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

[Storm Rider]

I am well aware that prior to the  most recent one (the prologue to which seems to require something different) I regularly was given access to the Handbook whenever I wanted to read it.   And yes, I'm not talking about personal documents, but then those aren't published anyway are they?

 

The Handbook 1 however should be completely available to all members.  I don't know how Dehlin got it before SP and bishops did (it was uploaded to their library --- the one they get access to at lds.org because of their callings.  Leaders then just told their underlings to read it.)   But if it was not treated secretly, then he would not have been able to spin it to the media in the way that was widely quoted, but more speculative in a horrible way than accurate.

 

Heck any member can be a church leader with access to the manuals tomorrow.  And leaders don't read any better than other members, so why would we think they are in a better position to  understand the words therein.  True it can be very helpful to sort out any tough things with a leader.  But if a member knows about the Handbook then they also have to know (probably have run into a leader at one time or another that says, Yes, that is what the handbook says, but I've received revelation to do this anyway.  So this we are going to do) that the Handbook says that it does not supercede the revelation they can get in a calling to which they have been set apart.

 

So I consider it really paternalistic to argue that regular members just can't handle it.  (And it is particularly hard to swallow when most of the men of the church have been or will be in some calling in which they have full and unfettered access.)

 

So there should never be any training manuals for leaders; it should just be training manuals for members?  That is a very different approach.  Do you see any need to train leaders or should we just be completely democratic and train everyone to lead whether they have the position or not?  

 

In this wonder world of equality, a disciplinary court should be completely open and all members should attend and vote.  That is one way to govern the Church I suppose.  Have you shared it with God?  I am sure he would like some training in how to run the Church to be more effective and fair.

 

The manuals are there for training the leaders about topics only they deal with.  As you said, if a member just has to know out of a desperate need to sate their own curiosity, they can sit with the bishop and read the manual itself.  Or, when they are called to serve as a leader they can be trained.  

 

I personally don't desire of feel a need to be trained any further in leadership, thank you.  If you are one of those that must know, sit and read the manual from cover to cover, if your bishop is willing to sit with you.  

 

Please save me from this twisted world of egalitarianism.  I am just stunned that anyone would want to live in such a world.  How much time would we waste simply because we don't trust anyone to serve us or God? 

[sjdawg]

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

Who cares about Dehlin?   I read the policy itself.  The words written are pretty clear and understandable.   I understand and am glad the "intent" has been clarified but the written policy was very clear.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Quite true as far as I can tell.

If you believe good Christian folks are going to the same place as murderers, whoremongers, rapists, etc... there isn't much I can say to you.

[sjdawg]

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.

Why is a meeting required to clarify the intent of a policy if the "intent" didn't change?   I would think it would have already been agreed upon.  To me, the argument about waiting for a meeting reinforces the idea that it was a change in intent otherwise an immediate clarification could have been made.   No matter, I'm just glad the intent was clarified and is not as drastic as the initial reading of the policy led me to believe.

[Russell C McGregor]

Who cares about Dehlin?

Someone recently raved that his publicity-seeking and posturing had made him the "go-to guy" for Mormon matters.

It's laughable, but that's how he and his acolytes view him.

 

I read the policy itself. The words written are pretty clear and understandable. I understand and am glad the "intent" has been clarified but the written policy was very clear.

To those who understand the Church and its ways, it seemed pretty clear that it meant what the clarification proves that it meant.

Remembering, after all, that the policy document was not a public announcement, but an insertion in a handbook for Church leaders.

And that making the insertion is not the end of the process, but only one step.

So the text of the insertion is not the whole story. It was never going to be the whole story, and the unprincipled Mister Dehlin should have known that.

[sjdawg]

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."

 

 

So True.  A gay person could never understand the hostilities tossed at the mormon faith.   We all know that gay people have never known anything but happiness, love, and pure acceptance when dealing with an otherwise cruel world.  

 

Dont misrepresent what other's write. -Ares

Edited November 16, 2015 by Ares

[smac97]

So True.  A gay person could never understand the hostilities tossed at the mormon faith.   We all know that gay people have never known anything but happiness, love, and pure acceptance when dealing with an otherwise cruel world.  

 

So because homosexuals have been persecuted, they are given carte blanche to falsely denigrate other minority groups?

 

I'm not sure that's a winning formula.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Russell C McGregor]

Why is a meeting required to clarify the intent of a policy if the "intent" didn't change?   I would think it would have already been agreed upon.  To me, the argument about waiting for a meeting reinforces the idea that it was a change in intent otherwise an immediate clarification could have been made.

Actually, no.

Please note that the clarification came out as a letter over the signatures of the First Presidency. You don't get something that high level just by writing an internal memo.

Had the actual policy decision been changed, the process would (quite obviously) have taken longer.

The Church does everything through councils. The council that made the original policy decision needed to be consulted before issuing any clarifications.

And as already (exhaustively) noted, it is clear from Elder Christofferson's remarks, that that's what everyone had in mind from the outset.

From. The. Outset.

No matter, I'm just glad the intent was clarified and is not as drastic as the initial reading of the policy led me to believe.

And the moral of the story is: Never draw conclusions from "the initial reading of the policy."

[Storm Rider]

What is the LGBTQ agenda and how have they sacrificed honesty? Is it to forcevery citizen to accept their lifestyle? Or is it simply to have the same rights of all citizens? Or is the latter item dishonest?

 

If you are not aware of the LGBTQ agenda, I don't really have the time to make it any more clear than it already is.  I recommend reading, "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce.  She is a gay, past president of the California NOW organization, and qualified to speak to this topic thoroughly.  She does a great job of addressing the Gay agenda honestly along with a number of other things.

 

At no time in history was gay marriage society's ideal, normal, or accepted social relationship.  In today's world, the media has crammed the myth of the happy, gay lifestyle down the throats of anyone who saw a movie or watched television for the last few decades.  That was not by chance or happenstance,  It was for a purpose.  That is not dishonest, but a fact and a reality.  

 

Every time the AMA or any other group stepped out of line to identify the dangers of the gay lifestyle that "attack" was stopped immediately for fear of dampening the goals of presenting only the happiest face of gaydom to society at large.  

 

At no time in all of the hoopla of promoting gay marriage was there ever a national discussion about what the lifestyle of the typical gay man is and its potential impact on society at large.  Why?  What was there to fear in discussing the topic openly?  I still find it strange how that has never been a national discussion.  

 

Rights to do what?  Nothing has been gained except gaining acceptance of being gay and all  that entails - no real definition of the gay lifestyle looks like or the health risks of gay behavior.

 

Gads, this topic bores me.  I am fed up with talking about it.  There is nothing to talk about because it is a waste of time and effort.  You have your opinion and really aren't interested in anything that conflicts with your opinion.  We agree to disagree and we will never see this issue in a similar manner.

 

You may want to read the book though; she is a wonderfully honest person.  I may disagree with some of her politics, but no one can deny she is honest.  

Edited November 16, 2015 by Storm Rider

[sjdawg]

So because homosexuals have been persecuted, they are given carte blanche to falsely denigrate other minority groups?

 

I'm not sure that's a winning formula.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I agree it isn't a winning formula but you can't discount the role of the LDS church in any of this.   (I'm not going to touch your "falsely" denigrate other groups.   I assume both side believe they speak truth).   The LDS Church partnered in one of the first large scale attacks when they went door to door in California trying to prevent gay people from maintaining the right to get married.  I suspect gay people would pretty much have left the LDS church alone if that same courtesy had been extended to them.

Edited November 16, 2015 by sjdawg

[sjdawg]

And the moral of the story is: Never draw conclusions from "the initial reading of the policy."

 

I know.  I hate it when my words get in the way of what I mean.

 

 

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"

 

 

 is clearly the same as saying

 

"The restrictions apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living a same-gender marriage or similar relationship"

 

 

Don't let the past tense wording of "who has lived" fool you.  It is clear that the intent of the policy all along was that it was to apply to only the current and primary residence of the children.  The evidence is obvious

Edited November 16, 2015 by sjdawg

[Teancum]

If you are not aware of the LGBTQ agenda, I don't really have the time to make it any more clear than it already is.  I recommend reading, "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce.  She is gay, past president of the California NOW, and qualified to speak to this topic thoroughly.  She does a great job of addressing the Gay agenda honestly along with a number of other things.

 

At no time in history was gay marriage a society's ideal, normal, or accepted social relationship.  Media has crammed the myth of the happy, gay lifestyle for the last few decades.  That was not by chance or happenstance,  It was for a purpose.  That is not dishonest, but a fact and a reality.  Every time the AMA or any other group stepped out of line to identify the dangers of the gay lifestyle that activity was stopped.  At now time in all of the hoopla of promoting gay marriage was there ever a national discussion about what the lifestyle of the typical gay man.  Why?  What was there to fear in discussing the topic openly?  I still find it strange how that has never been a national discussion.  

 

Rights to do what?  Nothing has been gained except in gaining acceptance of being gay and all without any real definition of what being gay looks like or the health risks of gay behavior.

 

Gads, this topic bores me.  I really am fed up with talking about it.  There is nothing to talk about because it is a waste of time and effort.  You have your opinion and really aren't interested in anything that conflicts with your opinion.  We agree to disagree and we will never see this issue in a similar manner.

 

You may want to read the book though; she is a wonderfully honest person.  I may disagree with some of her politics, but no one can deny she is honest.

Actually my opinion on this issue is quite fluid. That is why I asked your thoughts on it. Sorry if I agitated you.

[Avatar4321]

Do you have many of these friends converting?

[rodheadlee]

If you are not aware of the LGBTQ agenda, I don't really have the time to make it any more clear than it already is.  I recommend reading, "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce.  She is gay, past president of the California NOW, and qualified to speak to this topic thoroughly.  She does a great job of addressing the Gay agenda honestly along with a number of other things.

 

At no time in history was gay marriage a society's ideal, normal, or accepted social relationship.  Media has crammed the myth of the happy, gay lifestyle for the last few decades.  That was not by chance or happenstance,  It was for a purpose.  That is not dishonest, but a fact and a reality.  Every time the AMA or any other group stepped out of line to identify the dangers of the gay lifestyle that activity was stopped.  At now time in all of the hoopla of promoting gay marriage was there ever a national discussion about what the lifestyle of the typical gay man.  Why?  What was there to fear in discussing the topic openly?  I still find it strange how that has never been a national discussion.  

 

Rights to do what?  Nothing has been gained except in gaining acceptance of being gay and all without any real definition of what being gay looks like or the health risks of gay behavior.

 

Gads, this topic bores me.  I really am fed up with talking about it.  There is nothing to talk about because it is a waste of time and effort.  You have your opinion and really aren't interested in anything that conflicts with your opinion.  We agree to disagree and we will never see this issue in a similar manner.

 

You may want to read the book though; she is a wonderfully honest person.  I may disagree with some of her politics, but no one can deny she is honest.  

I spent several months in Key West a couple of years ago and I was stunned at how full the graveyards were of young male victims of HIV/AIDS. It was really an eye opener. 

[sjdawg]

My observation is that young members of the Church are tolerant of the legalization of secular SSM but certainly support the LDS doctrine and leaders (and in this case, the policy).

I support legal SSM.  I support the LDS Churches right not to participate in SSM.  I don't like the policy regarding children but I support the LDS Churches right to maintain the policy.   (I do think the "clarified" policy is much better than the original and apparently misunderstand version of the policy)

[JAHS]

I have been hearing of some people who are gay who were told to marry someone of the opposite sex as a means to "cure" their homosexuality. They had some kids and then their marriage went bad and they divorced and married someone of the same sex before their kids were baptized. Now in a gay marriage with full custody of the kids and they want the kids to be baptized; but of course now they can't until 18 years old. 

[Duncan]

My stake has more a concern with the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers hockey teams than it does with gay stuff, mind you I didn't like one of the stake pres. wearing a 3 piece suit today             and what's more it didn't even match             

Edited November 16, 2015 by Duncan

[sjdawg]

I spent several months in Key West a couple of years ago and I was stunned at how full the graveyards were of young male victims of HIV/AIDS. It was really an eye opener. 

I agree it is sad however promiscuity and irresponsibility by some members of a population should not provide the justification for taking away rights from other members.   If that were the case then the right to marry and have families should have been taken away from us heterosexuals a long time ago.

Edited November 16, 2015 by sjdawg

[sjdawg]

My stake has more a concern with the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers hockey teams than it does with gay stuff, mind you I didn't like one of the stake pres. wearing a 3 piece suit today             and what's more it didn't even match             

I sense another mass resignation in the works.

[Duncan]

I sense another mass resignation in the works.

 

 

 

I got my signs already made!!!!!!!! I just need to find a bullhorn

[carbon dioxide]

The Handbook is official doctrine being published by the Church (the Church's own definition of official doctrine).  This fact regarding the doctrinicity of the Handbook is brought up in priesthood leadership meetings on a fairly regular basis.

The handbook is official policy and is always subject to change.  No member is required to read the handbook let alone teach from it whether in church or at home.  The handbook is no more official doctrine as the BYU honor code is.

[jaberwocky]

Those who advocate for SSM simply don't understand the doctrine of the church.

[smac97]

sjdawg,

> I agree it isn't a winning formula

==And yet here you are, advocating it.

> but you can't discount the role of the LDS church in any of this.  

==The Church expressed its views in the public sphere. At no point did it express hatred or bigotry when speaking on behalf of Prop 8 or, more recently, in explaining the basis for the changes in the CHI. That is "the role of the LDS Church in any of this."

==And the result of the Church exercising its constitutional Free Exercise and Free Speech rights was . . . outsiders accusing its leaders and members of being hate-filled bigots. That is "the role of the LDS Church in any of this."

==I am consistently surprised that you and yours cannot discern the supreme irony of fomenting hatred and prejudice against the Church by falsely accusing it of acting out of bigotry and malice.

> (I'm not going to touch your "falsely" denigrate other groups.   I assume both side believe they speak truth).  

==And yet only one group - the LDS Church - was in a position to know its motives for supporting Prop 8, for making changes to the CHI, and so forth. But that didn't stop your compatriots from falsely accusing us of bigotry and hatred.

==The two groups are not similarly situation when it comes to understanding the motives of the LDS Church. So I can understand why you wouldn't want to "touch" this topic. If I was on your side and was fair-minded, I wouldn't want to touch it either.

> The LDS Church partnered in one of the first large scale attacks when they went door to door in California trying to prevent gay people from maintaining the right to get married.  

==Even framed in this way (as unfair as it is), that was the right of the LDS Church and like-minded folks. And simply opposing the legal/political views of you and yours does not justify falsely accusing us of bigotry and hatred.

> I suspect gay people would pretty much have left the LDS church alone if that same courtesy had been extended to them.

==So your proposal is to stifle the constitutional Free Speech and Free Exercise rights of Mormons. We can all get along if the Mormons shut up and surrender their rights.

==I'm not sure that's a winning formula, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2015 by smac97

[sjdawg]

sjdawg,

> I agree it isn't a winning formula

==And yet here you are, advocating it.

> but you can't discount the role of the LDS church in any of this.  

==The Church expressed its views in the public sphere. At no point did it express hatred or bigotry when speaking on behalf of Prop 8 or, more recently, in explaining the basis for the changes in the CHI. That is "the role of the LDS Church in any of this."

==And the result of the Church exercising its right to Free Speech was . . . outsiders accusing its leaders and members of being hate-filled bigots. That is "the role of the LDS Church in any of this."

==I am consistently surprised that you and yours cannot discern the supreme irony of fomenting hatred and prejudice against the Church by falsely accusing it of acting out of bigotry and malice.

> (I'm not going to touch your "falsely" denigrate other groups.   I assume both side believe they speak truth).  

==And yet only one group - the LDS Church - was in a position to know its motives for supporting Prop 8, for making changes to the CHI, and so forth. But that didn't stop your compatriots from falsely accusing us of bigotry and hatred.

==The two groups are not similarly situation when it comes to understanding the motives of the LDS Church. So I can understand why you wouldn't want to "touch" this topic. If I was on your side and was fair-minded, I wouldn't want to touch it either.

> The LDS Church partnered in one of the first large scale attacks when they went door to door in California trying to prevent gay people from maintaining the right to get married.  

==Even framed in this way (as unfair as it is), that was the right of the LDS Church and like-minded folks. And simply opposing the legal/political views of you and yours does not justify falsely accusing us of bigotry and hatred.

> I suspect gay people would pretty much have left the LDS church alone if that same courtesy had been extended to them.

==So your proposal is to stifle the constitutional free speech and free exercise rights of Mormons. We can all get along if the Mormons shut up and surrender their rights.

==I'm not sure that's a winning formula, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree 100% that the LDS church had every right to take the actions they felt were appropriate.  They have freedom of religion and the right to free speech.   So does the other side.   If they interpret your actions as bigoted and hateful they have every right to say so.   Just like the church has every right to say that gay marriage is an abomination.  It doesn't make either side right but neither side has technically done anything wrong.  

[sunstoned]

 

"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, 

 

 

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.

My guess is the people who have left don't believe it is the truth.  That is probably why they left.  We can exchange Bible quotes, but from my experience that usually won't change anyone's mind.  If a person looks hard enough, they can usually find justification for their way of thinking.  Scriptures are like that.  Take Matthew 19:14 for instance.  I think that makes a pretty good case against baring children from baptism.  But I guess you would probably disagree.