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

[mfbukowski]

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.

The intent was changed by essentially altering an "and" to an "or"?

 

Are you serious?  Did you read my earlier analysis?

 

The original essentially did not account for the possibility that discontents would captialize on an extreme interpretation of ONE word- in my opinion.  That one word "and" implied that even those not living with parents involved in a same sex relationship would have to delay baptism.

 

That was the problem.  An IMPLICATION of an interpretation of one word.

 

The video clarified it but that was not enough for the same sex advocates in the feeding frenzy looking for an opportunity to attack the church for one word.

 

The committee which meets once a week wrote the orignal policy.  A day or two later the video was put out.  Still that was not enough for the attackers.

 

At the first opportunity when the committee met again, a clarification was issued, re-asserting the same intent clearly shown in the video and in my opinion, stated in the original policy statement, except for the implications of that one "and"

 

It seems that you like others have no clue how the church works.  The church does not respond to tantrums and strong-armed tactics of critical mobs.  It will respond properly and in a measured way upon due consideration of what needs to be done, and that is what happened.

[sjdawg]

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

I hope you can find a lawyer to do all the paperwork pro-bono.  If you can I'll promise to attend and resign for the 3rd time.   (just kidding.  I've never resigned before.  My Stake Presidents were always fashionably dressed so I never felt the need to officially do the paperwork)

[Damien the Leper]

Do you have many of these friends converting?

Many friends and acquaintances are visiting and attending CoC more and more.

[sjdawg]

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.

The unfortunate part is that not all Bishops are equally compassionate.

[sjdawg]

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.

Have you ever read the handbook for Mission Presidents?  I found it fascinating

[mfbukowski]

sjdawg
 
 

 

 

 

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"

 

Clearly it is not.

One might have a parent in a same sex relationship and not live with him/her.  That is the difference quite clearly

 

Suppose dad goes off and marries a man.  Mom divorces him and the kids now live with mom.

 

Those kids are children of a parent who has lived or is living in a same gender relationship, but they do NOT share a primary residence with a couple in a same sex relationship.

 

THAT is the difference

Edited November 16, 2015 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

sjdawg,

> I agree 100% that the LDS church had every right to take the actions they felt were appropriate.  

==And yet for doing so the Church has been publicly defamed to an extraordinary degree, and has had folks on your side of the debate call for it to be punished (such as by revoking its tax exempt status), all because the LDS Church exercised these rights.

==And you seem to be okay with those consequences. In fact, you essentially said that the Church should have just kept its mouth shut about the whole thing, and that because it failed to do so it is to blame for being defamed by your compatriots ("I suspect gay people would pretty much have left the LDS church alone if that same courtesy had been extended to them"). How you reconcile that with saying "I agree 100% that the LDS church had every right to take the actions they felt were appropriate" is beyond me. You simultaneously agree that the LDS Church had a right to exercise its constitutional rights, but then you have no problem with defamatory statements and threats against it for exercising those rights. That seems . . . inconsistent.

> They have freedom of religion and the right to free speech.   So does the other side.  

==So freedom of speech extends to defamatory statements? Calls to financially destroy the Church?

> If they interpret your actions as bigoted and hateful they have every right to say so.  

==And here we go again. I said "So because homosexuals have been persecuted, they are given carte blanche to falsely denigrate other minority groups?", then you said "I agree it isn't a winning formula," then you blamed the LDS for the attacks upon it because ... the LDS Church exercised its constitutional rights.

==Here's the thing: The LDS Church has been the recipient of hatred and bigotry as a result of Prop 8 (and, more recently, the changes to the CHI), not the purveyor of hatred and bigotry. Such ugliness in rhetoric and conduct is coming from your compatriots.

> Just like the church has every right to say that gay marriage is an abomination.  

==CFR, please. When did the Church say this? Chapter and verse please.

> It doesn't make either side right but neither side has technically done anything wrong.

==Again: 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.

==The Church has, I think, been materially harmed by the false claims made against it. It has been threatened for exercising its Free Exercise and Free Speech rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It has never reciprocated those threats. And yet here you are, claiming that "neither side has technically done anything wrong" and obliquely justifying these things.

==The mind reels.

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2015 by smac97

[rockpond]

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.

Yes, we survived the race restrictions and polygamy by ending them both. Are you suggesting that this new policy and other similar provisions will follow that same path?

[sunstoned]

This information wasn't 'leaked' by anyone within the Church.  It was searched for by John Dehlin as part of his ongoing effort to demagogue the Church and its relationship with homosexuals in Utah.  He's an evil man and his purposes are also evil.

That is some pretty harsh judgement.  we really don't know how that press got a hold of it.  

[mfbukowski]

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.

True.

 

But the clarification helps enormously and would have been handled internally

[JAHS]

I have been hearing those that support ssm and complaining about the kids not being baptized, that most of them agree that it is unlikely that such a couple would let their kids get baptized, but if they really wanted it the kids could not with this new policy. The harm they see is how the kids would be treated by their LDS peers who would tease them about not being able to be baptized because of their gay parents.  

[mfbukowski]

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.

I have never once seen that happen on the ward or stake level.

[Damien the Leper]

Smac,

Freedom of speech does not come with freedom from consequences. Right or wrong decision or pronouncement comes with it consequences. There is no debating this and no side is exempt from it.

Your CFR is unwarranted. Sjdawg said the church has every right to say such relationships are an abomination but did NOT claim the church ever did.

[sjdawg]

sjdawg,

> I agree 100% that the LDS church had every right to take the actions they felt were appropriate.  

==And yet for doing so the Church has been publicly defamed to an extraordinary degree, and has had folks on your side of the debate call for it to be punished (such as by revoking its tax exempt status), all because the LDS Church exercised these rights.

==And you seem to be okay with those consequences. In fact, you essentially said that the Church should have just kept its mouth shut about the whole thing, and that because it failed to do so it is to blame for being defamed by your compatriots ("I suspect gay people would pretty much have left the LDS church alone if that same courtesy had been extended to them"). How you reconcile that with saying "I agree 100% that the LDS church had every right to take the actions they felt were appropriate" is beyond me. You simultaneously agree that the LDS Church had a right to exercise its constitutional rights, but then you have no problem with defamatory statements and threats against it for exercising those rights. That seems . . . inconsistent.

> They have freedom of religion and the right to free speech.   So does the other side.  

==So freedom of speech extends to defamatory statements? Calls to financially destroy the Church?

> If they interpret your actions as bigoted and hateful they have every right to say so.  

==And here we go again. I said "So because homosexuals have been persecuted, they are given carte blanche to falsely denigrate other minority groups?", then you said "I agree it isn't a winning formula," then you blamed the LDS for the attacks upon it because ... the LDS Church exercised its constitutional rights.

==Here's the thing: The LDS Church has been the recipient of hatred and bigotry as a result of Prop 8 (and, more recently, the changes to the CHI), not the purveyor of hatred and bigotry. Such ugliness in rhetoric and conduct is coming from your compatriots.

> Just like the church has every right to say that gay marriage is an abomination.  

==CFR, please. When did the Church say this? Chapter and verse please.

> It doesn't make either side right but neither side has technically done anything wrong.

==Again: 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.

==The Church has, I think, been materially harmed by the false claims made against it. It has been threatened for exercising its Free Exercise and Free Speech rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It has never reciprocated those threats. And yet here you are, claiming that "neither side has technically done anything wrong" and obliquely justifying these things.

==The mind reels.

-Smac

My apologies.   Off hand I don't have an example of the church calling gay marriage an abomination nor did I mean to insinuate that is a common phrase.  I was simply saying that if they wanted to say it the Church has that right.  Here is an interview with Elder Oakes and Elder Wickman where they call homosexual behavior an abominable sin.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

Edited to Add:  I believe Elder Wickman also calls homosexual marriage "abhorrent to God" in the interview (which is his right). Abhorrent is a synonym with abombinable

 

Who is calling for the financial destruction of the Church?   I'm not aware of that movement out there?

Edited November 16, 2015 by sjdawg

[Damien the Leper]

For the safety and prosperity and peace for families with LGBT parents, the children should stay out of the LDS church for life. It will keep out unnecessary and trivial conflict.

[Damien the Leper]

Only Christ's opinion matters.

Which is not necessarily synonymous with the opinion of the LDS church.

[sjdawg]

==Again: 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.

 

Who are my compatriots?   When did I allege hatred and bigotry by you and yours?   CFR.  Chapter and Verse please

[thatjimguy]

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.

 

Of course, if they don't believe in the church, none of that matters anymore to them.

Edited November 16, 2015 by thatjimguy

[Damien the Leper]

This thread is not to debate apostolic succession or authority. The topic is CoC as an alternative to the LDS church for those who no longer wish to stay.

Any "allegiance" beef can be directed to a new thread.

[JLHPROF]

Of course, if they don't believe in the church, none of that matters anymore to them.

 

True.

But that doesn't change the result of their choice either.  Reality isn't subjective.

[smac97]

Valentinus,

> Freedom of speech does not come with freedom from consequences.

==I recognize that.

> Right or wrong decision or pronouncement comes with it consequences. There is no debating this and no side is exempt from it.

==The "consequences" of which I speak pertain to defamatory statements and calls for the LDS Church to be punished for speaking in support of Prop 8 by having its tax exempt status revoked. That is, calls for the government to punish a religious minority because it exercised its First Amendment rights.

==And Sjdawg and you appear to be okay with these "consequences." Oh.

> Your CFR is unwarranted. Sjdawg said the church has every right to say such relationships are an abomination but did NOT claim the church ever did.

==I'll let him make that clarification. It sure comes across as a cheap shot, though. Imagine if I published a statement to the world that "Valentinus has every right to say that black people are inferior to whites, Jews should be wiped from the face of the earth, and homosexuals should be arrested, imprisoned, tortured and then nuked." I think a casual reader might read that as an indictment against you, that you have in the past said these things. And frankly, that would be a fair reading, and it would be extraordinarily inappropriate for me to try such shenanigans.

==So I'll be interested in how Sjdawg responds to the CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BCSpace]

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.

 

Who am I to disagree with the scriptures?

 

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

 

100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

 

101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.

 

D&C 76

 

The official doctrine requires the acceptance of the gospel by authorized baptism, in this life or the next, to obtain the Terrestrial.  That means they are members of our Church, not another.  Does one require references for that as well?

 

Since you brought up whore mongering......  Aren't the scriptures replete with references to disbelief and apostasy and comparisons of those to adultery, fornication, and whore mongering?  Interesting....

Edited November 16, 2015 by BCSpace

[smac97]

Sjdawg,

> My apologies.   Off hand I don't have an example of the church calling gay marriage an abomination

==I figured as much.

> nor did I mean to insinuate that is a common phrase.  

==It sure came across that way.  I'm glad you've cleared that up.

> I was simply saying that if they wanted to say it the Church has that right.  Here is an interview with Elder Oakes and Elder Wickman where they call homosexual behavior an abominable sin.
 
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

==They appear to be referencing the Bible there.

> Who is calling for the financial destruction of the Church?   I'm not aware of that movement out there?

==Oh, there were lots of people doing that.  You can start here.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

For the safety and prosperity and peace for families with LGBT parents, the children should stay out of the LDS church for life. It will keep out unnecessary and trivial conflict.

 

How is the "safety" of such families threatened by the LDS Church?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[volgadon]

"A parent," is also confusing wording.