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

[rockpond]

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.

 

I'm curious... given the new handbook policies, Elder Christofferson's video, and the Nov 13 letter... can you offer an explanation as to the reason for the policy?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Indeed.

 

But perhaps we now have a name for the shadowy star chamber that dictates to the Church leadership -- up to and including the First Presidency -- what they may and may not do. It is Kirton and McConkie.

 

This is perhaps a refinement of the conspiracy theory: The star chamber is no longer supposed to be the Public Affairs Department or the Correlation Department, but is now thought to be the law firm.

 

(To the humor-impaired: The above is written with figurative tongue planted firmly in figurative cheek.)

Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

I wonder if there are any people who got caught up in the mass resignation mania who wish that they had been a little more patient? It seems that some people got swept away with emotion, and I wonder if there is any buyer's remorse a few days later.

 

It seems to me that nearly 100% of those who resigned their membership over this issue were already on the fringe. That is, they were already critical of doctrine and policy to begin with, or had pre-existing deep-seated issues. While it's fashionable to tout "active, believing members" who got swept away in the mania, I see very little evidence that this actually happened.

 

In talking to my stake president Sunday, he told me that our large stake has had only one resignation over this (I had asked about several gay members of the stake we have both worked with, and none of them were among them). I think the attempts to inflate the participation at the Salt Lake mass resignation event (thousands!) is pretty telling. And, I have the feeling that many of the people who were there were a) non-members and b) attend things like that a lot. 

 

I found the frequent mention of the attorney with a table and forms to expedite to be very odd. The process is already simple enough as it is. No attorney is needed, nor does an attorney helping with forms expedite anything. 

 

Media circus, and blatant attempts at making this seem bigger than it was.

 

Why would you attend a mass resignation and stand in a long line to have an attorney help you fill out the forms if you didn't have a membership to resign? The truth of the matter is in how many resignation letters where actually tendered in the first place.  Is there any news reports of how many resignations that actually were mailed?  Perhaps we can petition the Mail Service?

Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[Mystery Meat]

An oft repeated claim is that once you get to know a gay couple your whole perspective on gay marriage changes. I believe the theory goes that before it is very easy to cling to the belief that gay marriage is wrong and evil, but once you meet a loving and committed, gay couple you cannot deny the goodness of the relationship. This is only compounded when they have kids.

 

Throughout my life I have been friends or closely acquainted with many gay and lesbian couples, one of which had children. I have multiple gay family members. I can say, with only one exception (and that is a VERY good track record) that they are all fantastic human beings. The couple with children loved their kids and were qualified, from a worldly standpoint, to provide for their children. They are good parents. To that end, there is no denying that such relationships yield a type of good fruit, if judged purely by worldly standards.

 

None of this changes the fact that homosexuality has been called an abomination in scripture and is a sin in our day (and always has been and always will be). "Seeing and knowing" does not change that. The fruit of homosexuality is still sin and no amount of good parenting or love can ever make those family units eternal. And that is the fruit that matters above all. When judged through the lens of the restored gospel, these families are temporary and can never be eternal. They are depriving themselves and their children of blessings that extend beyond this life in exchange for niceties that expire and terminate in the short term.

 

No matter how much they love their children (and I am sure they do), their family units are finite as presently constituted. And they always will be in the eyes of the Lord.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[VideoGameJunkie]

I bet Charlie Sheen could've used the law of chastity. He has HIV thanks to porn stars and prostitutes. It's not winning to disobey the law of chastity. There are consequences.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why would you attend a mass resignation and stand in a long line to have an attorney help you fill out the forms if you didn't have a membership to resign?

To be part of the show.

 

Wasn't that the whole intent anyway?

Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

Indeed.

 

But perhaps we now have a name for the shadowy star chamber that dictates to the Church leadership -- up to and including the First Presidency -- what they may and may not do. It is Kirton and McConkie.

 

This is perhaps a refinement of the conspiracy theory: The star chamber is no longer supposed to be the Public Affairs Department or the Correlation Department, but is now thought to be the law firm.

 

(To the humor-impaired: The above is written with figurative tongue planted firmly in figurative cheek.)

 

This anti-Mormon propaganda 101. Its a shame that rockpond has fallen for it.

[Russell C McGregor]

I posted a similar response before reading your post above.  

 

But I will add that I am definitely not okay with it.  Like a number of church members, even though I didn't like the slow pace, I could at least see that the Church was moving in the right direction post-2008.  This policy is damaging in the message that it sends, in particular, to our gay youth.  For that reason, I'll be more outspoken moving forward.

In your rebellion?

 

The one positive in all of this is that I tend to believe that this policy will ultimately go the way of the Church's efforts on Prop 8.  Instead of preventing legal recognition of gay marriage, Prop 8 helped pave the way for national gay marriage.  Similarly, this policy may have unintended consequences.

 

I second Mitch Mayne's hypothesis that maybe we, as a church, didn't learn the lessons we were supposed to from Prop 8.  So now, we'll learn them from this policy.  And maybe, just maybe, we'll get to where we are supposed to be -- even faster.

But Prop 8, which represented the will of the people, was overthrown by judicial decree.

 

I have no doubt that you'd like SCOTUS to impose its (your) views upon the Church by judicial fiat; but I can't see how any authentic Latter-day Saint would welcome such a move.

Personally, I'm waiting to hear that SCOTUS has ruled the law of gravity to be unconstitutional. After all, it was articulated by a religious believer.

[Zakuska]

To be part  of the show.

 

Was that the whole intent anyway?

 

You tell us Scott.  You work for the media, you know the tricks of the trade better than most people on MD&D.

 

What would you do to sell your story?

Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[Avatar4321]

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^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author) 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.

Seems to me that whether its the last straw or the first one it's still straw and straw isn't something we need to stress over

[rockpond]

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.

 

No, the letters are not added as addendum.

 

It would hurt to admit that the wording was poor and needs to be re-written or removed IF you aren't planning to re-write or remove that section.  It appears that they are not going to re-write or remove that section.  My guess is because they and their lawyers want it in there as it is.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I think that's one of the reasons people are upset by it.

[Daniel2]

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.

 

I haven't seen anyone so upset over the fact that the church classifies SSM as an act of apostasy that they're asking the church to change that aspect of the policy.  As a former member of the church, I've often self-identified as an apostate, due to my liberal views that God will someday approve of same-sex relationships and my choice to marry my husband.  None of the anguish I have felt on behalf of my kids, and the burden the policy would have placed on them (prior to the clarification) was due to same-sex marriage being identified as apostasy.  And virtually NONE of the same-sex parents that I know, who share my position, are upset by that point, either.  It's not as if they church hasn't gone to extreme lengths to express it's current disapproval of the practice of same-gender marriage.

 

All the energy I have seen seems to be directed at the impact the policy would have on children who's parents are supportive of their children's choice to fully participate in the LDS church--and in the vast majority of these cases, that's in situations where the child was the offspring of a failed mixed-orientation marriage and the child's gay/lesbian parent remains fully supportive.

 

In short, I fully disagree with your comment above, and find little (if any) evidence to support it.

[rockpond]

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.

 

No, I think it's still about the impact to the children.  It definitely is for me.  And most of us still believe in that teaching about Christ leaving the 99 to go after the one.

[Russell C McGregor]

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

 

I believe that position, given that it explicitly rebels against the official position of the Church, and is clearly contrary to doctrine, is problematic.

[rockpond]

In your rebellion?

 

But Prop 8, which represented the will of the people, was overthrown by judicial decree.

 

I have no doubt that you'd like SCOTUS to impose its (your) views upon the Church by judicial fiat; but I can't see how any authentic Latter-day Saint would welcome such a move.

Personally, I'm waiting to hear that SCOTUS has ruled the law of gravity to be unconstitutional. After all, it was articulated by a religious believer.

 

I don't want to derail the thread but I do need to respond to your accusation:  I absolutely would be horrified for SCOTUS to impose some kind of gay marriage requirement on the Church.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

There is no evidence of a change. All the evidence shows that the "plan" is what was intended from the beginning.

Some people just can't seem to let go of the assumption that the Lord's anointed servants are liars.

[The Nehor]

The closest many here come to scripture study......

[Russell C McGregor]

I'm curious... given the new handbook policies, Elder Christofferson's video, and the Nov 13 letter... can you offer an explanation as to the reason for the policy?

 

Elder Christofferson explained that clearly in his video of November 6.

 

The one in which he specified that it applied to children living with SSM parents.

 

In the light of which, no honest person now claims that the November 13 letter actually changed anything.

[Buckeye]

Seems to me that whether its the last straw or the first one it's still straw and straw isn't something we need to stress over

 

Many church members say that their testimonies grew from small things over time rather than from a big "Alma the Younger" moment. I tend to believe them.

 

Likewise, I think it reasonable that small things could build over time to the point of a resignation. 

[Russell C McGregor]

I don't want to derail the thread but I do need to respond to your accusation:  I absolutely would be horrified for SCOTUS to impose some kind of gay marriage requirement on the Church.

 

I'm relieved to hear that. That being the case, where is the parallel to Prop 8? Who's going to overrule the First Presidency?

[rockpond]

There is no evidence of a change. All the evidence shows that the "plan" is what was intended from the beginning.

Some people just can't seem to let go of the assumption that the Lord's anointed servants are liars.

 

I'm not calling them liars.

 

I guess from your perspective they just haphazardly published a policy that said something they didn't really mean?  Or was it not the Brethren who wrote & published it?

[Meadowchik]

I think D&C 130:20-21 applies:

 

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

Thus, kindness and charity and patience and hard work can all yield good fruit.  Following the Spirit to be honest will yield fruit, following the Spirit to express love for another can yield good fruit. 

 

The question then, can there possibly be eternal blessings contingent on marriage between a man and a woman which yield a uniquely important, exalting fruit?  It seems possible, doesn't it?

[Mystery Meat]

I think D&C 130:20-21 applies:

 

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

Thus, kindness and charity and patience and hard work can all yield good fruit.  Following the Spirit to be honest will yield fruit, following the Spirit to express love for another can yield good fruit. 

 

The question then, can there possibly be eternal blessings contingent on marriage between a man and a woman which yield a uniquely important, exalting fruit?  It seems possible, doesn't it?

 

Very well said.

[rockpond]

Elder Christofferson explained that clearly in his video of November 6.

 

The one in which he specified that it applied to children living with SSM parents.

 

In the light of which, no honest person now claims that the November 13 letter actually changed anything.

 

I'm an honest person.  And the Nov 13 letter certainly changes what was written in the Nov 5 policy.  The words are there -- plainly written.  It's not a mystery.

 

Which reason from Elder Christofferson's video do you see as the reason for the policy?  Because with the Nov 13 letter, it's kind of hard to tell now.  We're no longer protecting all children with a gay parent.  Just those who live with one as their "primary residence".