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

[MiserereNobis]

For those who are arguing that all is well because ordinances are available after death:

 

What is the point of this life, then?  Why proselytize?  If people who have greater knowledge have greater culpability, wouldn't it then be better to not tell people about the LDS church so that they don't have to live by and be judged by greater commitments and covenants in this life?

 

Is the logical conclusion that the child who dies before the age of accountability is in a better situation than the child who lives?  Or, the person who never heard of Jesus (and Joseph Smith, et al) is in a better situation than those who have?  The person who doesn't join the LDS church has an easier path that also leads to salvation than the person who does join?

 

And if you say that greater happiness and joy and growth is available if someone joins the LDS church in this life, then... why do you argue that it's ok when these ordinances are delayed or denied because everything is available in the next life?

 

(please don't respond with a red herring about the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church )

Edited November 7, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

 

 

In a video interview Friday in Salt Lake City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed the Church’s position on marriage and outlined handbook changes in Church policy affecting same-sex couples and their children. The interview will help Church members, the media and the public better understand the context and purpose of the changes, which have been discussed extensively in the news media, on social media and elsewhere.

 

 

Downloadable 1080p video of full interview with Elder Christofferson

The changes were made this week in the Church’s Handbook 1 (a policy and instruction guide for local Church leaders) and were approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The revisions were outlined in a letter that was sent to local Church leaders throughout the world.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Calm

[Analytics]

It's a parent/child issue, with parents having responsibility for teaching their children.

Parents shouldn't complain that others (including the Church) won't take that responsibility upon themselves or put their own restrictions on how far they will go to teach their children. It's the parent's problem to solve and ultimately our Lord holds them, the parents, responsible for teaching them what our Lord wants to teach them.

I'm actually a little surprised that a child becoming 18 makes any difference. The parents are still responsible for their children after they turn 18. Until our Lord takes that responsibility from them, if he ever does.

The church could be consistent on the real issue then. Before allowing any investigator to be baptized, they should enquire if one or both of the investigator's parents support same-sex marriage, regardless of whether the parent is gay or not. If The parent does support same sex marriage, then the investigator should be required to repudiate his or her parent's opinion on the matter and get permission from the first presidency to get baptized.

After all, the purpose of the policy is to prevent people from joining the church who are sympathetic to same sex marriage, right?

Edited November 7, 2015 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

Most people can't even see an argument, so don't beat yourself up too much. On Monday, I think I'll talk to my students about viewing arguments spatially as flow-charts, and tell them I got the idea from some poor misguided relativist

In professional philosophers you can assume consistency. I would read a page, skip 5 and read another. If suddenly the argument went haywire from the previous chain, I would go back and find the Y to the new conclusion, and make sure I understood the new direction. I could whip out a book a night that way. If I found a suspicious Y, that was a term paper right there. Drill through that suspicious conclusion and make a case for my point, and that was the semester right there. Worked every time. Teach them to see it that way, and it becomes easy. Shhhhh, don't tell anyone!

[MiserereNobis]

In professional philosophers you can assume consistency. I would read a page, skip 5 and read another. If suddenly the argument went haywire from the previous chain, I would go back and find the Y to the new conclusion, and make sure I understood the new direction. I could whip out a book a night that way. If I found a suspicious Y, that was a term paper right there. Drill through that suspicious conclusion and make a case for my point, and that was the semester right there. Worked every time. Teach them to see it that way, and it becomes easy. Shhhhh, don't tell anyone!

 

Ha!  You've closely described my undergraduate years.  I was always so confused why people had hard times coming up with significant claims for their papers, when I was seeing a (using your term) "suspicious Y" here and there.  I concluded that there is somewhat of an ego required to write good analytical/critical/philosophical papers

 

Of course, I always waited until the night before the paper was due to actually put down on paper the reasons behind the suspicious Y... but hey, it worked out for me!

[rockpond]

They are saying "do as I say but not as I do".

Does that help? Their actions "indoctrinate" the child to behaviors in conflict to church policy while they affirm both the church and the policy. That sends a conflicting and confusing message to the child.

So you've got a child that wants to be baptized and his gay parents would like him to be baptized. But, to avoid sending a confusing message we're gonna tell the kid "no, you can't be baptized into the church because we think you might be conflicted about your parents sinful relationship. We'd rather deny you the gift of the Holy Ghost and restrict you from full participation in the church."

Brilliant.

[rockpond]

Duplicate

Edited November 7, 2015 by rockpond

[Avatar4321]

Informative.

The children can still receive blessings of comfort and for illness as long as parents allow it.

[Avatar4321]

I have never seen a teen who wanted to be baptized, at odds with their parents about it, being allowed to be baptized.

We have had several attend church and activities who had to wait to age 18, as is the policy.

That's what I've seen as well

[Rivers]

I am impressed with the manner in which Elder Christopherson answers these questions.

He didn't really say anything new but it was great hearing it from an apostle.

He is very sincere and genuine.

[JAHS]

[Avatar4321]

So you've got a child that wants to be baptized and his gay parents would like him to be baptized. But, to avoid sending a confusing message we're gonna tell the kid "no, you can't be baptized into the church because we think you might be conflicted about your parents sinful relationship. We'd rather deny you the gift of the Holy Ghost and restrict you from full participation in the church."

Brilliant.

Many people are instructed to wait on baptism. Why is this particular scenario, as unlikely as it is, a problem for you?

[Rivers]

Informative.

The children can still receive blessings of comfort and for illness as long as parents allow it.

Yes. The church is still abiding by the commandment to "suffer the children and forbid them not to come unto" Christ.

[divinenature]

He didn't address situations like Daniel2's. That is what most people are agonizing over and would most have liked clarified. I found this scripted dialogue very unhelpful.

[Duncan]

Many people are instructed to wait on baptism. Why is this particular scenario, as unlikely as it is, a problem for you?

 

because all kids under the age of 18 need parental consent to be baptized and if you have their permission then what's the big whoop? 

[california boy]

From the church. As the church continues to marginalize an already marginalized group of people it becomes an emotionally dangerous place. It is better to avoid such danger all together.

 

I am beginning to agree with you.  I have made a conscious decision to not be a part of the church because I am gay.  There is no place in the plan of salvation if you are gay.  I have accepted that and, though I have always supported my children's involvement in the church, I am feeling that the church is becoming overtly hostile to families that have a gay parent.  If my children were younger, it would break my heart that they could not be members of the church. I always thought that the church had a lot to offer someone who is straight.  Now I am feeling that if my children were younger, they would be nothing but hurt and anger towards the church for not allowing them to be members because of the choices I have made.  I think my counsel now would be to walk away from such an environment.  It is no longer a healthy place for children of a gay parent.  This is nothing more but a continuation of the attacks the church has made towards parents who are gay.  Prop 8 was an attack on the civil rights of gay couples outside the church.  Now the church is attacking the children of former members who are gay.

 

 

I remember as a young missionary trying to defend the church's position on Blacks and the Priesthood.  I wanted so much for the church to be guided by the hand of God through a prophet.  The rational I would give investigators was nonsense.  This feels like the same thing.  I have read the defense of the church posted here, and it all sounds hollow.  Like members wanting to hold on to the belief that what the leaders are dictating to the members must be right.  There must be an explanation.  Maybe gay people that want their children active in the church really don't exist.  Maybe it puts children in an awkward situation and would be harmful for them because the church teaches their parent is in sin.  

 

I think of all those members like me who married because the church told them that if they just got married, they would no longer be gay.  When that proved to not be true, a wonderful woman never got the opportunity of having a husband that could love her the way she deserved.  Now she has not only lost her husband, but the support of the church for her children.  They become even more collateral damage in a policy that has now been abandoned.  But it still doesn't erase all the heart ache that policy caused.  Now the church is twisting the knife in that old wound.  I feel so sorry for all of those children of a failed policy. OOPS just doesn't seem like a good explanation.  Either does this hostile move against those very families who once trusted their bishop and stake president that marrying a woman and having a family was a good idea.

[mfbukowski]

What parent would want their impressionable child in an organization which would teach them that their parents were wrong? Absurd.

[california boy]

This "official" explanation makes me a bit ill.  He basically said the church is using children to make their point even stronger (as if they haven't been clear enough) against gay marriage.  (just so we are clear)

 

The only children of gay couples that want their children to be baptized in the church would be where joint custody may be involved with a spouse that is a member.  Now the support of church membership is withdrawn from them.

 

Or a gay couple who knows the the church is not a great place for gay members, but certainly is a good place for straight children.  Now that option is taken away from both the parents and the child.  Because why?  Gay parents can't explain to a child why the church may not be good for them, but would be good for their children?  Sad.

 

I am sure this explanation will work for those that want to support the church badly enough to not see the illogical reasoning for the policy.  I guess that is all it was intended to do.  Mission accomplished.  The rest is collateral damage.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I appreciated Elder Christofferson's calm manner, but he simply didn't acknowledge or address the actual concerns people are having. 

 

So we don't practice mind-control, and people can have different opinions, but actual advocacy is a problem ... in which case what good does having a different opinion do? This is complete authoritarian silencing, not the persuasive method of D&C 121. 

 

It's okay to give a blessing to a sick baby, or a blessing of comfort or guidance, but the name and blessing is still out, simply because it triggers things like a membership record and an "expectation of primary attendance," which might not be approved of by the parents. In that sense, I can see why they don't want to cause a rift, but having a policy of excluding children, fullstop, is just not how to solve the problem. Regardless, the children would still not be able to live with their parents after age 18 (not everyone is out the door on their birthday, even assuming they have the money to do so), meaning they are still being forced to choose between their parents and the church, for absolutely no good reason. Ssm is a "particularly grievous sin", and yet the children of unfaithful or divorced heterosexuals are not excluded this way. He talks about the Savior's pattern in which He always remained firm in what was right and wrong ... except that there is not a single instance of Christ saying anything about same-sex marriage. It's the height of irony that we've now become the ones who decry polygamy, and use it as a precedent to deny ssm. 

 

"It's a matter of a firm policy that doesn't allow for question or doubt." 

 

Well, I guess that, if nothing else, has been made abundantly clear. We are punishing children for the actions of their parents. This is not about love. 

[Kenngo1969]

 

...  We are punishing children for the actions of their parents. This is not about love. 

 

No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not punishing anyone: it is preventing children from being placed in situations in which they make covenants it would be difficult for them to keep. I see that as an act of mercy, not as a punishment.

 

Your mileage obviously varies.

[california boy]

No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not punishing anyone: it is preventing children from being placed in situations in which they make covenants it would be difficult for them to keep. I see that as an act of mercy, not as a punishment.

 

Your mileage obviously varies.

 

So maybe the church should stop baptizing all together since EVERY time a person is baptized they are making covenants that may be difficult to keep.  

[Zakuska]

Elder Christofferson starts out by declaring this is about family and love and especially the Love of the Savior

So Lets see what Jesus would do...

Jeremiah 3

11 And the Lord said to me, “Faithless Israel has proved herself more righteous than treacherous Judah.

12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north and say,

‘Return, faithless Israel,’ declares the Lord;

‘I will not [h]look upon you in anger.

For I am gracious,’ declares the Lord;

‘I will not be angry forever.

13

‘Only acknowledge your iniquity,

That you have transgressed against the Lord your God

And have scattered your favors to the strangers under every green tree,

And you have not obeyed My voice,’ declares the Lord.

14

‘Return, O faithless sons,’ declares the Lord;

‘For I am a master to you,

And I will take you one from a city and two from a family,

And I will bring you to Zion.’

The only thing the Lord asks his porn star serial adultuerous wife (The Nation of Israel) to do is to return to him and confess her sin.

He doesn't even say he's going to divorce (excommunicate) her for this sin. He simply forgives it and asks her to acknowledge she was wrong. No form of discipline is imposed on this Adulteress Wife.

Like wise..

When the Adulteress Woman is brought before the incarnated Jesus to be stoned and he's drawing on the ground. He does not "condemn" nor impose any type of discipline or punishment. The sin is simply forgotten. No excommunication is performed or mandated.

I guess same sex marriage is a worse sin than elicit serial adultury and as the Apostle says requires "manditory discipline".

I dont think it is about Love nor does it follow the pattern of the way Christ delt with sin or sinners. To enforce these waiting periods on people to make sure their not living with a parent or loved one who is gay even after they are 18 is absurd.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[why me]

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 don't think that this is quite true. No one is being denied membership. However, I do think that an eight year old may not be in a good position if they are baptized when their parents are not formally recognized for their marriage. The confusion may be too much for a child. By allowing them to make their own decisions as an adult in this matter just may be the correct way. I also think that that these children will be allowed to be baptized when they are 16 with the parents' permission.

 

Mormons have to make a crucial decision (This is not directed at you): Is the lds church run by god or by human beings. If one decides that it is run by human beings, it would be best to leave and spend time in better ways. If one decides it is run by god, then one needs to work their way through the decisions make by heavenly father. As I see it now from internet reading, the lds church is in internal chaos as members are questioning more and more their church's decisions and its leaders.

[Meadowchik]

I haven't posted too much on any of the threads about what I've been experiencing emotionally. Anger and fear aren't really the emotions....more like shock, denial, and some queasiness. Though it may not look like it from the 1-2 posts I have made, I'm actually more trying to figure out what and who this will actually cover... As well as waiting to see what this will really entail and how it will really play out.

I don't mind anger too much....I feel we ignore it too often and give it a bad rap. Staying in anger isn't healthy and leads to bitterness....but bottling it also ain't good. It leaves us emotionally stunted. And this anger, that I've seen from people....it's probably more about grief. It'll most likely pass into other avenues, but grief is grief. I will follow God off a cliff if He told me to jump....I have followed him with things that seemed absolutely crazy to me. Often these have led to pain as well as joy and pain again. Faith cannot remove some bitter cups.

With luv,

BD

I don't advocate bottling anger at all times. What I do advocate in a case like this is not deciding in anger, in trying to understand in patience.

[volgadon]

I'm not usually critical of the church, and I'm not particularly edgy, but I just don't buy this protecting the children logic. This feels more like an ill-considered application of the polygamist policies to a different scenario.