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

[Scott Lloyd]

It is similar to those who would cry that Christianity is somehow under attack because members of SCOTUS voted to affirm SSM in all States.

And lets not get into the "rogue" judge nonsense. I'm stopping that before it happens and violators who wish to whine about the evil gay juggernaut will be reported.

So believing and asserting that there is a gay juggernaut is now a violation of the rules of participation on this board? Who made that declaration and when did it happen?

 

Let me be the test case: I here and now declare and affirm with certainty and without equivocation that the gay pressure groups do indeed constitute a juggernaut and that said juggernaut has been very effective and formidable in a very short time. Furthermore, some members of this movement are extremists in that they have no tolerance for such moderating measures as the Utah Compromise recently enacted by the Utah Legislature, or the current policy of the Boy Scouts of America, which allows sponsoring units to determine for themselves whether to appoint gay Scoutmasters. To the extent that individuals have taken on such a scorched-earth attitude, they constitute a threat to the First Amendment principles of religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association, and they ought to be vigorously opposed.

 

There now. You or others may proceed to report me. I will await adjudication by the moderating team and will convey the resulting action (or inaction, as the case may be).

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

It is similar to those who would cry that Christianity is somehow under attack because members of SCOTUS voted to affirm SSM in all States.

And lets not get into the "rogue" judge nonsense. I'm stopping that before it happens and violators who wish to whine about the evil gay juggernaut will be reported.

 

I agree it's equally dumb when it comes from the other side.  There are genuine attacks on both christians and gay and lesbians, but this kind of stuff isn't it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently the U.S. Catholic bishops can't be outdone by the LDS church.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/us_bishops_are_rewriting_voter_guide_to_include_same_sex_marriage_as_intrinsic_evil

This is depressing and annoying.

I wonder if the Catholic bishops have taken courage from the bold stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the recent policy change. Of course, it's quite possible there is no connection. And while this recent move is directed outwardly toward civil government, the LDS policy is very much an internal matter.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[SmileyMcGee]

The concept of "proof" may be no more meaningful here than in discussion of Scripture.  However, experts within both orthodox Judaism and within Catholicism have long since shown systematically that the Bible condemns same gender sexual relations.  That is the source of the claimed "instrinsic evil."  For those who do not give religion any credence, that may not matter at all.

 

As to secular discussion of same gender sexual relations, there have been detailed claims that it is harmful to society.  Is that what you mean by "intrinsic evil"?

Hi Robert,

 

Nailing down the "intrinsic" value of something seems to be a tricky process and I personally stay aware from the term. Its use in this instance (intrinsic evil) seems like just another form of asserting objective morality. When people claim that some object or behavior has some intrinsic characteristic, they seem to be asserting at least two things: 

 

1. That there is way to know the intrinsic value of something. 

2. That if that object or behavior exists, then the quality claimed to be intrinsic necessarily exists; i.e., that the things could not exist without that quality.

 

I don't think that someone can claim the second without claiming the first. I'm not claiming that object or behavior don't have intrinsic value. What I am claiming is that I unaware of a method for knowing the intrinsic value of something and I am unaware of any other human that also knows of a method. Claiming that homosexual relations are "inherently evil" based on study of biblical text raises several related issues:

 

1. Is our interpretation of Biblical text correct and how would we gauge correctness of interpretation?

2. Even if our reading of the Bible is "correct" and we somehow know that it is correct, how does "the bible saying so" makes some quality necessary to the existence of some object or behavior? (could the Bible possibly be wrong?)

 

I don't think secular claims do any better, whether they are arguing for or against SSM. Arguing that intrinsic value depends on societal benefit is a bit shaky. If there is no society to harm, would evil be impossible? If Satan was alone on this earth with no society to harm, would he still be evil? 

 

When I asked for proof of intrinsic value, I wasn't asserting that any exists or even that intrinsic value exists. I was simply requesting that those who assert, unconditionally, that something has some intrinsic quality justify their position. 

[Calm]

So believing and asserting that there is a gay juggernaut is now a violation of the rules of participation on this board? Who made that declaration and when did it happen?

 

.

I got the impression he was simply declaring it off topic for his own thread as you, iirc, have declared certain variations on a theme inappropriate for a thread you've started. He can confirm if I am wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

I got the impression he was simply declaring it off topic for his own thread as you, iirc, have declared certain variations on a theme inappropriate for a thread you've started. He can confirm if I am wrong.

If that is what he means, then I would withdraw my challenge. I respect the prerogative of an individual to set the topical parameters of a thread he/she starts. As you correctly point out, I have done so myself.

[Thinking]

Yes if you can change that one part it means that if somebody else does not agree with the part you like they can change that and then something else until it doesn't resemble the church you started with.

 

I've often wondered if Joseph was transported to the present day if he would be able to figure out which church was the one that was in Nauvoo when he died.

[SmileyMcGee]

The definition of chastity wouldn't need revising. The definition of marriage would need to be changed. The Proclamation on the Family would need revising.

The proclamation may not even need revising, just supplemental spin:

 

"WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God..."

 

-Proclaiming that marriage between a man and women is divine does not necessarily exclude the divinity of same-gender marriages.

 

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman..."

-One could argue that "procative power" is not the same as sexual intercourse, since sexual intercourse between sterile individual does not contain procreative power. This statement could therefore be seen as explanatory and not a moral judgment. 

 

"HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children..."

 

-Again, this does not necessarily mean that "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" or "husband and wives" do not have the same sacred responsibility.

 

"Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan..." 

 

-Once again, the divinity of SSM is not contradicted by this statement. 

 

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother..."

 

-Okay, this part may need revision. 

[Daniel2]

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.

 

In my opinion, you are going beyond the mark, CV.

 

As good citizens who "obey, honor, and sustain the law of the land," Latter-day Saints already do recognize and honor (at a minimum when "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" here in mortality) marriages which are not temple-marriage-covenant, such as:

• Civil marriages performed at the county clerk house without any religion's blessing
• Religious Marriages performed by non-LDS clergy from non-LDS denominations
• Time-Only Marriages performed in LDS meetinghouses by bishops

Your comment above could be just as easily applied to any of the above scenarios:

• An atheist couple (married at their local courthouse by the justice of the peace) 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.
• A Baptist, Catholic, or Jewish couple 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.
• An unworthy, inactive LDS couple unqualified to marry in the temple because of chronic drinking, smoking, etc. who have no intention of ever marrying in the temple 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.

Despite the fact that such couples cannot, "by example and presumably by precept to recognize and honor only the temple marriage covenant," their children are NOT disqualified from baptism, as same-sex couples' children are.

 

Accordingly, you're promoting a double standard if you're attempting to say that same-sex couples are different from the other couples merely because they don't model to their children "to recognize and honor only the temple marriage covenant," especially since Latter-day Saints "honor" other forms of non-temple marriages virtually every day throughout our lives.

 

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.

 

Again, the above also applies to the three non-temple marriage types I mentioned above, which comprise ALL marriages that children encounter among all non-LDS friends, neighbors, classmates, and other non-Mormon citizens...  Yet Latter-day Saints don't treat the children of such marriages with such restrictions.

 

This is what makes same-gender marriage in this context particularly insidious...

 

According to dictionary.com,

 

insidious [in-sid-ee-uh s]

1.intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan.

 

2.stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy.

 

3. operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.

 

Whilst biting my lip, this where it becomes difficult to have a rational discussion with you.  If you truly consider my marriage (and those like them) "insidious," it appears you are entering into territory where there seems to be an inability to extend good faith efforts to understand or acknowledge the inherent goodness that our family relationships provide.  So many gay and lesbian parents offer loving families for foster and adoptive children, many of whom aren't adopted because of disabilities or racial objections.  Labeling our families as "insidious" under any circumstances (and especially in light of the fact that your reasoning was based entirely on your religious beliefs) is beyond the pall, IMO.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[Russell C McGregor]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Does being "aware of a rise" mean that she's actually confirmed that it did happen, or only that she's heard the chatter?

[Scott Lloyd]

I've often wondered if Joseph was transported to the present day if he would be able to figure out which church was the one that was in Nauvoo when he died.

And whenever this has come up, it has occurred to me that Joseph need not be "transported to the present day," that he lives today and ministers in the world of spirits, and that from that vantage point he has been a close observer, if not a participant, in the ongoing rise and progress of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it has unfolded over the years.

[SmileyMcGee]

Right.  As I stated on another thread.  It all boils down to if you think the LDS church is led by prophets of God - all of whom have decried homosexual sex as against God's plan or not.  If you don't, then I agree, there is no real moral argument against SSM, or any other form of marriage or behavior.  

 

I believe absolutely in a living prophet and a restored church, or I would not remain in the faith - so I believe SSM is morally opposed to God.  If you don't feel the same you will not.  All other discussion is just an appendage to that IMO

 

Edited to add:  I suppose the Catholics would say the same thing about belief in an inspired pope

Well stated, IMO. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Does being "aware of a rise" mean that she's actually confirmed that it did happen, or only that she's heard the chatter?

A very good question indeed. It could mean either.

[Russell C McGregor]

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 so, to remedy this, the Church steps back and does less to counter the influence of the sole gay parent and that parent's "other."

Pause a moment. Think it through.

How does this square with your read of the situation?

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.

You know, that's twice in a very short post that you focus upon the idea of convincing people that the Church could be wrong. Could that be an indicator of what you are trying to achieve?

Edited November 19, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Gray]

 

 

That they prayed and asked the question and did not receive an answer is clear indication to me that the answer was no up until 1978.

 

Isn't that the pattern? The proverbial "stupor of thought" is to be interpreted as a negative response.

 

Either that or they just weren't ready for the answer. 

 

What's interesting about the essay is that at no point was the ban claimed to have come from revelation. Instead it is called a policy. It doesn't even say that revelation was needed to end it, just that church leaders believed that to be the case. 

 

 

 

 

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

Edited November 19, 2015 by Gray

[rockpond]

Interesting approach to think about...  It would require the brethren and membership to redefine the seriousness of homosexual sex.  I do wonder how much pushback that would get.  I would struggle with the decision - but I would do as always and soul search and pray for verification and follow what the Spirit whispers to me.  I appreciate the tone of your posts, Rockpond

 

Thanks.

 

Regarding the redefining the seriousness of homosexual sex: Prior to Nov 5, removing a couple of lines from Handbook 1 would have put all extramarital sexual relations at the same level of seriousness (homosexual or heterosexual).  Obviously, the handbook is a bit different now.  

[Stone holm]

That is not the point.  If this is truly Christ's church, then their should be great concern that people are leaving.

From the descriptions that I read, it sounded like most of the individuals had been long term inactives. There were similar resignations in the Midwest during the ERA fight -- I remember one of the women who appeared on a local TV station to denounce the President of the Church and held herself out as a member, was actually what we at the time called Elder baptisms. People got a testimony of one or more of the full time missionaries, were baptized but never came to Church and cut contact with the Church immediately after the particular full time missionary either transferred to another Ward or went home. The whole mass resignation ceremony to me is just an attention getting scenario. There are actives with serious concerns, their concerns should not be cheapened by these publicity stunts.

[KevinG]

You need to review the history of OD 2.

 

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!  (breathe) hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

I was in graduate school with the first black missionary in the church (who is a widely published author on the subject), and with his guidance studied the events surrounding OD2 extensively, including the inside baseball.

 

Try again.

Edited November 19, 2015 by KevinG

[Glenn101]

    It is interesting to read some of the arguments that have been expounded against this policy. Does anyone actually believe that the church leadership issued this policy in a knee jerk reaction to the SSM ruling by the Supreme Court, without praying earnestly, fervently, and long for guidance on this matter??? There springs up a litany of criticism on just about every pronouncement from the church leadership which affects social or politically correct issues when those announcements do not toe the line in a politically correct manner, there seemingly being an assumption that the brethren are wrong and a few who believe that they are more correct than the leadership of the church, providing specious scriptural evidence for their understanding of the situations.

   One poster in another thread some few months ago even assserted that the brethren get things wrong more often than they get them right, and that seems to be a prevailing attitude with some other posters here and bloggers on the Mormon bloggernacle.

 

On this current issue, links were posted to two different acounts of people for whom the policy would have applied had it been in force when they were children. Their accounts were eye opening. However when I have mentioned this to others in other forums they have been blithely discounted as being "only two" and even some of the LBGT community that have concluded that the policy is not hateful but maybe sane and reasoned have been discounted as being in the minority.  In other words, if it is not a majority opinion and does not toe the PC line, it is to be discarded.

 

One poster went on to try to point out what the effect would be on hypothetical believing LBGT members who were engaged in a SSM union and who wanted their children to be baptized. I have a problem with the word believeing as applied to this situation??? Believing in what??? Are there people who believe the church's teachings on homoseaxual acts who still engage in homosexual unions??? I am trying to get a grip on this. I know there are some posters here who think that the position of the church on homosexual acts will eventually change. But is that really believing in the church, that it is being led by Jesus himself. This Jesus, the same Jehovah, who condemned homosexual acts in the Old Testament???

 

Okay, let's look at a scenario with a young child living in a family where his or her parents are in an SSM union and want their child to be baptized. What are they going to teach the child in family home evening about chastity? What is the child going to be taught at church? What is the SSM couple going to teach their child about families? What are they going to be taught at church? What will the SSM couple teach their child about homosexual acts? What will they learn at church?

 

What kind of reactions from other children will this child face when the other children learn that this child has two fathers who are married or two mothers who are married? And even from adults who should know better. But what is the reality of what such a child will face??

 

And then, if the child actually grasps and believes sincerely in the the teachings of the church on families, chastity, homosexual activity, etc. What is going to happen to that child in the home???

 

Thanks,

Glenn

[KevinG]

Either that or they just weren't ready for the answer. 

 

What's interesting about the essay is that at no point was the ban claimed to have come from revelation. Instead it is called a policy. It doesn't even say that revelation was needed to end it, just that church leaders believed that to be the case. 

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

 

I don't have time to look it up right now, but I remember an interview where Elder Oaks alludes to the possibility we (as a people) just weren't ready.  I have long felt that the Lord waited until all the Saints were ready to support the clarification, and that it was not doctrinal, rather a false tradition that crept in as the Saints were being prosecuted for polygamy, abolition, and other strange practices.  

 

I do like to point out that when we were ready there was no schism, no major falling out, and most received the news gratefully.

[KevinG]

Or are you considering social media as equivalent to the press?

 

Yes.  

 

 

Since Dehlin is not a member, he would have no reason to take this to the Church.

 

Careful, that logic could lead one to conclude he's got no business at all with the church or its policies.  Yet he was eager to talk to the press about it, and characterize the intent and effect of the policy while he was at it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Either that or they just weren't ready for the answer. 

 

Having known and conversed with a number of apostles and prophets in the Church over the years, I find it very difficult to conceive that if they were earnestly seeking revelation on a matter, they would not be "ready for the answer." Collectively speaking, no one I know has been more humble and in tune with the divine than they.

 

What's interesting about the essay is that at no point was the ban claimed to have come from revelation. Instead it is called a policy. It doesn't even say that revelation was needed to end it, just that church leaders believed that to be the case. 

 

 

 

Too much is made of the supposed difference between revelation and "policy." If a policy has been divinely inspired, it is just as revelatory as a doctrine.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

Members have been instructed not to write to the FP.

 

I'm going to CFR you on that one.  And please include the context of the remarks.

 

My suspicion is that members are not to bother the general authorities with things that local authorities have the keys to administer.  But a situation involving a new policy, and something as serious as the results of a same sex marriage might be something the brethren might take the time to review.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't have time to look it up right now, but I remember an interview where Elder Oaks alludes to the possibility we (as a people) just weren't ready.  I have long felt that the Lord waited until all the Saints were ready to support the clarification, and that it was not doctrinal, rather a false tradition that crept in as the Saints were being prosecuted for polygamy, abolition, and other strange practices.  

 

I do like to point out that when we were ready there was no schism, no major falling out, and most received the news gratefully.

I would draw a distinction between the supposition that "we as a people" weren't ready for a change and that the leadership of the Church weren't ready to receive divine communication. I would hope and trust that you see that distinction as well.

 

By the way, this is not a formal CFR, but I would be interested to read that interview from Elder Oaks, should you be able to find the time to look it up.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Yes.  

 

 

Careful, that logic could lead one to conclude he's got no business at all with the church or its policies.  Yet he was eager to talk to the press about it, and characterize the intent and effect of the policy while he was at it.

 

Anyone can talk about the Church and its policies.  Check the NY Times editorial page from today.