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

[Scott Lloyd]

There have been some terrific comments made in this thread in the last day or so regarding eternity and exaltation.

Many years ago, before my marriage, a close friend expressed to me essentially that she was not cut out to do what it takes to be exalted in the celestial kingdom and had determined to expect to attain one of the lesser kingdoms of glory.

At the time, I was appalled -- still am to a certain extent -- that anyone having a knowledge of the plan of salvation would willingly cut himself off from and settle for less than the greatest of all the gifts of God. That's not what He sent us here to do. Any of us.

The great Christian apologist C. S. Lewis devised an analogy that I think applies here. In some ways we are like the child who will not be coaxed to leave the pleasures of his sandbox because he cannot or will not conceive of the glories of a holiday at the beach.

[Russell C McGregor]

Arsenokoitēs => "Menbedders"

Is a pretty ambiguous term to lay a doctrine on. It could be interpreted to mean any one who lies in a bed with a man. including Man, Woman, Child, young girl, Another Man, Dog, Cat etc etc etc. Are you really ready to go that far?

 

No, because it's a masculine noun. Common nouns in ancient Greek have gender. However you want to rationalise away the activity to which it refers, the person doing whatever it is, is unquestionably male.

[Russell C McGregor]

Not sure what you are referring to... I've haven't really changed my position on this since Nov 5.

 

Oh, really? Then it must have been someone else who was insisting that what the brethren said about the policy was "unreasonable" and that therefore it must have been written by a law firm. And that the 13 November clarification was "obviously" an attempt to "back-peddle."

 

I'm glad to know that isn't your view.

[Maedros]

Matthew 10:34 - 37:

 

"34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 

 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

[Zakuska]

No, because it's a masculine noun. Common nouns in ancient Greek have gender. However you want to rationalise away the activity to which it refers, the person doing whatever it is, is unquestionably male.

Common nouns in modern language do too. That's why my wife when ever she speaks about a snake in english it invariably becomes a she. There's several other times in scripture this happens as well. Lady wisdom in proverbs for example.

So it apears Paul made up a word that no one realy can say for sure what it means. Is that realy something we want to hang a doctrine on? Especialy when our other two nations don't say a word about it?

[rockpond]

Oh, really? Then it must have been someone else who was insisting that what the brethren said about the policy was "unreasonable" and that therefore it must have been written by a law firm. And that the 13 November clarification was "obviously" an attempt to "back-peddle."

I'm glad to know that isn't your view.

Oh... Yeah, I do think it's a terrible policy (I don't recall using the word "unreasonable" as there is plenty of "reason" to it). I do think the wording likely came from Kirton (not that the Brethren weren't involved, just in the same way they work with PA). And, the Nov 13 letter was a back-peddle from what was and remained in the handbook.

All that said, I think the Brethren were motivated out of compassion for the children of gay parents, as they indicated.

[Daniel2]

Matthew 10:34 - 37:

 

"34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 

 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

 

One of my least favorite passages of scripture--and certainly one of the most anti-family of verses.

 

The marriage I am blessed to share with my husband bears fruit manifesting the intrinsic worth and inherent worthiness of our relationship.

 

Any 'god'--or church--that expects me to deny, disavow, or denounce the loving, reciprocal, affirming, and authentic marital commitment my husband and I share, in all it's fullness, is not worthy of me nor my adoration.

 

Hence, as I have said elsewhere--I have not "fallen away" from the church--I have risen above and beyond the church's limited scope and understanding on this issue.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Daniel2

[busybee]

One of my least favorite passages of scripture--and certainly one of the most anti-family of verses.

 

The marriage I am blessed to share with my husband bears fruit manifesting the intrinsic worth and inherent worthiness of our relationship.

 

Any 'god'--or church--that expects me to deny, disavow, or denounce the loving, reciprocal, affirming, and authentic marital commitment my husband and I share, in all it's fullness, is not worthy of me nor my adoration.

 

Hence, as I have said elsewhere--I have not "fallen away" from the church--I have risen above and beyond the church's limited scope and understanding on this issue.

Wow!!! The Lord will have a humble people. But I see you're one of the 'enlightened ones' who has risen above HIs church. 

 

I actually have no words for what you have written above.

 

Edited to add: Who knew 'god' had to be worthy of us or our adoration?? Silly me thinking it was the other way around.

Edited November 27, 2015 by busybee

[Teancum]

Wow!!! The Lord will have a humble people. But I see you're one of the 'enlightened ones' who has risen above HIs church. 

 

I actually have no words for what you have written above.

 

Edited to add: Who knew 'god' had to be worthy of us or our adoration?? Silly me thinking it was the other way around.

An awful lot of grief has been caused by invoking the passage Daniel complained about in unrighteousness and over the top zealotry.

We see some of that here on this thread.

[Daniel2]

Wow!!! The Lord will have a humble people. But I see you're one of the 'enlightened ones' who has risen above HIs church. 

 

I actually have no words for what you have written above.

 

Edited to add: Who knew 'god' had to be worthy of us or our adoration?? Silly me thinking it was the other way around.

 

Arrogance is usually an ugly thing, and it's perhaps most repulsive when a mirror is held to our faces and we recognize it in ourselves.

 

It is tiring, not to mention painful, when members continually hold up Matthew 10:34-37 as self-righteous justification for allowing--and sometimes causing--family division.

 

The nature of the metaphors like "falling away" (or "rising above") are only powerful if we buy in to the (often fear-based) imagery they are designed to invoke.  It's not my intention to be un-humble--I'm just tired of allowing the church a pass when it comes to controlling the metaphorical narrative with demeaning terms that describe my journey and the truths of my experience and, worst of all and far more than just myself, demeaning my family and our worthiness as family. 

 

Ironically, the opposite of humility is pride.  And I suppose, in that sense, you're right--I couldn't be prouder of the love I've found with my husband.  I couldn't be prouder of the rings we wear which symbolizes that we belong to one another.  I couldn't be prouder when we took each others' name, declared our commitment as a couple and in becoming a family, and assumed responsibility for the wellbeing of each other, our children, and our grandchildren.

 

And, again, I cannot respect or worship a god who demeans or belittles or rejects the nature and truth and source of my purpose, pride, and joy--my husband and family.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Daniel2

[ERayR]

One of my least favorite passages of scripture--and certainly one of the most anti-family of verses.

 

The marriage I am blessed to share with my husband bears fruit manifesting the intrinsic worth and inherent worthiness of our relationship.

 

Any 'god'--or church--that expects me to deny, disavow, or denounce the loving, reciprocal, affirming, and authentic marital commitment my husband and I share, in all it's fullness, is not worthy of me nor my adoration.

 

Hence, as I have said elsewhere--I have not "fallen away" from the church--I have risen above and beyond the church's limited scope and understanding on this issue.

 

Or you have let your ego become a stumbling block to accessing the mind and will of God.

[Daniel2]

Or you have let your ego become a stumbling block to accessing the mind and will of God.

Nope... instead of accepting the authority and limited knowledge of other men who clearly don't understand the circumstances of what it means to be gay, I've opened my mind and followed my heart, allowing them to be the vessels which have allowed me to access the mind and will of The Divine within me.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Daniel2

[Teancum]

Or you have let your ego become a stumbling block to accessing the mind and will of God.

Or you have let your ego lead you to think you really know the mind and will of God.

[JAHS]

Nope... instead of blindly accepting the authority and limited knowledge of other men who clearly don't understand the circumstances of what it means to be gay, I've opened my mind and followed my heart, allowing them to be the vessels which have allowed me to access the mind and will of The Divine.

I think you have quite adequately explained your position and confidence and comfort in it; and I think that's OK for you. And if you are happy with that there's no need for others to judge. Just so long as you don't expect the doctrines of the church to change to accommodate your position. 

[Daniel2]

I think you have quite adequately explained your position and confidence and comfort in it; and I think that's OK for you. And if you are happy with that there's no need for others to judge. Just so long as you don't expect the doctrines of the church to change to accommodate your position.

 

I expect the doctrines of the church won't change until the social discomfort with increasingly untenable anti-gay policies/beliefs decreases church membership and activity rates.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Daniel2

[JAHS]

I expect the doctrines of the church won't change until the social discomfort with increasingly untenable anti-gay policies/beliefs decreases church membership and activity rates.

 

This one of those eternal truths that are not going to change, regardless of membership numbers and activity rates. The church and God have too much invested in what they have already taught in the past and present regarding marriage and the family. I don't see any way it could change. In fact if the church were to come out in support for gay marriage within the church it would most likely lose even more members than if it were to stand its ground on this issue.

You say you "have risen above and beyond the church's limited scope and understanding on this issue."

If you say that about the church you are saying that about God if you believe it is being led by prophets of God. If you don't then I guess you can say whatever you want about it. 

[Daniel2]

This one of those eternal truths that are not going to change, regardless of membership numbers and activity rates. The church and God have too much invested in what they have already taught in the past and present regarding marriage and the family. I don't see any way it could change. In fact if the church were to come out in support for gay marriage within the church it would most likely lose even more members than if it were to stand its ground on this issue.

You say you "have risen above and beyond the church's limited scope and understanding on this issue."

If you say that about the church you are saying that about God if you believe it is being led by prophets of God. If you don't then I guess you can say whatever you want about it. 

 

I appreciate that you (and the vast majority of adult saints alive today) struggle with seeing how same-sex couples could ever fit into the church's theology on the afterlife, given the church's current emphasis and doctrine.

 

I have explained elsewhere (in other threads) that I don't believe it's as big of a doctrinal shift as many people today might presume for the church to acknowledge there are alternate forms of marriage beyond merely "one man to one woman," and "one man to many women" configurations.  If God exists, he created infinite diversity, and his kingdom would surely reflect that.  Acknowledging same-sex couples' identity and existence in God's kingdom wouldn't have to affect the heterosexual 97% majority.

 

Regardless of my opinion whether church leaders are inspired or not, the church and its doctrines on marriage and the sealing power has evolved and changed over time.  That is the strength and beauty of Mormonism.  And I expect that it will continue to endure, as it promote the importance of families' centrality to God's Great Plan of Happiness, including my belief that it will eventually find a way to be inclusive of LGBT families.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Daniel2

[Robert F. Smith]

As Robert and Calm have already intimated, I fear you are seriously underestimating the non-linearity of life here for all Saints.

 

I talked to my sister this morning and in doing so was reminded of a close mutual friend. This friend married an active man in the temple, and together they had six children, all adults now. All but the eldest girl served missions, and the family has always been faithful, active, serving Church members.

 

Then two years ago the husband abandoned his wife without any warning. The next step was to become the boyfriend to a wealthy elderly gentleman who started taking him on exotic holidays, and now, according to my sister this morning, the two men have been 'married'.

 

Do you think the betrayed wife sees any of this as clear? Comfortable? Linear? Rejected after decades with her chosen 'sweetheart', how exactly does she fit into the 'straightforward plan' you've concocted in your imagination?

 

Like many others have expressed, I bear you zero ill-will, and I empathise that you don't feel like the plan is an easy fit for you. But I find it very difficult to accept the assertion that you're somehow alone in this fact. You are not alone. We may be paddling different oars, but all of us are in the exact same boat.

Profoundly correct.

[Robert F. Smith]

Arsenokoitēs => "Menbedders"

Is a pretty ambiguous term to lay a doctrine on. It could be interpreted to mean any one who lies in a bed with a man. including Man, Woman, Child, young girl, Another Man, Dog, Cat etc etc etc. Are you really ready to go that far?

 

A non sequitur.

[Robert F. Smith]

There have been some terrific comments made in this thread in the last day or so regarding eternity and exaltation.

Many years ago, before my marriage, a close friend expressed to me essentially that she was not cut out to do what it takes to be exalted in the celestial kingdom and had determined to expect to attain one of the lesser kingdoms of glory.

At the time, I was appalled -- still am to a certain extent -- that anyone having a knowledge of the plan of salvation would willingly cut himself off from and settle for less than the greatest of all the gifts of God. That's not what He sent us here to do. Any of us.

The great Christian apologist C. S. Lewis devised an analogy that I think applies here. In some ways we are like the child who will not be coaxed to leave the pleasures of his sandbox because he cannot or will not conceive of the glories of a holiday at the beach.

I gave you a rep point for the chuckle you gave me with that observation by Lewis.

 

However, Scott, I believe that the ministering angels in the Celestial Kingdom will be gloriously happy, and that the same applies to those in the Terrestial and Telestial Glories.  They will be where they belong.  I have even heard it said that, given a vision of the Telestial Glory, one would likely commit suicide to go there now . . .

 

I am not at all sure just how many will find themselves in eternal increase, worlds without end.  Just thinking about it puts me in a state of awe and maybe even fear -- gives me chllls -- very intimidating.

[ERayR]

Or you have let your ego lead you to think you really know the mind and will of God.

 

Only as it pertains to me and then with some difficulty.

[Bobbieaware]

I appreciate that you (and the vast majority of adult saints alive today) struggle with seeing how same-sex couples could ever fit into the church's theology on the afterlife, given the church's current emphasis and doctrine.

 

I have explained elsewhere (in other threads) that I don't believe it's as big of a doctrinal shift as many people today might presume for the church to acknowledge there are alternate forms of marriage beyond merely "one man to one woman," and "one man to many women" configurations.  If God exists, he created infinite diversity, and his kingdom would surely reflect that.  Acknowledging same-sex couples' identity and existence in God's kingdom wouldn't have to affect the heterosexual 97% majority.

 

Regardless of my opinion whether church leaders are inspired or not, the church and its doctrines on marriage and the sealing power has evolved and changed over time.  That is the strength and beauty of Mormonism.  And I expect that it will continue to endure, as it promote the importance of families' centrality to God's Great Plan of Happiness, including my belief that it will eventually find a way to be inclusive of LGBT families.

The Church doctrines on marriage and sealings have not "evolved and changed over time." As the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob plainly taught, strict monogamous marriage between one male and one female is the usual divinely mandated marital practice, with occasional periods of time when the Lord will temporarily command but then rescind the practice of polygamy. We just happen to be living in one of those periods when the divine command to practice plural marriage has been rescinded and strict heterosexual monogamy only is again being enforced, except in those cases where a man is married and sealed to another woman after the decease of a previous wife. The Church has not repudiated and abandoned the practice of polygamy, only put it aside for a while. And since same sex married couples cannot produce children without violating the law of chastity, there is no reasonable possibility that same sex "families" with ever be sanctioned, sealed and sanctified. As the Family Proclamation makes clear, children have the right to have both a mother and a father, not two parents of the same sex.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Church doctrines on marriage and sealings have not "evolved and changed over time." As the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob plainly taught, strict monogamous marriage between one male and one female is the usual divinely mandated marital practice, with occasional periods of time when the Lord will temporarily command but then rescind the practice of polygamy....................................................................................

Actually, polygyny has been the more common marital pattern, and Jacob did not teach that strict monogamy is the usual divinely mandated practice.  What he did was to point out a specific commandment to Father Lehi requiring monogamy of those under his jurisdiction (Jacob 3:5).

[Scott Lloyd]

I gave you a rep point for the chuckle you gave me with that observation by Lewis.

However, Scott, I believe that the ministering angels in the Celestial Kingdom will be gloriously happy, and that the same applies to those in the Terrestial and Telestial Glories. They will be where they belong. I have even heard it said that, given a vision of the Telestial Glory, one would likely commit suicide to go there now . . .

I am not at all sure just how many will find themselves in eternal increase, worlds without end. Just thinking about it puts me in a state of awe and maybe even fear -- gives me chllls -- very intimidating.

Since my youth I've been aware of the appocryphal statement about committing suicide to get to the telestial kingdom. However its accuracy and veracity appear to be less than definitive, as this link suggests:

http://scottwoodward.org/kingdomsofglory_telestial_apocryphalstatement.html

Edited November 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[VideoGameJunkie]

Since my youth I've been aware of the appocryphal statement about committing suicide to get to the telestial kingdom. However its accuracy and veracity appear to be less than definitive, as this link suggests:

http://scottwoodward.org/kingdomsofglory_telestial_apocryphalstatement.html

Who would kill themselves and settle for the Telestial Kingdom when there's the Terrestrial and 3 levels of the Celestial Kingdom to achieve.