Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[Mystery Meat]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... it would be amazing.  And would make headlines all over the world.

And kill the Church.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But you specifically asked for an explanation of "how children of SSM are not being excluded from the church." That is how. I'm sure you can see it both ways; did you ask for an explanation expecting none, or are you spinning one interpretation as the "only" interpretation?

No. I'm merely stating that the explanation you offer is spin. Any person can come up with any explanation to explain anything they want but it doesn't mean the explanation is good or worthy of consideration.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

And kill the Church.

How?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It is hard, to be sure.

The essential point of this thread was to examine the restrictive nature of the policy's function.  Is it something that effectively means we should not mingle with gays or their children?  Does it reinforce any notion that families should break up from any gay family members?  Does it, in effect, continue the behavior of some to cast out and shun GLBT individuals from their lives?

The answer is a firm, No, No, and No. 

That message in this OP to GLBT and anyone opposing the policy, and to family of GLBT individuals whether they support or oppose them, and to all member,s is that GLBT individuals should be welcomed among us, in our lives and at church.  Being GLBT gives us no excuse to shun or cast them away. Church is a hospital where all are invited to enter.  We are called to love and minister to all God's children.

There is nothing firm about those answers. Implications that things like shunning should be avoided are often overridden  by the overwhelming message of LGBT are apostate, which will likely lead to their excommunication, which is a form of shunning. You can't tell LGBT they are welcome to worship with you while simultaneously telling them that they are apostates and will be disciplined...oh, and that their children can't receive any saving ordinances, a name and blessing, priesthood etc.

That would be like me inviting you to my home but telling you you're not allowed to eat the same food as others and you may only sit on the floor while others sit on the furniture. Oh, and by the way, I'll likely ask you to leave early because I don't want you associating with other guests as an equal. Yep. That's really welcoming.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Any person can come up with any explanation to explain anything they want but it doesn't mean the explanation is good or worthy of consideration.

Thank you for describing your explanation! LOL

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem with Elder Christofferson's statement, and this is evident in other positions the church holds as well, is an underlying assumption that church leaders know exactly the mind and will of God as it pertains to this subject.  

Lets just assume that he's correct when he stated "He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind."  It strikes me as arrogant and prideful to believe that we are so sure what the mind and will of God is on this or any other subject.  It defy's my understanding of scripture, and it is antithetical to principle of humility that seems like such a good and important principle to foster.  

How can the church claim, especially without specific revelation in the canon, exactly what God's will is on the subject of treatment of LGBT members?  Really, I want to see the revelation, and then I want a chance to accept it by common consent.  That is step one in my mind.

Step two is even more important.  When has revelation in English, ever expressed the exact will of God word for word?  When has culture, interpretation, and human fallibility ever been eliminated from the revelatory process?  

I believe there is always a need for humility in these matters.  To hold such a rigid position assuming that we're aligned with God can lead to downfall and ruin.  The church needs a good dose of humility on this and many other matters.  

From my perspective, the Church leaders do indeed purport to know the mind and will of God as it pertains to this subject, and they've had that knowledge for many years. You can insist that  they don't if you like, but all that does is make you an unbeliever. It doesn't negate their knowledge or make Elder Christofferson's statement problematical.

Also, as I've pointed out on past occasions, revealed knowledge does not have to be written down and canonized to be revealed knowledge. That said, the doctrines and principles pertaining to this subject were set down years ago in the family proclamation, which, even then, was not declaring new doctrine, but rather, reaffirming and reemphasizing truth that had long been had among the Latter-day Saints. Again, it is society, not the Church, that has drifted off the rails on this matter. See my sig line.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. By inclusion I mean that a population isn't purposefully excluded by policy. As for MF's CFR; please read the policy. By refusing to allow children of SSM people to become members of the church through baptism or even have a record created via baby blessing, those people are excluded from the church. They do not have the liberty to choose to participate as members. This is exclusion.

And Scott, you get this wrong. I don't know how children wield unconditional privilege and power by being baptized or blessed but nonetheless, they are excluded so you don't need to worry about it.

An 8 year old who lives in a family of same sex marriage understands exactly the ramifications of same sex marriage and yet cannot wait to be baptized into a church which will condemn the practices of his parents, and you call that "exclusion"???

That's kind of like excluding 8 year olds from buying assault rifles. Both would be recipes for disaster.  If that is exclusion, I am all for it.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I see this as a potential healing opportunity.  Can you imagine how amazing it would be if the church repented of this policy?  If in humility they said they went back to God in prayer and received revelation that this policy was wrong, and then reversed course completely.  How incredibly healing this could be if done in the right way with humility and penitence and asking our LGBT for forgiveness, reinforcing that we do love them and they aren't apostate, and that they are welcome at church.  The church could still exclude them from Temple sealings if they don't want to cross that line, but if they backtracked on everything else, it could be an amazing opportunity.  

You said Elder Christofferson's statement is problematical. Yours notion is problematical for a comparable reason to the one you gave for saying Elder Christofferson's was probematical. You're assuming they have not already received revelation relative to this handbook revision. I submit that you cannot know such a thing.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is nothing firm about those answers. Implications that things like shunning should be avoided are often overridden  by the overwhelming message of LGBT are apostate, which will likely lead to their excommunication, which is a form of shunning. You can't tell LGBT they are welcome to worship with you while simultaneously telling them that they are apostates and will be disciplined...oh, and that their children can't receive any saving ordinances, a name and blessing, priesthood etc.

That would be like me inviting you to my home but telling you you're not allowed to eat the same food as others and you may only sit on the floor while others sit on the furniture. Oh, and by the way, I'll likely ask you to leave early because I don't want you associating with other guests as an equal. Yep. That's really welcoming.

Or, you could just look at it literally instead of drawing imperfect analogies.

GLBT are welcome to come to Church. What can they do?  They can listen to the message and socialize with others there.  While they are restricted from ordinances and other things, the first still stands.

You have every right to interpret that how you like or have your own feelings about it.  Yet, the policy clearly does not allow or call for any of the following:

1. Ceasing to mingle with gays or their children. 

2. Families breaking up from any gay family members. 

3. Casting out and shunning GLBT individuals from their lives.

All other policies and counsel regarding apostates applies.  They are still to be welcomed in our midst.

The world is getting more complex, not simpler.  If we are to grow, we have to learn to deal with more complexity, and that includes being able to move past clannishness and partisanship, including religious clannishness and partisanship.  There should be no us v them in the Church.  There should not be a valuing of others based on Church standing or lack of.  God is asking more of us.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

And kill the Church.

 

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How?

By making it necessary for Jesus Christ to reject us as a people for not administering His Church in accordance with His will.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

By making it necessary for Jesus Christ to reject us as a people for not administering His Church in accordance with His will.

You are making an assumption about His will that is not self-evident.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

An 8 year old who lives in a family of same sex marriage understands exactly the ramifications of same sex marriage and yet cannot wait to be baptized into a church which will condemn the practices of his parents, and you call that "exclusion"???

If such a situation did not exist, why have the policy?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

You are making an assumption about His will that is not self-evident.

So you and I have competing assumptions. I say mine is far more obvious than yours.

What, if anything, have the Brethren ever said or done that would lend credence to the notion that they are loping off on their own on this matter absent any divine direction?

 

[Mystery Meat]

The assumption is that people will leave the Church in droves over time and fewer will join because of the Church's doctrine on SSM. I think people will leave and fewer will join because of the wicked influence of the world, that much I agree with. 

But how many will leave if the Church does a 180 on SSM? A lot more, and very few will join as a result. The audience the Church would be appeasing would not join the Church. They might applaud it, but for most it is already too little too late. Moreover, for those who stayed how could you ever have any confidence that the 15 men were any kind of prophets, seers, or revelators? Everything would be up for grabs that was previously presumed to be revealed doctrine: women and the priesthood, eternal marriage, man's eternal destiny, and even the nature of Christ and the Atonement. Everything. In other words, the Church would never look the same. It would be exactly what the world wants it to be: a neutered organization with very little that is unique or special to offer to the people of the world. This is not accounting for what is right and wrong, but this based purely on what is right for membership numbers and growing or even maintaining current numbers. This is basically why John Larsen has said the Church won't ever back down from its stance. I don't think this is why, but I do think if they did it would destroy the Church as we know it, and that many would leave, others would become very lukewarm in their faith, and even more still would be naturally confused at the role of prophets and grow to discount anything they say or have ever said.

Having said all of that, if SSM were right, the Church should embrace it regardless of what it would do to membership and I pray that I would be in tune enough with the Spirit to accept it. However, SSM is not right. It is an abomination in the eyes of God and those who embrace it are committing sin. If the Church were to ever embrace it, the Lord would destroy the Church himself. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you and I have competing assumptions. I say mine is far more obvious than yours.

What, if anything, have the Brethren ever said or done that would lend credence to the notion that they are loping off on their own on this matter absent any divine direction?

 

The policy being discussed right here on this thread lends quite enough credence for me.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

The assumption is that people will leave the Church in droves over time and fewer will join because of the Church's doctrine on SSM. I think people will leave and fewer will join because of the wicked influence of the world, that much I agree with. 

But how many will leave if the Church does a 180 on SSM? A lot more, and very few will join as a result. The audience the Church would be appeasing would not join the Church. They might applaud it, but for most it is already too little too late. Moreover, for those who stayed how could you ever have any confidence that the 15 men were any kind of prophets, seers, or revelators? Everything would be up for grabs that was previously presumed to be revealed doctrine: women and the priesthood, eternal marriage, man's eternal destiny, and even the nature of Christ and the Atonement. Everything. In other words, the Church would never look the same. It would be exactly what the world wants it to be: a neutered organization with very little that is unique or special to offer to the people of the world. This is not accounting for what is right and wrong, but this based purely on what is right for membership numbers and growing or even maintaining current numbers. This is basically why John Larsen has said the Church won't ever back down from its stance. I don't think this is why, but I do think if they did it would destroy the Church as we know it, and that many would leave, others would become very lukewarm in their faith, and even more still would be naturally confused at the role of prophets and grow to discount anything they say or have ever said.

Having said all of that, if SSM were right, the Church should embrace it regardless of what it would do to membership and I pray that I would be in tune enough with the Spirit to accept it. However, SSM is not right. It is an abomination in the eyes of God and those who embrace it are committing sin. If the Church were to ever embrace it, the Lord would destroy the Church himself. 

Regarding your statement above that I bolded:  I think one thing we learn from the publication of this policy is that the majority of members will accept what the Brethren speak or write and they'll do so emphatically.  So if the Brethren did a 180 on this policy and said they were wrong, I don't think we'd lose "a lot more".

But I agree wholeheartedly with your final paragraph.

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The policy being discussed right here on this thread lends quite enough credence for me.

I disagree. I think it is evidence they are being divinely directed and inspired. 

As an aside, neither you or I will live to see the day where this policy will be overturned. You can bank on that.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The policy being discussed right here on this thread lends quite enough credence for me.

This is a non sequitur.

Again the question is this: What, if anything, have the Brethren ever said or done that would lend credence to the notion that they are loping off on their own on this matter absent any divine direction? The fact that some people don't like what they're doing is not a credible reason for doubting they are inspired. People have been doubting and murmuring against the servants of God from the beginning of time.

 

[Zakuska]

18 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I disagree. I think it is evidence they are being divinely directed and inspired. 

As an aside, neither you or I will live to see the day where this policy will be overturned. You can bank on that.

Thats what the Saducess, Pharasees and Scribes all said about the Law of Moses. Look where that got them...

Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[Russell C McGregor]

13 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Interesting rationale for exclusion of gays when LDS don't believe that anyone is really damned to Hell (maybe they get mere Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom glory--but certainly not damnation no matter what they do and/or fail to do).  But no doubt this merits its own thread, should time permit. 

Appreciate the response, RevTestament

--Erik

Watching a Protestant try to expound upon LDS doctrine is like watching a dog walking on its hind legs. It is not done well; one is surprised to see it done at all. (With apologies to Samuel Johnson.)

FS, if you can bear to leave the explaining LDS doctrine to those who actually understand it, you will greatly reduce the number of times you get it wrong.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And in case anyone is confused by what it means to exclude a person or group. Here's a simple definition.

 

Please explain how children of SSM are not being excluded from the church.

Let's see.

They are welcome to attend meetings and activities.

They are invited to become members of the Church when they become legal adults.

That seems like a really strange way to "exclude" someone, doesn't it?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

It seems that most LDS (including the Fifteen) would like this policy to be received a certain way, would like the message of the policy to be one of compassion and commitment to religious principles.  But the policy itself doesn't warrant such a reception.  And many LGBT LDS and their allies/loved ones aren't receiving it the way that most LDS want them to.

So what to do... you can't force someone to receive your message that way you want them to receive it.  So is there a solution?  Or is the final answer just to let this pull apart the church?

Faithful Latter-day Saints -- those who sustain the Lord's anointed servants -- don't have a problem with the policy being received as it is intended.

And this policy won't pull apart the Church. At most, there may be some who are so convinced that they are right and the apostles are wrong, that they will try to oppose the policy until they end up leaving the Church over it.

Which will be sad for them, and I hope that they will ultimately repent and return.

But until they do, the Church will be better for having a unified stance.

[rongo]

6 hours ago, busybee said:

Would non-members be welcome to comment in class?? There is your answer. An ex'd member is a non-member. If the comments are derogatory or contentious then the Bishop may have to have a word.

It isn't that simple. Excommunicated and disfellowshipped members have restrictions that non-members don't. For example, we don't slap any non-member's hand if they take the sacrament (ideally, they will have been taught the meaning of it beforehand, and won't take it because they haven't made covenants to renew). But, disfellowshipped and excommunicated members may not take the sacrament. It is more complicated than simply regarding excommunicated members as non-members. There is a big difference.

In the case of the member I referenced, he has argued that he should be able to take the sacrament and continue to be a home teacher, even though he has been disfellowshipped. Arguing that he should be able to comment in class is a continuation of these negotiations to participate as much as possible.

Edited December 10, 2015 by rongo

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I see this as a potential healing opportunity.  Can you imagine how amazing it would be if the church repented of this policy?  If in humility they said they went back to God in prayer and received revelation that this policy was wrong, and then reversed course completely.  How incredibly healing this could be if done in the right way with humility and penitence and asking our LGBT for forgiveness, reinforcing that we do love them and they aren't apostate, and that they are welcome at church.  The church could still exclude them from Temple sealings if they don't want to cross that line, but if they backtracked on everything else, it could be an amazing opportunity.  

There's only one problem with your wishful thinking, and it is this: the only reason to repent is when we do something wrong.

The Church has done nothing wrong.

But I see this as a potential learning opportunity.  Can you imagine how amazing it would be if the ark-steadiers repented of their opposition to this policy?  If in humility they said they went back to God in prayer and received revelation that this policy was right, and then reversed course completely.  How incredibly healing this could be if done in the right way with humility and penitence and asking the leaders for forgiveness, reinforcing that we do sustain them and they aren't wrong, and that we accept their leadership.  The trendy-lefties could still invite gay people to sit with them in Church, but if they backtracked on everything else, it could be an amazing opportunity.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

And kill the Church.

Why do you think the idea gets so much traction?