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

[rockpond]

Stuart Parker, on Patheos, examines what he considers to be an unintended theological crisis in Mormonism:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionnow/2015/11/mormon-homophobia-and-the-unintended-theological-crisis/

 

About the author:

 

Stuart Parker holds a PhD in History and Religious Studies from the University of Toronto. A former postdoctoral fellow with Brigham Young University, he is presently under contract to produce History Through Seer Stones: A Hundred Years of Mormon Pasts for Kofford Books.

 

Concluding paragraphs from the article:

 

These doctrinal changes, more than simply confirming a two-decade trajectory of social conservatism, eviscerate a core doctrine of the Mormon faith, that of “free agency,” which Mormon theologians proudly trumpet as distinct from and superior to mainline Christianity’s “free will.” Much of Mormonism’s seductiveness in gaining and retaining young members has come from its recognition of the capacity of children and youth to make real choices for which they are accountable. Today, for many Mormons, it appears that that foundational principle, on which so much Mormon culture and organization—never mind doctrine—depends, is now in retreat.

 

The impending crisis the Mormon world now faces may have been occasioned by bigotry towards same-sex couples. But the bigotry, itself, is no long the central issue. Rather, it is the over-reach, the hubristic effort to rewrite Mormon theology from the bottom up to serve that bigotry, that has thrown Mormondom into its biggest doctrinal crisis in more than a generation.

 

I've felt since I first read the policy that it went against our doctrine.  The Nov 13 letter didn't change that feeling.  I think this article helps explain that.

 

 

[Maestrophil]

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.

 

Rockpond.  This again illustrates my point. Different people will interpret 1 Cor one way and other in another way - who to believe? 

 

 Most LDS faithful will believe that clarification given by modern prophets is the most correct interpretation, especially when corroborated by every one of them - at least every one in my lifetime.  Prophets can be fallible, but I believe that is the exception rather than the rule.  The fundamental difference that this always comes down to is homosexual sex.  I feel, based on scripture, my personal revelations, words of countless prophets and apostles, by belief of the purpose of this life, and some of my feelings about procreation that homosexual sin is not and will never be, acceptable to God.  You and others feel differently and that homosexual sex might be OK and just a prejudice held over from a puritanical age.  I get that too.  So around and around it goes...

 

Homosexual sex is wrong

 

Is not

 

is too

 

ad infinitum...

 

I get tired of it for that reason, and because so many people reduce this discussion to name calling and hyperbole.  I am just doing my best to understand my own path and testimony and love others and respect opinions that differ from mine as just as valid as my own.  I enjoy real respectful dialog and hope I can learn from so many smart people like you on the board.  Thats why I honestly ask, what would you suggest the Church do to show love to SSA people IF you knew they NEVER would accept homosexual sex as righteous?  

[Thinking]

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

 

Breathing easy. RHR = 60.

 

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

 

I made no comparison (oblique or otherwise). You inferred that.

 

Using your stated definition #1 of approve you stated

I can't [consider fair, good, right or commend] refusing to take no for an answer when the no has been expressed so many times, so often and so firmly.

 

Do you really believe that a group of people should just accept their lot because it has been expressed so many times, so often and so firmly?

[Daniel2]

Same-gender marriage, covenant-wise, represents a unique condition that prevents parents from genuinely and authentically supporting a child in incorporating and achieving the aims of Church membership (eternal families).

 

My husband's and my genuine, authentic, and complete support of all our kids' full participation in the LDS church (including supporting them in all their YM/YW, scouting, and primary activities, financially supporting them on missions, and supporting their choices to form an 'eternal family' while waiting during their temple marriages) completely contradicts your assertion above.

 

I am consistently puzzled why some people presume that those of us who are gay can't "genuinely and authentically" support our kids' activity and participation in church.  Given our own experiences growing up in circumstances that forced many of us to disconnect from our true selves, most gay and lesbian parents I know are often champions of encouraging our children to follow their own truth and become their own selves, even if they turn out differently than what we might have initially thought they would.  I know many former LDS RM gay fathers, and NONE of us feel the need to force our children to choose between the church and us or impose our beliefs over our children's inner voices.

 

Do you have evidence to support your assertion that we can't...?  Any examples of how our support can't be "genuine or authentic" beyond your own projections or presumptions?

Edited November 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

 Thats why I honestly ask, what would you suggest the Church do to show love to SSA people IF you knew they NEVER would accept homosexual sex as righteous?  

 

Good question.  First, if I can, let me adjust it a bit.  I would never anticipate that homosexual sex outside of marriage be sanctioned as righteous.  I think we need to stick with the law of chastity that all sexual relations be confined to the bonds of marriage.

 

That said, if I knew that the Church would never accept gay marriage as righteous -- I'd want the Brethren to work to eliminate the impression among members that sexual orientation is a choice.  I'd want the Brethren to encourage wards/branches to find ways to reach out to their gay & lesbian members... probably in many of the same ways we currently work with single adults.  I'd want the Church to not make policies that single out gay people and make them out to be unfit to raise righteous kids.  Even if they can't be recommend holders, I think we ought to allow gay married couples to keep their membership.

[Scott Lloyd]

I made no comparison (oblique or otherwise). You inferred that.

 

I inferred it because you quite transparently implied it.

 

Do you really believe that a group of people should just accept their lot because it has been expressed so many times, so often and so firmly?

 

If they profess to be believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ, and believe in the role of latter-day prophets and apostles, then yes, I do.

 

Let's apply your question to something else and see how it holds up:

 

Do you really believe that people should try to rid themselves of pornography addiction as being evil and harmful because that has been expressed so many times, so often and so firmly?

 

[Daniel2]

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.  

 

The above is true about the need to clarify that adults who enter into same-sex marriages now should be designated as 'apostates.'

 

However, the policy as it applies to children applies to kids who's parents are unmarried, cohabiting same-sex couples just as much as it does to married ones... so, as far as the policy about kids is concerned, 'marital status' really is irrelevant.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

Brother Parker, the Brethren.

 

Gee, you're right, Rockpond.  That is a toughie.

[Ahab]

I bet Charlie Sheen could've used the law of chastity. He has HIV thanks to porn stars and prostitutes. It's not winning to disobey the law of chastity. There are consequences.

No, not winning, but at least he had some fun for a while.

RE: the OP, while I don't support a repeal of that law a revision may be helpful to some people. Some very clear wording to state that sexual relations between any people of the same sex is what we do not condone, just in case they think anything is okay as long as it is labeled a "marriage".

[Mystery Meat]

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?

 

Because it wasn't murder. In the verses you previously quoted, you left out God's and Moses' command that these two had committed a capital offense worthy of death, under (not AFTER; after would be following the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ) the Law of Moses. Just like Nephi's killing of Laban was not murder in the eyes of God, neither was Phinehas guilty of murder. In fact, murder was also punishable by death under the law; the executioner who carried out the punishment was not also guilty of murder just like Phinehas was also not a murderer.

 

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?

 

CFR that God didn't count that as a sin. Also, please keep in mind that the man Moses killed was a slave drive and was beating a Hebrew. Even still, I do not recall Moses being acquitted of murder in the eyes of the Lord.

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

 

I can handle the scriptures just fine. They are clear and consistent. Murder, homosexuality, lying and stealing, unless one has divine exception, have always been sin no matter the dispensation.

 

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

 

Okay.

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?

 

Maybe we are just talking past each other. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I am just a poor communicator. I apologize. But what you are saying here is exactly my point. You say (and you are correct to do so) that we do not live the Law of Moses any more. Christ fulfilled that law with the Atonement. But there are certain commandments that are still valid (murder, lying, adultery, and homosexuality). This isn't a matter of me not liking some of the Law of Moses or picking and choosing which parts I like and which I don't. It is only that God has fulfilled the parts of the Law of Moses (animal sacrifice, dietary restrictions, prohibitions on preaching the gospel to the gentiles and the harsh temporal punishments for violating the commandments, including homosexuality, just to name a few). We have scriptural evidence for all of these being fulfilled and being revoked, not by man, but by the giver of the law in the first place. We have no such evidence of homosexuality being revoked as a sin. Zero. Murder is still sin, as it always has been. Same with lying, cheating, stealing, adultery and homosexuality.

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?

 

I have never claimed to be perfect, trust me. But I have also never advocated for the Church to make my sin of choice acceptable, despite consistent scriptural evidence to the contrary.

You're demonstrating a double standard perfectly MM.

 

​I guess we all have a little hypocrite in us. I will take that under advisement.

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

 

I don't think I have had shrimp for a while. I don't like crab or lobster. But I did have a bone in pork roast this past Sunday. It was a little dry, which was too bad. But based on your question, you are missing a point that is so obvious it answers why I have responded to you yet. You are either purposely ignoring what I have already said, or...well, let's just assume it was the first. Do you know what the difference is between eating shrimp, crab, lobster or pork and homosexuality? I can actually point to scripture in the New Testament where God revealed that the old law as it pertains to prohibitions on eating all of the above was lifted. I cannot find any evidence that the prohibition on homosexuality was lifted. On the contrary, the New Testament condemns homosexuality throughout. 

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

 

I have committed my fair share. I would never hold myself up as the standard. But I am also not trying to get the Church or God to accept my sins as acceptable in the face of ancient and modern scripture.

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!

 

I am not that is your business, and I am quite frankly surprised you feel inclined to ask. But, true story, there was a time in my life where I would joke that I had season tickets to the Bishop's office. I am grateful that I worthily hold a current temple recommend though. But, seriously, thank you for your genuine concern. I am not quite sure how this became about me.

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.

 

And here is the long and short of it, we don't live under the law of Moses, nor am I simply picking and choosing which parts of the Law of Moses I want to be exempted from. Nor do I have any desire to live under the Law of Moses, nor have I ever said that I wanted to. So I am not quite sure where this is coming from. This is why I have ignored you until now, because you keep putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I am saying. And if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that we can't support the Lord's prohibitions on murder, lying, stealing, or homosexuality unless we abide by all of the Law of Moses. Which is a silly thing to say. It just so happens that all of those were sins prior to the Law of Moses. They are also sins today. This is not a difficult concept. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[CV75]

So now gay marriage is a covenant?

Inasmuch as it is legal, it is a secular covenant. As opposed to an eternal covenant. It isn't a "real" thing (per Alma 32) but some folks tout it as real, not knowing or accepting Alma's reference.

 

P.S. getting back to my unanswered questions in #88:

 

How did your stake leaders go about asking the FP about the medical use of marijuana, and how is this on a par with asking the FP about the recently added policy? Is there another, perhaps better example [than then medical use of marijuana] that mirrors what we are seeing with the kinds of questions and concerns you have over the new policy?

Edited November 19, 2015 by CV75

[CV75]

***

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.

---

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.

***

A same-gender partner cannot support children's membership in the Church in the sense of encouraging them by example and presumably by precept to recognize and honor only the temple marriage covenant. They cannot support them by accepting “the church's designation of [their]  marriage as a demonstration of apostasy” while at the same time exemplifying it as good enough for the children and their relationship with the couple. They cannot support the children in the sense of personally administering to them spiritually on the Church’s terms in relation to church membership (Gift of the Holy Ghost, Priesthood), but only on the terms of the Light of Christ which is available to all who will receive it.

 

This is what makes same-gender marriage in this context particularly insidious: love between a child and parent and the Light of Christ are beautiful, wonderful things and so can easily mask, imitate or substitute the denial of the fuller blessings from the perspective of the shielded innocent. But once his conscience is stretched through the two-way obligations of membership (member-organization) to promote teachings about the fuller blessings in their lives, a conflict arises when parents at best foster the Light of Christ while forgoing the fuller blessings, and the child begins to sense there is more to life than what his dear parents are desiring, accepting and offering him.

[Storm Rider]

Rock, I do think and agree that the Brethren have created a problem with this most recent policy adjustment.  I also think that it will require further adjustment because it does take away the agency of individuals from progressing within the Kingdom of God by choice.  

 

Policy that affects such broad range of membership always results in problems.  I continue to advocate that the Church should never issue any policy of this nature.  From the policy on the Word of Wisdom to the policy on the Priesthood, to this policy - they create more problems than they are worth or go against the teachings of the Church itself.  

 

Prophets and apostles will pay a price for acting in capacities that fall short of direct revelation from God yet impact the salvation of God's children.  However, as a member I have no need to play a role to be an activist against any policy of the Church.  God does that and he is infinitely more qualified than any other.  

[ksfisher]

Parker makes it clear in his article that he disagrees with the brethren and believes their beliefs regarding same sex marriage  are based on bigotry.  I'm with Kenngo on this one.

[Rivers]

Yes. Let's repeal chastity! Free love and sex for everybody and with everybody!

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"My eyes have been opened as to the vitriolic attitude of many "faithful dissenters" who it seems just want to take issue with the church, instead of acknowledging the good, as well as the bad. 

This is a good, sane policy that protects young children from entering into a covenant, which would already be somewhat difficult to keep because of today's society, that would be exponentially harder to keep because of the influence of their guardians in displaying a lifestyle completely at odds with the commandments from time immemorial. Baptism isn't about entering into some club, or trying to fit in at church. It is a personal covenant with God, where you agree to live by His commandments. When you are being modeled the opposite at home, how conflicting it would be to try to maintain those good standards!

BTW, I think the policy should apply to chronically inactive families, and children of hetero couples shaking up together- and probably other scenarios I haven't thought of."

**The above was a comment I post on FB. I have been very disappointed to see people that I believed were intellectually honest, jump on the bandwagon of criticizing the LDS church over this. The ridiculous argument being made in the article in essence says "Let you kid jump off the cliff, it's his life and his agency". Covenants are serious in nature, and the result of not keeping them worse than physical death.**



 

[bluebell]

I don't understand the argument that this policy takes away someone's agency. As far as I am aware, it has never been doctrine that children are to be given agency without limits, rules, or set boundaries.

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

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." 

 

 

Because I contributed $5000 to the Prop 8 campaign (I actually opposed Prop 8 but did so because I was asked), a group of ex-Mormons created a website to discuss me and others.  Threats were made to my firm to have UCLA and USC law students boycott recruiters if I wasn't fired.  I've published an article in a Rutgers journal about the Prop 8 fight and religious freedom, and my survey of the literature and news articles show that the great and overwhelming violence in the Prop 8 contest was committed by pro-gay supporters.   Which is interesting, as my article concludes (based upon surveys) that Prop 8 succeeded not because of the Mormons but because of the black clergy getting out the vote for Obama.   So, I'd say we're made whipping boys.  You and other pro-gay posters come to this Board to do one thing -- focus on gay issues even though most Mormons are ambivalent and don't really care about it; you and other similar posters come here to whomp on the whipping boys.  

 

I'm getting a little tired of homosexuality dominating 50% of this board when it really constitutes 5% of legitimate societal concern.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[carbon dioxide]

Good question.  First, if I can, let me adjust it a bit.  I would never anticipate that homosexual sex outside of marriage be sanctioned as righteous.  I think we need to stick with the law of chastity that all sexual relations be confined to the bonds of marriage.

 

That said, if I knew that the Church would never accept gay marriage as righteous -- I'd want the Brethren to work to eliminate the impression among members that sexual orientation is a choice.  I'd want the Brethren to encourage wards/branches to find ways to reach out to their gay & lesbian members... probably in many of the same ways we currently work with single adults.  I'd want the Church to not make policies that single out gay people and make them out to be unfit to raise righteous kids.  Even if they can't be recommend holders, I think we ought to allow gay married couples to keep their membership.

 

Should polygamists be allowed as well to retain their membership.  They at least can point to the scriptures that justify polygamy at least some of the time.  There is a big fat ZERO for justification of SSM in the scriptures.

 

Also with technology advancing as it is there is claims that in the future people will be able to have sexual relations with robots and other things.  Would marriage be applied to those also?  I am not being silly. I wish I was not serious.  There is a case recently of a terminally ill Chinese man who married a doll as he wanted to be married but did not want to leave behind a grieving widow. 

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3309431/Chinese-man-dying-cancer-wants-wed-doesn-t-want-leave-bereaved-widow-marries-SEX-DOLL-instead.html

 

Have we opened a can of worms by broadening the meaning of marriage beyond what it has been traditionally meant for thousands of years?  Who is to say that in 30 years with artificial intelligence that such things will not be accepted?  I never would have thought 30 years ago that society would accept SSM. Who knows what society will accept 30 years from now.

Edited November 19, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

Should polygamists be allowed as well to retain their membership.  They at least can point to the scriptures that justify polygamy at least some of the time.  There is a big fat ZERO for justification of SSM in the scriptures.

 

We'd have to unravel OD1.

[carbon dioxide]

We'd have to unravel OD1.

That can be done.  That probably would be a lot easier than saying that SSM is ok.

[rockpond]

That can be done.  That probably would be a lot easier than saying that SSM is ok.

 

I disagree.  Either way you'd need new revelation.  Right?

[rockpond]

 

Should polygamists be allowed as well to retain their membership.  They at least can point to the scriptures that justify polygamy at least some of the time.  There is a big fat ZERO for justification of SSM in the scriptures.

 

Also with technology advancing as it is there is claims that in the future people will be able to have sexual relations with robots and other things.  Would marriage be applied to those also?  I am not being silly. I wish I was not serious.  There is a case recently of a terminally ill Chinese man who married a doll as he wanted to be married but did not want to leave behind a grieving widow. 

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3309431/Chinese-man-dying-cancer-wants-wed-doesn-t-want-leave-bereaved-widow-marries-SEX-DOLL-instead.html

 

Have we opened a can of worms by broadening the meaning of marriage beyond what it has been traditionally meant for thousands of years?  Who is to say that in 30 years with artificial intelligence that such things will not be accepted?  I never would have thought 30 years ago that society would accept SSM. Who knows what society will accept 30 years from now.

 

 

I think we can always draw a line between children of God and robots.

[rockpond]

 

Have we opened a can of worms by broadening the meaning of marriage beyond what it has been traditionally meant for thousands of years? 

 

 

And the meaning of marriage has not held steady for "thousands of years".  The bible tells us so.

[rockpond]

Rock, I do think and agree that the Brethren have created a problem with this most recent policy adjustment.  I also think that it will require further adjustment because it does take away the agency of individuals from progressing within the Kingdom of God by choice.  

 

Policy that affects such broad range of membership always results in problems.  I continue to advocate that the Church should never issue any policy of this nature.  From the policy on the Word of Wisdom to the policy on the Priesthood, to this policy - they create more problems than they are worth or go against the teachings of the Church itself.  

 

Prophets and apostles will pay a price for acting in capacities that fall short of direct revelation from God yet impact the salvation of God's children.  However, as a member I have no need to play a role to be an activist against any policy of the Church.  God does that and he is infinitely more qualified than any other.  

 

Since the Church has largely abandoned the principle of common consent for everything except callings, it seems that speaking out is about all that we've got left.