Jump to content

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


JAHS

Recommended Posts

Well, if the late 1800s are a guide to what the LDS church will do, then I imagine there will be a OD3 and the legal problems will go away ;)

 

 

I think that the Church's recent actions force its hand to a point where a homosexuality "OD3" will never happen (and I think that that is a very good thing). For all of the parallels people like to draw between OD1, OD2, and how the Church perceives homosexuality and gay marriage, I think that homosexuality and gay marriage are fundamentally different things than polygamy or the priesthood ban. The three cases are only very superficially comparable, but are substantially incompatible.The Church saying, institutionally, essentially "forget about everything we have taught about homosexuality. We acted with limited knowledge and light in the past . . ." would be a death knell for the Church in a way that polygamy and ending the priesthood ban were not.

 

On a more serious note, I think your prediction and fear is misplaced.  There are other churches that are far more anti-gay than the LDS church (think of all those evangelicals) and there are many more of them than you, so I think if some crazy persecution happens, you'll not be at the top of the list.

 

Just as the LDS Church wasn't the foremost participant in either money, manpower, or influence in the Prop 8 campaign --- but received the brunt of the anger and blame --- I believe that this phenomenon of disproportionate blame and anger will repeat again and again. Particularly with this issue. The LDS Church is not, as you point out, anti-gay, but it will continue to be targeted and blamed. Especially when its policies refuse surrender.

 

I love the attitude, similar to those seeking to kill Jesus, who said with mock surprise "Who seeketh to kill thee?" The cake maker in Oregon who was ordered to pay an over-the-top fine that had to come out of business assets, and could not come from donations  (i.e., clearly meant to be ruinous, and not punitive or restorative) should be sobering. 

 

Do you really seriously believe that the LDS leaders (first presidency, apostles, etc) are going to have to go into hiding, like in the late 1800s? That church property will be seized? That people will be thrown in jail?  You sound like quite an alarmist to me. 

 

Time will tell. Yes, I firmly believe that we will live to see the return of test oaths (full governmental support from both parties for voters to affirm that they are "hate-free"), property confiscation, disincorporation, etc. At a minimum, removal of tax-exempt status (this is where those trying to reassure concerned religious people say, "Well, all churches should stop being tax-exempt, anyway).

Link to comment

i don't reject what Harold B. Lee said. I believe you have altogether misconstrued and taken it out of context.

 

To put it another way, my quarrel is with you, not Harold B. Lee.

 

It's really not, Scott. I posted a link to full chapter of the Teachings of HBL. Additional context does not change what he said. So maybe you're not as against the idea of loyal opposition as you suppose? You're certainly loyal, but not opposed to disagreeing with prophets when you think they err. Nothing wrong with that.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-7?lang=eng 

Link to comment

I'm hung up on the statement - "the child ... does not live with a parent". How are we defining "live with". If the straight parent has primary physical custody but the child "visits" the other parent 1-2 days/week does that have to constitute "live with"? I suspect it will not. IMO, it doesn't make sense if the hetero-parent continues active in the church and retains primary custody that the child will not be allowed to be baptized. For me, this is the scenario of most concern. If the policy does not allow for this distinction then I struggle considerably with it.

I have come to the conclusion that the church is purposely including the active youth who attends with the non-gay parent on purpose. Why? Because the church doesn't want to be liable in family court for contributing to the poisoning of one child against the gay parent. So while it seems crazy that they would restrict an active child with an active parent, I think they are calculating that the risk of losing that child is of less harm to the church than the possibility of multiple lawsuits.

Link to comment

I'm not sure how anyone can imply that the prophet and apostles don't seek Christ's will in directing the church, blatantly lie to the members about the decisions they make, and don't care about the welfare of the innocent, without implying such men are evil.

 

Because good men make mistakes.  

Link to comment

Look how serious it is, though. Pick a sin, any sin. When repenting of given sin, which one would require the abandonment of one's family?

There's no way to keep a ss marriage while repenting of it. You start that path and there's no way to repent within the lifestyle.

Do you see that?

 

When you start defining families as sin, then you get into this kind of unpleasant territory. Maybe we should trust what Jesus taught - by your fruits you shall know them. 

Link to comment

When you start defining families as sin, then you get into this kind of unpleasant territory. Maybe we should trust what Jesus taught - by your fruits you shall know them. 

 

When you start defining gay relationships as families you get into this kind of unpleasant territory.  Maybe we should trust what Jesus taught - Go and sin no more.

Link to comment

The concept of loyal opposition is so important to any organization and any leader. To claim loyal opposition is harmful is to incorrectly assume infallibility and perfection. Without loyal opposition helping a leader recognize weaknesses and error that leader will be more vulnerable to disloyal opposition.

 

Gray, I missed your Harold B Lee quote about loyal opposition. I went back but can't find it. Can you post again.

Link to comment

Nothing is lost in the eternal scheme of things, but yes, the fact that it could be hard is unavoidable. But, the Lord asks us to do and bear hard things, and He will be there for those who seek Him.

 

I don't think the Lord has anything to do with this policy. It certainly seems out of character given how Jesus of Nazareth is described in scripture. 

Link to comment

When you start defining gay relationships as families you get into this kind of unpleasant territory.  Maybe we should trust what Jesus taught - Go and sin no more.

I've heard many variations of this idea and it seems very cruel. I've read very active members dismissing these families and the rights of parents to make decisions for their children because they're "not real parents anyway."

 

These are families. To say otherwise is heartless.

 

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that the church is more opposed to gays living in a monogomous, committed relationship, than they are with gays engaging in casual, permiscuous relationships. One is apostacy and one is not. The only reason I can think of is that the church is threatened by non-traditional families. Gays living a permiscuous lifestyle are probably less likely to cause a financial threat to the church because they are less likely to have children being harmed by the church.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment

I've heard many variations of this idea and it seems very cruel. I've read very active members dismissing these families and the rights of parents to make decisions for their children because they're "not real parents anyway."

 

These are families. To say otherwise is heartless.

 

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that the church is more opposed to gays living in a monogomous, committed relationship, than they are with gays engaging in casual, permiscuous relationships. One is apostacy and one is not. The only reason I can think of is that the church is threatened by non-traditional families. Gays living a permiscuous lifestyle are probably less likely to cause a financial threat to the church because they are less likely to have children being harmed by the church.

 

Deal with my statement not variations upon it. 

 

From an eternal perspective, a church solemnizing an arrangement that God has told us is not endemic to exaltation, is a cruelty.

Link to comment

Do you really think so poorly of the prophet and apostles? Why would you belong to a church led by such unchristian and evil men?

I'm sincerely asking because I don't understand the mindset.

I think the mindset is that the Lord’s blessings are irretrievably lost to them, injuring their development in very tender years with no hope for another time and circumstance to choose happiness. The mindset is that waiting for Church membership creates difficulties, challenges, and conflicts that cannot be overcome through love, compassion, sympathy, help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody through proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness. Of course any of that is impossible.

 

…as opposed to what Elder Cristofferson actually said: “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.”

 

“We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. …His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that.”

 

I think it is also a mindset that assumes understanding where there is no authorization to handle the policy and no recognition of the principles in administering the polices (see https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng).

Edited by CV75
Link to comment

Amen to what? What Pa Pa posted did not accurately reflect what the policy said.

 

What the policy does is put the children of gay people in second class status in the church. Bad doctrine leads to bad policy. It was the same when we had missionaries looking into the ethnic backgrounds of potential converts. 

Link to comment

I think the mindset is that the Lord’s blessings are irretrievably lost to them, injuring their development in very tender years with no hope for another time and circumstance to choose happiness. The mindset is that waiting for Church membership creates difficulties, challenges, and conflicts that cannot be overcome through love, compassion, sympathy, help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody through proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness. Of course any of that is impossible.

 

…as opposed to what Elder Cristofferson actually said: “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.”

 

“We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. …His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that.”

 

I think it is also a mindset that assumes understanding where there is no authorization to handle the policy and no recognition of the principles in administering the polices (see https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng).

IF the child accepts their rejection by the church and eventually joins then they will receive the blessings of baptism etc. It's unfortunate the church is putting up the roadblocks which are turning these children away with the hopes that "Maybe they'll come back eventually so it's all good."

Link to comment

The Church Handbook of Instructions is kind of like a cars User Manual.  It teaches you how the car works, not how to drive a car.

And it reminds leaders that they only have the right to drive the car if the owner lets them borrow the keys. So it's defines the relationship between the driver and the car and the actual owner. If the driver doesn't follow the owners rules they'll get the keys taken away like a teenager who stayed out past curfew.

Link to comment

 

Chris didn't turn away the prostitutes or the publicans. He praised the Samaritans, who, similar to gay people today, were considered second class by the religious authority, due to the marriage practices of their ancestors. The only people Jesus wasn't particularly tolerant of was the religious hierarchy who rejected these kids of people.  

Link to comment

And it reminds leaders that they only have the right to drive the car if the owner lets them borrow the keys. So it's defines the relationship between the driver and the car and the actual owner. If the driver doesn't follow the owners rules they'll get the keys taken away like a teenager who stayed out past curfew.

 

So much for that analogy...  :beatdeadhorse:

Link to comment

When you start defining gay relationships as families you get into this kind of unpleasant territory.  Maybe we should trust what Jesus taught - Go and sin no more.

 

Personally, I'm pro family. But there are indeed forces out there threatening the family - those who reject families they don't like as illegitimate are probably the biggest threat to family today. 

 

As far as Jesus goes, he never said a word against Gay families. 

Link to comment

The concept of loyal opposition is so important to any organization and any leader. To claim loyal opposition is harmful is to incorrectly assume infallibility and perfection. Without loyal opposition helping a leader recognize weaknesses and error that leader will be more vulnerable to disloyal opposition.

 

Gray, I missed your Harold B Lee quote about loyal opposition. I went back but can't find it. Can you post again.

 

It wasn't about loyal opposition.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-7?lang=eng

 

He said that if something is not in the scriptures, it's merely opinion. I was making the point that loyal members who reject that teaching are reaffirming the concept of loyal opposition. 

Edited by Gray
Link to comment

Chris didn't turn away the prostitutes or the publicans. He praised the Samaritans, who, similar to gay people today, were considered second class by the religious authority, due to the marriage practices of their ancestors. The only people Jesus wasn't particularly tolerant of was the religious hierarchy who rejected these kids of people.  

 

Christ isn't turning away gays either.  He is asking them to repent and sin no more for their own eternal salvation.  Just as he did the women who was about to be stoned.  He dined with sinners, he didn't condone their sins.

 

Picking and choosing our favorite sins like a cafeteria line is not obedience to the gospel.  We all struggle with sins, weakness, and obedience to the law.  That is why Christ paid for our sins.  However the distinguishing factor, and the defining difference with apostasy, is when we seek to define what Christ forbid, as acceptable and desirable, as opposed to making an effort to repent.

 

Few would try to define pornography. adultery, fornication, or other breaches of the law of chastity as a healthy lifestyle alternative and acceptable to Christ. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...