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

[Avatar4321]

Oh...boy is that a path we don't want to go down and reasoning we don't want to use.

 

How many immoral decisions have been made to "prevent harm"?  Internment camps?  Abortion?  A certain Missouri governor's extermination order?

Should we stop doing things to prevent harm because others have claimed to be doing that while causing it?

[Rivers]

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/11/same-sex-policy-changes-my-thoughts/

Brother Reel ain't happy about this

[hope_for_things]

Do you believe that Pres. Monson or any of the 12 apostles actually hates gay people?

 

Did slave holders hate the slaves that they owned, and does that even matter?  Slavery was inherently discriminatory, no matter how kindly a slave was treated.

 

Does it even matter if Pres. Monson hates them or not?  Its the impact of these policies on real people that matters most.  

[Buckeye]

Entering into same-gender "marriage" is apostasy. It is directly defying the teachings of the Church on this subject. If it were to be tolerated, it would undermine foundational doctrines which are based on the family unit being the basic unit of the Church and the people of God, both here and in the eternities.

 

So is there any difference between "sin" and "apostasy"? You can say the same tings about rape, murder, fornication, or failing to provide for one's children. All go against church teachings. All would undermine foundational doctrines if tolerated.  And what exactly was the status of SSM prior to yesterday's change? What changes when the label "apostasy" is applied? The only thing that makes sense to me is that apostasy requires excommunication, so maybe this removes leeway for bishops to give lesser sanctions to ss-married members.

[Mars]

Did slave holders hate the slaves that they owned, and does that even matter?  Slavery was inherently discriminatory, no matter how kindly a slave was treated.

 

Does it even matter if Pres. Monson hates them or not?  Its the impact of these policies on real people that matters most.  

 

yay!  we're akin to slaveholders now!

 

woo!!!

[JAHS]

- The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

 

 

Any child who has been raised in a same gender cohabitation situation is likely to have been indoctrinated by the parents to accept same gender marriage as an acceptable practice. This applies whether they are stil in such a situation or not. So I think it makes sense to make sure that the child does not agree with the practice, even though they still might love their parents. Hence the waiting until they are adults, the interviews, and getting First Presidency approval. 

[Rivers]

yay! we're akin to slaveholders now!

woo!!!

We've been akin to slaveholders for a while.

[Damien the Leper]

Never mind. This thread and this policy are a waste of time and energy.

I'm just glad the church isn't in any way, shape or form saying, "We love you but by no fault of your own, you cannot receive blessings the church offers."

Edited November 6, 2015 by Valentinus

[HappyJackWagon]

This policy is written so poorly I can't help but think the church doesn't really mean ALL of what the written policy implies. I'm hoping they are at the very least reconsidering some of the wording which essentially includes every child of every gay person, regardless of whether or not the child lives with them.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are more problems with this policy than just that, but it would be a start. Let's see if we can gradually wittle away at the number of people being discriminated against, all the way down to zero.

[ERayR]

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/11/same-sex-policy-changes-my-thoughts/

Brother Reel ain't happy about this

 

The last time I looked Brother Reel was not leading the church irregardless of his own opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

So is there any difference between "sin" and "apostasy"? You can say the same tings about rape, murder, fornication, or failing to provide for one's children. All go against church teachings. All would undermine foundational doctrines if tolerated. 

You probably haven't read all the way through this thread (I wouldn't blame you if you hadn't), but I made the point early on that apostasy is sin. It is the sin of rebellion.

 

And someone else made a very important post quoting Elder Scott as distinguishing between weakness and rebellion, with the former being less serious than the latter in terms of punishment.

 

And I linked to this "Guide to the Scriptures" page on rebellion.

 

This is the introduction (note the cross references to "sin" and "apostasy"):

 

 

Rebellion

See also Apostasy; Devil; Murmur; Sin

Defying or opposing the Lord, including refusing to follow his chosen leaders and willfully disobeying his commandments.

 

And what exactly was the status of SSM prior to yesterday's change? What changes when the label "apostasy" is applied?

 

 

 

Same-sex "marriage" is still a very new thing in terms of it being the law of the land. It is hardly unreasonable that the Church would have taken until now to codify the procedures in the handbook with regard to disciplinary council adjudications pertaining to it.

 

 

The only thing that makes sense to me is that apostasy requires excommunication, so maybe this removes leeway for bishops to give lesser sanctions to ss-married members.

 

Apostasy (rebellion) is a very serious sin. I don't wonder that it allows for less leeway.

 

And entering into same-sex marriage does amount to apostasy, as it directly defies the very clear teachings of the prophets and apostles on this subject.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

You might consider consulting sheep entrails or tea leaves.

 

But really you are just in it for the fearmongering. I mean, we know that you have spoken out in defense of gay marriage. Is there any reason you couldn't in the future develop a mind-control device and force everyone into homosexuality?

So, again all you have is a personal attack response.

 

Are the qualifications for gaining membership different from maintaining it?

Edited November 6, 2015 by CA Steve

[ERayR]

Did slave holders hate the slaves that they owned, and does that even matter?  Slavery was inherently discriminatory, no matter how kindly a slave was treated.

 

Does it even matter if Pres. Monson hates them or not?  Its the impact of these policies on real people that matters most.  

 

Red herring.  This is a very poor analogy.

[Buckeye]

This policy is written so poorly I can't help but think the church doesn't really mean ALL of what the written policy implies. I'm hoping they are at the very least reconsidering some of the wording which essentially includes every child of every gay person, regardless of whether or not the child lives with them.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are more problems with this policy than just that, but it would be a start. Let's see if we can gradually wittle away at the number of people being discriminated against, all the way down to zero.

 

I've come to believe that as well. When I put on my lawyer hat, the literal wording has even more problems than what I've addressed earlier. For instance, the literal wording would deny baptism to a 25 year old woman who lives with her gay father, even though she disavows gay marriage, and even though her father is no longer in a SS relationship (heck, he could be re-baptized) just so long as the father was at any point in the past in a SS relationship. I can't believe the brethren would really take things that far. The language is just really poorly drafted. 

[Buckeye]

 

 

You probably haven't read all the way through this thread (I wouldn't blame you if you hadn't), but I made the point early on that apostasy is sin. It is the sin of rebellion.

 

And I linked to this "Guide to the Scriptures" page on rebellion.

 

This is the introduction (note the cross references to "sin" and "apostasy"):

 

 

 

 

But that doesn't mean the two are synonymous. Fornication is sin. But not all sin is fornication. 

 

I'm with you that apostasy is sin. But where does a sin cross the line and become apostasy? Or in other words, can you give me some sins which are not apostasy? If not, then why have a different list for actions that constitute apostasy and which therefore have a different standard for church discipline; specifically, that bishops have no discretion, but must excommunicate? If all sin was apostasy, then we'd be excommunicating everyone each week. So surely there must be a difference.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

I've come to believe that as well. When I put on my lawyer hat, the literal wording has even more problems than what I've addressed earlier. For instance, the literal wording would deny baptism to a 25 year old woman who lives with her gay father, even though she disavows gay marriage, and even though her father is no longer in a SS relationship (heck, he could be re-baptized) just so long as the father was at any point in the past in a SS relationship. I can't believe the brethren would really take things that far. The language is just really poorly drafted. 

Which is so strange for a church so focused on legalism and Public Relations.

 

They clearly didn't expect this firestorm. They have yet to grasp the magnitude of the problem and the reality of the internet.

[The Nehor]

Did slave holders hate the slaves that they owned, and does that even matter?  Slavery was inherently discriminatory, no matter how kindly a slave was treated.

 

Does it even matter if Pres. Monson hates them or not?  Its the impact of these policies on real people that matters most.  

 

Okay, need to add that one to the list:

 

[Alvino]

Red herring.  This is a very poor analogy.

 

It's not an analogy, it's a counter-example to show something is irrelevant. 

[KevinG]

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/11/same-sex-policy-changes-my-thoughts/

Brother Reel ain't happy about this

 

Mormon Experts are really coming out of the woodwork on Facebook.  I've seen more John Dehlin quotes today than I did during his excommunication.

[The Nehor]

So, again all you have is a personal attack response.

 

Are the qualifications for gaining membership different from maintaining it?

 

I had a lot more then just a personal attack. That just happened to be the best part.

[ERayR]

It's not an analogy, it's a counter-example to show something is irrelevant. 

 

Doesn't make it any better.

[Ares]

Did slave holders hate the slaves that they owned, and does that even matter?  Slavery was inherently discriminatory, no matter how kindly a slave was treated.

 

Does it even matter if Pres. Monson hates them or not?  Its the impact of these policies on real people that matters most.  

 

Likening church policy to slavery is in extremely poor taste and not helpful to a civil discussion.  Please refrain from doing it again.

[cinepro]

Interestingly, I home teach a family whose dad was just sentenced to four years in State Prison for murder.  He has two young children who are still allowed to attend and will presumably be baptized when they turn eight.  So this isn't a hypothetical situation.  Why would a child who has married-gay parents be excluded from baptism while the children of a murderer are allowed to get baptized?

[hope_for_things]

Likening church policy to slavery is in extremely poor taste and not helpful to a civil discussion.  Please refrain from doing it again.

You missed the point.  I’m not equivocating the church’s new discriminatory policy towards LGBT individuals and their families, with slavery directly.  The prior post asked “if Pres. Monson hates gay people.”  My point is that the consequences of policies like this are what is important not the feelings of the person that’s implementing the policies. 

 

I believe it is a fair comparison to make.  If we can’t talk about slavery and other mistakes that our society has made in the past and compare them to the present, then how do we expect to learn and grow as a society?  This is fair ground for discussion in my opinion, and if you disagree and are too ashamed to look in the mirror and self evaluate, then feel free to kick me out of this thread.  

[Alvino]

Doesn't make it any better.

 

as far as counter-examples go, any always suffices to show faulty logic. 'better' ones are preferred but if it works, who cares.