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

[Russell C McGregor]

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

Really?

How many married men in the Bible were not husbands of wives?

How many married women in the Bible were not wives of husbands?

The sine qua non of marriage is that it pairs up a man and a woman.

[JAHS]

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?

 

Just wondering. Parents are supposed to teach their children things about life as they are growing up. Do you or any others you know in a similar situation, tell your children that you think gay marriage is a natural and acceptable lifestyle and something that the church should support? 

[sjdawg]

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.

at least you don't feel like a victim.   I'd suggest the whipping boys were actually the gay people who were being denied the right to marry but what do I know?     

[rockpond]

Really?

How many married men in the Bible were not husbands of wives?

How many married women in the Bible were not wives of husbands?

The sine qua non of marriage is that it pairs up a man and a woman.

 

 

1 Kings 11:3

3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

 

Mosiah 11:4

4 And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his concubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom.

 

2 Chronicles 11:21

21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)

 

Jacob 2:24

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 

2 Samuel 5:13

13 ¶And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

 

Daniel 5:3

3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.

 

Mosiah 11:14

14 And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots.

 

2 Samuel 19:5

5 And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines;

 

Daniel 5:23

23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

 

Genesis 36:12

12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau’s wife.

 

Yep... Traditional marriage hasn't changed in thousands of years.

[Storm Rider]

Blue, if we have children that are able to be baptized after visiting with a Bishop and reviewing their desire and understanding of fundamental beliefs and then we have another set of children that are able to do the same thing, answer the same questions, but the Bishop says "no" for the sole reason of the actions of another, then we have taken away their ability to fulfill their desires and to exercise their agency.  In this example, I am assuming that all parents and/or guardians are supportive of the desire of the children to be baptized.  

 

I believe this does create a conflict, a disturbance or dissonance, in how we act and or teach certain principles of the Gospel.  Primarily, the 2nd Article of Faith.  If we deny a young person the opportunity to enter the waters of baptism solely because of the actions of another person it seems to me that something is wrong.  If a child is refused, they live beyond the age of accountability and then die - what is the impact?  I know that we believe all things will be worked out in the eternities, but we either value a baptism in this life or not.  If everything will be worked out in the eternities, what is the value of baptizing anyone?  Any way we parse it we have created something that is difficult to explain and remain logical.

 

I am not very subjective in this area.  I personally have a major issue with policies that affect obtaining ordinances for anyone.  I believe so completely in the role of prophets, that they speak the will of the Lord and that will is scripture, that when a man speaks and makes up rules I have problems.  

 

Now, having said this, let me be clear.  This is not my circus and these are not my monkeys.  This is the Lord's Church.  If he allows men to act like men rather than act as prophets that is his business and his business alone.  If there is a price to be paid it is laid solely on the heads of these leaders.  If there is an egregious error then God would correct it and I don't need to worry about it.  I would never write a letter, join a protest, etc.  I am personally against such demonstrations of rebellion and believe such destroys or diminishes the presence of the Spirit in the lives of those that rebel so openly.  

 

Lastly, I don't think Parker is even close when he attempts to identify the reasons for this policy.  

 

I hope that I have clarified my position adequately.  

[Jeanne]

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.  

Yes..it would be  a struggle.  No matter the situation, LDS grandparents live for the baby blessings and baptisms of their grandchildren.

[Russell C McGregor]

 

1 Kings 11:3

3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

 

Mosiah 11:4

4 And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his concubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom.

 

2 Chronicles 11:21

21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)

 

Jacob 2:24

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 

2 Samuel 5:13

13 ¶And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

 

Daniel 5:3

3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.

 

Mosiah 11:14

14 And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots.

 

2 Samuel 19:5

5 And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines;

 

Daniel 5:23

23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

 

Genesis 36:12

12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau’s wife.

 

Yep... Traditional marriage hasn't changed in thousands of years.

 

So: not one of those guys was married to anyone other than a woman.

And: not one of those gals was married to anyone other than a man.

I'd have thought by now that even you might have started to detect a pattern.

[Teancum]

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

Apparently so. I am a bit surprised on both ends.

I will work to make sure this does not happen again. I do enjoy this message board.

[Storm Rider]

Yes..it would be  a struggle.  No matter the situation, LDS grandparents live for the baby blessings and baptisms of their grandchildren.

 

It depends on the family.  In our family, the family I come from, blessings and other ordinances were important and significant milestones.  Our son married into a family where baby blessings are always done at the home with just family members present.  It has a totally different feel to us and I would wish it was otherwise.

 

The point is that we grandparents adjust to what is offered us and appreciate whatever we get.  

[Teancum]

Personally I think it's because the time of the Gentiles is rapidly coming to an end. I think the house of Israel is about to come into play big-time.

How so?

[rockpond]

So: not one of those guys was married to anyone other than a woman.

And: not one of those gals was married to anyone other than a man.

I'd have thought by now that even you might have started to detect a pattern.

 

Concubines.  700 wives.  Women as property.  Marriage used for political purposes.

 

I guess all of that is "traditional marriage" so long as there is a man and at least one woman involved, eh?

[Sevenbak]

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/appendix/the-times-of-the-gentiles?lang=eng

 

Lots of great stuff here, but here's a snip.

 

The ‘times of the Gentiles’ refers to that period of time extending from when the gospel was restored to the world (1830) to when the gospel will again be preached to the Jews—after the Gentiles have rejected it. This is how the Lord explained it:

“‘And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel;

“‘But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men.

“‘And in that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.’ (D&C 45:28–30; italics added.)

Edited November 19, 2015 by Sevenbak

[Coreyb]

 

 

 

Several posters have proposed that CHI 1 should not be publicly discussed because its circulation is limited to bishoprics and stake presidents (and higher authorities, including 3 women).

 

Personally, I think the notion is silly. The original church handbooks were not only published, they were codified in scriptures - section 20 for example. If our God does not work in secret, why are we so afraid of what's in the handbooks?

I refer to the handbook 1 regularly, thanks to that Mormon Martin Luther guy. Never felt bad about it. Would love to get a hardcopy sometime if anyone knows how to get a hold of one.

[Kenngo1969]

Read post 51.

Tolerance of ambiguity is a sign of intelligence

Aaah!  So that's why I had such a hard time in law school!

 

[Five Solas]

... 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.

Ambivalent means conflicted, hot & cold.  (A long-ago girlfriend comes to mind.)  Very astute observation regarding some LDS, if ambivalent is what you intended.  But your words that followed, "don't really care" suggest what you meant to say was indifferent--which would be consistent with not caring (and not at all compatible with ambivalence).  

 

BTW, how did you get to 5%?  Why not 50%?  Or 0.5%?  Is there some analytic model behind your number?  Rather intriguing...

:0)

 

--Erik

[sjdawg]

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.

You were well within your right to donate money to what you think is a worthy cause.   People also have a right to be upset by your support of what they think is a discriminatory cause.   As long as neither side is using illegal means to push their position I suppose the system is working.

[carbon dioxide]

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

There was a time when the vast majority would say that we can draw a line between man and woman and woman and woman and man and man.  Whatever line one draws today might be rejected in not too far in the future. 

[sunstoned]

In other words, it's not so much the impact on the children that angers them as it is that the direction has been made yet clearer that engaging in same-sex marriage or cohabitation is an act of apostasy.

From speaking to many of friends, the impact on children was the primary issue.  And I also do not think that anger is the optional word here.  Most people I have spoken with were saddened and disappointed, not angry.

[carbon dioxide]

 

Yep... Traditional marriage hasn't changed in thousands of years.

 

What did not change was that marriage always involved a male and a female.

[Gillebre]

rockpond, the crisis is (in my opinion) on the part of Church members who can't accept the direction of the Prophet and Apostles over the Church. The crisis is that they are between a rock and a hard place which will serve to purify them as with a refiner's fire. Do they care more about what society thinks? Or the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are they ashamed of the Lord's Church? Sure seems like it.

 

What's happening doesn't surprise me.

[sunstoned]

To be part of the show.

 

Wasn't that the whole intent anyway?

How about to show solidarity. And perhaps send a message to the leaders.  After all, there are few avenues available to get the attention of the church leadership.  It is a very top down organization that does not value feedback from the rank and file.  There is no mechanism in place for this at all.  Anything sent through "proper channels" will either stop and or get kicked back down to the SP or Bishop level. 

[rockpond]

What did not change was that marriage always involved a male and a female.

 

Yes, but the claim made was the traditional marriage has been the same for thousands of years.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

I will never be embarrassed to be LDS.

[rockpond]

rockpond, the crisis is (in my opinion) on the part of Church members who can't accept the direction of the Prophet and Apostles over the Church. The crisis is that they are between a rock and a hard place which will serve to purify them as with a refiner's fire. Do they care more about what society thinks? Or the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are they ashamed of the Lord's Church? Sure seems like it.

 

What's happening doesn't surprise me.

 

Sounds like a strawman... Everyone I know who objects to this policy does so on the grounds of it being contrary to their understanding of the gospel.  I've never heard anyone object to this policy based on what society thinks.

[Bernard Gui]

It seems like we have forgotten what a covenant is. God sets the terms and we accept them. It's not up to a vote. There is doctrine, principle, and application. Application can vary to a degree, but it cannot violate the core doctrine or principle.

The question is to those who do not support the current same-sex policies of the church. What do they think we should do with the law of chastity?