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

[KevinG]

Good to see the sisters of perpetual grievance are in full voice today. I'll add to your list of complaints.

While I will fully sustain the handbook clarification, I still wouldn't have an issue with postponing the baptism of some minor children even if they were not in the primary custody of the actively gay apostate parent. I can conceive of situations where that would pit the child against a parent, whose actions the church considers a sin, but can still respect as a patent.

The clarification closely reflects my original reading of the handbook policy and how I felt most Bishops would read it. So I'm not surprised.

For those of you who cannot live as a Latter-day Saint and sustain our rules and leadership, go your way in peace. But please don't pretend to represent the church while undermining our inspired leadership and opposing our doctrines.

[KevinG]

...and yet we still don't baptize people in a common law marriage until they get legally married.

How narrow minded of us.

[MiserereNobis]

Come on. Catholics are supposed to be steeped in logic and philosophy,

Yes, all 1.25 billion of us have spent years studying logic and philosophy! (would that it were true...)

 

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.

Ok, yes, this is similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In my defense, I will say that Bobbieaware's statement was made in response to Zakuska as a refutation of his position, obviously implying that he had a carnal mind because he didn't understand JS and BY's polygamy.  As such, the context should be taken into account.  Otherwise, her statement was rather a non-sequitur to his claim, which she quoted.

 

Anyways, I'll own up to my faulty logic... (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima philosophica culpa)

Edited November 14, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

Still twisting to fit an agenda.  Does that make you happy or feel the Spirit more strongly?

 

First, Mr. Dehlin's part was simply jumping the gun and inflaming the emotions of those most sensitive to the issue.  He absolutely did nothing to help any issue but to desperately trying to maintain his two minutes of relevance, which is quickly going by the bye.  

 

Reprehensible?  In whose eyes?  Are you that judge for the all mankind?  

 

The path to apostasy is a relatively easy path to follow.  What it requires is that you stop listening to the Spirit and put your faith solely in the arm of flesh.  Demean all those that follow the Spirit or try to do so.  It is often seen in those who set an agenda and then firmly plant their head so deep in the earth for fear they will see or hear something that conflicts with the story they have created to support their apostasy.  This is the tool of the evil one and it works wonderfully to lead almost all down to hell that will give him the time to share his story of the way life is supposed to be.  

 

This Forum is a scary place; it certainly is not a place for those without a sure foundation under them.  

[The Nehor]

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

 

No, they are telling them to wait until they are 18.

[Storm Rider]

I think that it is almost worthless trying to explain these differences.  For those with ears to hear, let them hear.  However, if they are not interested it does not matter what is said they will not hear it and will not believe it.  

 

It seems as if they have a new God and will not entertain anything that might demonstrate the falsity of their new belief.  All are damned except their new god.  

 

Whatever works for them.  If they are happy, let them be happy.  

 

Just wait until that day when they are willing to listen to the story of the redeeming love of Jesus Christ and the value of repenting, picking up their cross and following the Savior. 

[MiserereNobis]

Just wait until that day when they are willing to listen to the story of the redeeming love of Jesus Christ and the value of repenting, picking up their cross and following the Savior. 

 

This is something that we are ALL called to do.  My sins cry out to heaven and my cross is too much to bear.  Maybe it's best not to talk about how "they" (whoever they may be) should be willing to do this when we ourselves are unable to do so.  We're all messed up, every one of us (popes and prophets and myself included!)

Edited November 14, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[Ron]

Good to see the sisters of perpetual grievance are in full voice today. I'll add to your list of complaints.

While I will fully sustain the handbook clarification, I still wouldn't have an issue with postponing the baptism of some minor children even if they were not in the primary custody of the actively gay apostate parent. I can conceive of situations where that would pit the child against a parent, whose actions the church considers a sin, but can still respect as a patent.

The clarification closely reflects my original reading of the handbook policy and how I felt most Bishops would read it. So I'm not surprised.

For those of you who cannot live as a Latter-day Saint and sustain our rules and leadership, go your way in peace. But please don't pretend to represent the church while undermining our inspired leadership and opposing our doctrines.

I'm not surprised KevinG you worked so hard to defend that position and now you have no where to go because even the brethren have clarified that it was not a good idea. Edited November 14, 2015 by Ron

[Scott Lloyd]

Good to see the sisters of perpetual grievance are in full voice today. I'll add to your list of complaints.

While I will fully sustain the handbook clarification, I still wouldn't have an issue with postponing the baptism of some minor children even if they were not in the primary custody of the actively gay apostate parent. I can conceive of situations where that would pit the child against a parent, whose actions the church considers a sin, but can still respect as a patent.

The clarification closely reflects my original reading of the handbook policy and how I felt most Bishops would read it. So I'm not surprised.

For those of you who cannot live as a Latter-day Saint and sustain our rules and leadership, go your way in peace. But please don't pretend to represent the church while undermining our inspired leadership and opposing our doctrines.

Of course, it has always been the duty of a bishop to interview and approve candidates for baptism. Neither the new policy nor the clarification changes that.

Presumably that would cover situations such as you describe.

By the way, I get a chuckle out of your "sisters of the perpetually grievance." It fits so well what goes on here day after day.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

By the way, I get a chuckle out of your "sisters of the perpetually aggrieved." It fits so well what goes on here day after day.

 

It's a blatant and perverse attack upon dedicated, committed, and consecrated religious sisters of the Catholic Church!!

 

(heh )

[Chaos]

People disagree on this policy. But that isn't a reason to be mean to each other.  If posters can't allow for differences of opinion the thread is going to be closed.

[Calm]

That would be pretty sad if a child felt like they would need to beg their parents to get divorced.

"Mommy, I wish you and Daddy would get married"

 

"Mommy, I wish you and Mommy would get divorced"

 

A bit different, yes.

 

In one way, similar to polygamist families in that separation of spouses has to resolve the issue, though the child could imagine that his father should leave (since he is not legally married to all of his wives, I am using this vague term) his other wives and stick only with his wife so not quite the same.

 

----------------------

 

This is a separate issue from the apostasy reason for SSM.  I don't think that the policy should only address one issue at a time.  Or that people need to address all the factors at once.  

 

Bob C, when you say "I don't think that is a fair characterization of things. Perhaps a little disingenuous", do you mean the opening post or the argument she is talking about?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not surprised KevinG you worked so hard to defend that position and now you have no where to go because even the brethren have clarified that it was not a good idea.

What are you talking about? As I understand him, KevinG is in full accord with the policy as it stands and, like many of us whose attitudes were not tainted with a spirit of faultfinding, it is how he understood the policy to be all along.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's a blatant and perverse attack upon dedicated, committed, and consecrated religious sisters of the Catholic Church!!

 

(heh )

Thank you for including the "heh". I confess I was a bit worried about upsetting our esteemed Catholic posters, which I would never want to do. I respect you too much for that -- more so than some self-styled "progressive Mormons," to be perfectly candid.

[Bobbieaware]

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.

Then do I suppose correctly that you consider the Apostles and Prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be foremost among those possessed of carnal minds who cannot perceive the truth that in the mind of God the misuse of the sacred powers of procreation is not an abomination?

[MiserereNobis]

Then do I suppose correctly that you consider the Apostles and Prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be foremost among those possessed of carnal minds who cannot perceive the truth that in the mind of God the misuse of the sacred powers of procreation is not an abomination?

 

Uh oh!  You've committed the same logical fallacy that I got called out on!

[MiserereNobis]

Thank you for including the "heh". I confess I was a bit worried about upsetting our esteemed Catholic posters, which I would never want to do. I respect you too much for that -- more so than some self-styled "progressive Mormons," to be perfectly candid.

 

Sometimes I can be a little sensitive, I admit, but a good joke deserves a good laugh and obviously no one was attacking any religious sisters.  And "Sisters of the Perpetual <fill-in-the-blank>" is just waiting to be used for a smile

[Bobbieaware]

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

 

Got it

Go ask Abraham, the esteemed "Father of the Faithful," he got it. Do you believe Abraham was possessed of a carnal mind?

[Zakuska]

In one way, similar to polygamist families in that separation of spouses has to resolve the issue, though the child could imagine that his father should leave (since he is not legally married to all of his wives, I am using this vague term) his other wives and stick only with his wife so not quite the same.

You're thinking from a white North American Usa stand point again. A Syrian, Iraqian, Israelian, Lybian, would all be legally married under the law to all of them. How well is that going to go over when Muslim countries finally are opened up to the church? Do you really think the church is going to not let that many generations of polygamist be baptized into the church? Or are they going to hold Ezra-like divorce courts and leave millions of children fatherless? The current church policy on children of polygamists only targets those who are practicing polygamy against the law of the land.

Lets be honest... the real issue the church has with gay marriage is an aversion to gay sex. Gays can be members as long as they pledge celebacy.

So that's the real and only issue that can be legitimaley brought... even though SSM is a law of the land now.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Zakuska

[Bobbieaware]

Uh oh! You've committed the same logical fallacy that I got called out on!

It's only a logical fallacy for those LDS Church members who reject the teachings of their own living prophets of God -- the very same prophets, seers and revelators whom they purportedly sustain as such.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[MiserereNobis]

Go ask Abraham, the esteemed "Father of the Faithful," he got it. Do you believe Abraham was possessed of a carnal mind?

 

I don't know his mind.

[Calm]

Yes, I was.

 

But it still can be "Daddy, why can't you just be married to Mommy?", not "Daddy, you and Mommy should be divorced".

 

You are behind the times.  The Church is already in Muslim countries, including the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/indonesia

 

And the future will probably be just as it is now, practicing polygamists are told not to divorce, but support their wives and families.  Generally the women and children will be socially doomed if divorced.  

 

Some countries the Church is already in that allow for polygamous marraiges (at least those already entered into in one case):  Benin, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

It's only a logical fallacy for those LDS Church members who reject the teachings of their own living prophets of God -- the very same prophets, seers and revelators whom they purportedly sustain as such.

 

mfbukowski, jwhitlock, would you like to weigh in on this? 

[MiserereNobis]

And the future will probably be just as it is now, practicing polygamists are told not to divorce, but support their wives and families.  Generally the women and children will be socially doomed if divorced.

 

 

Interesting.  Do you mind expanding on this point?  What does the LDS church tell converts that have polygamous marriages?  What are they to do with their wives and children?  Stay married but not have sex?

[Bobbieaware]

I don't know his mind.

Of course you must be joking. Either that or bobbing and weaving.