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

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes it will be and it will be interesting to see how viable what is left will be.

A smaller but more unified body of believers might actually be stronger.

[Teancum]

Interesting, but not surprising. It will be very, very viable.

 

That's what Zion is.

 

 

Well I did not state whether it would be or would not be. I just said it would be interesting to see.

[Teancum]

A smaller but more unified body of believers might actually be stronger.

 

Sure.  Could be.  Or maybe not.  Time will tell. 

 

I do thing this will hurt retaining the millennial generation.  But I could be wrong. I often am.

[Scott Lloyd]

I strongly feel that the SSM issue will be a sifter - among other things.

By the way, I made an error in that post. I meant to say, "as when Moses said to the Israelites, 'Who's on the Lord's side?'"

[rockpond]

This line of reasoning comes from people who really don’t understand how parent-child relationships actually work. Such parents indoctrinate the child in the virtues of same-gender marriage in word and deed while placing him in a spiritual community that indoctrinates the child in the virtues of temple marriage. That is incredibly irresponsible if not hypocritical and spiritually abusive. It is better to just participate socially, which is what the Church advocates in how we are to treat people, than to use spiritual covenants and commitments to impose conflict upon a tender, developing soul.

As a father of four, I have a working knowledge of parent-child relationships.

The problem with your statement is that attending at all will still "indoctrinate" the child. So what were dealt saying is, if you have a gay parent just stay out until you are an adult, move out, and are ready to disavow the relationship of your parent.

I can't support such a policy.

[jwhitlock]

No. God's love and will are not limited to the LDS church. Let's not be ridiculous.

 

I never said it was. Don't make invalid assumptions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure.  Could be.  Or maybe not.  Time will tell. 

 

I do thing this will hurt retaining the millennial generation.  But I could be wrong. I often am.

I'm confident there are enough strong members among the millennial generation that we need not worry unduly. Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I am observing my missionary son and the young people serving with him.

[Senator]

All the people condemning the church for publishing such a policy that is consistent with its well known stance on SSM are doing just that - condemning the church for being open about it.

 

There are quite a few people, including some in the church, who think the church should keep its mouth shut on the subject.

I don't buy that at all.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Senator

[Scott Lloyd]

Because if someone is worthy and has parental permission, than you are denying a saving ordinance and the gift of the Holy Ghost because of their parents' choices. That's wrong.

If it's wrong, then the Church has been wrong for a long, long time, because it has never, to my knowledge, baptized a minor child without the express permission of that child's parent or guardian.

[Teancum]

I'm confident there are enough strong members among the millennial generation that we need not worry unduly. Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I am observing my missionary son and the young people serving with him.

 

 

Well based on what I see where I live and what I hear maybe your confidence is misplaced. But really this is all anecdotal.  25 years from now if we are still here we will be better able to tell. 

 

I do think this policy will hurt missionary efforts in the US, Canada and even more so Europe.   These areas that are already low result mission areas will become even more so. Believers will attribute that to wickedness and it will sustain their testimonies.  Skeptic and liberals will view it as the LDS Church becoming more and more insignificant on the world stage.

[jwhitlock]

Please stay on topic. We're talking about the children of SS couples. I'll not be derailed into the argument.

God has provided a haven and covenant for ALL believers whether the LDS believe it or not. There is no conference talk, Ensign article or D&C section that can refute this.

 

You're the one who brought it up; I'm responding to what you brought up, so it's ridiculous for you to talk about being "derailed".

 

There is no covenant or permanent haven outside of God's own designated church. He will bless people and try to guide them to the extent they are willing to accept what He has, but full safety only exists within the covenants and ordinances as established by Him in His church. If a person doesn't want to enter in to those specific covenants and accept those specific ordinances provided by priesthood authority in the church, then they do not have safety from the world.

 

I see absolutely no evidence for your argument that ALL believers (whatever that nebulous definition entails) have the same claim on God when they haven't been willing to make the covenants designated specifically by Him.

[Damien the Leper]

I never said it was. Don't make invalid assumptions.

You poorly assumed that I suggested children reject God. That was your mistake.

[Damien the Leper]

You're the one who brought it up; I'm responding to what you brought up, so it's ridiculous for you to talk about being "derailed".

 

There is no covenant or permanent haven outside of God's own designated church. He will bless people and try to guide them to the extent they are willing to accept what He has, but full safety only exists within the covenants and ordinances as established by Him in His church. If a person doesn't want to enter in to those specific covenants and accept those specific ordinances provided by priesthood authority in the church, then they do not have safety from the world.

 

I see absolutely no evidence for your argument that ALL believers (whatever that nebulous definition entails) have the same claim on God when they haven't been willing to make the covenants designated specifically by Him.

Designated by Him according to the LDS church. That is not binding on the whole world.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well based on what I see where I live and what I hear maybe your confidence is misplaced. But really this is all anecdotal.  25 years from now if we are still here we will be better able to tell. 

 

I do think this policy will hurt missionary efforts in the US, Canada and even more so Europe.   These areas that are already low result mission areas will become even more so. Believers will attribute that to wickedness and it will sustain their testimonies.  Skeptic and liberals will view it as the LDS Church becoming more and more insignificant on the world stage.

People already reject the Church for  reasons having to do with its doctrinal stance on a wide variety of matters.

 

So, what you seem to be saying is that, going forward, it will be business as usual.

 

Since my youth during the "sexual revolution," people have rejected the Church of Jesus Christ over its allegedly antiquated stance on sexual morality. And yet the Church continues to survive as we look forward to the coming of Christ in glory.

 

Meanwhile, more young people are accepting mission calls today than ever before in history, and there are no signs this is slackening.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

If this is the case then the other side can no longer play the "this isn't a civil rights issue" card

Now that we've established which cards cannot be played, what do we do next?

 

Val, this will continue to be a contentious issue.  It is not easy to answer and there is a fine line between being loving and supporting of our gay friends while at the same time rejecting a gay lifestyle.  It is walking in a secular world, but when it becomes a religious context we recognize what sin is and what it is not.  

 

I continue to go back to being more concerned about my own sins rather than the sins of my neighbor.  This topic is so emotional that it rips us out of this type of context and immediately makes things "us" and "them" without any middle ground.  I am beginning to dislike activists of all kinds because they make so many thing adversarial.  

 

I admire those that remain steadfast in being able to love all people regardless of their sins, station, etc. and consistently invite others to a greater relationship with Christ.  Joseph Smith's statement about teaching correct principles and allowing the saints to govern the themselves follows Christ's teachings.  Truth can be taught, but it remains the individual's responsibility to follow or ignore.  

 

I have always believed that policies are not preferred and often not helpful.  If there is a revelation, then teach the revelation, but keep policies to a absolute minimum.  This new policy is not something I would have recommended, not because of the topic, but simply because it remains a man-made policy. 

 

No one asked for my opinion and I am not responsible for it; the leaders are and they will answer for the manner of their leadership.  I will follow the Savior and try to do my best.  

[jwhitlock]

I don't buy that at all.

 

You have the freedom to dismiss it if you want. However, that doesn't invalidate it.

[Stone holm]

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 posted the Apostle's explanation with the comment that it was the best explanation that I had heard, our Elder's Quorum President responded that the comparison was false, and then basically said the same thing. Our Bishop agreed that a very awkward situation has been created. A former seminary student of mine has indicated that the policy is pushing him to the edge, and just realized the grandchildren he and his wife have been raising may have a baptismal bar. Almost immediately after the policy was adopted, I got an email from a friend whose husband finally joined the Church a few years ago and recently moved to Utah inquiring as to the reasoning behind the move because a lot of her member friends were up in arms. The questioning by membership of this move is much more intense than with Prop 8, and there seem to be a lot more members at least verbally pondering whether some type of miscalculation occurred. Although I understand the reasoning something about this seems off, my wife who is out of State right now called, and I explained the new rule regarding children-- she said, that can't be right. She never, ever questions the Bretheren.

[Senator]

You have the freedom to dismiss it if you want. However, that doesn't invalidate it.

Nor does validation rest in you having stated it.

[jwhitlock]

I'm confident there are enough strong members among the millennial generation that we need not worry unduly. Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I am observing my missionary son and the young people serving with him.

 

We often forget that as people mature and gain experience, their viewpoints change on things and many become even more committed to the gospel. I'm seeing that with young parents in their 20's and 30's and I have no doubt that the pattern will continue.

[CV75]

If the child participates socially, attends Primary and, later, youth organizations, then doesn't that defeat the argument about protecting the child from all that?

I think not, when his participation from the start is structured and guided as having a boundary between the social relationship and the spiritual covenants. Naturally this is laid out more through the interpersonal dynamics than having it explained to a four-year old, but he would get the idea as he grows up. Adults are responsible for helping him navigate how much social involvement he gets, and how he gets along with everyone. Hopefully the same-gender parents, who are primarily responsible in all this, are overseeing his participation in his best interests, just as other non-member families do where a child does not receive permission for baptism but otherwise participation is tolerated, leaving it to him when he is of age. It is actually quite helpful, I think, in helping him avoid the blurring of lines that we see with those who “love the church” but can’t abide her precepts and try to make it everyone else’s problem.

 

I’m not sure of how many same-gender couples would, or would be able to, encourage their child’s making and keeping Gospel covenants on a spiritual level as LDS typically consider that to occur (by example, testimony, companionship of the Holy Ghost, priesthood power, etc.). A non-member with a testimony can only expect to help his child participate spiritually to a limited degree; an apostate or someone with apostate leanings even less so, by definition. Not that any of these are not otherwise good-hearted, law-abiding and upright people in the eyes of the world around them. But I think there are a time and place to wisely shepherd a child in spiritual matters, whether as a parent, relative, friend, or church leader or member, etc. and in that order of responsibility.

 

That said, who knows what goes on in anyone's home?

[Wants2know]

Once upon a time the church claimed to be lead by revelation. Nowadays they just roll out one of the 15 from time to time so they can waffle about policy and clarifications of official practices.

 

Some quotes from the interview (notes in parenthesis mine):

 

This interview is a useful reminder that this is an American church lead by right wing conservatives men. Gay marriage has been around for years outside USA but it's only the US change and Supreme Court judgement that has been the impetus for their leaders to make an official statement about it. Not to receive a revelation... just make a clarification of policy.

Excellent point.

[jwhitlock]

Well based on what I see where I live and what I hear maybe your confidence is misplaced. But really this is all anecdotal.  25 years from now if we are still here we will be better able to tell. 

 

I do think this policy will hurt missionary efforts in the US, Canada and even more so Europe.   These areas that are already low result mission areas will become even more so. Believers will attribute that to wickedness and it will sustain their testimonies.  Skeptic and liberals will view it as the LDS Church becoming more and more insignificant on the world stage.

 

A thoughtful reading of 1 Nephi 14 tells us that the church will be small in relation to the world when looking at absolute numbers. Insignificant, however, is not how it is viewed there. Nor is the influence of the church insignificant currently.

 

If it were, we wouldn't have so many people frothing at the mouth about what the church does at every turn.

[Scott Lloyd]

A thoughtful reading of 1 Nephi 14 tells us that the church will be small in relation to the world when looking at absolute numbers. Insignificant, however, is not how it is viewed there. Nor is the influence of the church insignificant currently.

 

If it were, we wouldn't have so many people frothing at the mouth about what the church does at every turn.

Or lampooning the Church on Broadway and cable TV.

[Scott Lloyd]

Excellent point.

Do you know about rep points?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Commitment is only salutary if one is faithful to good things. I have no doubt that bigots will continue to be committed to bigotry in the future, and will raise increasing numbers of bigots to take their place, contentedly complacent in their sure knowledge that their prejudice and the pain they deliberately cause are divinely mandated.