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

[Bernard Gui]

I think a lot of people would like to see the gospel definition of marriage change. The church still defines marriage as the union of male and female.

Is that what you would like to see? 

[Bernard Gui]

A lot of people want the gospel definition of marriage to change, but that isn't something man can do. God revealed marriage to the earth (which had existed from all eternity) and was pretty clear in Genesis that it was for male and female to be joined by him.

So we can pass any law we want, change any policy we want, protest, proclaim, and declare. It won't change what marriage actually is. There is no such thing as SSM and never will be. Just SS couples outside the bounds of marriage practicing an act that is sinful.

Nothing man can do to change that, and an eternal unchanging God isn't going to alter an ordinance that predates his own existence to meet our societal demands.

If the gospel definition of marriage is to be changed, does that not mean the law of chastity must be changed too? 

[Bernard Gui]

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".

What would that revision look like? How would the law read if those who want change could rewrite it?

[Bernard Gui]

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

With very few exceptions, that is the conventional wisdom of the world today.

Would you have the church repeal the law of chastity to make this possible for members, too?

[Gillebre]

It's contrary to their understanding precisely because that understanding is flawed. They're missing something. When I mentioned society what I meant was about the culture and acceptability in society. It's unacceptable to society to do what the Church has done, and that puts pressure on members of the Church when they can no longer split their loyalty between what other people think and their Church membership. Having said that I don't think many members are thinking oh man if I support the Church's new policy what will my coworkers think of me, or gay relatives. I'm sure that's an active factor, but it's more passive in my mind. People seem to want to have both the world's approval and the Lord's, but in our time they rarely come together (in my opinion).

 

My statement could be rephrased like this: do they place greater emphasis on worldly understanding versus the heavenly perspective of the Lord and His Prophets? It's all about trust I think. Can we tolerate sustaining a leadership that is very unpopular with the world? Can we accept being known as members of a Church with policies which are, to the world and the worldly, very unpopular. I'm not referring to members struggling with understanding as much as those who have allowed themselves to become critical to the point of speaking evil of the Lord's anointed. I'm sure there's a reference to that in the Gospel somewhere.

[Bobbieaware]

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.

Regardless of motivation, do you ever stop consider the possibility that it"s the Brethren who may be following the Lord's revealed will and that it's those who are condemning the prophets on this issue who may be the ones who are in the wrong? Or are you 100% spiritually persuaded that you are in the right and it's the Brethren who are the ones in the wrong? Or to frame the question another way, do you ever have moments of deep reflection when you consider the possibility that you might be rebelling against the living prophets of God? I'm sure you must realize that since the days of Adam there have always been members of the Lord's kingdom who rebelled against the true prophets because they thought what the prophets taught seemed too harsh and unfair? And I'm also sure you must realize the war in heaven was fought because those who followed Lucifer rebelled against God himself because they too thought God's plan also seemed too harsh and unfair? But one thing is for sure, if I ever got to the point where I was publicly declaring that the living prophets are in the wrong on some important issue, there would be moments of grave doubt in my mind when a genuine fear would creep over me that I might very well be rebelling against the living prophets of God.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Zakuska]

LOL absolutely love the red ink. Nice touch. You wouldn't happen to be trying to curse me with bad luck, death or endless pain would you?

I wouldn't blame you if you did.

 

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.

Murder is Murder Mystery Meat. Even if it was justified as being an execution.

 

mur·der

/ˈmərdər/

noun

noun: murder; plural noun: murders

1.

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

"the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More

manslaughter;

literaryslaying

"a brutal murder"

•informal

a very difficult or unpleasant task or experience.

"my first job at the steel mill was murder"

synonyms: hell, hell on earth, a nightmare, an ordeal, a trial, misery, torture, agony

"driving there was murder"

Just because some one is justified in executing some one else under the law, doesn't mean some one hasn't been murdered by some one else in the execution. All it means is the executioner is justified or aloud to do it with the blessing of the Magistrate. He would be held accountable by the law for not carrying out the execution. Just like Ms. Davis and the marriage license debacle.

In the case of Phinehas God didn't hold him accoutable for the murder because he was required by the law to carry it out. But it doesn't mean blood wasn't spilled. Two souls were murdered that day, justified by Law of course.

There are even times when executioners are considered murderers. Auschwitz ring any bells?

 

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.

So let me get this straight... because the man was a "dirty slave driver and was beating a Hebrew" that justified the cold blooded murder, concealment of homicidal death, and fleeing the scene of a crime?

How exactly is that supposed to work when the exact scenario shows up in the Law God gives Moses just a few years later?

Exodus 21: 20-21

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,

21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Both Egyptian law and the Law of God convicted Moses he was a dead man both in heaven and earth.

Here's the earthly mandate for his death for murder.

Ex 2

15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

All Pharoah was trying to do at this point was bring him to Justice. And just so you know, Pharoah's not the bad guy in the story at this momment. Moses just turned to the dark side.

And to answer your CFR...

Moses was wanted dead or alive by both heavenly and earthly Laws. Just imagine how much weight was lifted off his shoulders when Heaven forgave his sins and God asked him to remove his sandals from his feet and let him enter the temple so to speak. God must have forgiven him or he'd of been dead. (Just sayin)

One other thing. If God mandated slavery as a divine institution in heavenly law in Exodus 21 above. What changed his mind and aloud our Modern Prophets to ignore his mandate and drop the curse of Cain doctrine and declare slavery wrong. They basically just slapped God in the face and called him a dirty slave runner. Is that no Blasphemy to tell God he was wrong? If they can ignore a mandate about something as abominable as slavery. Why cant our 15 ignore the Abominability of Homosexual relations? Slavery is a thousand times more reprehensible than SSM.

The Q15 are picking and choosing which laws of God they want to uphold.

 

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.

Ummm... "where there is no law there is no sin". (Romans 5:13) And Murder didn't become a sin until God punished Cain for Abels death. Then Murder became a sin because God made the law that said murder was defined as sin at that point.

 

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.

Exactly. So the levitical law was fulfilled with all its jots and tittles. All things have become new. And as we see with the Abominable shrimp. Shrimp is no longer "Abominable" under the new law. Which would mean all the other "Abominables" in Leviticus are no longer Aboninable any more either. So You can't quote Lev 11 in support of the "Abominableness" of Homosexuality without also bringing in all the other "Abominables" with it. If the Law is fulfilled then Levitcus 11 is out of the picture for support for the sinfulness of Homosexuality during our current dispensation.

God has wiped the slate clean and is starting with a new set of instruction just like he has done time and time again. He started with a New set of Instructions for Israel and got mad at them when they diviated from those instruction in the least little bit.

 

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.

You're adding to the words of the Lord again you keep trying to slip in your favorite Abomination thinking I wont notice. Be careful because God pronounces terrible curses on those who try and do that. (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:19)

Lets let Peter tell us what our New Covenant instructions are.

Acts 15

6 ¶And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

12 ¶Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13 ¶And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

What a simple Law!

- Don't participate in idol Worship and all that goes along with it

- Don't fornicate

- Don't eat strangled things

- Don't eat blood

I see none of the Leviticus 11 minutia on sex or marriage in this new law. Not a single word. Do you?

The only thing about sex and marriage is to not fornicate and What's that definition?

 

for·ni·ca·tion

/ˌfôrnəˈkāSH(ə)n/

noun

formalhumorous

noun: fornication; plural noun: fornications

sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.

"laws forbidding adultery and fornication"

synonyms: extramarital sex, extramarital relations, adultery, infidelity, unfaithfulness, cuckoldry; More

premarital sex;

That's pretty simple.

Fornication pretty much covers all sexual sins outlined in Leviticus in one swoop even Adultery.

However this does cause a huge legal headache for all churches in the USA in regards to same sex marriage, especially because of the doctrines contained in the New testament of obeying the Governments and laws of the lands we live in. Judges and courts could easily use our own doctrine against us to force the issue. Even more so with us because of the Doctrine and Covenants. We have a double divine mandate to obey and follow the civil laws. We've already lost once on the marriage issue, I can see it happening again with precedence.

This also causes issues in defining sex between Married same Sex partners a sin and excommunicating them for it. Our own doctrine makes it easy for any person to force the issue legally by simple appealing to the D&C.

I think the new policy could find itself legally challenged.

 

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.

Our own doctrine invalidates defining sex between Married homosexuals a sin. I think our new policy is legally challenged see above.

As to the rest we both kind of repeated our self.

And to set the record straight, I'm not advocating my favorite sin. I'm a straight married card carrying member too.

And me asking about your sins... sorry for prying... aren't we taught in scripture to confess our sins one to another publicly? Paul wasn't ashamed to do it on quite a few occasions. Calling oneself a murderer publicly is a pretty bold move. And I have plenty of sins myself.

If you feel I put words in your mouth I apologize. Thank you for your patients with putting up with cranky old me

Edited November 19, 2015 by Zakuska

[Bobbieaware]

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.

If someone doesn't believe in a top down church organization, like the model of church organization that's clearly set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, why would anyone want to be a member of a top down organization like the LDS Church? It's not like those who join are not amply forewarned that the LDS Church is a top down organization. The fact that the Church of Christ is designed by God to be a top down organization is also accurately set forth by the Apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians and also in his epistle to the Ephesians. Those who want to change the LDS Church into a democracy are setting themselves up for a lifetime of pure, unremitting frustration.

[Meadowchik]

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 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.

 

I get the feeling that you're being flippant now.  I am coming at this conversation with the understanding that we both believe that there is good and truth in the Church and in the Gospel.  Thus, yes, I would think we could both agree that it wouldn't be good for a child to misinterpret the Spirit in a way that turns him or her away from the goodness and truth of the Church.

 

I can see how these concepts work firsthand. We rent the other lodging attached to our house to members of our ward.  It's been a year and it has been extremely stressful.  Their daughter is in my Sunday School class, and I suspect that the tension between her parents and me affects her perception of Sunday School.  How to remedy this?  I cannot remedy the tension between her parents and us on my own. Action on their part would also be needed.  The comparison is not perfect, but in my experience I can clearly see how tension between parents and Church can cloud a child's perception of Church, due solely to the dissonance between the two.

 

And, obviously, same-sex marriage is a quite unique situation for the Church relative to all others situations where Church and family are not consistent.  Do you not see that?

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree with the comment on Patheos:  

kiwi57 • 2 days ago

Some corrections to a few of the sub-freshman errors in this post-doctoral outpouring:

1) "Upon reaching the age of twelve, according to current Church practice, young men are eligible to become priests." Actually they become deacons.

2) "There is a long tradition of faith-promoting literature in the LDS tradition in which children of non-Mormon parents see the correctness of Mormonism and convert despite familial opposition and even disownment." Actually missionaries are instructed not to baptise minors without parental consent.

3) "Mormon missionaries ... are, as of Thursday instructed that they may not convert individuals their own age if they are being raised in a family rooted in a same-sex union."

That's simply wrong. The minimum age is 18, not 21.

4) "And, if approached by such individuals, unsolicited, must turn them down as unworthy converts."

Where did you get that "unworthy converts" from? Do you always just make up your own facts?

And that's just four. There are plenty more where they came from.

 

And I can add that Stuart Parker is also wrong when he claims that the LDS Church was the "primary sponsor and proponent of Proposition Eight, the 2008 amendment to California’s state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage," when in fact the LDS Church responded to the invitation from the very large Roman Catholic Church in California to participate with them, and some other churches (evangelicals, Black congregations, etc.), who far outnumbered the Mormon contingent -- a very small percentage of the total.

 

Parker is certainly angry for some reason, and it shows in his reckless and inaccurate claims.

[sunstoned]

In declaring that the Church won't change on the matter of homosexuality being a sin, I am only echoing what the Lord's anointed servants have said. That's why I quoted Elder Christofferson and highlighted passages in that official statement.

Minds and attitudes change.  This happens all the time including within the church.  Polygamy is a good example.  This core practice was jettisoned.  I'm sure you are aware of  BY, WW and others stating that would never happen.

[sunstoned]

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.

The church has long taught that by the time children reach the age of eight they are accountable for "their" actions, and thus they can be baptized. This is a core teaching that is backed by scripture:

 

For all men must repent and be baptized, and not only men, but women, and children who have arrived at the years of accountability

D&C 18:42

 

 Now the church has gone directly against this core teaching by withholding this saving ordinance from a targeted group of children.  Not because of what they have done, but because of the supposed "sins" of their parents.  

[sunstoned]

Seems like you are assuming an awful lot..there are people i have talked to at work that are very faithful and they have and for the past week or so they are wondering if they are in the Lord's church anymore,

I teach at a University in Utah and I have experienced the same thing from several students that I have spoken with.  These are young people who are active members, who are now confused and disappointed by this policy.

[Bobbieaware]

Thanks. This is a good reminder to all those who think we are better off without the resigners. I'm sure Elder Ballard doesn't feel that way.

In the Lord's infinite wisdom, some are permitted to wander off so that, like the prodigal son, they learn to truly love, value and honor the truth which they left behind. Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah wandered off for a while and it was the experiences they had while on the dark side that set the stage for them to become truly converted and be numbered among some of the greatest men of God who ever lived. Just because some wander off doesn't mean that's the end of the road for them and that they will never return. When many of these wanderers realize the dreadful mess their lives have become while away from the fold, they will return and be much more faithful than they would have been if the'd never wandered off at all. It's all part of God's wise plan. As mother Eve so wisely said , we must experience the bitter before we truly learn how to love and prize the good. And when these wanderers see the even worse mess the ungodly are going to make of our already sick world, they will come running back home with gratitude in their hearts and be received with open and compassionate arms.

[Bobbieaware]

I teach at a University in Utah and I have experienced the same thing from several students that I have spoken with.  These are young people who are active members, who are now confused and disappointed by this policy.

And did you testify to these troubled young people that the Church is true and that, according to scores of prophecies, the Chuch will come off triumphant in the end and all will work out for the best? Or did you send them off with the impression that you are just as confused and disappointed with the leaders of the Church as they are?

[Rivers]

With very few exceptions, that is the conventional wisdom of the world today.

Would you have the church repeal the law of chastity to make this possible for members, too?

No. That would be silly.

[Bobbieaware]

The church has long taught that by the time children reach the age of eight they are accountable for "their" actions, and thus they can be baptized. This is a core teaching that is backed by scripture:

Now the church has gone directly against this core teaching by withholding this saving ordinance from a targeted group of children. Not because of what they have done, but because of the supposed "sins" of their parents.

I'm surprised you can't see the easy to discern trap set up to destroy the Church if the leaders did not employ this new policy. Can you not see that in a few years the anti-Mormon press would exploit many accounts of how the Church taught unsuspecting and easy to persuade children to disown their own sole-custodial gay parents? Why can you not see this? It's so obvious to me that the anti-Mormons would be champing at the bit to unleash a barrage of bitter condemnation against the Church for "crimes against humanity" for turning children against their loving and devoted sole-custody gay parents. The way the policy is set up now, it's the gay parents who will be considered abusive for subjecting their children to Indoctrination by a Church that teaches gay marriage is a grave sin and grounds for apostasy. And as far as the children are concerned, because of the divine law of compensation the children will have every opportunity to embrace the Gospel when the Lord deems the time is right. In my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that the leaders were inspired when they instituted this policy and I honor them for their great wisdom and foresight. The Lord will be sure to see to it that these children will lose nothing as a consequence of the sins of their custodial parents.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Kenngo1969]

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.  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]  In this example, I am assuming that all parents and/or guardians are supportive of the desire of the children to be baptized.  

 

 

 

 

With due respect, no, neither the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor God, nor the royal "we," have taken away anyone's right to exercise their agency.  If anyone has done that, it is the parents in your example, who, notwithstanding the fact that because they, presumably while understanding the importance of baptism in the Church of Jesus Christ because they desire it for their child(ren), live a lifestyle which is contrary to the commandments of God, left their child(ren)'s other parent to pursue such a lifestyle, and so forth.  All of us have our choices circumscribed in one way or another (including by the choices of others) in this life.  As I have said so many times, often, we cannot choose our circumstances: the only thing we can choose is how we react to them.  

 

For example, had it been entirely up to me, I would have chosen to follow my father's footsteps into law enforcement, or, alternatively, would have been licensed to practice law in my home state.  Physical disability foreclosed the former possibility, and, heretofore, a behavioral health diagnosis has foreclosed the latter.  That's not a denial of agency: it's simply one of life's many vicissitudes in this test called mortality as it has been designed by God (whether He has played an active role or a more passive one in such design).  I still have my agency: I can choose to become angry and bitter, or I can say, "OK, so I cannot [or, heretofore, have not been able to] do [a] or ; what can I do?"  I attempted to split the difference by using my agency to "jump from the fire back into the frying pan," obtaining additional schooling to qualify to sit for the Certified Paralegal Examination of the National Association of Legal Assistants, and passing the examination in 2010.  

 

Heretofore, no employer has chosen to exercise his agency by hiring me for the legal support role I have hoped to fill.  So, I'm back to those two choices: (1) angry and bitter, or (2) whatever Plan B (or C or D or E or F, et cetera, is.  I accepted a job outside my longtime home city with a disability law firm that, while it still wasn't really close to the legal support role I envisioned, was as close as I'd ever come to that point.  After less than a week and without consulting me, the HR director and the head of that department shunted me off to another department, where my duties were sorting mail and answering phones (alas, at the same time, which is the sort of multitasking I don't do well). I ended up working under someone who, while she is one of the best phone operators I have ever heard, in my opinion is severely lacking in the skills necessary to be an effective supervisor (and even if I'm entirely off base, we certainly didn't click, but I'm not the only one who had problems with her ).  Perhaps I could have utilized my agency to handle the situation better than I did in some respects, but eventually, I ended up back at that same juncture with those same two choices: (1) angry and bitter, or (2) whatever Plan C is.  What is Plan C?  Plan C is exactly the kind of job that impelled me to apply to law school in the first place because I decided I didn't want to spend the rest of my life answering phones all working day, every working day.  (I exercised my agency to move out here in the first place and to sign a lease: gotta pay the bills, so one does what one must.)  Aaaand ... we're back at those same two choces: (1) angry and bitter, or (2) whatever Plan D ends up being.

 

Whatever else agency is or is not, it is not "Total freedom, completely uncircumscribed by circumstance, by others' choices, or by anything else."  However my choices have been circumscribed at any of these junctures (or at numerous others I could mention), they haven't been circumscribed by a lack of agency.  So it is, even with children whose opportunity to be baptized is delayed by the unwise use of agency on the part of their parents, one of whom left a child's mother or father to pursue a same-sex relationship.

 

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. 

 

 

Invoking the Second Article of Faith seems, to me, to be a non sequitur.  Who but Adam is being held responsible for Adam's transgression?  You're right that something is wrong, but you're trying to pin that culpability on the wrong party.  See Doctrine and Covenants 68:25 (and note what else it talks about besides baptism: "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't an axiom God favors when it comes to parenting).

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Notwithstanding God's omnisicience and omnipotence, anyone who insists on perfect justice in this life ought to take the Dread Pirate Roberts'/Westley's advice to Inigo Montoya when the latter insisted on knowing the former's identity before they dueled.  And you may not agree with the action of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with the logic underlying it, but that doesn't mean it is illogical (Mr. Spock? ).  Which is worse: (1) Denying a covenant to someone whose present circumstances will make that covenant especially difficult to keep; or (2) Placing them in circumstances in which that covenant is more apt to be broken.  I had to deny a 16-year-old girl who had read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover in less than two weeks and told me she knew it was true the opportunity to act on that knowledge precisely because of #1.  To you, it may not have been the "logical" thing to do, but, because of #2, it was the prudent thing to do.

 

 

I am not very subjective in this area.

 

 

 

I know you meant to write the exact opposite of what you did, but writing what you did does illustrate part of the problem.  On the contrary: your position is almost entirely subjective, rather than objective, here.

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

It's not simply about what ordinances one receives.  It's about what covenants he is prepared to make and keeps.  Sadly, a lot of people "go through the motions" of receiving ordinances without real intent of keeping the covenants associated with them (yours truly included: I have repented, and will continue to do so anytime I fall short in that area).  And from where I sit, one can obtain a testimony that a particular policy is inspired the same way he obtains a testimony of whether any other prophetic pronouncement is inspired.

 

 

Now, having said this, let me be clear.  This is not my circus and these are not my monkeys.

 

 

 

 

 At best, that's certainly an unfortunate choice of words when referring to how the Lord's Anointed administer His Church.  At worst, it might be illustrative of your problem.  Again, if you don't have a testimony, in some particular, that the Brethren are led by Him whose Church this is, and/or if you question their motives you know how to solve that problem.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

Well, if we're in the business of placing blame, there's plenty of that to go around, and it starts with parents.

 

Thanks,

 

-Ken

 

 

 

 

[SmileyMcGee]

From LDS.org:

It appears to me that the only possible resolution to the same-sex attraction and marriage problems is to repeal the law of chastity.

A few questions:

1. In our church, homosexual relations are considered sinful - serious violations of the law of chastity. Present and past church teachings about this are unequivocal. The same standard applies to heterosexual relations outside of marriage. Given current trends and changing attitudes, should homosexual relations be removed from the list of violations of the law of chastity?

2. Outside the church, there appears to be almost universal approval of people living together or having multiple partners before marriage. Should the law of chastity be done away with completely or in part, since it is no longer the standard of almost all modern society, including many religions that at one time upheld it?

3. Now that same-sex marriage is legal, should the wording of the church marriage covenants and promises be changed to include same-sex partners?

4. If you are upset with the church's policies on same-sex marriage, what would satisfy your disaffection? What specific laws, policies, practices should the church change? Do you seek incremental changes? If so, where do you hope this will lead?

Hi Bernard,

Based on the quote you posted from lds.org, I'm not seeing why a change would be needed in order to accommodate SSM, since the gender neutral term "spouse" is used. Unless, of course, you are saying that a change should be made because the law of chastity needs to better clarify that sexual relations should on exist in lawful, monogamous, heterosexual marriages.

I guess there is wording in other ordinances that would need to be changed should SSM gain divine approval, but that would be an easy change to make and explain.

[HappyJackWagon]

I'd like to hear from the Bishop who claims the Holy Ghost told him to reveal the contents of the updated handbook to the press.

 

That would be a great interview!

You act like he's revealing top secret information. What a silly notion. Maybe he'll have his clearance revoked, but there are no covenants not to reveal the contents of the handbook. In fact, if a member asks a question which can be answered by the handbook it is perfectly in line to show the member the handbook instruction and then talk about it.

 

If there's no covenant made and if there's no illegal activity such as theft, there is no problem.

[CV75]

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?

Financial and social support of participation cannot substitute spiritual (which is what I mean by “genuine and authentic”) support of conscience. The covenants are not supported or effectuated by sideline cheerleading but by sharing and working together with the same conscience – “And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness…”

 

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 the children’s 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.

 

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, or Zion, or family exaltation) to promote teachings about the fuller blessings in their lives, a conflict arises when parents can at best foster certain aspects of the Light of Christ while forgoing the fuller blessings, and when the child begins to sense there is more to life than what his dear parents are desiring, accepting and offering him.

 

It’s not about the same-gender couple forcing the children to choose. It is about what they have to offer and how that affects the child when given an opportunity to expand his relationships into a covenant with the Lord and by extension a common covenant with the rest of Zion (the people of the Lord).

 

The evidence of this conflict centered on the dichotomy between the particular sinful, secular practice of same-gender unions and marriage and the LDS religious covenant is found in the questions that led to the new policy (per Elder Cristofferson's explanation).

[KevinG]

You act like he's revealing top secret information. What a silly notion. Maybe he'll have his clearance revoked, but there are no covenants not to reveal the contents of the handbook. In fact, if a member asks a question which can be answered by the handbook it is perfectly in line to show the member the handbook instruction and then talk about it.

 

If there's no covenant made and if there's no illegal activity such as theft, there is no problem.

 

Ah yes...  Whenever someone leads their comment with: 

• "You act as though..." or
• "You sound like..." or the ever prescient
• "So what you are saying is..." 

I know I am about to be treated with a retelling of my comment that is so far from the original intent it is unrecognizable.

 

[KevinG]

Minds and attitudes change.  This happens all the time including within the church.  Polygamy is a good example.  This core practice was jettisoned.  I'm sure you are aware of  BY, WW and others stating that would never happen.

 

External pressure played a part in the Manifesto (ending polygamy)...

 

“The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. …“… I [would] have let all the temples go out of our hands; I [would] have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do. … I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write” (“Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”)

 

But there were also internal workings between the Lord and His church that brought the practice (not doctrine) to an end in this dispensation:

 

Doctrine and Covanants 124: 49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

[HappyJackWagon]

Ah yes...  Whenever someone leads their comment with: 

• "You act as though..." or
• "You sound like..." or the ever prescient
• "So what you are saying is..." 

I know I am about to be treated with a retelling of my comment that is so far from the original intent it is unrecognizable.

 

My apologies. So if that bishop didn't break a covenant or break the law, or do anything he's been told not to do, why are you being so critical and treating him as if he's done something wrong. Am I misinterpreting your intent? Why mock this anonymous person by saying something like "I'd like to hear from the Bishop who claims the Holy Ghost told him to reveal the contents of the updated handbook to the press."

[KevinG]

In the case of the second Official Declaration (Race and Priesthood) there never was doctrine, only speculation and false tradition that crept into the church from Protestant practices, and when the brethren prayed about it (a decade after the heaviest social pressures had passed) the practice was immediately stopped.

 

We are not in the future and have no way of knowing what will happen then.  However the practice of marriage between same sex partners is very new, without precedent in biblical or church history, and there are some explicit restrictions against homosexual behavior in the scriptures, that most Christians and Mormons agree were not done away with under the New Covenant.

 

So while social pressure combined with additional revelation could come regarding the current practice of marriage, it would be a change comparable to the OD1 and OD2.  Neither of which happened without internal forces in the church.  The latter coming after West African and South American Saints counselled with the brethren (not demanded from them).