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

[provoman]

I don't think that this is true. The moderators on this thread deleted many posts that were deemed offensive. Sure they may get a hard time but that would be normal for any mormon board. I have been on this board for more than ten years and I have never seen the behavior that you said occurs.

I do think that those who resigned were on there way out anyway. Very few members would resign just over one issue or policy. But it may have given them a push.

How about considering the post I quoted and responded directly too. Read the last paragraph in that post which is quoted. The fact the title of the thread was changed and the moderator who also stated "be respectful" is suggestive of the intent thread behind the creation of this thread.

No one is being mocked here.

Really, you sure about that? Edited November 17, 2015 by provoman

[Daniel2]

Gay marriages can never exist in eternity.

 

CFR (on the bold part, in particular).  This is not part of LDS doctrine/cannon.

 

Former church policies allowed for non-related adult men to be sealed another adult man through "the law of adoption," so there is precedent that non-"traditional-marriage" family relationships can be eternally united through the sealing power...

 

If this is as an off-topic tangent, feel free to PM me or answer in an alternate thread.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[Jacob]

I thought that as a supporter of the LGBT community (I love my friends that are LGBT, and support them and them gaining equal rights under the law), I would add my two cents.

 

It seems to me that a proper protest would be to pray to God and voice your concerns there and reflect your position by your personal actions with God instead of involving pressure on those that are not decision makers in the religion. It seems that from the a position of belief in the LDS Church the earthly leadership really have little decision making and if you are going to petition for a change this type of protest is a bit impotent. If you are protesting in this manner, you don't believe in the religion and you should just leave the religion quietly instead of making a show.

 

If they believe, then such a protest is stupid by virtue of their belief. If they do not believe, then the protest is simply an attack on the LDS Church as a whole with no true motive for change.

 

I believe in conscientious objection, but I do not believe in an angry response. I feel that these type of protests are only angry responses and are not well thought out.

 

Religion is religion. If you are going to pursue a change within a religion, follow the proper petition method of that religion.

[CV75]

CFR (on the bold part, in particular).  This is not part of LDS doctrine/cannon.

I think it represents a far more consistent alignment with LDS doctrine/canon than same-gender marriage does.

[Gillebre]

CFR (on the bold part, in particular).  This is not part of LDS doctrine/cannon.

 

Former church policies allowed for non-related adult men to be sealed another adult man through "the law of adoption," so there is precedent that non-"traditional-marriage" family relationships can be eternally united through the sealing power...

 

If this is as an off-topic tangent, feel free to PM me or answer in an alternate thread.

 

From D&C 132 (emphasis mine)

 

 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 

Seems pretty clear to me. There is no such thing as same-sex exaltation, no same-sex unions of any kind after death. The rest of that section of D&C should provide more context if you wish to go further and learn more about the divine role of marriage in eternity. It is contrary to the order of nature of itself (continuation of the seeds is only biologically possible by the union of man and woman, sorry). As a member of the Church who has to manage personal feelings of same-gender attraction I have accepted this, and that frees me from having a false sense of hope in something that can never be. Why would someone hold out hope that God rearranges the entire foundation of eternal life just because two men or two women would rather have eternity they way they want it?

Edited November 17, 2015 by Gillebre

[Ron]

The clarification of the handbook change seems to say that if a child living within SSM is already baptized then they can continue to receive ordinances, serve a mission, etc.

 

Would it not then be impossible for the situation of denying ordinations or missionary service to ever occur?  If you have never been baptized then it would be impossible to get ordained or serve a mission?  If so why even include those situations in the handbook at all?

 

Or am I mis-interpreting the clarifiation? Or is my logic faulty?

[Gillebre]

I'm not sure I understand, but let me see if I can restate what you're trying to say.

 

A minor who is already a baptized member of the Church seems to be (according to the clarification) exempt from the effects of the policy update (meaning they continue to be ordained accordingly, serve missions, etc...). That is correct.

 

A minor who was not baptized prior to this policy update, and thus is under the effects of this practice, can receive those opportunities for ordination and missionary service after their baptism (like any other convert who joins the Church).

 

I'm not sure if that helped at all. lol.

[rongo]

 

 

 

I my experience, so long as you're on the records, you're going to get contacted a few times a year on average. This is especially true now that we have so many missionaries will less people to teach. 

 

This has been exactly my experience, too. When I encounter people who angrily demand never to be contacted again, I explain to them that they are on the rolls of the Church, and they will definitely be visited again, no matter what I do. With turnover in callings, the fact that they are on the list and our church's focus on visiting and ministering ensures that there will be future visits, no matter what sticky notes we leave behind with "do not contact." I explain exactly how to ensure that there are no more visits (name removal). Almost no one ever does this. I've been in visiting callings for years (bishop x2, counselor x2, EQP x2, WML x2), and in all those years, only one sister actually did it (she was very grateful for the help). I had a walk-in at church (he had freaked out at the missionaries when they visited, and he stormed the Bastille at church. He never came otherwise) who demanded his name be removed, and we took care of it right there. And, we had the one I referred to earlier where an "Address Unknown" member did it directly through Salt Lake. That's it. 

[Daniel2]

I think it represents a far more consistent alignment with LDS doctrine/canon than same-gender marriage does.

 

In my opinion, heterosexual individual's "emotional and romantic attractions towards members of the opposite sex" consistently aligns with LDS doctrine/cannon regarding opposite-gender marriage.

 

On the flip side, heterosexual individual's "emotional and romantic attractions towards members of the opposite sex" would diametrically conflict with such individuals entering into a same-gender marriage.

 

Conversely, homosexual individual's "emotional and romantic attractions towards members of the same sex" would consistently align with any doctrine/cannon which would support same-gender marriage.

 

On the flip side, homosexual individual's "emotional and romantic attractions towards members of the same sex" diametrically conflicts with such individuals entering into an opposite-gender marriage.

 

I am familiar with the current belief by many Latter-day Saints that gays' and lesbians' romantic and emotional orientation to love their same-gender spouses is only a temporary, mortal condition that will be "removed" or "altered" in the afterlife.  As a kid growing up in the LDS church, I consider this to be similar to how generations past used to believe that non-Caucasian people would likewise have their darker skin "whitened" in the eternities (and, in some instances, LDS prophets even taught that Native American's skin would "whiten" as they joined the church and lived according to its doctrines).  Modern, contemporary generations Latter-day Saints have become comfortable that qualifying for heaven doesn't require a "white-washing" of non-Caucasian people, and LDS doctrine/policy has stopped teaching that non-whites' skin will become lighter or white prior to celestial entry.  To me, popular beliefs that sexual orientation must be changed will eventually subside, just as such beliefs about race did.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[Ron]

I'm not sure I understand, but let me see if I can restate what you're trying to say.

 

A minor who is already a baptized member of the Church seems to be (according to the clarification) exempt from the effects of the policy update (meaning they continue to be ordained accordingly, serve missions, etc...). That is correct.

 

A minor who was not baptized prior to this policy update, and thus is under the effects of this practice, can receive those opportunities for ordination and missionary service after their baptism (like any other convert who joins the Church).

 

I'm not sure if that helped at all. lol.

 

Yes, but wouldn't it say the same thing to just say "not get baptized" until 18.  Why even a need to mention ordinations and missionary service?

[rongo]

Cheap shot, rongo.  How exactly does this help your cause? 

It's not about "helping my cause." This is a discussion board, and I made an observation that, in my opinion, it's chicken to remove one's name without going through the (very minimal) name removal process. People may disagree that this is cowardly, but that's part of discussion.

 

This doesn't apply to you, because you did the process. Not your fault that your leaders dragged their feet.

[Gillebre]

Perhaps I need to reread the policy and clarification then to make sure I'm getting it clearly.

[rongo]

I wonder why anyone who left the Church at a mass resignation event, would come to a place where they will be called a coward, and be mocked by those who claim membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The type of person to mug for the camera or otherwise publicize  and promote or revel in a mass resignation event has bigger fish to fry with the Church than simply being thought of as cowardly. I do respect the dignity of those who quietly resigned through the Church by meeting with their bishops or writing a letter ---- sans being seen of men.

[rongo]

How about considering the post I quoted and responded directly too. Read the last paragraph in that post which is quoted. The fact the title of the thread was changed and the moderator who also stated "be respectful" is suggestive of the intent thread behind the creation of this thread.

 

The original thread called it "resign-o-rama," instead of "mass resignation event." I defer to the moderators on title-appropriateness, but I believe that that was in keeping with the circus-like atmosphere reveled in by the organizers and participants.

[Ron]

If my logic is correct the new clarified version of the handbook policy could be so much simpler.  Boiled down to this:

 

1.  Children living primarily with SSM cannot be blessed or baptized until they are 18 and moved away and disavvowed SSM.

 

Thats it.

 

I'm still not sure about my logic though.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Ron

[Daniel2]

From D&C 132 (emphasis mine)

 

 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 

Seems pretty clear to me. There is no such thing as same-sex exaltation, no same-sex unions of any kind after death. The rest of that section of D&C should provide more context if you wish to go further and learn more about the divine role of marriage in eternity. It is contrary to the order of nature of itself (continuation of the seeds is only biologically possible by the union of man and woman, sorry). As a member of the Church who has to manage personal feelings of same-gender attraction I have accepted this, and that frees me from having a false sense of hope in something that can never be. Why would someone hold out hope that God rearranges the entire foundation of eternal life just because two men or two women would rather have eternity they way they want it?

 

What seems "pretty clear" to you seems clearly to me to be a revelation about opposite-sex marriage-----but is entirely silent about the possibility of eternal same-sex unions.  Silence on the subject means it neither endorses NOR precludes the possibility--it simply doesn't say, one way or the other.

 

What it does NOT say is that there is "no same-sex exaltation," and certainly NOT that there's "no same-sex unions of any kind after death."  I understand that is how you and the vast majority of Latter-day Saints currently understand and interpret it; but the reality is that interpretation could easily be altered by a simple revelation clarifying the intent further (with a nod to all those who suggest that the recently policy "clarification" clarified the policy by adding new qualifications that simply 'weren't there' in the original handbook...).

 

Gillebre, I respect your freedoms to believe, endorse, and promote your beliefs, despite our differences of opinion regarding the inherent worth and worthiness of our shared homosexual orientation.  I genuinely hope we all find fulfillment, peace, and happiness in the path we choose walk, according to the dictates of our heart, mind, and spirit.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[Gillebre]

What seems "pretty clear" to you seems clearly to me to be a revelation about opposite-sex marriage-----but is entirely silent about the possibility of eternal same-sex unions.  Silence on the subject means it neither endorses NOR precludes the possibility--it simply doesn't say, one way or the other.

 

What it does NOT say is that there is "no same-sex exaltation," and certainly NOT that there's "no same-sex unions of any kind after death."  I understand that is how you and the vast majority of Latter-day Saints currently understand and interpret it; but the reality is that interpretation could easily be altered by a simple revelation clarifying the intent further (with a nod to all those who suggest that the recently policy "clarification" clarified the policy by adding new qualifications that simply 'weren't there' in the original handbook...).

 

Gillebre, I respect your freedoms to believe, endorse, and promote your beliefs, despite our differences of opinion regarding the inherent worth and worthiness of our shared homosexual orientation.  I genuinely hope we all find fulfillment, peace, and happiness in the path we choose walk, according to the dictates of our heart, mind, and spirit.

 

I was actually just talking to someone about the worth of perspective, and I want to be careful not to devalue yours. Perspective is precious to me because it comes from all different directions and serves to enlighten our understanding. Of course there are things we don't agree on or share, but there are some things we do, and I am committed to honoring what can be shared rather than excluding anyone because of what is not. I value people and their families, and I also wish the best in your journey through the mazes of life. I think we often forget that people are valuable regardless of agreements or the lack of them. 

 

To not be completely off topic: I hope that those who chose to resign their membership find fulfillment and peace wherever they go. We all deserve to experience that (however we find it).

[mfbukowski]

The clarification of the handbook change seems to say that if a child living within SSM is already baptized then they can continue to receive ordinances, serve a mission, etc.

 

Would it not then be impossible for the situation of denying ordinations or missionary service to ever occur?  If you have never been baptized then it would be impossible to get ordained or serve a mission?  If so why even include those situations in the handbook at all?

 

Or am I mis-interpreting the clarifiation? Or is my logic faulty?

IF the child is already baptized AND their residence is within a household in which there is a same-sex cohabitation, they may receive all the ordinances of the gospel "on schedule"- baptism at 8 etc.

 

IF the same child is NOT already baptized, the child must wait until the age of 18 to be baptized AND then receive all the other ordinances- ordinations, go on a mission etc.

 

Living in a ssm household only delays baptism until age 18, then after an interview in which the child/young adult says he will not practice ssm, he may be baptized etc.

 

The policy only applies to children living in the household where homosexual cohabitation is occurring.  In that case, the consequence is that baptism is delayed until 18, after which the child is eligible to be baptized, endowed, go on a mission etc.

 

The only consequence to anyone is delaying the day of baptism- no one is prohibited from receiving ordinances after 18, assuming they are living church standards

Edited November 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Zakuska]

It's not just gay men. It's men. If you want men to stop being promiscuous then we need to find a way for them to stop having sex altogether.

Well several of the early church fathers read this verse:

Matt 5:30

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee:

Took it a little too literally and castrated themselve to solve the above problem.

Is that really the only way?

Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[cursor]

What is, exactly, the difference between 'policy' and 'revelation.' Just curious. Would love some constructive feedback.

[mfbukowski]

The policy is designed to make sure that children living in a ssm situation understand the church standards regarding ssm fully before ordinances can be done.

 

A child before puberty would not fully understand the difference between ssm and heterosexual marriage, and thus would not be able to make an informed decision about whether or not he/she was willing to follow the church standards in regard to ssm.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, but wouldn't it say the same thing to just say "not get baptized" until 18.  Why even a need to mention ordinations and missionary service?

I think the intent was to show that all that was happening was that baptism and some ordinations were being delayed.  I think the reason theyh were mentioned was to indicate that EVERY ordinance- enumerated- could be received, just delayed in the case of baptism and ordinations.

 

Missionary service for example, need not be delayed at all.

[Zakuska]

The part of the policy that gets me is this situation.

 

Lets say a child raised by a gay couple is excluded from joining the church till they are 18 per this new policy.  Well the Policy says they have to move out of their parents house prior to being baptized then probably waiting a full year to go on a mission etc. etc.

 

How many 18 year olds do you know who fly out the door the minute they turn 18, get an apartment  and start living independently enough that they could do this?

 

I know I didn't.  I went to college for a whole year living at home to save money before I went on my mission and then I lived at home when I got back for another year and a half before I got married.  Kids can stay on their parents insurance till they are 26 now.  

 

The policy makes this situation extremely difficult where it really doesn't have to be. Removing the "not living at home requirement" would be prudent.  However, that this type of situation can be judged on a case by case basis now the clarification came and appealed to SLC, there's not as much of a problem.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[rockpond]

 

 

 

Yep. My biggest hope is that, going forward, we will continue to have many families such as Daniel2's involved in the church. Attitudes will change as people get to know these wonderful families. While the policy on its face is still damaging, most of its potential effect has now been muted in light of the clarification letter.

 

 

While the change provided by the Nov 13 letter reduces the number of individuals directly impacted by the policy, the message remains as damaging as before.

 

And remember, the policy is still the same in the handbook.  I believe it will stay that way because Kirton & McConkie have probably said it needs to stay that way.  Which means, that there will still be some element of "leadership roulette" (something that I am already hearing anecdotal reports of).

 

You make a good point about attitudes changing as we meet families like Daniel's but this policy aims to reduce members' exposure to such families.  Sadly.

[rockpond]

 And where is it we are supposed to be. Family is the central relationship here and eternity. The whole problem with the gay movement is they are creating families that can not exist in eternity. The whole idea of the gospel is to seal families together through the generations.

 

Perfect, let's start sealing their families as well!  Problem solved.