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

[Five Solas]

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.

Well, at least he didn't say they left because they were offended by triviality (e.g., the "milk striplings" story) and/or they just wanted to sin.  Still feels a wee bit condescending.  But no doubt that reaction just proves I'm one of the little-picture people...

 

--Erik

[Teancum]

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.

Every situation is unique. We often baptize children or teens of non member parents....some single...some married. The parents have to give permission but may more or less be supportive over time. Those kids hear that they don't have an enter all family, that their parents are not following the doctrine. They make commitments that the parents cannot make.

I grew up in an inactive home. Though my parents sent me to church and all they never attended and never did any of the normal LDS things. They often we're critical of church leaders both locally and at the top. I grew up thinking Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Benson were horrible leaders.

Justify this all you want. A homosexual couple can be as supportive or non supportive as any other parent outside the acceptability of LDS practices.

[Teancum]

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

And my guess is your state will be worse than both. ;-)

[cynth]

That is how I got in.  

you are a refreshing burst of honesty and humor!  Thank you for your ability to defuse any difficult situation.  If I could give rep points, I would, but for some reason I cannot.  (is that an element of limitations or am I too new?)

[Russell C McGregor]

I know.  I hate it when my words get in the way of what I mean.

 

 

 is clearly the same as saying

 

 

Don't let the past tense wording of "who has lived" fool you.  It is clear that the intent of the policy all along was that it was to apply to only the current and primary residence of the children.  The evidence is obvious

 

If we take the last sentence as not being sarcastic, you are right. The expression "who has lived" doesn't refer to the child, but to a parent.

 

So, if the child's primary residence is with a parent who lives, or who has lived, in a same sex relationship, the policy applies to that child.

[cynth]

No more than I or any other online organization would like to....or should be expected to explain every modification, edit, re-organization, on websites that are constantly changing. What surprises me is the misinformation being circulated. FYI, everything is available elsewhere, and it is, of course, cached.  Second, and most puzzling, the editing was done months ago yet it is being claimed it is a result of the recent church CHI changes. 

I may have missed something, but as far as I can tell, this was Julian's last contribution, even though multiple requests were made asking the poster for clarification. 

 

Juliann, I agree that if an online organization declines to explain an edit that is certainly their prerogative, but as a number of people have noted, this edit seems to fall outside the purview of a simple modification.  My question is not related to 'recent church CHI changes,' but is simply a request, on top of the several already in this thread, for any clarification as to why a person was edited out of a presentation.  Since you were kind enough to respond the first time with some quick explanation, would you be willing to respond further?

[Robert F. Smith]

provoman attempted to discuss this issue on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66513-re-writting-history/ .

 

My question is why would he not come and post here and participate in our discussion?

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................

............................... 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.  

Yes, Jesus asked where the male adulterer was and then sent the adulterous woman away, telling her to sin no more.  Jesus was criticized for being so kind to the riff-raff of society, but that never meant that he allowed or tolerated actual sin.  His Church cannot allow it either, even though all are welcome to attend services, and always have been.  Baptism is for those making a strong commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the rules must be clear.

 

That may infuriate John Dehlin and Bill Reel, but they have both committed themselves to the half-empty paradigm, and the notion that the CJCLDS is basically a secular club or association, with tithing as dues for membership -- just another public accommodation which should be open to all without exception.

[rodheadlee]

Which is not necessarily synonymous with the opinion of the LDS church.

Yes, this is why we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[rockpond]

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?

I do understand that. Quite clearly.

[sunstoned]

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

I don't want to speak for rockpond, but a review of the history of the church shows that the brethren have made mistakes in the past.  This should not be a shock to any reasonable thinking member as we do not claim our leaders are infallible.   This policy could very well be a mistake.  The fact that they have had to come out with a clarification, which is really a back track, gives me no confidence this "policy" was inspired.

[sunstoned]

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 .

Robert, this is a straw man and you are a smart guy so I know you know this.  We are not talking about what is sin here.  I fully agree that church can define what is and isn't sin.  But with this "policy" we are talking about children being denied blessings because of what their parents have done.  A segment of the population is being unfairly targeted. Many children are baptized into the church whose parents are living a "sinful" life.  But it seems only children of the evil gays are barred from participation.  

 

Whoever the church is paying to give them legal and PR advice, they should be fired.  This policy is a PR disaster that would have never of happened on GBH's watch.

Edited November 23, 2015 by sunstoned

[Storm Rider]

Sun,

 

This is a policy for leaders of the Church.  It is not a doctrinal statement, but an administration guidance intended solely for leaders.  These types of policies can change easily and without notice; they just happen.

 

I remain convinced that there is a lot of gnashing of teeth and emotion being expended over a policy that affects almost no one in the Church.  Whether you or I want to believe it is inspired, the product of deep thought, contemplation, and prayer is irrelevant.  What is important is that our leaders will be guided IF, and that if a very, very, very big "if", a situation develops where it is applicable.  

 

So exactly, what is all the blather and talk about, really?  When this make believe gay couple is found and they are committed to raising their children in the Church and want their children to be baptized and the children understand the doctrines of the Church and accept them completely and without reservation, THEN AND ONLY THEN will there be something to talk about.  Until then, the hypothetical discussion is pretty useless. 

[jwhitlock]

I don't want to speak for rockpond, but a review of the history of the church shows that the brethren have made mistakes in the past.  This should not be a shock to any reasonable thinking member as we do not claim our leaders are infallible.   This policy could very well be a mistake.  The fact that they have had to come out with a clarification, which is really a back track, gives me no confidence this "policy" was inspired.

 

The "back track" is your perception. Others see it very differently.

 

In councils of the church, including ones that develop policies, the inspiration of the Lord is sought as a standard procedure. Given the significance of SSM as a sifting issue in the church, it is highly unlikely that there was no inspiration sought - or received - in the development of this policy revision.

 

Inspiration is, after all, a form of revelation. Clarifications to church policy happen all the time, especially in the context of individual situations that local leaders of the church bring up.

 

It really comes down to whether one believes that the leaders of the church are generally guided by the Lord or not. Those opposing the policy are finding all kinds of rationalizations to claim that this particular policy was uninspired. However, those fall flat when considered in the real world context of how the leaders of the church approach decisions on significant issues. And inspiration is a key component of those decisions as a standard rule.

 

Just because a policy disagrees with someone's worldview about SSM doesn't mean it wasn't inspired. Yet that is the very starting point that those disparaging the policy are coming from.

[jwhitlock]

Robert, this is a straw man and you are a smart guy so I know you know this.  We are not talking about what is sin here.  I fully agree that church can define what is and isn't sin.  But with this "policy" we are talking about children being denied blessings because of what their parents have done.  A segment of the population is being unfairly targeted. Many children are baptized into the church whose parents are living a "sinful" life.  But it seems only children of the evil gays are barred from participation.  

 

Whoever the church is paying to give them legal and PR advice, they should be fired.  This policy is a PR disaster that would have never of happened on GBH's watch.

 

So, have you located this hypothetical gay married couple that desperately wants their child to be baptized into a church that views their marriage as a sin?

[Glenn101]

  Whether one supports the new policy or not, there is no doctrinal crisis.  Greg Smith has noted a few errors he believes that some are making in their arguments against the policy at http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/11/19/some-mistaken-claims-associated-with-the-churchs-policies-regarding-same-sex-marriage/

 

Bill Reel has seemingly done started from a previously held viewpoint and and selected various quotes from different sources and placed his own interpretation as to what they all mean.

 

However, the policy is not a doctrine. It is just that, a policy, and I expect that there may be circumstances where that policy can be somewhat flexible.

Whatever the issue of agency one wishes to understand, the Church will not deny anyone the right to be baptized when it feels they are ready. Baptism can be and has been delayed in the past for some that the Church authorities did not feel were ready. The situation with children living in polygamous homes has already been noted.

 

However, the church leaders have drawn a line on the rock.

 

And, in a few days, or a few weeks, there will be yet another "obviously not well though out" and/or "just plain wrong" announcement for those who seem to believe that the First Presidency hardly ever gets anything right to pounce upon and this one will drift into the background.

 

Glenn

[The Nehor]

And my guess is your state will be worse than both. ;-)

If so I plan to get a job as one of the imps.

[Bobbieaware]

I do understand that. Quite clearly.

So what other choice did the leaders have? To say breaking the law of chastity is no longer a sin?

[rockpond]

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.

I believe that I understand the foundational perspectives of many who disagree with me regarding the policy. And I agree with Bill on many of his doctrinal crisis points.

If you think I have misunderstood a foundational perspective of yours, please let me know what you feel I have missed.

[rockpond]

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.

So is it your position then that the reason for this policy is to prevent gay activists from infiltrating the church by having their children baptized? Because you're saying the other situation wouldn't exist. You're also changing the reason stated by the Brethren for the policy. Edited November 23, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

So what other choice did the leaders have? To say breaking the law of chastity is no longer a sin?

Therein lies the doctrinal crisis.

[The Nehor]

Therein lies the doctrinal crisis.

 

God is quite the idiot for falling into that trap.

[Glenn101]

Bobbieaware, on 22 Nov 2015 - 10:23 PM, said:

So what other choice did the leaders have? To say breaking the law of chastity is no longer a sin?

Therein lies the doctrinal crisis.

 

No doctrinal crisis there. The doctrine is the same, and I fully expect that it will be the same, since the Jesus that is at the head of the church is the same Jehovah tof the Old Testament.

[Mystery Meat]

Robert, this is a straw man and you are a smart guy so I know you know this.  We are not talking about what is sin here.  I fully agree that church can define what is and isn't sin.  But with this "policy" we are talking about children being denied blessings because of what their parents have done.  A segment of the population is being unfairly targeted. Many children are baptized into the church whose parents are living a "sinful" life.  But it seems only children of the evil gays are barred from participation.  

 

Whoever the church is paying to give them legal and PR advice, they should be fired.  This policy is a PR disaster that would have never of happened on GBH's watch.

 

Sunstone, I think there differences that make this case extraordinary. First, with most sins and lifestyles that run contrary to the Church's teachings, I don't think most parents would encourage their children to repeat their same mistakes, or even ask their children to accept their sin as morally acceptable. If I were a heavy drinker, I would dissuade my children from repeating my mistakes. If I had committed adultery I would ask for my children's forgiveness, not acceptance. But a person's gayness seems to be the key defining attribute for every gay person I know and I have been told by many that if I can't accept their lifestyle/orientation/relationships as good, then I can't accept them. People make mistakes all the time. It is much more rare for such people to be living in open rebellion.

 

Second, the leaders of the Church have a responsibility to protect the doctrine. I will out and out say it (and make a lot of people mad): THIS POLICY CAN BE LAID SQUARELY AT THE FEET OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH WHO SUPPORT SSM WITHIN THE CHURCH. This is entirely their fault. It is the fault of everyone who has ever tried to compare the priesthood bad to SSM in the Church. It is the fault of every member who has ever tried to confuse the issue and other members of the church by advocating by calling evil, good.  It is the fault of every openly, sexually active gay member who has manipulated, guilted and tried to pressure their family and the Church to reject the prophets and apostles, accept their lifestyle as good and overthrow good, sound doctrine. This is squarely on all of them. This is clearly the issue of our time, because such individuals have made it that way with their demands and manipulation. Far too many have caved to the pressures of the world and have embraced evil, and rejected good and the plan of salvation. They have created a crisis in the minds and hearts of far too many members, especially the younger members whose minds are feeble and hearts are well intentioned. This includes the young children who are placed in situations that have been forced upon them by their unrepentant parents. A child's relationship to their parent is special and intimate, regardless of the parent's orientation. The child needs to be old enough to understand the seriousness of disavowing their parent's way of life, and disavow they must before they enter the sacred waters of baptism. This is a step to protect innocent children, who have been placed in the cross-hairs by selfish parents, but it is also a step to protect something that is bigger than us all: the purity of eternal truth as taught by the Lord's anointed.

 

Allowing those who are the most susceptible to falling prey to accepting this pernicious sin as good to enter the waters of baptism without disavowing the practice would be a curse to the child, and sure fire way to destroy the Church. Even then it wouldn't be an issue, if supporters of this sin hadn't started planting seeds of doubt and confusion, hoping to erode confidence in the Lord's anointed. Where this is clearly different is that a child of parents who are not married, but heterosexual is not likely to influence the feelings and opinions of those the child came in contact with within the Church. And even the rare cases where the child of gay parents wants to join the church and their parents are okay with it would not be likely to have much influence, were it not for the social and cultural upheaval that we are currently seeing. Moreover, even if this policy causes these gay children to grow up with bitterness and resentment in their hearts, the sin and punishment will rest on the heads of their parents for putting them in this terrible situation in the first place. Such will be given a fair chance to accept the gospel whether that's in this life, or the next.

[readstoomuch]

I think the PR of the Church is generally very good. There must be a reason that it went the way it did and every organization is damned if they do and damned if they don't recognize gay rights in the way someone perceives it should be. I think it will make sense eventually and the Church will continue to champion gay rights that they can get behind like equal rights for housing. Gay marriage is not one of them.

In my state gay marriage was rammed down the throats of the voters by court fiat. The state voted against gay marriage. The courts redefined marriage and it is tough for a number of people. It is for me. I think one of the things that I worry about is that kids will experiment or become interested in a gay lifestyle because of it being "normal" and all over the media. i understand that most people are born that way, but is that how it will work in the future?

As far as Bill, it sounds like he doesn't represent the image that they are trying to expose people to on the FairMormon site. I listened to the original panel and it is very good. Bill just doesn't know where the line is concerning what he can say any more. Even if I have thought what he says I am not out there pushing it by podcast. It seems like they are distancing themselves from Bill. I am not on the board and I am not sure I would do it the way they have or even if they are doing it the way I am describing. They seem to be good people who take a lot of crap from evangelical and secular antimormons for little or no money. Call me a FairMormon fan, even if they edited something out.