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

[busybee]

This is a really good blog post by someone who is in a position to comment on this policy in a very personal way:

 

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/guest-stand/i-am-the-daughter-of-lesbians-and-i-am-a-mormon/

[Senator]

 

members are questioning more and more their church's decisions and its leaders.

 

As it should be.

 

Remember Pres. BY's counsel.

[jwhitlock]

I don't know if it was posted elsewhere, but here's an LDS Newsroom video of an interview with Elder Christofferson giving additional explanation for the policy change.

 

I would hope those slamming the church would review the policy in the context of this explanation rather than using uninformed, hypothetical situations that don't match the real world.

[jwhitlock]

Yes, well, the problem is that the blessings of the Gospel are now supposed to be available to everyone—even children. In the words of lds.org: "In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. . . . The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: '[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.'"

 

This statement presupposes that there are no qualifiers to that availability - such as resolution of serious sin, willingness to adhere to the Lord's commandments, evaluation of individual situations to do what's best for the children involved, etc.

 

Such presuppositions are false.

[ALarson]

Do all 8 year old children (or older youth and teenagers) have to disavow same sex marriage prior to baptism?  Will adult converts have to do this prior to baptism?

 

Is this going to be added to the questions asked in the interviews held before a baptism?

 

Or is it just the children of same sex couples who have to disavow same sex marriage?

Edited November 7, 2015 by ALarson

[jwhitlock]

Children of SS parents should reject the church, the missionaries and baptism to protect themselves.

 

You forgot "God" in your list. He is, after all, the director of the other three in the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[jwhitlock]

Do all 8 year old children (or older youth and teenagers) have to disavow same sex marriage prior to baptism?  Will adult converts have to do this prior to baptism?

 

Is this going to be added to the questions asked in the interviews held before a baptism?

 

Or is it just the children of same sex couples who have to do disavow same sex marriage?

 

The policy of disavowing SSM applies only to those who have lived in such arrangements.  A similar policy of disavowing plural marriage applies to those who have lived in those situations.

[california boy]

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.

 

First to answer your question, I had my children when I was married to a woman.  I did that because I was following the counsel of church leaders when they would push gay men into marriage, telling them that if they married, they would no longer be attracted to the same sex. I think this was the beginning of my finding out that I personally could not trust church direction to be right.  I believe they were wrong again when they supported Prop 8.  And I believe they are wrong again denying baptism for parents of gay children.

 

Second, I have made almost 3,936 posts on this board.  While I have been very outspoken concerning some of the decisions the church leaders have made against those of us who are gay, I have never spoken ill of any church leader.  Since I have left the church, not once have I been critical of the church at all to any of my family and especially my children.  Not once have I advocated that the church should change it's policy on gay marriage.  I have ALWAYS supported my children's involvement in the church.

 

I am sure you have gotten "the feeling" that I am critical against the church because I have been very criticle of members who bring up what I consider false rationalization for church policy.  This thread and others on this issue are an example of that.  Even on this subject, I have saild that the church has the right to institute any policy it wants.  But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't or havent pointed out the real world consequences of such decisions.  The above post is actually the very first time I have stated that I am beginning to believe that the church has become a place that is just not healthy for gay families.  It is sad for me to write such a statement, but the harm to the chuldren of a gay person in this new policy I feel is devistating to the dynamics to a family especially when joint custity is involved.  All the sudden, it is not what is best for the children, it is a blanket barring of children from participating fully in the gospel.

[jwhitlock]

God is strong enough to provide haven for all persons outside the church. The church isn't the place for everyone. God's embrace is. The church is not God's embrace.

 

God has provided the church and the covenants / ordinances as the haven and safe place from the world. People can only take advantage of safe havens God provides by being obedient to what He tells us we have to do in order to enter those havens.

 

By its very definition, SSM is an embrace of the world and its attitudes, and not of God what God has commanded. People embracing the world cannot enter into God's havens as long as the continue in that contrary embrace.

[bluebell]

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.

 

He did make it sound like this is really about kids who live in SSMarried homes.  That was consistently the angle that he was coming from.  Perhaps that means something, though i agree that more clarity is really needed.

[jwhitlock]

I should have said that this OP wasn't intended as a place to discuss the policy itself. Moreso, it's about the approach to seeking truth.

Have we ever heard a scripture along the lines of, "Yea, mine anger did lead me to understand the mysteries of God...?"

Anger and other negative emotions and approaches can be part of normal feelings that we must process healthily. However, discernment imo is better obtained in peaceful approaches and peaceful processing itself.

Now I do think peaceful approaches would not conclude the Church is wrong. But, I'd hope that all would agree that peaceful decision-making approaches would tend to lead to good and right answers, whatever they really are.

 

You're correct. People often let their emotions solely drive their decisions and perspectives, as has been clearly demonstrated on this thread. When people refuse to try to understand what God has put in place, but instead rely on their own "wisdom" to make judgments, they often miss the mark.

 

That's what's happened in the case of the new policy. The more I dig into it and understand it, the more consistent it becomes with what the church has done in the past and how God deals with us here.

[bluebell]

 

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.

 

I love it when people say things like 'I'm sure this will make those illogical stupid people happy'....  

[jwhitlock]

As it should be.

 

Remember Pres. BY's counsel.

 

Don't confuse questioning to understand with disagreement designed to reject what the church has done, or to rationalize ones own shortcomings of perspective.

[bluebell]

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.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying.  Are you saying you doubt the Brethren's love for the children of gay parents (therefore protecting children can't be their real motivation), that you think Elder Christofferson is not telling the truth about their motivation, or are you trying to say something else?

Edited November 7, 2015 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

There is a loop whole to this policy as well as the Polygamy policy. All a child of 8 years old of a SSC Or POLYGAMISTS needs to do to get baptized is to not be living with their gay / polygamist parents at the time of their baptism. Go live with Grandma & Grandpa for a month and get baptized during that time. Then you can move back in with Mum & Mum or Dad & Dad because there's nothing saying you can be Exed for living with Gay Parents.

This could also work to side step this uninspired rule for 18 year olds and get them on a mission. Go rent an Apartment for a month get baptized then move back in.

Yes it would be a pain but... it does defeat the policy on a technicality.

Also what if Gay parents & children cohabit-ate with Mom & Dad? There's nothing stopping Gma & Gpa from going to the Church with the child and getting a name and a blessing, Baptism, Priesthood etc. etc. etc.

These legalisms are getting way out of control and too complicated to administer.

What ever happened to people getting baptized because they themselves want to get baptized and are repenting of their own sins and instead of being prevented from doing so because of the sins of their fathers?

This all reaks of the institutionalized divorce court set up by the Prophet Ezra.

Yes, too much legalism. Let God work it out in the end. Our leaders go more by the OT rule than the NT rule. Jesus needs to be the focus here. Joseph mentioned letting the members govern themselves. Free agency, then repenting if needs be. The new CH rule will most likely cause more members to leave and more children to not become members. I don't see the positives, just an iron hand.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Evidently most people dissing the church on this are having trouble grasping the fact that a child who is heavily influenced in a SSM environment - an environment that is fully inconsistent with the restored gospel - is going to be seriously and increasingly conflicted during their Primary and YM/YW years if they have feet in both camps. Elder Christofferson's explanation on that is more than appropriate in and of itself, though I think there are other reasons involved.

[Senator]

Don't confuse questioning to understand with disagreement designed to reject what the church has done, or to rationalize ones own shortcomings of perspective.

Oh, never!

[mfbukowski]

Evidently most people dissing the church on this are having trouble grasping the fact that a child who is heavily influenced in a SSM environment - an environment that is fully inconsistent with the restored gospel - is going to be seriously and increasingly conflicted during their Primary and YM/YW years if they have feet in both camps. Elder Christofferson's explanation on that is more than appropriate in and of itself, though I think there are other reasons involved.

Agreed.

The winnowing has begun.

[Tsuzuki]

Evidently most people dissing the church on this are having trouble grasping the fact that a child who is heavily influenced in a SSM environment - an environment that is fully inconsistent with the restored gospel - is going to be seriously and increasingly conflicted during their Primary and YM/YW years if they have feet in both camps. Elder Christofferson's explanation on that is more than appropriate in and of itself, though I think there are other reasons involved.

Sounds like this could also apply to children of part member families.

[jwhitlock]

Sounds like this could also apply to children of part member families.

 

At a different level. Part member families may send mixed messages to the children, or at worst, have a parent who is simply unsupportive. Children become conflicted because of that, but not to the extent of the cognitive dissonance that exists in a SSM environment.

[why me]

As it should be.

 

Remember Pres. BY's counsel.

Not really. Members should not be questioning themselves out of the lds church. I don't think that that was BY's intention when he made his statement. It does seem that members are questioning themselves out of the church or some are losing their testimony. Frankly, I think that many lds testimonies are weak these days. At one moment, they are bearing their testimony and the next moment, they are gone. I have seen some active members on this board hit the skids when it comes to the lds church. Too much questioning and not much faith is a bad mix.

 

And of course, since this new policy, the internet is full of angry mormons who are now questioning their church. I say angry mormons because I must take them at their word. My point is: not always good to question in such a way that one can find themself outside looking in.

Edited November 7, 2015 by why me

[ERayR]

Yes, too much legalism. Let God work it out in the end. Our leaders go more by the OT rule than the NT rule. Jesus needs to be the focus here. Joseph mentioned letting the members govern themselves. Free agency, then repenting if needs be. The new CH rule will most likely cause more members to leave and more children to not become members. I don't see the positives, just an iron hand.

 

And just what leads you to believe that Jesus is not the focus here?

[omni]

Evidently most people dissing the church on this are having trouble grasping the fact that a child who is heavily influenced in a SSM environment - an environment that is fully inconsistent with the restored gospel - is going to be seriously and increasingly conflicted during their Primary and YM/YW years if they have feet in both camps. Elder Christofferson's explanation on that is more than appropriate in and of itself, though I think there are other reasons involved.

This argument simply doesn't hold water. Where is the concern for the children of parents who are completely inactive? What about the children of unmarried heterosexual parents living together? What about the children of parents who are abusing alcohol, drugs, or family members? If this policy is about the children, where's the consistency? I'm completely baffled by this entire situation.

[Duncan]

I think General Conference just got a little bit more interesting, I suspect we'll hear or see more naysayers during the sustainings

[ERayR]

As usual for those who want to find fault no explanation would be satisfactory.