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

[Thinking]

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?

 

Many critics have pointed to the lack of special circumstances for other children whose parents are living in a different type of sin. I don't think an adulterer, for example, is going to have much success in convincing the members to appeal to the LDS leadership to accept adultery as an acceptable lifestyle. The issue with SSM is different because there is so much support for it outside of the church. I believe that this is the one issue that could splinter the church. If children of SS couples were viewed as stable, some of the arguments against SSM would go away. I believe the leaders aren't really sure what to do, but felt the need to do something.

 

Note: This is my opinion, and I offered it only because I was asked.

[KevinG]

I'd like to hear from the Bishop who claims the Holy Ghost told him to reveal the contents of the updated handbook to the press.

 

That would be a great interview!

[Mars]

I'd like to hear from the Bishop who claims the Holy Ghost told him to reveal the contents of the updated handbook to the press.

 

That would be a great interview!

 

if i recall correctly, john dehlin said it was a redditor who pointed him to the change and the original image was uploaded to imgur.

 

based on demographics of imgurians and redditors, my guess is that it was a single male.  perhaps a ward clerk or someone else who has access to that kind of information, who snapped a picture with a smartphone and uploaded it to imgur.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Read post 51.

Tolerance of ambiguity is a sign of intelligence

[Ron]

Many critics have pointed to the lack of special circumstances for other children whose parents are living in a different type of sin. I don't think an adulterer, for example, is going to have much success in convincing the members to appeal to the LDS leadership to accept adultery as an acceptable lifestyle. The issue with SSM is different because there is so much support for it outside of the church. I believe that this is the one issue that could splinter the church. If children of SS couples were viewed as stable, some of the arguments against SSM would go away. I believe the leaders aren't really sure what to do, but felt the need to do something.

 

Note: This is my opinion, and I offered it only because I was asked.

 

This explanation makes sense to me much more so than the explanation that the purpose was to protect the children from conflict within their SSM family.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Ron

[mfbukowski]

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.

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_

Edited November 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

Yep.

Edited November 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

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.

Seems like you are assuming an awful lot..there are people i have talked to at work that are very faithful and they have and for the past week or so they are wondering if they are in the Lord's church anymore,

[KevinG]

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.

 

Agreed.  There is a huge difference between hoping someone gets an eternal comeuppance, and wanting to warn them from a path that could lead to loss of eternal blessings.  I have not heard a single person on these boards hoping for the condemnation and damnation of another soul.

 

For example: I love my non-LDS gay friends and do not preach at them to change their lifestyle.  I love my LDS brothers and sisters and remind them that gay marriage is not consistent with the covenants they have made.  I love my family and teach them that marriage is between a man and a woman, nonetheless we should respect our pioneer fore-bearers who were under a different law, and those of other religions who do not believe as we do.  

[Jeanne]

I'd like to hear from the Bishop who claims the Holy Ghost told him to reveal the contents of the updated handbook to the press.

 

That would be a great interview!

Me too!

[mfbukowski]

If a Bishop messes up it's on his head.

[Buckeye]

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.

 

And to be clear, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote this. I find you to be very fair and kind, Mars. I wish that all those who view this issue differently than me were like you.

[Mars]

And to be clear, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote this. I find you to be very fair and kind, Mars. I wish that all those who view this issue differently than me were like you.

 

i appreciate that distinction, but i think (hope?) most people feel the same way as me when they agree that gay marriage isn't part of God's plan.  at least, in my small world, the people i've met who disagree with gay marriage aren't hoping for demise or some sort of painful end as a way to teach those people a lesson.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Mars

[Ron]

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.

 

If a bishop were to ask for permission from the first presidency for an ordination or missionary service that person would already be baptized.  That is the point of my original post.  If it applied to non-baptized children only then there is no reason to require first presidency approval for ordinations or missionary service as the policy clearly does.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Ron

[Buckeye]

i appreciate that distinction, but i think (hope?) most people feel the same way as me.  at least, in my small world, the people who disagree with gay marriage aren't hoping for demise or some sort of painful end as a way to teach those people a lesson.

 

I probably could have written that better. The people I know are not literally wanting others to suffer. But they do desire to be right in the long term and are honest enough to recognize that their being right requires that same-sex relationships result in misery.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Buckeye

[why me]

Seems like you are assuming an awful lot..there are people i have talked to at work that are very faithful and they have and for the past week or so they are wondering if they are in the Lord's church anymore,

Maybe I am. But if she is a granddaughter of a GA, I am sure that it would take more than this to have her resign. EIther she believes her grandfather or not as a GA. One policy would not do it. It was most likely a series of things with this policy being the last straw. Questioning the policy and resigning are two different things.

[Russell C McGregor]

But you're on record as not only favoring Church acceptance, approval and solemnization of homosexual behavior but predicting it will surely happen.

 

Indeed. The overlap between those ostensibly agonising about the children and those expecting (or demanding) that the Church will accept "same sex marriage" appears to be -- rather large.

[Jeanne]

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

 

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.

And in that process, the LDS church has probably lost the one chance they had to baptize that soul.  Baffles me for all the missionary work going on.

[Zakuska]

 

None of this changes the fact that homosexuality has been called an abomination in scripture

 

Along with a thousand other things we no longer consider "Abominations"...

 

eg.

 

Eating Shrimp (Lev 11:12)

Mixing Fabrics (Lev 19:19) [Oh great... One more way we have to seperate cloths before we wash them, "Honey... we've been sinning for years!"]

...

Feeding fish to a fish.

 

Heres a whole list of Marriage arrangements purportedly considered "Abominations" and prohibited by God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18

 

How do we know Leviticus 18 is a man made policy and not from God?

 

Do the Geneology of the Patriarchs!

 

Abraham was married to his half sister Sarah, thats strictly forbidden by Leviticus:

 

Lev 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness

 

God would never give a law that turned all previous Patriarchs, from Adam to Moses and their family arrangements into "Abominations"! Especially marriages he helped to arrange sending Angels to guide the way in the case of Isaac.

 

PS. Think about it would, God really be worried about something so trivial as what type of cloth one wears?

I thought what he worried about was what was on the inside? Leviticus 18 has the hand of the Jewish Scribes and Pharasees written all over it.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

This is not even close to an accurate summation of what the Church is doing and I think you know better.  The Church will remain a source of instruction and welcome.  What is not available is ordinances.  

 

At no time has the Church said any person or individual is not welcome to attend meetings or will not enjoy the fellowship of the saints.  Those individual that attempt to paint the position of the Church in such terms are liars and being lead by the evil one.  

 

The Church will remain a voice calling people to repentance, but will force not a single person to heaven.  If there is anyone, any married gay couple, that is attending church and is committed to bringing their children into the the Church then there is an option of taking their case to the Church for an exception.  Are you saying this is not true?  Are you saying that exceptions will not be made?  Or are you saying that such a couple does not exist, but it is great to whine about situations that have no basis in reality, but it is sure good to rail against the Church?

 

Pick.  Choose who you will follow, but get off the high horse.  We all know better. 

[ERayR]

And in that process, the LDS church has probably lost the one chance they had to baptize that soul.  Baffles me for all the missionary work going on.

 

You do not understand baptism. 

[Jeanne]

The thing is.,,at least to me, by not baptizing but letting them attend at their desire, still hurts the child which is what said policy was supposed to avoid.

[Jeanne]

You do not understand baptism. 

Well..you can baptize them when they die I guess.

[Faithful]

Mormons will be Mormons.

[Faithful]

That's evil to deprive a child of a mother and a father.