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

[rockpond]

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

It's not inconsistent at all. You put me into a box with your incorrect assumptions about my foundational perspectives. And, as I noted before, because of that you've moved further away from understanding me.

Edited November 22, 2015 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

All of which feeds my suspicion that the expressed sorrow over the as 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.

Initially, in the years following the second manifesto, there were those in the Church who continued, more or less covertly, to continue to enter into polygamy contrary to the firm directive of the Church leadership. I imagine these individuals were hoping, if not expecting, they could get by with their disobedience until the day that the Brethren came to their senses, as it were, and declared polygamy OK again. The Church leaders had to get firm and declare such behavior tantamount to apostasy punishable by the severest penalty the Church can impose. That firmness has remained to this day.

I see here an apt parallel with the new policy relative to same-sex marriage. There have been enough who just aren't getting the message that the prophets and apostles have been inspired to do something to clearly indicate that the Church leadership means what it says on this matter, and there won't be any change, gradual or otherwise.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

The policy is directed not to a general audience but to local priesthood leaders who are subject to ongoing training and direction -- combined with the influence of the Spirit -- and are not apt to put the legalistic construction on this that hostile or angry outside observers are. They can be trusted to apply the clarifications that have been given. Edited November 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

It's not inconsistent at all. You put me into a box with your incorrect assumptions about my foundational perspectives. And, as I noted before, because of that you've moved further away from understanding me.

What don't you understand about the fact that the leaders don't want the Church to be placed in a situation where it could be convincingly asserted that it teaches some of it's children to turn against their own parents?

Edited November 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[provoman]

The policy is directed not to a general audience but to local priesthood leaders who are subject to ongoing training and direction -- combined with the influence of the Spirit -- and are not apt to put the legalistic construction on this that hostile or angry outside observers are. They can be trusted to apply the clarifications that have been given.

No "legalistic construction" is required to read and apply a document as it is written. The original policy is exactly as Nedra posted.

The policy as written means a child, whose gay mother cohabitats with her partner, is not eligible for baptism; the update somewhat resolved that.

Many parents, whose former spouse is now in a same sex marriage or same sex cohabitation, realized right away how the policy affected the children.

The clarification was needed, because as written the policy had harsh unintended consequences.

Edited November 22, 2015 by provoman

[provoman]

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

Would that "condition for leverage" be created for a parent who smokes or drinks or commits adultery; if not, what do you think is the difference?

[ERayR]

Would that "condition for leverage" be created for a parent who smokes or drinks or commits adultery; if not, what do you think is the difference?

 

Insert something here about apples and oranges.  If you can't see the difference between smoking, drinking and adultery then explanations are not going to help but you are a bright person so just think about it I am sure it will come to you.

[provoman]

Insert something here about apples and oranges. If you can't see the difference between smoking, drinking and adultery then explanations are not going to help but you are a bright person so just think about it I am sure it will come to you.

Telling that you wont attempt to explain.

Sin bars us from the Temple. Sin bars us from ordinances or even participation in such. We teach against sin. I do not see "leverage" against the Church, when we teach against all manner of sin that parents engage in.

The Church can and will do what is deemed necessary. I was not involved in the discussions that created the policy. I am confident no one in this thread was either. The clarification was needed.

[Teancum]

And excite their anger.

 

 

No not really but my guess is if you say this long enough you may be able to marginalize those who do have honest concerns about this awful policy.  I think that is your intent.

[Teancum]

The policy is directed not to a general audience but to local priesthood leaders who are subject to ongoing training and direction -- combined with the influence of the Spirit -- and are not apt to put the legalistic construction on this that hostile or angry outside observers are. They can be trusted to apply the clarifications that have been given.

 

See what I mean Scott. You are a writer. I think your words have meaning and purpose.  I think you seem more angry about those who oppose this than the so called anger you talk about for those who oppose this.

[Teancum]

Insert something here about apples and oranges.  If you can't see the difference between smoking, drinking and adultery then explanations are not going to help but you are a bright person so just think about it I am sure it will come to you.

 

 

Is adultery a lesser sin than a homosexual marriage?

[BCSpace]

Would that "condition for leverage" be created for a parent who smokes or drinks or commits adultery; if not, what do you think is the difference?

 

Such are already in a state of apostasy and are handled accordingly.  But in the case of SSM, because the Gospel's enemies are trying to make public hay, it has to be spelled out and enforced with additional consequences, strictures, and protections for the Church and it's members.

 

Consider also what homosexuality implies; it's a double sin. Not only is the practice fornication or adultery, but it is also a sin against nature, the way God intended for this ability to be used no matter what one's weaknesses are.

 

One could certain make the case for a triple sin here as the example of SSM given to impressionable minds leads them to think erroneously that homosexuality and SSM are viable and acceptable alternatives.  Whereas even the single parent or one merely "living in sin" are at least showing proper examples of sexuality.

 

And I think that's what it all boils down to.  The Church is always (and always has been) going to be sympathetic to those suffering from sin and weakness, but the practice of homosexuality remains a "deep, dark, sin".  God will certainly try to help those suffering from this affliction if they come unto him, but the innocent must also be protected.

Edited November 22, 2015 by BCSpace

[Teancum]

Such are already in a state of apostasy and are handled accordingly.  But in the case of SSM, because the Gospel's enemies are trying to make public hay, it has to be spelled out and enforced with additional consequences.

 

Why?

[Teancum]

I didn't say it should.  I was asked what I would recommend doing to make the church more welcoming to gay members.

 

Rock

 

The church does not want gay members.   Let's face it.  One very good LDS apologist I know argues that one purpose of this new policy is so that members do not become more comfortable with the idea of SSM.  Acceptance of SSM has moved from 24% to 36% in the past few years among LDS members.  The Church leaders cannot be happy with that.

 

The only acceptance the LDS Church has for gay persons is to "Do not act on your "struggle" and remain celibate for life."   Then such may be welcome.  Otherwise, nope.   Same for gay couples kids.  Not welcome.

[Teancum]

Was it?

 

Was it indeed?

 

He doesn't claim that "traditional marriage has been the same for thousands of years." He claims that marriage has traditionally meant the same thing.

And it has.

You quoted scriptures that mentioned King Solomon's hundreds of wives.

How many husbands did he have?

 

Who knows for sure. Solomon seemed quite the sinner really.  All these wives?  Maybe a man sneaked in there somewhere but the Bible just left it out.  Hey this is just an argument from silence really.  

 

[Teancum]

But you were saying the Church is obligated to knuckle under to oppression because we believe in obeying the law. That is pure crap.

 

The church does not believe in obeying the law?

[provoman]

Such are already in a state of apostasy and are handled accordingly. But in the case of SSM, because the Gospel's enemies are trying to make public hay, it has to be spelled out and enforced with additional consequences, strictures, and protections for the Church and it's members.

Consider also what homosexuality implies; it's a double sin. Not only is the practice fornication or adultery, but it is also a sin against nature, the way God intended for this ability to be used no matter what one's weaknesses are.

One could certain make the case for a triple sin here as the example of SSM given to impressionable minds leads them to think erroneously that homosexuality and SSM are viable and acceptable alternatives.  Whereas even the single parent or one merely "living in sin" are at least showing proper examples of sexuality.

And I think that's what it all boils down to. The Church is always (and always has been) going to be sympathetic to those suffering from sin and weakness, but the practice of homosexuality remains a "deep, dark, sin".

This demonstrates why we should not attempt to apply our own philosophy to the acts of God.

God will certainly try to help those suffering from this affliction if they come unto him, but the innocent must also be protected.

What "innocent" is protected by denying ordinances?

[Deborah]

We had our special stake conference today. Elder Oaks spoke and I've never seen him funnier but with such a great message. He talked about how important it is to remember we are only seeing a tiny portion of the picture which is mortality. God sees the big picture. He talked about how much the GA's prayed about what they should do with all going on in the world and this policy was implemented. He said they have a glimpse of the bigger picture we don't have. I think people lose sight of the eternal perspective in these discussions, which I've said before.

 

A Seventy from Argentina also spoke and talked about his mother whose family heard the missionaries when she was 15. She was the only one who believed but her parents would not let her be baptized. She had to wait and it wasn't until her first child was 2 that she was finally baptized. Nothing need ever be lost if one must wait. In eternity nothing need be lost. The problem is those who leave the church are only seeing the little picture. We need to see the Lord's plan, not the world's.

[JAHS]

Is adultery a lesser sin than a homosexual marriage?

LDS parents who have committed adultery know that it is a sin that they likely would not have taught to the child as being normal and acceptable.  They know that the child will be taught in church that it is a sin as well and make commitments through baptism to not do it themselves. These parents can more easily accept the fact that their children will be taught this and support their membership because they are aware that it is a sin. In this situation children can still love and honor their parents and the commitment they make at baptism, but at the same time realize that what their parents did was a sin.

 

However, for gay married parents situation, same sex marriage most likely will have been taught to the children by the parents as being normal and acceptable, making it harder for them to support their child in a church that will not accept their lifestyle and harder for the child to accept that what their parents have done is wrong.

 

That's one of the differences.

Therefore rather than cause the child to make commitments and live doctrines against what his parents have taught him and force him to choose between his parents and church, he is asked to wait until he is an adult.

[The Nehor]

Is adultery a lesser sin than a homosexual marriage?

 

Yes, when they are in hell homosexuals get two additional imps with pitchforks poking them and the temperature is two degrees hotter compared to adulterers. Hope this helps.

 

Edit: Celsius, not Fahrenheit

[rpn]

 

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?

Because church leaders are the ones charged with shepherding the flock?  Wouldn't want them of all people to be in doubt.

[readstoomuch]

I like a lot of Bill`s podcasts.  My wife hates the sound of his voice because he sounds so negative about the Church to her.  I don`t love the new policy, but I have been willing to let things play out and see what becomes known or is clarified.  Instead for many, because the policy is about a social issue, it becomes a firestorm immediately.  Facts are not needed nor wanted if they go against the racist/bigoted/politically correct agenda being pushed.  So to me, Bill started adding to the fire as soon as he could.  

 

The Church looks to many like it has the worst PR department in the world.  They should have known this or anticipated that.  John Dehlin only did what someone else would have done given the announcement of a controversial topic.  Never mind that he is the most vocal of any former mormon about the gay agenda that I know of.  I feel like the gay agenda has split my family apart.  My older kids some how think the Church is going to or should accept gays in full faith and fellowship.  Jesus loved everyone so we should, but what does that mean?  In the end, the scriptures as I read them have Jesus showing great love, but the need to set your sins aside.  Gay feelings may not be a sin, but acting on them is.  Even if we show love to them, which we should, that does`t mean that all is okay with the ordinances of the gospel.  

[jwhitlock]

It's not inconsistent at all. You put me into a box with your incorrect assumptions about my foundational perspectives. And, as I noted before, because of that you've moved further away from understanding me.

 

 

I've not put you into a box at all. Trying to understand foundational perspectives doesn't necessarily put people into boxes, unless their foundational perspectives are rather narrow.

 

SSM supporters generally reveal quite a bit about their perspectives with what they post. One of those perspectives is a refusal to try to understand the foundational perspectives of those who disagree with them. When the hard questions are asked, they are dismissed as irrelevant. There are some SSM supporters who are more honest with where they're coming from, but I find those to be relatively rare individuals.

 

This lack of any attempt to understand leads to untenable claims, such as "doctrinal crises" as referenced in the OP, or Bill's inadequate attempts to justify his support of SSM within the context of the church.

[jwhitlock]

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?

 

The inconsistency in having a SS married couple wanting to have their child baptized into a church that will teach them that their SSM is wrong in the sight of God, and will never be acceptable to Him seems to make it clear that such a situation should never happen.

 

Unless, of course, it was an attempt by gay activists to try to undermine the church by creating such a situation.

 

The policy makes that a bit more difficult, doesn't it.

[provoman]

Deborah has provided the best insight. We do not know why, and do not see the beginning to end. All other explantions, are based on the reasoning and flaws of the natural man.

Edited November 22, 2015 by provoman