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

[KevinG]

If that's the case, than why wouldn't we want our legal team helping to draft policies to protect the Church?  Why is that a bad thing?  Why is it cynical?

 

I would rather ecclesiastical authority wrote the policy, and lawyers reviewed them to make sure they are legally sound.  Not the other way around.

 

Excuse me if I read you wrong, but I got the distinct impression your invoking the "lawyers drafted" statement was intended to demonstrate that the handbook policy was written primarily from a lawyers standpoint, and primarily by lawyers, for primarily legal reasons, and that the stated purpose that Elder Christofferson shared was not something you believed was true.

 

That is why I thought your follow up was cynical.

[KevinG]

Baptism makes the child responsible for covenants they will not be able to keep if the abandon the church after baptism

 

They would be harmed by BEING baptized.  They are better off unbaptized!!

 

This is a very important point that underscores my understanding of the situation.  I suspect it is an assumption of the brethren and Elder Christofferson also.  That having someone enter into a covenant with no support to help them keep it, or opposition to at least part of the covenant, would be a cruelty not a kindness.

 

This is the same reason I think outsiders don't realize why we say excommunication is often a kindness and gives the excommunicated person time to repent and return to the fold, while not condemning themselves for repeatedly breaking the covenants they made.

 

The church is not a social club, although it does have a social component.  The covenant God made with Israel, and now with us is a critical reason for our membership.

[rockpond]

I would rather ecclesiastical authority wrote the policy, and lawyers reviewed them to make sure they are legally sound.  Not the other way around.

 

Excuse me if I read you wrong, but I got the distinct impression your invoking the "lawyers drafted" statement was intended to demonstrate that the handbook policy was written primarily from a lawyers standpoint, and primarily by lawyers, for primarily legal reasons, and that the stated purpose that Elder Christofferson shared was not something you believed was true.

 

That is why I thought your follow up was cynical.

 

If it's a policy intended to protect from lawsuits, it would be most efficient to have the legal team write it and the ecclesiastical authority review.  When the church buys property, do you think they have the Brethren write the purchase contract and then have the lawyers review it?

 

As for Elder Christofferson's explanation, it fits best when considered in light of the legal rationale for the policy.  At least for me.  His explanation was certainly true.

[hagoth7]

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

 

...Abraham was married to his half sister Sarah, that's strictly forbidden by Leviticus:

 

....Leviticus 18 has the hand of the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees written all over it.

 

One could instead conclude that Abraham simply wasn't subject to laws that came centuries after his day....just as we aren't subject to many laws that came before our day.

[Russell C McGregor]

Because you don't think Kirton had anything to do with this policy or because you don't think people should be concerned about having a law firm dictate rules about saving ordinances?

 

 

It's interesting, I've been told time and time again on this discussion board that the church will eventually face lawsuits regarding same sex marriage.  Then, if I suggest that our legal team may have drafted a policy to help protect against such lawsuits it gets branded as cynical and anti-Mormon.

 

 

If that's the case, than why wouldn't we want our legal team helping to draft policies to protect the Church?  Why is that a bad thing?  Why is it cynical?

 

Rockpond, are you part eel, or something?

 

I'm sure you feel like you're being remarkably clever when you play these word games, but they are a major part of what gets people frustrated with you.

 

A legal team vetting the wording of a document is a whole lot different than "having a law firm dictate rules about saving ordinances."

Maybe one day you'll try talking out of just one side of your mouth, for a change.

 

Poster removed

[rockpond]

 

 

 

 

 

Rockpond, are you part eel, or something?

 

I'm sure you feel like you're being remarkably clever when you play these word games, but they are a major part of what gets people frustrated with you.

 

A legal team vetting the wording of a document is a whole lot different than "having a law firm dictate rules about saving ordinances."

Maybe one day you'll try talking out of just one side of your mouth, for a change.

 

Try not taking my statements out of the context of the discussion in which they took place.  The first quote you clipped (about a law firm dictating rules about saving ordinances) was a question.  Not an assertion.

 

I think you read everything I write with a certain tone because you seem to believe that I'm not a faithful church member.  Since I can't force a tone through these posts, maybe you could just try to read some of my posts as coming from a guy who is an active, TR holding, faithful high priest trying his best to make it in the Church.

[mfbukowski]

This is a very important point that underscores my understanding of the situation.  I suspect it is an assumption of the brethren and Elder Christofferson also.  That having someone enter into a covenant with no support to help them keep it, or opposition to at least part of the covenant, would be a cruelty not a kindness.

 

This is the same reason I think outsiders don't realize why we say excommunication is often a kindness and gives the excommunicated person time to repent and return to the fold, while not condemning themselves for repeatedly breaking the covenants they made.

 

The church is not a social club, although it does have a social component.  The covenant God made with Israel, and now with us is a critical reason for our membership.

They often have the Catholic perspective where baptism saves from orignal sin- no baptism, you burn in hell.

 

That's not us!

 

For us, baptism puts you on the path of repentance by making covenants that lead to personal perfection.

 

Who would want that responsibility if they did not understand that?   Taking on those covenants at the age of 8 requires a supportive family to teach you the way.

 

If do not have a supportive family you are better off not making promises you will be unable to keep.   Of course God would forgive such a child, but the baptism would be meaningless at best.

[rockpond]

Taking on those covenants at the age of 8 requires a supportive family to teach you the way.

 

If do not have a supportive family you are better off not making promises you will be unable to keep.

 

We already had a policy in place to prevent a child from being baptized without a supportive family.

[ERayR]

I have three children. And they're more important to me than any statistic you could quote back to me.

I have hosted 18 gay returned missionary former LDS fathers in my home, who each have kids ranging in quantity from 2 to 6, each. All are supportive of our kids' church membership.

And our collective experience represents a fraction of hundreds of other kids like ours.

Given Christ's approach to leaving the 99 for the one, are the total numbers of children really relevant? Their souls are just as precious, especially when this policy is targeted directly at them.

 

And do you support the Church stance on SSM?

[Teancum]

Try not taking my statements out of the context of the discussion in which they took place.  The first quote you clipped (about a law firm dictating rules about saving ordinances) was a question.  Not an assertion.

 

I think you read everything I write with a certain tone because you seem to believe that I'm not a faithful church member.  Since I can't force a tone through these posts, maybe you could just try to read some of my posts as coming from a guy who is an active, TR holding, faithful high priest trying his best to make it in the Church.

Rcokpond, no matter what you say Russell will continue to demean you as less faithful than he and others are because you are not what he as someone who is orthodox. And he will find clever ways to continue to demean you and essentially call you dishonest and disingenuous for your positions. Because you are anonymous you may be further marginalized, And he will get away with it. That's how it works here. You as unorthodox and I and others as skeptics have to be extra nice or we get in trouble yet we are never told why even when we ask.

I like you Rcokpond, You rarely if ever are strident even when you have strident posters pile on you and question your faithfulness and honesty. I need to be more like you. You are kind and ever patient. I try but I backslide. Even when I apologize and do better others just continue to be strident and rude as well as very arrogant. You can do that and get away with it. Not always, but for longer, if you are on the right side. But I guess this is a pro LDS board so what's to be expected. I share this with you and care enough to use one of my now limited 12 posts per day to share this with you.

Not sure how long I will be sticking around. Best wishes.

[rockpond]

Rcokpond, no matter what you say Russell will continue to demean you as less faithful than he and others are because you are not what he as someone who is orthodox. And he will find clever ways to continue to demean you and essentially call you dishonest and disingenuous for your positions. Because you are anonymous you may be further marginalized, And he will get away with it. That's how it works here. You as unorthodox and I and others as skeptics have to be extra nice or we get in trouble yet we are never told why even when we ask.

I like you Rcokpond, You rarely if ever are strident even when you have strident posters pile on you and question your faithfulness and honesty. I need to be more like you. You are kind and ever patient. I try but I backslide. Even when I apologize and do better others just continue to be strident and rude as well as very arrogant. You can do that and get away with it. Not always, but for longer, if you are on the right side. But I guess this is a pro LDS board so what's to be expected. I share this with you and care enough to use one of my now limited 12 posts per day to share this with you.

Not sure how long I will be sticking around. Best wishes.

 

Thanks for the compliments but I'm really not all that.  Just trying.  And often failing.

 

I think the "anonymous" thing is a cop out.  Just a way that they can attack me rather than my positions.  It wouldn't matter if I posted my real name here.  What would that possibly change?

 

I hope you'll stay.  We need your voice!

[KevinG]

I don't care if you are anonymous. I do care that you discuss things in good faith and I did see inco siatency in taking the position that a law firm dictated the policy vs. Lawyers reviewing the policy. For me it is not an either or. We can be concerned about children growing up in homes that don't align with the covenants they make and protect the church from lawfare at the same time. But I also take Elder Christofferson at his word that the primary concern was for the children who are caught in between family beliefs and church beliefs.

[KevinG]

Supportive family here in the context of one that will help the child to keep the baptismal covenant. Entering into and teaching gay marriage is not supportive of the covenant we make at baptism.

[Teancum]

Thanks for the compliments but I'm really not all that.  Just trying.  And often failing.

 

I think the "anonymous" thing is a cop out.  Just a way that they can attack me rather than my positions.  It wouldn't matter if I posted my real name here.  What would that possibly change?

 

I hope you'll stay.  We need your voice!

Thanks. I will see. Some will be happier without my voice and the mods have now limited my voice. A few weeks ago I would have may not have been surprised. Today I am.

The hubris and arrogance that so many can post with here and get away with while at the same time calling out others and criticizing them when they push back is tiresome. It really is an endless argument on most issues and poor use of my time I am seeing. Nobody seems persuaded either way and I guess that is to be expected. Maybe lurkers are influenced one way or the other. But this board does little to build my testimony of the church nor to edify much in any way. I would be better off spending the time finishing four books I am still working through.

Being limited in my posting might be a blessing in disguise for me and others here.

[rockpond]

Thanks. I will see. Some will be happier without my voice and the mods have now limited my voice. A few weeks ago I would have may not have been surprised. Today I am.

The hubris and arrogance that so many can post with here and get away with while at the same time calling out others and criticizing them when they push back is tiresome. It really is an endless argument on most issues and poor use of my time I am seeing. Nobody seems persuaded either way and I guess that is to be expected. Maybe lurkers are influenced one way or the other. But this board does little to build my testimony of the church nor to edify much in any way. I would be better off spending the time finishing four books I am still working through.

Being limited in my posting might be a blessing in disguise for me and others here.

 

Yeah - it's not very edifying for me either.  I should also find a better use of my time.

[omni]

The clarification of the handbook change seems to say that if a child living within SSM is already baptized then they can continue to receive ordinances, serve a mission, etc.

Would it not then be impossible for the situation of denying ordinations or missionary service to ever occur? If you have never been baptized then it would be impossible to get ordained or serve a mission? If so why even include those situations in the handbook at all?

Or am I mis-interpreting the clarifiation? Or is my logic faulty?

Your logic is sound. It would be incredibly refreshing if the leaders of the church simply offered some sort of mea culpa. They can make policy mistakes and still claim to be prophets of God.

Whether you believe the clarification offered by brother Otterson was just that, or a bit of back pedaling, there is no denying mistakes were made. IMO, offering an apology for the poorly written policy would have gone miles further than essentially blaming social media.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am in agreement that it is forbidden now.  And I suspect it will never be due to our eternal natures and the Lord's teachings that a man and a woman make up a family.  However, I cannot say for certain that this will eternally be the case.  However that does not mean we should lobby the Lord or complain to the Lord's anointed when there is a decision we don't like. 

Again, I'm only echoing what prophets and apostles have said, including most recently Elder Christofferson.

[Scott Lloyd]

Try not taking my statements out of the context of the discussion in which they took place.  The first quote you clipped (about a law firm dictating rules about saving ordinances) was a question.  Not an assertion.

 

I think you read everything I write with a certain tone because you seem to believe that I'm not a faithful church member.  Since I can't force a tone through these posts, maybe you could just try to read some of my posts as coming from a guy who is an active, TR holding, faithful high priest trying his best to make it in the Church.

I take all those things into account, but I have to also consider that you are very publicly and persistently at odds with the leaders of the Church on a very important doctrinal matter.

[David13]

The old saying is, 'believe none of what you hear, and only one half of what you see.'.

So I say no, seeing is not believing.

dc

[Gray]

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.

 

No prophet has delivered a message from God claiming that same sex marriage is wrong. 

 

On the other hand, we have Jesus saying good fruit doesn't come from a bad tree. 

 

I guess you could rely on prooftexts about gay fornication/prostitution, but I don't know what that would have to do with gay marriage. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Gray

[rockpond]

I take all those things into account, but I have to also consider that you are very publicly and persistently at odds with the leaders of the Church on a very important doctrinal matter.

 

I am?  How's that?

[Scott Lloyd]

I am?  How's that?

It's late, I'm on a project for work, and I don't have time for coyness tonight.

 

Pleasant dreams.

[rockpond]

It's late, I'm on a project for work, and I don't have time for coyness tonight.

 

Pleasant dreams.

 

So you make a personal accusation and then won't respond.  

 

Have a good night.

[Tacenda]

It's not even about baptism. It's about Christ bringing the children to him and blessing them. The church can continue to bless children.

I don't think the church blesses the children. I remember it was said that the blessing starts them out as a member on record.

[The Nehor]

I don't think the church blesses the children. I remember it was said that the blessing starts them out as a member on record.

Different ordinance. They cannot receive the Name and Blessing ordinance which usually happens within a month of being born and makes them a "child of record". Blessings to heal the sick or general blessings can be given.