just shopping around chexking out other faiths, the option would be given for her to grab a piece of paper and have her write a note requsting to have her name removed.  Usually that would be it, Send it into SLC, they send her a letter back saying she has a year to reconsider (as I recall) and then her records will be removed.

 

But the reality is that people DO attend other churches all the time, and shop around sometimes. Ih that case, we would obviously try to reel them in.

 

But if they were not trying to convert others to their new church etc, it would be no big deal.  I know of two or three people right now who have "joined" other churches and absolutely nothing was done.  We kind of hope they will come around eventually and tend to not want to push the issue, because that doesn't do either side any good.

[mfbukowski]

Well, that certainly undermines the assertion that "there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage." If you can get ex'd for it, it exists.

Not really

 

You get ex'ed for believing it exists, not because it exists.  Suppose someone gets exed for believing in Ahura Mazda. 

 

That is hardly an affirmation that Ahura Mazda exists.   BIG difference!

[mfbukowski]

True.  

False, see above.

[mfbukowski]

Simple. Those who are excommunicated are not "shunned." They are welcome to attend worship services, and members are commanded to continue to minister to them in the hope they will repent and eventually be worthy to return to full fellowship.

In fact in my experience, they get more kind attention than most other members.  We are so concerned about getting them back sometimes that they seem to get preferential treatment.  "Oh make sure Bro X gets an invitation to the Ward Dinner".

[mfbukowski]

Dontcha know.... excommuncation is loving people.

I was castigated on a thread earlier this week for the mere insinuation that excommunication was shunning.

And correctly.

 

Discipline is seen as path back, not a path out.  There is no reason for excommunication if the person is unrepentant and adamant about leaving,  It is done to help people return as part of the repentance process.  Catholics might call it a kind of "penance"

 

Lapsed Catholics don't get a "penance" if they do not want to come back- it's very similar with us.

[mfbukowski]

I suppose a lot depends on how we define "shunning".

 

 

Excommunication is a rejection and the formal expulsion of a person from the community of the LDS church. It is the removal of membership and worse, it claims to be the removal of received priesthood ordinances. Excommunication is a form of shunning.

I don't know where you get this stuff or where you live.

 

Move somewhere else.  That is not the church I know at all.

[mfbukowski]

If excommunicated members were truly shunned then we wouldn't allow them in our chapels, or even in our buildings if we could help it.  We wouldn't send home teachers to them.  We wouldn't speak to them when we meet them walking to church.  Bishops and stake presidents wouldn't spend so much time working with them to help them come back.

Exactly

There is even a High Councilor assigned to make sure this happens, following up with Bishops to make sure they are doing their best to get them back.  I was discussing these efforts with that HC in our stake just last week, making sure that someone he did not know by name was being taken care of properly.

 

This idea of shunning is just ridiculous.  It doesn't work that way.

 

If the goal was shunning why all the effort to even hold a disciplinary council??  Why sit with 15 leaders and take hours out of the schedules of 15 people to come up with a plan to have the person return to fellowship?

 

If they were going to be shunned, put them on a list and hope they go away.  Simple.  No effort. No visits, no interviews, no follow up- just "get lost".  Anyone who says they are "shunned" just hasn't been involved in the process.

[mfbukowski]

Are excommunicated members on home teaching rolls?  How are they kept track of since they are not on the membership list?  Is there a difference between excommunicated members and those who ask to be removed from the church?

They are not removed from the records, a notation is made on their records of their status.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for answering.  Does the church try to keep track of them, where they live etc, like members still on the roles so that the bishop or EQ president can visit them?  I imagine that those who asked to be removed probably don't want visits but those who were removed from a disciplinary council are a little more ambiguous.

Hope this has been answered by now

[mfbukowski]

I do not believe the church tries to keep track of them. In some cases they know where they are just because other family members are members and are on the rolls.

 

Visitation is, from my understanding, rare. The only case I know of involved the person asking for visits while trying to come back.

 

The name, DOB, and other information is recorded and will pop up if someone searches for them (in case they seek to reenter the church or try to pull a fast one and pretend to be a new convert).

There are lists specifically generated for follow up purposes on a stake level

 

I was looking at one last Sunday, and the HC was trying to locate some who had moved for follow-up.  He was asking me as their former Bishop - but I have not been their Bishop for 3 years now and so had limited information for him to update.  His listed assignment on published assighment lists is to lead the "ministery"  and follow up on the disfellowshipped and excommunicated in the stake,

Edited November 6, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Apostasy is about beliefs, not lifestyle. So this new rule doesn't seem to make much sense.

Oh yeah.

 

People always live lifestyles they don't believe in.  I hate it when those anti-gun folks go to those PETA meetings and go hunting afterwards, don't youi?

 

Those arsonist smokey-the bear guys bug the heck out of me too.  And then you have the hells angels driving their electric cars everywhere.  Cheesh.

Edited November 6, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see it as a simple trajectory. And I doubt Dehlin would alter his prediction based on this.

As I mentioned previously, I would expect a continued and strengthened message against gay marriage... Like this and April 2015 gen con.

The dissonance has to come to a head, create more of a conflict, before such a revelation could be considered or sought.

There is no dissonance. The laws of God are and will remain what they are. It only remains for the Church and its members to hold fast to them, disregarding shifting societal whims.

I'm reminded of what legendary filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille said at BYU in the 1950s: "We cannot break the Ten Commandments; we can only break ourselves against them."

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes. We know rebellion against the LORD is a sin.

 

...

 

Nothing in any of those verses listed under rebellion in the Guide to the scriptures says a thing about being disobedient to a human leaders DICTATES is a sin. A lot of not obeying Gods commandments are however.

 

It's right there in the first sentence of what I linked to:

 

Defying or opposing the Lord, including refusing to follow his chosen leaders and willfully disobeying his commandments.

 

Dismissing the inspired teachings of the Lord's anointed as "dictates" does not make them so, despite how many times you write the word in all-uppercase letters.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, that certainly undermines the assertion that "there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage." If you can get ex'd for it, it exists.

One can recognize a legal definition while still rejecting the concept, philosophy or thinking behind it.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is good to have that clarification. I know people who believe a person in a legal same-sex marriage is committing neither fornication not adultery and thus should not be subject to church discipline. That the church labels it apostasy clarifies that it is not acceptable for members.

And this may, in large part, be the reason why it was added to the handbook. Good point.

[Meadowchik]

Just stating the obvious, the question of questions boils down to this: what marriage and family does God want for us?  The LDS Church views same-sex relationships and ss marriage as not sanctioned by God, as not in keeping with the law of chastity as God put forth to His children.

 

Whether we like it or not, for many including people who are not GLBT, this is hard law. It's not the first time God would have demanded hard things of His children.

 

The Handbook change merely makes clear that the support for GLBT rights was not a preliminary step toward ssm acceptance.

 

Yet as was shown at the recent Conference on Families where Elder Ballard spoke, the LDS is walking neither party line.  It clearly distinguished itself from the anti-gay vitriol of some conservative churches.

 

My take is that the Church wants all to be blessed and nourished by the Gospel.  However, it cannot be part of leading polygamous or same-sex couples or their children to believe they are simply in a triage stage waiting for their relationships to be condoned by the Church.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Meadowchik