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

[sunstoned]

I haven't missed sacrament meeting for years now. This weekend my daughter and I will be attending a Catholic church to see how it goes.  I will report back.

I do Christmas Mass every year.  I think you and your daughter will have a nice experience.

[Ron]

Thank you for showing me the door with your sarcistic enouragement everyone!

Edited November 15, 2015 by Ron

[The Nehor]

Thank you for showing me the door with your sarcistic enouragement everyone!

"I am taking my ball and going home now and just need to loudly insist to everyone that it is all your fault!"

[smac97]

I was wondering how this protest was going to turn out, particularly after reading news "reports" (speculation, really) like this ("Thousands of LGBTQ Mormons and Allies are set to resign from the Church of Latter-Day Saints as early as tomorrow due to a new rule that obliterates the family structure of married same-sex couples and their children") and this ("Thousands Of Gays Have Had It (OFFICIALLY) With The Mormon Church, Are Leaving En Masse") and this ("Thousands Promising to Leave Mormon Church Over Anti-Gay Views").  I was wondering how much of an impact the media hysteria about the changes to the CHI has had on faithful, observant Latter-day Saints.

 

When all is said and done, apparently the impact has not been as great as anticipated (though "hoped for" may be a more apt descriptor for the position taken by activist media types).  From the Deseret News (emphases added):

 

SALT LAKE CITY — A group of a thousand-plus — mostly younger, inactive Mormons — gathered Saturday afternoon in City Creek Park to sign letters of resignation from the LDS Church.

 

The majority of those who signed letters on or prior to Saturday already had stopped believing or attending worship services years ago for a variety of reasons, according to a poll on the event's Facebook page. 

...

Local attorney Mark Naugle gathered resignation letters at the event and said he would mail them to the church on Monday. Naugle said he has gathered a total of 1,500 resignations since Wednesday. Others marched together to fill a mailbox on the corner of South Temple and State Street.

 

Two polls on the Facebook page for the event, which billed itself a mass resignation, showed that the majority who planned to attend had stopped believing years ago or already were inactive.

 

In one poll, 197 of 278 people said they hadn't believed in years, while 14 said they were active Mormons.

 

In the other poll, 595 of 948 said they were inactive, 200 said they already had resigned from the church and 76 said they were non-members. Only 33, or 3.5 percent, said they attended church weekly.

...

There have been other resignation events and protests in Salt Lake City in the past three years, but the 15-million member church continues to grow, Harvard professor Noah Feldman noted this week.

 

"Some have asserted that more members are leaving the church today and that there is more doubt and unbelief than in the past. This is simply not true," Elder Quentin L. Cook of the faith's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said at the church's April general conference. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger. The number of members removing their names from the records of the church has always been very small and is significantly less in recent years than in the past."

 

In fact, Elder Cook added in the talk's footnotes, since 1990 the actual number of members leaving the church has decreased as the church has almost doubled in size.

 

"The percentage leaving is greatly reduced," he added.

 

The media firestorm on this issue has been surprisingly intense.  But at the end of the day, only a very small percentage (33 people out of an anticipated "thousands") can be said to have looked to the recent changes to the CHI as affecting their activity in the Church.  Of course, there may be some (many?) "active" Latter-day Saints who have been affected but have not said so publicly.

 

I am saddened at even this small number.  I am also saddened at the hundreds of less active brothers and sisters who resigned.  Saddened, but not surprised.  We've been told to expect this sort of thing:

 

It is not always easy to live in the world and not be a part of it. We cannot live entirely with our own or unto ourselves, nor would we wish to. We must mingle with others. In so doing, we can be gracious. We can be inoffensive. We can avoid any spirit or attitude of self-righteousness. But we can maintain our standards. The natural tendency will be otherwise, and many have succumbed to it.

 

In 1856, when the Latter-day Saints were largely alone in the Western valleys, some people thought we were safe from the ways of the world. To such talk, President Heber C. Kimball of the First Presidency responded: “I want to say to you, my brethren, the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then, brethren,” he went on, “look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall; for I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming, and who will be able to stand?” (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1945, p. 446.)

 

I do not know precisely the nature of that test. But I am inclined to think the time is here and that the test lies in our capacity to live the gospel rather than adopt the ways of the world.

 

Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign (July 1990)

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/07/a-city-upon-a-hill?lang=eng

 

And here (remarks by Pres. Harold B. Lee):

 

We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. There will be, as President Tanner has said, "Hypocrites, those professing, but secretly are full of dead men's bones." (Matt. 23:27) We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church.

 

Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, "as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me—as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." (D&C 21:4-5) There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory." (D&C 21:6)

 

As for those who have left, I wish them the best, and I hope at some point in the future they have a change of heart, repent and return.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

EDIT TO ADD: This news item from KUTV is interesting:

 

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (ABC4 News) - over 2,500 people crowded into City Creek Park to take part in a mass resignation following the policy by the Mormon Church targeting same-sex couples and their children.

 

Over 1,500 resignations were filed today, with another 2,000 requests processed by attorneys from individuals who weren't able to attend.  Lawyers were on hand to help the hundreds of people waiting in line to get their resignation forms filled out.

 

So KUTV is reporting "over 2,500", but the Deseret News is reporting "a thousand-plus".  Still other news outlets are reporting "hundreds" attended (see here and here).  I wonder which is more accurate.

Edited November 15, 2015 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

In the past, most churches believed that homosexual or lesbian sex was a sin because it was two men or two women having sex. Of course, with the advent of gay rights and gay marriage, the situation has changed. But for most churches it was the homosexual act itself that was the sin and not because they were unmarried. Now, many churches have loosened their stance on gay sex or for that matter chasity. Should the lds church follow suit? If so, there would be a tremendous backlash among devote members. I do believe that the church would come crashing down. It would cause too much confusion.

Indeed, we are in agreement. To some extent, however, we have loosened up from the more stringent days of Miracle of Forgiveness.

It appears that a sizable number of members want us to go even further afield, many of them young adults who are buying into the more libertine attitudes of the secular world.

I understand the reaction of members who adhere to the strict law of chastity. I am one of those. The reason for this thread is to ask those who are having problems with our standards to explain what they expect the Church to do. How far do they want to take this?

I am positive everyone in this forum has friends and relatives who are upset at the stand the Church is taking and do not accept the explanations being given by the Church. I certainly have friends and very close relatives who are upset to the point of resigning. It's their choice, of course. But what do they see as the correct course for the Church to follow?

I can see only one solution for them.....rewrite the law of chastity.

How do you see this?

Edited November 15, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Freedom]

The Savior only taught Jews and did not allow any non Jews to join the church. In fact, not only where they not allowed to join the church bu they were not even allowed to be taught. Any child born into a gentile household were cut off because of the genealogy of their parents. There were not even any sins involved. Pretty harsh. 

[JAHS]

Is There Any Precedent In Any Religions Where Someone Was Not Allowed To Join A Faith Because Of A Sin Their Parents Were Doing?

 

No, but some future religion will have an answer for that question.

[smac97]

Thank you for showing me the door with your sarcistic enouragement everyone!

 

I certainly don't want to "show you the door".  But your transparent attempts to goad and denigrate your own faith and your fellow Latter-day Saints is just not cool, nor is following up with a guilt trip.

 

If you want to have a good faith discussion about serious issues, then let's have at it.  As it is, your reliance on melodrama and drive-by snideness is not going to get you very far.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2015 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

The Savior only taught Jews and did not allow any non Jews to join the church. In fact, not only where they not allowed to join the church bu they were not even allowed to be taught. Any child born into a gentile household were cut off because of the genealogy of their parents. There were not even any sins involved. Pretty harsh. 

 

Or Ezra 10:1-3 where they all covenanted with the Lord to abandon (put away) their "strange" wives and children.

 

That's a pretty harsh take on family togetherness.  Family isn't from a culture that follows the Lord...covenant to the Lord to leave them.

[The Nehor]

The Savior only taught Jews and did not allow any non Jews to join the church. In fact, not only where they not allowed to join the church bu they were not even allowed to be taught. Any child born into a gentile household were cut off because of the genealogy of their parents. There were not even any sins involved. Pretty harsh.

Not entirely true. Proselytes (Gentile converts to Judaism) were taught by the Savior.

[Bernard Gui]

I believe that when your quotation was written it was naturally assumed that marriage would only be between woman and man. Of course, with the legalization of gay marriage, it seems to be rather old-fashioned. I would think that if it is changed, it would be a very conservative change, focusing on the sinful nature of homosexual sex. That would be my conclusion if it were too change. I don't think that the church could ever support homosexual marriage or homosexual temple sealings. When it comes to LBGT issues, the church has a line in the sand. To break it would mean a lot of confusion among devote members.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I believe the fundamental question is whether or not homosexual sex is sinful. All else derives from that. The number of people who believe there is even such a thing as sin is getting smaller. As we hold to that notion, we will be seen more and more at the margins, and political and societal pressure to change will increase. How do we resist that pressure?

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Is that what you think the mission is?

[MorningStar]

Thats why the new policy is so repulsive to me.  Why not just let the child get baptized without having to put pressure on their parent to do anything?

My point is, if the child gets baptized and is frequently hearing that their parents are sinning and the only way to repent is to get divorced, that is a major conflict for the child.  How does letting the child get baptized solve anything? When I was a child, I desperately wanted my dad to come back to church, but there was nothing major standing in his way.  I always had hope that he might come back.

Edited November 15, 2015 by MorningStar

[Bernard Gui]

Are there any scriptures that teach that marriage is only between one man and one woman?

 

Of course there are.

Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.

Moses 3: 23 And Adam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

There are no comparable scriptures supporting same sex relations.

[Bernard Gui]

True, and it may even come back:

 

"I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." - President Snow

 

"I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married" - President George Q. Cannon

 

Please provide the references for these quotes.

[Bernard Gui]

If the church repealed the law of chastity a lot more members would feel less guilty about their porn viewing. Oh and there'd be a lot more pre marital sexual relations.

Is that the direction you want the Church to go?

[why me]

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?

It would be interesting to know the stance of the catholic church on this issue. I would think that it would be the same as the lds church. But I could be wrong. I don't think that the lds church would baptize the man who is polygamous or any of his wives. And not all muslims are polygamous.

 

Also, there are child brides. This has been a problem with the recent migrants coming to europe. Some have been found to have young brides. They are immediately separated. I don't thinki that the lds church would baptize a man with a child bride. We must remmber that people move around. How would the muslim man with 4 wives come to europe and attend church in London?

 

And I think that for many muslims from certain parts of the world, converting to christianity can be a death sentence from the family. My guess is that those members in that part of the world were not muslim to begin with.

Edited November 15, 2015 by why me

[VideoGameJunkie]

No. Never said I wanted it to go in that direction. I'm just saying what would happen.

[mfbukowski]

In the now closed thread discussing the Church's letter of clarification on the recent policy change regarding children living in same sex households, a number of people held that the letter changed the intent of the policy.

 

In the course of that thread, Elder Christofferson's interview of November 6 was discussed. Not one of those arguing that position even tried to address the evidentiary value of that interview.

 

Which means that it stands unrefuted as the only direct evidence that has been offered on that topic.

 

This doesn't mean that the critics of the Church are no longer entitled to a contrary opinion. It does, however, mean that it would be dishonest of them, or any of them, to just assert that opinion as if it were still an open question (or worse, as if it had been settled in their favour.) In reality, the question has indeed been settled -- but in favour of the Church and its defenders.

 

Thus, the only evidence anyone has offered shows that, as of November 6, the Church's intent regarding the policy was exactly as it was expressed in the clarifying letter of November 13.

 

Again: those who disbelieve that evidence are still entitled to hold an opinion to the contrary; but they will be holding that opinion in spite of the evidence.

 

Please note that this is not an attempt to relitigate a closed discussion, but rather, to show that even though the discussion was closed by moderator fiat, it is nonetheless settled as a matter of evidence.

My first reaction to the announcement of the policy change was prompted by receiving the pdf in my email box from my Stake President.  He had made no comments, but just forwarded the email as he always does.

 

I read it and understood its purpose as applying to children living with parents who were in active ssm or cohabitation situations.

 

I thought it was perfectly reasonable, but figured the citics would use it to seek publicity and deliberately distort what was the plain intention of the church.

 

I went on line to see if it had been noticed the next morning, and wow had it!  It wasn't until I read several critical posts that I realized that critics were applying the wording to the case of children of parents involved in ssm with whom they did NOT live.

 

I was shocked that it would be interpreted that way. 

 

I looked carefully at the wording and realized that in the paragraph after the number "2" if one word was changed- an "and" changed to an "or"- it would have been clear that the brethren meant the policy NOT to apply to anyone other than those living with parents involved with SSM.

 

An and instead of an or. 

 

That essentially what all the fuss was about.

 

Look at it, emphasis added:

 

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

It says this, shortened to make it more obvious:

"A leader MAY get permission to baptize a child of a parent living in a same sex relationship, after an interview, IF the child accepts church doctrine or is of legal age AND does not live with a parent in an SSM relationship."

 

Putting that number 2 where it is starts a new clause, and it does not specify if the intent was to make that second condition optional or not.

 

But now change that "AND" to an "OR" and this was my interpretation:

""A leader MAY get permission to baptize a child of a parent living in a same sex relationship, after an interview, IF the child accepts church doctrine or is of legal age OR does not live with a parent in an SSM relationship."

 

The brethren do not make policy changes with an "AND" insead of an "OR".  If it is not expressed clearly, there is some other reason for the ambiguity, an oversight or a typo.  (yes these happen in these releases sometimes- the audience is intended to be limited to leaders who already understand church policy well)

 

So to me, even the way it was worded, with the exception of that one "AND" it very clearly could be read the way Elder Christofferson later explained the policy- but again he did not answer that question.

 

Why would they not explain that alternative interpretation?   Because clearly that interpretation was never their intended meaning!!

 

It never crossed their minds that it could be interpreted that way!  It was clear to me from the beginning, and I knew it would be clarified.

 

It was especially obvious after the video.  Brother Otterson's intent was to clarify the policy and ask all the "tough questions" that could be imagined in order to take care of all the criticisms they could dream up- but even then they missed the biggest objection because they never saw it coming, because that interpretation was never their intent!

 

Brother Otterson is a very capable man, and the fact that they never even attempted to address the objection which became most important is perfect evidence that that objection was the farthest thing from their minds that would be brought up.

 

They never saw it coming because that was not their intent.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

My first reaction to the announcement of the policy change was prompted by receiving the pdf in my email box from my Stake President.  He had made no comments, but just forwarded the email as he always does.

 

I read it and understood its purpose as applying to children living with parents who were in active ssm or cohabitation situations.

 

I thought it was perfectly reasonable, but figured the citics would use it to seek publicity and deliberately distort what was the plain intention of the church.

 

I went on line to see if it had been noticed the next morning, and wow had it!  It wasn't until I read several critical posts that I realized that critics were applying the wording to the case of children of parents involved in ssm with whom they did NOT live.

 

I was shocked that it would be interpreted that way. 

 

I looked carefully at the wording and realized that in the paragraph after the number "2" if one word was changed- an "and" changed to an "or"- it would have been clear that the brethren meant the policy NOT to apply to anyone other than those living with parents involved with SSM.

 

An and instead of an or. 

 

That essentially what all the fuss was about.

 

Look at it, emphasis added:

 

It says this, shortened to make it more obvious:

"A leader MAY get permission to baptize a child of a parent living in a same sex relationship, after an interview, IF the child accepts church doctrine or is of legal age AND does not live with a parent in an SSM relationship."

 

Putting that number 2 where it is starts a new clause, and it does not specify if the intent was to make that second condition optional or not.

 

But now change that "AND" to an "OR" and this was my interpretation:

""A leader MAY get permission to baptize a child of a parent living in a same sex relationship, after an interview, IF the child accepts church doctrine or is of legal age OR does not live with a parent in an SSM relationship."

 

The brethren do not make policy changes with an "AND" insead of an "OR".  If it is not expressed clearly, there is some other reason for the ambiguity, an oversight or a typo.  (yes these happen in these releases sometimes- the audience is intended to be limited to leaders who already understand church policy well)

 

So to me, even the way it was worded, with the exception of that one "AND" it very clearly could be read the way Elder Christofferson later explained the policy- but again he did not answer that question.

 

Why would they not explain that alternative interpretation?   Because clearly that interpretation was never their intended meaning!!

 

It never crossed their minds that it could be interpreted that way!  It was clear to me from the beginning, and I knew it would be clarified.

 

It was especially obvious after the video.  Brother Otterson's intent was to clarify the policy and ask all the "tough questions" that could be imagined in order to take care of all the criticisms they could dream up- but even then they missed the biggest objection because they never saw it coming, because that interpretation was never their intent!

 

Brother Otterson is a very capable man, and the fact that they never even attempted to address the objection which became most important is perfect evidence that that objection was the farthest thing from their minds that would be brought up.

 

They never saw it coming because that was not their intent.

 

 

Nice. Thank you for that analysis.

[volgadon]

You are a douche bag and a-hole and I hope that no other mormon thinks like you do.

He is completely correct in that post, though.

[Russell C McGregor]

Yeah probably just about everything.

 

Ron, I'm glad you apologised to The Nehor, and I hope the mods take your apology into consideration. (Really, I do.)

So taking the insults out of the equation, I'm still surprised by your reaction.

 

You asked if any other religious groups were harder on homosexuals than the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Various people pointed out that indeed there are, including (but not limited to) the Muslims.

 

Your response was basically to pout about it.

 

Why ask the question, if you're not prepared to look at an answer you (apparently) didn't expect?

 

You seemed to expect that we'd be horrified by the thought of you taking your daughter to a Catholic Mass. Why would you expect that? I've been to several masses, including funerals for family members and Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. There's nothing horrifying there. What did you expect us to say? "Please, please don't go!" Why would we say that? I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be an edifying experience, if you go there in the right spirit.

 

(Going there because you think it's a good way to snub the Mormons might not be quite the right spirit, though.)

 

And yes, the Catholic Church does exclude sexually active Homosexuals from Eucharist. Is it somehow morally objectionable if someone points this out?

 

Please help us to see where you are coming from, Ron.

[why me]

My point is, if the child gets baptized and is frequently hearing that their parents are sinning and the only way to repent is to get divorced, that is a major conflict for the child.  How does letting the child get baptized solve anything? When I was a child, I desperately wanted my dad to come back to church, but there was nothing major standing in his way.  I always had hope that he might come back.

Of course you are right but the critics fail to see it. They see the problem only on the surface. The new policy does protect the child and I do believe that in the future the lds policy will be confirmed by experience.

[BCSpace]

Is It Safe To Say That The Mormon Chuch Is The Most Intolerant Of Gay People Of Any Religiion Taht Eixsts Or Has Ever Existed?

 

 

Not safe at all.  What's you definition of tolerance? I'd be willing to bet that your definition of intolerance is, in and of itself, intolerant.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ron, I'm glad you apologised to The Nehor, and I hope the mods take your apology into consideration. (Really, I do.)

So taking the insults out of the equation, I'm still surprised by your reaction.

 

You asked if any other religious groups were harder on homosexuals than the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Various people pointed out that indeed there are, including (but not limited to) the Muslims.

 

Your response was basically to pout about it.

 

Why ask the question, if you're not prepared to look at an answer you (apparently) didn't expect?

 

You seemed to expect that we'd be horrified by the thought of you taking your daughter to a Catholic Mass. Why would you expect that? I've been to several masses, including funerals for family members and Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. There's nothing horrifying there. What did you expect us to say? "Please, please don't go!" Why would we say that? I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be an edifying experience, if you go there in the right spirit.

 

(Going there because you think it's a good way to snub the Mormons might not be quite the right spirit, though.)

 

And yes, the Catholic Church does exclude sexually active Homosexuals from Eucharist. Is it somehow morally objectionable if someone points this out?

 

Please help us to see where you are coming from, Ron.

Perhaps Ron needs to be reminded (if he ever knew it) who it was that invited the Church to become involved in the Prop 8 campaign.