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

[why me]

A thousand people are not that much for a Utah demonstration. In fact, it was quite small. Of course, people have the right to protest any policy they see fit to protest. And lets face, the more the lds church swims against the tide the more protest it will get. However, the good news is that the lds church is so small that most people don't really care what the lds church does. Nor if mormons are protesting it. It is not a major or even a minor focul point for most people in the world.

 

Also, I tend to think that once this policy is reflected on and discussed from a point of reason and not from a point of emotionalism, the lds stance on it would be verified as the best way to protect a child and keep the same sex couple together without division from the church.

[CV75]

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.)

When access to see the Handbook is given to a person by one authorized to give it, that person is authorized to see it. So Handbook 1 is not open to members without authorization.

 

Publication of a document means it is open to its members, so the statement, “There should not be any church document that is not open to its members” means that every document should be published, which as you clarified, should not be.

 

Authorized access to Handbook 1 is not about one’s ability to handle the material intellectually, it’s about handling it appropriately (with compassion, authority and inspiration) in connection with one’s calling. That is where common consent and sustaining people in their callings comes into play. It is also where the curious, the demanding and the judgmental can practice patience, tolerance and humility.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

Welcome to the board jaberwocky. You're coming in guns blazing calling people evil on this thread and ressurrecting an old Julie Rowe thread and calling out commentors. Interesting strategy for participation.

 

RE: to the OP - CH1 is not a wishy-washy manual. It contains many policies that are not subject to interpretation. In fact, I'd argue that unlike CH2 which allows for a good deal of variability, CH1 is intended to be followed very closely. Bishops and SP do not have authority to ignore or alter policies on many things like age of baptism, priesthood ordinations, mission service, priesthood requirements for service, when 1st presidency approval is needed for rebaptism, performing marriages outside ward boundaries etc. This new policy, as it precisely states that 1st presidency approval is required, does not allow for variation. Otterson's claim that leaders have discretion on handbook policies is being a bit disingenuous. He knows very well that many of these policies are not open to leader discretion, whether the spirit directs or not.

[Bob Crockett]

That is not unique to Sephardic Jews, nor is it necessarily true. My brother-in-law's family accepted my sister even before the converted, and his uncle- a rabbi from an old Sephardic family- conducted the conversion process.

Google "Edict, Sephardic, marriage, converts"

[CV75]

"A parent," is also confusing wording.

It can be, but the scriptures do not use the singular form (well, Korihor uses it once!), and the context is pretty clearly a mother-father team.

[Deborah]

Otterson's claim that leaders have discretion on handbook policies is being a bit disingenuous. He knows very well that many of these policies are not open to leader discretion, whether the spirit directs or not.

 

If Otterson is speaking for the church it is with the approval of the First Presidency. I don't think he implied that church leaders can make the change without First Presidency permission but they do have the authority to request that if they feel it is appropriate in certain cases. The local leaders are the ones who can best assess a situation for review.

[Storm Rider]

The Catholic Church is just as tolerant of gays attending church as the Mormons.  The problem develops when you are a practicing gay catholic.  It put the Eucharist out of reach - i.e. you are denied partaking of the Eucharist while blatantly committing mortal sin.  

 

Ron, you have a big axe to grind and seemingly have little understanding of what other churches teach and believe.  You might also want to not read the Bible; it can be rather damning of homosexual behavior.  To start, you should probably avoid all Abrahamic religions.  Hinduism runs the gamut from accepting to condemning; it just depends on the sect.  Buddhism is rather damning because it is against finding enjoyment in sexual pleasure; the objective is to go beyond the carnal pleasures.  That pretty much destroys the attachment to being gay, so best look elsewhere.  

 

Wicca seems to be focused on man/woman or woman/man imagery; God knows that it not very welcoming for gay marriage advocates and practitioners.  

 

The best options you have are Unitarian Universalism and Humanism.  I don't really think of these last two as churches per se.  To me they are more like associations of good will towards man.  The whole god thing is rather amorphous and unneeded of any focus.  

 

You might want to ask yourself why the human family has not been more open to the gay lifestyle for thousands of years.  Is that the humanity has just been extremely stupid and uncaring or is it something else?  Afterall, they are all dead and we just have the leftover religions to evidence their positions toward that viewed as sinful, unhealthy, etc.  Why?  

 

Between you, me and the fence post, I will take the wisdom of my grandmother and grandfather any day over the vain, pseudo progressive stuff that they sell today as being enlightened.  However, you may be more adventurous than me and enjoy striking out on your own, without any support of historical positions, and embrace this new future with an amoral approach to the human family.  

[Deborah]

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?

 

No I'm not and I didn't say that. I was answering a question about the demise the policy would cause but pointing out we've had issues before in our history.

 

The gay marriage issue is altogether different. In fact as I see it the reason for the written policy was to separate us from the laws of the land. And by the way in Utah the church supported establishing the non-discrimination bill for the LGBT community. The church policy was to make a clear distinction between the fair treatment in housing and employment and the laws of God regarding same sex relationships.

[Storm Rider]

A thousand people are not that much for a Utah demonstration. In fact, it was quite small. Of course, people have the right to protest any policy they see fit to protest. And lets face, the more the lds church swims against the tide the more protest it will get. However, the good news is that the lds church is so small that most people don't really care what the lds church does. Nor if mormons are protesting it. It is not a major or even a minor focul point for most people in the world.

 

Also, I tend to think that once this policy is reflected on and discussed from a point of reason and not from a point of emotionalism, the lds stance on it would be verified as the best way to protect a child and keep the same sex couple together without division from the church.

 

These individuals are worthy of our respect.  They have found a new path, I suspect most of them long ago found a new path, and they have now chosen to separate from the Body of Christ.  I appreciate their action and wish them well.  I hope they find happiness and are able to remain happy.  

 

Why Me, I remain opposed to all policies, this one included.  I would have preferred that there would have been a caution given to the leadership; encouragement to seek out the guidance of the Holy Spirit with these complex situations.  Baptize an individual as early as eight or at a later period when they have grasped and support the teachings, doctrines, and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ.  

 

Though I don't think many children living in a gay family would really want to join the Church as a young child, I don't want to deny the opportunity to those exceptions.  

 

If God reveals a new commandment, then let it be added to the canon of the Church.  Until then, never make a policy, but provide counsel, teach correct doctrine, and instruct the membership.  For me, that is more in keeping with pathway to Christ.  That is my soapbox.  Having said it again, the leadership never asked for my opinion or counsel and so you have to take my two bits at the value of what it cost, nothing.

[california boy]

Withdrawn with apologies.

 

-Smac

 

Thank you.  Inflammatory comments from both sides do not move the conversation in a positive direction.

 

The reason I am on this board is because I sincerely am interested in understand the members of the church position on things that have effected my life in ways that few people on his board will ever have to face.  I often try a present a different side of many of these questions from what I consider to be a unique position on this board.  Someone who has been actively and faithfully involved in the church for many years and someone who is gay and has had to deal with what that brings with it.  My posts are not designed to stir up contention against the church.  Some people mistakenly feel that presenting the other side of an argument means you are fighting the side you are disagreeing with.  That is not always the case.

 

It seems like this board is getting more and more polarized on this issue.  Instead of greater understanding, it is becoming less understanding.  I find myself posting less and less.  With all of the recent firestorm I only posted a handful of posts.    Evidently even those few posts were too much for some people.      None of those posts accused the church or anyone else of any bad behavior.  None of those posts spoke disrespectfully of the leaders or the church.  None of my posts have EVER spoke disrespectfully of leaders or the church.  I am not an enemy of the church.  I am not a raving anti Mormon.

 

Perhaps the question you and all of those that gave you rep points for your unfair accusation leveled against me has to ask is 

"Do any of you want to hear the other side of the questions brought up on the board?"  I would like to know the answer to that question.  If the answer is NO, then perhaps I should withdraw from this forum and leave these issues only to those that agree with the churches position.  I can certainly continue to read members comments without ever commenting myself.  If you don't want to hear the other side of the questions, then why ask the questions?  Maybe I should open a thread on this question.  It may help me decide if I should discontinue posting here.  

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

The author may overstate it BUT I think there's a valid point about how the church's teaching and the intersection of society at large (thinking primarily US/Europe right now) will become more divisive over time which will result in greater public conflict. When the confliect becomes public members will find ways to balance their existence in both the church and general culture. This seems to always be an evolving process but I can imagine a day where we have regular opposition from the government and non-lds groups or individuals we try to interact with.

 

There will always be some conflict. It's inevitable. The question is about how quickly the church evolves on social issues or how far it lags behind which will create a more public conflict.

[stemelbow]

Thank you.  Inflammatory comments from both sides do not move the conversation in a positive direction.

 

The reason I am on this board is because I sincerely am interested in understand the members of the church position on things that have effected my life in ways that few people on his board will ever have to face.  I often try a present a different side of many of these questions from what I consider to be a unique position on this board.  Someone who has been actively and faithfully involved in the church for many years and someone who is gay and has had to deal with what that brings with it.  My posts are not designed to stir up contention against the church.  Some people mistakenly feel that presenting the other side of an argument means you are fighting the side you are disagreeing with.  That is not always the case.

 

It seems like this board is getting more and more polarized on this issue.  Instead of greater understanding, it is becoming less understanding.  I find myself posting less and less.  With all of the recent firestorm I only posted a handful of posts.    Evidently even those few posts were too much for some people.      None of those posts accused the church or anyone else of any bad behavior.  None of those posts spoke disrespectfully of the leaders or the church.  None of my posts have EVER spoke disrespectfully of leaders or the church.  I am not an enemy of the church.  I am not a raving anti Mormon.

 

Perhaps the question you and all of those that gave you rep points for your unfair accusation leveled against me has to ask is 

"Do any of you want to hear the other side of the questions brought up on the board?"  I would like to know the answer to that question.  If the answer is NO, then perhaps I should withdraw from this forum and leave these issues only to those that agree with the churches position.  I can certainly continue to read members comments without ever commenting myself.  If you don't want to hear the other side of the questions, then why ask the questions?  Maybe I should open a thread on this question.  It may help me decide if I should discontinue posting here.

Your voice is extremely valuable, for me. Of course I'm probably more in agreement with you than not, as I read your posts.

[HappyJackWagon]

If Otterson is speaking for the church it is with the approval of the First Presidency. I don't think he implied that church leaders can make the change without First Presidency permission but they do have the authority to request that if they feel it is appropriate in certain cases. The local leaders are the ones who can best assess a situation for review.

Doesn't this chain get weaker with every link.

 

Otterson's words = Prophet's words = God's word- so Otterson speaks for God.

 

I stand by my position. If the church really accepts Otterson's approach to CH1 then they'd better become very comfortable with just about any variation of policy imaginable because there will be a bishop or SP that moves that direction.

 

We may start seeing women ordained to the priesthood, gay couples married at church's, infant baptisms, etc. These are extreme examples but if we take Otterson at his word that CH1 is open to interpretation and direction from the spirit to local leaders, then everything is on the table. I'm simply stating that I don't think these things are on the table. The church will not accept variations to these policies.

[Gray]

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.

 

 

How hard would it be to be a Mormon in 2015 if we still banned black people from priesthood and temple ordinances? It's not hard to extrapolate what will happen if we don't open our eyes on the gay marriage issue. 

 

If the church doesn't change, it might not disappear, but it will certainly shrink down dramatically. The social cost for being Mormon would become too great for most to bear. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

I've lost jobs over being Mormon.  The recruiters verified it.

 

I'm not sure it changed my life for the worse.

 

To flip the sentiment, would you leave Christ because you feared persecution?  What will you say when the **** crows thrice?

[california boy]

In another thread, a member on this board accused me of calling members of the church and it's leaders bigots and haters against gays.  I have never said anything remotely like that nor have I ever thought that..  I asked for a CFR and he graciously apologized and withdrew the accusation.  What was perhaps most disturbing about his post was that he got 7 rep points for the post.  When that many people think I view the church and its leaders that way, then something is wrong.

 

As most of you know, I was a former member for most of my life.  I am also gay.  I am no longer a member of the church.  Most of my family are members of the church.  And if you have ever read any of my posts, I have consistently been supportive of my children and other members of my family in supporting them in their church activity.  There are many good and honorable things about the church.  It is just not a place I can be personally.

 

The reason I am on this board is to try and understand the church's attitudes and issues mostly on the issue that has come to define my relationship with the church.  I feel like I can offer a different perspective on many of the questions asked on this issue.  I understand the church and it's teachings.  But I am also gay  It seems like gay relations and the church come up more than any other issue on this board.  It also seems like this issue is becoming more and more polarized.  Each side having more difficulty with seeing the other sides position. I find myself posting less and less.  

 

The question is, have we gotten to the point where we really don't want to know how the other side feels about the questions that come up?  Do we only want to defend our own position?  Would this board be better off without posters like me who point out the view of the other side of the question?  Is that view always considered just an attack on the church and it's leaders?  With 7 rep points, I am beginning to think that is how opposing views are thought of.  If that is the case, I personally want no part of it.  That is not my intention, I would rather quit posting the other sides view on these issues that come up on a regular basis.  

 

Love to hear your thoughts.  Do you always see an opposing view of church policies and doctrine as an attack on the church and your beliefs that you hold so dearly?  Or are you interested in trying to understand how others view those policies and doctrines.

 

I just want to add.  I am not trying to portray myself as being without fault.  While I try to be civil in all of my responses, I am not always successful.  And I apologize for those times.

Edited November 16, 2015 by california boy

[KevinG]

I showed up to church for the first time in weeks.

 

No one in Salt Lake City noticed.

[KevinG]

I don't see opposing views as an attack.  Unless they are.

 

I was just thinking the other day (before I took a two day break from the board) that the same characters keep taking the same positions regarding the church and the gospel, and no one changes their mind.

 

To an extent discussion boards are just yelling past each other.

[Gray]

I've lost jobs over being Mormon.  The recruiters verified it.

 

I'm not sure it changed my life for the worse.

 

To flip the sentiment, would you leave Christ because you feared persecution?  What will you say when the **** crows thrice?

 

Well, what kind of people would we convert into the church if we still banned black people from priesthood/temple attendance? Probably only people with some pretty awful opinions of black people. If any church starts to become tipped too far at odds with societal norms and values, it will only be able to attract and retain extremists. It's okay to be conservative, it's even helpful, but there is a point of no return too. 

[KevinG]

Well, what kind of people would we convert into the church if we still banned black people from priesthood/temple attendance? Probably only people with some pretty awful opinions of black people. If any church starts to become tipped too far at odds with societal norms and values, it will only be able to attract and retain extremists. It's okay to be conservative, it's even helpful, but there is a point of no return too. 

 

We would convert people who listen to God when He tells them to join.

 

I'm a convert who joined despite a lack of societal support.  So you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to concern me with what the residents of the great and spacious building are thinking about me.

 

Your projection about people with awful attitudes about blacks being the only one's to join the church is insulting.  Especially to those black and brown Saints who were members before the ban was done away with.  A couple of which have told me to my face that we need to get over the white guilt and move on with the restored gospel.

[Gray]

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.

 

It's tempting to think of people we disagree with as evil, but ultimately self-defeating.

 

Someone sent the new policy information to Dehlin, by the way. He wasn't looking for it. 

[KevinG]

If anecdotal evidence is accepted, I will share all of the conversations about the handbook changes in my ward (well outside of the Zion curtain).

 

[transcript begins]

 

 

"          "

 

[transcript ends]

[stemelbow]

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.

It could be what you are observing is many members feel bullied into silence or agreement with the policy, but individually we might learn that many in these wards disagree with the policy. There is probably no place more prone to silencing disagreement than at Church.

On the other hand I don't see people feeling bullied into silence around here.

As luck would have it, my EQP announced yesterday we are going to have the Bishop in to correct any who disagree with the policy this next week. Says he, "we need to learn to agree with Church policy, no matter what. If we are inclined to disagree, just know doing so is disagreeing with God and could have eternal consequences." He looked at me, knowing I'm one who has disagreed with the brethren in the past. Sounded manipulative to me. But I'm looking forward to the conversation if it ever really becomes a conversation.

[Ahab]

I think everyone can know the opposing other side of any issue by simple deduction, without needing it to be told. What one side is for the other side is against, for example, and the opposite of yes is always no.

Those sitting on the fence, in the middle, not really sure which side to agree with may be persuaded, but those on one side or the other have already made up their mind about which side they are on and know that the opposing side has the opposite view.

You may still want to stand up and share your thoughts with everyone, though. Those who agree with you will consider you to be a voice in their favor, while those on the opposing side will still know that you haven't changed sides.

[CV75]

These are extreme examples but if we take Otterson at his word that CH1 is open to interpretation and direction from the spirit to local leaders, then everything is on the table. I'm simply stating that I don't think these things are on the table. The church will not accept variations to these policies.

Please point out (CFR) where Brother Otterson is saying that the Handbook is open to interpretation (he doesn’t!).

 

He does say a few other things about understanding the Handbook:

… the letter was an instructional document with no additional information or context

… the dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete and/or inaccurate information without necessary context from the legitimate source

… the Handbook is not written in language that is necessarily contextual or explanatory

… No handbook can answer every question or address every circumstance

… there are situations that fall outside general guidelines and principles

… local leaders may ask for guidance from more senior leaders in particular cases

… there has been no doctrinal change with regard to LGBT issues

 

Let's take him at his word and see where that leads!