Jump to content

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


JAHS

Recommended Posts

At least we know that if the church tries to recast or soften the blow that this policy is not of God.

 

I don't think anyone is saying the policy was written by the finger of god on stone tablets.

 

Changing the language of the policy would not mean the idea wasn't from god, just that there could be better words for it.

 

Its called communication.  I say something, you repeat it back to me, I realize that what you understood is not what I meant, I clarify.

 

Rinse, Repeat.

Link to comment

I think I'm reading President Lee for comprehension. I don't think you are.

 

President Lee would not have denied that if a prophet speaks when guided by the Holy Ghost, it is revelation -- and scripture.

 

Sure, just present it for a sustaining vote and add it to the standard works. Then it's scripture. 

Link to comment

Not really. The handbook says that anyone who enters a SSM is in apostasy and must be excommunicated. There is no leeway. A bishop who says "well, I think I'll pass in this instance" will quickly be corrected by his SP or, if needed, removed and another bishop put in his place who will comply with the handbook.

 

Really?

 

all people who are in apostasy must be excommunicated or their bishops will be removed?

Link to comment

I don't accept on your say-so alone that the two were at odds.

 

I'm not saying they were at odds. I'm saying you reject what HBL said about the standard works, but accept what JEF said about loyal opposition. What's the standard you're using for accepting one but rejecting the other? 

 

And isn't rejecting what HBL taught going against what JEF taught about loyal opposition?

Link to comment

I don't think anyone is saying the policy was written by the finger of god on stone tablets.

 

Changing the language of the policy would not mean the idea wasn't from god, just that there could be better words for it.

 

Its called communication.  I say something, you repeat it back to me, I realize that what you understood is not what I meant, I clarify.

 

Rinse, Repeat.

Or have the backbone to stand by the original words. Own it. Put up or shut up. It's simple.

Link to comment

Or have the backbone to stand by the original words. Own it. Put up or shut up. It's simple.

 

But it is not how humans work.

 

You seem very dedicated to the idea that scripture has to be perfect to be inspired. 

 

I guess we have different assumptions.

Link to comment

When a provision is placed in the handbook, it is done so under the direction of the First Presidency acting in council with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They are not required to have you personally sign off on it for it to be divinely directed -- and binding upon the Church.

 

Odd response since I never suggested such a thing.

Link to comment

So we're back to the same conundrum -- because the teaching is not in a book with leather binding and gilded pages you feel free to reject it.

 

Nope... no leather binding or gilded pages required.  Just something that they actually indicate is a revelation.

 

I can't operate on the assumption that you and Russell seem to use:  that whatever they say must have been based in a revelation.  Except when they were wrong, then it wasn't revelation.

Link to comment

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.

Totally off base and irrelevant- surely you can do better.

 

To be in a gay marriage in the first place one must DISAGREE with church policy.  They have taken themselves out of the church by believing that SSM is correct in spite of church teachings.  It has nothing to do with "discrimination" OR "paternalism" in fact it is the opposite of these- it assumes that the individual has enough intelligence to make one's own decisions and stand up and take the consequences of those decisions.

 

If they disagree with the church, they stand up and say so.

 

If one disagrees with a belief system, one should not be in an organization based on the belief system with which one disagrees.  It is inconsistent.  If one believes in Communism, one does not endorse Republican policies on economics.

 

If one decides on the other side that indeed the church was right all along, one can receive the ordinances there, repent, and no harm will be done.

 

Surely you are intelligent enough to see that.

 

And no, baptism in this life is "not important".  What is important is committing to the gospel either here or on the other side.  Millions had no opportunity to receive baptism and are not "discriminated against".

 

You don't get an extra gold star because you got a clear opportunity in this life to make the right decision and stick to it.  Just as you don't get extra credit because you are a "6th generation Mormon" you do not get penalized because your parents were gay.

 

No one is denying baptism to anyone here.  Baptism is being delayed in order to preserve family peace.  If a child dies before the age of 18 and has desired baptism, the baptism can be performed by proxy and the child will not be harmed.  No penalty or harm whatsoever to the child.  The Lord knows the child's heart- baptism is not some magic amulet which one gets to sneak past the guards.  It is a token of a commitment.  The commitment is what matters most.  Delaying the ordinance harms no one, and could actually help one's progression by helping them maintain family peace.

 

Withdrawing from church beliefs means that one is withdrawing oneself from church ordinances.  No one is doing this to anyone- they are doing it themselves and making their own decisions.

 

I don't know how this can be so twisted.  It seems like there is no clarity here at all, just emotional goop with no substance.

Link to comment

I'm not saying they were at odds. I'm saying you reject what HBL said about the standard works, but accept what JEF said about loyal opposition. What's the standard you're using for accepting one but rejecting the other? 

 

And isn't rejecting what HBL taught going against what JEF taught about loyal opposition?

i don't reject what Harold B. Lee said. I believe you have altogether misconstrued and taken it out of context.

 

To put it another way, my quarrel is with you, not Harold B. Lee.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

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

No we were talking about YOU.

 

Did you even read it?

Link to comment

No one is denying baptism to anyone here.  Baptism is being delayed in order to preserve family peace. 

 

That is not true....if it were, then blessings would also be delayed for children of heterosexual couples who are not married, since the church teaches that those who have sex outside of marriage are committing a grievous sin.

Link to comment

Totally off base and irrelevant- surely you can do better.

 

To be in a gay marriage in the first place one must DISAGREE with church policy.  They have taken themselves out of the church by believing that SSM is correct in spite of church teachings.  It has nothing to do with "discrimination" OR "paternalism" in fact it is the opposite of these- it assumes that the individual has enough intelligence to make one's own decisions and stand up and take the consequences of those decisions.

 

If they disagree with the church, they stand up and say so.

 

If one disagrees with a belief system, one should not be in an organization based on the belief system with which one disagrees.  It is inconsistent.  If one believes in Communism, one does not endorse Republican policies on economics.

 

If one decides on the other side that indeed the church was right all along, one can receive the ordinances there, repent, and no harm will be done.

 

Surely you are intelligent enough to see that.

 

And no, baptism in this life is "not important".  What is important is committing to the gospel either here or on the other side.  Millions had no opportunity to receive baptism and are not "discriminated against".

 

You don't get an extra gold star because you got a clear opportunity in this life to make the right decision and stick to it.  Just as you don't get extra credit because you are a "6th generation Mormon" you do not get penalized because your parents were gay.

 

No one is denying baptism to anyone here.  Baptism is being delayed in order to preserve family peace.  If a child dies before the age of 18 and has desired baptism, the baptism can be performed by proxy and the child will not be harmed.  No penalty or harm whatsoever to the child.  The Lord knows the child's heart- baptism is not some magic amulet which one gets to sneak past the guards.  It is a token of a commitment.  The commitment is what matters most.  Delaying the ordinance harms no one, and could actually help one's progression by helping them maintain family peace.

 

Withdrawing from church beliefs means that one is withdrawing oneself from church ordinances.  No one is doing this to anyone- they are doing it themselves and making their own decisions.

 

I don't know how this can be so twisted.  It seems like there is no clarity here at all, just emotional goop with no substance.

This last line here..is how a lot of people feel about this policy and the church today. 

Link to comment

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?

God is not a train conductor.  He does not demand to see your ticket to get on the train.

 

He knows the future. 

 

If you don't have your ticket with you and he knows you will have it, it would be unjust for him to penalize you because you don't have the ticket to punch yet.

 

Honest.  It is the intent and the commitment that matter to him.  Ordinances are an outward manifestation of an inner commitment.  Yes we need to "step over the line" and make a concrete effort to obey the letter of the law, but that is not the ultimate test.  If you are prevented through no fault of your own, the Lord will know that.

 

We must get beyond fundamentalist thinking.   Ordinances show faith in the principle and commitment to take action, and that is what counts.

Link to comment

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

Exactly, and in a peaceful family life free of contending with your parents because you think they are "wrong".

 

No one seems to see that side of it.  Can you imagine a "family" like that?  Jesus said he came to divide families if necessary, but surely not to divide parents from children at the age of 8.

 

This policy makes perfect sense.  I cannot imagine an 8 year old trying to deal with that.

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

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