Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[Mystery Meat]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And clearly a change from what the policy says.

To the honest of heart, at least . . .

No it is not. Not to the honest of heart.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

You're talking past me, Zak.

I didn't deny that there was ever a Priesthood ban. I said that it wasn't part of our identity.

And it wasn't. We all expected the ban to be lifted at some time, for the very good and sufficient reason that the prophets had said that it would be.

After all the sons of Adam... ah well... close enough. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

The claim that the November 13 letter "revised" the policy is anti-Mormon propaganda, and is false.

The letter clarified the policy by explaining its original intent and scope.

Put another way: the claim that the original intent and scope of the policy was anything other than that set out in the November 13 letter is nefarious, calumnious, and false.

 

Unless one is capable of reading plain, English text.   Then Nov 13 clearly represents a revision. 

[Russell C McGregor]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Unless one is capable of reading plain, English text.   Then Nov 13 clearly represents a revision. 

Yet again: Elder Christofferson's video interview of November 6 clearly reflects the language of the November 13 letter.

Which was clearly already in the works.

That's what my understanding of plain English text tells me.

The fact that I'm not an apostate who automatically assumes that the brethren are lying whenever their plain, unambiguous statements made from direct personal knowledge contradicts my unsupported speculation, is merely a bonus.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

It doesn't. 

Oh yea it really does.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

The God you worship does not exist.

The God you worship does not exist.   See anyone can play this silly game.  And guess what?  You are not th authority on who and what God is and isn't.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The God you worship does not exist.   See anyone can play this silly game.  And guess what?  You are not th authority on who and what God is and isn't.

No, God himself is, and he describes himself pretty well. For those willing to listen.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

No it is not. Not to the honest of heart.

Oh you bet.  You are all so honest.  Those who disagree with you and just pond scum liars.  It must be nice to be so righteous.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, God himself is, and he describes himself pretty well. For those willing to listen.

 

 

I listen.  He tells me many here have it all wrong .

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Would it hurt if I told you I turn red during rival week?

No. It would explain a lot, actually . . .

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

The fact that I'm not an apostate who automatically assumes that the brethren are lying whenever their plain, unambiguous statements made from direct personal knowledge contradicts my unsupported speculation, is merely a bonus.

Good to hear.  Neither am I.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think "everyone" may not feel "welcome" what with the new changes to the Church Handbook.  

A lot of people don't feel welcomed when they really are.  Set expectations of what the other must do often get in the way of enjoying something just as worthwhile, just different.  Sometimes it is a problem with those attempting to express the welcome (and sometimes the welcome is not sincere, but from my own experience in the Church I see it as more often awkwardness than insincerity).  Other times it is those who are being welcomed that appear to be choosing or even incapable of recognizing that welcome.  I have a family member who I observed being treated wonderfully by the ward members, whose leaders were going all out to work with the family and be supportive and there was no recognition of that.  Instead it was interpreted as something insincere and abusive (I am not sure what else I should expect from someone who never told their kids they loved them or often saw any interest as intrusive but then efforts to respect boundaries as neglect were seen as neglect...there was a lot of confusion there that made for a lot of pain in so many people).  OTOH, it was really hard to feel "welcomed" myself in their home knowing what I knew about how they treated people, especially after many times of being slammed and screamed at over the years, but I needed to learn to accept when they were trying to engage in a positive way, no matter what came before or what might happen in the future.

One can learn to forgive the limitations that the Other brings to a relationship and accept whatever is offered as sufficient "welcome".  It makes for a more connected and peaceful life, imo, even if one can't have the fullest connection that one desires or has to be prudent in the relationship to protect oneself and others.

We should do all we are guided by the Spirit to help others feel welcomed at church and in our homes and everywhere else, but feeling welcomed is more often an interactive experience than just one 'side' making/compelling the other to feel a certain way.  Those coming to church will help themselves and others by listening to the Spirit and acting in love and compassion just as they want others to respond to them.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Any person pursuing legal action because they were recorded at Church would seem pretty petty.  I'd think the Bishop would be better served to work with the person who is pursuing legal action then worry about someone recording a sacrament. 

I think if I saw children being recorded without their knowledge or their parents and there was no discernable reason it was happening, it would hardly be petty to do something about it, including pursuing legal avenues if it didn't stop when requested or if church leaders did nothing about it.  I am uncomfortable with adults being recorded without their knowledge as well.  I would like to hear an explanation of why before judging it was okay.  I have a high standard of privacy from what I've seen, at least in comparision to many of those younger than me.  Maybe being a woman (I would be interested to hear other women's opinion on the appropriateness) or perhaps having a friend's child kidnapped and sexually abused in my third year at university as well as several kidnappings occuring while I was pregnant with my first leads me to be more cautious than you are, 20-somethings being very impressionable those experiences have certainly coloured how I view the world.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

No it is not. Not to the honest of heart.

I don't think there is only one reasonable way to read the policy.  A lot of how we interpret it will be the assumptions we bring to it.  

Edited December 11, 2015 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Absolutely I call it exclusion. I even supplied the definition of "exclude" for those who are confused about what that word means. It fits perfectly.

The claim that any 8 year old "understands exactly" is a huge stretch. Your entire argument is based upon the assumptions that SSM couples wouldn't want their child baptized and would therefore offer no support, that the child would have no desire to be baptized in the first place, not to mention the assumed non-role of any extended, active family.

Like I said before, we can argue about whether an exclusion is good or not (like an 8 year old buying assault rifles) but it's foolishness to argue that an exclusion doesn't exist. I find it interesting that you find the church to be as dangerous to a SSM child as an assault rifle. Nice hyperbole.

Sounds like we need a thread on responsible parenting.

Are you a communist?  Would you send your child to a communist school?

If you are one, would you send your children to a school which taught capitalism was the only "correct" economics?

Why would any parent send a child to a school or any experience which denied the very values they were being taught at home?

Clearly SSM parents do not teach their children at home that SSM is wrong, yet they would send them to a church which does??

What good parent would do that???

 

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Good to hear.  Neither am I.

I'm so glad to hear it.

I presume that means that you will no longer privilege your interpretation of what you suppose the meaning of the words might imply, over the direct personal testimony of those who were personally involved in the preparation of both documents.

(That's not a question, BTW. It's a conclusion that follows rather inescapably from what you just wrote.)

ETA: That's an interesting quote you've got in your sig. Is it your view that a non-hostile environment for questions is one in which the views of those who oppose the brethren are given equal time with the views of those who sustain them?

Edited December 11, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Added question

[HappyJackWagon]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sounds like we need a thread on responsible parenting.

Are you a communist?  Would you send your child to a communist school?

If you are one, would you send your children to a school which taught capitalism was the only "correct" economics?

Why would any parent send a child to a school or any experience which denied the very values they were being taught at home?

Clearly SSM parents do not teach their children at home that SSM is wrong, yet they would send them to a church which does??

What good parent would do that???

 

So you're calling me a bad parent AND a communist? Why? Because you can't make a cogent argument?

You continue to press the assumption that no one in a SSM household would have any desire to participate with the church for any reason. Again, if that is the case, why is there a need for a policy at all?

Avoid the ad hominem and try to actually answer the questions.

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

The fact that I'm not an apostate who automatically assumes that the brethren are lying whenever their plain, unambiguous statements made from direct personal knowledge contradicts my unsupported speculation, is merely a bonus.

Please try to stick to the facts, Russell.

Somebody might think you are acting out because you realize you have lost the argument.

Edited December 11, 2015 by consiglieri

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Here is an excerpt:

"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."

What do the highlighted words mean to you, Hope?

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.  

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

This is as clear as day to the honest of heart. 

Why the personal digs at those you don't agree with.  I'm not honest at heart apparently?   

[consiglieri]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

A lot of people don't feel welcomed when they really are.  

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.

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes 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.

Yes, totally agree.  Individuals may try to be kind and welcoming to LGBT brothers and sisters, but the official policy is exclusionary, discriminatory and unwelcoming.  It reminds me of the faith and works discussion in James.  "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." The works here is the new policy, it shows clearly how the institution feels about LGBT individuals.  It clearly shows they are unwelcome.  

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I'm so glad to hear it.

I presume that means that you will no longer privilege your interpretation of what you suppose the meaning of the words might imply, over the direct personal testimony of those who were personally involved in the preparation of both documents.

(That's not a question, BTW. It's a conclusion that follows rather inescapably from what you just wrote.)

ETA: That's an interesting quote you've got in your sig. Is it your view that a non-hostile environment for questions is one in which the views of those who oppose the brethren are given equal time with the views of those who sustain them?

Ah Russell... it's become comical how consistent you are with misinterpreting (and/or spinning) what I write here.  But to be clear, I haven't privileged my interpretation over the direct personal testimony of those who were personally involved in the preparation of both documents.

And to answer your question, no, the quote doesn't even mention "those who oppose the brethren".

 

[consiglieri]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, totally agree.  Individuals may try to be kind and welcoming to LGBT brothers and sisters, but the official policy is exclusionary, discriminatory and unwelcoming.  It reminds me of the faith and works discussion in James.  "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." The works here is the new policy, it shows clearly how the institution feels about LGBT individuals.  It clearly shows they are unwelcome.  

Then what are we to make of an organization that does everything they can to make a certain group feel unwelcome, but turn right around and in the next breath say they are actually welcome?

To me it sounds like something out of the Ministry of Truth.

Or gas lighting.

Edited December 11, 2015 by consiglieri

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Then what are we to make of an organization that does everything they can to make a certain group feel unwelcome, but turn right around and in the next breath say they are actually welcome?

To me it sounds like something out of the Ministry of Truth.

Or gas lighting.

I wrote a letter to my Stake President and he took it to his Area Seventy leader.  No word back on it yet.  Trying to kindly persuade is the only other thing I'm attempting to do.  This is all a first for me, but I'm trying to do what my conscience compels me to do in spite of all the rhetoric in our culture to just fall in line.  Its been hard, but I'm trying.