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

[Teancum]

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

 

 

So John Dehlin can influence LDS policy?  Amazing!! 

[Teancum]

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

Well it seemed like a dodge. You were asked specific questions that were ignored by simply asking your questions.

 

[Teancum]

Good grief. The question was asked of Storm Rider, but by implication HJ was implying there was harm. I was asking him what harm he saw.You want my answer, no I don't feel there is harm if it is handled correctly.

 

 

I was responding to Scott Lloyd's comments on this not yours.

[Teancum]

So the Savior was being discourteous here, then?

 

 

 

When Jesus comes here to a discussion board we can consider your ridiculous comparison.  

[The Nehor]

When Jesus comes here to a discussion board we can consider your ridiculous comparison.  

 

I took upon myself his name so will be glad to represent him here.

[KevinG]

I thought I met Jesus on a discussion board.  Then he explained it was pronounced Hay-Zeus.

[Kenngo1969]

I thought I met Jesus on a discussion board.  Then he explained it was pronounced Hay-Zeus.

Hay-SOOS, mi hermano; Hay-SOOS!  

[Scott Lloyd]

When Jesus comes here to a discussion board we can consider your ridiculous comparison.  

So you're  refusing to answer the question, then?

 

Here it is again: Consistent with your assertion, was Jesus being unfair and dodgy -- or discourteous -- in the following incident when he answered a question with a question?

 

23 ¶And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

 24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

 26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

 27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

 

Yes or no? It's a simple question. You may elaborate on your answer if you like, or give a qualified "yes" or "no". I'm not trying to entrap you.

 

Or you may simply stick with your refusal to answer the question that was put to you. I can't force you to answer it, and I wouldn't if I could. I'm just trying to be clear on your intent.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I was responding to Scott Lloyd's comments on this not yours.

But you initially told Deborah it is -- how did you put it? -- being "unfair" and "dodging the question" to respond to a question with another question. Do you stand by that?

 

I want to know whether you apply that to Jesus, who did that very thing.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

And... You're not the savior.

So I take it you don't hold with that "What would Jesus do?" stuff then.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 Nephi 27:27

 

Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.

 

Do you think that telling someone he's not the Saviour is a valid criticism when that person is following the Saviour's example?

 

We don't.

 

 

Are you channeling Scott, or Golem?

If he wants to include me in the personal plural pronoun, I'm perfectly fine with that. His statement was very well-worded and fits my sentiment precisely.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

Levirate marriage was marriage, not just sleeping with the widow of one's brother. They married the widows, but the children...at least the first born son, not sure of the rest, were considered the dead brother's.

Correct.  And in the Middle Ages, the Pope even considered it justification for polygyny -- when Jews would request permission from him.  Christians were not accorded that privilege.

[california boy]

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.

 

Well with that caveat, then I think it is safe to say that God never expected almost all of His children to be ready to accept the gospel while on earth.  

Interesting perspective.  Kinda gives a different slant on this whole plan that was instituted before the foundation of the earth.

[Teancum]

So you're  refusing to answer the question, then?

 

Here it is again: Consistent with your assertion, was Jesus being unfair and dodgy -- or discourteous -- in the following incident when he answered a question with a question?

 

Yes or no? It's a simple question. You may elaborate on your answer if you like, or give a qualified "yes" or "no". I'm not trying to entrap you.

 

Or you may simply stick with your refusal to answer the question that was put to you. I can't force you to answer it, and I wouldn't if I could. I'm just trying to be clear on your intent.

No Jesus was not being dodgy. And yes your using this as an argument on my post to Deborah is not only ridiculous, it is stupid.

[california boy]

1:  Are these 15 men fallible or not?  Can't have it both ways.

 

2:  How many gay LDS people have you discussed this with?  How about young people who come to realize they are gay and part of a church that clearly has hostile policies towards them?  And how nice of you to invite some to just move on.  But I guess classifying those who act on their homosexual tendencies are essentially being asked to move on since they are automatically apostates (What an ugly word). 

 

3:  You are right. The unique LDS plan of salvation/exaltation does not work for homosexuals.  So let's kick em all out unless they comply.

 

4:  Really?  So why bother doing missionary work then?

 

1.  Yes they are fallible.  No one disputes that.

 

2. I have actually met a LOT of gay men that used to be LDS.  A few still are.  But almost all the others have chosen to "move on".  Me being one of them.  Any gay man who wants companionship and the sweet connection that comes with a life partner, must leave the church.  There is no other option given to them.  Those that are willing to abide by church policy are not only celibate, but are willing to not have close relations with those of the same sex stay.  

 

Either choice does not change policy coming from those that set the rules.  There is no other middle ground on this subject.  The church leaders have made that perfectly clear.

 

3.  That seems to be the policy.

 

4.  Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it.  

[california boy]

Bingo!!  This policy is simply a strong message... .it is NOT acceptable to be gay or enter into gay marriage. Because acceptably of such has risen from 24% to 36% among Latter day Saints the LDS leaders decided to send a strong message.

 

Does anyone think that this policy will somehow stop this trend?  

 

Here is my prediction.  Like the heavy handed attempt to  implement Prop 8 as a way of stopping gay marriage, this policy will only push more church members towards more acceptance and understanding towards gay couples, especially the younger generation.  It is hard for a lot of people to support a policy that completely cuts off children of gay couples and calls gay relationships an abomination.  For others in the church, just like Prop 8 it will harden their stance against gay couples.  

 

But hey, what do I know.  It is just my opinion.  Time will tell how this will all play out.  What is clear is, this issue isn't going to just go away.  

[Rivers]

Does anyone think that this policy will somehow stop this trend?  

 

Here is my prediction.  Like the heavy handed attempt to  implement Prop 8 as a way of stopping gay marriage, this policy will only push more church members towards more acceptance and understanding towards gay couples, especially the younger generation.  It is hard for a lot of people to support a policy that completely cuts off children of gay couples and calls gay relationships an abomination.  For others in the church, just like Prop 8 it will harden their stance against gay couples.  

 

But hey, what do I know.  It is just my opinion.  Time will tell how this will all play out.  What is clear is, this issue isn't going to just go away.

The issue will go away when the leaders of the church receive a new revelation which disavows the Proclamation on the Family and says that gay marriages and gay sealings in the temple are ok. 

[readstoomuch]

I think it is important to try and figure out what Jesus would do. The brethren having been taking all of the heat on this (or much of it). What exactly were Jesus and the apostles trying to teach while they were here? Situational ethics? Love the sinner so much that you change the definition of the sin? What exactly are those with the SSM agenda saying that Jesus would have us do? Where do you draw the line? Adultery is okay as long as there was a good reason? It's ok to rob from your neighbor because you got laid off and needed the money? I could think of far more crass examples, but who decides where you draw the line for behavior __________that you have a problem with? If I bully the messenger that tells me I am wrong and make their life miserable, then I will eventually get my way. Heck, hard drugs probably aren't that bad and pot is becoming legal, we better get ready to throw the Word of Wisdom out. In fact all of my sins need to get redefined.

I will work on a list and we can put it before a committee that has someone for each of the social issues and the most liberal bishops we can find. We won't need apostles or prophets with the new sin committee If some one on the new sin committee doesn't agree with every one else and tries to be conservative or go back to the old days, we can have him or her so harassed on social media by noontime that they will beg to change their vote. This will definitely be a lovely church that borders on anarchy.

Sheesh. My dad never had to deal with all this stuff.

[california boy]

Not true.  There are many members (and even non-members) who have a strong effect on LDS Church policy and doctrine.  Some because of the very fertile articles and books which they publish, others due to the quiet consultation they bring to the Brethren, and others due to the yeoman work they do as Church employees (Church Historian, and his staff, for example).  Complaints and problems often influence what the Brethren do.  A prime example is the Black Priesthood question, which bedeviled so many Church leaders and members beginning in the 1950s.  There was a veritable whirlwind of controversy, which came to a head with the need to decide the issue when a new Brazilian temple was about to open.  The lesson: The ordinary member should express his views (respectfully), and revelation only comes when needed and asked for.

 

 

Interesting perspective.  Thanks.

 

Wrong.  The plan of salvation is for everyone.  No exceptions.  Homosexuals can come to LDS services unhindered, and regularly do so.  They do not have to become heterosexual in order for the plan of salvation to apply.  They can be baptized and hold offices and callings.  The are only prohibited homosexual sex.

 

 

So after this very faithful celibate homosexual who wanders his entire life alone without an eternal companion dies,then what?  Is he still gay or does he magically become heterosexual and wants to spend eternity with a woman?  Sounds like the plan of salvation is only for heterosexuals to me.  You are either born heterosexual or you become one to fit into the plan of salvation after you die.

 

 

LDS membership in the world is indeed quite small, but God has never chosen his people because they were many.  Indeed, as with the Jews, his chosen people are typically small in number.  Always have been.

 

Why would we expect it to be otherwise?  The plan of salvation applies to everyone ever born, and one does not have to be a member of the LDS Church in order to be exalted by God.  Everyone has an equal chance.  God is no respecter of persons.

 

Where did you ever come up with such a false version of the plan of salvation?

 

 

 

As I posted earlier, I never expect the church to be large either.  Why would I??

 

This is exactly what I said about the plan of salvation. 

 

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.

 

 

 

As you can see, I am not addressing what happens after we die, but rather what happens on this earth.  There is no implication that what happens on earth is is the only opportunity to participate in the plan of salvation.  How odd that you would think I implied that.  I didn't.  What you can't dispute, and what I have stated is that being a member of the church in this life is not important to the VAST MAJORITY of God's children.

[The Nehor]

The issue will go away when the leaders of the church receive a new revelation which disavows the Proclamation on the Family and says that gay marriages and gay sealings in the temple are ok. 

 

And now we see again why God has to purge the wicked in order to bring in the Millenium. We can't compromise and they won't.

[Bobbieaware]

Wrong thread.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Alan]

1.  Yes they are fallible.  No one disputes that.

 

2. I have actually met a LOT of gay men that used to be LDS.  A few still are.  But almost all the others have chosen to "move on".  Me being one of them.  Any gay man who wants companionship and the sweet connection that comes with a life partner, must leave the church.  There is no other option given to them.  Those that are willing to abide by church policy are not only celibate, but are willing to not have close relations with those of the same sex stay.  

 

Either choice does not change policy coming from those that set the rules.  There is no other middle ground on this subject.  The church leaders have made that perfectly clear.

 

3.  That seems to be the policy.

 

4.  Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it.  

 

I personally know 3 gay men who are active in the church, married to women, and who have fathered 13 children between them.

It isn't easy for them or for their wives, but they all say it is worth it.

 

Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the sake of the gospel, though I suspect when all is said and done they will find it was not much of a sacrifice when compared with the reward.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Alan

[Scott Lloyd]

Not true. There are many members (and even non-members) who have a strong effect on LDS Church policy and doctrine. Some because of the very fertile articles and books which they publish, others due to the quiet consultation they bring to the Brethren, and others due to the yeoman work they do as Church employees (Church Historian, and his staff, for example). Complaints and problems often influence what the Brethren do. A prime example is the Black Priesthood question, which bedeviled so many Church leaders and members beginning in the 1950s. There was a veritable whirlwind of controversy, which came to a head with the need to decide the issue when a new Brazilian temple was about to open. The lesson: The ordinary member should express his views (respectfully), and revelation only comes when needed and asked for.

Wrong. The plan of salvation is for everyone. No exceptions. Homosexuals can come to LDS services unhindered, and regularly do so. They do not have to become heterosexual in order for the plan of salvation to apply. They can be baptized and hold offices and callings. The are only prohibited homosexual sex.

LDS membership in the world is indeed quite small, but God has never chosen his people because they were many. Indeed, as with the Jews, his chosen people are typically small in number. Always have been.

Why would we expect it to be otherwise? The plan of salvation applies to everyone ever born, and one does not have to be a member of the LDS Church in order to be exalted by God. Everyone has an equal chance. God is no respecter of persons.

Where did you ever come up with such a false version of the plan of salvation?

It's true that revelation comes in response to inquiry, but only when God is disposed to bestow it. President McKay prayed for revelation on the priesthood policy but did not feel impressed to change it, according to the Gospel Topics essay, though it was clear to him and prophets before and after him that change would come one day. All the clamoring in the world will not change the mind of God on the matter of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it is important to try and figure out what Jesus would do. The brethren having been taking all of the heat on this (or much of it). What exactly were Jesus and the apostles trying to teach while they were here? Situational ethics? Love the sinner so much that you change the definition of the sin? What exactly are those with the SSM agenda saying that Jesus would have us do? Where do you draw the line? Adultery is okay as long as there was a good reason? It's ok to rob from your neighbor because you got laid off and needed the money? I could think of far more crass examples, but who decides where you draw the line for behavior __________that you have a problem with? If I bully the messenger that tells me I am wrong and make their life miserable, then I will eventually get my way. Heck, hard drugs probably aren't that bad and pot is becoming legal, we better get ready to throw the Word of Wisdom out. In fact all of my sins need to get redefined.

I will work on a list and we can put it before a committee that has someone for each of the social issues and the most liberal bishops we can find. We won't need apostles or prophets with the new sin committee If some one on the new sin committee doesn't agree with every one else and tries to be conservative or go back to the old days, we can have him or her so harassed on social media by noontime that they will beg to change their vote. This will definitely be a lovely church that borders on anarchy.

Sheesh. My dad never had to deal with all this stuff.

Does anyone think that this policy will somehow stop this trend?  

 

Here is my prediction.  Like the heavy handed attempt to  implement Prop 8 as a way of stopping gay marriage, this policy will only push more church members towards more acceptance and understanding towards gay couples, especially the younger generation.  It is hard for a lot of people to support a policy that completely cuts off children of gay couples and calls gay relationships an abomination.  For others in the church, just like Prop 8 it will harden their stance against gay couples.  

 

But hey, what do I know.  It is just my opinion.  Time will tell how this will all play out.  What is clear is, this issue isn't going to just go away.

In the 1960s, when the sexual revolution began, people were calling it "the new morality." Church leaders responded that the "new morality" was actually just the old immorality.

Fast forward 50 years. The sexual revolution hasn't gone away, but it is no closer to being accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ. Individual Church members who embrace it find themselves at odds with the Church, and ultimately, if the clash is to be resolved, it must be they who have a change of heart, because the Church won't change.

[rockpond]

They have repeated this in General Conference, there have been letters, and people still did not get the message. Judging by the social media furor generated the best way to get it through to people is in an obscure manual. Who but a prophet would have guessed that?

 

So your thought is that the Prophet's goal was to send a message by publishing something in a handbook that would then be leaked, misrepresented by people inside and outside of the church, and then have to be "clarified" a week later?

 

I guess we should be thanking John Dehlin and whoever leaked it originally on reddit.  Sounds like they helped out the Prophet with his plan.