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

[Jeanne]

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?

I really enjoy this article and the different ideas brought up in the comments. Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Of course they would have hampered worldwide growth. They were unsustainable. That's why they're no longer in place.

Plural marriage in particular lasted as long as the Lord needed it to for His purposes.

The priesthood ban continues to be very much a mystery to me, but I refuse to jump to the conclusion God had nothing to do with it. That has never been the Church's position, not back then, not today.

[jaberwocky]

Sorry - he deserves the blame for whatever he does.  I'm sure the church publications department isn't naive enough to believe it won't get into the public - you can see the text of every temple ordinance if you look for it.  The point is that John Dehlin does these things to try to discredit the church.  He has no other motivation.

[Jeanne]

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.  

Did you listen to Mr. Reeves comments on the Mormonstories podcast?  He is pleading with people not to resign over this.  His thoughts were thorough and full of facts that I was not aware of. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

And your point is what?

 

Just a 'report from the field', really, though I think one implication is a subtle reminder that the vast majority of people in the world are not hell-bent on punishing anyone who doesn't capitulate to the radical gay agenda.

[JLHPROF]

This is a great resource for those looking for a more suitable and spiritually fulfilling home to worship. The LDS church isn't the only nor the best option for all God's children.

From Worlds Without End blog.

It's the only one with legitimate authority, and therefore the only one that can administer God given ordinances.

But yes, if Terrestrial level is all you seek there are many viable options.

[Teancum]

Just a 'report from the field', really, though I think one implication is a subtle reminder that the vast majority of people in the world are not hell-bent on punishing anyone who doesn't capitulate to the radical gay agenda.

Thanks. And yes I agree with your concluding remark except for the radical part,

[ERayR]

"The scriptural term “third part” is often misapplied as the fraction one-third. As one author put it, “When John speaks of the war in heaven, his description of Lucifer’s activities is slightly different from the typical interpretation in Latter-day Saint circles. He states that the devil drew away a ‘third part’ of the hosts of heaven with him (see Revelation 12:4; D&C 29:36–38). The distinction between ‘one-third’ and a ‘third part’ may seem subtle, yet it is real. The fraction one-third implies 33 1/3 percent, whereas the phrase ‘third part’ implies a numerically undetermined segment of the population who symbolize the fact that Satan’s power over the premortal spirits was limited. Thus, the numerology in the passage implies that we have no knowledge of the fraction or percentage of the Father’s children who followed the adversary. All we know is that Satan had a limited influence over those in the presence of God”" (Alonzo L. Gaskill, The Lost Language of Symbolism [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003], 118–119)

 

However you read it it is a big number.

[Teancum]

This is a great resource for those looking for a more suitable and spiritually fulfilling home to worship. The LDS church isn't the only nor the best option for all God's children.

From Worlds Without End blog.

I would check out a Community of Christ service but the nearest congregation is 2 to 3 hours away from me.

[CV75]

In the age of the internet, nobody in the Church leadership should think they can publish something in the handbook and expect only bishops ot know about it.  The moment they made that revision, it was going to be leaked by someone.  The only question was when.

I’m sure Church leadership understands that everything from policies to temple rites gets out into the hands of the unauthorized. They deal with it in various ways and this instance didn’t seem to be a big a deal to manage at all.

 

The point is that the intent was for the policy to be used responsibly by those so authorized, with compassion and revelation for each circumstance. We can see what happens when the unauthorized, mean and uninspired blast it out there for general misapplication, but security-wise, in such matters of religious conscience vs. ignorance, the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze.

[Damien the Leper]

I think all those who are inactive non-believers (every last one) should take the time to remove their names from the church completely. Furthermore, all believers in the Restoration who wish to no longer be associated with the LDS church should do the same. Any active members who feel there are any sufficient reasons to leave the church should do so.

It won't affect the church in the slightest except for member numbers. Tithing and missionary numbers won't be affected either. This would just be a house cleaning exercise.

[Damien the Leper]

It's the only one with legitimate authority, and therefore the only one that can administer God given ordinances.

But yes, if Terrestrial level is all you seek there are many viable options.

Wrong. The leadership that would become the LDS church did not have authority to "excommunicate" those who would later build the RLDS church. Valid apostolic succession remained whether BY liked it or not.

[Deborah]

In the age of the internet, nobody in the Church leadership should think they can publish something in the handbook and expect only bishops ot know about it.  The moment they made that revision, it was going to be leaked by someone.  The only question was when.

 

They wouldn't have published the revision had it not leaked. The leaders involved would have received training as to how it applies and would have been able to ask questions for clarification.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

You mean the standard anti-Mormon MO was employed?

[ERayR]

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.

 

You do err.  They are available by asking your Bishop.

[Deborah]

So you think after when the church capitulated on the plural marriage issue after fighting. The fight for 50 years that it was just the right time and all in the plan anyway. Even when most of the 19th century LDS leaders said we would never give it up and that the church would be in apostasy if it did, including Wilford Woodruff not many years before he issues the manifesto.

Ok then.

 

Wilford Woodruff would not have made the change had he not received the revelation regarding what would happen to the church had they not stopped the practice. I think it was a choice the Lord left to the people but it was similar to the two commandments in the Garden. We could fulfill the mission to fill the earth or we could continue the practice which as Scott said had fulfilled its purpose. I think Pres. Woodruff and the people received the inspiration that the first was more important at that point. The church had grown and been strengthened with a great generation. Now was not the time to stubbornly hang on to that which would have hindered further growth. I think God expects us to obey but I also think he is very practical.

 

When baptism for the dead was introduced the Lord permitted the saints to do them in the rivers. Once the temple was built this was no longer allowed. Exceptions are made when necessity requires it. The law of plural marriage is still in effect but not as it was once practiced.

[The Nehor]

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.

There are many documents members have no access to. Minutes of meetings, revelations kept by the apostles, and others.

[Bobbieaware]

Yeah, it could happen.  In fact, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

...and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost...

We haven't seen even the beginning of the testing, trials and sore persecutions the Latter-day Saints will yet be called upon to endure for the Gospel's sake. The proverbial refiner's fire is only just now beginning to be stoked, and there will be many who will fall

From Bruce R McConkie's April 1980 General Conference address:

"The Saints are tried to the full to see if they will abide in the Lord’s covenant even unto death (see D&C 98:14)."

And again...

"Nor are the days of our greatest sorrows and our deepest sufferings all behind us. They too lie ahead. We shall yet FACE GREATER PERILS , we shall yet be TESTED WITH MORE SEVERE TRIALS, and we shall yet WEEP MORE TEARS OF SORROW THAN WE HAVE EVER KNOWN BEFORE."

Only those unfamiliar with the scriptures would be at all surprised that great tribulations and bitter persecutions await the Latter-day Saints before the Lord returns to rescue his people from the ungodly.

[The Nehor]

Does this count as proselyting?

[jaberwocky]

It is well known within the LGBT political hierarchy that in order for their cause to succeed they need to gain footholds in the places and organizations that oppose them most.  By so doing they weaken the foundations.  The members of the LDS Church who support the activists are either knowingly or unknowingly the weak links.  They are being deceived and manipulated by Satan.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are many documents members have no access to. Minutes of meetings, revelations kept by the apostles, and others.

And including, under normal circumstances, proceedings o disciplinary councils.

[Tacenda]

Did you listen to Mr. Reeves comments on the Mormonstories podcast? He is pleading with people not to resign over this. His thoughts were thorough and full of facts that I was not aware of.

Yes, I did. Sometimes I listen to podcasts when I can't sleep. So I wonder if he said what I said he did, or it was someone else. I listen to so many, but yes he said he wants people to stand up for what they believe and not be afraid in the church, stay LDS and speak up on social media, or in church etc. He's taking this really hard, like many out there. Edited November 16, 2015 by Tacenda

[Russell C McGregor]

You mean the standard anti-Mormon MO was employed?

 

Pretty much.

[smac97]

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.

I think you are discounting, to a significant degree, the hostility aimed at us by both secular and sectarian critics of our faith. There has been much spoken against us in bad faith, which remarks have had an adverse influence on "the perception most have about the church."

 

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.

I don't think that's speaking in "fairness". Our faith and its adherents have been significantly slandered by your compatriots. Allegations by you and yours of hatred and bigotry by me and mine arising from Prop 8, the recent changes to the CHI, and in other instances are quite common. And they are, as leveled against the Brethren and the vast majority of the Saints, manifestly false. And yet here you are, saying that you "don't even have to explain how that happened," as if these pernicious lies are clinically objective recitations of fact that "everyone already knows", and that the perceptions arising from these lies are "not ... incorrect."

With respect, I reject your "In all fairness" remark. As stated, it is nothing close to fairness.  To the contrary, your the-Mormons-only-have-themselves-to-blame-for-people-disliking-them-and-this-is-such-an-obvious-point-I-need-not-explain-it schtick does not impress. At all.  It really does need an explanation.  So I'd like you to pony up rather than blame the victim of recent calumnies and treat such an offensive assertion like it's a tautology or something.  

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2015 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

If one has a question about what the Handbook says about [x], [y], or [z], one should call the executive secretary to one's bishop or branch president and make an appointment.  Bishops and branch presidents are not fire-breathing dragons who are responsible for restricting access to it.