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

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear [...] other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees."

 

-- Apostle Stephen L. Richards 

 

I value your posts, california boy, but I don't know if my opinion is much of an endorsement 'round here.

Edited November 16, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[jaberwocky]

Murder seems black and white. But in some cases, like Nephi murdering laban for instance, it seems to be ok. The bestest black and white I can think of is sexually abusing children. Of course then we have a prophet marrying young teenagers. It's much easier to think Joseph never consummated with his teenage brides because of that, even if we'll never know.

it just feels like with every strict rule there are exceptions and that's how God tends to like it.

 

So.....  if you have homosexual desires how do you plan to decide if God is using you as an exception to the purpose of mankind, which is to replenish the earth?

[Zakuska]

Murder seems black and white. But in some cases, like Nephi murdering laban for instance, it seems to be ok. The bestest black and white I can think of is sexually abusing children. Of course then we have a prophet marrying young teenagers. It's much easier to think Joseph never consummated with his teenage brides because of that, even if we'll never know.

it just feels like with every strict rule there are exceptions and that's how God tends to like it.

Murder isn't black and white at all.

Phinehas murdered, in calculated cold blood, the sinning Israelite and Moabite woman in their tent with his Javelin and God counted it as a righteous act. I also seem to remember a story of a woman taking a tent stake and pounding it through her sleeping husbands temples in his skull and it was counted righteous too.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Zakuska

[jaberwocky]

Sure, the Church will accept it as acceptable. Years ago it would have been crazy to think SSM was possible. Things change. Leaders ideas and level of acceptance change too.

 

If you think the Church will ever be accepting of living a homosexual lifestyle you have absolutely no understanding of the doctrine.

[stemelbow]

So.....  if you have homosexual desires how do you plan to decide if God is using you as an exception to the purpose of mankind, which is to replenish the earth?

My hope is always that God works with the individual and teaches that way.

[Ahab]

If you think the Church will ever be accepting of living a homosexual lifestyle you have absolutely no understanding of the doctrine.

Regardless of what the Church teaches, what we all should try to find out is how does God our Father feel about it . And then at that point they can start wondering if he will always feel the same way or if he will someday change his mind.

[Deborah]

True.

 

So we accept that the First Presidency can make exceptions to the policy. I agree. The confusion is about whether or not local leaders have the ability to make exceptions to CH1 policies. You jumped on my post where I suggested local leaders don't have that authority and I shared some examples of policies they cannot make exceptions to. You disliked my assertion so I'm asking you to explain.

 

What I said is "I don't think he [Otterson] 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."  You are the one who is saying local leaders have the ability to make exceptions. I am saying they are the ones who can assess whether to refer it to the First Presidency.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Deborah

[Deborah]

The tide of opinions, including among religious people, is rapidly changing. That's not something anyone can control or put the brakes on. 

 

So happy you are worried about the church, but I don't think it is necessary. It is after all the Lord's church and he is in charge.

[Bob Crockett]

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 am one who really doesn't care one way or the other about the Church's recent policy towards the children of a same sex marriage, as the policy merely expands the policy extended to the children of polygamous households where the Church does have extensive experience with disruption and difficulty of administration.

 

But I do see it as "an attack on the church."  How could it be otherwise?  The Sephardim don't admit children of mixed-religion households.  Would it not be an attack on their faith to criticize them for it?  The Jehovah's Witnesses truly shun those they kick out.  Would it not be an attack on their faith to criticize them for it?

 

I have read many of your posts.  It does not appear to me that you are hear to learn about the church's position.  You're here to soften up the saints. I certainly don't have a problem with your efforts but let's not be disingenuous about it.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[stemelbow]

How long do you think I'd last on that forum expressing my support for the new handbook policy?

You'd leave before you started, I'd guess. But you have thin skin(-;

If there’s one thing that virtually all Christians agree on, it’s Jesus Christ’s tender love of children. Both the Bible and Book of Mormon deliver touching accounts of His love for “little ones,” blessing them and forbidding His disciples from keeping children from Him.

--Michael Otterson

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

The Church's policy bans blessing children who live primarily with gay parents.

[Analytics]

You can have a close, emotional, supportive, partnership with anyone and still be a member of the LDS Church in good standing.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

I know a couple of women who lived together for decades and had a close, emotional, and supportive partnership.  One of them died of cancer, and the other was at her bedside night and day for a year.  When she died, she left her inheritance to her partner.  They acted towards each other the way close, emotional, and supportive spouses would act.  I don't know what they did behind closed doors, of course.

 

Are you saying they could have been members of the LDS Church in good standing, as long as they didn't get married and as long as they didn't have sex behind closed doors?

[Storm Rider]

Cal, I would recommend that your contributions are valid.  You are respected for taking a position firmly and, in the keeping with the old saying, you voted with your feet.  (No need to go further whether it was voluntary or not, the major point for me is that you are no longer a member of the Church).  

 

I know where you stand on most things and I understand why to a degree.  We have others that are in different stages of progress/regress and I am more impatient with them.  

 

For me the scriptures are clear and there is no middle ground.  Reading 1 & II Timothy and Titus make clear the signs of apostasy.  Our society looks like apostasy.  There is certainly the right to ignore scripture for those that would prefer to do so in order to maintain their support of SSA and SSM.  However, those with itching ears will suffer in the eternities because they leaned on the arm of flesh rather than God.  

 

I enjoy honest questions on this Forum.  I am tired of the constant barrage of negative commentary about prophets and apostles.  

 

Like you, I have found I don't participate as much anymore because the same tired topics are regurgitated without cease.  I enjoy the gospel and I enjoy discussing its precepts and applications to our individual lives.  This Forum is not that caliber of place anymore.  

[KevinG]

You'd leave before you started, I'd guess. But you have thin skin(-;

 

 

I've been ex'ed from a few boards for having the gall to bring up a faithful viewpoint.  Those of you who complain about the LDS Church here have much more latitude than a faithful defender would get on boards critical to the church.

[Storm Rider]

Are you sure about that?

 

I know a couple of women who lived together for decades and had a close, emotional, and supportive partnership.  One of them died of cancer, and the other was at her bedside night and day for a year.  When she died, she left her inheritance to her partner.  They acted towards each other the way close, emotional, and supportive spouses would act.  I don't know what they did behind closed doors, of course.

 

Are you saying they could have been members of the LDS Church in good standing, as long as they didn't get married and as long as they didn't have sex behind closed doors?

 

Yes.  

[jaberwocky]

Are you sure about that?

 

I know a couple of women who lived together for decades and had a close, emotional, and supportive partnership.  One of them died of cancer, and the other was at her bedside night and day for a year.  When she died, she left her inheritance to her partner.  They acted towards each other the way close, emotional, and supportive spouses would act.  I don't know what they did behind closed doors, of course.

 

Are you saying they could have been members of the LDS Church in good standing, as long as they didn't get married and as long as they didn't have sex behind closed doors?

 

They also couldn't have sex in front of closed doors, but yes, the Church has no policy against cohabitation of same sex people. It's the sex outside of the bonds of marriage that is against policy.

[Gray]

So happy you are worried about the church, but I don't think it is necessary. It is after all the Lord's church and he is in charge.

 

I don't agree with the assumption that God is chief administrator over any human organization. But even if that were the case, can God interfere with free will? 

[ksfisher]

So we assume the prophet is always speaking for God, whether or not the claim is made and now we further assume that Otterson always speaks for the brethren, therefore we assume that Otterson speaks directly for God. From PR to prophet. Nice promotion.

 

What I was writing about, and what I thought you were referring to, was the specific interview between Brother Otterson and Elder Christofferson.  If this was not the case I apologize.  The following, written by Brother Otterson, seems to be a good explanation as to the church's position on the handbook:

 

"One difficulty was a general lack of understanding of the Handbook itself, which is a guide for lay leaders of the church in 30,000 congregations across the world. A purpose of the Handbook is to provide bishops and other leaders with a standard reference point when they make decisions. Because it is a policy and procedural manual, the Handbook is not written in language that is necessarily contextual or explanatory. Church leaders are encouraged to use the Handbook in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Sensitivity to individual circumstances is learned through the Spirit, Christ’s teachings and example as found in the scriptures, from talks and teachings of General Authorities, and from the leaders’ own experience and exposure to real-life situations.  No handbook can answer every question or address every circumstance."

(emphasis mine)

 

"...there are always situations that fall outside general guidelines and principles, which is why local leaders may ask for guidance from more senior leaders in particular cases where they may have questions."

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook?cid=HP_FR_11-13-2015_dPAD_fMNWS_xLIDyL2-1_

 

I fail to see anything in the above, or in the entire article, that would allow for women's ordination, gay marriage in the church, or infant baptisms as you believe Otterson gives permission for.

[stemelbow]

 

I've been ex'ed from a few boards for having the gall to bring up a faithful viewpoint.  Those of you who complain about the LDS Church here have much more latitude than a faithful defender would get on boards critical to the church.

Not sure that's true. But a minor point in my mind.

 

Don't call other posters liars. - Ares

Edited November 16, 2015 by Ares

[Gray]

How long do you think I'd last on that forum expressing my support for the new handbook policy?

 

Depends on the attitudes of the people posting there. If it was made up of my clones, you'd be challenged but not attacked

[HappyJackWagon]

What I said is "I don't think he [Otterson] 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."  You are the one who is saying local leaders have the ability to make exceptions. I am saying they are the ones who can assess whether to refer it to the First Presidency.

I agree. Local leaders have "authority" to ask for permission to get an exception.

[Analytics]

Yes.  

 

 

They also couldn't have sex in front of closed doors, but yes, the Church has no policy against cohabitation of same sex people. It's the sex outside of the bonds of marriage that is against policy.

 

 

Interesting.  The actual wording of the new policy is about people who are, "living in a same-gender relationship, whether married or cohabiting."  So you are saying that "a same-gender relationship" is a code word for sex, and that two people of the same gender who live together in a committed, close, emotional, supportive partnership aren't in a so-called "same-gender relationship" as long as they don't have sex?  Would holding hands and cuddling put them over the edge?

 

This does seem to be a common misunderstanding on this forum.  When I refer to marriage, I'm imagining a "close, emotional, supportive partnership," that is legally recognized by the state.  Sex is an optional component of such relationships in my view. 

 

When I read most Mormons on this forum, it seems they think that marriage is primarily a societal endorsement of the sexual acts that the couple engages in.

[Zakuska]

Analytics...

 

God told us why he destroyed Sodom and Gomorah and none of the reasons given were for Homosexuality and gay sex.

 

Ezekiel 16

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

 

It actually was for not having loving close relationships, and being greedy and prideful, not loving their neighbor as themselves.  Perhaps, withholding blessings of the Lord from those who they looked down upon as sinners and spiting up families along doctrinal lines.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Zakuska

[jaberwocky]

Interesting.  The actual wording of the new policy is about people who are, "living in a same-gender relationship, whether married or cohabiting."  So you are saying that "a same-gender relationship" is a code word for sex, and that two people of the same gender who live together in a committed, close, emotional, supportive partnership aren't in a so-called "same-gender relationship" as long as they don't have sex?  Would holding hands and cuddling put them over the edge?

 

This does seem to be a common misunderstanding on this forum.  When I refer to marriage, I'm imagining a "close, emotional, supportive partnership," that is legally recognized by the state.  Sex is an optional component of such relationships in my view. 

 

When I read most Mormons on this forum, it seems they think that marriage is primarily a societal endorsement of the sexual acts that the couple engages in.

 

 

Don't be so melodramatic.  The Church doesn't just issue excommunication letters and pop them in the mail.  Any Church sanction is done through a thorough process that includes an invitation for the person to defend themselves.  During that process it is pretty easy to determine the nature of the relationship.  There are no active witch hunts going on in the Church currently that I'm aware of.

[BlueDreams]

 A few days ago my roommate asked me if I had the chance to sit with a member of ISIS and talk to them would I. My eyes glowed like it was christmas and I said yes without hesitation. I don't say this to compare LGBT issues to ISIS...they're nowhere near the same. But for better or worse I have a God given curiosity about everything. So, yeah I do want to hear the other side to just about everything and I've sought out first hand accounts to just about anything under the sun (within limits of basic propriety...some details I don't need to know, as I've learned the hard way).  So, for myself at least I usually do want to hear some of the other side of the story even if I inevitably disagree. I feel I can't truly learn without seeking first to understand. 

 

That said, I don't post on the threads that focus on gay issues too much. This week, in fact, is probably the most I've ever posted on them...ever. It's not that I don't find these issues interesting. I do. I've attended every seminar that would happen in my program about LGBT issues. I was apart of something called a circles of empathy group, where I was the only straight identified member in this small group of women who ranged in sexual and religious identity practice. I value the memory. I find the crossroads between mormon and gay interesting and often very beautiful. But I generally do not like discussing it here. 

 

The reason is simple.....the threads become extremely polarized really fast. At first there may be some middle ground. But this quickly gets buried in people focusing on the worst a person is saying. Worse yet, someone goes there and a dog parallel is brought up or the other side begins to label excessively and the implicit message becomes that if you believe X your view is intolerant or false.  Sometimes it may be beneficial or there may be respectful dialogue but it then goes in continuing circles that just never end....no one really "sees" the other perspective. So I don't participate much at all. I've talked privately with enough others that I sense that I'm probably not the only one who is somewhere between camps in my views who simply doesn't participate.

 

And i think that's what's happening here a lot.

 

I do feel it's needed to hear the other side of things. I don't think it's always an attack on my church or my beliefs. I would say most of the discussions I've had in my life with other faiths, beliefs, customs, etc haven't fit in that camp. But sometimes dialogue does become useless to me. It goes no where. Sometimes it's an attack, sometimes it feels like this passive aggressive stance, much of the time it just feels like we're speaking right past each other and that'll never change. Often I can feel my frustration increase because no matter what's said there's not even a minimal indication that they (whoever "they" are) have even heard me. At that point I step out. Unfortunately those who don't are often those most entrenched in their ideology and less likely to hear another view. Which may be what you end up dancing with at page 15 of a discussion that was really started 8 threads ago. 

 

But I don't think that means all here aren't willing to hear you....we just may have stopped reading by the time someone accused you of accusing us of being bigots/haters.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited November 16, 2015 by BlueDreams

[jaberwocky]

Analytics...

 

God told us why he destroyed Sodom and Gomorah and none of the reasons given were for Homosexuality and gay sex.

 

Ezekiel 16

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

 

It actually was for not having loving close relationships, and being greedy and prideful, not loving their neighbor as themselves.  Withholding blessings of the Lord from those who we look down upon as sinners.

 

Why do supporters of homosexual unions always assume that the doctrine is contained in that passage in Ezekiel?  The Church does not rely on the Old Testament for modern doctrine.  That's why we have prophets today.  Nothing about homosexuality makes sense in the context of the purpose of being sent to earth.