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

[Thinking]

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.

 

They could all be accurate.

 

2500 fits the 1000+ description, and hundreds could mean 25 hundred. Estimates are...well...estimates.

[Meadowchik]

It's very human to think of the future in an inevitable arc of progression based on personal experience. But, ours is a worldwide church, in a world where the demographics are shifting tremendously.

I think Kyle M (the articles' author) should have considered the actual world, not just our comparatively little Western corner.

But this is an interesting subject...I'll try to comment later with some authoritative projections of global demographics.

[Zakuska]

Not the least bit surprised. I am glad there was no fuss over the dead wife.

If the endgame was going to be the same anyway... why did the church make such a fuss and make them jump through so many hoops to begin with?

If this muslim family were living in the USA I can see the church having an issue. Nigeria on the other hand has legal polygamy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

Once again showing us how bad church policy toward polygamy really is. Its sending all kinds of mixed messages. A bunch of ceremony fuss and worry could have been and can still be very easily avoided. Just think how much temple work that family could have performed during the years why they twiddled their thumbs waiting for the second spouse to die, Just so they could do something that really had no rational reason not to have been done in the first place.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

It's very human to think of the future in an inevitable arc of progression based on personal experience. But, ours is a worldwide church, in a world where the demographics are shifting tremendously.

I think Kyle M (the articles' author) should have considered the actual world, not just our comparatively little Western corner.

But this is an interesting subject...I'll try to comment later with some authoritative projections of global demographics.

Critics of the Church do tend to be a provincial lot.

[CV75]

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.

Seems pretty clear to me as well, that a reader experienced with Church policy on a practical level would assume the intent is that a child young enough to receive the naming ordinance is living with the couple, and that a child of legal age can eventually figure out how not to live with the couple.

 

A responsible leader would have asked for clarification if needed and accepted it as good. A responsible bystander getting his hands on leaked information would have observed how all this played out.

[Teancum]

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.

I think you are right and the author overstates it. On the other hand I wonder what the church might be like today if either or both polygamy and the priesthood ban had stayed in place. Of corse we can only speculate but I think both would have hampered world wide growth.

The homosexual issue is less severe I think to take a continued stand against because while society tolerates it more there are still many who oppose it.

I read the article quickly and missed that the blogger was in the ad industry. But he claimed to be active.

[Teancum]

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.

As noted we changed on plural marriage and the priesthood ban. One of the reasons we gave up on plural marriage was because the federal government has seized all church property. Had we not the church would have lost all its assets and been entirely dismantled.

I think if we had not given up plural marriage the church would LDS not exist today at least in the form and size it is now.

I think keeping the priesthood ban in place would have hampered the church growth as well.

[Teancum]

It's very human to think of the future in an inevitable arc of progression based on personal experience. But, ours is a worldwide church, in a world where the demographics are shifting tremendously.

I think Kyle M (the articles' author) should have considered the actual world, not just our comparatively little Western corner.

But this is an interesting subject...I'll try to comment later with some authoritative projections of global demographics.

I look forward to your further comments.

[Teancum]

Critics of the Church do tend to be a provincial lot.

Scott I did not view this person as a critic. Why do you think he is a critic!

[Russell C McGregor]

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 wasn't just a "lack of proper refutation." It was that (1) nobody even tried to address it, but (2) went on asserting their discredited claims as if the evidence had never been offered.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Ridiculous. Respond to Dehlin? That is delusion. It required a meeting. You know nothing about how the church works. It does not respond to tantrums.

[Tacenda]

http://mormonstories.org/eric-reeves-son-of-linda-reeves/  When I first read some of your OP Teancum, I thought it was this guy in the linked podcast that may have wrote it.  But they're not the same guy.  The guy in the podcast is Eric Reeves, son of Linda S. Reeves, 2nd counselor in the General Relief Society Presidency. 

 

He mentions that Jimmy Carter threatened to take away the church's tax exempt status away right before the reversed policy/doctrine on blacks receiving the PH, or blacks getting rights to an eternal family or taking endowments out at the temple.  Or Utah not getting statehood if they don't discontinue polygamy.  He said, or I read into what he said, that maybe one day they'll change the policies/doctrines on gays and treat them equally if once again the church is threatened by outside forces.  

[Calm]

"He mentions that Jimmy Carter threatened to take away the church's tax exempt status away right before the reversed policy/doctrine on blacks receiving the PH"

If he is using this, I would suggest using extreme caution with his other claims.

[Deborah]

I think if we had not given up plural marriage the church would LDS not exist today at least in the form and size it is now.

I think keeping the priesthood ban in place would have hampered the church growth as well.

 

I agree, but this just goes to show that the Lord is aware of our circumstances and needs. When these things ended it was the right time. We once were a provincial church primarily settled in one area. As we became a worldwide church different circumstances were in play. I read on the new policy on LGBT that there were issues coming up in different parts of the world as well as here so in this case it was necessary to draw a firm line in the sand.

[Deborah]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook

 

This is official information on what the CHI is and how it is to be implemented. Note that it is intended only for church leaders to use with inspiration. Had it not been leaked no one would have known because Bishops would have handled these issues with compassion and revelation for each circumstance.

[Russell C McGregor]

He mentions that Jimmy Carter threatened to take away the church's tax exempt status away right before the reversed policy/doctrine on blacks receiving the PH, or blacks getting rights to an eternal family or taking endowments out at the temple.

Something that never happened.

But anti-Mormons continue to repeat it as if it did.

[Tacenda]

Something that never happened.

But anti-Mormons continue to repeat it as if it did.

Here is an excerpt from this article, http://mormonmatters.org/2009/09/26/the-church-and-the-irs/ , maybe it was not exactly down to the wire yet but could have been a possibility. 

 

"The University continued to deny admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating.

On April 16, 1975, the IRS notified the Bob Jones University of the proposed revocation of its tax-exempt status because of its discriminatory policies.

The IRS officially revoked the University’s tax-exempt status in January, 1976. Bob Jones University challenged the revocation. The case would ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The government took the position that Bob Jones University’s racial policies made it ineligible for tax-exempt status.

If the IRS’ decision in Bob Jones University was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it would close BYU’s argument that its racial policies were not discriminatory. The Church now was looking at the very real prospect that BYU would lose its tax-exempt status. That would be bad news indeed.

Other things were happening. In 1977, President Kimball was distressed when he was served with a subpoena to give a deposition in a case brought by the NAACP against the Boy Scouts of America and Troop 58, organized in one of the wards of the Liberty Stake in Salt Lake City. There were two black Scouts in the troop. One of them complained to the black ombudsman for Utah because he was deprived of the chance to become the senior patrol leader of his troop because of the Church procedure that the senior patrol leader had to be the deacons quorum president. It was contended that this violated the young man’s civil rights.

While the Church was not a party to the suit, the Church’s practice was a key issue in the litigation. It was for this reason the subpoena was issued to President Kimball. And because it was a subpoena duces tecum, he was directed to bring to the deposition every document relating to the Church’s policy withholding the priesthood from blacks.

Because he had had little to do with litigation during his life and was uncertain about what faced him, President Kimball was distraught. He could not sleep. He reportedly could talk of little else in the meetings with his counselors.

As we know, the change finally came in June 1978, as the Bob Jones University tax case was winding its way through the courts. Coincidence? I doubt it."

 

[CV75]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook

 

This is official information on what the CHI is and how it is to be implemented. Note that it is intended only for church leaders to use with inspiration. Had it not been leaked no one would have known because Bishops would have handled these issues with compassion and revelation for each circumstance.

I agree, and find it interesting that folks had an opportunity to be prepared by reading an article in the September 2015 Ensign touching on the subject. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng

[Teancum]

Something that never happened.But anti-Mormons continue to repeat it as if it did.

I agree with Russell on this, I have seen the loss of tax exemption for the LDS church come up over and over with zero evidence of such.

[rpn]

Thsoe who keep arguing that Bob Jones woul affect the church, don't seem to understand that Bob Jones didn't allow admission based on race and  interracial marriage.   BYU had been admitting black people who agreed to the honor code forever (though of course their weren't many applicants).  

 

While it is possible that Jimmy Carter also didn't understand that Bob Jones was a completely different fact pattern, it is unlikely that he was pushing to remove BYU's tax status.  He was in politics.  If this were true, it would be in his biographies and/or been in the media at the time.

[Mystery Meat]

It seems to me that the most common difference between those who support the policy and those who don't is their general support or lack thereof for SSM within the Church itself. I am sure there are exceptions to this, but this is a general rule. I think this is what really fulled the uproar.

 

I attend multiple singles wards right now due to callings and personal obligations. The general sentiment seems to be that young members of the Church are in favor of SSM or on board with the Church condoning it. Yet, in my experience, the exact opposite is true and the VAST, VAST majority of our YSA aged members support the brethren and the policy. I think Facebook and other social media where it is discussed creates a bit of vacuum because those of us who support the policy have been bullied into silence because we will be misunderstood or labeled. Whereas Church feels like a safe place to express feelings and testimony. The last few weeks that is what I have seen on Sundays. 

[Danzo]

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

Kansas

[Avatar4321]

There have always been people embarrassed about partaking in the fruit of the tree of life. Can such people be considered faithful? I'm not so sure about that.

And does anyone not consider us anything but fringe as it is?

Shouldn't we worry more about our relationship with Christ than what others think of us anyway?

[rpn]

There should not be any church document that is not open to its members.   Sure the leaking to the media (done apparently by John Dehlin, but who knows how he got it) is wrong.  But the thing is that it would also not have become the sensation it has been if it was always available to everyone, as it would  not have been distributed widely with the less than accurate interpretations that it was, had there been openess about it in the first place.

[Stargazer]

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

 

"If this is truly Christ's church"?  This has the same flavor as when someone has their own expectations and judge truth based on what they believe, rather than upon the truth as it really is.

 

When Jesus taught his disciples that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood, this really bothered many of them, and rather than attempt to understand, 

 

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

 

John 6:66

 

The fact that many left him over an item of doctrine does not mean that the doctrine was wrong, or bad.  As Jack Nicholson's character indicated in A Few Good Men, some people can't handle the truth.