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

[Glenn101]

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.

 

Let's just leave it at the reasons stated by the Church.

And with that, let's hypothsize a SSM couple that send a child to church, or even take the child to church. Will they teach the child that SSM is a sin??? The church will. So what will happen in a baptismal interview??? Will the child be capable of responding to questions about chastity, about understanding what chastity is??? This child will have to take the missionary discussions in order to become eligible for baptism. Will this be done with the SSM parents present??? You know what the missionaries will be required to teach the child. Are you willing to put a child through this???

 

I realize that you want the entire thing to go away and for SSM and homosexual acts to be declared as okay, if I understand your point of view correctly. But that is not going to happen.

 

So we are left with the scenario I outlined. We are left with a child being taught that his or her parents are living in sin and must reject that sin, must disavow it if he/she is going to be baptized. How many children could handle that???

 

The church has laid out that policy to keep any such children being faced with such conflicts.

 

No blessings, no saving ordinances will be denied any of those children. They will only be delayed until the child is not a child any longer and is able to make a free choice. And if such a child were to die before reaching that age, they still have call upon the Atonement.

 

After reading articles by a couple of people that would have been in such a situation, I am convinced that the First Presidency made an inspired policy change, based upon real life experiences of some members.

 

Glenn

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Add to that the sin of rebellion in entering into a same-sex relationship (call it what you will) in defiance of what prophets and apostles have repeatedly taught. A quadruple sin?

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

Because, as Pres Uchtdorf pointed out, we humans are imperfect, and our attempts to communicate suffer from imperfection.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Cheap shot. Bomb throwing. Attempted thread derailment.

Open your own thread for sniping and pot shots at the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Whatever the relative merits of this or that PR dept, we need to be clear that this is not the only case of this kind; Children of polygynous parents are likewise barred, and I can't think of any reason for the LDS Church to interfere in internal family matters.  That is, just as in the case of missionaries gaining permission from parents to baptize kids, so in this case, the effort to prevent bringing kids into a position of having to choose between their faith and their parents must be avoided.  The policy has very practical implications, quite aside from the moral imperatives.

[carbon dioxide]

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.

 

 

I think some forget that this world is not God's first world he has made.  God is the the ultimate data collector.  He has made billions upon billions of worlds.  He has seen countless civilizations rise and fall over the course of his existence. God knows what makes people happy in the end and what makes them miserable after watching this movie over and over again hundreds of billions of times with minor variation.  For us to think that our planet and civilizations will do something different than what has happened on other worlds and deserves special considerations or exemptions is pretty naive. 

Edited November 23, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Deborah made a good point, but it's not the only good one here.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

The right to SSMarriage is the law of the land, which has nothing to do with the LDS faith.  Mormons are not being required to practice or perform SSMarriages.  So we need to get over the practice of non-traditional marriage.  It is hypocritical of us not to do so, anyhow, simply based on the anti-Mormon persecution for polygyny all those many years ago.

 

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?

We need to accept the court decisions without whining about them.  Non-traditional marriage is here to stay because it is Constitutional, not because of ignorant or immoral judges.  Polygyny will soon be legal as well.  We need to get over it already.

 

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.

It was just plain dumb for FairMormon to have edited Bill Reel out of that panel discussion.  What were they thinking?

[The Nehor]

The right to SSMarriage is the law of the land, which has nothing to do with the LDS faith.  Mormons are not being required to practice or perform SSMarriages.  So we need to get over the practice of non-traditional marriage.  It is hypocritical of us not to do so, anyhow, simply based on the anti-Mormon persecution for polygyny all those many years ago.

 

When we start persecuting same sex marriage couples I will buy the comparison. Comparing the Nauvoo exodus and the Utah War and other physical threats to LDS lives due to plural marriage to not letting the children of same sex couples be baptized until they come of age is idiotic.

 

 

We need to accept the court decisions without whining about them.  Non-traditional marriage is here to stay because it is Constitutional, not because of ignorant or immoral judges.  Polygyny will soon be legal as well.  We need to get over it already.

 

Who is whining? I am just saying that it is an abominable sin which is exactly what I said before the Supreme Court ruling.

 

It was just plain dumb for FairMormon to have edited Bill Reel out of that panel discussion.  What were they thinking?

 

[rockpond]

Let's just leave it at the reasons stated by the Church.

And with that, let's hypothsize a SSM couple that send a child to church, or even take the child to church. Will they teach the child that SSM is a sin??? The church will. So what will happen in a baptismal interview??? Will the child be capable of responding to questions about chastity, about understanding what chastity is??? This child will have to take the missionary discussions in order to become eligible for baptism. Will this be done with the SSM parents present??? You know what the missionaries will be required to teach the child. Are you willing to put a child through this???

 

I realize that you want the entire thing to go away and for SSM and homosexual acts to be declared as okay, if I understand your point of view correctly. But that is not going to happen.

 

So we are left with the scenario I outlined. We are left with a child being taught that his or her parents are living in sin and must reject that sin, must disavow it if he/she is going to be baptized. How many children could handle that???

 

The church has laid out that policy to keep any such children being faced with such conflicts.

 

No blessings, no saving ordinances will be denied any of those children. They will only be delayed until the child is not a child any longer and is able to make a free choice. And if such a child were to die before reaching that age, they still have call upon the Atonement.

 

After reading articles by a couple of people that would have been in such a situation, I am convinced that the First Presidency made an inspired policy change, based upon real life experiences of some members.

 

Glenn

 

Okay.  But you haven't actually responded to any of the doctrinal points Bill raised.

[rockpond]

Because, as Pres Uchtdorf pointed out, we humans are imperfect, and our attempts to communicate suffer from imperfection.

 

Agreed.  But JWhitlock's point (seemingly) was that maybe this policy doesn't actually apply to any real people and that the Lord was just trying to make something clear.  Why would the Lord or even (imperfect though loving) Brethren try to make something clear through a handbook that isn't published to the church?  They have plenty of other means at their disposal.

[Robert F. Smith]

Agreed.  But JWhitlock's point (seemingly) was that maybe this policy doesn't actually apply to any real people and that the Lord was just trying to make something clear.  Why would the Lord or even (imperfect though loving) Brethren try to make something clear through a handbook that isn't published to the church?  They have plenty of other means at their disposal.

JWhitlock is certainly entitled to his opinion, but the main point is that there are many internal directives put out by the Brethren in order to run the vast LDS Church -- to bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, temple presidents, etc. -- and those communications always have the potential for being inexact or unclear, as well as for leaking to outside elements.  Popes, prime ministers, and secular presidents have the same problem.  So what else is new?

[rockpond]

JWhitlock is certainly entitled to his opinion, but the main point is that there are many internal directives put out by the Brethren in order to run the vast LDS Church -- to bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, temple presidents, etc. -- and those communications always have the potential for being inexact or unclear, as well as for leaking to outside elements.  Popes, prime ministers, and secular presidents have the same problem.  So what else is new?

 

Agreed.

[Gray]

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

 

Imping ain't easy

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I think "angry" is an appropriate descriptor for what I see going on, and I use it advisedly.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

If the clarifications, prompt and explicit as they are, came from the same source (the prophets and apostles) that the "original policy" came from, does it not stand to reason that the clarifications carry all the weight of the original policy?

 

This whole uproar is as I've characterized it: attempted legalism as an attack on the Church of Jesus Christ out of anger over the clear identification of entering into same-sex marriage as an act of apostasy on the part of Church members who do it.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

Almost all comments of a critical nature focus on the feelings in some degree and how terrible the Church leaders are because they harm both gay couples and their children.

 

This past week I read about a Ottawa University canceling a yoga class because it may not be sufficiently sensitive to yoga's cultural roots.  We have several universities that are concerned that some students do not have enough safe spaces from the cruel world of opinions and from those who think differently than they do.  It seems like western society is running amok with the abused feelings caused by dangerous "others" who think differently, act differently, and speak differently.  Our college age boys and girls need spaces of special protection outside of their own dorm rooms, apartments, and homes.  

 

We as a Church are cognizant and appreciative of feelings, but we tend to focus on feelings inspired by the Holy Ghost that elevate our thinking and humble us before the God of the universe.  This new breed of society's pastoral care for feelings is to protect feelings at all costs.  Never should a child - you know the children that are actually going to college, those rather large adult looking children - be confronted with opposing views, opinions, thoughts, and certainly not books and the ideas they contain.  Those things need to be stamped out and the individuals sponsoring those dangerous hurtful ideas must be disallowed from.  It is just too painful for these special, tenderhearted children.

 

Christianity has a long history of preaching, teaching, and leading people to confront difficult concepts such as self-denial and self-discipline.  These dangerous, hurtful ideas are just too much for our children to endure.  They must be coddled and protected from the Church of Jesus Christ because it is just too hurtful to this new breed of adult children.

 

Gads, do you ever just want to shake people until they wake up to what they are really saying?  It is the gluttony of the individual; what I want, I demand, I need. 

[Scott Lloyd]

What "innocent" is protected by denying ordinances?

One whose domestic circumstances are so overwhelming as to render him/her incapable of living up to the covenants associated with said ordinances.

 

And let's not be misleading; the ordinances are not denied, only delayed.

[ERayR]

If the clarifications, prompt and explicit as they are, came from the same source (the prophets and apostles) that the "original policy" came from, does it not stand to reason that the clarifications carry all the weight of the original policy?

 

This whole uproar is as I've characterized it: attempted legalism as an attack on the Church of Jesus Christ out of anger over the clear identification of entering into same-sex marriage as an act of apostasy on the part of Church members who do it.

 

Some have a tendency to jump on and parse every word, sentence or punctuation mark to find fault. 

[hagoth7]

Mormon.org says that Bill is a bishop. Does anyone know if this is still the case?

 

Also, does anyone have input as to why his commentary in the panel was deleted?

[ERayR]

One whose domestic circumstances are so overwhelming as to render him/her incapable of living up to the covenants associated with said ordinances.

 

And let's not be misleading; the ordinances are not denied, only delayed.

 

Ah but it so much more melodramatic to visualize the blessings of heaven being denied to a child.

[Buckeye]

Mormon.org says that Bill is a bishop. Does anyone know if this is still the case?

 

Also, does anyone have input as to why his commentary in the panel was deleted?

 

Bill's a friend of mine. What I say here he's already made public. Bill was honorably released as a bishop several years ago after serving for over five years. He's recently moved with his family to the St. George area. 

 

I've got nothing on the deletion. If you look through the thread you'll see that some board members may have information, but have declined to offer anything. So the speculation continues.

[Maestrophil]

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,

 

If "acceptance" means membership in full standing and a temple recommend, then I agree with you 100%, Only gay people who endeavor with all their souls to abstain from homosexual sex and repent if they fail to do so are "accepted" as members in full standing.  No argument from me.

 

If acceptance means still inviting gay people to my home to be social, to church meetings and activities, helping them with burdens, being their friend, serving them, loving them... then I feel my church commands me to do such.

[Deborah]

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

 

He didn't say they left because they couldn't see the big picture, but when people react to quickly they will miss the big picture because they won't see the long term consequences or the additional information that might be shown. I find this true in many people who leave over history. We are often finding new evidence which supports the church (ie the Joseph Smith Papers project) or church leaders but those who react to quickly and leave will never know or even be open to the new information. In other words its a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

[HappyJackWagon]

God is quite the idiot for falling into that trap.

This policy fiasco is not of God's making.