CV75 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Examples of what? Leaders overriding the handbook? Leaders going to the FP with questions? Members having to ask repeatedly?"Leaders going to the FP with questions" on matters where you are fortunate that they did.
mfbukowski Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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.Read post 51.Tolerance of ambiguity is a sign of intelligence
Russell C McGregor Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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?Since you asked: She gets baptised. Along the way, she learns that baptism isn't just a social occasion, but a momentous matter; and that the Church isn't just some kind of social club, but a covenant community of Saints, committed to live holy lives. She ceases to be daily socialised to believe that immorality is normal. (Please try not to have a conniption fit about this. This is, after all, the way Latter-day Saints normally view same sex relationships. You're not going to change that by getting indignant about it.) The conflicts Elder Christofferson identified are mitigated. This point also applies in the other two outcomes. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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. Is it a "clear cut change?" What part of the original S. 16.13 specifies that already baptised children can't receive further ordinances?
rockpond Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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. Correct doctrine? What "correct doctrine" are you going to teach a 7 year old girl to help her understand that she needs to wait until she moves out of her moms' home to be baptized? You could teach her D&C 69:27. Oh wait, no, that won't help. Maybe you could read her the words of Christ in Matthew 18:3-6. Hmmm... nah, that won't help either. I guess you could go to Mosiah and teach her that she is just a little child and doesn't need baptism. But then that would cause more conflicts since she had been taught differently in primary.
rockpond Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 "Leaders going to the FP with questions" on matters where you are fortunate that they did. I said I am fortunate to live in a stake where they "do". I have not personally ever needed to have them go to the FP.
rockpond Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Since you asked: She gets baptised. Along the way, she learns that baptism isn't just a social occasion, but a momentous matter; and that the Church isn't just some kind of social club, but a covenant community of Saints, committed to live holy lives. She ceases to be daily socialised to believe that immorality is normal. (Please try not to have a conniption fit about this. This is, after all, the way Latter-day Saints normally view same sex relationships. You're not going to change that by getting indignant about it.) The conflicts Elder Christofferson identified are mitigated. This point also applies in the other two outcomes. 1. She understands as well as every other 7 year old in her class that baptism is an important covenant. Not a social occasion.2. She will still live with her moms, if that's what you are referring to. And her mom will always be her mom.3. As long as she is attending church, the conflict is still there. I still don't see what the policy accomplishes. It might, however, convince her to choose her moms over the church since the Brethren are making her pick sides even though her moms are happy to support her either way. But then, maybe that's what is wanted from this policy... to get rid of people who might disagree with the way the church treats gay people.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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?I don't have a background in staging dog-and-pony shows. But I do have some experience in spotting them for what they are. 1
rockpond Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Is it a "clear cut change?" What part of the original S. 16.13 specifies that already baptised children can't receive further ordinances? A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. 2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage. Bold & underline added by me to highlight the answer to your question.
mfbukowski Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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?Do you even believe in the Holy Spirit? Do you think the church is run by computers that spout out answers for every possible question from the handbook? Guess what? If that were the case we wouldn't need you OR your bishop. Wouldn't that be great? Unfortunately to be in leadership you actually have to be inspired and pray and think about these things. Bummer, dude. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) 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.Granted, condemning a doctrinal position against same-sex marriage and/or cohabitation doesn't pack quite the rhetorical punch as (ostensibly) being concerned for the welfare of children. That's the reason for the focus on the latter. It's all about courting public opinion, you see. Consider this: How many of those issuing the hue and cry about the effect on the children have stated upfront that that's the extent of their concern, and that they really don't care about the Church's position on gay marriage being an act of apostasy? Edited November 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
CV75 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Correct doctrine? What "correct doctrine" are you going to teach a 7 year old girl to help her understand that she needs to wait until she moves out of her moms' home to be baptized? You could teach her D&C 69:27. Oh wait, no, that won't help. Maybe you could read her the words of Christ in Matthew 18:3-6. Hmmm... nah, that won't help either. I guess you could go to Mosiah and teach her that she is just a little child and doesn't need baptism. But then that would cause more conflicts since she had been taught differently in primary.It looks like you'll have a lot of questions in your training! (what's D&C 69:27?) I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a 7-year old to understand any aspect of her circumstance when properly taught by parents who are not resistant to correct doctrine on marriage, or to reassuring the child.
CV75 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I said I am fortunate to live in a stake where they "do". I have not personally ever needed to have them go to the FP.OK, please provide a couple of examples where they did.
mfbukowski Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Nevermind. Either you understand the way the church works or you don't. For people who understand inspiration, there can be no question.For people who do not, there can be no answer. A prophet said that- I am not sure who, but whoever it was, he nailed it. If you are hostile to the church you will always see that it is out to get you. There is a kind of paranoia that follows being a critic, I am convinced. Edited November 17, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
Russell C McGregor Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. 2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage. Bold & underline added by me to highlight the answer to your question. But it doesn't.Recall, please, that my question was: "What part of the original S. 16.13 specifies that already baptised children can't receive further ordinances?" Nothing you've quoted or highlighted specifies anything about already baptised children. Sorry. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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.But you're on record as not only favoring Church acceptance, approval and solemnization of homosexual behavior but predicting it will surely happen. 4
Ron Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Is it a "clear cut change?" What part of the original S. 16.13 specifies that already baptised children can't receive further ordinances? The the original policy S. 16.13 clearly says that first presidency approval is needed for ordinations or missionary service. The Nov. 13 letter says that is no longer necesssary for ordinations or missionary service, only for baptism.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 1. She understands as well as every other 7 year old in her class that baptism is an important covenant. Not a social occasion.2. She will still live with her moms, if that's what you are referring to. And her mom will always be her mom.3. As long as she is attending church, the conflict is still there. I still don't see what the policy accomplishes. It might, however, convince her to choose her moms over the church since the Brethren are making her pick sides even though her moms are happy to support her either way. But then, maybe that's what is wanted from this policy... to get rid of people who might disagree with the way the church treats gay people. BTW, the claim that her mother and her mother's other are "her moms" is false doctrine.Just to be clear. The doctrine is that she has one mother. And that her one mother is in an immoral and apostate relationship. This is what the Church teaches, and what the Latter-day Saints believe. 1
Analytics Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Read post 51.Tolerance of ambiguity is a sign of intelligence It's one thing to have a high tolerance of ambiguity, and it is something else to recognize whether or not ambiguity is there. But just to be sure I understand where you are coming from, the handbook says that it shouldn't be copied, scanned, or distributed to unauthorized people. Several people disregarded that guidance, and leaked the changes about same-sex families to the public. According to what you are saying, they didn't break any rules by doing this (there are no rules!), and they are totally within their authority to leak it as long as they felt the Holy Ghost inspired them to do so. Likewise, the book says bishops must keep things they hear in interviews confidential, but that's really just a suggestion and if the Holy Ghost tells them to, they are well within their rights to talk about the details of an interview to the whole ward. And so on with every other flexible guideline in the handbook. Bishops don't have to do anything the handbook says they must do--those are just loose guidelines that can be overwritten by the promptings they receive from the spirit. 1
Gray Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) 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. 100% agreed. Jesus provided the framework for us to evaluate good from evil for ourselves. And yet we still crave the laundry list of "authoritative" thou shalt nots. Edited November 17, 2015 by Gray
Ron Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) You do know this was changed, right? It was changed see my original post. The handbook policy was originally intended to prevent ordinations and missionary service. That obviously would only happen if someone was already baptized. The Nov. 13 letter changes the policy to only apply to those who are not yet baptized. Edited November 17, 2015 by Ron
Mystery Meat Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 100% agreed. Jesus provided the framework for us to evaluate good from evil for ourselves. And yet we still crave the laundry list of "authoritative" thou shalt nots. It's not that we are not using Jesus' list, it's that we don't think homosexuality or SSM comes close to checking the boxes. But nice try.
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 17, 2015 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.And if the events of the past couple of weeks are any indication, those thus seduced will sooner or later end up jumping ship after coming to the eventual realization that they aren't going to be able to commandeer the helm. 6
mfbukowski Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Bolding added One difficulty was a general lack of understanding of the Handbook itself, which is a guide for lay leaders of the church in 30,000 congregations across the world. A purpose of the Handbook is to provide bishops and other leaders with a standard reference point when they make decisions. Because it is a policy and procedural manual, the Handbook is not written in language that is necessarily contextual or explanatory. Church leaders are encouraged to use the Handbook in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Sensitivity to individual circumstances is learned through the Spirit, Christ’s teachings and example as found in the scriptures, from talks and teachings of General Authorities, and from the leaders’ own experience and exposure to real-life situations. No handbook can answer every question or address every circumstance. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook?cid=HP_FR_11-13-2015_dPAD_fMNWS_xLIDyL2-1_ There is really nothing else to say. Edited November 17, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
Mars Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) 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." that's not even close to how i feel. i don't want people to get their comeuppance, nor do i feel that gay marriage is an act that merits some sort of punitive measure form God. Edited November 17, 2015 by Mars 1
Recommended Posts