RevTestament Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Being in a calling where I have to participate in disciplinary councils, I was familiar with the handbook section before the change, and have now read it after the change. You are obviously not familiar with the section or what the changes indicate. Kindly do some reading before you continue making incorrect assumptions about the change.kindly direct me to the prior part about homosexual marriage not being grounds for excommunication based on apostasy.Adultery can be repented of, but if not, I believe it is also apostasy. Did the church teach otherwise? Or are you saying there are different levels of apostasy?If they try to "correct" the adultery by entering a polygamous marriage it has been also considered apostasy and grounds for excommunication.I think you are trying to equate a sinful act one can repent of with an ongoing personal commitment - maybe I am wrong, so to any who are in the midst of sin, I will direct them to the disciplinary handbooks rather than my blatherings.
Gray Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 google: define apostasy a·pos·ta·syəˈpästəsē/nounnoun: apostasy; plural noun: apostasies the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief. in the context of mormon apostasy, i think 'gay marriage == apostasy' is spot on. Under that reasoning, anyone not following any of the other commandments as interpreted by LDS leaders are apostates. Who then is not an apostate?
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 kindly direct me to the prior part about homosexual marriage not being grounds for excommunication based on apostasy.Adultery can be repented of, but if not, I believe it is also apostasy. Did the church teach otherwise? Or are you saying there are different levels of apostasy?If they try to "correct" the adultery by entering a polygamous marriage it has been also considered apostasy and grounds for excommunication.I think you are trying to equate a sinful act one can repent of with an ongoing personal commitment - maybe I am wrong, so to any who are in the midst of sin, I will direct them to the disciplinary handbooks rather than my blatherings. I don't have time to go through it line by line. Have you read Section 6 of Handbook 1? If not, kindly do so.
Mars Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Under that reasoning, anyone not following any of the other commandments as interpreted by LDS leaders are apostates. Who then is not an apostate? if that's how you see it, then ok.
Zakuska Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) google: define apostasy a·pos·ta·sy əˈpästəsē/ noun noun: apostasy; plural noun: apostasies the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief. in the context of mormon apostasy, i think 'gay marriage == apostasy' is spot on.If that's the definition of Apostasy then the 12 now are in Apostasy for renouncing the religious belief of Plural Marriage of our ancestors. Their also in Apostasy for renouncing the religious belief of the curse of Cain doctrine and the Adam-God Doctrine and the Blood Atonement Doctrine. If BY was alive today the twelve would have to excommunicate his entire family and strip his Priesthood from him, undo all the blessings and namings of his children. If Joseph Smith where alive today he'd be excommunicated from the very church he restored by the gift and power of God. Edited November 6, 2015 by Zakuska 1
Mars Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 If thats the definition of Apostasy then the 12 now are in Apostasy for renouncing the religious belief of Plural Marriage of our ancestors. Their also in Apostasy for renouncing the religious belief of the curse of Cain doctrine. again... if that's how you see it, ok. today's mormon church is an apostasy with respect to the early church. ok, fine. today's gay couple is in apostasy with respect to today's mormon church. still ok. anyone who is not 100% perfect is in apostasy? nah i just don't buy that. i think people are allowed time and space to get their crap together. it's one thing to be an imperfect cuss who screws up but is iterating toward being better at *some* measurable pace, however slow. it's another thing to say "there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, i'm gay, i want to be married, ergo, i will get married" call me crazy, but in that instance, you've renounced or abandoned the belief of the institution who believes otherwise. 1
Meadowchik Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Do we not believe that children are not to be held accountable for the sins of their parents?Nothing in the policy contradicts that. 1
CA Steve Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Don't be deliberately dense. You are dense enough already.So you can't answer a simple question? Instead you resort to a personal attack. If the church makes children of gay parents wait until they are old enough to make an informed declaration about their gay parents, way can't parents of adult gay children, who are both already adults, be held to the same standard?
Mars Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 are the children being held accountable for their parents' sin? i was under the impression that "wait until you get baptized" was not the same as "you can't be baptized because you're in a gay marriage" 1
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. But not every child has a parent who teaches that the sin isn't a sin, is in fact commendable, and is even acceptable to God. That seems like an important difference between kids with sinful parents and kids with parents who live this specific sin.
CV75 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 The idea that gay marriage is apostasy is nonsensical. It's like saying that yellow is heavy. The Church is using the same definition for "apostasy" as always, which in policy then says, "refers to members who..." do certain things. Same-gender marriage has simply been added to that list of things. 1
SmileyMcGee Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'll be interested to hear experiences of how the rubber meets the road with this policy, particularly, experiences from missionaries who have the privilege of trying to explain to a 16 year-old referral why they can't join yet because their parents are the same gender. Referral: "I've read the BOM feel its true and would love to join the Church."Missionary: "Sorry, you're parents are both chicks. You'll have to wait 2 years, and at that point the first presidency will determine if you can join, as long as you disavow your parents marriage."Referral: "My parents said they're cool with me joining, can I just join?"Missionary: "Nope, we only care about the consent of straight, non-polygamous parents."Referral: "I don't think I want to join your church anymore."Missionary: "No skin of my back. I couldn't report you as one of my baptisms anyways, but if you know anyone else that's interested let us know if we can share a message of God's love for them!"
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Nothing in the policy contradicts that. Other than the denial of saving ordinances.
Buckeye Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Bull. As a BYU-graduate, returned missionary, and very happily FORMER-latter-day saint, who is happily married to an amazing husband, father, and grandfather, both my husband and I have been VERY supportive of our children who have chosen to pursue membership and activity in the LDS Faith. We have attempted on EVERY occasion to be supportive of our kids; funding ward scouting jamborees, helping prep for Girls' camp, financially contributing to mission funds, weekly fast offerings, and ward fund-raisers, attending Standards' Night, Mission farewells, baptisms, and blessings, driving them to church services, weekly young men and women activities, and achievement days... NEVER has my marriage or relationship been a wedge between my children and I or between my children and the church. Now, the CHURCH has chosen to made MY marriage a wedge between my children and the church. It is NOT my husband nor I--it is YOUR CHURCH. As a founder of the Utah Gay Father's Association (most of whom are in my same position as RMs, BYU grads, and fathers who love and support our LDS kids), how DARE you unknowingly and unrighteously mischaracterizing and passing judgment on supportive gay parents for false "faith-and covenant-undermining indoctrination" here. 1
Mars Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Other than the denial of saving ordinances. excommunication denies them until repentance can be demonstrated. waiting 10 years to get them, with the condition that an extra sense of understanding of what's being chosen is demonstrated, logically implies no repentance is necessary, nor does it foist upon the children a sense of lack of worthiness. that lack of worthiness might be construed, but i am confidence it's not intended. the conditions for saving ordinances are different. Edited November 6, 2015 by Mars
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Other than the denial delay of saving ordinances until the child reaches legal age of consent. Fixed it for ya! 2
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Listing the differences between SSM and polygamy seems to be stating the obvious. Listing the differences from the Church's perspective seems even more obvious--seeing as we once promoted polygamy. I'm really not sure how this is not obvious to others. What are the similarities? Both are currently viewed as apostasy and both require first presidency approval and repudiation of the families lifestyle.
Mystery Meat Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Other than the denial of saving ordinances. Postponement. Not denial. Let's not go overboard in attempts to sling mud in kneejerk fashion.
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 But not every child has a parent who teaches that the sin isn't a sin, is in fact commendable, and is even acceptable to God. That seems like an important difference between kids with sinful parents and kids with parents who live this specific sin. None of that is part of the policy. It doesn't account for that at all. A child could have a gay parent, living with someone of the same gender, who believes that what he is doing is a sin and the policy STILL prevents the child from being baptized. Meanwhile, a child could be living with a parent in an adulterous relationship who thinks that said relationship is okay and that child can be baptized (this just happened in my ward). 3
Mystery Meat Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Fixed it for ya! I see we are thinking the same thing.
Nofear Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Now, the CHURCH has chosen to made MY marriage a wedge between my children and the church, and as a wedge of hostility, resentment, and alienation between my children and I. It is NOT my husband nor I--it is your church. One of the more uncomfortable teachings of Jesus: Matthew 10:34-3834 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. 2
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Postponement. Not denial. Let's not go overboard in attempts to sling mud in kneejerk fashion.Denial for 10 years. I would imagine it will feel like they have been denied these blessings during that 10 year span if they desire to be baptized, receive the Priesthood or serve a mission. And then to have to disavow their parents and move out in order to get to receive the saving ordinances and blessings.... Edited November 6, 2015 by ALarson 2
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 It is really difficult to discuss this in good faith when opponents of the church (including loyal opponent members) are arguing in bad faith. The policy does not deny anyone saving ordinancesThe policy does not make children apostates (actual headline today)The policy is not effectively different than it is for polygamists, muslims, etc.The policy does not discriminate against those who sin, it discriminates (rightly) against those who act and teach in open opposition to the church laws and doctrines. 2
Mars Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 None of that is part of the policy. It doesn't account for that at all. A child could have a gay parent, living with someone of the same gender, who believes that what he is doing is a sin and the policy STILL prevents the child from being baptized. Meanwhile, a child could be living with a parent in an adulterous relationship who thinks that said relationship is okay and that child can be baptized (this just happened in my ward). they are treated differently because they are different the adulterous couple could mend their ways - stay together - and get sealed. the child at age 8 bypasses the confusion of making sense of the difference between adulterous heterosexual couple and married heterosexual couple for obvious reasons. the gay married couple must renounce their lifestyle and split apart, heavily disrupting their adopted or biological child's life. i think the distinction is pretty clear and why one is allowed and the other isn't. but i admit, i think you have a fair point. 1
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 excommunication denies them until repentance can be demonstrated. waiting 10 years to get them, with the condition that an extra sense of understanding of what's being chosen is demonstrated, logically implies no repentance is necessary, nor does it foist upon the children a sense of lack of worthiness. that lack of worthiness might be construed, but i am confidence it's not intended. the conditions for saving ordinances are different. Fixed it for ya! Postponement. Not denial. Let's not go overboard in attempts to sling mud in kneejerk fashion. Okay... denial until they are 18, move out of their parent's home, and disavow their parents marriage. A condition not put on any other sin with the exception of polygamy. Everyone happy with that? Great. Now go be proud of what our church has done. Sorry I can't join you.
Recommended Posts