Jump to content

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


JAHS

Recommended Posts

There is a huge difference between a parent excommunicated for moral reasons, or addiction, who is repentant, and supportive of the laws of the gospel; and a parent who is in open apostasy, teaching and acting in opposition to gospel law and practice.

 

Hey Kevin -- explain to me how Children are accountable for the actions of their parents?

 

This concept just completely upends the Articles of Faith.

Link to comment

Hey Kevin -- explain to me how Children are accountable for the actions of their parents?

 

This concept just completely upends the Articles of Faith.

 

Doesn't the Book of Mormon say that there are some curses, consequences, whatever the word, that will be on the heads of the children for many generations?

 

I'll go see if I can find it.

 

ETA:

 

I think I found it, through the glories of google, but it looks like it is just a repeat of the 10 commandments:

 

Mosiah 13:13

And again: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me;

Edited by MiserereNobis
Link to comment

Revelation is shared in many ways...

 

Really?  Is one of those ways to sneak it into a handbook a few weeks after general conference and then hide behind your PA department.

Yes, revelation is behind the creation of policy.

 

On the other hand, your accusations about the Lord's servants sneaking and hiding only reflect your approach as evidenced by such a cheap shot!

Link to comment

There is a huge difference between a parent excommunicated for moral reasons, or addiction, who is repentant, and supportive of the laws of the gospel; and a parent who is in open apostasy, teaching and acting in opposition to gospel law and practice.

So children whose parents have been excommunicated for apostasy (reasons other than a same sex marriage) should be affected under this policy too?  Same rules?  Or is the church now differentiating between what type of apostasy was involved?

Link to comment

Wow.

 

I saw it posted that John Dehlin is being credited (or blamed) for leaking the new addition for apostasy in the church handbook and then the church leaders admitted it was true and went public with it.  Is this true?

 

His facebook post is where I first saw it early yesterday afternoon.  I then logged onto my lds.org account to see if the change had been published in Handbook 1.  It was there just as his FB post indicated.

 

But I'm not sure if he was the reason that MN went public with the change.

Link to comment

I don't think that this policy is saying that the children of gay parents are sinful but it is holding them accountable for their parents' sin.

 

I don't know what the line is that a bishop cannot cross.  All I'm saying is that I have watched bishops and stake presidents apply policy in ways that differ significantly from the handbook.  In the spirit of the OP, consider these scenarios:

 

1.  8 year old child is living with her lesbian mom who are no longer members of the church.  Grandma wants her granddaughter to be baptized.

 

2.  14 year old boy is living with his active LDS mom while his gay dad is living with another man out of state.

 

#1 above seems fairly clear cut given the new policy.  But I could see a bishop and stake president deciding that they could ordain the YM in example #2.

 

The definition of accountable is to be responsible and blameworthy for the actions of another.  Is that what you think the church is saying about children of SS parents?

 

And i agree with your thoughts on scenario number 2.  I think that there is leeway there that other posters are refusing to see.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment

What's next?  Denying baptism to children of smokers, coffee drinkers, or alcoholics?  What about obese parents?  Or parents who don't pay a full tithe?  

Obviously you do not know the difference between "apostasy" and the other issues you mentioned.

Link to comment

Yes, revelation is behind the creation of policy.

 

On the other hand, your accusations about the Lord's servants sneaking and hiding only reflect your approach as evidenced by such a cheap shot!

 

CFR that revelation is behind this policy.  Seriously -- I'd love to see it.

 

They are hiding behind their PA department.  The Brethren have access to the media.  They have the ability to publish statements.  They have, so far, chosen not to.  If you consider that a cheap shot than it reflects your approach.  I'm just stating what has actually happened.

Link to comment

The definition of accountable is to be responsible and blameworthy for the actions of another.  Is that what you think the church is saying about children of SS parents?

 

And i agree with your thoughts on scenario number 2.  I think that there is leeway there that other posters are refusing to see.

 

They are making them responsible by not allowing them to be blessed, baptized, or ordained.

Link to comment

Of course baptism is a saving ordinance. Sometimes people have to wait due to circumstances beyond their control, such as the sins of the parents that have been imposed upon them. Subject to the particularly faith- and covenant-undermining circumstance of being raised and indoctrinated by a same-gender couple, a person needs time to see the bigger Gospel picture and demonstrate that he captures it, and so the body of Christ shepherds him in a particularly attentive and sensitive manner so that all receive the full blessings of D&C 20:37.

 

Every child has parents who sin.  This policy singles out children of gay parents and prevents them from accessing saving ordinances until they are adults.

Link to comment

Here's a screenshot of the actual manual. Knock yourself out:

 

 

sgm.jpg

 

As i said before, i've read it.  

 

It does not address children who have never lived with a SS parent or who have no contact with such parents (which would be very sad for the child and the parent but that does happen regardless of sexual orientation).  

Link to comment

That statement if from June.

 Do you require a new one every month?

 

 

 

The FP has not, to my knowledge, made a statement about this change in doctrine and policy other than letting the Newsroom speak on their behalf.

"Enclosed is a statement by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in response to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States."

 

I don't see a "change" in doctrine. Again, homosexual behavior outside of repentance has always been grounds for excommunication, which is the same as apostasy. A covenant union implies the behavior. I guess one can try to draw the fine line and "practice" a celibate relationship, and maybe that is your concern? I suppose if such "couples" exist in the church, they can get divorced.

 

My personal counsel to such would be not to live together as that only reinforces the sexual attraction. However, I acknowledge once our brains get wired in that direction it is a hard thing to change, and may seem impossible. Nevertheless, celibacy is not new, and Christ recognized that some practiced it for the sake of their missions at the time.

Link to comment

I've served as a bishop's counselor for years now and have seen plenty of times where decisions have been made to not follow what the handbook says.

 

Regarding scripture and AF2... Children are supposed to be free of their parents sin.

 

they are as per 1st Pres. approval

Link to comment

So children whose parents have been excommunicated for apostasy (reasons other than a same sex marriage) should be affected under this policy too?  Same rules?  Or is the church now differentiating between what type of apostasy was involved?

 

I would support that.  I would have a very hard time rationalizing the baptism of a child whose parents actively preach against, and act against the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  In fact it would be a cruelty to that child to account them to a covenant in opposition to their own parents teaching and actions.

 

Of course we don't have a lot of people who actively preach and act against our doctrines that are clamoring to have their minor children baptized.

 

I suspect the reason behind the recent clarification is the social pressure outside and inside the church to make what the Lord has declared an abomination, acceptable within the laws and practices of the church.

Link to comment

They are making them responsible by not allowing them to be blessed, baptized, or ordained.

 

The definition of responsible is "being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited."  Do you think that's what the church is saying about children of SS parents?

Link to comment

Doesn't the Book of Mormon say that there are some curses, consequences, whatever the word, that will be on the heads of the children for many generations?

 

I'll go see if I can find it.

 

ETA:

 

I think I found it, through the glories of google, but it looks like it is just a repeat of the 10 commandments:

 

Mosiah 13:13

And again: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me;

 

He is quoting the Ten Commandments -- the old law.  So my question still remains.  How, under the new covenant of Jesus, can we possibly justify denying baptism and the Holy Ghost to someone for how their parents choose to live?  It violates our own 13 articles of faith!  The supposed foundation of Mormon belief.

Link to comment

It's right there in the first sentence of what I linked to:

 

Dismissing the inspired teachings of the Lord's anointed as "dictates" does not make them so, despite how many times you write the word in all-uppercase letters.

You do realize Scott that the Gospel Topic headings aren't scripture and without a single verse to back up the bald assertion hold little weight at all.

Tell me Scott. In all the 40 years the "Lords Anointed", Moses spent in the desert with the murmuring Israelites, can you show me one verse that claims they sinned when they complained about their leaders (aka the Lords "Anointed")?

When Moses disappeared for 40 days on the top of the mountian, and the Israelites started to complain to Aaron did he excommunicate them on the spot?

No. It wasn't until they actually physically made an Idol and worshipped it (Sinning) that they got excommunicating.

You and I are just as much the "Lords Anointed" as Any of the 12 Apostles or even President Monson for that matter. Are we not as the scriptures say a nation of Prophets? Do we not all have the Holy Spirit just like they do? We hold just as much Authority as any of the 12 do, the only difference is, they hold keys that we do not. Any one of us at any time could theoretically be called to be the Prophet of the church.

Elder Richard G Scott speaking of scripture said... "The scriptures provide the strength of authority to our declarations"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjxsbfyn_zIAhWCLogKHdzeATY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lds.org%2Fgeneral-conference%2F2011%2F10%2Fthe-power-of-scripture%3Flang%3Deng&usg=AFQjCNEd7wjY_3085kxqdELuzUNVld8DzQ&sig2=lrchRjnQMrHkpfxd0eKLHw

With out a scripture verse to give it weight the Gospel Topic definition of "Rebellion" holds little weight at all and can be safely set aside.

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

The children we are talking about are ages 0-18. So yes, many (most) of them are accountable for their own sins. If you believe that baptism, confirmation, taking the sacrament, performing temple baptisms, using priesthood, etc. work to purify and sanctify people, then denying those things to these children does in fact punish them. We can hope for the day when such punishment is corrected. But just as with denying the priesthood to blacks, the present harm is still very real.

 

I had a good friend who could not be baptized until she was 18 because her parents wouldn't let her.  Do you believe the church was punishing her?

Link to comment

I don't see a "change" in doctrine. Again, homosexual behavior outside of repentance has always been grounds for excommunication, which is the same as apostasy.

 

The handbook already identified homosexual behavior as grounds for excommunication.  This week's handbook change added to that and made same-gender marriage equivalent to apostasy (a different category than adultery/fornication with different discipline requirements).

 

You might want to study the entire section of Handbook 1.  There is a lot of detail there that you are missing.

Link to comment

He is quoting the Ten Commandments -- the old law.  So my question still remains.  How, under the new covenant of Jesus, can we possibly justify denying baptism and the Holy Ghost to someone for how their parents choose to live?  It violates our own 13 articles of faith!  The supposed foundation of Mormon belief.

 

It is not denying.  It is delaying until the child is an adult agent unto their own.

 

When we speak of accountability at age 8, we speak of the time that the parents are no longer solely responsible for having taught the child, and the child is innocent of their failure to do so.  That does not mean the child is fully responsible and accountable to live the gospel regardless or in opposition to what their own parents teach and do.

 

Again it would be a cruelty to baptize a minor child into a covenant that their own parents oppose. 

Link to comment

CFR that revelation is behind this policy.  Seriously -- I'd love to see it.

 

They are hiding behind their PA department.  The Brethren have access to the media.  They have the ability to publish statements.  They have, so far, chosen not to.  If you consider that a cheap shot than it reflects your approach.  I'm just stating what has actually happened.

As for revelation being behind this policy, that is a matter of well-informed faith. Do you really need me to Google a few General Conference talks and Ensign articles for you? Or context support your reading of post #121?

 

CFR that the Brethren are sneaking and hiding as you accused them of!

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...