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

[ERayR]

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.

 

How can it hurt the child?

[Faithful]

Chastity laws should be repealed.

[ERayR]

Mormons will be Mormons.

 

What is that suppose to mean?  Please add some substance.

[phaedrus ut]

I believe the Deseret News quoted the figure that 95% of those resigning were no longer active in the church.  I doubt many of those people have second thoughts.  Just like 95% of divorces happen to people who are separated and no longer in love.  The 5% are people making a quick decision and would be the most likely to have any remorse.  I have no clue what the total amount processed is but the attorney there had a total of 1800 that he took with him and the mailbox next to the COB was filled to capacity with those that brought their own letters to mail. Including minor children resigned by their parents I'd guesstimate there were 3000 resignations a the in-person event. Obviously the in-person event was only for those that lived within driving distance.  Do those resignations represent 10% of the recent total or 50%?  There is no way to really know.

 

 

Phaedrus

[rockpond]

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.

Sorry. Typo. 68:27.

You haven't actually identified a correct doctrine to teach her. I suspect that's because there isn't one to justify delaying her baptism more than a decade past when the Lord said to do it. Explaining the doctrine on marriage doesn't tell her why she can't be baptized unless you are making her responsible for her parents actions.

[Jeanne]

How can it hurt the child?

The policy is written so a child doesn't here one thing in church and living around a different principle at home....if that child still goes to church by his/her desire or by invitiation...they are welcome..but they are going to still hear te same things,

[rockpond]

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.

That's why I bolder and underlined the word "or".

Obviously you can't ordain someone who hasn't been baptized.

[Daniel2]

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?

 

 

It wouldn't have even crossed my mind that I would have needed to clarify, given that I've never voiced any concern about the church's decision to classify the act of entering into a same-sex marriage as apostasy.

 

After a brief poll of some of my friends in response to your request for consideration, all of them share that same response; we didn't clarify that that was the extent, because the thought never crossed our mind, especially since we haven't voiced concern over that aspect of the policy.

 

It's only you who's claiming that we have ulterior motives for opposing the policy.

 

However, I am more than happy to go on record by saying that the negative affect on children is the extent of my concern--in fact, mostly in cases where kids of failed mixed orientation are being raised in the church--and I really don't care about the Church's position on gay marriage being an act of apostasy, especially since policy is not doctrine, and classifications of apostasy can change over time (as they did with plural marriage, and have the potential to change again regarding such).

[Mars]

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.

 

fair enough.

[rockpond]

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.

I'm not aware of anyone wanting to commandeer the helm.

You think all those who feel the way I do are jumping ship? Sorry... We love this church too. And, as I indicate elsewhere, I believe this policy will ultimately lead us the same direction Prop 8 did -- to a place of even greater love and acceptance. Right where the Lord wants us.

[rockpond]

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.

Exactly.

[Gray]

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.

 

Good fruit = good tree, right? 

[Daniel2]

 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.

 

This sure seems to me to be what will happen...  The church is forcing such kids to make a choice.

 

In the long run, I think that's a loosing position for the church.  Not just for those kids, but as the effects of this policy are observed, devout and straight family, friends, aunts, uncles, grandparents, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. will struggle more and more with how this policy is forcing their gay/lesbians family members to choose family over church.  And many will begin to pray for a day when the church will change, approach their leaders with questions on how to keep their families together, and struggle with why God would want to get rid of some of their family members...

 

Hence, the thinking that this policy from the LDS church leadership may do for Latter-day Saint cultural acceptance within the church of same-gender relationships what the church's involvement in Prop 8 did for social acceptance of same-gender marriage in America.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

There is another perspective on this, too.

 

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

 

I suspect that this is what the SSM advocates are counting on.

[rockpond]

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.

I definitely agree that the church wants everyone to attend. They're making it awfully hard for gay couples but I do think they want everyone to attend.

I'm saying that if the purpose of the policy is to avoid conflicts with church teachings and home life than attending church is not going to be appropriate as it will create that conflict (with or without baptism).

I know that there are gay couples who support their children being church members. I think that exceptions will be made. I also think there are leaders who will read the policy in the handbook, follow it to the letter, and not make an exception.

[Russell C McGregor]

Incidentally, the next stanza of that poem (by Alexander Pope) is also relevant in this context:

 

But where th' extreme of vice, was ne'er agreed:
Ask where's the North? at York, 'tis on the Tweed;
In Scotland, at the Orcades; and there,
At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where.
No creature owns it in the first degree,
But thinks his neighbour farther gone than he:
Ev'n those who dwell beneath its very zone,
Or never feel the rage, or never own;
What happier natures shrink at with affright,
The hard inhabitant contends is right.

[Buckeye]

There is another perspective on this, too.

 

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

 

I suspect that this is what the SSM advocates are counting on.

 

It's also what suffragettes and civil rights leaders counted on.

[Daniel2]

How can it hurt the child?

 

This kind of response is amazing to me.

 

It's hard for me to understand how any parent would blithely dismiss the influence of the church, not to mention the paramount importance of social pressure, acceptance, bullying, teasing, in school, at home, one's neighborhood, group, etc. on a child, especially when burdening the child by forcing him or her to either a) 'come out' to his/her friends as being ineligible for baptism or ordinations because their mom or dad is gay, or b) lie about the reasons they can't get baptized.

 

I've never forced my kids to tell their peers that I'm gay and married; I've never forced them to acknowledge my relationship.  All the family therapists we've worked with have told me that to force my kids to shoulder and take responsibility to defend my relationship in a community that is openly disapproving (at best) and/or hostile (at worst) of my relationship places an unfair and potentially harmful burden on their own development.  Kids shouldn't feel pressure to take sides in situations like this--they should simply be allowed to be themselves.

 

Why do so many members of the church seem impervious to the social and internal burdens the policy places on the children---especially when those of us who are in same-sex relationships are more than willing to preserve and support their individual development (including their spiritual development), without forcing them to accept our views...?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Daniel2

[Russell C McGregor]

It's also what suffragettes and civil rights leaders counted on.

 

Voting is a vice?

Who knew?

[Zakuska]

It's also what suffragettes and civil rights leaders counted on.

 

Reminds me of Bat Man.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

Not misery, but a change of perspective for sure. The change will bring peace, not misery. But, yes, I do think that all gay marriages and relationships are finite by nature. I also do not know how God will judge those who entered into them, nor do I pretend to condemn them myself. 

[Mystery Meat]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Murder, adultery, stealing, lying, coveting, disrespecting parents....

 

All of those were also part of Mosaic Law. Just because part of the law is no longer binding does not mean all of it is obsolete, or better said, the law under which we now live includes many of the same commandments. Just as we have scriptural and prophetic evidence that it was wrong to murder, steal, fornicate, and lie before, during and after the Law of Moses, we have scriptural and prophetic evidence that it was wrong to have sex with someone of the same gender before, during and after the Law of Moses. We have no such evidence that eating shrimp, as you say, was a violation of God's word before or after the Law of Moses. Therefore, your comparison is weak at best, downright misleading at worst.

 

You keep trying to equate restrictions on diet found in Leviticus with homosexuality and each time I have pointed out that we still live under many of the commandments found under the Law of Moses you have ignored it. I do not doubt that my third attempt will also be ignored. But by all means keep bringing up the same, tired (and worthless) arguments that do not help your case at all.

[Calm]

but i fall short of the ideal and i really prefer those closest to me to be pure sources of positivity.  that doesn't mean they need to agree with everything i say and do.  it just means that disagreement and challenges need to be approached with caution "lest esteem thee to be [mine] enemy."  just part and parcel of who i am as a person.

It is hard to be relaxed and one's self (meaning transparent in how one feels and thinks) if the person you are with is such that you have to carefully watch what you say in fear of hurting feelings or starting a debate or whatever.  And this can even include people that you agree with but are so sensitive on a subject they get upset easily if they take something you said in the wrong way....iow they don't give you the benefit of the doubt and you find yourself having to 'prove' yourself over and over instead of being able to feel you are trusted even if a misstep is taken at times.  And if someone acts one way with you and then significantly different with those who have different ideas, it can be hard to know what their personal POV actually is and thus the person is seen as less than transparent...and most people don't do transparency very deeply unless there is a sense of reciprocity.  

 

It is important to be willing to work at relationships, otherwise they will remain shallow...but if the majority of a relationhip is work, then I would be reluctant to invest a lot of energy, either physical or emotional into it.  A deep relationship needs to be rejuvenating and supportive without requiring one to jump through hoops to get that support.

[Mystery Meat]

Good fruit = good tree, right? 

 

Being a nice person yields good fruit.

 

Being an honest person also yields good fruit.

 

Gay people are capable of being nice and honest (among many other things). This isn't a zero sum game. Just like we all have strengths and weaknesses, gay people are also allowed to experience good fruit from the things they do that are good. 

 

Being in a same sex relationship certainly yields fruit. God has already spoken through his prophets in countless dispensations about how he feels about homosexuality. The most important fruit is God's approval and God does not approve of same sex marriage according to countless prophets, both modern and ancient (those called to speak with the same voice). Another fruit we see in our world is that they are cut off from the Lord's people. That is a fruit of the gay lifestyle, and it certainly isn't good.

[Calm]

Still easier to resign from the LDS church than to cancel Comcast cable.

No points left, so a  :snort:       instead.

 

Wells Fargo Bank, my dad died almost a year ago (no need to express sympathy, I am certain this was the best for him) and after at least 5 times of going personally to the bank with a death certificate and the account number and with my mom who is in much pain and car drives and sitting in banks are like running a marathon for her, we still can't get one of his accounts closed and since they have been withdrawing a fee each month, this next month we will be owing them money....urg....urg...

Edited November 17, 2015 by Calm