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

[rockpond]

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.

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.

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."

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.

I'm a little confused by some of your statements. Was it clear to you that the children being denied baptism by this policy are those who have met all other requirements, including an understanding of the baptismal covenant, a desire to be baptized, and supportive gay parents who want the child to be a member of the church?

[jwhitlock]

Your very few assumptions about me have been incorrect.

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

 

But you don't support the policy.

[jwhitlock]

I'm a little confused by some of your statements. Was it clear to you that the children being denied baptism by this policy are those who have met all other requirements, including an understanding of the baptismal covenant, a desire to be baptized, and supportive gay parents who want the child to be a member of the church?

 

And you are personally aware of such a situation that exists?

[Tony Frank]

I'm a little confused by some of your statements. Was it clear to you that the children being denied baptism by this policy are those who have met all other requirements, including an understanding of the baptismal covenant, a desire to be baptized, and supportive gay parents who want the child to be a member of the church?

 

Let's examine another scenario. An unmarried man and woman want their 13-year-old daughter to be baptized, and they have taught her that it is no sin for two consenting adults to have sex without being married as long as they were over the age of 18. 

 

The daughter explains during the baptism interview that she knows the scriptures call it fornication, but she knows that people are only required to be 18 years old to have sex and that it is not a sin. The bishop just sits staring with a gaping jaw and an astonished look on his face.

 

But she meets all other requirements for baptism, including an understanding of the baptismal covenant, a desire to be baptized, and supportive fornicating parents who want the child to be a member of the church.

 

Do you have an objection because you want to make an exception for gay people?

Edited November 21, 2015 by Tony Frank

[Tony Frank]

More saints need to get a revelation that Jesus Christ leads His Church through His prophet on the earth. They need to get a revelation that there will always be a prophet chosen by Jesus Christ Himself to lead the Church, and the prophet will do so according to the direction that Jesus Christ gives him.

 

Nephi clearly states that in chapter 32 "the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do." Jesus Christ's Latter-day prophets will always speak the words of Christ. Therefore, if a man will not give heed to Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth, he will not give heed to Jesus Christ. Any man who does give heed to Christ will most definitely give heed to His prophet on the earth.

 

But no need to worry if you come out against the Church or the established policies. If you do not repent of your action, you could always stand before the judgment bar of Jesus Christ and say, “I did not know your prophet was speaking on your behalf. I thought I was the one who decided when prophets speak on your behalf. With the agency you gave us, I thought I could reject his words just like the guys who rejected and stoned prophets in the centuries before you came and died for the sins of man.”

 

And you could add, “Lord, even your followers thought you were wrong when you said, ‘I am the bread which came down from heaven,’ which John wrote about in John 6:41.

 

“And your followers thought you were wrong when you said that ‘no man can come unto me, except he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me,’ which John wrote about in John 6:65.

 

“Seriously, Lord, your disciples thought that you, the Lord Jesus Christ, were wrong and they ‘went back and walked no more’ with you, which John wrote about in verse 66. Surely that entitles me to think one of your prophets was wrong when he put forth a policy with which I disagree.”

 

Maybe we should look at the establishment of God's “law” in these latter days.

 

In May 1833, Jesus Christ told the Prophet Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 93:53 to “obtain a knowledge” of the “laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion.”

 

And in February 1834, Jesus Christ said that the Prophet Joseph Smith would “establish the children of Zion upon the laws and commandments which have been and which shall be given unto you.” (Doctrine and Covenants 103:35)

 

In June 1834, Jesus Christ said, “Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.” (Doctrine and Covenants 105:5)

 

And He said, “The kingdom of Zion is in very deed the kingdom of our God and his Christ; therefore, let us become subject unto her laws.” (Doctrine and Covenants 105:32)

 

Jesus Christ said, “My word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38)

 

And we read in Doctrine and Covenants 27:13 that Jesus Christ revealed to Joseph Smith that he, Jesus Christ has “committed the keys of my kingdom and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth.”

 

We also read in Doctrine and Covenants 132:7 that “there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.”

 

Jesus Christ, whose word is eternal, is clearly telling us in these three scriptures that Joseph Smith and every prophet who has led the Church has had the keys and the authority to speak for Him. The prophet is Jesus Christ’s spokesman. When someone openly rejects what comes forth from the prophet, that person is clearly in open rebellion against the Church that Jesus Christ has restored in these latter days.

 

When we make our choices in this life, we either do what Satan wants or we do what God wants. It is Satan who leads people away from the truth, and it is Satan who leads people to rebel against Jesus Christ’s one and only true and living Church. It is Satan who leads people to stop following Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth, the prophet being led by Jesus Christ.

 

When one stops following the prophet, they stop following Jesus Christ.

 

Satan will tell anyone that they need to question things that will keep them from listening to God’s prophet on the earth.

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

 

Satan wants you to find fault with Jesus Christ's Church. Jesus Christ does not want you to find fault with His Church. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by Tony Frank

[Bobbieaware]

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.

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.

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."

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.

Excellent post! Why is it some members are too immature and unwise to realize it's not the Church but the courts and the same sex parents who have created this impossible situation? And it is an impossible situation. Why? Because if the child takes well to the Church we'll be accused of brainwashing the child and turning him against his own parents; but if the child doesn't take well to the Church we'll be accused of TRYING to turn him against his own parents, with the likely long-term consequence that a another bitter anti-Mormon will have been created. So the brethren have very wisely created a policy where if same sex parents still insist on having their child raised in the Church -- even after being clearly forewarned it's a bad idea to place an innocent child into such a psychologically conflicted and potentially damaging situation -- any negative consequences which might thereafter ensue will be placed squarely on the parent's own shoulders. But the childish internal critics of the Church seem to never miss an opportunity to misconstrue so much of what our good and wise apostles and prophets have to say ( oh how I love them), But I suppose I shouldn't be upset nor surprised about it because we know "there must needs be opposition in all things."

Edited November 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[JAHS]

Let's examine another scenario. An unmarried man and woman want their 13-year-old daughter to be baptized, and they have taught her that it is no sin for two consenting adults to have sex without being married as long as they were over the age of 18. 

 

The daughter explains during the baptism interview that she knows the scriptures call it fornication, but she knows that people are only required to be 18 years old to have sex and that it is not a sin. The bishop just sits staring with a gaping jaw and an astonished look on his face.

 

But she meets all other requirements for baptism, including an understanding of the baptismal covenant, a desire to be baptized, and supportive fornicating parents who want the child to be a member of the church.

 

Do you have an objection because you want to make an exception for gay people?

During the investigator lessons she will have learned that fornication is a sin and not acceptable as a church member and if she can not accept that doctrine then she should not get as far as an interview for baptism.

[rockpond]

But you don't support the policy.

Correct.

[rockpond]

And you are personally aware of such a situation that exists?

Nope but if such a situation doesn't exist, why write the policy?

It's only in that situation, with those conditions met, that the policy would apply, per the Nov 13 letter.

Edited November 22, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Let's examine another scenario. An unmarried man and woman want their 13-year-old daughter to be baptized, and they have taught her that it is no sin for two consenting adults to have sex without being married as long as they were over the age of 18.

The daughter explains during the baptism interview that she knows the scriptures call it fornication, but she knows that people are only required to be 18 years old to have sex and that it is not a sin. The bishop just sits staring with a gaping jaw and an astonished look on his face.

But she meets all other requirements for baptism, including an understanding of the baptismal covenant, a desire to be baptized, and supportive fornicating parents who want the child to be a member of the church.

Do you have an objection because you want to make an exception for gay people?

Nope, no exception. If she can't commit to the law of chastity, she can't be baptized.

[jwhitlock]

Nope but if such a situation doesn't exist, why write the policy?

It's only in that situation, with those conditions met, that the policy would apply, per the Nov 13 letter.

 

Then opposition to the policy is really a moot point isn't it?

 

Unless, of course, there was something else that the Lord wanted made very, very clear.

[jwhitlock]

Correct.

 

Which is a curious inconsistency that understanding your foundational perspectives goes a long way towards explaining.

[Storm Rider]

There was a time when many felt it was necessary for the Church to be more clear in regards to gay marriage and gay sexual lifestyles.  They felt that scripture was not clear and that something else was needed to make it crystal clear the will of the Lord in regards to situations where two individuals of the same sex that loved each other and were legally married.  

 

There has been much made over the issue of hypothetical children and the harm that could potentially be done to them by preventing them from being baptized.  However, I feel the more important impact of this policy is making it clear that regardless of the love between two individuals a homosexual lifestyle is to be regarded as sin.  I suspect that the the great emotion that has been stirred up has at its heart this issue rather than the idea of children paraded about.  If they were only real children it could have been more a talking point, but alas activists cannot have everything.  

[BCSpace]

 

Stuart Parker, on Patheos, examines what he considers to be an unintended theological crisis in Mormonism:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionnow/2015/11/mormon-homophobia-and-the-unintended-theological-crisis/

 

About the author:

 

Stuart Parker holds a PhD in History and Religious Studies from the University of Toronto. A former postdoctoral fellow with Brigham Young University, he is presently under contract to produce History Through Seer Stones: A Hundred Years of Mormon Pasts for Kofford Books.

 

Concluding paragraphs from the article:

 

These doctrinal changes, more than simply confirming a two-decade trajectory of social conservatism, eviscerate a core doctrine of the Mormon faith, that of “free agency,” which Mormon theologians proudly trumpet as distinct from and superior to mainline Christianity’s “free will.” Much of Mormonism’s seductiveness in gaining and retaining young members has come from its recognition of the capacity of children and youth to make real choices for which they are accountable. Today, for many Mormons, it appears that that foundational principle, on which so much Mormon culture and organization—never mind doctrine—depends, is now in retreat.

 

The impending crisis the Mormon world now faces may have been occasioned by bigotry towards same-sex couples. But the bigotry, itself, is no long the central issue. Rather, it is the over-reach, the hubristic effort to rewrite Mormon theology from the bottom up to serve that bigotry, that has thrown Mormondom into its biggest doctrinal crisis in more than a generation.

 

I've felt since I first read the policy that it went against our doctrine.  The Nov 13 letter didn't change that feeling.  I think this article helps explain that.

 

 

 

I completely disagree.  Besides erroneously stating that there have been doctrinal changes on these certain issues, he mentions the core doctrine of agency and then proceeds to effectively declare that our doctrine is against the concept of accountability.  But without doctrine, there is no accountability.

 

One is free to accept or reject membership in the LDS Church.  If one remains a member, one is still free to believe and say what they want, but not without consequences.  That is the spirit of agency.

 

What Stuart Parker is really agitating for is a church of man, not a Church of God.

Edited November 22, 2015 by BCSpace

[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?

 

I think the policy was made to cover this extremely small number that might happen. But then of course the critics say, "If even one child is hurt by this, it is too many"  

People who don't understand how the handbook and policies are enforced are not aware of the option a Bishop has to apply a policy in a way that will not be harmful to children. He can use his power of discernment to make allowances and get permissions for certain circumstances from higher ups or at least he will be able to explain the reasons why things have to be. 

I think what ticks people off most is the fact that gay marriage has been declared an act of apostasy, but it is easier to use the unlikely potential effect it might have on children to tug at peoples heartstrings and get their sympathy. 

[sunstoned]

Then opposition to the policy is really a moot point isn't it?

 

Unless, of course, there was something else that the Lord wanted made very, very clear.

The Lord?  This is a policy, not a revelation.  The  church has not been asked to vote on it, and it has not been canonized. 

[sunstoned]

Doesn't Bill post here from time to time?  Maybe he could give us some insight into what happened at FAIR.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the policy was made to cover this extremely small number that might happen. But then of course the critics say, "If even one child is hurt by this, it is too many"  

People who don't understand how the handbook and policies are enforced are not aware of the option a Bishop has to apply a policy in a way that will not be harmful to children. He can use his power of discernment to make allowances and get permissions for certain circumstances from higher ups or at least he will be able to explain the reasons why things have to be. 

I think what ticks people off most is the fact that gay marriage has been declared an act of apostasy, but it is easier to use the unlikely potential effect it might have on children to tug at peoples heartstrings and get their sympathy.

And excite their anger.

[Thinking]

These children do not exist; no one will be harmed.  So, why all the wailing?

 

If these children do not exist, then why make the policy?

[BCSpace]

If these children do not exist, then why make the policy?

 

To prevent apostates from using children to create the condition for leverage against the Church.

Edited November 22, 2015 by BCSpace

[Robert F. Smith]

The Lord?  This is a policy, not a revelation.  The  church has not been asked to vote on it, and it has not been canonized. 

 

Of course it is revelation, biblical revelation, and LDS policy is merely designed to enable obedience to that revelation:

 

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13,

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

See Jacob Milgrom, “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality,” Bible Review, 9/6 (Dec 1993):11ff., online at http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=9&Issue=6&ArticleID=3, which brought reader replies in BR 10/2 at http://members.bib-arch.org/search.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=10&Issue=02&ArticleID=01 .

Edited November 22, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[NEDRA]

The actual policy (without the clarification) states that children cannot be baptized at 8 if they have "a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship."

The policy does not specify primary residence, nor is it limited to current cohabitation practices.

As such, this policy could have affected thousands of members, hence the furor.

[jwhitlock]

The Lord?  This is a policy, not a revelation.  The  church has not been asked to vote on it, and it has not been canonized. 

 

So you're claiming that there was absolutely no inspiration or direction from the Lord behind the policy?

 

What's your source?

[rockpond]

Then opposition to the policy is really a moot point isn't it?

Unless, of course, there was something else that the Lord wanted made very, very clear.

No, not a moot point. Obviously the Brethren are either aware such situations or believe that they will occur. Otherwise, why write the policy?

Are you suggesting that now the Lord speaks through a Handbook that normally would have only been know to select church leaders?

And if He wanted to make something very, very clear, why do it in language that had to be revised a week later?

[rockpond]

There was a time when many felt it was necessary for the Church to be more clear in regards to gay marriage and gay sexual lifestyles. They felt that scripture was not clear and that something else was needed to make it crystal clear the will of the Lord in regards to situations where two individuals of the same sex that loved each other and were legally married.

There has been much made over the issue of hypothetical children and the harm that could potentially be done to them by preventing them from being baptized. However, I feel the more important impact of this policy is making it clear that regardless of the love between two individuals a homosexual lifestyle is to be regarded as sin. I suspect that the the great emotion that has been stirred up has at its heart this issue rather than the idea of children paraded about. If they were only real children it could have been more a talking point, but alas activists cannot have everything.

If the point was for the Lord to make something clear, why publish it in a handbook only available to a small percentage of the church?