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

[saemo]

I'd love to see if any catholics (or LDS) can prove that SSM (or any behavior) is intrinsically evil...or at least give their reasoning for why SSM is intrinsically evil...

Catholic teaching is, that God created us male and female, which reveals a complimentary aspect to marriage that is the union of one man and one woman. Then, God blessed the union of a man and woman with children. In this, is seen that marriage is ordered towards the benefit of children. The reproduction of children in conjugal love, and the rearing of children by their two parents, one male and one female, is the natural order. Even if you leave God out if it, and just observe the natural order of things, it is obvious that nature is ordered towards the mating of male and female to the benefit of reproduction. Otherwise, at its basic level, what's the point of marriage at all?

The view is, that SSM is ordered towards the two adults, and children are a commodity, not the fruit of the union of two people, but an attempt to mimic marriage and family, which is unnatural. A means toward secular benefits. The sexual union of a same sex couple is not ordered towards the reproduction of children, and is not ordered towards a natural family of one man and one woman, and their offspring. By its very nature, it is impossible to be naturally ordered.

So SSM, not ordered towards God's creative revelation of a conjugal union, for the benefit of children, both bearing them and raising them, is viewed as disorderd. In the sense that, it goes against the divine order of things, and natural law. Any act that is ordered away from God, is called disordered and has the nature of being intrinsically evil.

Catholic morality is objective, and not pragmatic. This includes, the understanding that a good end does not make an evil act, good. This, as I see it, is the main argument for SSM, that good can come and does come from SS unions. This good, while recognizable as a mercy of God, and therefore something not to ignore, does not make the act itself, moral.

It's pretty obvious, and I've heard more than one Catholic scratch their heads at the idea of a SS union being confused with marriage.

This is of course, the sacramental view of marriage. Secular laws have not, and are not, always rooted in Christian morality.

That's the technical explanation, in the context of voting for the people who are making or changing laws. The pastoral approach, towards individuals, doesn't start off with a focus on sexuality. So dialogue on this subject, is to me difficult, if not strange. I have more than one SS couple in my extended family. I don't support their relationship, in a moral sense, but neither do I shun them or even give them dirty looks. We're all sinners, and God is the judge of individuals. A direction on voting is me, making a judgement of a political candidate. I'm not making an eternal type of judgement of any individual. That judgement is for God alone.

That being said, Ireland, that once Catholic stronghold, recognizes SSM as legal, via popular vote. I see the US Bishop's advice as morally correct, but also an effort to stem the tide.

Edited November 20, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

When God establishes law, a violation of the law can be said to be evil. However I think a better term to use is unclean as evil has connotations with it that might not be accurate. Since no unclean thing can dwell with God and those that violate the laws of God are unclean, then unless they repent they are cast out. So I will not say SSM is not evil but causes one to be very unclean before God.

The Catholic church teaches that SSM is intrinsically evil. So is abortion, euthanasia and other acts that come up in politics. The Church does not declare the person, themselves, are intrinsically evil. That would be heretical, as the Catholic church teaches God created us as inherently good, possessing a dignity by virtue of being made in the image of God. An intrinsically evil act does not remove our inherent dignity. It does put us in eternal jeopardy, but even then, there can be a question of culpability. So like I said, I leave that judgement to God.

Edited November 20, 2015 by saemo

[why me]

It is not a question when john recceived the policy. It is more a question of what he did with the information. And what he did with it showed that he really seemed to enjoy sharing the information with the world wide web. I have the same feeling with other critics who have been posting on the web. There seems to be a sense of outrage and yet, I can't help but sense joy in their posts too.

 

It is sort of a 'stick it to the church' moment for them.

[Russell C McGregor]

You're barking up the wrong tree Russel and I can see the vein bulging out the side of your forehead. Take a chill pill would ya.

I'm sorry, Zak. It's just difficult trying to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who is determined to be as persistently, stubbornly and idiotically wrong as you are.

 

I said "nothing -- nada -- zip -- zilch -- about churches [snip:owing] having to yield their own ecclesiastical judicature to any civil authority".

Really?

Because this is what you said earlier:

 

Not at all. But according to church law (You know our Canonized D&C from God himself in this dispensations) We must hold every civil law inviolate.

Given (and it is a given) that the Church is not breaking any actual laws, you seem to make the asinine assumption (or asinumption) that the civil recognition of same sex "marriage" somehow obligates the Church to follow suit.

If that's not what you're trying to argue, then what on earth are you havering about?

 

Let me translate this into 3RD GRADE ENGLISH so even you can understand (it will probably escape you once again anyway).

Go ahead, if you can stretch your intellect that far.

I have snipped out your entire rant.

No intelligent person, reading Doctrine and Covenants 134, imagines that the Church has obligated itself to allow a civil government to dictate the criteria for membership.

 

You really think churches are above the law?

If that were so then We'd be in Jerusalem already.

No, I don't think churches are above the law.

What I think is that no plausibly free country has the power to dictate to churches who they must admit as members. Or appoint as leaders.

 

And furthermore, based upon my interactions with intelligent and informed Americans -- including some of the New Privileged Class -- I don't think the US has even tried to do that.

 

I do think that, if the US government or any of its organs were to try to do that, the Church would be obligated, as a matter of principle, to resist such interference.

And Zak -- try not to roll your eyes just because an adult has said something you can't understand.

That's rude.

 

So governments pass laws and churches and people can just disregard them all together. Gotcha.

No Zak, that's not what I said.

If your "interpretation" was any thicker, it would have set by now.

I'd say that your interpretation is as thick as two short planks, but I'd be worried that that would be insulting to short planks everywhere.

Try to pay attention.

I'm saying that your prooftext doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

That's it. Sorry.

No intelligent person could read my post and conclude that I was asserting that "governments pass laws and churches and people can just disregard them all together."

What I'm saying is simply that the passage you are relying on says that governments have to pass laws that protect the rights of citizens, and having passed such laws, to hold them inviolate.

That's what the passage says.

Your interpretation -- that any time a government decides to allow something, all churches that have members inside that jurisdiction must allow it too -- is utterly idiotic.

Utterly. Idiotic.

Yes there is a conflict... a huge one... our "collective religious opinions" on marriage prompted us to go out and spend 8+ million dollars lobbying and posting up yard signs and prancing around trying to prevent the same liberties and rights we have to be extended to our fellow citizenry.

Yes, I realise that that's the standard anti-Mormon spin.

And I'm sorry that you've fallen for it.

 

You're in denial if you think otherwise.

 

Nice attempt to poison the well.

Sorry it didn't work.

 

So I assume you mean that you will quit poking homosexuals and rubbing salt in their wounds and driving them to call the Suicide hot lines?

Right after you stop beating your wife.

Loaded questions didn't become respectable just because the self-appointed PC police started using them.

I can't stop doing something until after I have started doing it.

And since I haven't started "poking homosexuals [sob] and rubbing salt in their wounds [choke] and driving them to call the Suicide hot lines" [boo hoo hoo] I can't stop it then, can I?

 

And BTW, if you hadn't bought right in to the immoralist propaganda, you'd treat that unsupported claim about "Suicide hot lines" with a great deal of caution.

Note that the eerily similar claim about a "spike" in reported domestic violence incidents around Superbowl weekend has been going the rounds for some years now, and it has been debunked.

That's probably where the Kool-aid club got the idea.

 

Assaulting some ones conscience can be considered "Psychological torture" and is punishable by law.

Really?

So what does that mean?

That we should stop teaching anything at all regarding the Law of Chastity in case someone feels terribly hurt?

Could you be any more transparently manipulative if you tried?

 

Or is that what it looks like when you are trying to be transparently manipulative?

Edited November 20, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Hamba Tuhan]

This is depressing and annoying.

 

It must be deeply frustrating to hear so clearly the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick and yet see people who refuse to fall down and worship.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

I don't think that the love between spouses (same or opposite gender) is what qualifies the relationship as God-approved.  My views on this aren't driven by what you call refer to as the prevailing litmust test in liberal society.  They are based in my understanding of the gospel and the plan of salvation.

 

I don't believe the homosexuality is an aberration.  I believe that God designed some to be homosexual.  And I believe that God wants us in loving relationships to learn, grow, serve, sacrifice.  That seems to be the plan.  Not celibacy.

Likewise, I don't think that sexuality is what qualifies the relationship as God-approved. Only the eternal structure of His covenant, based in my understanding of what has been taught by His servants as the gospel and the plan of salvation.

 

I believe that sexuality, both aberrant and not, is one of the internal “bounds of habitation” that God’s children must experience in the flesh, that in their probation “they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us…” The covenants, including marriage as it is structured, constitute the path Christ paved for us to follow (D&C 132:6).

 

One’s sexuality is not distorted by celibacy any more than asexuality is defined by it, nor any more than by the capacity to love, learn, grow, serve and sacrifice in the Lord's way. The eternal marriage covenant as we teach it is for everyone willing to abide in it, and the redemption of the dead allows this to take place beyond this life if that is the only way someone can receive it. I think too much emphasis can be placed on sexuality being at the core of our "intelligence" or "an essential characteristic of individual ...eternal identity and purpose" rather than, say, gender, where the emphasis is more rightly placed.

[JAHS]

When my kids and I started having the types of conversations I referenced, above, they were ages 6, 9, and 11 (they are now 12, 15, and 17).

One may think that their young ages might have affected them to be more inclined to be accepting of gay relationships... however, their mother (with whom I unfortunately have a very acrimonious relationship--her wish, not mine) made sure our children have been... less than tolerant. Parental alienation is a pernicious, destructive, and painful phenomenon, especially when concealed in the aurora of righteous indignation.

OK. I guess I am wondering how children would turn out who have been raised by a gay couple (no known biological parents or the non-gay parent not in the picture), then wanting to become members. It seems those children would be completely accepting of the lifestyle they were raised in and could therefore not accept the church's stand on it. I guess that's what the new policy is all about and we would have to wait a while after it is in effect to test this. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by JAHS

[KevinG]

Handbook 2

21.1.24 Members’ Communication with Church Headquarters

Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters. With an ever-increasing Church membership, responding personally to these inquiries presents an almost insurmountable task and would make it difficult for General Authorities to fulfill the duties for which they alone are responsible. The General Authorities love the members of the Church and do not want them to feel that they are without the support and guidance they need. However, all things need to be done with wisdom and order.

The Lord has organized His Church so every member has access to a bishop or branch president and a stake, district, or mission president who serve as spiritual advisers and temporal counselors. By reason of their callings, these local leaders are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration to enable them to counsel members within their jurisdiction.

Members who need spiritual guidance, have weighty personal problems, or have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in their family and Church responsibilities.

If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president.

In most cases, correspondence from members to General Authorities will be referred back to their local leaders. Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency.

 

Thank you for that context.  And as I said above regarding the letter from the First Presidency.  The intent is to send people to the local leaders who hold the keys and authority to guide and assist with their needs. 

 

Note that "Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency."

 

There is nothing about this policy or the letter that prevents the brethren from becoming aware of concerns or addressing them as needed.  In fact the system insures people can have personal guidance and help on a local level, and when a question cannot be answered at that level, the general authorities can be available and not buried under a sea of identical and already answered questions.

[Kenngo1969]

I'd love to see if any catholics (or LDS) can prove that SSM (or any behavior) is intrinsically evil...or at least give their reasoning for why SSM is intrinsically evil...

I'm not comparing same-sex marriage  or same-sex intimate physical relations to any of these things, but your call was for proof that "any behavior . . . is intrinsically evil." First-degree murder is intrinsically evil.  Forcible (as opposed to statutory) rape is intrinsically evil.  Kidnapping is intrinsically evil. And there are numerous others.  Society has made a judgment that these behaviors are inherently, morally wrong, or, in the Latin, mala in se, as compared to crimes that are simply mala prohibita (wrong because the law says they are).  

Edited November 20, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

So a wicked man can't give to charity?

A murderer can't help an old woman across the road?

Don't the KuKluxKlan do volunteer work?

Didn't John C. Bennett help establish the Nauvoo charter providing protection to the Saints?

 

 

Can Satan tell a truth or many truths to get across one lie?

No, the presence of some good works (like good parenting for instance) in a SSM doesn't change the violation of eternal law or God's design in any way.

 

All great questions for Jesus, I guess. But what are you basing your ideas on about God's laws, if not the teachings of Jesus?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The standard narrative idea that homosexuality goes against a "natural order" seems to me to be flawed - homosexual behavior in other animals is quite common. Cacilda Jethá and Christopher Ryan's book Sex At Dawn is informative. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Kenngo1969]

The standard narrative idea that homosexuality goes against a "natural order" seems to me to be flawed - homosexual behavior in other animals is quite common. Cacilda Jethá and Christopher Ryan's book Sex At Dawn is informative. 

I'll stick with the scriptures and the words of the living prophets, thanks.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Cool. So, following the admonition in D&C 88 to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith," I'd recommend reading the sources I mentioned before dismissing them, so that, as Brigham Young said, "our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular."

[ERayR]

I think it's interesting how the author of the article implies that "voting to support your beliefs" is an "attack on those you disagree with."

 

I'd love to see if any catholics (or LDS) can prove that SSM (or any behavior) is intrinsically evil...or at least give their reasoning for why SSM is intrinsically evil...

 

It is an evolutionary dead end.

[ERayR]

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."  Matt 7:18

 

That is well and good for trees.

[Gray]

It is an evolutionary dead end.

 

So is marriage after 50. 

[Deborah]

So is marriage after 50. 

 

Not in eternity.

[SmileyMcGee]

Yes.  If the universe is mechanistic, then it is determined, including complex, intelligent mammals.  There can be no free will, and all preferences are determined.  All morality is then mechanistic preference.  Is that what you mean, Smiley?

Whoops, my use of "determined" may be a little confusing there. I was implying that I don't know how my preferences are determined. I don't know why I prefer certain foods, certain behaviors, etc. Is it heredity, environment, agency, mechanistic process, etc. I'm fairly agnostic with regards to free will vs determinism vs [insert other philosophy here] discussion. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Kenngo1969]

Cool. So, following the admonition in D&C 88 to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith," I'd recommend reading the sources I mentioned before dismissing them, so that, as Brigham Young said, "our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular."

Thanks for the very kind recommendation, Jeremy, but if it's all the same to you, I have limited time and must work within the constraints of limited human attention span and cognition, varied interests, and so forth.  I'd be surprised if you've found truths commensurate with those that can be found in the Restored Gospel in the sources you mention, but if you've mastered the scriptures and the words of the living prophets to such a degree that you now feel the need to move on to other things, more power to you.  And the fact that all truth my be circumscribed into a great whole doesn't mean that all truths are created equal.  You're welcome to leave those of us who have not mastered those things behind as you forge ahead into brave new worlds and boldly go where no one has gone before.  [Cue Star Trek theme.]  

Edited November 20, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[SmileyMcGee]

When God establishes law, a violation of the law can be said to be evil.  However I think a better term to use is unclean as evil has connotations with it that might not be accurate.  Since no unclean thing can dwell with God and those that violate the laws of God are unclean, then unless they repent they are cast out.  So I will not say SSM is not evil but causes one to be very unclean before God.

So is it SSM or the violation of God's law that makes one unclean? I'm gathering from your post that God has established a law against SSM; breaking God's law results in uncleanliness; therefore, participating SSM results in being unclean. This would lead me to ask the following questions:

 

If God issued the law, why can't he revoked the law (similar to past prohibitions)? 

If SSM was not unlawful in the eyes of God, would SSM still make a person unclean?

[SmileyMcGee]

So SSM, not ordered towards God's creative revelation of a conjugal union, for the benefit of children, both bearing them and raising them, is viewed as disorderd. In the sense that, it goes against the divine order of things, and natural law. Any act that is ordered away from God, is called disordered and has the nature of being intrinsically evil.

 

-What justification do you have for establishing that disorder = intrinsic evil? All you've done is provided a definition of "intrinsic evil" without providing a justification as to why that definition is correct.  

Catholic morality is objective, and not pragmatic...

 

How?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I'm sorry, Zak. It's just difficult trying to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who is determined to be as persistently, stubbornly and idiotically wrong as you are.

Russell is as pleasant as always

[HappyJackWagon]

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

 

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

 

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

Apparently I'm not authorized to give Rep points any more but wanted to point out this excellent post.

[SmileyMcGee]

I'm not comparing same-sex marriage  or same-sex intimate physical relations to any of these things, but your call was for proof that "any behavior . . . is intrinsically evil." First-degree murder is intrinsically evil.  Forcible (as opposed to statutory) rape is intrinsically evil.  Kidnapping is intrinsically evil. And there are numerous others.  Society has made a judgment that these behaviors are inherently, morally wrong, or, in the Latin, mala in se, as compared to crimes that are simply mala prohibita (wrong because the law says they are).  

 

This is incredibly contradictory. How can the "inherent nature" of some object or behavior 1) even be known and 2) known by popular opinion? How do you know that societal judgment is properly identifying the inherent nature of object and behaviors? 

[Russell C McGregor]

Russell is as pleasant as always

 

Thank you for your thoughtful, substantive contribution. It clears everything up.Z

 

Poster removed along with Zakuska.