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

[Zakuska]

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

 

"Policies" are written by men trying to implement, to the best of their ability something God told them to do that was left ambiguous. Policies can change when further understanding is attained.

 

eg. Should we baptize children of Polygamist, Should we not let blacks have the priesthood. etc.

 

"Revelation" is a direct command from the Lord exactly how he wants something to be done.

 

eg. D&C 68:27 baptism age set by the Lord at 8 years of age

Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[rockpond]

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?

 

You're looking at the wrong parallel.  The parallel is what will happen in the hearts and minds of members.

[KevinG]

This strikes at the core of my ponderings about gays and the gospel.  I too have gay friends and colleagues, and we are comfortable discussing politics, religion, and other social realities.  We are mature enough to know we will disagree on points, but still recognize what is virtuous and good about each other's experience and lives.

 

I did take this issue to God in prayer, and my answer was much like Maedowchik's.  There is something in the relationship between a man and a woman that is necessary to make a whole marriage for purposes of eternal increase and exaltation.  If nothing else it is the law we are currently under, and the one we are covenanted to obey if we are to receive the promised blessings of the law of chastity and obedience.

 

I do not go out of my way to bash others who believe differently.  In fact I would give my life to protect their right to live as they wish.  I do stand up for our rights as Latter-day Saints to define marriage and sealing as we see fit.  I draw the line at having someone claim to be LDS and preach or act in a way opposed to our doctrines and teachings.  I will speak against that.  

 

Still I am open to any revelation that God sees fit to give the Saints.  I don't expect same sex marriage will ever be an ordinance in our church.  But I would not apostatize if such a revelation was received. 

[CV75]

In my opinion...

Core LDS doctrine and cannon are fundamentally spiritual, so using emotional and romantic arguments to determine their validity are not relevant. The doctrine is given to us precisely to manage our emotional, physical and temporal states, qualities and behaviors (not vice-versa) in keeping the covenants of godliness. This is the purpose of our mortal probation.

 

The same goes for sexual, racial, social, and political rationale. They simply do not define or determine the validity of the covenant. The covenant is defined by doctrine and canon irrespective of these other considerations.

 

The greater alignment of temple marriage is in that no argument is used to define the doctrine and covenant. It was simply revealed from the beginning. “In the beginning was the Word…” and He revealed the true ways of mortal and immortal life from there (John 1:1-4).

 

ETA: Keeping this in line with the OP, “some people got swept away in the emotion” rather than holding to their spiritual foundation (their covenants pertaining to membership).

Edited November 17, 2015 by CV75

[Russell C McGregor]

You're looking at the wrong parallel.  The parallel is what will happen in the hearts and minds of members.

 

Unless they are subverted and seduced by the doctrines of devils, the members will continue to uphold the Church's standards of moral rectitude.

 

Since it is, without question, infinitely more in line with the Lord's eternal plan than turpitude.

[Buckeye]

I'm guessing that this is directed at me (probably others too). I'm encouraged that you know a number of gay families and can see their good fruit (if only judged by worldly standards ) I think it sad that you nonetheless are looking forward to a day when the fruit of these relationships turns bitter. But I'm not surprised. I've had discussions with several other members with similar convictions of (to paraphrase) "sure, they really seem happy now, but some day they will be miserable and it will be too late to change."

 

You won't be surprised to learn that I hold different hopes. I view this life as an extension of the eternities. The next life may amplify our capacities and magnify our joys, but it will not upend the eternal rules of good and evil. If something produces good fruit here, it will not suddenly be evil there. And vice versa. When Christ says that we can judge the virtue of a teaching by its fruit, he is talking about making judgments here, today, right now - not some distant future point when our day of probation has ended. Alma teaches that wickedness never was happiness. Seeing the pure joy that comes from SSM allows me only one conclusion: these families are not wicked. 

Edited November 17, 2015 by Buckeye

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

No, the letter does not change the policy. It clarifies the circumstances to which that policy applies.

Which are the same circumstances that Elder Christofferson described on November 6.

 

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".

Let's review, yet again, what Elder Christofferson said.

 

Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.

Seems clear enough to me.

[rockpond]

Unless they are subverted and seduced by the doctrines of devils, the members will continue to uphold the Church's standards of moral rectitude.

 

Since it is, without question, infinitely more in line with the Lord's eternal plan than turpitude.

 

Turpitude.    This is why I like conversing with you, Russell.

[bluebell]

I think that there are many different types of families that can yield good fruit, and still not be condoned by God.  In our day, I think of polygamous families like those portrayed on Sister Wives or My Five Wives.  I think of good people who choose to live together and have children without ever getting married.  Married couples who choose not to have kids because they don't fit into the lifestyle they have (which doesn't mean the lifestyle is evil).

 

All of those kinds of families can bring forth good fruit.  I don't think that has to mean that the tree was planted by God.

[mfbukowski]

In the policy as written in the handbook.

Which is subject to local inspired interpretation, as always.

[KevinG]

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

H. L. Mencken

[Mystery Meat]

I'm guessing that this is directed at me (probably others too). I'm encouraged that you know a number of gay families and can see their good fruit (if only judged by worldly standards ) I think it sad that you nonetheless are looking forward to a day when the fruit of these relationships turns bitter. But I'm not surprised. I've had discussions with several other members with similar convictions of (to paraphrase) "sure, they really seem happy now, but some day they will be miserable and it will be too late to change."

 

You won't be surprised to learn that I hold different hopes. I view this life as an extension of the eternities. The next life may amplify our capacities and magnify our joys, but it will not upend the eternal rules of good and evil. If something produces good fruit here, it will not suddenly be evil there. And vice versa. When Christ says that we can judge the virtue of a teaching by its fruit, he is talking about making judgments here, today, right now - not some distant future point when our day of probation has ended. Alma teaches that wickedness never was happiness. Seeing the pure joy that comes from SSM allows me only one conclusion: these families are not wicked. 

 

Wicked and evil have strong connotations. People typically think we can only use such words for people like Hitler, Stalin or Ronald McDonald. I, however, think that evil and wickedness is anything that is contrary to the laws of God. I am acting wickedly when I envy, gossip, or neglect my hometeaching. People are also participating in wickedness when they engage in homosexual conduct or enter into a SSM.

[mfbukowski]

No, the letter does not change the policy. It clarifies the circumstances to which that policy applies.

Which are the same circumstances that Elder Christofferson described on November 6.

Let's review, yet again, what Elder Christofferson said.

Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.

Seems clear enough to me.

Exactly. The "move out" is subject to individual circumstances, as are all decisions.

Either you see that here or you don't

[rockpond]

And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.

 

And from the Nov 13 letter:  "They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance."

 

So are they supposed to attend or not attend?  Wouldn't attending create the conflicts that Elder Christofferson wants to avoid?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I bet those who have resigned from the church will all regret when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ.

[Ron]

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.

 

Can you explain why the policy would mention requiring first presidency approval for ordinations and missionary service?  To me that wording clearly applies to a situation where someone was already baptized.

[rockpond]

Which is subject to local inspired interpretation, as always.

 

I agree.  But I doubt every leader will feel comfortable overriding handbook policies.  And generally it takes a member who is willing to ask repeatedly.  I'm fortunate to live in a stake that has shown a willingness to take questions to the FP.

[Russell C McGregor]

And from the Nov 13 letter:  "They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance."

 

So are they supposed to attend or not attend?  Wouldn't attending create the conflicts that Elder Christofferson wants to avoid?

Attending is different from membership. Do you suppose that asking people to wait before entering into sacred covenants is the same as turning them away at the door?

[CV75]

I agree.  But I doubt every leader will feel comfortable overriding handbook policies.  And generally it takes a member who is willing to ask repeatedly.  I'm fortunate to live in a stake that has shown a willingness to take questions to the FP.

Please provide a couple of examples.

[Russell C McGregor]

Can you explain why the policy would mention requiring first presidency approval for ordinations and missionary service?  To me that wording clearly applies to a situation where someone was already baptized.

Thank you for the question, Ron.

Here is the relevant paragraph, with highlighting added by me:

 

When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.

In simple terms: the policy doesn't say they can't be ordained or recommended for missionary service. But neither do they just get waved through. Their situation is a factor that needs to be taken into account when making those decisions.

That's how I read it, anyway.

[rockpond]

Attending is different from membership. Do you suppose that asking people to wait before entering into sacred covenants is the same as turning them away at the door?

 

No.

 

So, in the interest of this "check my logic" thread, let's follow this through...

 

Say you have a child who lives most of the time with her mom and stepmom.  Dad is active LDS.  Mom is supportive of her daughter attending church and so they bring her every week.  As she approaches age 8 she is looking forward to getting baptized.  But is told by the Bishop that she cannot.  She is devastated as she has been taught in primary that she needs to be baptized to follow Jesus.  She desperately wants to have the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Three things can happen:

 

1.  Bishop goes to SP and SP goes to FP to get an exception.

2.  Girl decides that she has to go live full-time with her Dad.

3.  Girl doesn't get baptized.

 

I'd hypothesize that this is the most likely type of scenario given the Nov 13 letter.  In each of those three examples, what exactly has the policy accomplished?

[rockpond]

Please provide a couple of examples.

 

Examples of what?  Leaders overriding the handbook?  Leaders going to the FP with questions?  Members having to ask repeatedly?

[rockpond]

In simple terms: the policy doesn't say they can't be ordained or recommended for missionary service. But neither do they just get waved through.

 

Actually the policy (in the handbook DOES say that they can't be ordained or recommended for missionary service.  The Nov 13 letter says that they can with approval under certain conditions.

 

That's one of the clear cut changes between the written policy and the Nov 13 letter.

[KevinG]

It is too early in the practice of same sex marriages and parenting to evaluate the real consequences for the children of such unions.  I posted the testimony of two LDS sisters raised in same sex households, yet who disagree with the choice of their biological parent to raise them with a gay partner.   They bear reading when considering the outcome of any divorce and remarriage.  It will probably be another generation or two before we really know the outcome of this social experiment.  

 

http://www.puttingitplainly.com/i_am_that_kid/

 

(quote from article)

 

"How can the church, a society, or even greater … our God, ask an 8 year old, a 12 year old or even a 16 year old to take on such a task while intimately living in a circumstance that conflicts with religious teachings they are pursuing. (Lest we forget this policy applies to an individual who is in fact pursuing religious association with the Mormon church.) Association is not being denied but our wise Father in heaven is looking to reduce the conflict and storm in the mind of the child by easing the transition and treading upon actual baptism lightly and respectfully.  Two worlds so conflicting in any circumstances take an extreme amount of courage, strength, mental capacity, and emotional understanding to gracefully intertwine into a healthy existence. That picture looks so different for everyone, but the one person who can see that picture is a wise and kind Heavenly Father, whom I do believe loves us individually and has no malice in His motives to help us individually navigate. His intent is messaged to us through living prophets and apostles who also have no malice or ill intent, they are kind, loving people."

 

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/guest-stand/i-am-the-daughter-of-lesbians-and-i-am-a-mormon/

 

(quote from article)

 

"...feeling like we have to choose between our families and something else is excruciating. There were many times in my childhood that I felt torn between my beliefs and my mothers’ choices. I have personally spoken out disagreeing with the way I was raised and homosexual marriage and it has been one of the hardest things I have ever done. I cannot imagine what it would be like for a child to sit in a bishop’s office and disavow the marriage or relationship of his or her parents. Having children wait until they are eighteen takes this huge burden off of the children’s shoulders and ensures that the children are at a point in their lives where they can make eternal decisions with greater understanding."

[CV75]

No.

 

So, in the interest of this "check my logic" thread, let's follow this through...

 

Say you have a child who lives most of the time with her mom and stepmom.  Dad is active LDS.  Mom is supportive of her daughter attending church and so they bring her every week.  As she approaches age 8 she is looking forward to getting baptized.  But is told by the Bishop that she cannot.  She is devastated as she has been taught in primary that she needs to be baptized to follow Jesus.  She desperately wants to have the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Three things can happen:

 

1.  Bishop goes to SP and SP goes to FP to get an exception.

2.  Girl decides that she has to go live full-time with her Dad.

3.  Girl doesn't get baptized.

 

I'd hypothesize that this is the most likely type of scenario given the Nov 13 letter.  In each of those three examples, what exactly has the policy accomplished?

 

Why aren’t her parents the ones telling her?

 

4. Girl is counseled by parents (and leaders as necessary) so that she understands correct doctrine, and that she has lost nothing in the end.

 

In all cases, the policy establishes boundaries and expectations for acceptable behavior and practice, and instills the norm and value of marriage in the LDS faith.

 

And when you get your training, hopefully you will have a chance to ask these questions.