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

[Zakuska]

I don't know if that is the case. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37258228&nid=1284&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-1

at the section Longstanding precedents shows that the church has various restrictions for baptism

"The new policies are similar to multiple church policies and practices regarding baptism. For example, no child between 8 and 18 may be baptized without parental approval. No spouse can be baptized without the consent of the wife or husband. The church has declined to baptize many Muslims because doing so would put them in danger for leaving their faith either under interpretations of Islamic law or family culture. Similar restrictions have been in place in countries where governments have implemented strict laws."

On my mission in Portugal there was a policy put in place that we couldn't teach/baptize anyone from a Gypsy background. We had a couple Elders who baptized a 19 year old Gypsy girl and when her family found out there was a pipe bomb detinated on the front steps of the Chapel with a nasty gram attached. No one ever saw the girl or her family again. So I think that's a wise policy. Edited November 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[Rivers]

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.

Does it have to be a good thing or a bad thing? How about we just call it a thing. Edited November 8, 2015 by Rivers

[Bernard Gui]

The only issue that matters is whether or not the actions in homosexual relations are sinful.

All others depend on the answer to that question. We LDS will not resolve these difficulties

among ourselves unless we are united in that answer. It's beyond hope to resolve

this with the world because the notion of sin is now seen as outmoded and hateful.

Apparently we now have this same attitude within our own community.

The time prophesied by Elder Maxwell in 1978 has arrived....."But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21)."

From the same talk...."Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran also observed, 'A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it' (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened."

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell_meeting-challenges-today/

Choices, choices.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[sunstoned]

For such an insignificant church filled with illogical rubes and led by evil right wing conservative men like Dallin Oaks, we sure get a lot of press.

In your opinion, how significant is Scientology?  They also have been generating a lot of press.

[Avatar4321]

The Lord is playing for the souls of men. His game is a long game. He sees the beginning from the end. I'm very confident in whatever strategy He employs to reach that goal.

The Lord kept back the Gospel from the Israelites in Moses day. They were not given the melchizedek priesthood. He later kept the Gospel back from the Gentiles. He told Enoch to not preach the people of Canaan.

They weren't withheld it till the were 18. The Lord withheld the Gospel from them their whole mortal life. Heck the Gospel was withheld from people for hundreds of years.

The Lord knows what He is doing. This is His work. And you can either accept that or get angry with Him and His servants about it. I don't know about all of you, but I'm confident the Lord is far more aware what is going to lead to the eternal life of the most people possible.

[sjdawg]

The Lord is playing for the souls of men. His game is a long game. He sees the beginning from the end. I'm very confident in whatever strategy He employs to reach that goal.

The Lord kept back the Gospel from the Israelites in Moses day. They were not given the melchizedek priesthood. He later kept the Gospel back from the Gentiles. He told Enoch to not preach the people of Canaan.

They weren't withheld it till the were 18. The Lord withheld the Gospel from them their whole mortal life. Heck the Gospel was withheld from people for hundreds of years.

The Lord knows what He is doing. This is His work. And you can either accept that or get angry with Him and His servants about it. I don't know about all of you, but I'm confident the Lord is far more aware what is going to lead to the eternal life of the most people possible.

I'm confident the Lord knows what he is doing.   I'm substantially less confident the LDS Church knows what the Lord is doing.

[Senator]

Just a theory, and I admit I'm speculating, but trying to make sense of it.

Is this just legal pre-emptive maneuvering? The church is getting ready for a religious liberty fight all the way to the Supreme Court,,,,and I'm wondering MAYBE if this policy clarification originated from the church's legal department. We've heard rumors already that the church is considering another pre-emptive move: getting out of the marriage business completely. (I actually hope they do.)  It's possible the time will come that LDS bishops will not be legally marrying anybody in attempt to avoid the lawsuits that will come regarding discrimination, and even temple sealings will no longer be a legal marriage,,,but rather a religious ordinance only, after the couple is wed legally by a justice-of-the-peace.  Who knows.

What if this is all in anticipation of the very real possibility of a disingenuous gay couple who are political activists, and much like walking into a bakery that they know won't bake them a cake, they really just want to test the church looking for a discrimination case they can take all the way up the chain.  It's hard for me to believe the church would make this harsh policy in order to prevent this, because I'm not sure how it would prevent it, but maybe some lawyer decided it puts the church in a more favorable legal position to have the official policy first, then make lots of exceptions which I'm hopeful they will make.  Maybe it's better to take a bad PR hit now, rather than experience the Cathy Davis County Clerk national fiasco?  

And I doubt any church spokesperson, including an apostle, would ever publicly admit this.  When we replaced every door in the entire church so it had windows in it, the "company line" was it was to protect the children,,,which was true,,,,but we all know it was to save a ton of $ and bad PR in lawsuits.  I admit it's cynical reasoning, but I'm convinced there's a lawyer behind every one of these policies, and the brethren are just signing off on it.  This is how modern revelation works guys. 

Excluding your last sentence, this has been my suspicion of this policy from the get-go.

[Monster]

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.

The whole purpose of the church is to get people to conform and to punish them for their actions. That is what they do. Now they have just taken it to the children also.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Thanks for the insight.

 

On the other hand, it may not have mattered what the law was where the church was concerned. The church was not going to be allowed to build or have a presence if they didn't put an agreement in place concerning proselytizing. So, despite what the law says, the agreement was put in place as a compromise to move things along.

 

This happens all the time, because reality dictates that a person or people in power can stop things by holding them up with regulations or court battles to the point that the church (in this case) finally just gives up and goes away.

 

I suspect that's what really happened.

[Calm]

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

 

Not a rhetorical question---looking to see if there is any possibility of communication with those who are willing to support the policy (even those who see that support as dependent on what happens in the future).

 

What about those who are willing to consider it a lesser evil?  Is there any possibility here for you that leaders knew there would be harm whatever the choice...do something (increase the sense of distance and difference many members feel as this discussion indicates), do nothing (which may raise false expectations about future church policies, such as allowing SSM couples to be active members in full fellowship with maybe even temple privileges as has been discussed on the board, that are very unlikely to happen in their view---if discussion here and elsewhere is an indication---that could lead to feelings of hurt and betrayal when they didn't appear) and chose the route that presents church doctrine in a clear way but also in the end they believed would minimize damage?

 

And perhaps this belief was based in part of studying the experience of gays and their families with the Church over the past 40 years or so in depth.  There is a lot of material that has been collected probably, both by professionals and just through appeals for information and help from families, bishops and others.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Calm

[jwhitlock]

In your opinion, how significant is Scientology?  They also have been generating a lot of press.

 

Not nearly as much as the church, and it's been a very different kind of press - almost entirely negative.

 

My wife pointed out that in our local paper (very provincial rag) there were exactly three stories in the national news section. And one of them was about the policy revision by the church. In Pennsylvania, no less.

[jwhitlock]

I'm confident the Lord knows what he is doing.   I'm substantially less confident the LDS Church knows what the Lord is doing.

 

I'm sure you are. However, many of us on the other side see the hand of the Lord repeatedly manifest in how the church is run. It's there for anyone who wants to dig for it with an open mind.

[jwhitlock]

The whole purpose of the church is to get people to conform and to punish them for their actions. That is what they do. Now they have just taken it to the children also.

 

What church are you talking about? Or is this some kind of unsubstantiated throw-away statement?

 

Or is this something that critics of the church will acclaim as wonderful insight?

[Calm]

On the other hand, it may not have mattered what the law was where the church was concerned. The church was not going to be allowed to build or have a presence if they didn't put an agreement in place concerning proselytizing. So, despite what the law says, the agreement was put in place as a compromise to move things along.

 

This happens all the time, because reality dictates that a person or people in power can stop things by holding them up with regulations or court battles to the point that the church (in this case) finally just gives up and goes away.

 

I suspect that's what really happened.

Perhaps, but consultations with those who worked with government leaders seems like it would be an intelligent thing to do and if they didn't even consult the "one member being a brilliant, and well-connected solicitor with a deep knowledge of religious freedom in Israel" it does leave room for wondering.

[Senator]

The whole purpose of the church is to get people to conform and to punish them for their actions. That is what they do. Now they have just taken it to the children also.

Nah

[jwhitlock]

The media has noted that the church has been very consistent in the message it has been sending about loving people no matter what their circumstances are. That's the overall context in which the church is currently operating.

 

So when this policy comes along, instead of trying to understand it in the context of the clear message the church has been consistently sending, some people automatically treat it as an anomaly or a mistake, and then impute all kinds of bad-faith dealings by the leaders of the church in order to justify their attacks.

 

And they refuse to try to understand it, as has been shown by some of the posters on this thread.

 

I appreciate the anecdotal experiences that have been posted here. I have appreciated those who have worked to make sense of the policy and have shown that it is clear and well- reasoned and consistent with the message the church is sending, both in regards to SSM itself and in our love in dealing with individuals. I appreciated the remarks of Elder Christofferson, who had the job of being the front person for the church in a situation where the haters were going to rip him apart no matter what he said. He's been ratcheted up a couple of notches in my esteem for him.

 

An additional affect of these types of situations (I don't know if they're intended or not) is to bring opposition to the church out of the woodwork so that it shows its true colors more clearly. It makes me all the more appreciative of which side I stand on.

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps, but consultations with those who worked with government leaders seems like it would be an intelligent thing to do and if they didn't even consult the "one member being a brilliant, and well-connected solicitor with a deep knowledge of religious freedom in Israel" it does leave room for wondering.

 

That's from Volgodon's perspective. He doesn't have all the facts, as he admitted.

 

I'm not sure that there's anything a well-connected solicitor would have been able to do anyway. The opposition to the church in Israel was based primarily (from what I understand) on the proselytizing issue, and if that wasn't resolved, it didn't matter if the church demanded protection under the religious freedom laws in Israel. It might have won the battle, but lost the war, so to speak.

 

With the agreement, they found a compromise that worked for what the current needs were. The members of the church there may not have liked it, or may have felt "left out", but there probably wasn't much real choice in the matter. So that's what's in place until the Lord sees fit to change it.

[name]

A few more thoughts about this:

For believing LDS parents, getting their children to receive LDS baptized is critical - it is about eternal life for their children. Now, these parents, extended families, grandparents, etc, are placed (forced IMO) in an enormously difficult position. They no longer are making these difficult decisions for or about themselves, these decisions now have significant impact on the eternal security of their young children - the grandchildren/nephews/nieces/cousins/etc.

Simply put - This is the threatening of a loved one (In this case, a child) and the obvious results of this threat will be enormous weights of persuasion and pressure dumped on entire families. It will cause much pain, angst, division, and heart-break to many good and decent Mormons.

It's very unfortunate.

It's also very unnecessary.

[SmileyMcGee]

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.

Agreed. I'm trying to understand what the church stands to gain in having this policy. It just seems like it's making a martyr of itself...and making water-cooler talk once again uncomfortable for the faithful. But perhaps I'm wrong in assuming the higher ups want to gain anything...maybe they're a quorum of saboteurs and pranksters. If so, they appear to be doing an excellent job!

[Calm]

Its like we are sending them in to battle without any equiptment at all.

Or they are trying to limit the battles they are set into.

[SmileyMcGee]

I'm sure you are. However, many of us on the other side see the hand of the Lord repeatedly manifest in how the church is run. It's there for anyone who wants to dig for it with an open mind.

This laughable J...you both are just seeing what you want to see.

[jwhitlock]

Agreed. I'm trying to understand what the church stands to gain in having this policy. It just seems like it's making a martyr of itself...and making water-cooler talk once again uncomfortable for the faithful. But perhaps I'm wrong in assuming the higher ups want to gain anything...maybe they're a quorum of saboteurs and pranksters. If so, they appear to be doing an excellent job!

 

Strange. I don't feel uncomfortable at all with the policy.

 

Then again, I made the effort to try to understand it, rather than joining with the torch and pitchfork rabble.

[Stone holm]

I'm confident the Lord knows what he is doing.   I'm substantially less confident the LDS Church knows what the Lord is doing.

Yes sometimes there is confusion on this point

[jwhitlock]

This laughable J...you both are just seeing what you want to see.

 

Ah, the arrogance of the "enlightened" who have embraced the world because the church of Christ didn't fit their worldview.

 

It's actually more of an "eyes to see and ears to hear" kind of thing. But you wouldn't understand.

[Stone holm]

Strange. I don't feel uncomfortable at all with the policy.

 

Then again, I made the effort to try to understand it, rather than joining with the torch and pitchfork rabble.

Not at all surprised with your announcement.