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

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

The First Presidency letter said they would like us to interpret the policy in a certain way. That way is vastly different than what is written.

What hasn't changed is the actual policy. It is still written today as it was last week. So we are expected to read the same policy but interpret it differently, in a way that is inconsistent with the clear writing of the actual policy.

Until the church rewrites the actual policy, nothing has changed other than the way they would like us to misinterpret the original words.

[rockpond]

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

But it wasn't "caught midstream". It was implemented. It was published, in my handbook, at the time of the leak. And no clarification had been sent to us as ward leaders. (I looked, hoping, to see one.)

And people weren't "assuming" the worst. They were reading the text of the policy. Text that I was told, repeatedly, to trust as inspired and compassionate words coming from our prophets seers and our apostles.

I'm not sure why we have to do even more mental gymnastics rather than just admitting that a mistake was made and corrected.

And we're still left with a reprehensible policy that continues to cause unnecessary pain.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Yes, but too bad that we are not free to follow the privileged example of Hugh Hefner instead of Hugh Nibley, and that we cannot have multiple wives and a huge array of children.

 

Oh, wait, we can do any of that.  It is our free choice to do so.  We can adopt the "playboy" lifestyle, or engage in any sort of homosexual or bisexual conduct, and even practice polygyny or polyandry.  It is our right to do any of that, even if that narrow LDS club will eject us from membership if we do.  Who do they think they are?

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

What BB said.  These are all a matter of opinions and neither of us are going to agree about the opinion of the other. It's irritating to go in circles. You see something that I just don't.

 

With luv, 

[rockpond]

Yes, but too bad that we are not free to follow the privileged example of Hugh Hefner instead of Hugh Nibley, and that we cannot have multiple wives and a huge array of children.

Oh, wait, we can do any of that. It is our free choice to do so. We can adopt the "playboy" lifestyle, or engage in any sort of homosexual or bisexual conduct, and even practice polygyny or polyandry. It is our right to do any of that, even if that narrow LDS club will eject us from membership if we do. Who do they think they are?

Does it ease your conscience to categorize people like that rather than seeing homosexual church members as hoping and desiring the same thing as heterosexual church members?

And yes, with this policy the Church is acting like a club rather than the kingdom of God.

[Zakuska]

Yes, but too bad that we are not free to follow the privileged example of Hugh Hefner instead of Hugh Nibley, and that we cannot have multiple wives and a huge array of children.

Oh, wait, we can do any of that. It is our free choice to do so. We can adopt the "playboy" lifestyle, or engage in any sort of homosexual or bisexual conduct, and even practice polygyny or polyandry. It is our right to do any of that, even if that narrow LDS club will eject us from membership if we do. Who do they think they are?

So JS BY and a miriad of earlier leaders lived a "playboy" life style... thats comforting to know. Edited November 14, 2015 by Zakuska

[Kenngo1969]

So JS BY and a miriad of earlier leaders lived a "playboy" life style... thats comforting to know.

Plural marriage was sanctioned then.  It isn't now.  In the immortal words of Don Henley and the rest of the Eagles, "Get over it."

[The Nehor]

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

It was more a temporary marriage so maybe like one of our starter marriages.

Does polygynous and polyandrous common law marriage count?

Since polygamy was dead before common law became a thing this is like talking about common law gay marriage. No historical precedent.

[Zakuska]

Plural marriage was sanctioned then. It isn't now. In the immortal words of Don Henley and the rest of the Eagles, "Get over it."

That makes it even worse. "God sanctioned playboy lifestyle."

To make it even more complicated God called Abrahams polygamy "righteousness".

God also called cold blooded murder "righteousness" in the case of Phinehas the son of Eleazer.

Sure glad Bishops and Stake presidents arent allowed to carry javalins around for punishing sinners in our day and age! :shock:

Edited November 14, 2015 by Zakuska

[Bobbieaware]

So JS BY and a miriad of earlier leaders lived a "playboy" life style... thats comforting to know.

Those whose minds are carnal cannot conceive that it's actually possible for the righteous to practice plural marriage in holiness. And the reason why they can't conceive of such a thing is because they can only imagine what plural marriage would be like by viewing its possibilities through the myopic lens of their own spiritual blindness.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Those whose minds are carnal cannot conceive that it's actually possible for the righteous to practice same-sex marriage in holiness. And the reason why they can't conceive of such a thing is because they can only imagine what same-sex would be like by viewing its possibilities through the myopic lens of their own spiritual blindness. 

[MorningStar]

People have asked what's the difference between a child living with a heterosexual couple that's not married and living with gay parents who are married.  Why should a child be baptized if their parents aren't married and are living in sin?

 

If a child is a member of the church and wants their parents to repent of whatever sin they are committing, one situation is clearly more conflicting than the other.  For a child's shacking up parents to repent, they would have to get married.  For a child's SSM parents to repent, they would have to get divorced.  That would be pretty sad if a child felt like they would need to beg their parents to get divorced.

 

I just wanted to make that brief point in a sea of many, many SSM posts. 

[mfbukowski]

Sorry Jeremy I missed the context. deleted

Edited November 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

That makes it even worse. "God sanctioned playboy lifestyle."

To make it even more complicated God called Abrahams polygamy "righteousness".

God also called cold blooded murder "righteousness" in the case of Phinehas the son of Eleazer.

Sure glad Bishops and Stake presidents arent allowed to carry javalins around for punishing sinners in our day and age! :shock:

While I very much  appreciate your helpful commentary, I'll let God sort out what He meant by anything He said or is purported to have said in the Old Testament.

[Kenngo1969]

Those whose minds are carnal cannot conceive that it's actually possible for the righteous to practice same-sex marriage in holiness. And the reason why they can't conceive of such a thing is because they can only imagine what same-sex would be like by viewing its possibilities through the myopic lens of their own spiritual blindness. 

I'll make you a deal: I'll let your standing before God be a matter between you and Him.  I won't try to get in the middle of it.  Will you return the favor?

[mfbukowski]

 

Those whose minds are carnal cannot conceive that it's actually possible for the righteous to practice same-sex marriage in holiness. And the reason why they can't conceive of such a thing is because they can only imagine what same-sex would be like by viewing its possibilities through the myopic lens of their own spiritual blindness.

The fact is, it's not the same.

 

For those who know that men and women are different, polygamy is obviously different

For those who do not know that will never understand it.

Edited November 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Those whose minds are carnal cannot conceive that it's actually possible for the righteous to practice plural marriage in holiness. And the reason why they can't conceive of such a thing is because they can only imagine what plural would be like by viewing its possibilities through the myopic lens of their own spiritual blindness.

 

To paraphrase Bobbieaware:  If you disagree with plural marriage, then your mind is carnal and you have spiritual blindness.

 

Got it

[mfbukowski]

 

To paraphrase Bobbieaware:  If you disagree with plural marriage, then your mind is carnal and you have spiritual blindness.

 

Got it

Come on dude

 

Put on your logic hat. That's not what she said at all.

Edited November 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

 

Come on dude

 

Put on your logic hat. That's not what she said at all.

 

What did she say?  People whose minds are carnal cannot conceive of polygamy being righteous.  Doesn't that mean that if I disagree with polygamy (meaning that I do not conceive of it being righteous), then I have a carnal mind?

 

Where did I go wrong in my interpretation?

[Ron]

I don't see how that's any different than before.

Are you suggesting someone who lives contrary to the gospel while a member of the Church hasn't committed apostasy?

Are you suggesting that engaging in homosexual behavior wasn't going to bring Church discipline before?

Are you suggesting people seeking to be baptized didn't need to repent of and recognize sinful behavior before?

What the new policy says loud and clear(at least to anyone except believing Mormons) is that gay marriage is a terrible sin. So terrible that we must excommunicate you to show members that it is not acceptable. We must not allow your children to participate because they might try to convince members that it is not a terrible thing.

That is causing so much pain to gay couples who grew up Mormon and still hold some connection with the church. The brethren failed to recognize how much pain it would cause.

[Zakuska]

Polygamists would also have to divorce for their children to get baptized. Yet that is exactly what the church is asking them to do.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Zakuska

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think that is a fair characterization of things. Perhaps a little disingenuous, and I don't really care one way or the other about the new policy.

The new policy ranks couples in same sex marriage in the same state of apostasy as polygamous marriage. They have moved from beyond simple fornication or adultery to intentionally making a mockery of a sacramental ordinance.  A sort of "up yours, God."  Or so the theory goes.  

 

So, a fellow who struggles with same sex attraction and cheats on his spouse and possibly abandons his family for a homosexual lifestyle is a cad and a cur, but he hasn't yet mocked a sacramental ordinance.  

 

A shacking up couple hasn't mocked a sacramental ordinance and, indeed, when they get married, they bow to the ordinance.  Or so the theory goes.

 

Now, the disingenuous out there will remark that "how can it be that getting married, when you're in a loving committed relationship with somebody [hope I got the PC buzzwords right there], that you're mocking a sacramental ordinance?"  But, the church defines the sacramental ordinance.   So, it would be somebody arguing:  "Hey, I got baptized in a gay bathhouse with three of my closest friends, who are all in a loving, committed relationship with each other, and how can you say I am mocking God?"  Or so the argument can go.

 

It is difficult, I admit, to see each other's position.  But what is significant to me is the concept of religious freedom.  The church itself gets to define its policies.  Not a bunch of homosexuals who really have no interest in attending the Church or allowing their children to do so.   As I have stated many times on this board, every large stake in the church has homosexuals in their congregations who struggle their entire lives to keep themselves in check with the commandments of God.  Many do.  Many do not but repent and come back.  There have been bishops I've known.  I am aware of one general authority.  They are very much likely to support the new policy as they are really no different than those of us who struggle with temptation our entire lives on different issues.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

What did she say?  People whose minds are carnal cannot conceive of polygamy being righteous.  Doesn't that mean that if I disagree with polygamy (meaning that I do not conceive of it being righteous), then I have a carnal mind?

 

Where did I go wrong in my interpretation?

Carnal mind = not understanding (polygamy is righteous)

 

That says nothing about "disagreeing with polygamy".  Maybe you disagree with polygamy for a hundred different reasons that have nothing to do with righteousness.  It's socialogically unacceptable.  It's produces inbreeding.  Society does not tolerate it therefore it causes conflict in the community- Whatever.

 

Her statement was about UNDERSTANDING

 

Specifically understanding that polygamy can be righteous.

 

Not that it is always righteous, not that we should see it as righteous, not that...... whatever.

 

The state of "being carnal" prevents UNDERSTANDING righteous sexuality, including polygamy.

 

Truly, being fully "carnal" would not even see the purpose of monogamy or marriage in general.  Just go off with whoever you want and do whatever.  THAT is carnal.  Those folks do not understand righteous sexuality.

 

See the difference?

 

It's not about "disagreeing with polygamy"

 

Just read what the words say. Being carnal is spiritual blindness

Edited November 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[jwhitlock]

What did she say?  People whose minds are carnal cannot conceive of polygamy being righteous.  Doesn't that mean that if I disagree with polygamy (meaning that I do not conceive of it being righteous), then I have a carnal mind?

 

Where did I go wrong in my interpretation?

 

Come on. Catholics are supposed to be steeped in logic and philosophy, and so should be able to understand that because group A (carnal minds) doesn't conceive something, then anyone who doesn't conceive that same thing doesn't necessarily belong to group A.

 

That's faulty logic.

 

For instance, politicians cannot conceive working long hours. By your logic, then, anyone who cannot conceive working long hours must be a politician.

 

That's false.  Got it?

Edited November 14, 2015 by jwhitlock

[mfbukowski]

Come on. Catholics are supposed to be steeped in logic and philosophy, and so should be able to understand that because group A (carnal minds) doesn't conceive something, then anyone who doesn't conceive that same thing must automatically belong to group A.

 

That's faulty logic.

 

For instance, politicians cannot conceive working long hours. By your logic, then, anyone who cannot conceive working long hours must be a politician.

 

That's false.  Got it?

Yup