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

[Tacenda]

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 who have no clue about realities of this issue and how to relate to the realities of this issue and many others.

Some LDS, not necessarily Nehor, are not so nice when someone disagrees. Maybe it's their insecurities about really believing in the one true church. I'm tempted to resign just to see who are my true friends and which fsmily members will treat me at arms length. The church really doesn't need middlewayers like me anyway, I'm just a blob to move in and around of.

[sunstoned]

We could easily lose a million members and not notice.  At least half are inactive and/or non believers anyway.

That is not the point.  If this is truly Christ's church, then their should be great concern that people are leaving.  

[Teancum]

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".

I am not trying to be belligerent but I don't think the statement Russell is hanging his hat on is absolutely clarifying that the policy would apply to only children living fully in homes where the parent or parents are in SSM and that this shows the letter clarifying the policy is what. It really meant all along. I understand people can read thing differently. But when I read the policy to me the strict read of it seemed far reaching.

And if the policy meant what the clarification said, and if this is what Elder Christofferson meant well, why not just say it? Why not just say up front that the policy applies when the child's primary home is with a parent or parents in a SSM.

Again I could be wrong be Russell I think your evidence is pretty thin.

[Ron]

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. 

 

OK.

 

So what about Muslims in the USA? Lets say I was born and raised Muslim and later discovered I was gay and ended up in an SSM.  Would I be excommunicated?  What would my status be?

[Tacenda]

OK.

 

So what about Muslims in the USA? Lets say I was born and raised Muslim and later discovered I was gay and ended up in an SSM.  Would I be excommunicated?  What would my status be?

Dead?

[Calm]

Where do you find common law marriage in this day and age? Which foreign countries have it?

The US for one:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx

Kenya for another:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/kenya-redefines-marriage-blow-womens-rights/190042/

Brazil:

http://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=6DA4D13E-FFA7-4BED-8045-8118DE8F69C4

Edited November 15, 2015 by Calm

[oremites]

 

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.

 

 

Avoid posting if you feel you may have the spirit of contention within you.

If you feel that you do, take the day off.

 

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

[smac97]

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.

 

I am not sure you are correct here.  There were 296,800 convert baptisms in 2014, and 116,409 baptisms of children of record, for a total of 413,212 baptisms in 2014.  While the overall increase in Church membership may slow down due to an increase in resignations, and perhaps even a reduction in convert and children-of-record baptisms due to the negative attention on this issue, I think that A) such a slowing will not yield a "negative in growth" (unless by this you mean that the Church's overall membership numbers will still go up, just not as much as in prior years), and B) this issue will not, I think, have much in the way of staying power.  

 

A lot of the indignation has been ginned up by hostile media and social media reports, and is also coming mostly from "low information" consumers of such information.  However, in the days ahead I think we will see little actual adverse consequences of this policy (that is, children being temporarily denied baptism).  For those who in the years ahead are still paying attention to this narrow issue (the numbers of which, I think, will substantially diminish in the near future as active media coverage dissipates), their realization of the exaggerations/fabrications of the "the sky is falling! / the Mormons are mean!" crowd will help them realize that the hue and cry we've seen over the last week has been overwrought.

 

The Church has made a fair amount of progress in its treatment of people with same-sex attraction.  Society in general is, I think, coming to recognize this.  But the Church has, and I think always will, stand firm on the basic principle that homosexual conduct is sinful and violative of the Law of Chastity.  Perhaps this episode will prove to have provided some clarity about just how serious and sober-minded the LDS Church is on this issue.

 

Also, I agree with your comments about the "knee jerk" nature of yesterday's resignations.  I think the vast majority of those who resigned had not placed much value in their church membership for quite a while before yesterday.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2015 by smac97

[rockpond]

I am not trying to be belligerent but I don't think the statement Russell is hanging his hat on is absolutely clarifying that the policy would apply to only children living fully in homes where the parent or parents are in SSM and that this shows the letter clarifying the policy is what. It really meant all along. I understand people can read thing differently. But when I read the policy to me the strict read of it seemed far reaching.

And if the policy meant what the clarification said, and if this is what Elder Christofferson meant well, why not just say it? Why not just say up front that the policy applies when the child's primary home is with a parent or parents in a SSM.

Again I could be wrong be Russell I think your evidence is pretty thin.

 

Exactly.

 

And when will the language in the policy be corrected to state what they are now saying is intended?

 

(I last checked this morning and the original policy is still there in Handbook 1.)

[ERayR]

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!)

 

The difference is that most are trying to bend their will to the Savior and not blatantly demanding that his will be bent to theirs.

[Brian 2.0]

"A recent poll conducted by event organizers and posted on the LDS Mass Resignation Facebook page shows only 5 percent of those who resigned this weekend attend an LDS church on a weekly or monthly basis." (KUTV News)

Yeah! Who the removed cares about inactives? They aren't REALLY Mormon anyways.

.

[ERayR]

I have a good friend with two sealed wives. Hard to think of him as monogamous though by earthly standards he is. He still jokes how he has two and I still cannot find one.

 

(Diversion Alert) Ask him to give you lessons. 

[ERayR]

I'm sure we were all sad in the pre existence when a 1/3 host of heaven rebelled and followed Lucifer. It's never cause for joy.

 

Now that was a mass resignation.

[smac97]

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)

 

Re: Item 1: I think many of the people who resigned yesterday have an incorrect perception of the Church.  That is, they view it like a socio-political entity like a political party or country club.  "Voting with your feet" is a very common way to express dissatisfaction with such groups, but it doesn't really work vis-à-vis membership in the LDS Church.  We are not "constituents" in a socio-political sense, and our leaders are not "answerable" to us in that sense.

 

Re: Item 2: I think the Church genuinely cares about its members (regardless of activity level), former members, and non-members.  I think the Church is also concerned with its interactions with and reputation among all of these people.  "Reputation" is an important component of fulfilling The Great Commission and being a missionary church.  That said, I believe the leaders of the Church sincerely believe they are adhering to past revelatory precedent and by ongoing revelation, and that fulfilling what we believe to be the Church's divine mandate requires adherence to such things.  In other words, the Church is taking "reputation" into account, but in the main is doing what it thinks is right.  I think this explains the off-and-on relationship between the Church and the gay rights folks, who want things which are compatible with the Restored Gospel (legal protections for gays in terms of housing, employment, etc., showing increased understanding and compassion and love to people with SSA, etc.), and things which are not compatible with the Restored Gospel (acceptance and endorsement of same-sex behavior, particularly same-sex marriage).

 

Re: Item 3: I appreciate your remarks.  A relative of mine recently announced to the world that he was leaving the Church over this issue.  I am not sure what the utility of such public pronouncements would be, particularly when the individual making them has extended family who are still LDS.

 

Re: Item 4: I appreciate your remarks here too.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Flyonthewall]

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?

Did you write this with the back of your hand affixed to you forehead, and your head tilted back?

Just look back at history for your answer. How have gays been treated in the past? It is only recently that gays have been tolerated then accepted by society at large.

I love how those seeking tolerance for their own behavior, have very little tolerance for those that do not agree with them.

[Ron]

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.

 

I get your point and agree it would better not to put a child in a situation where they would pressure their parents to get a divorce.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Ron

[california boy]

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.

 

 

A very interesting analysis of the handbook change.  Perhaps you are right.  Many hope that you are.  Here is the big question that no one seems to be able to answer.  If the intent of the handbook change was ALWAYS to be applied only to children LIVING in a SS family, then why wouldn't the church IMMEDIATELY respond to Delims podcast.  I mean issue a statement 10 minutes later or however long it took the church to notice the misrepresenting of the intent.  I mean it is not like it was hard to notice that virtually everyone else believed the handbook change as it was written and not how you rewrote it.   Telling the world and especially the members immediately that Dellims got it wrong and the handbook change ONLY applies to children living in SS families?  That seems like the rational thing to do.  

 

It appears that what actually happened is that the committee had to wait for the next scheduled meeting to discuss this issue to see if the clarification could be made and if everyone was in agreement on the clarification.  If that was ALWAYS the intent, and everyone left the original meeting clearly understanding that the change only applied to SS families, why the need to even meet again on this issue?

 

While you can change a word here and there to reflect the change, what is not in dispute is that is not how the original policy change was worded.  After a week of firestorm, it certainly is how the policy should have been worded.  And it certainly how it should have been clarified immediately if that was the intent all along.

 

Just as I predicted that the church would change the policy last week, I am also predicting no comments to this post.  There is no rational reason to not immediaely release a statement of clarification immediately if that was the intent all along.  No further discussion would have been needed by the committee.  No reason to delay the correction. 

[Ron]

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.

 

But couldn't baptismal denial back-fire and cause child to put more pressure on their gay parents to divorce than they would have had they been allowed to get baptized?

Edited November 15, 2015 by Ron

[rodheadlee]

 

 

Just as I predicted that the church would change the policy last week, I am also predicting no comments to this post.  There is no rational reason to not immediaely release a statement of clarification immediately if that was the intent all along.  No further discussion would have been needed by the committee.  No reason to delay the correction. 

It separates the wheat from the chaff. 

[Teancum]

It separates the wheat from the chaff.

Oh sure. Pretty soon there will only be a few of the special ones left. Though some may argue as to who are really the wheat and who really are the chaff.

[california boy]

I am not disagreeing with anything that you wrote, but the position the church finds itself in did not just happen out of thin air.  For the most part, the church itself created the perception most have about the church.  

 

 

Re: Item 1: I think many of the people who resigned yesterday have an incorrect perception of the Church.  That is, they view it like a socio-political entity like a political party or country club.  "Voting with your feet" is a very common way to express dissatisfaction with such groups, but it doesn't really work vis-à-vis membership in the LDS Church.  We are not "constituents" in a socio-political sense, and our leaders are not "answerable" to us in that sense.

 

In all fairness, the church created a political atmosphere over this particular issue.  I don't even have to explain how that happened.  Everyone already knows how it happened.  That is not an incorrect perception of the church.  That is their perception of the church based on their experiences of actual events.

 

 

Re: Item 2: I think the Church genuinely cares about its members (regardless of activity level), former members, and non-members.  I think the Church is also concerned with its interactions with and reputation among all of these people.  "Reputation" is an important component of fulfilling The Great Commission and being a missionary church.  That said, I believe the leaders of the Church sincerely believe they are adhering to past revelatory precedent and by ongoing revelation, and that fulfilling what we believe to be the Church's divine mandate requires adherence to such things.  In other words, the Church is taking "reputation" into account, but in the main is doing what it thinks is right.  I think this explains the off-and-on relationship between the Church and the gay rights folks, who want things which are compatible with the Restored Gospel (legal protections for gays in terms of housing, employment, etc., showing increased understanding and compassion and love to people with SSA, etc.), and things which are not compatible with the Restored Gospel (acceptance and endorsement of same-sex behavior, particularly same-sex marriage).

 

 

I think you are correct.   And I agree that the church is responsible for the reputation it enjoys.  Peoples opinion of the church for the most part come from actions the church have taken both in the past and the present.  Many people view the church as one that practiced polygamy in the past.  Many people view the church as being prejudice against blacks in the past.  Many view the church as one that attacks gay couples.  Many view the church as being very family centered.  All of these opinions of the church are based on past or present doctrine and policies.  No one can say it is a distortion of the churches own history and position.  While these are all part of the church, most members look at a more complete understanding of the church.  They base it more on all the doctrine of the church, not just the ones that receive headlines.  But that is the difference between reputation and knowing the church.

 

 

 

Re: Item 3: I appreciate your remarks.  A relative of mine recently announced to the world that he was leaving the Church over this issue.  I am not sure what the utility of such public pronouncements would be, particularly when the individual making them has extended family who are still LDS.

 

Re: Item 4: I appreciate your remarks here too.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

 

 

I appreciate your remarks as well.  People handle leaving the church in what they think is the right way to handle it.  While I finds some ways better than others, it is more a reflection on how I personally handled leaving the church.  I have never made a public fight against the church.  I know the church works well for a lot of people.  I wish them well.

[california boy]

It separates the wheat from the chaff. 

Seriously?  You think the church manipulated its members and the rest of the world as a tool to "separate the wheat from the chaff?

[volgadon]

The Orthodox Sephardic shun a child born to a mixed religion couple. There are millions of Sephardic Jews. Any complaints? It is no longer politically correct to criticize the Jews.

That is not unique to Sephardic Jews, nor is it necessarily true. My brother-in-law's family accepted my sister even before the converted, and his uncle- a rabbi from an old Sephardic family- conducted the conversion process.

[JLHPROF]

Re: Item 1: I think many of the people who resigned yesterday have an incorrect perception of the Church.  That is, they view it like a socio-political entity like a political party or country club.  "Voting with your feet" is a very common way to express dissatisfaction with such groups, but it doesn't really work vis-à-vis membership in the LDS Church.  We are not "constituents" in a socio-political sense, and our leaders are not "answerable" to us in that sense.

 

This is true.  The Church is the vehicle by which the gospel of Jesus Christ and its ordinances are administered.

"Membership" is not a necessary benefit to the Church, only to the believing member.

If people choose to separate themselves from access to these blessings they are the ones that are losing out.  The gospel will continue with 10 or 10 million.  It makes no difference to the work of God.  But it will make a big difference to those souls who abandon it.  If 50% of members turned in their resignations it would still mean nothing to the gospel, but it would be an event of great sorrow for those who lose the blessings.

 

This is not to say the worth of souls is not great.  It is simply to say that the gospel (or even the Church as its vehicle) are not dependent upon whether people choose to remain members.  However, ALL people are very dependent on the gospel of Jesus Christ, if not now, eventually.

[Teancum]

I am not sure you are correct here.  There were 296,800 convert baptisms in 2014, and 116,409 baptisms of children of record, for a total of 413,212 baptisms in 2014.  While the overall increase in Church membership may slow down due to an increase in resignations, and perhaps even a reduction in convert and children-of-record baptisms due to the negative attention on this issue, I think that A) such a slowing will not yield a "negative in growth" (unless by this you mean that the Church's overall membership numbers will still go up, just not as much as in prior years), and B) this issue will not, I think, have much in the way of staying power.  

 

A lot of the indignation has been ginned up by hostile media and social media reports, and is also coming mostly from "low information" consumers of such information.  However, in the days ahead I think we will see little actual adverse consequences of this policy (that is, children being temporarily denied baptism).  For those who in the years ahead are still paying attention to this narrow issue (the numbers of which, I think, will substantially diminish in the near future as active media coverage dissipates), their realization of the exaggerations/fabrications of the "the sky is falling! / the Mormons are mean!" crowd will help them realize that the hue and cry we've seen over the last week has been overwrought.

 

The Church has made a fair amount of progress in its treatment of people with same-sex attraction.  Society in general is, I think, coming to recognize this.  But the Church has, and I think always will, stand firm on the basic principle that homosexual conduct is sinful and violative of the Law of Chastity.  Perhaps this episode will prove to have provided some clarity about just how serious and sober-minded the LDS Church is on this issue.

 

Also, I agree with your comments about the "knee jerk" nature of yesterday's resignations.  I think the vast majority of those who resigned had not placed much value in their church membership for quite a while before yesterday.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I think your are correct. This will has negligible impact on growth over time. The church will maintain a critical mass and will have growth over time through converts and through births. But I think this issue amongst numerous others will continue to keep that growth relatively slow (as it is now and has been for a number of years) as well as suppress activity rates to what seems to be fairly low world wide.

Also there will be many who will not resign but may become inactive or stay inactive. As I have mulled over my own personal response to this the past week I have vacillated and wondered how I respond to my church when I how I more and more see the world To be much different than the LDS church does. Do I want to slow my attendance, suspend financial support, not hold a calling? Not sure. Would I ever resign from the church. Anything is possible but it it not likely. Maybe someday I will be like Scott wishes and repent in abject humility (though I often wonder about the humility of people who say such things in such ways as well) and return in my heart to be able to feel positive about full fellowship in the church. I certainly don't today.