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

[Stargazer]

I've been away from this place for a week, and would probably have continued to stay away for another few weeks, but when I heard of this policy change I knew that this topic would be rockin' the house here.  So I am here to view the shakin' goin' on.

 

And it's been much as I expected, with a few mild surprises.  The usual Church-can't-do-anything-right party is in full flame, and the opposition party is too.  Have I ever mentioned how it so much resembles politics?  Well, it does.

 

I will admit to being a little puzzled at first when I first heard the policy.  But upon pondering the policy it became quite clear to me why they made it so that a child of SSM parents had to wait until their 18th birthday to be baptized, and would then be required to disavow SSM in order to be baptized.  It's quite simply a matter of respect for the family, and I mean the same-sex family.  I know that those who are so "into" the supposed legitimacy of SSM just won't see it.  And I accept that.

 

I am looking at the situation in its totality.  Because the parents are united in a form of marriage that the Church simply cannot recognize, to allow their minor children to be baptized would be to place the children and the parents in an untenable position of opposition, with the Church effectively preaching to the children that their parents' marriage is invalid and completely unrecognized both by the Church and the Lord.  This would actually interfere in the parent-child relationship in a way that strikes at the very foundation of the relationship, the marriage of the same-sex parents.  The remarkable thing about this is that the Church effectively recognizes the same-sex marriage as "marriage", at least for the purposes of secular society.

 

And now I can predict the objections about to be thrown at me.  "You idiot, Stargazer!  What about the children of a part-member marriage, or the children of a heterosexual common-law marriage, or the children of a same-sex couple that are not married?"

 

The short answer is: the Church is not required to be consistent in all cases.  Ralph Waldo Emerson is famous for having written: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

 

In the first place, assuming heterosexuality, a part-member (or even a non-member) marriage is a marriage, not a same-sex marriage.  In the second place, even a common-law heterosexual marriage is a marriage, and all the unmarried partners would be required to do to be baptized themselves, is to get married.  And the third place?  It's a gray area, pure and simple.

 

Let me tell you about a completely heterosexual gray area I once observed.  A man and a woman in my ward, married but not to each other, became very close friends to the extent that they started participating in some activities with each other that didn't include their respective spouses.  This was noticed, and not just by their spouses.  The Stake President called in the brother to counsel him that this had to stop -- I don't know if the sister in the case was called in for counseling.  Well, they never physically violated their law-of-chastity covenants, but each divorced their respective spouses, obtained sealing cancellations, and after a "respectable" period of time they were married to each other in the temple.  Now, it is my opinion that they both violated the spirit of the law of chastity, and to what I would opine was an egregious degree of violation.  But, since they had not violated the law of chastity in any literal sense, what could the Church do?  What should the Church have done?  My opinion aside, the Church's inaction was justified due to the grayness of the matter.  The ultimate judge of the matter will be the Lord, and His judgement will be just.  But a person who insisted upon complete consistency might have castigated the Church for allowing these two to be sealed in the Temple, since they were both guilty of virtual adultery.

 

I believe the Church has taken the best road forward with the matter of same-sex marriage.  I suspect that the policy will be refined over time, but that is for the future.

[Duncan]

I would love to know who leaked this to the media, would it have been some Bishop or Stake President or someone who works at the COB?

[Russell C McGregor]

Not in bad faith.  Deny:  refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone).

 

That it can be received a decade later under extra conditions doesn't change that it has been denied.

Of course it does. It completely contradicts the claim that it has been "denied."

 

You desperately need to get back in touch with reality.

[Stargazer]

If you include partials, yeah. There are lots of families where the parents divorce because of SS issues and they split custody in some arrangement. 

 

But that doesn't really matter for the policy. Even if the SS parent does not have any custody of the child, the new policy kicks in merely from the existence of the SS relationship.

 

It's got to be in the low thousands, maybe even just one thousand.  I can point to my ward and say there aren't any in that situation -- which is purely anecdotal, not statistically valid in any sense.  

 

I do believe that in edge cases the bishop has the right to make judgement calls according to the Spirit.  For example, it would be totally senseless to put the membership of a child "on hold" just because his or her parents were in a SSM.  You are either baptized or you're not.  You either hold the priesthood or you don't.  I realize that a priesthood holder might, in certain cases, be asked to not exercise his priesthood for a time, but I'd reiterate that that's an edge case to be judged by the bishop.

 

When I was on my mission in Germany, we taught a young man who was just 16 years old.  He wanted to join the Church, but his parents wouldn't permit it.  So he was required to wait until his majority, and he so he waited.  I was home by then, but I understand that he was baptized when he turned 18.

 

It's not a freaking disaster to be required to wait.  In fact, a person might regard their membership as that much more precious, simply because it was hard-won.  Heck, I had to wait a year before I was baptized because my father wouldn't allow it right away.

 

Anyone remember Mangal Dan Dipty of India?  He converted to the Gospel well before WW2, but due to logistical difficulties he had to wait until well after the war was over before he could be baptized.  He was finally baptized by Spencer W. Kimball in the Ganges River.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Stargazer

[volgadon]

Including Israel.

Incorrect, actually. As an Israeli citizen, I have the legal right to proselytize as long as I do not teach minors without consent, or offer financial incentives for conversion. The church did not consult any of us local members-those most affected- before proactively offering such an agreement, nor did they show us the agreement after. This is despite one member being a brilliant, and well-connected solicitor with a deep knowledge of religious freedom in Israel. No, this one is entirely the church.

[rockpond]

That's utter rubbish.

"Sneak it into a handbook a few weeks after general conference and then hide behind your PA department" is NOT "just stating what has actually happened." It's giving a nasty, hostile, accusatory spin to what has actually happened.

What actually happened was that the Church amended the handbook that is used by the people who are actually required to administer and oversee the ordinances in question. There was no "sneaking" and no "hiding." That is just how you choose to snarl about it.

What happened, Rockpond? Up till now you were so serene about how the Lord would eventually bring the brethren into line with you. Surely you haven't given up hope just over a minor setback?

 

If they had wanted to tell the body of the church about these policy changes they had every opportunity to do it before the changes were leaked.  I'll retract the word "sneaking" as having a negative connotation that may not be deserved but I won't back of the claim that they tried to hide the change from the body of the church.  There was no effort to publish that to the general church membership until after the leak.

 

And no, I haven't given up hope.  It will still happen.  Scott's clock is still running and I still have faith that the church will beat the Dehlin prediction.  But this policy change, particularly the exclusion and denial of children, is hurtful and out of line with our gospel standards.

[Russell C McGregor]

This is true.  If a member chooses to a porn star they are not in apostasy but same sex marriage is apostasy?   I see SSM as a violation of the law of chastity but not apostasy.  Both are serious and can get one exed but I do think there is a difference between the two.

Not quite.

Homosexual acts are violations of the Law of Chastity. (That is the case whether the participants are "married" or not.) Entering into a "same sex marriage" implies that homosexual acts will likely take place; but it is those acts, not the "marriage," that violates the Law of Chastity. The so-called "marriage" is an act of rebellion against the authority of the Church to declare what kinds of covenants are consistent with membership.

The Church has plainly and unequivocally declared that same sex "marriage" is not consistent with the covenants we make as members of the Church of Jesus Christ. Thus, entering into such a "marriage" is an act of apostasy that can be regarded as an act of self-excommunication.

 

From dictionary.com on apostasy ""a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc."  If SSM is apostasy then perhaps any action the violates the principles of the church is apostasy.  I just don't see this.

Any action that directly repudiates the Church's teaching authority, and its authority to determine what covenant associations are consistent with our membership covenants, is an act of apostasy.

Not every sin is an act of willful rebellion against our membership covenants, even though ultimately all sins violate those covenants in some way.

[Stargazer]

Incorrect, actually. As an Israeli citizen, I have the legal right to proselytize as long as I do not teach minors without consent, or offer financial incentives for conversion. The church did not consult any of us local members-those most affected- before proactively offering such an agreement, nor did they show us the agreement after. This is despite one member being a brilliant, and well-connected solicitor with a deep knowledge of religious freedom in Israel. No, this one is entirely the church.

 

Curiosity compels me to ask, do you think the Church acted wrongly in this case?  

[rockpond]

Of course it does. It completely contradicts the claim that it has been "denied."

 

You desperately need to get back in touch with reality.

 

Imagine you are lost in a vast wilderness, hungry, weak, and you come upon a small cabin.  You knock on the door and beg for a small bit of food and water to help you on your journey.  You can see that the man in the cabin is well stocked.  The walls are lined with canned goods and full bottles.  But the man says "no, I won't help you, but," he goes one "if you can make it 10 more days down the road, someone will be there to provide what you need."  You leave his cabin hoping, but not knowing if you can complete that journey.

 

I think most would agree that the man in the cabin denied you food and water.  

[volgadon]

Curiosity compels me to ask, do you think the Church acted wrongly in this case?

I think it acted in a way that basically caused us to stagnate, and helped drive most of my generation into inactivity, not to mention the emotional stress of being unable to open up about a key part of ones identity, or explain to neighbours where we go dressed in white shirts every Saturday morning.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Ironically, there is some evidence that Emerson was at least an eensy bit gay. Thankfully, he had children by his second wife, so the little statesmen and philosophers and divines of the Church would have been able to be entirely consistent if his children had wanted to be baptized. If these policies had been around back in the 1830's and '40s, I mean -- y'know, the bad old days when Joseph Smith was turning Priesthood Keys to women and ordaining black men.   

 

Here's a little more Emerson: 

 

“The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.”

 

"God builds his temple in the heart on the ruins of churches and religions." 

 

"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." 

 

"Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship."

 

"The faith that stand on authority is not faith."

Edited November 8, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Russell C McGregor]

No... I am still very riled up... about the policy directed at kids.  I started THIS thread on the definition of apostasy change and I've always been calm about that.

 

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.

If the Church were baptising minor children living under the thumb of same sex couples, they would be expected to sing songs like the following:

I have a family here on earth

They are to good to me,

I want to share my life with them

Through all eternity...

Except that what they are being told at home is their "family" is something that will never, ever, be able to become an eternal association.

And whose fault is that?

Not the Lord's; He arranged matters so that each of those children was born to one mother and one father.

Not the Church's; It has been consistent in teaching correct principles regarding marriage and family.

It is entirely and only the fault of those who, in the plenitude of their narcissistic arrogance, assumed that they could re-engineer those principles to suit themselves.

The new policy means that no child will have to face that unpalatable fact until they are legally able to handle the consequences of the choice before them.

It's an inspired, merciful policy.

No wonder those on the wrong side hate it.

[Russell C McGregor]

I despise this argument,

Is there anything about the Restored Gospel that you don't despise? That would be news.

[rockpond]

If the Church were baptising minor children living under the thumb of same sex couples, they would be expected to sing songs like the following:

I have a family here on earth

They are to good to me,

I want to share my life with them

Through all eternity...

Except that what they are being told at home is their "family" is something that will never, ever, be able to become an eternal association.

And whose fault is that?

Not the Lord's; He arranged matters so that each of those children was born to one mother and one father.

Not the Church's; It has been consistent in teaching correct principles regarding marriage and family.

It is entirely and only the fault of those who, in the plenitude of their narcissistic arrogance, assumed that they could re-engineer those principles to suit themselves.

The new policy means that no child will have to face that unpalatable fact until they are legally able to handle the consequences of the choice before them.

It's an inspired, merciful policy.

No wonder those on the wrong side hate it.

 

You're looking at one particular case (a child being raised by a same-sex couple) and not all the possible cases covered by this policy.

[Stargazer]

 

Ironically, there is some evidence that Emerson was at least an eensy bit gay. Thankfully, he had children by his second wife, so the little statesmen and philosophers and divines of the Church would have been able to be entirely consistent if his children had wanted to be baptized. If these policies had been around back in the 1830's and '40s, I mean -- y'know, the bad old days when Joseph Smith was turning Priesthood Keys to women and ordaining black men.   

 

Here's a little more Emerson: 

 

“The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.”

 

"God builds his temple in the heart on the ruins of churches and religions." 

 

"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." 

 

"Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship."

 

 

Na und?  Emerson need not be correct about everything just because he is right about one thing.  It is said that Der Alte Fritz once said "Jeder soll nach seiner Fassung selig werden", and he was undoubtedly gay, too, and so what?

 

I realize that I'm firing shots way over some of you's heads, with the German, but I'm feeling Deutsch right now.  Here's a translation:

 

What of it?  Emerson need not be correct about everything just because he is right about one thing.  It is said that Frederick the Great once said "Everyone will be saved according to his own convictions", and he was undoubtedly gay, too, and so what?

 

My response to the subject was not Emerson, it was something that Emerson merely pithily conceptualized, so why are you dragging irrelevancies into the matter?

Edited November 8, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

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?

 

Nope, I'm sure this grows out of something entirely different.

 

If an FLDS polygamous family came to the local LDS bishop and asked for their children to be baptized into the LDS church, what should the bishop's response be?  You betcha that his response should be exactly the same.  I don't think there's been enough cause to make a policy about this, but I'd be willing to bet real money that the policy would be the same for polygamous as for a same-sex marriage.  And for the same reason -- I present my reasoning in a post in another thread (labelled with Elder Christofferson's name...  see post 192).

[Russell C McGregor]

Her parents weren't gay...she's okay.

 

Jeanne,

 

If you're going to scold other posters for not being nicey-nicey enough to you, then maybe, just maybe, you might like to hold the sarcasm in your own posts.

 

Just a thought.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Because I despair at my ability to achieve meaningful communication with those who think this policy can somehow be rationalized as a good thing? 

 

Sorry for the derail, I just like Emerson. Back to the regularly-scheduled divinely-inspired schadenfreude.  

[Russell C McGregor]

And no, I haven't given up hope.  It will still happen.  Scott's clock is still running and I still have faith that the church will beat the Dehlin prediction.  But this policy change, particularly the exclusion and denial of children, is hurtful and out of line with our gospel standards.

 

No. It will not happen.

 

Dehlin, the false prophet for his fellow apostates, will be proven wrong.

 

The Church has already received the Lord's direction on this matter. You are the one who is out of step.

 

You are effectively expecting the Church to go in a direction which it has formally defined as apostate.

 

Who, other than someone already in apostasy, could possibly think that would be a good thing?

[Stargazer]

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 

 

BD, I was initially perplexed by the policy when I heard it, but upon reflection I realized why it was necessary and why it is perfectly rational, not to mention merciful.

 

I was baptized when I was 15, but I could have been baptized at age 14.  Except that my father would not give permission.  He made his permission conditional upon my demonstrating that I was serious about it, which meant that if I continued to attend Church and keep the Word of Wisdom, etc, for a year, he would grant permission if I still wanted to join the Church.  The delay didn't hurt me, not one bit.  Likewise, a young man whom I helped teach on my mission had to wait 2 years to be baptized because his parents wouldn't permit it, and he waited until 18, and this didn't hurt him, either.  As to my enlightenment with regard to the policy, it seemed to quickly work out to me, and just in case it helps you, please check out what I wrote, which is found HERE.  

[Russell C McGregor]

Imagine you are lost in a vast wilderness, hungry, weak, and you come upon a small cabin.  You knock on the door and beg for a small bit of food and water to help you on your journey.  You can see that the man in the cabin is well stocked.  The walls are lined with canned goods and full bottles.  But the man says "no, I won't help you, but," he goes one "if you can make it 10 more days down the road, someone will be there to provide what you need."  You leave his cabin hoping, but not knowing if you can complete that journey.

 

I think most would agree that the man in the cabin denied you food and water.  

 

And I think most people would agree that the element of life-threatening emergency, which is absolutely necessary to turn the postponement into a denial, is quite intentionally not parallel to the situation under discussion.

Do you ever have any intention of discussing this issue in good faith?

[Avatar4321]

Because I despair at my ability to achieve meaningful communication with those who think this policy can somehow be rationalized as a good thing? 

 

Sorry for the derail, I just like Emerson. Back to the regularly-scheduled divinely-inspired schadenfreude.

I don't see how it can be rationalized as a bad thing.

[Stone holm]

Both of which are true, and neither of which are in anyway contradicted or ignored by the new policy.Children are still accountable at age 8.Men and women are still accountable for their own sins, and not for anyone else's. Hang on; I heard it was supposed to be us who regularly fall back on slippery slope fallacies.

They are not accountable for things they are powerless to do anything about, they are therefore not accountable for failure to be baptized at age 8 under these circumstances, and may have reduced accountability period.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Exactly my point. 

[Zakuska]

You'd think with how hard the adversary is ragging at this time during the battle that the church would want to take every opportunity they could to spiritually equipt as many youth as they can with the holy ghost and spiritual armor. what's happening is kids of gay parents are being given a handy cap in the battle by having to fight the battle for ten years without that particular blessing and protection. Its like we are sending them in to battle without any equiptment at all.