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

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

 

 

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.

I didn't answer last night, because I was doing some homework that had to be finished before I could go to bed. I wasn't up for a message-board back-and-forth.

 

I think it has never been more obvious than now that SSA sexual cohabitation -- inside or outside of a legal marriage -- is not and will never be acceptable within the purview of the Church of Jesus Christ. Underscoring that most recently is the official statement in the Otterson interview with Elder Christofferson, from which I had just quoted, highlighting in bold the language denoting the firmness and unchangableness of the Church's position.

 

It logically follows, then, that someone who cannot accept that clearly enunciated position of the Church is at odds with the Church leadership on this particular matter.

 

That's where I was coming from.

[Steve-o]

No; belief is not action. Just like religious conscience is not religious expression.

And how does this apply to the children? They are not living a SSM lifestyle. They live in one. But they are required to disavow the behavior and express belief in a certain way when other members are not. Is that not a double standard?

[Scott Lloyd]

They don't need an intermediary. They don't even need to talk to anyone. My daughter had her name removed years ago just by sending a letter. I'm not even sure why anyone needs to resign, especially if they don't go anyway and are a "no contact".

The presence of an attorney makes great theater.

 

It turns it into an arena of legal conflict, lending an air of drama in a Judge Judy sort of way.

 

It's all about spectacle, you see.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Steve-o]

“Again,” where the ordinances trigger a cascade of other individual, joint and communal obligations on the part of the child, parents, leaders, members and relevant organizations (quorums, axillaries), the same-gender couple, in a 180-degree departure from the direction these obligations require, cannot offer the kind of support that will prevent conflict for the child exercising his religious conscience and conflict with theirs. This lack of the right kind of support contributes to the kind of conflict calling for the new policy.

 

“Again,” it’s not primarily about the parents’ sin and inability to support the LDS marriage covenant, but about the effect these have on the child as part of a larger, conflicting dynamic with other players as well as with the child, and the child with the other players, that arises from his membership in the Church.

 

The new policy addresses cases where a couple might push or give consent for Church ordinances and obligations that fly in the face of their same-gender arrangement and their home environment, creating conflict for the child that the Church does not wish to promote.

 

That’s not an assumption: no amount of social, emotional, family-pressure, put-on-a-brave-face support changes the fact that the marital, and by extension, family, environment is in complete opposition to the covenants of exaltation.

 

In my opinion, nothing necessarily needs to be lost to them. Nothing was lost to Alvin, and he died after age 18.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you because I think I must not be. Are you saying that the church is protecting the child because they know better than the child and the parent, that the Church's teachings on SSM create a hostile environment that cannot be overcome in the home. And because of that hostile environment no one living in a SSM household should want to be involved anyway? Weird.

[Scott Lloyd]

I try to imagine being told that I would never be able to satisfy my intense desire to be with a woman. I can't. It bothers me when some people ask the question, "Why would they want to belong to a church that doesn't approve of their lifestyle?" That might be a valid question if intimate relations was the only thing that defined the LDS Church. Perhaps a SS couple loves everything else about the church. Can you blame them for trying to change that one part?

I can't approve of refusing to take no for an answer when the no has been expressed so many times, so often and so firmly.

[hagoth7]

The June 26, 2013 SCOTUS decision on the appeal of Hollingsworth v Perry (aka the Prop 8 case).

Well, that's not quite what I meant.

 

To be more clear, in what manner do you think LDS efforts against Prop 8 contributed to the outcome swinging the other direction?

(At least I think that was what you were asserting earlier, when you said it "helped pave the way".)

Or am I not hearing you correctly?

[rockpond]

I didn't answer last night, because I was doing some homework that had to be finished before I could go to bed. I wasn't up for a message-board back-and-forth.

 

I think it has never been more obvious than now that SSA sexual cohabitation -- inside or outside of a legal marriage -- is not and will never be acceptable within the purview of the Church of Jesus Christ. Underscoring that most recently is the official statement in the Otterson interview with Elder Christofferson, from which I had just quoted, highlighting in bold the language denoting the firmness and unchangableness of the Church's position.

 

It logically follows, then, that someone who cannot accept that clearly enunciated position of the Church is at odds with the Church leadership on this particular matter.

 

That's where I was coming from.

 

I accept that that is the position now.  But continuing revelation, the principle of line upon line, precept upon precept demands that we use caution when saying what will never happen or what will always be.

[CA Steve]

 

 

The exact problem is happening with this board.  Why no angst over the children of polygamists being denied baptism?  

I suspect that a lot more people, myself included, are friends with or related to someone who is gay than someone in a polygamous relationship.

[CV75]

You said that we need to keep children from unsupportive homes from being baptized.

I’m not sure if I said it exactly that way, and there was a very specific context. Could you re-post what you are referring to so I can reply fairly?

 

We already had provisions in place for that (parental consent, bishop's interview).  Many children are baptized from homes that are a 180-degree departure from the covenant of an eternal family.  There a specific prohibitions against baptizing a child who lives with a divorced parent and that parent's live-in opposite-sex partner and yet that is still a 180-degree departure from the covenant of an eternal family.

I don’t think the list you provided contains180-degree departures from the covenant of an eternal family. Only same-gender marriage fits that bill for reasons I already explained. Please expand, not recycle, the dialogue.

 

What does that say to the gay youth in our wards?

Our exchange is between us; you may pass along anything you wish, and what it would say depends on the individual youth, how you're telling it, and whether the policy is germane to his situation. Inspired counsel follows only as needed.

 

You are creating a have & have-not situation:  Instead of determining if someone is worthy of a covenant on their own merits, you are deciding if their home environment is capable of supporting such covenants.  But, to make things worse, this policy only makes such a determination based on sexual orientation.

No, I am explaining the appropriateness of a policy addressing a situation, which gets back to the correct content and context of what you said I said (which I'm asking you to re-post; see first comment above).

[rockpond]

Well, that's not quite what I meant.

 

To be more clear, in what manner do you think LDS efforts against Prop 8 contributed to the outcome swinging the other direction?

(At least I think that was what you were asserting earlier, when you said it "helped pave the way".)

Or am I not hearing you correctly?

 

Oh, that part, yeah...

 

It seemed to me that Prop 8 did a lot to raise awareness and drive discussion.  I felt like there was a marked increase in members trying to figure out what is the place of gay people in our church.

 

And then you look at what has happened in the church since 2008...

 

The publication of MormonsandGays.org.  Acknowledgement that being gay (having a homosexual orientation) is not a matter of choice.  The Brethren's support of LGBT non-discrimination legislation.  Increasing acceptance of gay marriage and an apostolic announcement that we can support gay marriage publicly and remain members in good standing.  Small things like the church making financial donations to the LGBT center in SLC.

[rockpond]

I don’t think the list you provided contains180-degree departures from the covenant of an eternal family. Only same-gender marriage fits that bill for reasons I already explained. Please expand, not recycle, the dialogue.

 

And there it is, in a nutshell... being gay and married is just about the worst thing you can do -- you are beyond help.  And you can't possibly support your kid in the church.  Sorry, but you are just that bad.

 

I disagree.

[Daniel2]

Why no angst over the children of polygamists being denied baptism?  

 

Polygamists are just as welcome to come here and express their outrage, as are their friends.

 

Given that the rule prohibiting the baptism of children from polygamist families was to stop polygamists from covertly trying to get baptized, serve missions, take out endowments, and get married the temple before returning to their polygamist communities by misrepresenting themselves as non-polygamy-practicing members (practicing the concept of 'lying for the Lord'), my suspicion is that they aren't as public about their frustrations with the policy.  Their deceit in attempting to gain access to LDS facilities likely doesn't engender sympathy or support among non-polygamist allies.

 

That situation is different for kids of same-sex couples, who are unable to misrepresent themselves by trying to pass as a straight couple to covertly attempt to gain access to LDS ordinances and temples.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Daniel2

[ERayR]

I try to imagine being told that I would never be able to satisfy my intense desire to be with a woman. I can't. It bothers me when some people ask the question, "Why would they want to belong to a church that doesn't approve of their lifestyle?" That might be a valid question if intimate relations was the only thing that defined the LDS Church. Perhaps a SS couple loves everything else about the church. Can you blame them for trying to change that one part?

 

Yes if you can change that one part it means that if somebody else does not agree with the part you like they can change that and then something else until it doesn't resemble the church you started with. 

 

More important whose Church is it?

[Mystery Meat]

Actually, many of us were out there arguing against it, telling the gay youth that we felt what the church was doing was wrong.  Rather than agreeing with the new policy.  Which to do you honestly think is more damaging to a gay youth.

 

You keep referring to hyperbole and mischaracterization.  Well, when I first heard that there was a new policy, I went directly to the handbook and read it for myself.  The words were clear.  Then I went to church where my Bishop said that he was meeting with the Stake President at the invitation of our Area Authority.  My Bishop came back from that meaning and confirmed exactly what I had understood the policy to mean.

 

What exactly do you think we should have waited for?  The policy WAS implemented.  It WAS published.  There have been no plans announced to train any of us.  The explanations are out there (first from Elder Christofferson and then from the FP).   All of that has happened and I find the policy to be just as discordant with my beliefs about the gospel as I found it to be the day I first read it.

 

If you like the policy that's fine.  If you believe it was inspired, that's fine.  But you can't blame others for the effects of it.

 

I think it is no more fair for you to blame the Church for potential suicides then it is for me to put the blame on you. 

 

That was my point.

[rockpond]

I think it is no more fair for you to blame the Church for potential suicides then it is for me to put the blame on you. 

 

That was my point.

 

I didn't blame the church.  I presented two facts.  You draw whatever conclusions you like.

[CV75]

And there it is, in a nutshell... being gay and married is just about the worst thing you can do -- you are beyond help.  And you can't possibly support your kid in the church.  Sorry, but you are just that bad.

 

I disagree.

No, same-gender marriage is worst thing you can do by secular covenant to misinform and misdirect a child in the direction the Church would take him when he becomes a child of record. The insidiousness is in its guise within loving relationships and the necessary power differential between parent and child. These folks are not beyond help, but do require a restructuring of covenants from secular same-gender to eternal  covenants to sanction, inform and direct their child in full concert with the Church. This is because the Church is only one component of the child's well-being, following Christ and the child's parents to whom the world has given stewardship.

[Meadowchik]

All of those headlines are correct. The church is punishing children for their parents' sins. They are delaying baptism because of something that parents are doing. The policy does deem those children unworthy (using non-LDS vernacular) of baptism. And the church is not accepting them into full fellowship in the church.

The policy was not mischaracterized, it was just that the media didn't try to portray it in the softest way possible as most church members are doing.

So you are saying that delaying baptism helps them by keeping them from taking on a covenant that they don't fully understand?

What did the Lord have to say about the age of accountability?

How does denying them the gift of the Holy Ghost help them with their familial situation? Do we still believe that gift is critically important for our children?

How are they helped by not being able to attend the temple to participate in baptisms? Or not being able to serve in class/quorum leadership positions?

How is a young man helped by not being able to bless, pass, and prepare the sacrament?

Will these kids be helped by being left out of all these things?

Saying those headlines are correct is like a Mormon saying Mormons aren't Christian to a Mormon audience. Have you spoken a 2nd language? Surely, you know that legitimate translating has to assume the common understanding, ie in this case the Mormon vernacular.

Instead of assuming you know the policy to be harmful, why not step back and consider that you could be wrong? The rational questions would include:

Are there other policies in the Church or in God's plan which call for a delay in baptism? Yes, there are? Most of humanity, in fact, have to wait.

Has the child of same sex parents been put in a uniquely difficult position either 1) because of the doctrine and/or 2)because of parental choices? Yup.

Without a clear line, what plan would you propose? Do you think it would be moral for the Church to allow the child of ss parents to persevere under a notion of them accepting the Gospel contingent (in their minds) on the hope of the eventual acceptance of same-sex marriage by the Church?

[rockpond]

Saying those headlines are correct is like a Mormon saying Mormons aren't Christian to a Mormon audience. Have you spoken a 2nd language? Surely, you know that legitimate translating has to assume the common understanding, ie in this case the Mormon vernacular.

Instead of assuming you know the policy to be harmful, why not step back and consider that you could be wrong? The rational questions would include:

Are there other policies in the Church or in God's plan which call for a delay in baptism? Yes, there are? Most of humanity, in fact, have to wait.

Has the child of same sex parents been put in a uniquely difficult position either 1) because of the doctrine and/or 2)because of parental choices? Yup.

Without a clear line, what plan would you propose? Do you think it would be moral for the Church to allow the child ofss parents to persevere under a notion of them accepting the Gospel contingent (in their minds) on the hope of the eventual acceptance of same-sex marriage by the Church?

 

If you want me to answer your questions, you'll have answer mine --- otherwise we're just talking at each other.

Edited November 18, 2015 by rockpond

[Bob Crockett]

I suspect that a lot more people, myself included, are friends with or related to someone who is gay than someone in a polygamous relationship.

 There must be thousands of children in polygamy affected by the rule.  I believe that on my mission I had two fellow missionaries who had lied to get on their missions and were waiting to return home to get married.

 

Although I don't really give a hoot one way or the other about the church's rule about gay parents (I could live with or without it and not think anything more about it), I find the hypocrisy outrageous.   This is a long-standing rule that the church has had in place for apostates who openly defy and mock the marriage sacrament.  Why shock and outrage now?

 

And, who really has a "friend" who has children being raised by married gay parents where the kids want to be baptized?  

[Meadowchik]

Excellent pun and perfect segway...

Your point assumes that every plant in the Lords garden were raised by the Lord with the same purpose and end in mind.

What of the plants destined to decorate the other areas of Gods mansions on high?

For all intents and purposes a Gay couple is a Eunuch. Meaning... they can't breed without the miracle of modern medicine or the touch of a master gardeners hand, or adoption.

Eunuchs are promised better blessings by the Lord than us heterosexual breeders.

Isa 54

3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

You know why I think they are given better blessings than us breeding plants?

Because they have been cut off from the Lord House since the time of Sodom and Gamorraha.

If the Lord says he won't cut them off and give them a better name for all they have endured at the hands of "Chistians" through out history by way of the Prophet Isaiah... why the Modern Bretheren decide to persist in excommunicating and excluding them from the Lords plantation is beyond me.

No I'm not assuming everyone has the same ultimate purpose.

You've offered an interesting theory about eunochs, but we should note that it doesn't seem consistent with what has been revealed about exaltation. I'll ponder it, though.

I believe the Brethren are sincere in their admonitions. If they felt like the Lord wanted them to make all covenants available to same-sex couples, they would heed the Lord.

I've heard some imply that the FP is too old and traditional to receive any such revelation. Perhaps time will tell. But it would be good for the rest of to prepare ourselves for revelation, inclufing hard words for ourselves and others, including a continued "no" on the matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

I accept that that is the position now.  But continuing revelation, the principle of line upon line, precept upon precept demands that we use caution when saying what will never happen or what will always be.

Some things one may reasonably conclude will never happen.

 

I know, you say this is not one of those things.

 

And round and round it goes. That's why I said I didn't have time for it last night.

[Mystery Meat]

I've heard some imply that the FP is too old and traditional to receive any such revelation. Perhaps time will tell. But it would be good for the rest of to prepare ourselves for revelation, inclufing hard words for ourselves and others, including a continued "no" on the matter.

 

Peter lived his whole life under the Law of Moses, including its dietary restrictions, yet that did not stop the Lord from revealing a change and him accepting it. If this Church is guided by the Lord (it is) and the 15 men who stand as its leaders are His representatives and sincere in their belief (they are) then the Lord would and could reveal to them that SSM is perfectly acceptable in his eyes if it were true (it isn't).

 

Whether they know or it not, some folks are trying to destroy the Church, or at the very least the things they are advocating would result in its destruction.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Scott Lloyd]

Right... we should just keep our mouths shut.  Never mind the spike in calls to Utah suicide hotlines after this policy was published.

 

You two are unbelievable.

Alas, agitators have never been overly concerned about collateral damage.

[Buckeye]

Peter lived his whole life under the Law of Moses, including its dietary restrictions, yet that did not stop the Lord from revealing a change and him accepting it. If this Church is guided by the Lord (it is) and the 15 men who stand as its leaders are His representatives and sincere in their belief (they are) then the Lord would and could reveal to them that SSM is perfectly acceptable in his eyes if it were true (it isn't).

 

Whether they know or it not, some folks are trying to destroy the Church, or at the very least the things they are advocating would result in its destruction.

 

This is actually a really good analogy. Note the circumstances when this revelation came. It wasn't a time when the members were okay with the status quo. Rather, it was delayed until a time when many gentiles were joining the church, Paul was actively teaching against the law, and there was confusion among the people. Only then was Peter's (and the people's) heart in a place where the change could take place. 

 

Likewise, I would not expect a change on this doctrine to happen during the 1950s or any other time when the people were not confronted with the need for a change. Things have changed since the 1950s. Today's world is beginning to look a lot like the times of Peter/Paul when outsiders are wanting to be in the fold and our laws are keeping them out. Perhaps hearts will soften again in preparation for a revelation.

[Daniel2]

 There must be thousands of children in polygamy affected by the rule.  I believe that on my mission I had two fellow missionaries who had lied to get on their missions and were waiting to return home to get married.

 

Your comment above exemplifies my previous comments... The church's policy preventing baptism of polygamist kids is to stop Mormon Fundamentalist polygamists who are covertly trying to 'pass' as non-polygamist Latter-day Saints and gain access to LDS rites and temples.

 

Although I don't really give a hoot one way or the other about the church's rule about gay parents...I find the hypocrisy outrageous.

 

Again... I support polygamists' freedom and ability to be just as outraged as I am, and they are welcome to post here.

 

However, the two scenarios are different.  Just because I support my children's decision to join and fully participate in the church without attempting to misrepresent myself (as a man involved in a same-sex marriage who has no desire to return to LDS fellowship) or my own personal beliefs, I am not a hypocrite if I choose not to equally promote baptisms for children of other apostate groups/individuals who are trying to disguise their true nature by representing themselves as something they're not.  Clearly, the situations are not the same.

 

This is a long-standing rule that the church has had in place for apostates who openly defy and mock the marriage sacrament.  Why shock and outrage now?

 

I do not "defy and mock the marriage sacrament."  I do not denigrate LDS practices or beliefs when speaking with or around my children.  I accept the church's designation of my marriage as a demonstration of apostasy from the church.  

 

I am grateful that the church has since clarified that my children will be able to fully participate.  That shows the church understands, agrees, and accepts that my children's circumstances is DIFFERENT than the situation of children of polygamist parents.  Accordingly, the church's clarification is at odds with your allegations of hypocrisy on my part, as well as others like me.

 

And, who really has a "friend" who has children being raised by married gay parents where the kids want to be baptized?

 

Just because you don't know any, doesn't mean we don't exist.   I am one of many, and hundreds of children would have been affected... again, I am grateful the church has since clarified.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Daniel2