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

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that the policies seem very similar, but there are too many differences to make that comparison justifiable. 

I don't see a whole lot of differences, frankly. And fundamentally, the situations are very comparable. Homosexual behavior, whether or not in a so-called "marriage," and polygamy, currently prohibited, are both forbidden by God and disallowed under his laws and the doctrines of the Church.

 

What about the loss of freedom for the family.  I would think this would strike a cord with conservative republican and libertarian sensibilities.  These are new institutional restrictions and this is a loss of agency.  

 

Moral agency has never entailed license to break God's commandments with impunity.

 

And the family has as much freedom as it ever did. Membership in the Church has always been contingent upon behavioral compliance, i.e. obedience to commandments. And the redefinition of marriage conflicts so starkly with the precepts of the gospel and the plan of salvation, that I think it constitutes a special case calling for a zero tolerance policy. (We're talking about the environment within the Church, of course. As it pertains to civil law, I think the Church has been very tolerant and reasonable in favoring rights of employment, housing and public accommodation. Internally, the Church has every right to set restrictions. The severest penalty it can impose is exclusion from its fellowship, but it certainly has the right to have that as a condition.)

 

A Ben Franklin quote that I've always loved I believe is applicable here.  "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  Its the temporary security of peace in the family, that is being used as justification for this loss of liberty.  Sad....

 

Well, mark has chosen to emphasize that, but it's certainly not the only consideration here.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

I agree...hardly ever by majority rule..which begs the question as to why ask members to sustain or support leaders anyway? 

Everyone knows sustaining is not a vote.

 

Sorry- you need to learn some doctrine.  The correct wording is " Person X has been called to position y and we propose that he/she be SUSTAINED"

 

It is not a vote.  It is an opportunity for each individual to SUSTAIN that person- to uphold them in their calling.

 

If no one raised their hands, the person would still have that calling.

 

And you should also look up "begging the question".  What you have said does not "beg the question".

[Zakuska]

Everyone knows sustaining is not a vote.

 

Sorry- you need to learn some doctrine.  The correct wording is " Person X has been called to position y and we propose that he/she be SUSTAINED"

 

It is not a vote.  It is an opportunity for each individual to SUSTAIN that person- to uphold them in their calling.

 

If no one raised their hands, the person would still have that calling.

 

And you should also look up "begging the question".  What you have said does not "beg the question".

 

The problem with that is... we are also asked this question "Those who oppose, same sign".  ( That right there makes it a vote) That gives others a chance to make their objection known and the leaders can go privately ask that person why the opposing vote.  Maybe that person knows something about person X, eg. they are on the sex offenders list, or their parents are gay,  and you oafs in the Bishopric are calling them to the primary.

 

Learn some doctrine indeed.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[Guest]

I am not angry, but fear for those who deny the mercies of a loving God. We baptize children who are in family that are part member or any other family environment. I do not support SSM, but children are being denied membership because of the sins of their parents?

[Rivers]

Sometimes we can get too emotional and start jumping to conclusions. When we get news that unsettles us, it is best to study it out further, meditate on it, sleep on it, pray about it, etc. Be patient.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Rivers

[mfbukowski]

Well, mark has chosen to emphasize that, but it's certainly not the only consideration here.

Agreed.

I am emphasizing it because it seems the discussion has focused on "child welfare" and that the child will have problems due to the policy.

 

My point is that the salvation of the child is not even an issue, relative to the horrible conflict the parents have set up by both affirming the church and denying its policies at the same time both vocally and by their life-style choices.

 

They are saying in effect "do as I say but not as I do".  They are saying "The LDS church is a good church and one should be a member" while saying "The LDS church is wrong about same sex marriage"

 

What is an 8 year old supposed to do with that- an immature individual clueless on what being gay or being married is even about??

[Jeanne]

Everyone knows sustaining is not a vote.

 

Sorry- you need to learn some doctrine.  The correct wording is " Person X has been called to position y and we propose that he/she be SUSTAINED"

 

It is not a vote.  It is an opportunity for each individual to SUSTAIN that person- to uphold them in their calling.

 

If no one raised their hands, the person would still have that calling.

 

And you should also look up "begging the question".  What you have said does not "beg the question".

Sorry, you need to learn some manners.  You can answer a question without belittling the questioner.  Thanks anyway.  I will remember that you require perfection.

[jwhitlock]

Good thoughts on the link.

 

As I've looked at the policy, my first question was "Why did the church put this out and phrase it this way?" I then proceeded to look for explanations as to why the line was drawn.

 

I've come to the conclusion that there are good reasons for the policy, and that the "it will hurt the children" claims being made are blowing things far out of proportion. The policy is also consistent with real world experiences.

 

I support the policy as sound. It provides the mechanism for those who are truly committed and want to get baptized to do so. It not only protects the church and its members, but defines another line that I suspect will be used to divide the wheat from the tares.

[JAHS]

I am not angry, but fear for those who deny the mercies of a loving God. We baptize children who are in family that are part member or any other family environment. I do not support SSM, but children are being denied membership because of the sins of their parents?

Do you know any same gender married lds or non-LDS couples who want their child to be baptized?  They are not being denied membership; they might just need to wait a while before becoming a member. My great great grandfather had to wait for 200 years to be baptized. Ultimately God does not deny anyone the opportunity to join his kingdom who wants to. 

[mfbukowski]

The problem with that is... we are also asked this question "Those who oppose, same sign".  ( That right there makes it a vote) That gives others a chance to make their objection known and the leaders can go ask that person why the opposing vote.  Maybe that person knows something about person X, eg. they are on the sex offenders list,  and you oafs in the Bishopric are calling them to the primary.

NO it does not make it a vote!  Opposition to a calling is not a "no vote" on a calling, it is active OPPOSITION.  You are not saying "No, I think that person z would be better at that than person x" you are saying "I am OPPOSED to that person- for a reason"

 

If you have a good reason to make known your OPPOSITION then you should make it known.

 

No one is asking "should this person have this calling?" It is not a yes or no to that question.  It is a question of whether or not you SUPPORT that person and will actively help them, or if you are OPPOSED to the decision the Bishop has made.

 

It's not a "no vote", it is the statement that "That person should NOT be in that calling because...."

 

It is not a choice between Susie or Ted, it is saying "Regardless of who is called, Ted should NOT be in that calling!"

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed.

I am emphasizing it because it seems the discussion has focused on "child welfare" and that the child will have problems due to the policy.

 

My point is that the salvation of the child is not even an issue, relative to the horrible conflict the parents have set up by both affirming the church and denying its policies at the same time both vocally and by their life-style choices.

 

They are saying in effect "do as I say but not as I do".  They are saying "The LDS church is a good church and one should be a member" while saying "The LDS church is wrong about same sex marriage"

 

What is an 8 year old supposed to do with that- an immature individual clueless on what being gay or being married is even about??

It would be eminently cruel to expect one to accept and live up to covenants with the odds thus stacked against him in terms of a nurturing environment.

 

I look at our own family situation. We are far from perfect, and I'm probably the most flawed of us all, but I recognize that our eldest son is in the mission field now largely as a result of the influence he received from us. Would he have fared so well without it? I strong doubt it, even with the programs and classes of the Church acting as a backstop.

[Zakuska]

NO it does not make it a vote!  Opposition to a calling is not a "no vote" on a calling, it is active OPPOSITION.  You are not saying "No, I think that person z would be better at that than person x" you are saying "I am OPPOSED to that person- for a reason"

 

If you have a good reason to make known your OPPOSITION then you should make it known.

 

No one is asking "should this person have this calling?" It is not a yes or no to that question.  It is a question of whether or not you SUPPORT that person and will actively help them, or if you are OPPOSED to the decision the Bishop has made.

 

It's not a "no vote", it is the statement that "That person should NOT be in that calling because...."

 

It is not a choice between Susie or Ted, it is saying "Regardless of who is called, Ted should NOT be in that calling!"

 

By that definition of voting then none of the Senators on the house floor vote either.

 

"We propose this new bill be made law. Those in favor. say I. Those opposed. Say nay.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, you need to learn some manners.  You can answer a question without belittling the questioner.  Thanks anyway.  I will remember that you require perfection.

On the correct meaning of "begging the question," Mark and I are equal-opportunity belittlers. I probalby catch far more people on it than he does.

 

It's a common error, so don't take it personally.

[Scott Lloyd]

By that definition of voting then none of the Senators on the house floor vote either.

 

"We propose this new bill be made law. Those in favor. say I. Those opposed. Say nay.

Do we have to point out that the Church of Jesus Christ is quite unlike the U.S. Senate?

 

This is the second time today I've had to address faulty comparisons between parliamentary government and the government of God.

[carbon dioxide]

I am not angry, but fear for those who deny the mercies of a loving God. We baptize children who are in family that are part member or any other family environment. I do not support SSM, but children are being denied membership because of the sins of their parents?

I would agree with this but I also think that the Lord takes it all into account.  If this decision is from revelation, then those children who are denied baptism will not have it held against them for not be baptized until they are able to make the decision for themselves.  God does not punish people for situations that are beyond their control. 

[Walden]

Totally misses the point.

 

The sin which "created" the child can be repented of in a heterosexual marriage.  There is no on-going split with church policy.  The church believes in heterosexual marriage.  Is that news?  Typically no one would even know if a child in the church is "legitimate" or not and it is irrelevant ultimately with repentant parents.

 

In the case of homosexual marriage, there will be direct and on-going conflict with church policy for the lifetime of the child, and everyone will know the parents are gay.

 

In one case the parents created the conflict with their lifestyle decision while affirming their membership in the church and remaining gay and yet desiring apparently that the children should be baptized

 

The conflict is created by the parents by affirming two conflicting principles- being gay and denying church doctrine in that regard while also affirming that LDS baptism is desirable for the children.  They are the ones trying to have it both ways.

 

In the other case, the parents simply made a mistake of which they are more than willing to repent. They are agreeing that they made the mistake and are giving the child a consistent message that LDS values are "correct"

 

This is not rocket science.

You obviously missed my comparison (to busy twisting it to fit into your worldview?)....I am talking about the child of a couple who have never been married nor plan to marry; their children would not be denied baptism or the priesthood, even though the church teaches strongly against that lifestyle, just as they do against SSM. The church essentially allows the hetero, unmarried couple to have it "both ways" as you say, but not the SSM couple.

 

Agree, this is not rocket science.

[jwhitlock]

Do you know any same gender married lds or non-LDS couples who want their child to be baptized?  They are not being denied membership; they might just need to wait a while before becoming a member. My great great grandfather had to wait for 200 years to be baptized. Ultimately God does not deny anyone the opportunity to join his kingdom who wants to. 

 

In the real world, baptizing children of parents who are not committed themselves to the church never really works out. In addition, I can't imagine a SS couple who understands the church's teachings on SSM wanting to let their children get baptized.

 

One of the things about the policy is that on the surface, the first observation should be that it addresses situations that probably won't happen in the real world. With that in mind, there must be another reason why the policy has been put into place. It certainly does not deny any earnest seeker baptism. It's common sense not to baptize children of unsupportive parents in the first place. So what is the policy really targeting?

 

It does draw a clear line that SSM and SS co-habitation is absolutely unacceptable to the Lord and His church. It may also be preemptive in addressing some possible legal attacks that will be made against the church by SSM supporters. The more I read the policy and think about the real - not hyped - implications of it, the more interesting the policy gets. 

[Guest]

Do you know any same gender married lds or non-LDS couples who want their child to be baptized?  They are not being denied membership; they might just need to wait a while before becoming a member. My great great grandfather had to wait for 200 years to be baptized. Ultimately God does not deny anyone the opportunity to join his kingdom who wants to.

Yes I know "part member" and "SSM" on this site who would and have. As to non-members, I have know Tom families who allowed their children to be baptized, because they were attending (the child that is) with member friends.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not angry, but fear for those who deny the mercies of a loving God. We baptize children who are in family that are part member or any other family environment. I do not support SSM, but children are being denied membership because of the sins of their parents?

As the FairMormon blog stated:

 

the Church does not believe that a child who cannot receive baptism because of their parents’ action will be condemned. All have a full and free opportunity—either in this life, or in the next through vicarious temple ordinances—to accept the gospel. Others cannot prevent this forever. But, in some cases, a child must wait to be baptized if the parents’ actions make it necessary.

 

It goes on to cite the case of polygamous groups where the actions of parents make it necessary for a child to wait to be baptized.

[Guest]

As to your last, polygamist groups they are cultists and will teach their children to be polygamist.

[bluebell]

It's been eye opening.

The church really is infallible.

I agree the church is fallible. But society's reaction to church policy is not the measuring stick for determining that.

Edited November 7, 2015 by bluebell

[Kenngo1969]

I am not angry, but fear for those who deny the mercies of a loving God. . . .

 

I would agree with this . . .

It's not about denying anyone blessings: it's about protecting them from making covenants which they may not be in an optimal situation to keep.  I try to not get angry at God when He's being merciful to me.

[JAHS]

As to your last, polygamist groups they are cultists and will teach their children to be polygamist.

And with SSM couples, won't they also teach their children to accept their lifestyle?

[CV75]

If children were really at home being "unavoidably indoctrinated against Church teachings" it is unlikely that those parents would have given permission to be baptized.  So this was a problem that didn't need to be solved.  And yet, the Church decided to call out gay parents in its policy.

I find this incredibly naive. Of course they would give permission for all the reasons same-gender couples and their sympathizers want to retain/maintain a familial, cultural or political identity with or presence or voice in the Church. The Church isn't going to enable the children being used that way. Let them grow up and decide for themselves, and testify against the false traditions of their same-gender fathers so that they are answered upon the heads of the truly accountable.

Edited November 7, 2015 by CV75

[rockpond]

I find this incredibly naive. Of course they would give permission for all the reasons same-gender couples and their sympathizers want to retain/maintain a familial, cultural or political identity with or presence or voice in the Church. The Church isn't going to enable the children being used that way. Let them grow up and decide for themselves, and testify against the false traditions of their same-gender fathers so that they are answered upon the heads of the truly accountable.

So if a parent wants to maintain a presence in the church and gives permission for their child to be baptized than why would they be indoctrinating their child against the church. That just doesn't make sense.