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

[Bobbieaware]

I am not surprised.  Did you think I was?

I'm disappointed. I wanted so much for you to be surprised...

[gopher]

Here are some helpful suggestions for members wanting to protest the changes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mette-ivie-harrison/13-ways-to-protest-the-ne_b_8629388.html

I'm going to pick up some rainbow socks tomorrow.

[Storm Rider]

Socks may work; tie-dying temple garments is another.  Throwing yourself on the floor just at the start of Sacrament meeting and screaming about not getting your way would be a worthy goal for a protester.  Hmmm, what other rational, effective tool could be used?  Beginning every sentence with "All Hail to the Sacred Class of Gay People" would be a sure fire way to start conversations.  Another may be to never begin a meal with first doing a few hip thrusts toward each cardinal direction and then vogue for five minutes, then politely wave a rainbow flag in honor of the Sacred Class.

 

There must be others - you could always pass out condoms to everyone you see and remind them that 90% of syphilis cases are among gay men as reported by the CDC.  Of course, you could just stand on the corner with a grand smile on your face and repeat the words to "Relax" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood.  

 

There are just so many supportive, support-building actions you can do.  Just take your pick and ignore the world. 

[rockpond]

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.

Now we're back to where we were before. So I'll ask the same question: If the people impacted by this policy are merely mythical, why did the Brethren to go the trouble of writing the policy? Doesn't that seem rather odd?

[Maedros]

I think we might need to take into consideration that SSM probably wouldn't cause people to remove their names from the church at the same rate outside of the US as inside.  I think it many countries where the church has wards, this isn't much of an issue.

True that, leaving the Church over such a necessary change in policy is not happening in Africa; its seems to only be a first world issue. 

[Tacenda]

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.

Maybe it would be nice to even have the option of having your child baptized, say if they live in a highly concentrated Mormon community. I'm sure the child understands that her his parents aren't acting accordingly in the LDS gospel. Why not let them benefit from the religion of their choice. But instead the child/youth is basically punished right along with the parents. It's probably not the case but it's as if the church wants to show them who's boss, and treat it as a consequence of their terrible actions. Like, why let them be parents of a baptised child, they don't deserve it, only the heterosexual married couple does. Cut them completely out of the system. How dare a SSM couple get even a chunk of any part of the church, through that child's privileges in the church. The child must not have it and must feel an outsider just as the parents do.

[busybee]

. The child must not have it and must feel an outsider just as the parents do.

You seem to misunderstand. The Church isn't a club we have our children join so they can feel like part of the 'in-crowd'!!!

 

When our children are baptised it is with the understanding that they have the beginnings of what will ,hopefully, become a strong testimony of the truths we teach them. If children don't have the teachings of the gospel primarily taught in their homes, their chances of remaining active in the church are minimal. Teaching the gospel is primarily the duty of the parents, not the Church. You seem to think it is the other way around, that they'll get all the spiritual education they need while at church and what happens at home isn't important.

 

Baptism of children aged 8 is usually the result of that child coming from a home where they have been taught the gospel from birth. Their spiritual learning doesn't start at baptism. 

Edited November 24, 2015 by busybee

[gopher]

Now we're back to where we were before. So I'll ask the same question: If the people impacted by this policy are merely mythical, why did the Brethren to go the trouble of writing the policy? Doesn't that seem rather odd?

 

Do you believe the new policy may discourage a gay, faithful member from entering into a SSM or SS relationship, which could have eternal consequences?  That seems to be the largest group of people who may be affected by the policy.

[Tacenda]

You seem to misunderstand. The Church isn't a club we have our children join so they can feel like part of the 'in-crowd'!!!

 

When our children are baptised it is with the understanding that they have the beginnings of what will ,hopefully, become a strong testimony of the truths we teach them. If children don't have the teachings of the gospel primarily taught in their homes, their chances of remaining active in the church are minimal. Teaching the gospel is the primarily duty of the parents, not the Church. You seem to think it is the other way around, that they'll get all the spiritual education they need while at church and what happens at home isn't important.

 

Baptism of children aged 8 is usually the result of that child coming from a home where they have taught the gospel from birth. Their spiritual learning doesn't start at baptism.

You don't think some of these SSM folks still have a testimony? There are many that do. The church kicked them out, they didn't leave willingly. Why couldn't they teach their children the gospel?

[rockpond]

Do you believe the new policy may discourage a gay, faithful member from entering into a SSM or SS relationship, which could have eternal consequences?  That seems to be the largest group of people who may be affected by the policy.

 

Interesting question.  Simple answer:  No.  But here are a few points to consider:

 

1.  Discouraging gay, faithful members from entering same sex relationships has not, to my knowledge, ever been given as a reason for the policy.

 

2.  It is interesting to note that entering a gay marriage makes one an apostate and is cause for mandatory church discipline.  Whereas just cohabiting with someone of the same sex or having sexual relations with multiple people does not require church discipline.  So, this policy actually discourages the making of a commitment to a monogamous married lifestyle.

 

3.  These two new policies further reinforce the requirement of lifetime celibacy for gay, faithful members.  I have yet to meet a gay church member who felt that a life of celibacy was a viable option for them.  So I tend to think that the policies further discourage gay, faithful members from staying.

[KevinG]

1. The threat of apostasy sends a clear message and will discourage people from thinking same sex marriage is in any way acceptable.

2. Members who cohabitate cannot be in good standing, be baptised or enjoy the other blessings of activity. If they continue to do so as members they can face excommunication.

3. I know several gay church members who live a celebrate life, and others who have made marriage work for them. I also know two that failed at marriage with someone ofntje opposite sex. It is an option.

[busybee]

You don't think some of these SSM folks still have a testimony? There are many that do. The church kicked them out, they didn't leave willingly. Why couldn't they teach their children the gospel?

I guess they could They just must not forget to add the caveat 'Do what I say, don't go what I do'!! That ought to cover it 

Edited November 24, 2015 by busybee

[The Nehor]

I guess they could They just must not forget to add the caveat 'Do what I say, don't go what I do'!! That ought to cover it 

 

Yeah, I hate that. A few years back I was a ward missionary and was asked to help the Elders teach an 11 year old boy whose mother thought it important he be baptized. She was inactive and was not living the gospel.

 

We visited and the kid was very bright, I liked him. When we taught the principles of the gospel he would often turn to ask him mom why she was not living these principles. The responses ran like:

 

"I like my coffee and it is not bad that I drink it because I need it." (repeat for discussion of alcohol)

"I don't have enough money to pay tithing so I shouldn't have to. God understands."

"I don't like going to church. It is good for some people but I don't like going so I don't. You should though."

 

I won't repeat how she justified the violations of the law of chastity her son was well aware of and asked her about. We felt like banging our heads against the wall throughout the discussions and at one point even considered asking her not to be present at the lessons because she did nothing but undermine us.

 

We spoke with the Bishop and the Ward Mission Leader and decided to stop preparing the boy for baptism for the very reason this policy was enacted. It was pitting the boy against his inconsistent (and frankly in this case idiotic) mother. She got annoyed but got over it (or more likely forgot about it).

[Tacenda]

Stone, I still think it is just policy. Sometimes policy has little leeway and at other times there is a lot of leeway. If a Bishop feels impressed by the Spirit to handle a situation one way then I would expect him to follow the Spirit. He may have an exact opposite response, as led by the Spirit, for another situation that may appear to be similar.

The degree of knee-jerk reaction is what disgusts me....about almost all things. Obviously, my nerves are just a bit frayed when it comes to the actions of those that follow after the gay agenda. The gay activists have become society's boy that cries wolf. At some point society will turn against them for the sole reason that they will have cried wolf far too often for far too long.

This is their 15 minutes of fame, but I expect society's pendulum to swing the other way.

In my dotage I have become overly sensitive to shrill cries of abuse regardless of what corner it comes. Too many have learned the art of protest and "protests" are hardly true, grass roots protests anymore. They are all contrived propaganda actions. There is always a reactionary response; this activist agenda will be met by a social rebound.

I like peace and quiet. I hope that I can ignore the all those that are screaming the sky is falling.

I think you're wrong Stormrider. I have a gay nephew who's LDS, he's never been one to do as you say here. But for as long as he's had to suffer with feeling something's wrong with him or society tells him that, he's got every right to cry wolf or not cry wolf but cry out, I should say. As long as these people have been told they're sinners for just having feelings like the rest of the world, they have so much pent up, they need to express themselves...finally.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Tacenda

[Steve-o]

Interesting question.  Simple answer:  No.  But here are a few points to consider:

 

 

2.  It is interesting to note that entering a gay marriage makes one an apostate and is cause for mandatory church discipline.  Whereas just cohabiting with someone of the same sex or having sexual relations with multiple people does not require church discipline.  So, this policy actually discourages the making of a commitment to a monogamous married lifestyle.

 

 

This part really confuses me. Why would the church discourage a committed relationship by punishing it more harshly than a promiscuous lifestyle? Is it because they are afraid of normalizing SSM even at the risk of encouraging non-committed relationships? It's very strange.

[rockpond]

Yeah, I hate that. A few years back I was a ward missionary and was asked to help the Elders teach an 11 year old boy whose mother thought it important he be baptized. She was inactive and was not living the gospel.

 

We visited and the kid was very bright, I liked him. When we taught the principles of the gospel he would often turn to ask him mom why she was not living these principles. The responses ran like:

 

"I like my coffee and it is not bad that I drink it because I need it." (repeat for discussion of alcohol)

"I don't have enough money to pay tithing so I shouldn't have to. God understands."

"I don't like going to church. It is good for some people but I don't like going so I don't. You should though."

 

I won't repeat how she justified the violations of the law of chastity her son was well aware of and asked her about. We felt like banging our heads against the wall throughout the discussions and at one point even considered asking her not to be present at the lessons because she did nothing but undermine us.

 

We spoke with the Bishop and the Ward Mission Leader and decided to stop preparing the boy for baptism for the very reason this policy was enacted. It was pitting the boy against his inconsistent (and frankly in this case idiotic) mother. She got annoyed but got over it (or more likely forgot about it).

 

Sounds like the protections were already in place for not baptizing someone when leaders agreed it was unwise.

 

I wonder why we needed a special policy for gay couples?

[KevinG]

Sounds like the protections were already in place for not baptizing someone when leaders agreed it was unwise.

 

I wonder why we needed a special policy for gay couples?

 

I suspect it was because those inside and outside the church were starting to believe it might be an acceptable alternative lifestyle, even within the church. 

[rockpond]

I suspect it was because those inside and outside the church were starting to believe it might be an acceptable alternative lifestyle, even within the church.

Why do you think that was happening inside the church? Haven't church teachings been completely consistent regarding homosexuality?

[KevinG]

Why do you think that was happening inside the church? Haven't church teachings been completely consistent regarding homosexuality?

 

The many predictions that homosexuality would someday be treated like blacks and the priesthood.  In some cases widely publicized (Dehlin, et al.).

[Deborah]

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.

 

I liked your post because I think you make some reasonable statements. I would take a different perspective on this last statement and that has to do with "If it was important." It's not that it's not important but I think God has such a different perspective than we do. He can see the end game and we are limited by our very narrow vision and biases. I think those who are ready for the gospel will find it. For some it will not be in this life which is why we do work for the dead. I think that is the very long view and shows how important it is.

[Deborah]

Questions with questions are not fair and a dodge.

 

The question wasn't a dodge but about a very specific statement made.

[Deborah]

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?

 

 

Not necessarily unless someone happens to bring it up. Plus with all the negativity on this forum it's not the best place to strengthen a testimony. I suggest searching out the Church History sites and programs on BYU tv as well as The Joseph Smith Papers. It's always more effective when one is searching and finds it on his own.

[The Nehor]

Sounds like the protections were already in place for not baptizing someone when leaders agreed it was unwise.

 

I wonder why we needed a special policy for gay couples?

 

To give people like you something to be outraged about so we can sneak the stuff you would really hate by unnoticed. It's working perfectly.

[The Nehor]

Why do you think that was happening inside the church? Haven't church teachings been completely consistent regarding homosexuality?

 

Yes, but people are stupid. You leave something alone long enough or are not explicit enough and people start to wonder if the teaching is passe. The same thing happened with gambling. The church has historically been unambiguously opposed to gambling but when online poker sites and poker tournaments showed up on TV President Hinckley had to take part of a General Conference address to address the situation and reaffirm it again. The people who are convinced same sex marriage acceptance in the Church is inevitable have even thicker skulls.

[rockpond]

The many predictions that homosexuality would someday be treated like blacks and the priesthood.  In some cases widely publicized (Dehlin, et al.).

 

So members are making a comparison between homosexuals and blacks?  Have church leaders said that it is an inappropriate comparison and that policies/doctrines would never change regarding homosexuality?