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

[sjdawg]

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.

 

Is that documented somewhere Scott?

[Calm]

The realities of LGBT. How they affect families, etc. etc.

I have to wonder how broad is your familiarity with the realities of LGBT and how they affect families, etc. if you are seriously suggesting the Mormon Church is the most intolerant religion that exists or ever has existed. It certainly creates a problem of credibility for your expression of distaste for the Church's policy and other opinions.

Truly caring about a community and families means more than reading and shouting slogans, it should include significant effort to get to know their experiences, even history if you want to be an activist for them. Otherwise you might end up doing more harm than good.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

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. 

And yet Jesus spoke openly with a gentile Centurion, marveled at his faith, and cured his servant (Matt 8, Lk 7).  He likewise spoke frankly with a Samaritan woman at the Well.  Why was he so forthcoming with such people, who were held in contempt by the Jews?  Jesus seems respectful and kind to the gentiles, while you portray him as standoffish and harsh.  Indeed, the risen Jesus soon gives instructions to his apostles to take the Gospel to the entire gentile world.

[Calm]

Is that documented somewhere Scott?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause."

[Scott Lloyd]

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:

 

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.

I join you in wishing them the best but hasten to add that I could wish them no better thing than that they have a change of heart and repent in abject humility, then return.

Do I wish they would stay? Yes, but not under the circumstances and conditions they would probably demand.

By the way, your Harold B. Lee quote should be enlightening to those who tried to tell me the other day that President Lee believed that what the prophet says has no divine verity unless it's in the Standard Works.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause."

Thanks a bunch, Calm. This saved me some late-night Googling.

[sjdawg]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause."

Thank you to both you and Scott.   

[3DOP]

I did not see good ole Ron's response to Muslim and their death penalty for gays.  Cat got your tongue?

 

Canon 915 in the Catholic Church does not allow practicing gays to partake of the Eucharist.  That is not physical death, but I think that is classified as spiritual death - the body and blood of Christ are denied completely until you repent of your sins.  

 

Muslims are just like any other people.  You will find some gay people and a whole lot of people who are not gay.  Islam teaches that the penalty of homosexuality is death.  I would not visit the more conservative Muslim countries if you are gay and elsewhere you just have to be discreet.  Leave your rainbow flag and paraphernalia at home and you will be fine. 

 

Storm Rider. Exactly right. But there is more. My Catholic faith is much less tolerant of homosexuality than Mormonism defining sodomy as one of only four sins that "cries to heaven for vengeance". As McGregor aptly points out...it is very safe to misrepresent Mormonism, but it is false to say that Mormonism is the least tolerant.

Edited November 15, 2015 by 3DOP

[why me]

I think that during the next general conference, the lds church may show a negative in growth due to so many inactives resigning. Of course, the membership figures have always been a source of criticism for some critics. I also think that the recent resignatiions will be the best for those who are resigning. They can now live the life they have chosen to live without being a member. It should give them a sense of freedom. 

 

The bigger problem is their knee jerk reation. To resign so quickly without reflection or at least giving the policy some time to show how it works in practice and to see just how it benefits SSM children or not should have been considered. But we do not live in an age of reflection but rather in an age of emotional reactions.

[sjdawg]

As someone who considers myself an exmormon I find these demonstrations a little strange.  I can't see any circumstances in which I would participate in such an event.  

 

1.  I don't consider myself a member any longer regardless of what LDS Church records say.

2.  I haven't been to Church in several years.   Why would the Church care about my opinion and why would my resignation make any difference at this point in time(hint..I don't think it would)

3.  I don't like public spectacles and I wouldn't want to embarrass my believing family and friends.

4.  I think real discussions need to take place relatively privately and respectfully.  I don't believe much of what my family and friends do but I don't want to embarrass them or even change their beliefs if they are happy.  I discuss my beliefs with very few people in real life.   (before leaving the LDS church I did have conversations with a General Authority, my stake president, and my Bishop to outline my concerns but I have never had any detailed conversations with my family.   I'm not a missionary.  I want them to believe what makes them happy)

Edited November 15, 2015 by sjdawg

[why me]

So 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?

No. I would think that if one would turn back the clock just 30 years most christian churches were against gay marriage. And of course back in that time, most christian churches would have considered homosexuality an abomination. And no church would have ever thought that gays would be allowed to legally marry. So, most christian churches were intolerant of homosexuality.

 

Also, I do believe that in the catholic faith, marginal catholics must promise that their baptized baby would be raised catholic. However, this is just a promise and I am sure that many promise and do not do so.. This would include SSM couples. If they don't promise, baptism can be withheld.

 

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Article/TabId/535/ArtMID/13567/ArticleID/1304/Baptism-Marriage-Issues.aspx

 

However there seems to be some confusion on it. The RC church has become much more liberal from the time when I was a catholic boy, mirroring the liberal nature of society in regards to morality. The early christian church at the time of Paul I believe was rather conservative. Paul discourged adopting pagan practices among the early christians. And I would assume this would also include homosexuality which was prevalent in roman and greek art. Not to mention practice.

 

Not to mention the early christian church after paul:

 

http://www.bible.ca/H-homosexuality.htm

 

The gay movement took off in the media, via TV sitcoms. These sitcoms changed the hearts of many americans. And hollywood stars coming out in support helped the gay cause immensely. The religious aspect of christianity played no role in the mindset. And of course, the moral liberalists used the idea of jesus is love to convince most christian people. And we still see this today: god is love...jesus is love etc.

Edited November 15, 2015 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

Seems obvious to me that the point of this thing was to present a spectacle, make it seem like a terrmendous groundswell, cause shock and awe among the membership if not the leadership of the Church. The sense I get is that it failed in that respect.

We'll know more later, I suppose. I do disagree with Why Me that the Church will show negative growth. One or two thousand resignations is not going to do that. And my hunch is that many of those at this rally are perennial attendees of mass resignation events.

[Russell C McGregor]

Seems obvious to me that the point of this thing was to present a spectacle, make it seem like a terrmendous groundswell, cause shock and awe among the membership if not the leadership of the Church. The sense I get is that it failed in that respect.

We'll know more later, I suppose. I do disagree with Why Me that the Church will show negative growth. One or two thousand resignations is not going to do that. And my hunch is that many of those at this rally are perennial attendees of mass resignation events.

 

So are you saying you think there might be a "rent-a-crowd" aspect to this, or is it just that some people have nothing better to do than keep going to these events?

 

If the latter, I wonder how many of them "resigned" for the nth time?

 

Where "n" represents the number of such events they've attended...

[Thinking]

The bigger problem is their knee jerk reation. To resign so quickly without reflection or at least giving the policy some time to show how it works in practice and to see just how it benefits SSM children or not should have been considered. But we do not live in an age of reflection but rather in an age of emotional reactions.

 

I would classify it as last straw rather than knee jerk.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I promise you nehor there will be at least 2 less seat occupied in sacrament meeting this weekend.  And yes it has to do with people like yourself ...

 

Curiosity question: what response/s are you used to getting when you target people for emotional blackmail?

Edited November 15, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[thatjimguy]

Ron, on 14 Nov 2015 - 10:47 PM, said:

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!"

 

No, you are pretty much a jerk. You can never seem to just debate or discuss anything without a snarky remark. You are filled with contention. The ironic thing is you probably feel like you are defending God's work when, in truth, you are doing more harm to it than you could ever know, or probably even care.

 

Poster removed

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What is safe to say is that this topic didn't quite go as planned for Bro. Ron.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

For Ron and those like him to whom homosexual relations apparently do not fall under the prohibition against fornication, the following is a viable alternative, I guess:

http://www.latter-dayseekers.org/

[thatjimguy]

I sense a ban coming...

It's too bad, this really is entertaining.

-guerreiro9

 

Are they going to have the guts to ban Nehor? Yeah, some guy swore. Is Nehor any less offensive? He contributes nothing. Is he popular, sure. Is he so contentious that he is anti-gospel? ....yes!

[thatjimguy]

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

 

Anyone ever consider that Nehor should apologize for anything?

 

He's the cruelest bully on the block, and everyone pats him on the back with those +1 reputation things.

[Bobbieaware]

Are they going to have the guts to ban Nehor? Yeah, some guy swore. Is Nehor any less offensive? He contributes nothing. Is he popular, sure. Is he so contentious that he is anti-gospel? ....yes!

Nehor is the resident MD&DB insult comic, like Don Rickles or Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, so he's needed here for some biting satire and comic relief. And just think of it, thanks to Nehor's wisecracking we can now see Ron for who he really is.

[thatjimguy]

Nehor is the resident MD&DB insult comic, like Don Rickles or Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, so he's needed here for some biting satire and comic relief. And just think of it, thanks to Nehor's wisecracking we can now see Ron for who he really is.

 

This brand of comedy isn't needed when discussing the gospel. There is no excuse for contention.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I assume you are referring to this statement by Elder Christofferson:

 

"And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple."

 

I agree that in that statement he references a child living with a same-sex couple.  His statement wasn't exhaustive and therefore doesn't undo the clear language of the actual policy in Handbook 1.  Remember, the policy even states, for example, that FP approval is required to provide ordinances for an 18 year old "child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship".

[sjdawg]

I think the original written policy is fairly clear. One could say that Elder Christofferson's words contradicted the written policy and I'd be inclined to agree but as Rockpond noted above the written policy was very clear. Saying "a parent who has lived or is living" in a ssm situation is much different than saying having a parent in a SSM situation who is also the primary custody holder. The two versions are not remotely the same when put into practice

Edited November 15, 2015 by sjdawg

[busybee]

Post deleted

Edited November 15, 2015 by busybee