consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Dude Cartoons of arguments are for kids. Get a clue about what is being discussed or go watch pokemon. At least figure out who is on your side for pete's sake. It's not that complicated. I am just trying to figure out who is on the side of straight kids with gay parents.
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I'm out. I get too upset and waste too much time dealing with this nonsense. Me, too. Except I think I'll hang around.
Calm Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: Thank you for bringing the discussion back to my original point, Calm. Here is how I see it: If I am in a gay marriage and the LDS Church now says that I am in "apostasy" because of my marriage, and not only that, but my children are not allowed to be blessed, baptized, confirmed, or receive the priesthood, again solely because of my marriage, I would feel extremely unwelcome, and I would feel that my children are extremely unwelcome. It doesn't matter that, after making me feel completely unwelcome, the Church says that actually I am welcome. Actions speak louder than words. And, dare I say it, these conflicting messages would strike me as hypocritical and disingenuous. If not Orwellian. But the policy is really just as much words as the Church saying that everyone is welcomed. I don't see why one should be weighed as heavier in truth than the other. Better to test what reality is and see how the words are worked out. I see the actions that are best used to determined whether that welcome is sincere or not as well as if the policy is a rejection of the individual more than an expression of a teaching intended to bring people to God is what happens when one walks into the door on Sunday (as well as day to day treatment if that opportunity is there). Deciding before experiencing what happens face to face is unfortunate for those who turn away as well as for our community. I get why those who have chosen to engage in homosexual actions or believe they should be able to without condemnation don't feel welcomed. I get why many women feel like they are second class members because they see themselves as having limits that are not placed in general on men. I see why singles and the childless feel out of place in a church which overwhelmingly teaches the ideal of heterosexual marriage with children. There are a lot of things lacking in our church that people desire, many intentional. It must be extremely hard when that lack is based on a doctrinal condemnation of one's own behaviour and desires, especially if one rejects the condemnation as originating in revelation, but believes it arises out of culture, fear, etc. I believe, however, if we focus too much on what isn't there in the Church we deprive ourselves of what is. Since I believe the LDS faith is currently the vehicle for God's priesthood and it holds the fullest and most correct (but not complete or perfect yet) expression of the Gospel, my assumption is that what is here is much more than what isn't. If one doesn't see the benefits as outweighing the costs of discipleship, then I believe they should seek a path that they believe will lead them there even while I hope eventually they will see this faith that way and return. Edited December 11, 2015 by Calm 3
rockpond Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 12 minutes ago, Calm said: But the policy is really just as much words as the Church saying that everyone is welcomed. I don't see why one should be weighed as heavier in truth than the other. Better to test what reality is and see how the words are worked out. I agree with your plea for us to make everyone, in various circumstances (not just referring to LGBT) feel more welcome. That's what needs to come out of all of this... a renewed commitment by all of us, as Saints, to make others feel welcome. But to your comment here, I fear that the reality of the past month is that many no longer feel welcome because of this policy. And that many others can't find a reason why the policy was necessary in the first place. That, however, is just a very short-term look at this. Hopefully, the longer term will bear out something better.
rockpond Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, KevinG said: Baptism is much more than the ordinance itself. It is coupled with faith and repentance, and followed by obedience. If someone simply baptizes their kids without teaching those important principles associated with the covenant and ordinance they have failed to prepare them and the sin is on their heads. Defiantly disobeying the laws of chastity and the Lord's anointed is diametrically opposed to preparing children for baptism, and sustaining them in the restored gospel afterwards. If the gay parent believes that their marriage is approved of by God and seeks a doctrine that supports that belief, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the church where they will find that doctrine or make those covenants. A reminder of Elder Christofferson's words about the handbook policy change: "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. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. 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." Got it. Makes sense. Under certain situations. What if the (custodial) gay parent doesn't believe that their marriage is approved of God, but their child still wants to be baptized. Or the other (heterosexual) parent of the child wants the child to be baptized and both parents are committed to raise the child in the church.
Popular Post Calm Posted December 11, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 11, 2015 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: But to your comment here, I fear that the reality of the past month is that many no longer feel welcome because of this policy. Indeed. It is very unfortunate in my opinion that there are also those who have assumed the task of telling people they should feel rejected by the Church because of the policy. I believe a lot less would feel unwelcomed or at least as strongly as they currently do if they weren't so firmly assured they should feel that way. 5
Mystery Meat Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 12 minutes ago, Calm said: Indeed. It is very unfortunate in my opinion that there are also those who have assumed the task of telling people they should feel rejected by the Church because of the policy. I believe a lot less would feel unwelcomed or at least as strongly as they currently do if they weren't so firmly assured they should feel that way. Indeed.
rongo Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 52 minutes ago, rockpond said: What if the (custodial) gay parent doesn't believe that their marriage is approved of God, but their child still wants to be baptized. Or the other (heterosexual) parent of the child wants the child to be baptized and both parents are committed to raise the child in the church. Then that's where the appeal/application to the First Presidency process comes in. In my experience, if all parties are sincere in supporting the Church and its objectives and they can convince the First Presidency of that, the child's baptism is likely to be authorized. I think the "case-by-case" emphasis of the policy is a good thing for people who don't harbor ill will towards the Church. 2
rockpond Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 5 minutes ago, rongo said: Then that's where the appeal/application to the First Presidency process comes in. In my experience, if all parties are sincere in supporting the Church and its objectives and they can convince the First Presidency of that, the child's baptism is likely to be authorized. I think the "case-by-case" emphasis of the policy is a good thing for people who don't harbor ill will towards the Church. Yes... I just wish they would put some of that language in section 16 of the handbook. It's not there now.
rockpond Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, Calm said: Indeed. It is very unfortunate in my opinion that there are also those who have assumed the task of telling people they should feel rejected by the Church because of the policy. I believe a lot less would feel unwelcomed or at least as strongly as they currently do if they weren't so firmly assured they should feel that way. You've heard of people telling others that they should feel rejected? I guess I haven't really seen that.
CV75 Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 2 hours ago, rockpond said: So, how do you reconcile this policy with Section 68? SSM parents have effectively increased the age of accountability on this particular point for their children by imposing upon them a conflict they haven’t the capacity to manage. Unfortunately the children are held hostage to their parents’ decisions but as with other such conflicts, the Church won’t interfere. The Lord’s grace covers the children on this point until they are of a mind to rebel against whatever light they possess on the subject. Plus, apostates are not about to teach their children to apply the doctrine of repentance to this subject ("if you grow up and marry someone of the same sex, you will have to repent") per verse 25 , or to walk uprightly before the Lord ("don't ever engage in SSM") on this subject, per verse 28.
HappyJackWagon Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, Calm said: Indeed. It is very unfortunate in my opinion that there are also those who have assumed the task of telling people they should feel rejected by the Church because of the policy. I believe a lot less would feel unwelcomed or at least as strongly as they currently do if they weren't so firmly assured they should feel that way. I sincerely doubt the lack of welcome the LGBT community feels at church is due to Jedi mind tricks suggesting they think they should be offended. The LGBT community is not so weak minded that the power of suggestion informs their feelings. Suggesting they wouldn't feel as strongly if they weren't told to minimizes the actual problem. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I sincerely doubt the lack of welcome the LGBT community feels at church is due to Jedi mind tricks suggesting they think they should be offended. The LGBT community is not so weak minded that the power of suggestion informs their feelings. Suggesting they wouldn't feel as strongly if they weren't told to minimizes the actual problem. My hunch is that by and large the Church is not even on their radar -- except to the extent that professing Mormons who loathe Mormon leadership can draw a hostile focus of the "LGBT community" on that leadership.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 7 hours ago, consiglieri said: Please try to stick to the facts, Russell. Somebody might think you are acting out because you realize you have lost the argument. Hey, I can't expect to control the willful wrong-headedness of "somebody." 1
rockpond Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My hunch is that by and large the Church is not even on their radar -- except to the extent that professing Mormons who loathe Mormon leadership can draw a hostile focus of the "LGBT community" on that leadership. Not on their radar? Apparently there were enough gay couples wanting to baptize their children that it warranted its own section of the handbook. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The problem with this logic is that the original policy in the handbook does not distinguish between residency whatsoever, then you have this interview by Elder Christofferson, who in answer to the question "Why are the children of these same-sex partners an issue here?", made this long statement which contains the words you quoted above. Lets look at the whole context. Michael Otterson: Why are the children of these same-sex partners an issue here? Elder Christofferson: Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. 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. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. 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. It sounds to me like Elder Christofferson is giving the justification or the reasoning for the policy here. He's explaining why they feel the policy is warranted, out of "compassion", and a desire to "protect children in their innocence". Now, wouldn't this logic apply equally to children who live 40% of the time with their same sex parents, and 60% of the time elsewhere? What to do with these children of dual custody scenarios, his interview answer doesn't address this at all. His interview makes no attempt to distinguish between the amount of time at either residency, and never uses the words "primary residency". The clarification wording below doesn't align with Elder Christofferson's earlier statement in context or in clarity. Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. If this was the original intent of the interview, then the interview failed in its intent. Why even send a clarification letter a week later if there was no need for clarification? Your argument makes no sense to me. Yes, Elder Christofferson is explaining the reasoning behind the policy, and he's explaining it in terms of the home situation children are living in. This really isn't rocket science, Hope. The clarification wording clearly reflects Elder Christofferson's explanation. The clarification letter was necessary because the policy was the subject of all that huffing and puffing while it was in the process of being rolled out. The brethren don't implement new policies merely by inserting paragraphs into handbooks; they also provide training to local leaders, explaining the purpose for the policy, and giving examples of situations to which they apply. Put another way: for those responsible for implementing the policy at the local level, clarification was ALWAYS going to come before they were expected to act upon it. Rockpond, among others, knows this perfectly well. For some reason or other, he seems to prefer not to address it. I can't think why. 4
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My hunch is that by and large the Church is not even on their radar -- except to the extent that professing Mormons who loathe Mormon leadership can draw a hostile focus of the "LGBT community" on that leadership. I think the Mormon leadership drew the hostile focus on themselves this time. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: Not on their radar? Apparently there were enough gay couples wanting to baptize their children that it warranted its own section of the handbook. I was thinking primarily of those who are outside the Church and who otherwise would not be interested in it. But consider this: The new handbook policy might be more of a stitch in time than a remedy to address current circumstances, put in place against the time when more and more people in willful disobedience might be demanding privileges of Church membership. Haven't you, in effect, said that time is coming, prompting me to start a countdown clock for the 40 years you predict it might take for the Church to finally knuckle under to the demands? Edited to add: That countdown reading is currently 39 years, 1 month, 4 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 22 minutes and 21 seconds. Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 5 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: The clarification letter was necessary because the policy was the subject of all that huffing and puffing while it was in the process of being rolled out. It was not "in the process of being rolled out." It had already been surreptitiously codified in the CHI-1. This was never meant to go public. My impression is the Church got caught with its pants down on this one. 1
rockpond Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 9 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: The clarification letter was necessary because the policy was the subject of all that huffing and puffing while it was in the process of being rolled out. The brethren don't implement new policies merely by inserting paragraphs into handbooks; they also provide training to local leaders, explaining the purpose for the policy, and giving examples of situations to which they apply. Put another way: for those responsible for implementing the policy at the local level, clarification was ALWAYS going to come before they were expected to act upon it. Rockpond, among others, knows this perfectly well. For some reason or other, he seems to prefer not to address it. I can't think why. That is incorrect. They actually did insert the paragraphs into the handbook without notifying us first. No training, examples, or explanation beyond Elder Christofferson's video and the Nov 13 letter were given nor have they been announced.
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Put another way: for those responsible for implementing the policy at the local level, clarification was ALWAYS going to come before they were expected to act upon it. This statement requires a willing suspension of disbelief. The "clarification" (i.e., revision) that came from the First Presidency letter was NEVER going to come if there had been no leak. If so, the First Presidency letter would not have revised the policy. If so, the policy manual itself would have been changed. Or never written that way in the first place. Or do you think the Q15 just roll these policies out willy-nilly and wait for local leader reaction before they begin to "clarify" them? Edited December 11, 2015 by consiglieri 1
rockpond Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I was thinking primarily of those who are outside the Church and who otherwise would not be interested in it. But consider this: The new handbook policy might be more of a stitch in time than a remedy to address current circumstances, put in place against the time when more and more people in willful disobedience might be demanding privileges of Church membership. Haven't you, in effect, said that time is coming, prompting me to start a countdown clock for the 40 years you predict it might take for the Church to finally knuckle under to the demands? Edited to add: That countdown reading is currently 39 years, 1 month, 4 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 22 minutes and 21 seconds. It's possible. To be clear, I've also stated that in my calling, I support the handbook and my bishop. My personal feelings and beliefs are my own.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: That is incorrect. They actually did insert the paragraphs into the handbook without notifying us first. No training, examples, or explanation beyond Elder Christofferson's video and the Nov 13 letter were given nor have they been announced. It's my understanding that the Church leadership was in the process of notifying local leaders individually at the time, and that it would be addressed in future training. I'm not in a bishopric or stake presidency, so I cant say that firsthand. Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: It was not "in the process of being rolled out." It had already been surreptitiously codified in the CHI-1. That is correct. As soon as I heard about the possiblity of a handbook change, back on Nov 5, I immediately checked my online version of Handbook 1 and the new sections were there.
rockpond Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This statement requires a willing suspension of disbelief. The "clarification" (i.e., revision) that came from the First Presidency letter was NEVER going to come if there had been no leak. If so, the First Presidency letter would not have revised the policy. If so, the policy manual itself would have been changed. Or never written that way in the first place. Or do you think the Q15 just roll these policies out willy-nilly and wait for local leader reaction before they begin to "clarify" them? Excellent point.
Recommended Posts