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

[rockpond]

But custody could be effected through legal channels. That's why the Church cannot count on custody staying the same.

Suppose, without this policy, the child gets baptised while not living with the parent with the same-sex partner. Later, custody gets granted to the ss couple.

In other words, the agreement of the ss parent could be contingent on the living arrangements. Or the law could intervene regardless of the agreement to baptise.

Whatever, the only way for the child's same-sex parents to reconcile with the Church's teachings would be to break up. This represents a major schism for the child.

 

You are misunderstanding... the church's new POLICY makes custody irrelevant.  Just having a gay parent who is, or has been, in a same-sex married/cohabiting relationship denies baptism/ordination to the child.  It doesn't matter if the child never lives with the gay parent.

[mfbukowski]

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 Emerfson merely pithily conceptualized, so why are you dragging irrelevancies into the matter?

After being in Sanssouci last month, I wouild not be surprised that Friedrich Der Grosse had things in common with Liberace

 

[Scott Lloyd]

It must be wonderful to have such a simplistic view.

If the church is growing... Hooray, the stone cut without hands is rolling etc. The church is true!

If the church is growling... Hooray, the winnowing has begun. The church is true!

You get to feel vindicated either way.

I think an enlightened view of Nephi's vision of the latter days leads to the understanding that members of the Church would be few in number, even as it was "over all the face of the earth," and that the prophecy of the stone cut out of the mountain will not have its perfect fulfillment until after the Second Coming of Christ.

[mfbukowski]

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.  

It's called tolerance for ambiguity and the ability to see both sides of a question.

 

I see both sides, I see your side and disagree.  Your inability to see my side is another problem.   Try really hard to see it and maybe you can actually convert someone.  I know you can do it.

[rockpond]

True, but the conflict is there.  You are setting up the gay parent and the other parent to have a conflict over whether or not the child gets baptized in the church or not... with the child stuck in the middle of the confilct.  These are precisely the kinds of conflicts the church is trying to avoid.

 

It is wise to wait until the child is of age, then the child can decide what to do for him or herself.

 

 

-Stephen

 

There is potential for conflict.  But that's true in many cases, not just with a gay parent.  We already had the protection in place of getting the custodial parent's permission before a baptism was performed.  To solve the conflict concern you are describing, we could have just expanded the policy to require consent from both parents.

 

As it stands now, you could have one parent as an active, faithful church member and custodial parent.  The other parent could be gay, single but once lived in a cohabiting relationship with someone of the same gender and this policy requires that the child wait until they are 18 and not live with the single gay parent.

 

I understand the concern you (and others) are raising but this policy goes too far.

[Garden Girl]

I don't know quite where to place this.  Today I attended Stake Conference, the area 70 was a Bro. & Sis. Golden, from So. Africa.  Both had good things to say, I was open to them.  But there was a point where he mentioned the church handbook changes.  And then mentioned hearing of someone who said they prayed about it and felt it was wrong, the changes.  Bro. Golden proceeded to tell us that whenever we are inspired about something that conflicts with the church or scripture then it is wrong, or of Satan.  Then he also said that God loves those who follow his commandments more than those that don't.  I should just stop attending these meetings I guess.  So everything in scripture and the church is never wrong?    

 

Hello Tacenda...

Oh dear... two things that I take exception to in the sense that if we are interpreting something differently from the scriptures, or the Church, it would behoove us to study further, pray, talk with home teachers, or someone in the bishopric, to come to an understanding...

Second, God wants us to obey his commandments... the scriptures tell us this repeatedly... and he loves us when we do... but he also loves us when we stumble, so much so that he sent his only begotten Son to be sacrificed for us because he knew we would indeed stumble and would need a redeemer.  Yes, He wants us to repent, the scriptures tell us that also... and his love for all his children is unfailing...

 

GG

[Storm Rider]

Perhaps, I tend to be slow to pick up stones, knowing that we have further alienated a lot of good hearted, kind, and socially ethical people. And knowing that a fair number of Chritians are going to pick up stones and hurl them at us under the premise of our having done this to children.

 

At this point we have a lot of emotional reactions to something few, if any, understand about how this will affect anyone.  We don't know the numbers.  What has happened is a protected, privileged class of a very small minority of our nation's populace has perceived that they may be harmed in some degree and they want the world to know that they may have hurt feelings in the future over the potential of not getting their way.  

 

Nothing has yet happened. 

 

Yes, bad things will happen to Christians.  That will not stop and will be getting much worse.  If someone is looking for a pain-free mortal existence then they will be mightily disappointed.  If someone wants to be offended, keep paying attention to the media and take offense at whatever they tell you is an offense.  Ignore reality because it conflicts too often with the media.  

 

Gay behavior remains, as it always has remained, a sin.  That has not changed.  A policy has been given and we have yet to actually see how it will be carried out in all situations.  

 

If on the other hand, individuals choose to be disciples of Christ then have faith that God is the head of the Church.  His ways are not ours.  Don't judge the strength of our own faith when there is not pain in maintaining faith.  

[mfbukowski]

Exactly my point. 

Beware of fundamentalism.  Two sides, Jeremy

 

Suppose I was your father and abandoned your mother to run away with another man, abandoning you.

 

Does that help?  Might you not like me?  Might you be unable at the age of 8 to decide if I was a good person or not?

 

Two sides, dude!

 

You know, the only family I have direct experience with which would have been affected by this exactly fits this profile.

 

They hated their father for leaving them and their mother and thought he was selfish for doing so.  Maybe they were right, maybe wrong but they certainly were not inclined to agree that SSM was a "live and let live" thing that was about love.

 

I know it is not likely you will answer this but I would be really curious to see how you feel about it.

Edited November 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

The policy is not about attendance and social participation; we’ve always welcomed people of good will to participate on very level. Everyone is still just as welcome.

 

The policy only protects children from the conflicts arising from ordinance-related participation, not from social participation or receiving priesthood blessings for counsel, health and comfort. See here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson. Those with the keys are responsible for setting boundaries for the ordinances; parents are responsible for setting boundaries for any other kind of participation.

 

Of course whoever leaked the policy, and whoever considers it without the perspective of the September Ensign, the Handbook Introductions or proper training may fail to see the distinction.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/introduction?lang=eng

 

I'm familiar with the September Ensign article.

 

From Elder Christofferson:

 

"When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don’t want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

 

Right there he said it... we don't want the expectation that they will be in Primary or other church organizations.  It would not be an appropriate thing.

 

Message:  If you have a gay parent in a relationship -- don't come here.

[Scott Lloyd]

I read (on here?) that is was first leaked and then the church made a statement or went public. Maybe that was already planned though. Someone may know the order or timing of all these and can post more hopefully. I guess it doesn't really matter because it is a new policy and it's out now.

Bear in mind that it was first and primarily an adjustment to in-house instructions intended for local priesthood leaders in administering the affairs of the Church and that it stands to impact relatively few.

But suppose the Church had called a press conference, made a general announcement from the pulpit, whatever. Do you think the wailing and gnashing would have been less? I don't.

Once it did become public, the Church was not a bit insular, but forthrightly went public to address concerns. Alas, this is not enough to mollify those determined to find fault.

Ah well, this too shall pass. And the caravan rolls on.

[bluebell]

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.

Maybe part of the problem is that you only view meaningful communication as being when someone agrees with you.

That seems like a weakness that would be worth the effort to overcome.

[mfbukowski]

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.

When one decides to take upon himself the name of monster, one might imagine that one projects monsterhood on everyone.

 

Just idle speculation of course.

 

By the way what kind of jollies do we supposedly get for punishing children?  Just the fun of it?

 

An interesting perspective I must say.

[sjdawg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&t=6m1s&v=XybDk3CEoHg&app=desktop

 

At the 6 minute mark Elder Christofferson says it is OK for a member to promote SSM even on twitter or facebook and still retain a temple recommend (I don't recall his exact words)  What has changed?   Why must the children whose parents are in SSM situations "disavow" the practice in order to be baptized?

[mfbukowski]

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.

No, in fact you are wrong.

 

If people are not baptized here, they will have an opportunity in the afterlife.

 

If you actually listen to the Christofferson video, he explains that clearly.  Baptism is one step on a long long road to eternal life, and God is a wise judge.  We are essentially universalists.  I don't know where you are getting your incorrect information

[sunstoned]

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.

I don't mean to be rude or to be flippant, but I am really struggling to see the Lord's hand in any of the recent church decisions.  From the backtracking of the essays to the Prop 8 disaster, to the public excommunications, and now to the meansprited changes of policy.  If all of this is being directed by the Lord's hand, then I wonder what the differences would be if these issues would have been handled without the Lord's help.  You know, with just very conservative businessmen calling all of the shots.

Edited November 9, 2015 by sunstoned

[Garden Girl]

"Closet sympathizers" ? You make it sound like supporting ssm is like supporting a Nazi regime. What happened to love and tolerance? So you are suggesting that if you ""sympathize" you might expect to be "outed" in an interview and be withheld from the temple for "sympathizing"?

 

Hello W2K... This question is incorrect...

Having lived and worked in San Francisco in a gay majority environment for almost 13 years, I had many friends (my best friend was a gay man) who were gay/lesbian.  Frankly, I did not dwell on some of their relationships or activities, like the gay bathhouses, etc., but instead viewed them as individuals.  In this way I was able to associate with my fellow workers and appreciate their many talents and knowledge (San Fran St Univ Library).  I'm still in touch with several of my gay friends via Christmas cards, occasional phone calls etc though I've been retired 25 years.

In every temple recommend interview, when questions 5 and 6 arise, I tell of my friendships... and have been assured by my interviewer that "affiliation" does not mean we cannot associate with LGBT friends or family.  We don't formally "join" with them so to speak... nor do we adhere to their teachings or practices... so I answer the questions honestly and have never been denied a recommend.

 

GG

[mfbukowski]

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.

The issue is how does his mom feel about it?

 

Will she be overjoyed that he will be taught that she is wrong?  Don't you even see the conflict this poor child would experience by being in a church which is totally incompatible with mom's chosen lifestyle?

 

Why would she even allow it??  I would not if I were in her shoes

[mfbukowski]

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.

What is the limitation of human perspective?

 

Do you have some inhuman perspective available?  God is a human in our beliefs

 

Where does one find inhuman perspective?

[mfbukowski]

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. 

Who split the family?  The parent who left it, not the church.

[carbon dioxide]

Support, to me, implies promotion and advocacy, which I could never do with same sex marriage. Perhaps it is a semantic argument. If so, so be it. I don't agree with your semantic use of "support."

 

I think one needs to be clear on how they support something.  Like I might support legal prostitution in the way that what the two adults do should not be illegal but I don't support legal prostitution in that I encourage it, think it is wonderful, endorse it, ect.

Edited November 9, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[mfbukowski]

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.

In my experience much in that manual is routinely ignored.  Disciplinary councils for "apostates" have been mandatory for years but I have never seen one in reality.

[jpv]

What? What does abortion have to do with waiting till 18 for baptism and 1st Presidency approval?

 

You were the one who first made the analogy of new policy relating to SSM and baptism to abortion.  I agreed that it was an apt analogy, and thus the reason for so much confusion relating to the new policy--it appears to be so inconsistant with previously revealed doctrines and policies.

 

 

I also supposed I should have made it clear that I was talking about elective abortions where rape/incest/health were not issues--I assume that's the case you were reffering to when you first brought it up.

[Calm]

Whatever, the only way for the child's same-sex parents to reconcile with the Church's teachings would be to break up. This represents a major schism for the child.

In these cases, the child has already been through one divorce with his parents. If she accepts that a remarriage of his parent with a gay parent is a sin, that means she needs to hope that her gay parent gets to go through again what probably was the most difficult experience in their life. I find it hard to see a child will ever be okay with wanting that.

I've seen one child in that situation state that he was fine with his dad's gay marriage and that he was planning on his mission to avoid the subject and focus on other things. And he is now resigning the Church though he was just about to go on a mission. I expect this is likely the most common position eventually held by children who have a good relationship with their married gay parent and if the parent is happy with the marriage. Some may be able to look at their parent and believe that suffering a divorce and being alone is spiritually better for them, but it is hard enough for nonrelated adults to accept that....so few and far between when it comes to loving children imo and it shouldn't be held against them. I would find it extremely hard to tell a gay couple that I could never see again they need to divorce and remain alone until death if they had found happiness in each other even though I believe it won't be an eternal relationship and may cause long term harm to their spiritual relationship with God. And I don't know what I may say if it happens with a family member. A child playing that role...it just seems wrong to me to put them in that situation. Especially since as they age they will understand the implications of separation better.

If both parents believe the child can handle it and they willchoose to counsel against the position the young man I refer to above held...believing SSM is okay and one just keeps one's silence about it at church, then I would suggest they work with their bishops to appeal when they feel it is right and not wait until 18. I am reading quite a number of current and former bishops say they are reading the language to allow for earlier exceptions so I am taking their experienced word for it unless the Church comes out with different instructions denying those possibilities.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

And don't forget "bigots" as you have also termed us.

So much for open minded liberalism.  One side is right, there is no ambiguity or the possibility of error, just absolute certitude. The church is always wrong, don't you know that?

[Duncan]

I'm familiar with the September Ensign article.

 

From Elder Christofferson:

 

"When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don’t want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

 

Right there he said it... we don't want the expectation that they will be in Primary or other church organizations.  It would not be an appropriate thing.

 

Message:  If you have a gay parent in a relationship -- don't come here.

 

I don't know about that you can't come, my son isn't baptized and he's welcome and he's 12!