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

[Mystery Meat]

Mystery, I think you are painting with too broad a brushstroke and create a standard that no other sinner can meet.  Gay behavior is a sin, a gay person is not a sin.  A sinner is still capable of teaching gospel truths such as faith, repentance, and charity.  All sinners are in rebellion to God's teachings to some degree, better said - we all fall short of the glory of God and disciples of Christ actively seek forgiveness for our weaknesses though we keep on sinning and remain sinners.

 

I think we have to be very careful with our language here.  We need to be precise or we will begin to teach untruths and/or falsehoods.  Does that make sense?

 

I understand what you are saying and I agree in part. But I also disagree that the brush I painted with is too broad. We are all sinners, but a sinner who cannot or will not acknowlege they are even sinning, or is even indifferent to that fact, is in open rebellion to God. That is a pretty big difference.

[JAHS]

"Why just a few months ago say that members were free to support Same Sex Marriage and now place language in the manual that states that such support is no longer acceptable for those with gay parents?  This is how it now stands for children of gay parents who want to join the church; they must disavow their gay parent(s)’ marriage:

“There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support that if you want to support it,” Christofferson said, “if that’s your belief and you think it’s right.”  Any Latter-day Saint can have a belief “on either side of this issue,” he said. “That’s not uncommon.” – Elder Christofferson

 

I am wondering how this fits in with one of the temple recommend questions:

 

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

I know this was explained earlier as relating to people who publicly speak out against the church on this matter, but it seems to need to be revised, especially with this new policy, so members and Bishops can correctly ask and answer the question for the recommend.

[rodheadlee]

Sounds like a strawman... Everyone I know who objects to this policy does so on the grounds of it being contrary to their understanding of the gospel.  I've never heard anyone object to this policy based on what society thinks.

People are influenced by society whether they admit it or not.

[jwhitlock]

People are influenced by society whether they admit it or not.

 

Very, very true.

[jwhitlock]

 

"Why just a few months ago say that members were free to support Same Sex Marriage and now place language in the manual that states that such support is no longer acceptable for those with gay parents?  This is how it now stands for children of gay parents who want to join the church; they must disavow their gay parent(s)’ marriage:

“There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support that if you want to support it,” Christofferson said, “if that’s your belief and you think it’s right.”  Any Latter-day Saint can have a belief “on either side of this issue,” he said. “That’s not uncommon.” – Elder Christofferson

 

I am wondering how this fits in with one of the temple recommend questions:

 

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

I know this was explained earlier as relating to people who publicly speak out against the church on this matter, but it seems to need to be revised, especially with this new policy, so members and Bishops can correctly ask and answer the question for the recommend.

 

 

I've always understood this to refer more to individuals or groups who are publicly or actively opposing the church.

 

For instance, I don't see how someone who is a Dehlin supporter could answer this question as "no".

 

For others in more private situations, such as a family member in a SSM, I don't see it applying.

[JLHPROF]

you do know what That fig tree represents?

Hint: its not Homosexuals

 

Yes, the fig tree is often used as a symbol for Israel.  And of course that is the only thing he could be referring to...

Because the symbols and parables Christ used to teach only ever have one meaning right?

 

There couldn't possibly have been any lesson to be learned about bearing fruit and fulfilling the measure of creation.

Edited November 21, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JAHS]

I've always understood this to refer more to individuals or groups who are publicly or actively opposing the church.

 

For instance, I don't see how someone who is a Dehlin supporter could answer this question as "no".

 

For others in more private situations, such as a family member in a SSM, I don't see it applying.

 

Yes that has been the explanation, but the question specifically asks about supporting or agreeing with individuals whose practices are against church doctrines. Christofferson says we can support or agree with them; the recommend question says we can't. 

With the new policy 18 year olds have to specifically disavow the gay marriage of their parents. If they don't they can't get baptized let alone get a temple recommend. How can they support or agree with gay marriage but at the same time disavow it?

 

I guess a person supporting or agreeing with it being a right the general public has is OK, but they can't support it as something that is appropriate within the Church.

 

I just think Bishops need to have an official answer to such situation when it comes up during the interview.

[jwhitlock]

Yes that has been the explanation, but the question specifically asks about supporting or agreeing with individuals whose practices are against church doctrines. Christofferson says we can support or agree with them; the recommend question says we can't. 

With the new policy 18 year olds have to specifically disavow the gay marriage of their parents. If they don't they can't get baptized let alone get a temple recommend. How can they support or agree with gay marriage but at the same time disavow it?

 

I guess a person supporting or agreeing with it being a right the general public has is OK, but they can't support it as something that is appropriate within the Church.

 

I just think Bishops need to have an official answer to such situation when it comes up during the interview.

 

I think most bishops understand it fairly well in the context of public or activist opposition to the church by groups or individuals. In cases of private relationships, it doesn't apply. This has been the case for years; the question you ask is not something new.

[rockpond]

People are influenced by society whether they admit it or not.

Okay. So it must be okay for me to state that those who favor this policy are influenced by cultural homophobia.

(To be clear, I think that statement is as inaccurate as people saying that I am just following society's progressive ideals.)

[rockpond]

Very, very true.

To a degree, it's true for all of us. But here, Bill Reel has laid out his doctrinal opposition. It's one thing to say his interpretations/understandings are wrong. It's another to say that those aren't his reasons and he's actually just being influenced by society's acceptance of homosexuality.

[jwhitlock]

To a degree, it's true for all of us. But here, Bill Reel has laid out his doctrinal opposition. It's one thing to say his interpretations/understandings are wrong. It's another to say that those aren't his reasons and he's actually just being influenced by society's acceptance of homosexuality.

 

I don't see anywhere where rod said those aren't his reasons, and that he's "just" being influenced by society. You pretty well tried to shut the door on society influence with your comment, and all rod did was note that there is -->always<-- a society influence. It doesn't matter if people will admit it or not.

 

Other wise, what Bill posts (just like everyone else) is based on whatever authoritative foundation he accepts. That authoritative foundation shapes his views as a starting point on where he's coming from. The rest of it is just an attempt to rationalize or justify that authoritative foundation. We all do that, and that perspective colors everything we argue about.

 

The fact that people have differing foundational perspectives is why church policy is viewed in many different ways. It's why some people claim there is a "doctrinal crisis" while other people don't see one at all.

 

In such discussions, what's most egregious is when people refuse to consider real world evidence of how things are really working. Bill and Stuart, I think, are particularly guilty of this in what they've written. It's like claiming that if you oppose SSM, you're a bigot that hates gays (and yes, I've heard that accusation many times as a generalization). it sounds nice as a rallying cry for activists (just like student activists claiming racism at colleges), but when you actually get down to the real world and what people are really thinking, it's just not true.

 

So yes, rod was absolutely correct in pointing out what he did about society influences and people not liking to admit such influences. I find that not many people are willing to be open and honest about what their real foundational perspectives are and what has influenced them. They prefer instead to hide behind other claims in hopes of appearing "balanced" or "unbiased", as if such things actually exist.

[HappyJackWagon]

Nice to know you, too! I am an FM founder and sit on the Board. Only petty, vindictive, close-minded, dismissive and arrogant people can join. I look forward to many unkind interactions with you. 

You'll note that I never said "only" petty, vindictive etc...can join. Thanks for the misrepresentation. The snarky misrepresentation seems FAIR.

 

As a board member I suspect you would have concern about how people were treated on the support board, but maybe that's why the Support board was discontinued. I don't know and can only speculate since no explanation was ever given. In fact when the board closed it claimed to be a temporary closure while systems were updated. Of course it never reopened. Has it been a year yet? I suppose plans changed.

 

FAIR doesn't have to explain themselves to anyone about why they erased Bill's contributions or why they closed a support board. That's their business...but we can comment and speculate about the seeming disdain they have for people who don't bow to their exceptional intellects and faith.

[Bomgeography]

Bill Reel has gone apostate.

[HappyJackWagon]

Bill Reel has gone apostate.

Why should anyone care about your judgment of another person?

[Bomgeography]

Why should anyone care about your judgment of another person?

Why should anyone care about your judgment of another person?

I don't care what other people think I'm just stating my opinion.

Bill Reel Telling people that they are to reject the changes given in the handbook is apostasy in my OPINION.

[rockpond]

I don't see anywhere where rod said those aren't his reasons, and that he's "just" being influenced by society. You pretty well tried to shut the door on society influence with your comment, and all rod did was note that there is -->always<-- a society influence. It doesn't matter if people will admit it or not.

 

Other wise, what Bill posts (just like everyone else) is based on whatever authoritative foundation he accepts. That authoritative foundation shapes his views as a starting point on where he's coming from. The rest of it is just an attempt to rationalize or justify that authoritative foundation. We all do that, and that perspective colors everything we argue about.

 

The fact that people have differing foundational perspectives is why church policy is viewed in many different ways. It's why some people claim there is a "doctrinal crisis" while other people don't see one at all.

 

In such discussions, what's most egregious is when people refuse to consider real world evidence of how things are really working. Bill and Stuart, I think, are particularly guilty of this in what they've written. It's like claiming that if you oppose SSM, you're a bigot that hates gays (and yes, I've heard that accusation many times as a generalization). it sounds nice as a rallying cry for activists (just like student activists claiming racism at colleges), but when you actually get down to the real world and what people are really thinking, it's just not true.

 

So yes, rod was absolutely correct in pointing out what he did about society influences and people not liking to admit such influences. I find that not many people are willing to be open and honest about what their real foundational perspectives are and what has influenced them. They prefer instead to hide behind other claims in hopes of appearing "balanced" or "unbiased", as if such things actually exist.

 

I'm arguing in favor of accepting peoples reasons for their position on the matter.  If someone tells me that they are against SSM because of their religious beliefs, I don't tell them that they are hiding behind that claim rather than admitting that they are a bigot or homophobe.  Likewise, if someone says that they are in favor of gay marriage because of their religious beliefs (especially when they've written a well thought out article like Bill did here) we shouldn't say that they aren't being "open and honest about their real foundational perspectives" and influences.  I don't think for a moment that Bill is hiding behind this article in hopes of appearing balanced or unbiased.  He's giving his personal testimony.

[JAHS]

I understand that he cites to scriptures. I can cite to scriptures all day, but that doesn't mean the scriptures support the claim I am making. I do not think I am duty bound to agree with his interpretations, and in fact, I think his interpretations are at best misguided, and a worst a gross case of wresting the scriptures.

 

Even if some scriptures seem to apply, I remember President Ezra Taft Benson saying:

 

 "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works."

"The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet."

 

I don't think that means we should disregard the scriptures, but we should listen to how our current prophet interprets and applies the scriptures for our day. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by JAHS

[Teancum]

All of which feeds my suspicion that the expressed sorrow over the a yet hypothetical children is really just a rhetorical device obscuring the fact that the real cause for anger is that the Church has now totally shut out the vain hope that same-sex marriage will ever so gradually be accommodated within the beliefs, faith and culture of the Latter-day Saints.

 

 

I am not sure really that this is the real cause for anger. It isn't for me.  In fact I am not angry with this new policy.  More disappointed in the direction this takes the church, how it will likely cause more divides between member, families and between the church and society.  I also worry about how this may impact young people who come to understand they are homosexual in their sexual preference.  They already have an impossibly difficult situation as a LDS person and it has become even more so.

 

  I am under no illusion that the Church will ever sanction same sex marriage nor was I before nor so I agitate for it.  But I would like it to be case be case as it seemed before rather than labeled as apostasy and requiring a mandatory DC.  But as i have said before I personally do not believe is DCs or excommunication and think there are better ways to encourage repentance.

[jwhitlock]

I'm arguing in favor of accepting peoples reasons for their position on the matter.  If someone tells me that they are against SSM because of their religious beliefs, I don't tell them that they are hiding behind that claim rather than admitting that they are a bigot or homophobe.  Likewise, if someone says that they are in favor of gay marriage because of their religious beliefs (especially when they've written a well thought out article like Bill did here) we shouldn't say that they aren't being "open and honest about their real foundational perspectives" and influences.  I don't think for a moment that Bill is hiding behind this article in hopes of appearing balanced or unbiased.  He's giving his personal testimony.

 

Accepting is not the same as saying their reasons are valid. When a person gives a reason for their position, that reason can only be fully understood when their foundational perspectives are understood.

 

For instance, in your post above, instead of saying "hiding behind that claim rather than telling them they are a bigot or homophobe" you instead used the word "admitting". You also tell us that Bill wrote a "well thought out article", something I would personally dispute. Both of these statements on your part give me an idea of where you're really coming from, both in relation to what you actually think of people who oppose SSM, and how you automatically give a free pass to someone who shares you're perspective without regard to whether it's really rational or not.

 

In order to understand why people rationalize things the way they do, we have to understand where they're coming from. It helps us to see whether their points are really valid or not. If their foundational perspective includes them automatically ignoring certain real-world evidences (such as what hard-core atheists do in telling us there is no God), then we can more readily see the flaws in what they're claiming.

 

You seem to be telling us that someone's public comments should not be scrutinized in this manner. However, it seems to be rather one sided, given the gleeful, negative analysis that was done on the Brethren for why the new policy changes were put into place by those whose foundational perspectives did not allow them to accept the policy in any way, shape, or form.

 

Knowing that Bill comes from a perspective of mistrust of the leaders of the church is, I believe, important in understanding the arguments he makes.

[JAHS]

This is what makes all the hoopla about this policy so....unbelievable.  The reality of a gay, married couple who are committed to raising their children in the LDS Church has got to be an extremely small number.  I still find it hard to believe that there will be even a single such couple to be found in the entire world.  However, the amount of gnashing of teeth, pulling of hair and throwing dust into the air has no correlation to the fact that....no one will be affected by the policy.

 

If people want to discuss the potential theological implications, then we might have a little room to discuss the policy itself.  However, I don't see much of that.  It is all centered on the emotion of the sky is falling on the millions of children that will be harmed.  These children do not exist; no one will be harmed.  So, why all the wailing?

 

Tempest in a teapot? .............. No. More like tempest in a thimble. 

[rockpond]

Accepting is not the same as saying their reasons are valid. When a person gives a reason for their position, that reason can only be fully understood when their foundational perspectives are understood.

For instance, in your post above, instead of saying "hiding behind that claim rather than telling them they are a bigot or homophobe" you instead used the word "admitting". You also tell us that Bill wrote a "well thought out article", something I would personally dispute. Both of these statements on your part give me an idea of where you're really coming from, both in relation to what you actually think of people who oppose SSM, and how you automatically give a free pass to someone who shares you're perspective without regard to whether it's really rational or not.

In order to understand why people rationalize things the way they do, we have to understand where they're coming from. It helps us to see whether their points are really valid or not. If their foundational perspective includes them automatically ignoring certain real-world evidences (such as what hard-core atheists do in telling us there is no God), then we can more readily see the flaws in what they're claiming.

You seem to be telling us that someone's public comments should not be scrutinized in this manner. However, it seems to be rather one sided, given the gleeful, negative analysis that was done on the Brethren for why the new policy changes were put into place by those whose foundational perspectives did not allow them to accept the policy in any way, shape, or form.

Knowing that Bill comes from a perspective of mistrust of the leaders of the church is, I believe, important in understanding the arguments he makes.

Since your assumptions about me and my foundational perspectives are incorrect, you've actually moved further away from being able to truly understand me and my beliefs.

I imagine Bill would say the same but don't want to speak for him.

p.s. I used the word "admitting" in a phrase that I clearly said I would NOT use.

[provoman]

All this tells me is that Dehlin got enough criticism that he also had to do damage control.

A disqus poster, who post under the name "Louis Midgley", and post frequently on pro LDS patheos blogs, posted that a "mole" provided the information. The louis midgley poster also posted the "mole" was higher up than a Stake President - which means Quorum of 70, Quorum of 12, or 1st Presidency.

Maybe Dehlin has a sense of decency and didn't want individuals in those positions to be spoken of so distastefully by the person who use the disqus screen name "louis midgley".

Edited November 22, 2015 by provoman

[jwhitlock]

Since your assumptions about me and my foundational perspectives are incorrect, you've actually moved further away from being able to truly understand me and my beliefs.

I imagine Bill would say the same but don't want to speak for him.

p.s. I used the word "admitting" in a phrase that I clearly said I would NOT use.

 

Actually, I make very few assumptions. I simply read what is posted and come to conclusions based on what and how things are written.

 

All that aside, you've been rather clear that you don't think the policy revisions that are behind Stuarts claim of a "doctrinal crisis" are in any way inspired. It's interesting that while you claim to "accept people's reasons for their positions", you have basically rejected what the Brethren have given as their explanations for the policy.

 

Isn't that digging into the foundational perspectives behind the situation - in this case, those of the Brethren? So is it only valid to deeply question them, but not to deeply question those who oppose them?

[Tony Frank]

All I had is read the first "main point" to know Bill Reel is seriously reaching and interpreting things in his own way to justify his claim that Latter-day Saints are "duty bound" to reject what the Brethren have said regarding the grotesque abomination called same-sex marriage.

This policy change diminishes agency.

• As a faith, agency is one of our most important gospel principles. Removing the choice to bless a baby, to be baptized, to receive Priesthood (if a male) negates the agency of both the parents and the child.

“Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. Agency is essential in the plan of salvation. Without agency, we would not be able to learn or progress or follow the Savior.” – Gospel Principles Manual

 

 

The only person with "diminished" agency is the child being taught that grotesque sin is actually a good thing. It would seem that the child has no choice but to accept it. The iniquitous adults raising the child have made their choices. When the child turns 18, they no longer need their parents permission to be baptized.

 

 

This policy diminishes the importance of the Holy Ghost

• We have up till now taught that the gift of the holy ghost can be a great help in our decision making and assist us in staying on the right path.  With this policy we have in effect said that it’s not that big a deal if you don’t have it.  You can always get it later, nothing is lost.  This runs contrary to what we have taught since the days of Joseph Smith.

“Likewise, the Holy Ghost can help you. Through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, you can recognize and understand truth and make right choices and inspired decisions.  The Holy Ghost can inspire you with thoughts and ideas, warn you, and comfort you in times of sorrow. – Mormon.org

 

 

So, according to Bill Reel's second "main point," we should baptize the children of homosexuals and lesbians because the Holy Ghost will most certainly give the children an understanding that they are being raised by the most vile of sinners. We do not baptize someone who believes that committing the most grotesque of sins is a good thing. Maybe Bill Reel thinks the Holy Ghost will eventually teach the child that committing the most grotesque of sins is actually a bad thing.

 

 

I was absolutely flabbergasted when I read Bill Reel's third "main point."

This violates the scripture in D&C 68:27 which calls for all 8 year old children within the stakes of Zion to be baptized and confirmed

 

D&C 68:27 – “26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion or in any of her stakes which are organized.  27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old and receive the laying on of the hands.”

 

 

Israel is being gathered to the stakes of Zion. Jesus Christ's "law" in these verses does not apply to the nonmember gentiles who are geographically located within the boundary lines of a stake. The idea that His law tells us to baptize all the 8-year-old children who are geographically located within a stake's boundary lines is the most absurd assertion I have ever read. Bill Reel obviously thinks we are violating Jesus Christ's law in virtually every stake of Zion.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Tony Frank

[rockpond]

Actually, I make very few assumptions. I simply read what is posted and come to conclusions based on what and how things are written.

All that aside, you've been rather clear that you don't think the policy revisions that are behind Stuarts claim of a "doctrinal crisis" are in any way inspired. It's interesting that while you claim to "accept people's reasons for their positions", you have basically rejected what the Brethren have given as their explanations for the policy.

Isn't that digging into the foundational perspectives behind the situation - in this case, those of the Brethren? So is it only valid to deeply question them, but not to deeply question those who oppose them?

Your very few assumptions about me have been incorrect.

And I do accept the Brethren's explanations for the policy.