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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I hope you are not saying here that you are promulgating your own misconstrual of the policy as trumping the clarifications that have since been made in official statements from the Church. That would amount to misconduct by one in a leadership position. I wouldn't ascribe such a thing to you, so I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here.

 

If you are conveying the instruction of your stake president and bishop accurately, then obviously they were mistaken in their understanding. You need to distance yourself from that mistaken interpretation.

 

And if your leaders are still laboring under this misinterpretation, you need to kindly and firmly correct them, if need be, drawing their attention to the official Church statements.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

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.

 

What does your approval have to do with anything? Do you have some legislative power in the LDS Church?

 

Something about Rosa Parks keeps coming into my thoughts. I'm not sure why that is.

[Scott Lloyd]

What does your approval have to do with anything? Do you have some legislative power in the LDS Church?

 

Something about Rosa Parks keeps coming into my thoughts. I'm not sure why that is.

I can personally approve or disapprove of anything I want. So can you. Why are you hyperventilating about it?

 

And your nasty, oblique comparison of the prophets and apostles to the governmental racists of the 1950s was not lost on me.

 

I disapprove of it.

 

Edited to add:

 

Apparently you harbor a rather narrow definition of approve.

 

Here is an online dictionary's definition:

 

 

approve(əˈpruːv)

vb

1. (when: intr, often foll by of) to consider fair, good, or right; commend (a person or thing)

2. (tr) to authorize or sanction

3. (tr) to demonstrate or prove by trial

 

 

Definition 1 was what I was going for.

 

Again, you can personally or privately approve or disapprove of anything or anybody. It doesn't have to be official.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

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.

 

It isn't feigned.  I'd be glad to talk to her to confirm your story but, oops, you're anonymous.

 

It appears to me that many gays and many inactive members of the Church like having the Brethren be their favorite whipping boys; somebody to beat up on.  It is politically incorrect to beat up on Muslims, apparently, but OK to beat up on church people who believe their scriptures teach them that homosexuality is a great evil.  [i don't care one way or the other, really, given my liberal tendencies, and I am one who would never beat up on Muslims and would advocate for open Syrian immigation, but I also believe that church people ought to be given space for believing that homosexuality and abortion are just plain wrong and that those who practice such arts ought not to be admitted.]

 

It somewhat reminds of of the 1890s, when the government appointed Evangelicals to administer federal affairs in Utah.  Mormons were given a test oath.  All church property except the temple site was confiscated.  People were jailed for their marital beliefs.  The Republicans repeatedly beat upon on the Mormons, with only the detested Catholics and the Jews to stand up for them in Congress.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Meadowchik]

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?

Seeing people love each other is good. Misinterpreting the Spirit in a way that alienates us from our parents or the Gospel is not good.

There are enormous differences between witnessing ssm and being subject to it as the basis of a parent-child relationship.

And the child of the dad/girlfriend couple can always hope that the dad will pop the question. The child knows that the Church can approve of that eventuality once chosen by the parents.

[Maestrophil]

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.

 

I agree this can seem problematic.  Not quite sure my head is wrapped around that one or not - my only and first thoughts are that 1. if a hetero couple living together publicly declared they would never marry and never stop having pre-marital sex, that might influence the decision or allowing baptism of the child (I know it did on my mission - we could't baptize kids if their parents were living together) , and 2.  A heater couple CAN get married and rectify the situation, thus making the family whole - the SS couple would have no such path to a valid relationship in the eyes of the Church.

 

I must state I empathize greatly with those who are hurting over this policy.  It is a delicate and personal topic, and I do not hold animosity towards my brothers and sisters who are wrestling with it.

 

Edited to add - of course I did not mean a heater couple...  

Edited November 18, 2015 by Maestrophil

[Kenngo1969]

That's nice... for those of us born pre-disposed to a man-woman relationship.

 

And for those who are born pre-disposed to a homosexual orientation... I guess they just get left out of such blessings.

So do single people who never marry ... at least in this life.  If that ends up being my lot, I'll just take the advice of Don Henley and the rest of the Eagles.  While I will not and cannot compare my plight to that of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, I don't think the reason one might remain single in this life really matters: the only thing that matters is that we remain faithful, and there are those among my gay brothers and sisters (few though they may be) who are determined to do just that, come what may and love it.

[Jeanne]

Is there a case for faithful LDS grandparents that could make a plea for blessing/baptism when a son/daughter has children in an SSM?

[Zakuska]

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

Oh but I did respond to your post... directly... one point at a time. Any one reading the thread can see that.

Would you care to comment on how Phinehas got away with cold blooded Murder of a fellow Israelite no less and was awarded and praised for it by God, after the Law of Moses was given?

Moses also killed a man, hid the body and ran from the police, before the Law was given. God didn't count that as a sin. Why?

If you can't handle the truth of what the scriptures clearly say... just say so.

 

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.

You can keep repeating your mantra if it makes you feel better.

Is Christ going to uphold the dietary laws and the marriage laws in Leviticus too. He called all that stuff "Abominable". Why do you pick the one thing in that chapter that you don't personal like and Condemn it and then ignore the rest of the Abominations that are repulsive to God in there?

God himself says you must obey every Jot and Tittle in that law or its as if you obey any of it. So why don't you?

You're demonstrating a double standard perfectly MM.

You never did say if you've eaten any shrimp, crab, lobster or pork lately?

Have you done any of those "Abominations" Mystery Meat?

If so... you need to confess your sins. Have you? I'm truly concerned for your eternal Soul MM. Please tell the community if you've done any of those hanously sinful "Abominations" listed in Leviticus. Your Eternal salvation could depend on it. I'm begging you. Please tell us!

If your going to live under the Law of Moses God requires you to live every last jot and Tittle. You can't pick and choose which parts you are exempted from. You have to live the whole thing or its as if you didn't live any of it at all.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Zakuska

[Maestrophil]

Is there a case for faithful LDS grandparents that could make a plea for blessing/baptism when a son/daughter has children in an SSM?

 

According to the clarification on the policy, they can always make a case.  But I agree that it does not seem to be likely based on the wording of the policy in the HB.  What a struggle for the grandparents in such a situation would be.  

[CV75]

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.

Because the question was coming up around the world.: “…we, my colleagues and I, travel across the world in many places, in many circumstances doing what the Lord commanded Peter to do and feed His sheep. And these questions that have arisen.... They’re difficult, they’re sensitive, they tug at the heartstrings and they’re very real. And this is about family; this is about love and especially the love of the Savior and how He wants people to be helped and fed and lifted, and that’s the whole motivation that underlies our effort.” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

 

It’s not a matter being worse than other sins parents commit, but as a “covenant, contract, bond, obligation, oath, vow...” that so thoroughly contradicts the LDS temple covenants for exalting families, it sets a child up for personal conflicts between his love of and obligation to family, the Lord and Church covenants.

[rockpond]

I hope you are not saying here that you are promulgating your own misconstrual of the policy as trumping the clarifications that have since been made in official statements from the Church. That would amount to misconduct by one in a leadership position. I wouldn't ascribe such a thing to you, so I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here.

 

If you are conveying the instruction of your stake president and bishop accurately, then obviously they were mistaken in their understanding. You need to distance yourself from that mistaken interpretation.

 

And if your leaders are still laboring under this misinterpretation, you need to kindly and firmly correct them, if need be, drawing their attention to the official Church statements.

 

I have received no further word from the SP but I know that myself and my Bishop are operating under the Nov 13 letter.  I assume the SP is aware of it, but as of Sunday, I know of at least one Bishop in the stake who was not yet aware of the letter but I assume that has now been rectified.

 

The letter, however, doesn't change the points I made about doctrine.

 

And, please note the Nov 5 policy has not been changed from its original form which prohibits a child with a gay parent living in a same-sex relationship from receiving ordinances.

[rockpond]

There are enormous differences between witnessing ssm and being subject to it as the basis of a parent-child relationship.

 

Apparently feeling the love of one's gay parents can be powerful enough to convince someone that the church is wrong.  Wouldn't want that.

 

 

And the child of the dad/girlfriend couple can always hope that the dad will pop the question. The child knows that the Church can approve of that eventuality once chosen by the parents.

 

And if he doesn't... oh well... at least he's not in love with another guy.  And the love from dad/girlfriend apparently isn't powerful enough to convince the child that the church could be wrong.

[rockpond]

Because the question was coming up around the world.: “…we, my colleagues and I, travel across the world in many places, in many circumstances doing what the Lord commanded Peter to do and feed His sheep. And these questions that have arisen.... They’re difficult, they’re sensitive, they tug at the heartstrings and they’re very real. And this is about family; this is about love and especially the love of the Savior and how He wants people to be helped and fed and lifted, and that’s the whole motivation that underlies our effort.” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

 

It’s not a matter being worse than other sins parents commit, but as a “covenant, contract, bond, obligation, oath, vow...” that so thoroughly contradicts the LDS temple covenants for exalting families, it sets a child up for personal conflicts between his love of and obligation to family, the Lord and Church covenants.

 

So now gay marriage is a covenant?  Interesting... for so long here I've been told that "gay marriage" isn't even a real thing.

 

It's interesting... if this is about love and lifting why don't those people feel loved/lifted by it?

[Russell C McGregor]

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

Is that like the alleged spike in calls to Utah suicide hotlines every General Conference?

Or the alleged spike in domestic violence around Super Bowl weekend?

Or any other urban legend intended to manipulate public opinion?

You two are unbelievable.

Hey, I don't find you particularly believable, either.

[Russell C McGregor]

Actually, many of us were out there arguing against it, telling the gay youth that we felt what the church was doing was wrong.

Yes, that's what I would expect. You're telling them they're victims.

I wonder how many of them would have come to that conclusion without your "help?"

Besides, whenever the Church does anything, you seem to assume it's wrong.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

No.

It does not.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

Which is not what the policy is about.

 

I disagree.

You are disagreeing with a straw man.

One of your own manufacture.

[Russell C McGregor]

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

Wrong again.

But thanks for playing.

[Maestrophil]

So now gay marriage is a covenant?  Interesting... for so long here I've been told that "gay marriage" isn't even a real thing.

 

It's interesting... if this is about love and lifting why don't those people feel loved/lifted by it?

 

It did not used to be a real thing, right? - now law says it IS a real thing.  So it requires a new approach.  LDS members can no longer say that Sex is ok between people who are legally and lawfully wedded - because gay people can be legally and lawfully wedded, whereas before they could not.  Now it leaves the umbrella of chastity for that reason/loophole and enters into the realm of apostasy.  

 

And if feeling loved needs to be synonymous with having your choices validated no matter what they are - then the Church by default can not make all who wish to actively participate feel loved in that way.  

 

I am honestly curious for all who are upset at the church - If one accepts that the Church is led by a prophet, and IF homosexual sex is a sin as the bible seems to indicate in 1 Corinthians, and the Temple truly is the pinnacle of worship and requires worthiness...  How would you suggest the Church respond to gay people who insist on living a sexually active lifestyle yet insist on not facing disciplinary action- insisting that it is being unloving?  In my mind it would require not believing some of the things I just listed.

[rockpond]

It did not used to be a real thing, right? - now law says it IS a real thing.  So it requires a new approach.  LDS members can no longer say that Sex is ok between people who are legally and lawfully wedded - because gay people can be legally and lawfully wedded, whereas before they could not.  Now it leaves the umbrella of chastity for that reason/loophole and enters into the realm of apostasy.  

 

And if feeling loved needs to be synonymous with having your choices validated no matter what they are - then the Church by default can not make all who wish to actively participate feel loved in that way.  

 

I am honestly curious for all who are upset at the church - If one accepts that the Church is led by a prophet, and IF homosexual sex is a sin as the bible seems to indicate in 1 Corinthians, and the Temple truly is the pinnacle of worship and requires worthiness...  How would you suggest the Church respond to gay people who insist on living a sexually active lifestyle yet insist on not facing disciplinary action- insisting that it is being unloving?  In my mind it would require not believing some of the things I just listed.

 

Prophets aren't infallible.  And we're still trying to dig our way out of the hole we created when everyone jumped on Brigham Young's decree of denying ordinances based on race.

 

I'd encourage you to do a little reading about Paul's teachings in 1 Cor 6.  My understanding is that he was talking about homosexual prostitution.  Certainly not the covenant relationship of marriage.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

Well at least you can admit their parents are sinning.

 

Progress.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is that like the alleged spike in calls to Utah suicide hotlines every General Conference?

Or the alleged spike in domestic violence around Super Bowl weekend?

Or any other urban legend intended to manipulate public opinion?

Hey, I don't find you particularly believable, either.

Out of curiosity, I checked Google for documentation on this claim. What I found in hit after hit was the undocumented repetition of this mantra from those with an axe to grind; i.e. people in gay rights pressure groups. I think I saw one mental health professional quoted to the effect that she was "aware of a rise" in calls to such suicide prevention lines. Doe a "rise" amount to a "spike"? I don't know. But that was the closest thing I saw to any solid documentation.

 

Can a causal relationship be definitively established? And if so, what would be the cause, the policy itself or the shrill, social media-fueled uproar that occurred in reaction? If, as you point out, we have hundreds of voices telling people they are victims, some are bound to take it to heart, go into a tailspin, and perhaps reach out for crisis intervention.

 

Will we ever have reliable answers to the above questions? I doubt it.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Well at least you can admit their parents are sinning.

 

Progress.

 

In the eyes of the church.

 

If they are married, I don't consider it sin (personally).

[Daniel2]

It appears to me that many gays and many inactive members of the Church like having the Brethren be their favorite whipping boys; somebody to beat up on.  It is politically incorrect to beat up on Muslims, apparently, but OK to beat up on church people who believe their scriptures teach them that homosexuality is a great evil.  [i don't care one way or the other, really, given my liberal tendencies, and I am one who would never beat up on Muslims and would advocate for open Syrian immigation, but I also believe that church people ought to be given space for believing that homosexuality and abortion are just plain wrong and that those who practice such arts ought not to be admitted.

 

Hi, Bob,

 

Many Muslim countries have extremely harsh punishments for openly gay individuals, including death by stoning.

 

I imagine you may not frequent gay-advocacy sites, which is why you may have missed the activism going on criticizing such practices and political activism to hold such Muslim countries accountable.

 

Those actions aren't discussed on this LDS-themed discussion board because they aren't related to LDS issues.  But the fact that they aren't discussed here doesn't mean that pro-equality supporters and politicians aren't condemning such barbaric practices.

 

And the fact that other countries' treatment of homosexuals is harsher than our own current social and political climate doesn't mean those of us who live in the USA can't or shouldn't voice concerns over lesser injustices on our own domestic soil, or that we should avoid working for full civil equality, or that we should refrain from attempting to further mutual understanding and respect within social and religious circles.

 

Be that as it may, being critical of and attempting to engage in dialogue over a church's discriminatory policies, especially when such policies can cause psychological or social harm to our children, or prevent us from having equal civil marital or anti-discrimination rights, is not "beating up" on anyone or "having the Brethren be [our] whipping boys." 

 

Allegations that members of your church are being "beating up" or "made to be whipping boys" are hyperbolic, especially in light of the real stonings and death penalties that gays are facing in Muslim countries.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Daniel2