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

[Rivers]

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?

SSM is wrong because it is not the family pattern layed out in The Proclamation on the Family. Our theology teaches that Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 11:11 is an eternal principle. SSM is out of harmony with what we understand to be the order of heaven.

That being said, I am sure glad to know that a loving Heavenly Father is in charge of the judgement of everyone.

[mfbukowski]

Hm...there have been a number of attempts, but none are ultimately arguing intrinsic evil...unless you define intrinsic evil as "what I think God thinks." On a related note, is it really possible for anyone to know that something is intrinsically evil? Or to know the intrinsic nature of anything? If a catholic body of leaders or some message board participants are going to claim that something is intrinsically evil it seems that they are claiming to possess the ability to know the intrinsic nature of something...so, let them explain the method they use.

Nope.

It's not that there is no intrinsic evil, just that people may disagree about what it is.

That seems obvious. Why argue about what cannot ever be agreed upon?

Why is that hard?

It's a pointless discussion

It's about epistemology, not metaphysis.

I could give you a hundred reasons why it is intrinsically evil, but we would disagree. So why bother?

Edited November 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

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? 

Because I've heard testimony from victims of that behavior and how it has affected them.  (And, while I want to be respectful to the thread's originator and don't want to send it down this rabbit hole, while what two consenting adults themselves do may be their own business, it's not as though none of their behavior affects third parties such as the children they bring into the world before deciding to leave the children's other parent and pursue a same-sex relationship.)  In any event, it's not as though I, individually and arbitrarily, came to the conclusion that murder, e.g., is malum in se.  You're free to violate any particular statute you wish because you don't think the behavior it prohibits should be criminalized and to go into court and argue to a jury that, since there's no way to know whether any particular act is inherently wrong and that societal judgment that is is is flawed, you shouldn't be found guilty.  Let me know how that works out for you.  I would be keenly interested in knowing.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

Not in eternity.

 

How does natural selection work in eternity, given that there's no death?

[Ahab]

I don't see how I could attribute morality to anything but personal preference, however that preference is determined.

Personal preference it is, but you can also categorize personal preference as either a preference of what is good or a preference of what is evil as long as you have a standard to judge by, say for the example, what a particular person considers to be good or evil.

Our standard is, or at least is believed to be, what our Father in heaven considers to be good and evil so we seek to have the same knowledge of good and evil that he has.

[Kenngo1969]

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.  

 

...

 

Your silence in response to my #16 is deafening.  If you have no response, that's fine; perhaps that fact says more in and of itself than anything you could possibly say in response.  I do think that it's interesting and telling that you appear determined to continue to proceed as though no one has attempted to engage you.

 

You are correct, children and a spouse may not be baptized if the parent or spouse will not approve of the baptism.  This is distinctly different from disqualifying an individual from being baptized because of the sinful behavior of another individual.  

 

 

No one is being disqualified from being baptized, but perhaps such mischaracterizations of the policy as this one better serve whatever end you are trying to achieve.

 

It is how we get to the decision that is so important.  If the reasoning is faulty then the explanation to support the policy is faulty.  

 

 

 

 

 

I can understand how someone might think that, if the policy sprang only from the mind of a mere mortal man or group of men.  If you doubt something is of God, why not ask Him?  (And keep in mind that, God may decide that other than speaking peace to your soul regarding any matter over which it might be troubled, He doesn't owe you ... or anyone else ... an explanation.)

 

Just because something is difficult should not prevent someone from being a LDS or entering into a personal relationship with the Savior by taking his name upon us.  As far as I know, it is always difficult; life is difficult.  

 

 

Your empathy is overwhelming.  You don't owe me an answer to this question, as how you choose to rear your children is up to you, but I do have to wonder whether you take the same approach with them, particularly those that are young: "Life is difficult; get over it, already!"

 

I still don't have a problem with the outcome of the policy, but I do have a problem with the reasons some provide. 

 

For someone who doesn't have a problem with the policy, your characterizations of it, and of those who have implement it, certainly would seem to indicate otherwise.

[Ahab]

Nope.

It's not that there is no intrinsic evil, just that people may disagree about what it is.

That seems obvious. Why argue about what cannot ever be agreed upon?

Why is that hard?

It's a pointless discussion

It's about epistemology, not metaphysis.

I could give you a hundred reasons why it is intrinsically evil, but we would disagree. So why bother?

His question gives us all some food for thought.

How are we supposed to gain knowledge of good and evil?

Don't fret. There is a way we can know correctly, even if some don't know the way/Way we can know.

[mfbukowski]

His question gives us all some food for thought.

How are we supposed to gain knowledge of good and evil?

Don't fret. There is a way we can know correctly, even if some don't know the way/Way we can know.

That's the problem, isn't it?

It's the same thing.

 

That's what I mean by "epistemology".  It means how you know what you know.

[mfbukowski]

I don't see how I could attribute morality to anything but personal preference, however that preference is determined. 

Go ahead and act on that.  See how it works

 

Go kill a few people because it is your personal preference and see how that works for you.

 

The FACT is that morality is very clearly defined socially.  We might disagree about details but overall we agree to an amazing degree.

Edited November 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

So is marriage after 50. 

 

Surely you are able to see the difference.  At best your response was disingenuous.

[Ahab]

That's the problem, isn't it?

It's the same thing.

Yeah but at least my responses at least somewhat alluded to our stansard bearer and how we can know what he knows.

That's what I mean by "epistemology". It means how you know what you know.

Interesting. Shorthand for testimony from God our Father through the testimony of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit then, huh? That's how I know what I know.

[HappyJackWagon]

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

You're welcome

[mfbukowski]

Yeah but at least my responses at least somewhat alluded to our stansard bearer and how we can know what he knows.

Interesting. Shorthand for testimony from God our Father through the testimony of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit then, huh? That's how I know what I know.

Not exactly. Epistemology means how anyone knows what they know. It is the philosophical study of how anyone knows what they know. Your way of knowing about these things is testimony. That is your epistemology for these matters.

The way you know how to drive a car might be quite different.

[mfbukowski]

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?

Here's the problem: saemo's opinion is that t objective morality exists.

Your opinion is that it does not.

The bottom line is that there is no way to decide between these options.

You are no more "right" than she is, if you subscribe to your relativist position.

So why squabble about it? Each of you can justify your position to your own satisfaction til doomsday and not resolve the question.

The way I decide such questions is pragmatically, but that does not make it "right"

A good relativist has to be able to shrug and walk away from a discussion like this.

There is no resolution possible. Relativism is itself and only relatively true. You are being a dogmatic relativist!

[Storm Rider]

 

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.  

This is the problem, the behavior of another person, a parent, is preventing an individual from entering the waters of baptism.  The Church teaches that baptism is one of the fundamental objectives in this life.  If a child has reached the age of accountability and seeks to be baptized some time before the age of 18 and are denied solely because of the behavior of their parent there is a problem.  This directly, not euphemistically, not slightly, but wholly conflicts with the 2nd Article of Faith.  If an individual is denied a saving ordinance that is being punished for the sins of the another.  If you say that being denied baptism for the actions of another is not a punishment of any kind; that it is inconsequential, then my point could be incorrect.  

 

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.  

I don't see the connection.  We are talking about a saving ordinance being denied because of the actions of another.  In any other situation a similar individual would be immediately baptized.  Their only fault is having a parent that is gay - that is being punished for the sins of the father/mother.  I don't see any comparison between that and the two examples you have given above.  

 

 

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.

 

Here you are talking about how one deals with problems.  I agree with you and it is a good way to look at how we individually deal with challenges in this life.  

 

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.

 

Yeah, no.  these are two wholly different situations.  On one side we are talking about about receiving a fundamental ordinance of salvation that is required to enter heaven.  None of us, as in not a single mortal, has the ability to know when or if a child will die after the age of accountability and before the age of 18 years.  We are not accustomed to denying individuals baptism based solely on the sins of another.  What scriptural support is there for such an action?  How are they saved having heard the gospel, accepted it, but denied the ordinances of salvation?  Further, we deny them the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  Where is is allowed in scripture?

 

 

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).

 

I disagree - it is not a non sequitur.  I have stated above I believe it applies directly.  D&C 68:25 also supports the case.  Both parents may teach a child to prepare for baptism by understanding sin, repenting, and having faith in Jesus Christ.  Even in the presence of their gay parents sins, the child still requests baptism.  Yet, they are denied not because of their lack of faith, lack of repentance, or lack of desire, but solely because of the sins of a parent.  Do you think this is what God wants?  That God is would prefer that we discount our understanding of sin and culpability in favor of punishing people for the sins of others?  When is the atonement not enough?  If my sins are made white as snow out of faith in Christ and I desire to take his name upon him, but I am denied for the sins of another,....Please tell me you see the conflict.  It is screaming at us.  

 

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.

 

This is wear I think your logic falls completely off the rails.  We deny "justice", better said, saving ordinances, because it will be difficult to remain faithful?  When is it not difficult?  No, I am sorry Paul, you cannot be baptized because if you are baptized you will have a difficult life.  You really want to use this as a reason to deny saving ordinances to people?  This is a very dangerous slope that is being allowed to enter in.

 

No, you are not an ideal person for our church, you cannot be baptized.  Sorry, you aren't either.  We are looking for just blond, blue-eyed people.  Nope, you aren't either.  You did say you have strong left-leaning politics and that disqualifies you.  Lastly, you cannot be baptized.  Your ancestor was a murderer and the other was an even worse sinner, so even though we think your sins are forgiven by your faith in Christ, you cannot be baptized because of the sins of your ancestors.  

 

These are only some of the conflicts that this policy opens up.  I find that it creates very difficult doctrinal issues that have not yet been explained.  Hopefully, some of them will be answered or the policy will be modified to be in more keeping with the doctrine of the Church.

 

 

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 appreciate the opinion, but I disagree.  I think what I have stated is only objective.  It is perplexing that you don't see the obvious conflicts.  I am certainly more prone to call a spade a spade, but I don't think I am being subjective at all.  Now, if you tell me that baptism is really not needed for anyone after the age of accountability then you have something to pin your hat on.  If you have any doctrine that supports this type of a policy, please bring it forward so that we can discuss it.  If you can demonstrate how policies, not revelation, are better than a prophet that declares, "Thus saith the Lord", then we have some issues to discuss.  

 

I remain firm in my belief that revelation, not doing what we think is best, not creating our own ideas about what we think we should do, but waiting until we have revelation directly from God is our ideal and only way we should govern the Church WHEN it comes to issues of saving ordinances.  I do not support or recommend the need to be commanded in all things, but I am convinced that there are prophets in these latter days for a reason.  That by revelation we will be led.  If it is revelation, then say so; if not, it is policy, which are only the best that the arm of flesh has to offer.  I will not put by faith in that.  

 

 

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.

 

I do not take a stand willy-nilly.  I stand on the same foundation that has been built for decades and that has guided me for most of my life.  When we are talking about the ordinances of salvation there should be no need for mystical guessing - is it or is it not inspired.  Function as prophets and apostles and declare to the world - because they are the world's only prophets and apostles having the keys of the Kingdom - speak to the world, "Thus saith the Lord".  Stop creating policies; they only create problems.  Why create a policy when it is just as easy to create revelation?

 

 

 

 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.

You and I both know of the frailty of humanity.  Our prophets and apostles are human and I will not put them on a pedestal again.  I put my faith, not in man, but in our Savior.  Regardless of how well or how poorly we act as his servants, he will make it right.  I will bear testimony of eternal truths and those truths revealed by the Holy Spirit.  

 

 

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

 

I completely agree that these parents who assist in the procreation of children have a responsibility toward their children, to raise them in righteousness.  However, I also know they are sinners in the same manner that you and I are sinners.  I pray for mercy for each gay individual that has children and is now faced with being a parent in spite of the challenges they face as gay individuals.  They have much for which they are accountable.  

 

However, they are not accountable for denying their children the ordinances of salvation.  That is beyond their ability and the only entity authorized to function in that capacity is the Church of Jesus Christ; there is no other.  God may make it right, but I would never want to have to answer for this action.  We all need to pray for our leaders.

 

Thanks,

 

-Ken

 

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

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...

The problem with your belief that everything is personal preference is that you do not understand that that belief is only your personal preference

[Storm Rider]

Hello Ken,

 

I had thought about not responding to #16.  I don't like airing dirty laundry too much in public.  I will get up on my soap box, but I don't like to go on and on about issues that are problematic.  We can rationalize almost anything.  Although I am far more human than most of the participants on this Forum, I don't like to rationalize too much about too many things.  I look in the mirror often enough to know myself and I would prefer to be able to keep looking at myself in the eye.

 

I honestly believe this policy creates problems for the Church.  Doctrinally it does not appear sound; it creates doctrinal problems where none existed.  Trying to reason it out is more than challenging.  True, we can just say the leaders have spoken and stop right there, but that is not very helpful to those who seek to understand how all the pieces fit together.  

 

Having said all this, I sleep well at night.  This is not an issue that worries me.  I recognize that life is not fair and that we each have our own cross to bear.  I also realized a long time ago that I don't need to ask, "Why?" every time a question comes up.  Sometimes we just have to keep taking the next step, just one step, and then another.  

 

This is not an ideal medium for these types of discussions.  In person we can sense the condition, strengths, weaknesses of those we talk with about these types of things.  In this medium it is a blunderbuss approach and we don't know when we have harmed another or not.  I hope that I have explained myself adequately above.  

 

Cheers,

 

Michael

[Ahab]

Not exactly. Epistemology means how anyone knows what they know. It is the philosophical study of how anyone knows what they know. Your way of knowing about these things is testimony. That is your epistemology for these matters.

The way you know how to drive a car might be quite different.

Hold on a minute. I have an urge to think of a way our Father taught me how to drive a car, otherwise I might conclude he had nothing to do with teaching me that.

Still thinking.

Still thinking.

Okay, got it. Now I remember, and while my Mom and Dad had a lot to do with teaching me to drive our Father in heaven was still giving me thoughts and promptings and helping me to learn how to drive way back even before I got behind the steering wheel of the first car I learned how to drive and he often still gives me some help. Like with our fancy new car we just got recently that has some features I haven't had before, like a backup camera and some buttons to change drive settings, such as going to Eco or Sport drive mode from just normal drive mode.

So, no, it's still the same way. Even just normal "common sense" type stuff involves God our Father still trying to teach us both personally and through our Lord and the Holy Spirit.

[Ahab]

The problem with your belief that everything is personal preference is that you do not understand that that belief is only your personal preference

Personal preference isn't what makes something a problem, or what makes something that's wrong. When something is wrong it is wrong because it is not right, not because it is somebody's personal preference.

And yet we should still look to God our Father for his judgment of what is right or wrong because there is nobody better to look to.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks to Smiley for the rep point, but I promised to delete the post.

Edited November 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[SmileyMcGee]

Nope.

It's not that there is no intrinsic evil, just that people may disagree about what it is.

That seems obvious. Why argue about what cannot ever be agreed upon?

Why is that hard?

It's a pointless discussion

It's about epistemology, not metaphysis.

I could give you a hundred reasons why it is intrinsically evil, but we would disagree. So why bother?

Once again, I'm not asserting that intrinsic qualities don't "exist," I'm simply asking those who assert knowledge of intrinsic quality to justify their position. This is the second thread where you have asserted something for me, which do not believe or assert myself. Asking people to defend there position is not taking a position. I believe that "evil" is, as far as human experience is concerned, a matter of opinion. I have not asserted otherwise. So that not "hard" for me to understand. Why are you lecturing me on epistemology when I have clearly asked the others to defend the epistemics of their position? 

 

Also, why do continue to attempt to end discussions by calling them "pointless?" Can articulate why any discussion on this board, including and especially those that you have participated in, are not "pointless?" If all is opinion, what is the point of any discussion? What ultimately is the point of anything, Mark? Pointless to you  or not, I enjoy participating in discussion. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[rockpond]

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.

 

Is there anything the Church could ever do wrong that would make you feel that you needed to speak publicly about it?

[SmileyMcGee]

Here's the problem: saemo's opinion is that t objective morality exists.

Your opinion is that it does not.

The bottom line is that there is no way to decide between these options.

You are no more "right" than she is, if you subscribe to your relativist position.

So why squabble about it? Each of you can justify your position to your own satisfaction til doomsday and not resolve the question.

The way I decide such questions is pragmatically, but that does not make it "right"

A good relativist has to be able to shrug and walk away from a discussion like this.

There is no resolution possible. Relativism is itself and only relatively true. You are being a dogmatic relativist!

Deleted, thanks to Calm (thank you also for pointing out that Saemo is a "she;" sorry Saemo)

Edited November 20, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Ahab]

Once again, I'm not asserting that intrinsic qualities don't "exist," I'm simply asking those who assert knowledge of intrinsic quality to justify their position. This is the second thread where you have asserted something for me, which do not believe or assert myself. Asking people to defend there position is not taking a position. I believe that "evil" is, as far as human experience is concerned, a matter of opinion. I have not asserted otherwise. So that not "hard" for me to understand. Why are you lecturing me on epistemology when I have clearly asked the others to defend the epistemics of their position?

Also, why do continue to attempt to end discussions by calling them "pointless?" Can articulate why any discussion on this board, including and especially those that you have participated in, are not "pointless?" If all is opinion, what is the point of any discussion? What ultimately is the point of anything, Mark? Pointless to you or not, I enjoy participating in discussion.

The idea that something is intrinsically evil is based mainly on 2 ideas: (1) that everything has an opposite, and (2) that there are some things that are intrinsically good.

You can argue in opposition to either or both of those ideas but that is the crux of the issue.

[rockpond]

Our own Bill Reel (DBMormon), who apparently now has the unique(?) honor of having been whitewashed out of the FAIR Mormon archives, explores the doctrinal contradictions in the new policy.  He has it formatted so that someone can take 5 minutes and just read the main points, or take 20 minutes to read the entire document.  Here's the link:

 

http://www.wheatandtares.org/19575/duty-bound-to-reject-it/

 

And his concluding quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.

 

I think that Bill's article does a good job of capturing why so many faithful members are upset and why we feel compelled to speak out rather than be silent and give tacit approval to this action.

 

Your thoughts regarding Bill's points?