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

[Zakuska]

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. 

 

So a 40 year old heterosexual woman who has moved back in with either one or both of her same sex parents to take care of them in their old age and she can't be baptized?  This Policy is terrible.

[Scott Lloyd]

Does the fact that President Lee's quote is not in the standard works mean that the quote itself is speculation?

Bingo! 

[HappyJackWagon]

It is not entirely out of the realm of likelihood that some unscrupulous parents would use their minor children as pawns in a scheme to embarrass or attack the Church. As someone wrote on a blog I looked at today, the policy protects both the children and the Church from that eventuality.

So the church should use these children as pawns before the parent gets the chance. Good thinking, church.

 

So what does the church really gain with this new policy? The opportunity to prevent an unscrupulous parent from using a minor child to embarrass the church. That sounds like a surgeon trying to remove a gallbladder with a shotgun.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm worried this new policy will result in suicides or lots of members leaving because I'm seeing who I think of as worthy mormons completely ticked off and ranting on facebook.

[JAHS]

Ok but a child who is raised by parents who are not married but in a loving relationship might also accept that its ok to live with the opposite sex and have kids while not married.  Should they also not go through the same process?   I don't have a problem with the policy as long as its is standardized.  Right now it seems to be just picking on the SSM issue but not applying it to other situations that it probably should be applied to. 

 

I get what you are saying, but in that sort of a situation there is at least the possibility that the parents will and could eventually get married. It is also a man/woman relationship that could be sanctioned by God if they were to just legalize it by getting married. And it more closely represents what a true husband/wife relationship and father/mother roles should be as identified by God, compared to two men or two women being parents.  I think we will get more clarification on this policy in the near future.

[mfbukowski]

Other than the denial of saving ordinances.

Someone who denies the church would not believe these are saving ordinances.

 

Pretty simple stuff.  We are not "denying" Buddhists "saving ordinances".  We have this little thing called work for the dead.  Sound familiar?

 

If a Buddhist wants the ordinances here, they would join the church because they believe they ARE "saving ordinances", they would abide church standards and get a recommend, and have the ordinances performed later.

 

If they don't want to do that, and see it differently on the other side, they will get their "saving ordinances' there.

 

No difference here at all. 

 

This is a total strawman argument.

 

You are right now denying yourself the "saving ordinances" of Zorastrianism because you do not believe the tenets of Zoroastrianism.

 

When you don't believe in a religious system, you don't believe and you don't care what they think "saving ordinances" are.

 

Is this really that hard to understand?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Yes, both are concepts of marriage our church does not endorse.  Why should this be DIFFERENT than polygamy?

[mnn727]

So my take is that "disavow" means that the child must affirm that SSM is contrary to church teachings.

If that is the case, then it should say that, its way too ambiguous the way its worded

[rockpond]

Tell me, rockpond, is it your contention that the Brethren have never uttered anything "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" since Sept. 30, 1978, the last occasion when content was added to the scriptural canon? That they had never made such utterances in the numerous decades between that time and Oct. 3, 1918, the date of the latest revelation to be added prior to that time?

 

Not how it works, Scott.  You have to answer my questions if you want me to answer yours.

[Scott Lloyd]

So the church should use these children as pawns before the parent gets the chance. Good thinking, church.

 

So what does the church really gain with this new policy? The opportunity to prevent an unscrupulous parent from using a minor child to embarrass the church. That sounds like a surgeon trying to remove a gallbladder with a shotgun.

Instituting a waiting period is not using them as pawns. When they are of age to make their own legal decisions, and when the circumstances are right, they will be afforded every opportunity to receive baptism and all other privileges of membership.

[rockpond]

Yes, both are concepts of marriage our church does not endorse.  Why should this be DIFFERENT than polygamy?

 

It is different than polygamy.  Children of polygamists can be baptized with FP approval if they are not still in the home where polygamy is being practiced.

 

However, children of a gay parent who is in a relationship cannot be baptized until they are 18.  The rules are more restrictive for children of a gay parent in a relationship.

 

And there are no rules against baptism of children for all the other sins parents might commit.

[HappyJackWagon]

  We have this little thing called work for the dead.  Sound familiar?

 

I despise this argument, with all due respect. I hear the exact same thing from people justifying the priesthood/temple ban.

 

Is baptism in this life important or not? Do we grant others the freedom to choose for themselves or are we too paternalistic to allow for that? Justifying discrimination with the idea that "they can just be baptized in the next life and its all good" diminishes the harm it does to people in this life.

[rockpond]

Instituting a waiting period is not using them as pawns. When they are of age to make their own legal decisions, and when the circumstances are right, they will be afforded every opportunity to receive baptism and all other privileges of membership.

 

So it really doesn't matter if kids get blessed, baptized, and ordained.  Interesting position.

[mfbukowski]

I'm sorry.  Sincerely.  I'm very emotional about this.  Too emotional.  I want to take a break from church and sort through it but I can't.  I'll spend my weekend conducting a baptism, extending callings, conducting sacrament meeting, collecting fast offerings.  Meanwhile I am torn apart inside but have to push it all down because of the responsibilities I've got and commitment to my Bishop and ward.

So fess up and follow your conscience.  You can't live like that.  If I felt that way I would be outa here in 5 seconds flat.

[rockpond]

Someone who denies the church would not believe these are saving ordinances.

 

Huh?  We're talking about kids in the LDS Church who DO believe in the saving ordinances.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Who is going to do the temple work and how long will the wait be if the child dies between the ages of 8 and 17? Obviously their parents won't be able to do their proxy work so do they have to wait in spirit prison until the Millennium when they were of age on earth?

[HappyJackWagon]

Instituting a waiting period is not using them as pawns. When they are of age to make their own legal decisions, and when the circumstances are right, they will be afforded every opportunity to receive baptism and all other privileges of membership.

"When they are of age" they can make their own decisions sounds like a call for the church to change the age of accountability to 18.

If it's not uniform across the board we are making the decision for the individual when "the circumstances" are right for them to receive saving ordinances.

 

Big deal that they miss out on the entire youth experience going to the temple to do baptisms for the dead. I'm sure they can just do that in the next life too. Oh...wait ...

[rockpond]

So fess up and follow your conscience.  You can't live like that.  If I felt that way I would be outa here in 5 seconds flat.

 

Sorry, my faith and testimony are too strong to just bail out in five minutes over a handbook change.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not how it works, Scott.  You have to answer my questions if you want me to answer yours.

The question makes you uncomfortable, then?

 

OK, I'll answer your question. I believe that, as with all other important decisions and initiatives, the Brethren deliberated, then sought and received revelation, before acting.

 

You see, I believe in an ongoing, continuous and constant flow of revelation coming to the servants of God, not just an occasional burst here and there, as in once in 1918, and never again until 1978, and not since then.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

So it really doesn't matter if kids get blessed, baptized, and ordained.  Interesting position.

I'm seeing this argument a lot. For someone who is a believer in the church to claim that it doesn't matter if children receive their ordinances in this life is disingenuous. I don't believe for a second they really believe that. But they have to justify this crazy policy somehow and that's the best they can come up with.

 

Hartman Rector Jr. (Law of the Harvest fame) visited my mission a couple of times. I was sitting at the table during lunch when one of the AP's said, "Maybe we should just burn down the city and do baptisms for the dead". I was disgusted by that idea and disheartened when Jr. didn't correct him but said something to the effect of "Yes, but that's only a last resort" and then chuckled. That is lame crap.

[Walden]

Ok but a child who is raised by parents who are not married but in a loving relationship might also accept that its ok to live with the opposite sex and have kids while not married.  Should they also not go through the same process?   I don't have a problem with the policy as long as its is standardized.  Right now it seems to be just picking on the SSM issue but not applying it to other situations that it probably should be applied to. 

That's exactly my feeling too; I don't know how the church would logically rationalize that it is okay for the child of unwed heterosexual parents to receive the full blessings of the church, while ostracizing the children of SSM couples...both couples are committing a grievous sin in the eyes of the church, but only the children of the SSM relationship are punished for the sins of their parents?

 

The LDS church defines apostasy as "When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy,"....it seems as if the unmarried SSM couple and the unmarried heterosexual couple are both turning away from the principles of the gospel, but only the children of the SSM couple are punished for their parent's transgressions.

If this policy is truly about apostasy and singling out those who have turned away from the gospel principles, then it should apply to any number of broad manners in which one rejects gospel principles; the focus on SSM makes the church appear hateful and mean-spirited, and maybe even spiteful at their inability to control popular opinion regarding the growing acceptance of SSM in this country. 

[Scott Lloyd]

So it really doesn't matter if kids get blessed, baptized, and ordained.  Interesting position.

Of course it matters - in due time and done in wisdom and order.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

So fess up and follow your conscience.  You can't live like that.  If I felt that way I would be outa here in 5 seconds flat.

Yeah, Rockpond. Just leave the church already and stop making so much drama. Sheesh!

 

;p

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, my faith and testimony are too strong to just bail out in five minutes over a handbook change.

But not too strong to publicly denounce and criticize an action undertaken by the anointed servants of God.

[mfbukowski]

Sorry, my faith and testimony are too strong to just bail out in five minutes over a handbook change.

Fine but that is a contradiction.  I guess you have to live with it.  Which "testimony" is right- the old one or the new one?  Your service to others has to suffer if you are that ambivalent over this, and certainly if someone asks you to explain the church position, you will not be able to help them.  This is not about you, it is about your duty in leadership.