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

[Daniel2]

Didn't say it was wrong. Just don't whine when some one in the LGBT and ACLU to try to get the government to force the issue again.

History tends to repeat itself.

 

Can you provide any evidence that the ACLU has attempted to sue a religion to change it's membership requirements?  I don't believe that's their goal, and would be beyond the scope of their organization.

 

The ACLU may draw the ire of many conservatives, but even the most strident conservatives acknowledges that the ACLU even defends individuals with whom most of their membership philosophically or religiously disagree:

 

 

ACLU Boasts Surprising Allies

 

The power and pervasiveness of the American Civil Liberties Union has been on display this week. The national civil rights advocacy group was involved in the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the death penalty for juveniles, the battle over Ten Commandments displays in public buildings and a lawsuit blaming Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for the alleged torture of foreign fighters.

 

The network of more than 1,000 civil rights attorneys -- most of them volunteers -- has become one of the most controversial and least understood groups in the country. It gets criticism from many quarters, but also support from places that might be surprising.

 

Many evangelical Christians, for instance, consider the ACLU an enemy of religion because of the organization's staunch support of the division of church and state.

 

But Jim Webber, a retired real estate agent turned street preacher, is an ACLU supporter. When Las Vegas casinos tried to stop him from preaching outside their doors, the group launched a successful campaign that allowed Webber and other preachers to stay.

 

"The ACLU has been my guardian angel," he said. "They have been the ones that have provided the ability for me to stand on the street and talk with people about Jesus Christ."

 

'Liberty's Law Firm'

 

"I love the description that the ACLU is 'liberty's law firm,' " said ACLU President Nadine Strossen, "and, in fact, our client is always freedom for everybody -- equal rights for everybody."

 

Strossen says the group will defend anyone whose rights are violated -- even people who disagree with the ACLU, such as conservative minister Jerry Falwell and Christians in Virginia who wanted to perform baptisms in a public park.

 

"Every now and again, they get it right," said Tony Perkins, a Christian conservative lobbyist for the Family Research Council.

 

Perkins says these are exceptions to the rule.

 

"I think historically they've played a very subtle -- gradual but steady -- influence in eroding away the rich soil of America's spiritual heritage," he said.

 

In 85 years of battling for its version of the fundamental rights of every American -- the right to teach evolution in schools, to burn flags, to personal privacy in the post-9/11 era -- the ACLU has created both enemies and strange bedfellows.

 

Since many of the causes it champions are traditionally liberal -- such as abortion rights and same-sex marriage -- the group is often ridiculed by conservatives and glorified by liberals.

 

But the ACLU is supported by such firm conservatives as former White House independent investigator Kenneth Starr, former U.S. counterterrorism coordinator Oliver North, and National Rifle Association chief executive officer Wayne LaPierre.

 

"I'll stand with any organization that stands up for the First Amendment," said LaPierre.

 

The ACLU's relentless focus on individual freedoms, however, has led it to take stands that make even some backers wince.

 

It opposes metal detectors at airports, supports legalizing drugs and prostitution, and once supported the free-speech rights of the KKK.

 

"The point is: we will neutrally defend what we consider to be all civil liberties for all people -- no matter whose ox is gored," said Strossen.

 

The ACLU says its loyalty is to the Constitution, and it welcomes both its adversaries and unusual allies.

 

In short, I believe the ACLU would side with the LDS Church if anyone were to attempt to force the church to change it's own membership requirements, even if the ACLU disagrees with the church's beliefs.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Daniel2

[Bob Crockett]

It would be outrageous for the ACLU to get involved with litigation over LDS membership issues, particularly after years of litigation in the 1930s to 1940s filing briefs in support of the Witnesses.   I work routinely with the ACLU and don't see it.

[Storm Rider]

This policy fiasco is not of God's making.

 

Boy, I heard that.  It is as if Satan has a whole group of people that he is able to lead about by the nose.  They gnash their teeth, wail, whine, and complain on command.  Never was there a group more well trained.

 

One would feel better about it if there was any quantifiable harm that has or will ever happen from this big, bad policy.  Impatience and knee-jerk reactions are seldom the stuff upon which to build a foundation for significant decisions, but that bit of wisdom has completely evaded the grasp of aforementioned group of well-trained performers and activists. 

[hagoth7]

Simply demonstrating for a handful of people that this thread actually isn't locked....

 

For everyone else, move on and ignore this post.

[KevinG]

Something many of us suspected...

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/melissa-mullins/2015/11/23/new-york-times-overplays-mass-resignations-harmful-mormon-church

 

 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

One would feel better about it if there was any quantifiable harm that has or will ever happen from this big, bad policy.  Impatience and knee-jerk reactions are seldom the stuff upon which to build a foundation for significant decisions, but that bit of wisdom has completely evaded the grasp of aforementioned group of well-trained performers and activists. 

Are you taking the position that this policy will never harm any person?

 

Will no child with SSM parents will ever be denied baptism and the gift of the holy ghost during their childhood and adolescence or it simply doesn't matter that they are denied?

 

Will no child be treated differently by peers who can be baptized? Or does it simply not matter if they are?

 

I won't go through the list of possible harm this will cause because I think the real argument made by proponents of the policy is that even IF this harm occurs, the greater good will be accomplished. As long as we're willing to sacrifice children for the greater good of the institution or simply claim that the harm they feel isn't really harm, then there's no much use discussing it. The divide is too wide.

[HappyJackWagon]

Entering SSM is no more apostasy (what a filthy word) than heterosexuals living together outside of wedlock.

Both couples are consciously making a long term decision to discard the church's teaching when it comes to their living and family relationships.

 

The difference is that a SSM couple is labeled apostate and their children are unable to be baptized or enjoy any benefits of church membership and ordinances during their childhood, while a hetero couple living together are NOT apostate and are even called to serve callings within the church.

 

This happened yesterday. A woman who has been living with her boyfriend for years was sustained in a primary calling. If she were living in SSM sin instead of hetero sin she would not only be denied a calling but she would be disciplined as an apostate and likely excommunicated.

 

Frankly, I think it was very nice to include this woman and give her a calling and let her serve in the primary. It's just too bad that the double standard exists and is celebrated within the church.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

No honestly I do not think the Church wants gay couples in the pews nor do they want anyone associated with them (their children) in the pews eithers. The church leadership does not want gay marriage to be acceptable to its membership.  Just like they don't want polygamy, well for this life anyway, to be accepted. Thus the label as apostates,

 

As for the LDS Church commanding you to do what you say.... well talk is cheap. The new policy sends a message that gays and those connected closely to them are not wanted.

[Scott Lloyd]

Both couples are consciously making a long term decision to discard the church's teaching when it comes to their living and family relationships.

 

The difference is that a SSM couple is labeled apostate and their children are unable to be baptized or enjoy any benefits of church membership and ordinances during their childhood, while a hetero couple living together are NOT apostate and are even called to serve callings within the church.

 

This happened yesterday. A woman who has been living with her boyfriend for years was sustained in a primary calling. If she were living in SSM sin instead of hetero sin she would not only be denied a calling but she would be disciplined as an apostate and likely excommunicated.

 

Frankly, I think it was very nice to include this woman and give her a calling and let her serve in the primary. It's just too bad that the double standard exists and is celebrated within the church.

Anecdotes such as this are impossible to falsify, but unless things have changed drastically without my knowledge, someone who is involved in a continuing state of fornication and is unrepentant is not worthy to serve in a Church calling.

 

I strongly suspect there is more here than meets the eye, and you are not as acquainted with the circumstances as you think you are.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ares]

Comments about each other rather than the subject will be deleted.

 

Stop bickering - the next one that does will be thread banned.

[Teancum]

Comments about each other rather than the subject will be deleted.

 

Stop bickering - the next one that does will be thread banned.

 

 

Thank you and agreed.

[Deborah]

Are you taking the position that this policy will never harm any person?

 

 

Since you are taking the position that it will cause harm, what harm do you foresee?

[The Nehor]

This policy fiasco is not of God's making.

 

You will forgive me if I doubt your credentials to speak for God and believe that in this case you are creating God in your own image as a projection of your own values as opposed to actual communion with the divine.

 

Oh, and in case this qualifies under the thread-ban rule above (doubt it but possible) if I am banned imagine me defiantly and dramatically yelling out:

 

"DEATH TO THE MODS!!!!!"

 

as I am physically hauled out of the thread.

Edited November 23, 2015 by The Nehor

[Five Solas]

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.

It sure seemed to read that way, but no matter. 

 

Question for you, Deborah--Do you think an online board/forum such as this one can serve to mitigate such concern (e.g., missing out on "new evidence")?  Certainly if material new information were discovered that validated Joseph Smith's work--I'd read about it here, would I not?  Maybe one answer is promotion of this very forum.  What do you think of that?

 

--Erik

[JAHS]

Both couples are consciously making a long term decision to discard the church's teaching when it comes to their living and family relationships.

 

The difference is that a SSM couple is labeled apostate and their children are unable to be baptized or enjoy any benefits of church membership and ordinances during their childhood, while a hetero couple living together are NOT apostate and are even called to serve callings within the church.

 

This happened yesterday. A woman who has been living with her boyfriend for years was sustained in a primary calling. If she were living in SSM sin instead of hetero sin she would not only be denied a calling but she would be disciplined as an apostate and likely excommunicated.

 

Frankly, I think it was very nice to include this woman and give her a calling and let her serve in the primary. It's just too bad that the double standard exists and is celebrated within the church.

 

I don't understand why people can't see the difference. The hetero couple living together at least have the potential to repent and get married. They have the right idea of man and woman becoming one flesh as God meant it; they just need to get the marriage license. There is hope for this couple to be saved in God's kingdom.

Married gay people have chosen to make a mockery of God's institution of marriage by living a lifestyle that can never end in a condition where they could be saved in the kingdom of God. And on top of that they will bring children into the "marriage" who will never have a father and a mother as God intended it and they will be taught to accept the gay marriage as something that right. 

[Garden Girl]

Both couples are consciously making a long term decision to discard the church's teaching when it comes to their living and family relationships.

 

The difference is that a SSM couple is labeled apostate and their children are unable to be baptized or enjoy any benefits of church membership and ordinances during their childhood, while a hetero couple living together are NOT apostate and are even called to serve callings within the church.

 

This happened yesterday. A woman who has been living with her boyfriend for years was sustained in a primary calling. If she were living in SSM sin instead of hetero sin she would not only be denied a calling but she would be disciplined as an apostate and likely excommunicated.

 

Frankly, I think it was very nice to include this woman and give her a calling and let her serve in the primary. It's just too bad that the double standard exists and is celebrated within the church.

 

Hello HJW...

Something is not correct here... or missing... I know of no one who would be called if it were known that they were "living with" a boy/girl friend in a sexual relationship...

 

GG

[Teancum]

Since you are taking the position that it will cause harm, what harm do you foresee?

Questions with questions are not fair and a dodge.

[california boy]

I haven't said a lot about this topic because there is not a lot to say.  I am kinda surprised that this thread is still going after 54 pages.  Here are my thoughts on this issue.

 

1.  There are 15 men that make all of the doctrinal and policies of the church.  Faithful members believe they speak for God himself.  Members don't get to be involved in the process.  So complaining about what these 15 men do is pointless.  Both members and non-members should accept what they say as being official church policy.  If you don't like it, move on.  

 

2. Most gays could care less what baptismal policy the church has for gays.  It is not like the church is viewed as a "gay friendly" church.  If a gay couple wants to attend church, the LDS church is not likely to be their first choice.  So this policy affects hardly anyone.  If gay couples don't like this policy, they should move on.  

 

3.  If you are a member of the church and you are hoping for the church leaders to be more inclusive of gays, you are probably going to be consistently disappointed.  Those 15 men have set the church parameters for gay membership in the church.  It is probably not going to change.  No acceptance of gay couples, no gay temple marriage, no eternal plan for gays.  Everyone has to become straight or the plan of salvation doesn't work.

 

4.  What difference does it really make if a child or anyone else for that matter is baptized at age 8.  Church membership is so incredibly small among the general population that virtually 99% of God's children will be waiting longer than 18 years to be baptized.  This is how the plan of salvation is structured.  God doesn't expect many people to be members of the church in this life anyway.  It can't be all that important to anyone's salvation anyway.  If it was important, God would have an easier way for people to find the gospel.

[Ares]

Oh, and in case this qualifies under the thread-ban rule above (doubt it but possible) if I am banned imagine me defiantly and dramatically yelling out:

"DEATH TO THE MODS!!!!!"

as I am physically hauled out of the thread.

Oh do please carry on.

[Scott Lloyd]

Questions with questions are not fair and a dodge.

What's unfair and dodgy about it? This not a courtroom, and you are not a prosecutor or a judge.

The Savior, on at least one occasion I can think of, responded to a question with a question. Was he being unfair and dodgy?

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't said a lot about this topic because there is not a lot to say.  I am kinda surprised that this thread is still going after 54 pages.  Here are my thoughts on this issue.

 

1.  There are 15 men that make all of the doctrinal and policies of the church.  Faithful members believe they speak for God himself.  Members don't get to be involved in the process.  So complaining about what these 15 men do is pointless.  Both members and non-members should accept what they say as being official church policy.  If you don't like it, move on.  

 

2. Most gays could care less what baptismal policy the church has for gays.  It is not like the church is viewed as a "gay friendly" church.  If a gay couple wants to attend church, the LDS church is not likely to be their first choice.  So this policy affects hardly anyone.  If gay couples don't like this policy, they should move on.  

 

3.  If you are a member of the church and you are hoping for the church leaders to be more inclusive of gays, you are probably going to be consistently disappointed.  Those 15 men have set the church parameters for gay membership in the church.  It is probably not going to change.  No acceptance of gay couples, no gay temple marriage, no eternal plan for gays.  Everyone has to become straight or the plan of salvation doesn't work.

 

4.  What difference does it really make if a child or anyone else for that matter is baptized at age 8.  Church membership is so incredibly small among the general population that virtually 99% of God's children will be waiting longer than 18 years to be baptized.  This is how the plan of salvation is structured.  God doesn't expect many people to be members of the church in this life anyway.  It can't be all that important to anyone's salvation anyway.  If it was important, God would have an easier way for people to find the gospel.

Some conspiracy theorists insinuate that it's the Kirton and McConkie star chamber that sets the doctrine and policies for the Church.

[Bobbieaware]

I haven't said a lot about this topic because there is not a lot to say.  I am kinda surprised that this thread is still going after 54 pages.  Here are my thoughts on this issue.

 

1.  There are 15 men that make all of the doctrinal and policies of the church.  Faithful members believe they speak for God himself.  Members don't get to be involved in the process.  So complaining about what these 15 men do is pointless.  Both members and non-members should accept what they say as being official church policy.  If you don't like it, move on.  

 

2. Most gays could care less what baptismal policy the church has for gays.  It is not like the church is viewed as a "gay friendly" church.  If a gay couple wants to attend church, the LDS church is not likely to be their first choice.  So this policy affects hardly anyone.  If gay couples don't like this policy, they should move on.  

 

3.  If you are a member of the church and you are hoping for the church leaders to be more inclusive of gays, you are probably going to be consistently disappointed.  Those 15 men have set the church parameters for gay membership in the church.  It is probably not going to change.  No acceptance of gay couples, no gay temple marriage, no eternal plan for gays.  Everyone has to become straight or the plan of salvation doesn't work.

 

4.  What difference does it really make if a child or anyone else for that matter is baptized at age 8.  Church membership is so incredibly small among the general population that virtually 99% of God's children will be waiting longer than 18 years to be baptized.  This is how the plan of salvation is structured.  God doesn't expect many people to be members of the church in this life anyway.  It can't be all that important to anyone's salvation anyway.  If it was important, God would have an easier way for people to find the gospel.

The Savior said, "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it." So why should any Latter-day Saint be surprised that our numbers are few.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Nope. You didn't get my point.

[california boy]

The Savior said, "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it." So why should any Latter-day Saint be surprised that our numbers are few.

 

I am not surprised.  Did you think I was?

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Nope, missed my point entirely.

 

People critical of the policy have made it very clear that people are going to be harmed by it.

 

Yet they seem unable to produce the mythical SS married couple that eagerly wants their child to get baptized into a church that views their relationship as a sin. And there have been "mass resignations" over that harmful, hateful policy - yet no harm or hate can be demonstrated.

 

It seems that many people, including some members of the church, need a pointed reminder of what the Lord considers sinful. Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will understand. Those who oppose the Brethren on this will not.