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

[Calm]

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.

Was the Jerusalem Center necessary for the wellbeing of the Church in general? Was it a benefit or a hardship for local members given the limitations that it imposed?  I can imagine they might feel somewhat alienated from and frustrated with the less local Church leadership if the benefit derived helped members outside of Israel in great ways by providing them with the experience of living in Jerusalem for a time while removing the rights and privileges of members living there permanently and making it more difficult to raise an active family there without giving them a chance to express their concerns.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Calm

[jwhitlock]

? Pretty sure I implied that both sides were seeing what they want, not that one was particularly enlightened. Lest you misunderstand, I don't believe in an enlightened set of morals, in or outside of the church.

 

Then I guess you need to be more open about what you're implying.

[rockpond]

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?

 

Saving ordinance.  Life-threatening emergency.

 

I have discussed it in good faith.  But if you won't see any perspective outside of yours as valid than there is really no way to convince you that I am discussing in good faith.

[Senator]

Sure there is.  I see a lot of pain and confusion among the most valiant and active in the church over this new policy.  

 

A brother in my ward is in agony over it because his ex-wife has his kids half the time and she lives with her gay partner.  He has kids under 8 years old and doesn't know if they can be baptized.  The kids love their Mother (and he does too, but they are no longer married).  He has a son who was to be ordained a deacon in a few weeks and the Bishop has told him that he doesn't know now if that can take place.

 

Some clarification needs to happen here and happen soon.  

 

Will this boy be punished and not allowed to get the Priesthood?   Will he have to sit by and watch all of his friends be ordained and pass the sacrament?  How long do you think he'll want to continue attending and be on the outside of his age group?  This man is one of the most stalwart members of the church I've known.

This scenario is something that concerns me about this policy.

[jwhitlock]

I guess the irony of my remark was lost on someone who can't see the limitation of human perspective...or perhaps you're a god.

 

Your remark is lost on someone who understands that the Spirit can overcome the limitations of human perspective - in effect helping them to understand the mind of God.

[ALarson]

You should have left this bit of hype out. Your point would have been better made by just relating the story.

No hype.  Many are in the situation of a joint custody with a former spouse who is now in a gay relationship.  Why do you call it hype?

And, there is a lot of pain and confusion even among the most valiant over this policy.  Hopefully further clarification will help.

Edited November 8, 2015 by ALarson

[bsjkki]

I got an email from my Stake Presidency reaffirming their support of the handbook changes and their support of the brethren. They asked people who had questions to meet with their bishops. My question is to what purpose? What is the bishop going to say to someone who thinks this policy is incredibly misguided? A bishop can only say to a member to "get in line" or we will add you to the "not that faithful" list. So many people seem to think this is a "winnowing" and are happy about it.

[Avatar4321]

Don't underestimate the havoc that believing grandparents can raise in this situation, policy or no policy.

Believing grandparents have enough experience in the Church that they know sometimes the Lord has us wait on Him for the blessings.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

You're an incredibly generous person to give such a charitable interpretation, Calm. You're a peach, and you deserve way better than to have to try to defend this. I wish I could see it, but I just can't. The whole thing was so badly-conceived and handled as to be absurd, yet some members are claiming it must be inspired, maybe even revelatory? No. If it was revelatory, then the leaders need to make that claim. It's obviously not revelatory, it is a manmade policy, pure and simple, and a deeply mistaken one. As we see in the posts above mine, the fanatically faithful will continue to defend this, of course; impervious to ratiocination, any criticism will only reinforce their ingrained persecution complex, which will prove that they, the chosen enlightened beleaguered few, are Fighting The Good Fight.   

 

(God has an urgent need to talk to us about our parents' sex lives, but He's utterly silent about the rationale behind denying Priesthood for women, or the structure of a workable economic system that would alleviate the poverty and suffering throughout the world, or giving us the cure for cancer, or any of a hundred other issues that we could be focusing our attention on instead of defining ourselves by drawing a line in the sand declaring that the major thing we stand for in this world is schoolboy disgust at consensual relationships between people with matching genitalia? For God's sake, and I mean that literally, why?) 

 

I can't fathom how people are not seeing the damage this absurd policy will do if it is actually enforced. Do they realize it amounts to an inquisition on the sex lives of every child's or potential convert's parents? Every baptismal or worthiness interview will hinge on parental sexual behavior. Did the leaders really not see the glaringly obvious interpretive problems even the mere wording of the policy will cause? We're supposed to be trusting these rich figureheads who for over a hundred years haven't said anything we couldn't learn from a Hallmark card to be God's inspired mouthpieces on earth? We're really believing the incoherent idea that we're somehow Protecting The Children?

It makes no sense. I love Joseph Smith's theology, but the modern church never wanted people like me anyway, and I could just barely stomach the anti-feminist stuff before I joined. I thought I was seeing improvement, so I went ahead, I had hope that it was finally changing for the better, that the institution had learned from the whole denying Priesthood for blacks nonsense, but that was clearly an irresponsible delusion on my part. The recent essays have managed to twist Joseph's words around to the point where they can claim with a straight face that he was saying the opposite of what he clearly said, and this new policy is just the last little straw. I'm still not quite decided, and I'm going to talk with some close friends in my ward, see if they can offer a perspective I'm missing, but if leadership doesn't pull a mighty backpedal on this policy I'm probably out. The good bits of Joseph's theology can be found elsewhere, but the modern church has regressed to the point where the 19th century frontier looks more tolerant and loving. The price of being associated with this blatant homophobia and misogyny and family-splitting tribalism is just too high for me. 

[Calm]

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.

The decision being made you are talking about....participating in a gay marriage?  Or something else.

 

Not making much sense about how a gay marriage for an individual would have impact on grandchildren/nephews/nieces/cousins' ability to be baptized, their own children yes.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Calm

[jwhitlock]

Was the Jerusalem Center necessary for the wellbeing of the Church in general? Was it a benefit or a hardship for local members given the limitations that it imposed?  I can imagine they might feel somewhat alienated from and frustrated with the less local Church leadership if the benefit derived helped members outside of Israel in great ways by providing them with the experience of living in Jerusalem for a time while removing the rights and privileges of members living there permanently and making it more difficult to raise an active family there without giving them a chance to express their concerns.

 

Perhaps. But since all of this is based on conjecture anyway, I'm not sure we can make that judgment. Also, I'm not sure what rights and privileges where actually removed from the members living there by the agreement. 

 

In any case, my original point was that the church does have a policy in Israel that concerns baptizing others, and it's worthwhile considering it in the context of the new policy revision concerning children of SSM couples.

[jwhitlock]

No hype.  Many are in the situation of a joint custody with a former spouse who is now in a gay relationship.  Why do you call it hype?

And, there is a lot of pain and confusion even among the most valiant over this policy.  Hopefully further clarification will help.

 

Expressing it as "many" is hyping it. The real world percentages do not support the impression of mass dissatisfaction you're trying to project.

[Senator]

You should have left this bit of hype out. Your point would have been better made by just relating the story.

Cmon jwhitlock, if you're desiring less rhetoric in this discussion, perhaps you aught to look at your own contributions to such.

[ALarson]

Expressing it as "many" is hyping it. The real world percentages do not support the impression of mass dissatisfaction you're trying to project.

There are many in this situation.  I've already read of several and it's only been a few days.  I personally know of two who are in this situation.  

 

How many do you need to see in this situation before you care about them?

 

And my statement that you called "hype" was this (the word "many" wasn't mentioned):

 "I see a lot of pain and confusion among the most valiant and active in the church over this new policy."

Edited November 8, 2015 by ALarson

[jwhitlock]

Cmon jwhitlock, if you're desiring less rhetoric in this discussion, perhaps you aught to look at your own contributions to such.

 

So, those in opposition can post all the rhetoric they want, and I shouldn't respond to it?

 

Got it.

[Avatar4321]

Someone who believes in continuing revelation.

Why do you expect continuing revelation to be diametrically opposed to previous revelation? We may as well be expecting God to revoke the commandment "thou shalt not steal" as we would expect Him to revoke this one.

[jwhitlock]

There are many in this situation.  I've already read of several and it's only been a few days.  I personally know of two who are in this situation.  And my statement was the many are confused over this new policy right now.

 

How many do you need to see in this situation before you care about them?

 

How many people do you need to see in this situation who agree with the policy - and some of those situations have been posted in this thread - before you realize that there's more than one side to this?

[ALarson]

How many people do you need to see in this situation who agree with the policy - and some of those situations have been posted in this thread - before you realize that there's more than one side to this?

I'm not the one refusing to see both sides. My response was to your statement that those who are "faithful" are not confused over this new policy.  That's not true.

[Calm]

Was there any possibility that the orthodox Jews that were in opposition weren't particularly serious about that opposition??

Who knows, they may have been open to other forms of negotiation or others encouraged to get involved to outset their influence...perhaps that man Volgadon suggested could have been consulted.

 

We don't know if the assurance to not send in any foreign missionaries or to use the Center in any way as a missionary tool but otoh allow locals to do their own thing according to the laws of the land was even talked about, do we?

[Senator]

So, those in opposition can post all the rhetoric they want, and I shouldn't respond to it?

 

Got it.

Did I say that?

Honest question. Did I say that?

[Calm]

Don't underestimate the havoc that believing grandparents can raise in this situation, policy or no policy.

Yes, including attempting to get the child blessed or baptized against the wishes of a parent or parents.

[Avatar4321]

You're an incredibly generous person to give such a charitable interpretation, Calm. You're a peach, and you deserve way better than to have to try to defend this. I wish I could see it, but I just can't. The whole thing was so badly-conceived and handled as to be absurd, yet some members are claiming it must be inspired, maybe even revelatory? No. If it was revelatory, then the leaders need to make that claim. It's obviously not revelatory, it is a manmade policy, pure and simple, and a deeply mistaken one. As we see in the posts above mine, the fanatically faithful will continue to defend this, of course; impervious to ratiocination, any criticism will only reinforce their ingrained persecution complex, which will prove that they, the chosen enlightened beleaguered few, are Fighting The Good Fight.   

 

(God has an urgent need to talk to us about our parents' sex lives, but He's utterly silent about the rationale behind denying Priesthood for women, or the structure of a workable economic system that would alleviate the poverty and suffering throughout the world, or giving us the cure for cancer, or any of a hundred other issues that we could be focusing our attention on instead of defining ourselves by drawing a line in the sand declaring that the major thing we stand for in this world is schoolboy disgust at consensual relationships between people with matching genitalia? For God's sake, and I mean that literally, why?) 

 

I can't fathom how people are not seeing the damage this absurd policy will do if it is actually enforced. Do they realize it amounts to an inquisition on the sex lives of every child's or potential convert's parents? Every baptismal or worthiness interview will hinge on parental sexual behavior. Did the leaders really not see the glaringly obvious interpretive problems even the mere wording of the policy will cause? We're supposed to be trusting these rich figureheads who for over a hundred years haven't said anything we couldn't learn from a Hallmark card to be God's inspired mouthpieces on earth? We're really believing the incoherent idea that we're somehow Protecting The Children?

It makes no sense. I love Joseph Smith's theology, but the modern church never wanted people like me anyway, and I could just barely stomach the anti-feminist stuff before I joined. I thought I was seeing improvement, so I went ahead, I had hope that it was finally changing for the better, that the institution had learned from the whole denying Priesthood for blacks nonsense, but that was clearly an irresponsible delusion on my part. The recent essays have managed to twist Joseph's words around to the point where they can claim with a straight face that he was saying the opposite of what he clearly said, and this new policy is just the last little straw. I'm still not quite decided, and I'm going to talk with some close friends in my ward, see if they can offer a perspective I'm missing, but if leadership doesn't pull a mighty backpedal on this policy I'm probably out. The good bits of Joseph's theology can be found elsewhere, but the modern church has regressed to the point where the 19th century frontier looks more tolerant and loving. The price of being associated with this blatant homophobia and misogyny and family-splitting tribalism is just too high for me.

How does this policy make any inquisition into someone's sex life? Last time I check, same sex marriage was a very public commitment. You seriously think anyone's needs to do an inquisition when a parent introduces his or her same sex spouse as their spouse? How is this claim at all rational?

Your arguments pure emotion.

[sjdawg]

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.

 

Ah...it is nice to see that you have eyes to see and ears to hear but dissenting opinions are to be tossed away.  At least you are open minded.

[sjdawg]

Don't underestimate the havoc that believing grandparents can raise in this situation, policy or no policy.

I can tell you that  my parents would raise a lot of issues if one of their grand babies wasn't being baptized.   I know this from experience and can't imagine it would be any different if it was my gay brothers child

[Calm]

You should have left this bit of hype out. Your point would have been better made by just relating the story.

I agree with him, there are a lot of very faithful that I know that are confused and very frustrated and even suffering because of this announcement.  I don't think it is hype.

 

It didn't help that when it was leaked it was presented in such a negative way which has led to a lot of confusion over what it means that has not completely been addressed yet by leaders.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Calm