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

[carbon dioxide]

You hit the bullseye! And it's not at all hard to imagine that if this policy was not put in place that in the near future there could be an avalanche of charges laid against the Church, bitter accusations that It is turning the children of same sex couples against their own parents. As a consequence of these charges -- and the possible law suits that could also insue -- the Church would be dragged through the mud even worse than it is now, with accusations of child abuse and violations of human rights.

And that is why SOME people are so angry.  They want the lawsuits to come.  They want to as much bad things to come upon the church.  By the church doing this, it makes that much more difficult.

[Duncan]

Why? Because members of the media have no agendas and are carefully unbiased in everything they report?

 

That cuts both ways in and out of the church

[name]

Hi jwhitlock

Have you tried to make any attempt to understand why the policy was put into place from the church's point of view? Have you reviewed Elder Christofferson's remarks explaining the policy?

I am not thinking about writing any fiction, so no, I haven't.

[rongo]

Joining this fracas way late (haven't had much internet time at all over the last few weeks). After reading through this and other threads (and some on critical fora as well), here are some points I don't think have been adequately discussed:

 

1) Current bishops have been sent materials relating to this announcement. My stake president requested that we get back to him and let him know that we have read them, because he needs to report to his Area Seventy that he has done this. We were also given an opportunity to ask questions for him to "go up the line" for clarification. I have sent mine (one dealt with church discipline in SSM vs. hetero fornication/adultery). We have Elder Snow of the Seventy for our visiting authority in stake conference in December. I have some questions I might ask him in Q&A (or better yet, a bishops-only session).  Those with earnest questions about this should, in my view, apply the system we have (but often don't use) of sending questions on up the chain. Ask your bishop to send your respectful questions to the stake president to try to get an official answer through President Nelson. If lots of requests like this are happening, clarifications and official communications will result.

 

2) People upset with the policy announcement are intentionally inflating potential children and families affected by this, I think. I have lived in Idaho, Utah, Illinois (Chicago area), Arizona, and Germany (mission). I have been a ward mission leader twice, and elders quorum president twice, a bishopric counselor twice (two different wards), and a bishop twice (currently serving). I am a career school teacher (science and English), and have had and have students with gay parents --- and self-identifying gay students. I have family members who are gay. I know members of my ward, former wards, and stake who are gay. I have been the bishop of gay members who have been excommunicated and rebaptized. I don't personally know anyone who has been SS-married by the state. Granted, I don't live in Marin County, CA, and of course there are many people who are entering into gay marriages (I also don't live under a rock)  But, of all the people I know who are gay and not living the law of chastity (I also know people with SSA who do), not one is married. I don't know what the ratio of married vs. not married gay people is, but my experience leads me to suspect that SSM couples are in a tiny minority. It seems that most practicing homosexuals cohabit or hook up without any intention or desire to civilly marry. The number of gay marriages within the Church is tiny. 

 

3) It seems clear to me that a major aim of this policy is to prevent membership records/numbers from being created for children with parents in a SSM. I think that the reason for this is because our prophets, seers, and revelators are watchman on the tower seeing things afar off. I think that we need to buckle our seat belts for an unimaginable wave of persecution and trouble that will make the late 1880s look like a picnic, and there are protective reasons (for the children and for the Church) in not having, as a general policy, children with parents in a SSM on Church records until they are legally of age and affirm that they reject homosexuality as a lifestyle.

 

4) It seems to be overlooked that applications can be made for exceptions to the policy from the First Presidency. I know firsthand that the First Presidency sometimes grants exceptions to CH1 policy, even for things that CH1 states cannot be done (e.g., women being sealed to more than one living husband). In the case of COPS (children of polygamy), a mandatory part of their application to the FP is a personal interview with an apostle (I was involved with this while a WML in Salt Lake. I've mentioned here before that we currently have a girl from Colorado City at our school. She's in the foster care system and has formally left the FLDS Church, and I told her to let me know if she wants to be baptized [we've talked about her belief in Joseph Smith and the Restoration]. I explained that she would have to meet with an apostle). I suspect that the Church will institute similar measures in applications to the First Presidency with this policy that have compelling and remarkable circumstances, and the Church will investigate to assure itself that the child's and the Church's interests are protected (as it currently already does with COPS).

 

5) Many who are criticizing the Church are using the "suffer the children to come unto me, and forbid them not" tack. What is overlooked is that Jesus also said "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my your ways." In the eternal perspective and God's omniscience, I believe that this policy is actually suffering the children to come unto Him in His way and on His timeline. Those who are the elect and are fit for His kingdom will win out. His sheep are numbered and known to Him. I think that time will show the prescience of those whom critics mock as being hopelessly out of step, behind the times, and out of tune with God's will.  

[Raingirl]

Hi Kenngo

 

If you don't understand how this policy will have great influence on extended family members (In many cases it will flat out force their hand, IMO) concerning the potential tolerance of a gay parent, than I don't know if I can help you. And if we can't even get past this, we surely will not be able to engage the laundry list of other things that is clearly in play with this policy.

The pressure, coercion, and persuasion from grand-parents and extended family members will all be for the sake of the children. That's leverage!

jwhitlock, I hope this will be helpful in your future fiction writing.

 

 

The typical canned response from someone who cannot back up their statements.

[name]

Hi Raingirl

The typical canned response from someone who cannot back up their statements.

"The typical canned response?" LOL!

[Saint Sinner]

So, John 3:5 states that baptism is not a required ordinance of salvation.

Right.

ὕδωρ does not operate as a substitute for βαπτίζω (baptise) in the Greek language. You appear to be missing the point as much as Nicodemus. Edited November 8, 2015 by Saint Sinner

[sjdawg]

Did Elder Christofferson say that members are allowed to support SSM as long as they don't advocate for it?   Doesn't that statement clash with the requirement for children of gay parents to "disavow" SSM? 

[dude]

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

As usual for those who defend every policy change without even admitting it might be problematic, no explanation would be satisfactory.

[rongo]

I would add that I think SSM and similar recent and novel "human rights" issues are unprecedented in the history of the world, and scripture. The test oaths and disenfranchisement of LDS under the legislation from 1862 to Edmunds-Tucker will pale in comparison with what is coming. The Church will be castigated, and many LDS won't be equal to the task of staying and staying true ("will ye also go?"). I think in many ways, we are in uncharted waters, and the rapid nature of change and events will be breathtaking.

I think that God's knowledge of what is coming is behind this and future things that will outrage many, including Church members.

[sjdawg]

The age that one can be allowed to be baptized in the church is 8 years old. Getting baptized at that age assumes that there will be a supportive and active family ready to help the child grow in the gospel. Parents are there to guide and direct the child in that growth.

 

When that support is not there, the child is going to find it very difficult to continue in church activity on their own.

 

Beyond that, when there are situations - such as SSM - where what the child is experiencing is fully inconsistent with the restored gospel, it makes most sense to have the child make such decisions about baptism when they have the experience and maturity to make difficult decisions and live up to commitments without any outside support.

So the children of inactive parents are also excluded from baptism at age 8 because they won't have a supportive and active family read to help them grown in the gospel?  Good to know

[dude]

I'll admit when the alert came on my iPod that the Church was issuing a clarification, I felt a twinge of worry that the Brethren would be back pedaling in the wake of yesterday's uproar. I was relieved to see such was not the case. Clearly, this action was taken thoughtfully and deliberately, and the Church leaders are fulfilling their role to convey the word of the Lord and administer the Savior's Church in loving firmness. This action has been sorely needed for a long time. Elder Christofferson indicated the action came partly in response to questions that have arisen. Too many have gotten accustomed to deluding themselves into believing homosexual behavior does not offend God and does not bring on grievous consequences. The message that it does has now been affirmed with clarity, many don't like it, and that's why we're seeing the reactions we are

Does anybody think a quickly edited video interview release by an apostle just a day into a PR crisis isn't at least somewhat precedent setting?   I can't remember this fast of a response happening before.  Could be stage 1 of damage control?  Stage 2 will be "official clarifications"?    Stage 3 might be actual "adjustments" to the policy?     It could happen.  It's policy not doctrine.

[jwhitlock]

ὕδωρ does not operate as a substitute for βαπτίζω (baptise) in the Greek language. You appear to be missing the point as much as Nicodemus.

 

Well, as I told Valentinus, start a new thread if you want to pursue this tangent. You can then tell us what the water really means - and why other scriptures in the NT confirming the requirement for baptism don't really mean that.

[jwhitlock]

That cuts both ways in and out of the church

 

Of course it does. Members of the media always have an agenda, and always carry a bias. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn't invalidate the interview with Elder Christofferson.

[sjdawg]

Why? Because members of the media have no agendas and are carefully unbiased in everything they report?

 

Because although the general media also have their own biases I think it would be more beneficial than hearing 10 minutes of carefully scripted questions and answers tossed out by a Church Employee.  Maybe some actual genuine dialogue would occur.  

 

On a side note I truly wish they would have sent someone besides Elder Christofferson to deliver the message.   I hope it doesn't damage his relationship with his brother.

[jwhitlock]

So the children of inactive parents are also excluded from baptism at age 8 because they won't have a supportive and active family read to help them grown in the gospel?  Good to know

 

Nope, you misinterpreted what I said. Read again.

[carbon dioxide]

Second, this policy does not only impact children of gay couples. It prevents a child being raised by an active heterosexual divorced LDS parent from being baptized or ordained if the child's other parent happens to be in a gay relationship. The policy provides no exceptions.

I don't know if that really is the case.  I depends on how the policy is read.

 

"A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be  baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:"

 

I can read this to being that that the natural or adopted child of relating to whom the child is legal custody of.  So if the mother divorces the father and has custody of the child and then goes into a SSM with another woman, the policy would apply in that situation.   If the father gets legal custody and the mother goes of on a SSM, the policy would not apply since the child is legally with the father.   The child will not be raised in the home of the SSM situation so the matter would not apply.  Perhaps joint custody would muddy the waters a bit.  I think it all depends on how the custody issues played out.  Based on the policy and what Christofferson said, I believe the intent is on which parent is given legal custody over.

Edited November 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[jwhitlock]

Does anybody think a quickly edited video interview release by an apostle just a day into a PR crisis isn't at least somewhat precedent setting?   I can't remember this fast of a response happening before.  Could be stage 1 of damage control?  Stage 2 will be "official clarifications"?    Stage 3 might be actual "adjustments" to the policy?     It could happen.  It's policy not doctrine.

 

Or, could it be something else? Like the church understanding the policy would bring emotionally wrought critics out of the woodwork, and was prepared for it?

[Calm]

You hit the bullseye! And it's not at all hard to imagine that if this policy was not put in place that in the near future there could be an avalanche of charges laid against the Church, bitter accusations that It is turning the children of same sex couples against their own parents. As a consequence of these charges -- and the possible law suits that could also insue -- the Church would be dragged through the mud even worse than it is now, with accusations of child abuse and violations of human rights.

Avalanche...don't see it as likely at this point given there have been gay parents for a long time who have had children attending church and they haven't sued the Church for telling the kids they were sinners in the past. Parents are parents and most love their kids too much imo to put them through the turmoil lawsuits cause. While it happens---we have seen it more with heterosexual parents of course---I don't see it as amounting to too many. I see the policy legally protecting families, even divided ones, from seeking legal solutions in regards to the exspouse's custodial choices. Usually courts allow each parent to do what they want when the child is with them unless definite harm can be demonstrated. I need to relook up the rulings that involved one parent telling kids their other parent was going to hell, can't remember which way it was decided...or if I am remembering the case clearly.

I think many can imagine the situation if an Evangelical parent told the kids their Mormon parent wasn't a Christian and was destined for hell. Then there could be a problem where a Catholic parent didn't recognize the new marriage of a divorced partner or even the divorceand made a big deal of it with young kids constantly or a Mormon parent that went on and on about how the other parent destrioyed the family's eternal happiness together. All of these are based on imo rational beliefs when looked at as a whole faith but when beliefs are taken in isolation, magnified to extremes and used as sledgehammers to hurt each other in families, I believe the individual using faith as a weapon is twisting the purpose of faith.

I get that some see the Church's action in the same way...and the policy could be twisted just as others' beliefs in misuse. Our leaders will need to be careful to encourage members not to go there. I think we need some clarification of the policy to push it away from misuse.

I hope those who are troubled by this step give the Church a reasonable amount of time to make adjustments or to see the policy in action so it is clear what it is meant for whatever has been said...and if the adjustments don't appear or the reality is seen as wrong, then it is between them and God what their next step is.

And if members aren't realistic about what the policy is for and who it applies to and inflates the danger to the Church by turning some of those it intends to help into supervillians, then the good the policy can result in is going to be damaged as well, imo.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Calm

[jwhitlock]

Because although the general media also have their own biases I think it would be more beneficial than hearing 10 minutes of carefully scripted questions and answers tossed out by a Church Employee.  Maybe some actual genuine dialogue would occur.  

 

On a side note I truly wish they would have sent someone besides Elder Christofferson to deliver the message.   I hope it doesn't damage his relationship with his brother.

 

It wasn't beneficial to hear the church explain its own viewpoint in its own way? And Brother Otterson didn't ask any of the questions that are being asked elsewhere?

[dude]

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.

This doesn't make sense.  

How do you "just participate socially"?   We invite them to come to church and learn side-by-side with the other children,,,,but they aren't supposed to really listen?  

Just be there "socially"?   Seems like the kid will still be exposed to the "spiritual community that indoctrinates in the virtues of temple marriage".  Wouldn't that still be "irresponsible...hypocritical.....spiritually abusive"???     Why would the covenants and commitments impose conflict, but listening to it at church not have the same conflict on a "tender, developing soul"??    

You didn't think this argument all the way through.  

[name]

Does "Calm" really have over 49,000 posts?!?!?!?!

(Sorry for the off-topic post)

[sjdawg]

The reality is that as a religious organization the LDS Church is free to control their membership however they want and I support that right.   I do wish however that instead of singling out children of SSM that they would have simply created a policy that treated all children equally.

 

Maybe they could have just said something like children whose parents are not active members of the LDS church are required to be 18 years old (or have permission of both parents), demonstrate a commitment to LDS Doctrine, and have a support system that will allow them to grow spiritually.  It is the role of the Mission President and Bishop to confirm these requirements are met.

 

I know that my wording isn't perfect so don't judge my rough policy too harshly.  My intent was not to draft a policy but to simply try and look at it a different way.   Why target just children of SSM when I think we could all agree that there a many, many less than ideal living situations in the world that would make successful church membership difficult?   If the goal is to protect the children then protect all of them equally.

[sjdawg]

It wasn't beneficial to hear the church explain its own viewpoint in its own way? And Brother Otterson didn't ask any of the questions that are being asked elsewhere?

No it wasn't particularly beneficial.  It sounded rehearsed, artificial, and even a little self-serving.

 

And I think there are also plenty of other questions that went un-asked by Mr. Otterson

Edited November 8, 2015 by sjdawg

[dude]

Scott, why has this action been sorely needed for a long time? Is gay marriage any more contrary to the laws of the Gospel now that it was before this policy was drafted for inclusion in the Handbook? Is the Church's position on traditional marriage any clearer now than it has been since these discussions began in earnest during Prop 8? 

 

Based on the plain language of the policy ( and I understand that clarifying direction may come later - the following scenario is very well within the pale of plausibility:

 

A 25 year-old man has lived a gay lifestyle for several years, cohabiting with another during that time. Later, he meets missionaries, desires to conform his life to the standards of the Church, gains a testimony, etc. He is cleared for baptism by the mission president. Two years later, he marries a wonderful woman in the Church who knows his past struggles and who loves him. They remain steadfast, active, and as obedient as human beings can be. They have children together. As the children near the age of 8, the family is crestfallen to learn that the kids cannot be baptized for at least 10 more years later because one of their parents (their father) - to use the language of the policy - "has lived... in a same-gender relationship". 

 

Again, I acknowledge (and dearly hope) that some clarifying direction on how to handle situations like this, and other similar situations.

Raise the bar policy for missionaries does not allow exceptions (unless by the 1st presidency) for those who had multiple sexual partners and multiple sexual encounters even before joining the church.  It's a painful, heartbreaking scenario at college Institutes of religion where great kids convert to the church and want to serve a mission,,,only to find out they can't,  even though they've repented of their high school antics that almost every non-member is "guilty" of.....so there's precedence of a similar policy being without scriptural basis.