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

[Brian 2.0]

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.

-Smac

I recently made a public Facebook post about my distance from the church. I have not believed or attended in 2 years now but never felt the need to make an announcement about it. But when this policy hit and got national press I wanted to make it clear that I wanted no part or connection to it. I have a number of friends and work associates that would lump me in with the policy since they've always known me as "the Mormon". I wanted to make sure it was clear I was far from agreeing with this policy.

[ERayR]

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

 

Not if they can't/won't abide by its doctrine.

[ERayR]

I recently made a public Facebook post about my distance from the church. I have not believed or attended in 2 years now but never felt the need to make an announcement about it. But when this policy hit and got national press I wanted to make it clear that I wanted no part or connection to it. I have a number of friends and work associates that would lump me in with the policy since they've always known me as "the Mormon". I wanted to make sure it was clear I was far from agreeing with this policy.

 

And?

[rodheadlee]

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

No, I think it is a byproduct of  0 to protest in 3.1 seconds.

[carbon dioxide]

Now that was a mass resignation.

Yes.  The number there would have been in the billions so if God is willing to kick billions out to maintain order in heaven, that means he is serious when it comes to eternal laws.

[rodheadlee]

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.

Only Christ's opinion matters.

[ERayR]

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. 

 

Contrary to the opinion in some circles Dehlin is not really that important nor formidable.

[ERayR]

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

 

No I think those opposed to the Church who have a public voice are ding the manipulation.

[Zakuska]

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.

Now you've went and done it!

Joseph Smith = helen mar kimball age 14

Joseph = mary age 12 to 14

Joseph smith hasn't a chance in the world to remain in the church he restored come ressurection day. JS contracted marriages to child brides while president of the church.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Zakuska

[Brian 2.0]

And?

I was responding to the "I'm not sure why" someone would announce it statement. Hence why I quoted that section.

[Teancum]

Only Christ's opinion matters.

I agree but he may think the ones you think are wheat are really chaff. Till he tells you are me we will just have to wait and see.

Personally I am not worried.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

I agree that it's not "absolutely clarifying" anything.

It simply takes for granted the fact that those are the children to whom the policy applies.

 

Since Elder Christofferson is explaining that the policy was developed to address that situation, it rather relentlessly follows that that's where it applies.

 

[Teancum]

Here is a blog from someone claiming to be a faithful member who claims that in te near future the being a church member will be a major embarrassment due to the new policy, if at least it becomes solidified as doctrine (I think the opposition to homosexual activity and SSM is already doctrine). And the blogger also argues that it will impede members to hold leadership positions in business and government.

Here Is an excerpt:

If this policy and our anti-gay views (again, calling things what they are) are somehow cemented as doctrine, in time we will be labeled a hate group, and no amount of Mormon bloggers and commenters and online missionaries and ad campaigns will sway that opinion. It will be our brand identity. Within 10 years we’ll be seen as a fringe group. In 20 years we’ll be a bigoted, extremist anachronism.

As that happens, our members will not be able to run major corporations. They will not be welcome in artistic circles. They will not be able to win political office. They will not be able to play in popular rock bands. Think anyone will play BYU in sports? Football contracts get broken all the time, and every school that backs out of playing BYU will win PR points for doing so.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/12/the-stakes-of-zion/

Now I know some will argue "so what...it is a test...a wheat and rare...it is never easy for God's chosen group to follow...be in the world and not of it and all that..."

And the blogger talks about this some. And that all may or may not be true.

What I want to know is do any of you think the backlash will be this severe?

[Teancum]

I agree that it's not "absolutely clarifying" anything.

It simply takes for granted the fact that those are the children to whom the policy applies.

 

Since Elder Christofferson is explaining that the policy was developed to address that situation, it rather relentlessly follows that that's where it applies.

So you totally understood this prior to the clarification and think anyone else who interpreted it differently just had an ax to grind?

[The Nehor]

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

 

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.

Slight correction: I could debate or discuss without snark. I choose not to because it can be very boring. I also hate pretense with a strong passion so I tear it down a lot. People lie to others and themselves way too much in this generation. Perhaps that is part of why I am here instead of being born a slave miner in classical Rome. Then again I might have delusions of grandeur.

As a close friend of mine told me at the Last Day God will chuckle and let me in or throw me straight to hell. I like to think it will be the former. Hell sounds dull.

[The Nehor]

Nope, I think this is tempest in a teapot that is already forgotten by everyone not interested in LDS things. Some of our enemies will grandstand to keep it in the news but with what happened in Paris it is unlikely anyone will care.

[Russell C McGregor]

So you totally understood this prior to the clarification and think anyone else who interpreted it differently just had an ax to grind?

 

I'm not saying that.

 

I'm saying that those who stubbornly insist that the November 13th clarification letter changed the original intent of the policy -- and that therefore the brethren are lying about it (I call that group the "Reprehensibles" ) are maintaining that position in defiance of the evidence.

 

I myself had assumed that the policy was intended to apply to children living in SSM homes. I was not certain of that fact until I saw the clarification.

[Thinking]

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.

 

And if the refutation didn't happen in that thread, well too bad, right?!

[Russell C McGregor]

And if the refutation didn't happen in that thread, well too bad, right?!

 

The "Reprehensibles" had plenty of opportunity to address the evidence. They defaulted.

 

Are you aware of any new evidence to hand?

[california boy]

Contrary to the opinion in some circles Dehlin is not really that important nor formidable.

 

I never said that Dehlin was important.  But virtually every major paper in this country carried the piece.  Most of them quoted the policy itself.  They didn't go on what Dehlin said or his bias.  They also reported on how people were reacting to the policy.

 

You would think that the church would have clarified the misinterpretation immediately (if that is what it was) of the new policy before THAT happened no matter who carried the original report of the change.  No need for a new meeting of the group before issuing a new statement if it was all just an error and not a re-evaluation of the original policy.  

 

Dehlins isn't the problem.  The newspapers picking up the story isn't the problem.  People reacting badly over the policy isn't the problem.  Inactive members isn't the problem.  Gay activist isn't the problem. You are going to have to point the finger somewhere else to get to what caused this whole issue. 

[why me]

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 dont that the catholic church is that tolerant of gay people either. They can't marry in the catholic church either. And in the past, the catholic church was very intolerant of catholics who divorced and attempted to marry again. They couldn't take their sacrament.

 

But of course, pope francis has been saying all the right things these days.  Have you read my previous post on this page and the links?

Edited November 15, 2015 by why me

[Deborah]

No it will not. People have been predicting the demise of the church from the beginning. We survived the Priesthood ban and plural marriage and their will likely be other issues in the future. The same threats were used against BYU during the 60's and I remember marches against us.

[Thinking]

The "Reprehensibles" had plenty of opportunity to address the evidence. They defaulted.

 

Are you aware of any new evidence to hand?

 

No. I actually think the Church's clarification letter was fine for establishing the intent of the original policy.

 

I just thought it was silly of you to presume that that lack of proper refutation in a now closed thread (after just 2 days) meant that the matter was settled.

it is nonetheless settled as a matter of evidence.

[Scott Lloyd]

No it will not. People have been predicting the demise of the church from the beginning. We survived the Priesthood ban and plural marriage and their will likely be other issues in the future. The same threats were used against BYU during the 60's and I remember marches against us.

One of the Brethren recently fulfilled an invitation to speak at a convocation at Stanford University. Stanford in the sixties suspended athletic contests and even debate tournaments with BYU over the priesthood issue.

Things come and go and the world turns. There will be hostility against the Church of Jesus Christ. Always has been. It is prophesied, in fact. But it won't be so devastating or crippling that the Church can't fulfill its mission.

I just came from sacrament meeting where the topic was Lehi's dream. Gotta say the scenario is playing out just as prophesied.

Edited to add: The fact that the author refers to the pre-1978 policy on the priesthood might be an indication of what role he occupies in that dream of Lehi. And the fact he works in the ad industry may help account for his inordinate hand-wringing and doomsday prophesying about public image.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[telnetd]

The language does not permit a directed by the Spirit exception, I suppose a Bishop might break the rules...there were Bishop's who broke the rules and ordained men of African descent back in the 70's but these found themselves quickly outside the Church. This brings up another issue. Back during the Priesthood Ban Mission Presidents instructed their missionaries to just bear their testimonies and leave without an invitation to teach people of African descent if they were tracted out.

 

Do you mean they would not teach these people the gospel?  If yes, would you provide a source.

 

Gail