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

[rockpond]

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.

 

I'll retract it then.  I don't care enough to spend the time looking up the reference.  My personal recollection is that it has been said multiple times, including letters over the pulpit, encouraging members to go through their local leadership, not directly to GA's or the Q12/FP.  But if you don't believe me, just chalk it up to my personal opinion on the matter.

 

I don't think that the Brethren have the time to hear (and read letters) directly from members regarding this policy.  Do you?

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Just noticed this quote added to Gray's post:

 

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.

 

 

I know of no precept in the Church of Jesus Christ that has been taught more universally by the prophets and apostles than the law of chastity, including the directive that sexual relations are only proper within a marriage between a man and a woman. To repeat a line from the above: "True principles are taught frequently and by many."

 

Furthermore, the federal judiciary's redefinition of marriage to legalize same-sex "marriage" did not change the laws of God or of the Church, as the first two quotes in my sig line reflect.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

I'm surprised by the CFR. This message has been loud and clear for decades. Do you really think the church encourages members to write to HQ about a new policy? No chance. Even less likely is that the leadership would respond.

[Maestrophil]

Well stated, IMO. 

Thanks!  

[KevinG]

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.

 

Absolutely, we are often not ready for things our leadership could reveal.  Brigham said it was as hard to put new ideas into the Saints heads as it was to pound a hickory knot with a piece of cornbread for a wedge, and a melon for a hammer. (para.)

 

I'm trying to find the interview where Oaks said we (as a people) might not have been ready before 1978.  Unfortunately there is a lot of anti-Mormon crap that comes up in my browser when I search for race and priesthood and Oaks.

 

I will withdraw the assertion for now, and if I find it later I will share it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Absolutely, we are often not ready for things our leadership could reveal.  Brigham said it was as hard to put new ideas into the Saints heads as it was to pound a hickory knot with a piece of cornbread for a wedge, and a melon for a hammer. (para.)

 

I'm trying to find the interview where Oaks said we (as a people) might not have been ready before 1978.  Unfortunately there is a lot of anti-Mormon crap that comes up in my browser when I search for race and priesthood and Oaks.

 

I will withdraw the assertion for now, and if I find it later I will share it.

No need to withdraw it, as I said I was not issuing a formal CFR.

 

I don't doubt that he said it, it's just that I'd be interested to see it if so.

[Russell C McGregor]

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

CFR, please. Who made that claim, and when?

[Walden]

Both of my parents are devout, true believing Mormons who have been lifelong members who are currently serving a temple mission for the church. That being said, they are also staunch Democrats who are politically liberal, and socially left-leaning. In the late 90's, my gay uncle lived with them for about a year as he was recovering from an intense bout of illness related to his HIV diagnosis. We also have an uncle on the other side of the family who is gay. These uncles and their partners have always been included in family gatherings, and so we have become close to both of them, and my parents witnessed my uncle's struggles first-hand when he lived with them, and they both have deep compassion for his situation and his struggles.

 

I know very few Mormons who have had the type of exposure to homosexuality and all the intricacies of those relationships and the hardships of that lifestyle than my parents

 

That being said, both parents firmly support the First Presidency of the LDS church regarding the church's stance on homosexuality. Both of my parents are close to their gay siblings, but it does not alter their support of the LDS perspective on homosexuality. That support includes voting in a manner consistent with the LDS church's promptings (such as Prop 8 ), even if it offends their liberal sensibility.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Walden

[Russell C McGregor]

None of us are 100% righteous.

 

We believe divorce is wrong but we still let divorced people keep their membership.

 

Call me crazy, but I think there would be a lot less pushback from members on a policy allowing gay married members to retain their membership (though not qualify for temple recommends) than there was for the Nov 5 additions to the handbook.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Primarily because those who sustain the brethren are much less likely to create "pushback" than those who consider it beneath them to listen to the Lord's anointed servants.

[ERMD]

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.

 

 

OK.

 

Your initial claim demonstrates a lack of understanding of what had been going on for decades, your relationship notwithstanding.

[KevinG]

Context boys context that is what I'm asking for...

 

Member communications with Church Headquarters

 

In a letter dated Oct. 6 [2010], the First Presidency wrote:

 

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

 

Members of the Church continue to place telephone calls and write letters to Church headquarters about doctrinal issues and personal matters. By reason of their callings, local leaders are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration to enable them to counsel members within their jurisdiction.

 

Accordingly, correspondence from members will be referred back to their local leaders for handling. Stake presidents who have need for further clarification about doctrinal or procedural issues may write to the First Presidency in behalf of their members.

 

It is our desire that all members will feel they have the support and guidance they need; however, all things should be done in wisdom and order. We believe that both members and local leaders will be blessed as they pray and counsel together in an effort to resolve matters of concern to them.

 

Signed by the First Presidency:

 

Thomas S. Monson

 

Henry B. Eyring

 

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

 

 

So in fact members have not been instructed not to write general authorities.  My own family wrote President Benson a Christmas card and got a lovely response years ago.  

 

We are however told that issues will be referred back to our local authorities, who incidentally have the Priesthood Keys for counseling those in their Wards and Stakes.

 

I'm sure a Bishop who had a question about how to implement the new policy about something as sensitive and important as the disposition of children in the homes of couples in a same sex marriage would get a response from the General Authorities.  In fact they did.

Edited November 19, 2015 by KevinG

[Calm]

I would be surprised if Kevin didn't know based on past postings, I think he was just sloppy in how he stated it (giving the impression that it was the first time leaders had sought out the Lord's will in prayer and it was immediately resolved).

Edited November 19, 2015 by Calm

[KevinG]

I would be surprised if Kevin didn't know based on past postings, I think he was just sloppy in how he stated it (giving the impression that it was the first time leaders had sought out the Lord's will in prayer and it was immediately resolved).

 

Yes- I had no intention of giving the impression that the forces and events behind the change were sudden.  What I did intend to say was that the change was due to internals as much if not more than externals, and that once the revelation was received the change was made instantly and decisively.

[Daniel2]

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.

 

Hi, Bob,

I think it's understandable that anyone who donates $5,000 to an initiative to take away others' civil marriage rights (especially in light of your claim that you opposed it) is likely to be a source of discussion. Unfortunately, all too often individuals on both sides of this issue face threats on their employment, their families, and even their lives.

I'd love to read your article. Would you mind sharing a link to it? You may PM me, if you'd prefer.

In such scenarios, violence should always be avoided, regardless of whom is committing it. Even so, given that gays' and lesbians' civil rights--their civil rights affecting their own families--were being removed by a public referendum (subsequently recognized as unconstitutional), I'm not surprised their anger would have resulted in more violence than from the straight majority, who temporarily maintained their own privileged civil marriage rights while removing the gay minority's civil right of marriage. In raising the Title of Liberty, even Captain Moroni advocated his people taking up arms in defense of their spouses, children, families and liberties. I imagine those LGBT individuals who resorted to such misdirected acts of violence shared similar emotions and motivations. Again, that doesn't make such violence excusable by any means--I'm merely saying it's unsurprising, given the circumstances.

I come to this Board for several reasons. I certainly don't come to "whomp" on anyone, and don't advocate making anyone a "whipping boy." One of my main motivations is to continue the ideals of missionary service that were instilled in me from my youth; to stand up for what I believe in; to build a better world and a safer place for my LDS children and family members. Like Captain Moroni, I raise a Standard of Liberty on behalf of my husband, children, family, and liberty--albeit with words instead of swords or spears, with the intention to dialogue with others to increase understanding, compassion, and mutual respect. I think those are values and issues that many Mormons do care about, and values which even LDS leaders have been advocating for in our volatile world, especially regarding topics related to sexual orientation and what it means to be a family.

Sometimes I also grow weary of the vitriol that surrounds such topics, and have to take a temprary break and go enjoy time with my loved ones. They rejuvenate me and remind me of the value of family--which is worth enduring some discomfort in discussios with the goal of making the world a better place for all. Perhaps you might try the same, when you tire of some topics.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[Tacenda]

Would the church frown upon activity of a SSM couple, or barr them from attending on a weekly basis, since they wouldn't be ok to join the church thus elimanating a missionary opportunity?

[Russell C McGregor]

Does the new Policy even pass legal scrutiny?

There is a foundational doctrine in the LDS church which states we must abide by the laws of the land. You can read about it in D&C 98.

This is doubly reinforced by the New Testament: Romans 13: 1-14

So the LDS church is doubly bound to abide by the laws of the land. It's a contractual relationship between heaven and earth and both sides must abide by the contract for the relationship to work. Therefore any policy that grants or denies membership based on laws that are legally binding on the other side cannot stand. Based on this fundamental principle, the new church Policy as it stands now, doesn't pass legal muster.

Eh?

Doesn't pass legal muster?

Of what laws is the Church in breach?

 

Since the law of the land recognizes SSM as legal the church must also recognize it to abide by its contractual obligations and cannot use that as grounds for excommunication. This same principle is what allows and actually requires the church to excommunicate for polygamy.

So, in your view, the Church cannot legally withhold a Temple recommend for fornication. Or smoking. Or drinking. Or non-tithepaying.

After all, the law permits all of those activities.

The Church regularly excommunicates people for adultery. The law permits adultery.

The Church regularly excommunicates people for apostasy, and yet the law not only permits but protects people who leave the Church and rail against it.

 

This makes the definition of SMM in the new policy as apostasy and grounds for excommunication, illegal, because it breaks the contractual obligation of the church to recognize that marriage civilly.

What "contractual obligation" is that?

Are you labouring under the delusion that we are breaking the law if we don't permit every kind of licentiousness the civil law permits?

Do you really think the laws of God are always, everywhere and exactly equal to the laws of man?

What if the teaching our children to pray was outlawed? Where would you stand on that?

Where would Daniel (the one in the Bible) stand?

 

To maintain the structural integrity of this contract between heaven and earth, all religious rights associated with initiation of a membership record must be decoupled from heavenly rights. This would include Baby Blessings and Baptism.

By doing this both sides of the contract are maintained.

As William F. Buckley said, I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just wrote.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Tacenda]

Context boys context that is what I'm asking for...

So in fact members have not been instructed not to write general authorities. My own family wrote President Benson a Christmas card and got a lovely response years ago.

We are however told that issues will be referred back to our local authorities, who incidentally have the Priesthood Keys for counseling those in their Wards and Stakes.

I'm sure a Bishop who had a question about how to implement the new policy about something as sensitive and important as the disposition of children in the homes of couples in a same sex marriage would get a response from the General Authorities. In fact they did.

Why don't you try it now and see for yourself?

[Scott Lloyd]

Does the new Policy even pass legal scrutiny?

There is a foundational doctrine in the LDS church which states we must abide by the laws of the land. You can read about it in D&C 98.

This is doubly reinforced by the New Testament: Romans 13: 1-14

So the LDS church is doubly bound to abide by the laws of the land. It's a contractual relationship between heaven and earth and both sides must abide by the contract for the relationship to work. Therefore any policy that grants or denies membership based on laws that are legally binding on the other side cannot stand. Based on this fundamental principle, the new church Policy as it stands now, doesn't pass legal muster.

Since the law of the land recognizes SSM as legal the church must also recognize it to abide by its contractual obligations and cannot use that as grounds for excommunication. This same principle is what allows and actually requires the church to excommunicate for polygamy.

This makes the definition of SMM in the new policy as apostasy and grounds for excommunication, illegal, because it breaks the contractual obligation of the church to recognize that marriage civilly.

To maintain the structural integrity of this contract between heaven and earth, all religious rights associated with initiation of a membership record must be decoupled from heavenly rights. This would include Baby Blessings and Baptism.

By doing this both sides of the contract are maintained.

The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, which means the government cannot require what you claim it can.

 

In fact, the majority opinion in the Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage explicitly recognizes the constitutional right of religious organizations to do as they see fit in this matter, as Elder Oaks pointed out in his recent speech to the Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference:

 

 

     The Supreme Court bowed toward this principle in its majority opinion in Obergefell, the 5-4 case establishing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It implicitly rejected several argued bases for its decision, such as alleged animus in traditional marriage laws and the need for establishing a new suspect class for laws affecting those with same-gender attraction. Either of those bases for the decision would have complicated the kind of accommodation I advocate here. Just as important, the majority opinion also included some teachings that are particularly welcome to those who argued the losing position. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy acknowledged the reasonableness of the religious and philosophical premises of those who argue that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman and assured that the First Amendment will protect religious organizations and persons who continue to teach them.

 

(Emphasis mine)

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

None of us are 100% righteous.

 

We believe divorce is wrong but we still let divorced people keep their membership.

 

Call me crazy, but I think there would be a lot less pushback from members on a policy allowing gay married members to retain their membership (though not qualify for temple recommends) than there was for the Nov 5 additions to the handbook.

The Church does not allow those who enter into polygamy to retain their membership; why should it allow this who enter into gay "marriage" to do so? One is just as wrong as the other.

[KevinG]

Why don't you try it now and see for yourself?

 

Because I don't have an issue of overwhelming importance that needs to be answered at the First Presidency Level.  And If I did I'd run it by the Priesthood holders in my Ward and/or Stake who have the keys to administer in spiritual and temporal things at the local level first.

 

However I had considered sending another family Christmas Letter to the First Presidency.  I'm guessing they are a little busy to respond to all such inquiries, but President Benson surprised me so who knows.

 

I worked for the Governor of our state for about 5 years.  I answered a lot of citizens questions in his behalf (it was part of what I did) because I had the information they needed, and he did not always have time to give a personal answer to every inquiry.

 

Honestly - do you write the President of the United States to complain about your Postal Service?

Edited November 19, 2015 by KevinG

[Robert F. Smith]

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. 

Well, you make the question unanswerable, given your above comments, and make it largely a matter of personal value judgment -- which in Western civilization is the standard by which we judge nearly everything, i.e., personal perception is everything, and there are no absolute standards.  Everything is relative and based on the social construction of reality.  Any other notion is gauche.

 

Of course science and technology fit into another category, in which the practical results of theoretical application tell us all we need to know.  Math is a subset of those two, and is the most rigorous in "proof" of anything we might consider.

 

However, when everything else is merely a matter of opinion (including off-the-wall opinion), that makes a real discussion like a psychological encounter group.  You may or may not come out of it feeling good about yourself, which probably doesn't matter much.  For scholars, it makes phenomenological description the only viable option -- which is what anthropologists prefer.

[Bobbieaware]

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

Excellent post! What you say here has helped me to realize maturity is needed in order for someone to be willing and able to give the policy a fair hearing.

[Scott Lloyd]

Would the church frown upon activity of a SSM couple, or barr them from attending on a weekly basis, since they wouldn't be ok to join the church thus elimanating a missionary opportunity?

I think it has been stated that they are welcome to visit worship services and other activities open to the public. Of course, like everybody else, they would be expected to observe certain standards of decorum, I would guess.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

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

I am drilling down perhaps, but not beyond the mark. It seems that I am being asked to drill down, so I am, down to a most fundamental and essential spiritual element, the temple marriage covenant between a man and a woman. That is the mark.

 

Focusing on what secular laws and covenants permit is not drilling down into the spiritual and covenantal mark that the policy most importantly addresses. That would be missing the mark.

 

Compared to the application of the Light of Christ by all people according to the way they receive it, the restoration and revealed use of priesthood keys for marriage to a small number of prophets and apostles is drilling down to the mark of the most essential elements of exaltation.

 

As long as the examples you provided are male-female couples, there is no double-standard against the temple marriage covenant between a man and a woman because the man-woman component is still there (another drill-down). If they are same-gender couples, the man-woman component remains the only standard, and against a separate standard.

 

Not all spiritual things will seem rational to everyone, especially when they require some degree of involvement from human relationships and emotions, and especially (drilling down a bit further) entail some faith and personal sacrifice in maintaining those relationships with a broader community (Zion) and God in this life and beyond.

 

Those involved in this conversation are presumably prepared to deal with the religious beliefs of others. When I use the term “insidious” it is within a specific context and has nothing to do with any good same-gender couples can do for their children. I’ve indicated that they enjoy the extension of the Light of Christ on the same basis as anyone else. But religiously-speaking, the Light of Christ is not the “fullness” of the Gospel or the “fulness” of the everlasting covenant. Yet many good things can subtly distract us from these best things. Such distraction, eternally-speaking is “proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect” and as I described it from the child’s perspective.

 

When a parent, by the very nature of being a parent, heavily formulates a child’s irrational (emotional and cognitively dependent) sense of parental and family reality and then introduces an equally powerful irrational (spiritual and religious) component that counters it, I would call that insidious, whether the “grave effect” is the intended result or not.

[mfbukowski]

  For scholars, it makes phenomenological description the only viable option -- which is what anthropologists prefer.

Which I suppose makes Sorenson's understanding of social constructivism not at all surprising

Edited November 19, 2015 by mfbukowski