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

[mfbukowski]

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.

It doesn't say they have to move out.

 

Where?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So, basically, you are saying, now, that they are too specific?

[Zakuska]

It doesn't say they have to move out.

 

Where?

Yes it does.

 

This part:

 

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

 

The clarification makes it so this type of case can be appealed to SLC for further instructions. Which was blocked from happening in the first written policy. Which said this requirement had to be met prior to the case being appealed to SLC.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[rockpond]

It doesn't say they have to move out.

 

Where?

 

In the policy as written in the handbook.

[Analytics]

There are no "rules", only interpretations of recommendations

 

See above.

 

 

Are we talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Outback Steakhouse? 

 

Of course the Church has rules.  Handbook 1 says the word "must" about 150 times.  Sure, bishops are free to disregard what the handbook says they "must" do as mere recommendations, but that doesn't mean they aren't out of bounds. 

 

According to the Handbook, the only entity that has the authority to disregard the rules is the First Presidency.

[rockpond]

Yes it does.

 

This part:

 

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

 

The clarification makes it so this type of case can be appealed to SLC for further instructions. Which was blocked from happening in the first written policy. Which said this requirement had to be met prior to the case being appealed to SLC.

 

The handbook policy has not been changed so there is no "first written policy", there is only the policy and a letter than will eventually be forgotten about as leadership changes with time.

[Duncan]

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.

 

 

if you don't mind where does this Kirton and McConkie angle come from, how do we know they are involved?

[rockpond]

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?

 

Nothing wrong with your logic.  The muddled situation we have now is what happens when you have to change your plan mid-stream without admitting that you are changing anything.

Edited November 17, 2015 by rockpond

[Mystery Meat]

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

 

I didn't think this was the topic of this thread?

[Ron]

So, basically, you are saying, now, that they are too specific?

 

What I'm saying is that after the clarification there is no longer a need to specifically mention ordinations and missionary service because that is implied by not allowing baptism. That supports the idea that the original intent of the policy was meant to apply to those who were already baptized.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Ron

[Mystery Meat]

if you don't mind where does this Kirton and McConkie angle come from, how do we know they are involved?

 

Ha. It comes from no where and is pure speculation. It is funny to see people who think Kirton McConkie wags the dog, so to speak.

[Scott Lloyd]

I disagree, throughout my lifetime I've seen them treated in a hands off way.

 

I wonder if that's because of what Russell pointed out and surmised above, that they are disinclined to get drawn into endless and contentious back-and-forth quarreling when baited with stupid and inaccurate anti-Mormon talking points such as "Joseph said there are men on the moon."

 

And now in my inactivity, still attend church, in things like VT'g etc. I feel like I'm getting the same treatment.

 

Well, that's unfortunate if true. But it's something we can't really address here, especially with only one side of the story.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

if you don't mind where does this Kirton and McConkie angle come from, how do we know they are involved?

 

The Church's law firm.  I don't believe the Brethren would make a policy change like this without consulting Kirton.

[Scott Lloyd]

For example, I tell them Joseph said there were people who lived on the moon who lived 1000 years, but they are totally unaware of this.

 

They are unaware of the Egyptial burial that Joseph claimed was a human sacrifice.

 

 

So you try to ambush them with standard anti-Mormon talking points, they realise what you are up to, and so they take their leave.

Very good. That's exactly what they are supposed to do.

But it is disingenuous to claim that they are thereby "embarrased[sic] by their faith, afraid to discuss it with apostates."

They're just getting out of the contentious situation.

They teach by the power of the Holy Ghost. Contention drives away the Spirit and invites the Adversary, whom you serve, instead.

But I'll discuss your silly anti-Mormon talking points.

Let's start with this one:

If you are going to tell them that that's what Joseph said, then I hope you have a contemporary source that reports it.

Because if you don't, then you are not being honest.

So please name that contemporary source.

I could save you some time, because I know what the real source is. But I want to see if you are embarrassed by your unfaith, and afraid to discuss it with informed Latter-day Saints.

It could be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

Since Faithful has already been warned about hijacking threads, why don't you start a new one to take this up, and let's see how well Faithful does at substantiating the anti-Mormon talking points.

[rockpond]

What I'm saying is that after the clarification there is no longer a need to specifically mention ordinations and missionary service because that is implied by not allowing baptism. That supports the idea that the original intent of the policy was meant to apply to those who were already baptized.

 

You are correct.  It supports that the Nov 13 letter wasn't a clarification, it was a backpedal.

[why me]

http://mormonstories.org/

John is asking for respectful suggestions for questions when he interviews the recently resigned granddaughter of Russell M . Ballard. That's probably devastating for Elder Ballard and his wife. Is it ironic that JD may have leaked the leaked info that may have started her on that road? Not saying he's at fault, if that's in her heart anyway. It may not even be tied to the new policy, I might have jumped to conclusions.

I would imagine that she was a borderline member. I don't think that she just left the church over this policy. Of course, he would be sad about her decision. But most likely it was also expected. We all have free agency and this agency needs to be honored regardless.

[Russell C McGregor]

 

To find out what percent regret resigning we first have to determine how many actually resigned.

Just reading the headlines of the past few days:

 

Thousands Quit Mormon Church To Protest Anti-Gay Policy

Over 1800 Mormons cut ties with Church

About 1500 Mormons Quit Church in Mass Resignation 

3500 Leave LDS Church In Mass Resignation

Hundreds rally against new Mormon policy

Over 1,000 Mormons march together and quit church en-masse

 

So what was the final count really? 

 

 

Before or after accounting for the "serial resigners?"

[Thinking]

I teach math in a high school and sometimes my directions make perfect sense to me but not to my students. It is necessary on occasion to clarify the intent of the problem. What may be perfectly clear to one person may not be to another. That a clarification was necessary does not mean that the intent was changed.

[rockpond]

I would imagine that she was a borderline member. I don't think that she just left the church over this policy. Of course, he would be sad about her decision. But most likely it was also expected. We all have free agency and this agency needs to be honored regardless.

 

I don't know exactly what a "borderline member" is but to respond to the concept your getting at, I would say that it seems like this policy on its own wouldn't push a lot of people out of the church.  It does, however, seem to be the last straw for quite a few.

 

And it's likely creating many new "borderline members".

[Russell C McGregor]

It's not difficult to understand. It's just not believed.

 

It is by informed, faithful Latter-day Saints.

Unanimously.

 

Kind of like the old notion that interracial marriage was contrary to eternal designs.

Interracial marriage was always understood to be authentic marriage.

Saying something over and over doesn't make it true. Seeing it does. And most people who see gay families end up hoping for their continuation rather than dissolution.

I don't believe that is the case.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

Adoptions were not marriages.

[Zakuska]

Nothing wrong with your logic.  The muddled situation we have now is what happens when you have to change your plan mid-stream without admitting that you are changing anything.

 

Would it hurt them at all to admit that the original wording was quite poor and needed lots of splannin and spin and should really be rewritten to remove all the ambiguities it does have.  When did admitting you were wrong become such a taboo?

 

Theres an old Jewish Proverb that says:

 

"Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy"

 

Are the Letters of explanation added to the books as addendum? Because the letter of explanation does change the original intent quite a bit.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

My understanding is that the attorney helps by serving as an intermediary. By giving him power of attorney, the church will interact with the attorney rather than send a local leader to speak with the individual. Bishops and Stake Presidents are normally good about this issue - basically just checking with the individual to make sure the resignation is legit. But sometimes the local leader can be overbearing. I can see why a resigning member would find it beneficial to have the interaction come through her legal counsel than face-to-face (especially if its a free service).

 

As for who exactly is resigning, it shouldn't be surprising that most of the people are going through their "last straw" rather than their "first straw." But as Tyler Glenn of the Neon Trees reminds us (https://twitter.com/tylerinacoma?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) the last straw is a valid as the first. And regardless of activity level, the act of resignation has real affects for the church, individual, and family. It shouldn't be treated lightly by either the individual or us members. Sentiments of "oh, it's just a bunch of inactives anyway" is not that helpful. Every child is precious.

 

IMO, the bigger worry is not the shift of those who actually resign, but the shift in those who remain. I view the resignations as the tip of the iceberg. For every member who resigned, there are many more who begin questioning things, stop participating fully, walk away from activity, or other take other actions that - while short of resigning - still build barriers between them and the community. Sometimes this is necessary (as it is with resigning) but it's still sad to have to experience. And it should concern us all because the cracks that begin today may develop into resignation in the years ahead.

 

Finally, if you really want to know the thinking of those who have left, you should just talk to them. 

While it's true that "every child is precious," contrived events such as this are meant to put on a spectacle and evoke shock and awe, and it is thus entirely appropriate for onlookers to desire and seek perspective when evaluating them.

 

Two thousand resignations from faithful, active, believing Church members would be far more alarming than the same number of those who for all practical purposes hadn't participated in the Church in any meaningful way for many years.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

The Church's law firm.  I don't believe the Brethren would make a policy change like this without consulting Kirton.

In other words, it's an assumption.

The notion that a law firm makes ecclesiastical policy for the Church looks like a rather hostile assumption to me.

 

Your mileage may vary.

[Scott Lloyd]

I doubt there are any regrets.  The "clarification" reduced the number of people impacted by the policy but the message remained the same.  And I think it's that message that is causing people to resign.

In other words, it's not so much the impact on the children that angers them as it is that the direction has been made yet clearer that engaging in same-sex marriage or cohabitation is an act of apostasy.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd