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

[Bernard Gui]

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.

That, of course, should be the choice of the children when they come to the age of majority.

[Bernard Gui]

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?  

And in fairness, here is a statement from a dear personal friend who chooses not only to stay in the Church, but to defend it.....another point of view from "the other side of the issue."

 

As a Latter-Day Saint who deals with same-gender attraction (and yes, I do have a Temple Recommend) and am serving as our Branch Mission Leader, I can only say that for me I have learned throughout my 60 years that it is better to follow the Brethren as they set a course or direction for us to follow. If we truly believe that Jesus is leading the Church through modern day Prophets and Apostles then I for one will follow the direction I am given by the Brethren. Amen.

 

Edited November 17, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

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.  

 

 

 

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 think you are correct.   And I agree that the church is responsible for the reputation it enjoys.  Peoples opinion of the church for the most part come from actions the church have taken both in the past and the present.  Many people view the church as one that practiced polygamy in the past.  Many people view the church as being prejudice against blacks in the past.  Many view the church as one that attacks gay couples.  Many view the church as being very family centered.  All of these opinions of the church are based on past or present doctrine and policies.  No one can say it is a distortion of the churches own history and position.  While these are all part of the church, most members look at a more complete understanding of the church.  They base it more on all the doctrine of the church, not just the ones that receive headlines.  But that is the difference between reputation and knowing the church.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate your remarks as well.  People handle leaving the church in what they think is the right way to handle it.  While I finds some ways better than others, it is more a reflection on how I personally handled leaving the church.  I have never made a public fight against the church.  I know the church works well for a lot of people.  I wish them well.

 

 

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."

 

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

 

 

I am not going to spend a lot of energy on responding to your rant.  It is just not important to me.  I have long ago moved on about Prop 8. But I stand by my original statement

 

 

Has the church been accused unfairly of hatred and bigotry by SOME people? yes.  On the other hand you also accused me of hatred and bigotry in your post.  CFR  WHERE I HAVE EVER ACCUSED THE CHURCH OF HATRED AND BIGOTRY, EVER

 

For someone who seems so indigent that the church has been falsely accused of hatred and bigotry, you certainly have no problem hurling the VERY SAME false claim at me.  Shame on you.  

 

Fulfill the CFR or apologize and withdraw your insinuatory remark leveled against me.

 

 

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.  

I can't speak for Smac, nor can I speak for any of the others of those who repped his post, but I can tell you why I was among them.

 

It was mainly because of his statement:

 

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.

 

 

I can't say whether or not Smac's apology means he is issuing a disavowal of this portion of his post, but I'm not. And as I have been included by reference in your indictment as one of the seven who gave rep points to the post, I am exercising my prerogative to respond in my own behalf.

[Jeanne]

It's hard to imagine a protest having much of an influence with the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. There must be a better way for people to be heard but I'm not sure what that would be. I guess for now it's Facebook.

It really doesn't have a lot of influence on the FP.  What it is,...is a group of people coming together to belong.  To share thoughts..join friendships and build a community much like they used to have.  For some, it is the only voice they have.  So many have lost close friends and families and it is nice to be with a group that understands what you are going through.  If there were 2500 people there and only 1000 resignations, it is because of those who have already resigned joined them.

 

Although I had already resigned in 2008, I stood with the first resignation group at the COB against Prop 8.  Those of us who had communicated online finally got to meet in person and it was like an old Ward Party for us.  There are a lot of reasons why they went and did this that some here would not understand.  Note that alot of resignations still went through but online resignations.  There are people in Canada, Hawaii and Great Britain that reached out.  It doesn't matter to them that no apostles or anybody stood ready to receive those papers..it was what they felt was right..and being a part of something that brought they, themselves together. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I would not be happy comparing myself to those who are losing ground.

I point it out not because I'm happy to draw a comparison but because it tends to argue against the supposition that holding on to traditional values is a net negative for religious organizations in attracting adherents. On the contrary, it seems to be the more conservative ones that are doing the best under the  current circumstances.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I did not say all faithful members were provincial.  Nor did I say those who move away from their faith are more sophisticated.  I said many here are provincial. 

 

I didn't say you said all were. You stated overtly and implied that I was, and that's why I responded.

 

On the other hand in a post by you somewhere on this thread or another you lumped LDS Critics in a bucket of being provincial.

 

 

Many are. And I gave a subsequent example. I didn't say all were.

 

I know Dan Peterson and know who he is.

 

I was pointing him out as an example, not saying you didn't know who he is.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jaberwocky]

John Dehlin deserves to be excommunicated again.

 

Not appropriate for these boards - Ares

[jaberwocky]

If there was ever an issue to generate phony outrage this is it.  I think I can confidently predict that the children to whom this policy pertains would never be sent in for baptism anyway by their gay parents.  The Church was wrong to even codify the policy - it should be handled on case by case basis.  But, at least it motivated about 1,000 people to get off the 'do-not-contact' lists in their wards.  That should save the Elder's Quorum presidents a bit of time when making the home teaching assignments.

[Damien the Leper]

That, of course, should be the choice of the children when they come to the age of majority.

Of course. I'm just suggesting what is probably the better choice.

[sunburnspecial]

So many people do not understand the Covenant.  There is one main covenant; some call it the Abrahamic covenant where God told Abraham that his offspring would be as the "sands of the sea".  The olive tree has been a symbol of this covenant.  Wild branches can be grafted in.  This means those who are not of the covenant can join by understanding the covenant and using their agency.  All of the gospel covenants are tied to this Abrahamic Covenant starting with the blessing of babies, baptism, priesthood and endowment, and eternal marriage (for immortality and eternal lives) the purpose of which is to expand the Abrahamic Covenant to create descendants as the sands of the sea.  These covenants are not solely for the purpose of being good and nice to others.  These covenants are not solely for satisfaction in this life (mortal life).  These covenants are for an eternal plan of God.  This does not mean that those who hold these covenants are to exclude anyone or to be condescending to anyone.  These are covenants which come by mature use of one's moral and intellectual agency.  A branch of a wild olive tree cannot be grafted to both the wild tree and the tame olive tree at the same time.  Parents in a van going the opposite direction of Disneyland cannot complain that their children will have no fun when they make a choice to not travel to Disneyland.  However, once a child in that van is of age to make choices, that child can get out of that van at the next stop and decide to go to Disneyland.  All of us have some physical or emotional conditions which can pull us off course and away from the Abrahamic Covenant.  The use of our agency will determine our direction, not some artificial award or appointment by the decision of men or women.  We cannot change God's model plan but we can create our own if we wish to use our agency in a different direction, but we must live with the results.

[mfbukowski]

 

 

 

I was challenging the principle you gave for excluding people from the temple - i.e., people cannot understand what they haven't personally experienced. That would seem to apply to baptism and the sacrament too.

 

 

 

Generally speaking, if people are directly impacted by a policy in the handbook they are entitled to know what it is. Don't you think? Limiting information on the computer system may be fine (who really cares, right). But the new policy is something that matters greatly to affected members and non-members (consider Daniel2 for example). You seriously can't understand why such members would be interested in the information even though they are not in a leadership position that requires the handbook?

 

No because everything in there is subject to the judgement of Bishops in individual cases.

 

If it were mandatory for everyone to follow the letter of the handbook we would not need bishops.

 

You could plug the rules into a computer and have people ask the computer what their status was and the computer would regurgitate the manual and that would be that.

 

I don't know how people who have allegedly been members and understand how the church runs even ask these questions frankly.  You even see that in the current policy and ammendments.

 

In VERY few cases is the word "mandatory" used but even in those cases one must judge whether or not the individual case fits into what is "mandatory".

 

It might say something like "If the person is in this circumstance then action xyz is "mandatory"- you still have to judge whether or not the circumstance fits the recommendation.

 

Any two people could read the manual and get three different interpretations-  that is why it is always up to the bishop to make a decision after praying about it.

 

The church really IS run by the spirit, not handbooks.   Frankly, the handbook is ignored or adjusted all the time by individual circumstances.

[mfbukowski]

One would think that all members and perspective members need to know the rules they are subject to.  Unrighteous dominion is a thing, and it's only fair to allow members to know what the rules are so that they can know the specific consequences of their actions and can evaluate whether their leaders are treating them according to the rules or not.

There are no "rules", only interpretations of recommendations

 

See above.

Edited November 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Daniel2]

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. 

 

The massive numbers of people who died during the AIDS epidemic is a testament to the dangers of promiscuity and unprotected sex.  Unfortunately, so many young gay men allow themselves to become disillusioned with religion and any of the virtues of self-control that they lost all sense of health, perspective, and control and paid the price of reckless excess with their lives.  I mourn their loss.  It would be a mistake to presume that their lives were only the result of their sexual orientation, or that all who share their sexual orientation will suffer their same fate.

[smac97]

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.

 

I can't say whether or not Smac's apology means he is issuing a disavowal of this portion of his post, but I'm not. And as I have been included by reference in your indictment as one of the seven who gave rep points to the post, I am exercising my prerogative to respond in my own behalf.

No, I wasn't disavowing that part.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

So you agree that the church leadership was asleep on this one. It would have been a debacle with or with out Dehiln.

Of course not

 

Screaming sycophants are everywhere nowadays.   They are inescapable, kind of like paparazi.  It has become a fact of life

[Russell C McGregor]

Well of course my speculation could be wrong.  It really is not over confident. I an often wrong.  And unlike so many here I am willing to admit it.

Well, you did say "there is no question" about that point.

So I'm glad that you've admitted that there is a question. As far as the answer to that question, if ever we're in a position to find out, it may be a little less important then.

 

And I think the slowing in growth is much more than complacency.  But I could be wrong and it could be tough for you to admit it. 

I think I could probably bring myself to admit that you are wrong...

[rodheadlee]

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.

I I never said anyone's constitutional rights should be taken away.. You shouldn't read that into what I said. My response was to stormrider's comment that the health issues of the gay lifestyle are not discussed.as much as they need to be. I live in the USA, you can be whoever you want to be within the law whether God likes it or not.

Edited November 17, 2015 by rodheadlee

[jaberwocky]

I'm just glad I'm not gay.  Seems like an awful lot of work.

[Teancum]

To some extent I have some admiration for him.  He wasn't a coward to hide behind anonymous posts; he had his name out in the forefront all the time.  He owned what he said.  But, in his case, it was a big nose he cut off to spite his face.

Yaaaawn....

[jaberwocky]

It really doesn't have a lot of influence on the FP.  What it is,...is a group of people coming together to belong.  To share thoughts..join friendships and build a community much like they used to have.  For some, it is the only voice they have.  So many have lost close friends and families and it is nice to be with a group that understands what you are going through.  If there were 2500 people there and only 1000 resignations, it is because of those who have already resigned joined them.

 

Although I had already resigned in 2008, I stood with the first resignation group at the COB against Prop 8.  Those of us who had communicated online finally got to meet in person and it was like an old Ward Party for us.  There are a lot of reasons why they went and did this that some here would not understand.  Note that alot of resignations still went through but online resignations.  There are people in Canada, Hawaii and Great Britain that reached out.  It doesn't matter to them that no apostles or anybody stood ready to receive those papers..it was what they felt was right..and being a part of something that brought they, themselves together. 

 

You don't think it's odd that you resigned over 7 years ago and you still live inside the Church?  Move on.

[Russell C McGregor]

The massive numbers of people who died during the AIDS epidemic is a testament to the dangers of promiscuity and unprotected sex.  Unfortunately, so many young gay men allow themselves to become disillusioned with religion and any of the virtues of self-control that they lost all sense of health, perspective, and control and paid the price of reckless excess with their lives.  I mourn their loss.  It would be a mistake to presume that their lives were only the result of their sexual orientation, or that all who share their sexual orientation will suffer their same fate.

 

Unfortunately, I suspect that in the long run, the hope that same sex "marriage" would "cure" homosexual men of promiscuity will prove to have been as futile as "reparative therapy" has been.

 

I would be happy to be wrong about that, though.

[Teancum]

Well, you did say "there is no question" about that point.

So I'm glad that you've admitted that there is a question. As far as the answer to that question, if ever we're in a position to find out, it may be a little less important then.

I think I could probably bring myself to admit that you are wrong...

Ah ya got me on my rapid response and not clarifying my point though I think you know what I meant. Stll i will give you that one. :-) Edited November 17, 2015 by Teancum

[rodheadlee]

The massive numbers of people who died during the AIDS epidemic is a testament to the dangers of promiscuity and unprotected sex.  Unfortunately, so many young gay men allow themselves to become disillusioned with religion and any of the virtues of self-control that they lost all sense of health, perspective, and control and paid the price of reckless excess with their lives.  I mourn their loss.  It would be a mistake to presume that their lives were only the result of their sexual orientation, or that all who share their sexual orientation will suffer their same fate.

You can blame religion if you want, it's a free country. But please do not put words in my mouth. 

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I wasn't disavowing that part.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good to know. Thanks.

[Daniel2]

You can blame religion if you want, it's a free country. But please do not put words in my mouth.

My apologies if it sounded as if I was blaming religion for the AIDS epidemic, OR putting words in your mouth. Neither was my intention. I said what I meant and I meant what I said--nothing more. ;-(