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

[Zakuska]

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.

So Mystery Meat had any Abominable Bacon today?

Care to comment?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66466-seeing-is-believing/?p=1209562869

Lets hypothisize for a minute... what if they do get a revelation that SSM is ok with the Lord now? What will/would you do? I'm pretty sure Peter was eating some shell fish or other Abominable thing when Paul caught him seperating himself because the other Jews entered the room. (Gal 2:11)

If he can think shell fish are "icky" and unclean and then change his mind... perhaps we can also not think of SSM as "icky" and change our minds too. "What the Lord hath cleansed... call thou not unclean" for some reason the Brethern still think those Sodomites werent included in the cleansing blood of the Lamb and are still unclean and "icky".

Edited November 18, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

Your stake president and your bishop are the only ecclesiastical sources I have heard about who gave an ostensibly definitive explanation of the intent of the policy that so starkly clashes with reality. I wonder why that is.

 

Edited to correct the word "our." Should have been "your".

Edited November 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

 

It shouldn't be a "cop out."   An anonymous post should be acknowledged for that weakness; a poster unwilling to put a name to his or her position.  But, even anonymous posters might have something to say.  It is my opinion, for the little that it is worth, that an anonymous post which demeans something, like a person or somebody's religious faith, is just a bunch of bunkum.  So as a result my views can look odd; I admire Dehlin to a small extent because he is not fearful about his views.  I don't admire a lot of posters here who are pro-Church who are anonymous.  

 

God says he will destroy those who defame "in secret," Psalm 101:5, yet He approves secret charitable acts.  You (the collective "you") may say, well, what I have to say in criticism of [the Church, the Brethren, John Dehlin, critics of the Church] isn't defamation, so I don't have much to worry about, but I'd start worrying.  So, for that reason, I tell you that I don't think much of an anonymous post.  But I am in a minority.

 

 

 

 

Being anonymous in a forum such is this and others is just common sense. I think given the back ground you have and some of the problems this has causes you, you would understand this. That you harp on this given what I know has happened to you due to your online activities is simply astounding to me.

 

I have often considered going under my real name here and elsewhere. Whenever I consider it I think of your experience and I say "What are Teancum... stupid?"  Thus I remain an anonymous coward.

[rockpond]

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

 

Yep... the Church publishes a new policy that requires us to toss out doctrines like agency, age of accountability, 2nd article of faith, the value of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.

 

But let's blame the "agitators".

[Meadowchik]

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

Baptism is a covenant that allows us to call upon the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. At 8, it represents a beginning of trying out the word and the covenant, over and over. Let's say a child feels the Spirit telling them their parents love them. For kids, it would be very easy to interpret that if their parents love them, the Church cannot be true (since the Church and gospel can never approve of parents' relationship.) Or, suppose the child feels the Spirit say the Church is true. For a kid in such a case, it would be hard to accept that and still respect parental authority. Those are examples of how kids' brains work differently than when they're older. The world is black and white, relatively binary.

So every time they increase in responsibility as a covenenting youth and teen, one or the other rather binary potentials get reinforced. Not good, to be clear, in answer to your question.

And that leads to what I was saying when I spoke about the contingency of hoping for doctrinal changes. It's better to postpone a covenant than to make a covenant based on false hope.

Neither of those are ideal. Yet, the Brethren don't get to force the ideal on us. They can only try to help us have the best opportunities possible based on our readiness. Kids still need their parents and the Church still respects families.

None of that minimizes the importance of covenant or the gift of the Holy Ghost. Quite the contrary.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Jeanne]

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.

Well I would miss your posts if you are not around. 

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

The risen Christ had directly commanded the apostles to go into all the world to preach the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It was only a matter of time before this transpired. The apostles knew it.

 

Your comparison is off. If anything, it could be compared to the lifting of the restriction on the priesthood. It was well known it would happen some time. The only question was when.

 

By contrast, homosexual behavior has been condemned as a sin over and over and over again by prophets and apostles, who have affirmed that it is a teaching that will not change, now or in the future.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep... the Church publishes a new policy that requires us to toss out doctrines like agency, age of accountability, 2nd article of faith, the value of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.

 

But let's blame the "agitators".

Nothing was tossed out. You're the one advocating the tossing out of doctrine.

 

And yes, to the extent that there was general anxiety, I do blame those who sensationalized, distorted and misstated reality.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Maestrophil]

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.

 

Exactly...  it is a disagreement that goes around and around in circles because of a fundamental difference in opinion.

 

SSM is in no way being called worse than other actions, but it is a declaration that one no longer intends to keep the commandments.  If a child wanted to be baptized but lived with two hetero parents who published  "High Times" magazine and publicly declared their love and acceptance of pot, I doubt that baptism would be allowed to go forward even if the parents gave verbal approval.  

 

Also, the "supporting" SSM argument is also not able to be resolved due to a difference in definition of the word support in my opinion.  I can "support" the concept of legalization of pot in that I might believe people have a right to chose and there are societal or political advantages to the policy, while still being wholeheartedly against smoking pot and teaching that to my kids.  

 

As long as proponents of SSA want to have the church normalize gay sex within the practices and rites of the church, they and the LDS leadership will not agree.  If I were to reword the "support" policy the way I see it, it would be along the lines of, "Members of the LDS faith are allowed to support the legal policy of SSM with no consequence allowing people to exercise their free agency and legal rights.  This does not extend to members advocating a position that SSM is in harmony with with the gospel of Jesus Christ, or that homosexual sexual relationships are ever sanctioned or justified by God or the Church.  Any teaching to this effect approaches apostasy."

 

I have no quarrel with people who see it either way, but it is tiring to see the argument revolve around and around - so much deja vu!  :-)

[Zakuska]

Nothing was tossed out. You're the one advocating the tossing out of doctrine.

Doctrine's been tossed out before...

- Blacks Priesthood/Curse of Cain

- Polygamy

- Adam-God

It could happen again.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

Well I would miss your posts if you are not around. 

Apparently Teancum has been restored to full "Contributor" status, so I don't know that you have anything to worry about.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

Doctrine's been tossed out before...

- Blacks Priesthood/Curse of Cain

- Polygamy

- Adam-God

It could happen again.

Are you ready for the position on ssm to be upheld or would you say you've been cheated if it is? Posters on this board have said they'd accept the revelation for ssm if it came, confirmed, and I respect that. By the same token, we should be prepared for the position to remain. Some things change and some don't.

[Zakuska]

SSM is in no way being called worse than other actions, but it is a declaration that one no longer intends to keep the commandments.  If a child wanted to be baptized but lived with two hetero parents who published  "High Times" magazine and publicly declared their love and acceptance of pot, I doubt that baptism would be allowed to go forward even if the parents gave verbal approval.

So the child is punished for the sins of the parents. Thanks for the great example.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

If that is what you took away from that, then more power to you for being wrong.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

The revelation had nothing to do with a need for their to be a change. People were joining the Church and being asked to believe and embrace some pretty "interesting" things. They were also being asked to abandon a lot of the superstitions and practices they clung to before. The revelation came because the Lord was ready for it to come.

[Jeanne]

Thank you for your response Daniel. I talked about my one daughter who has chosen a lesbian lifestyle. I truly believe it was for her something she chose and not innate. In fact I think this applies to a lot of young women today who have bad experiences with men and found an alternate way of loving.

 

On the other hand my older daughter is also lesbian and is in a committed and legalized relationship (not married but legalized through the state). I suspected that she was that way even at 4 years old. I love her companion. They are both wonderful people. But for this daughter it was a very difficult choice. She loves the church; she went through the temple she read the BOM daily. She fought her inclinations for years and finally couldn't any more. When I asked her why she finally gave in she said she just didn't want to be alone for the rest of her life. She also said she knew she would have to pay the price but was willing to do so. And btw she doesn't think her younger sister is that way by nature either.

 

Anyway the point is I know how difficult the challenge is, especially for those who have a testimony of the church. And if I know in my limited mortal frame of reference imagine how God knows.

 

Many years ago when I was young there was a man in our ward who always greeted everyone at the door of the chapel. This wasn't an assignment but something he loved to do. He wasn't married and said he never planned to marry but he wanted to be a ministering angel in the Celestial Kingdom. We all of course knew he was gay but he was very faithful; I hope he was able to remain so. I can't even imagine such a challenge, though I have been single a long time and have had to live a celibate life as well and it has not been easy.

 

I expect God has a place for everyone. Our job is to love and be kind to everyone, though I must admit I get irritated at the whiners.

Thanks so much for sharing this.  Whatever direction your daughters take..you are one wonderful Mom.

[Mystery Meat]

So Mystery Meat had any Abominable Bacon today?

Care to comment?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66466-seeing-is-believing/?p=1209562869

Lets hypothisize for a minute... what if they do get a revelation that SSM is ok with the Lord now? What will/would you do? I'm pretty sure Peter was eating some shell fish or other Abominable thing when Paul caught him seperating himself because the other Jews entered the room. (Gal 2:11)

If he can think shell fish are "icky" and unclean and then change his mind... perhaps we can also not think of SSM as "icky" and change our minds too. "What the Lord hath cleansed... call thou not unclean" for some reason the Brethern still think those Sodomites werent included in the cleansing blood of the Lamb and are still unclean and "icky".

 

No, I do not care to comment on your post, because you did not respond to mine and are arguing in bad faith. 

 

If the prophets and apostles came out and "revealed" that SSM was okay, I would not leave the Church, but I would not accept the teaching. I would as, JHLPROF believes, await a setting in order where the Lord returned and made it clear that homosexuality is an abomination.

 

Fortunately, it is not going to happen.

[rockpond]

Baptism is a covenant that allows us to call upon the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. At 8, it represents a beginning of trying out the word and the covenant, over and over. Let's say a child feels the Spirit telling them their parents love them. For kids, it would be very easy to interpret that if their parents love them, the Church cannot be true (since the Church and gospel can never approve of parents' relationship.) Or, suppose the child feels the Spirit say the Church is true. For a kid in such a case, it would be hard to accept that and still respect parental authority. Those are examples of how kids' brains work differently than when they're older. The world is black and white, relatively binary.

So every time they increase in responsibility as a covenenting youth and teen, one or the other rather binary potentials get reinforced. Not good, to be clear, in answer to your question.

And that leads to what I was saying when I spoke about the contingency of hoping for doctrinal changes. It's better to postpone a covenant than to make a covenant based on false hope.

Neither of those are ideal. Yet, the Brethren don't get to force the ideal on us. They can only try to help us have the best opportunities possible based on our readiness. Kids still need their parents and the Church still respects families.

None of that minimizes the importance of covenant or the gift of the Holy Ghost. Quite the contrary.

 

We're denying them the covenant and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  Presumably until they are 18, move out, and disavow their parents' relationship.  But in all likelihood, they'll never come back to the church.

 

So it sounds like your position here is that the child should be denied the companionship of the Holy Ghost so that they don't get confused between the Spirit testifying of the love of their parents and the truth of the Church.

 

The deeper we dive into this, the more disturbed I get by the implications:  If you are a child of loving same-gender parents, you'll get confused about the truth of a church that teaches they are apostates.

 

Well, guess what... we've got an even bigger problem.  Because kids (even those raised by opposite-sex parents) are going to be exposed to loving homosexual brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends, friends' parents, teachers, neighbors, on and on.

 

If having the companionship of the Holy Ghost while also having loving gay people in your life is a problem -- I guess we need to raise the age of accountability for everyone.

 

And what about a child who lives with his dad and dad's girlfriend.  He feels the love of his dad everyday.  Won't that be a problem as well since his dad is committing adultery?

[Mystery Meat]

Yep... the Church publishes a new policy that requires us to toss out doctrines like agency, age of accountability, 2nd article of faith, the value of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.

 

But let's blame the "agitators".

 

Wow. These are the mischaraterizations and bad faith arguments we are talking about and you don't seem to understand.

[rockpond]

Nothing was tossed out. You're the one advocating the tossing out of doctrine.

 

And yes, to the extent that there was general anxiety, I do blame those who sensationalized, distorted and misstated reality.

 

I'm actually advocating against tossing out those doctrines... the ones I mentioned that you have to ignore to justify this policy.

 

The reality of the policy was quite clear -- and is still clear -- all on its own.

[Maestrophil]

So the child is punished for the sins of the parents. Thanks for the great example.

 

Again, a fundamental difference of opinion.  In the eyes of many faithful LDS (I know there are many differences), the SS parents are actually hurting the child spiritually (some might even say punishing), or at least confusing them greatly by having them live in and environment that runs contrary to the commandments of God.  This policy can, and is, seen by many as a way to avoid further hurting or confusing the child by placing them in an environment that is directly in opposition to the way they are being taught by example - that homosexual sex is OK.  

 

I get it Zakuska - you disagree, you hope that the church will embrace gay sex as normal, and hold out that it could somehow square with doctrine.  That's fine.  I respect your view, and will not villianize you or sarcastically imply that you are a terrible example of a human being as you have done to me.  I don't get the vitriol and disrespect by people who are chastising others that they should be more tolerant... It's called "civil" dialogue.

 

Edited to add:  And do you really think it would be healthy for a child who's parents were super publicly pro pot and heavy pot users tone baptized and living in that home every day and trying to square it with what the Church teaches? I do not.  I think that would be very psychologically painful for the child

Edited November 18, 2015 by Maestrophil

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I do not care to comment on your post, because you did not respond to mine and are arguing in bad faith. 

 

If the prophets and apostles came out and "revealed" that SSM was okay, I would not leave the Church, but I would not accept the teaching. I would as, JHLPROF believes, await a setting in order where the Lord returned and made it clear that homosexuality is an abomination.

 

Fortunately, it is not going to happen.

But the prophets and apostles are not going to do that, because, collectively, they cannot lead the Church astray. The Lord will not permit it.

[rockpond]

SSM is in no way being called worse than other actions, but it is a declaration that one no longer intends to keep the commandments.

 

Meanwhile all of the other heterosexual people who similarly declare that they no longer intend to keep the commandments can still have their kids baptized.

 

Look, I'm not a fan of baptizing a kid who won't receive any support within his home to keep their covenant.  But prior to Nov 5 the determination of such was a responsibility of the local Judge in Israel.  And the handbook gave them that discretion.  Now we've got a blanket statement that chooses one type of "sin" and sets it apart from others.

[CA Steve]

 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?  

I have a gay relative who is heart broken (her words) because she now thinks she cannot raise her future children in the church. And you would have to ask her why that was important to her.

 

And I find your feigned outrage hypocritical.

[rockpond]

Wow. These are the mischaraterizations and bad faith arguments we are talking about and you don't seem to understand.

 

No, sorry, it's the policy that ignores the agency of the child, changes the age of accountability, punishes (through delay of ordinances) a child for the sins of his/her parents, and denies them the Gift of the Holy Ghost.