LDS Apostle: Policy on same-sex couples was revelation from God

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

3. Due to changes in social constructs, The LDS Church has refined and clarified the meaning and ambit of The Law of Chastity: "His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Just curious, has that made it to temple ceremony yet? I assume it will eventually. 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm trying to be a kinder, better person who is more in harmony with God. 

I think we've just identified your problem.

[smac97]

Quote

Just curious, has that made it to temple ceremony yet? I assume it will eventually. 

Without going into any detail, there is no need to change the temple ceremony.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 12, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is why I'm not particularly interested in discussing such "lines."  Not only are they generally hypothetical, they are pretty much exclusively so.  Folks online like to come up with "Sophie's Choice"-type scenarios.  And folks who are specifically hostile to the Church like to try to jam Mormons into a corner and fess up to either A) "following the Brethren" by committing some atrocity, or B) refusing to follow the Brethren, which the critic then uses as leverage to encourage more generalized disagreement with and refusal to sustain/follow the Brethren.

The hyperbole being thrown around demonstrates the prevalence of emotion and the lack of reason underlying much of the opposition to the Church's changes to the CHI.  One poster in this thread characterized the Church's position as "horrific."  As in "causing horror."  As in causing "an overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting; a shuddering fear."  Let us pause for a moment and dwell on how utterly unserious and unreasonable it is to use such a word to describe the LDS Church's policy, one which - as you have noted - is based on a long-standing and righteous position.  The Church is not ordering its members to beat up apostates, or to kidnap children, or to burn crosses, or to do anything which even remotely approaches being "horrific."  Instead, the LDS Church is responding to changes in society which have necessitated clarification as to the scope, meaning and application of the Church's doctrines pertaining to marriage and sexuality.

To be honest, although I am generally willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, I have a hard time doing so when I came across such absurd, overwrought-to-the-point-of-bad-faith allegations against my faith such as those we have seen in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

From Elder Oaks, Oct 2012:

"When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism."

 

[Russell C McGregor]

Just now, rockpond said:

From Elder Oaks, Oct 2012:

"When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism."

 

So I hope you and the GLBT etc. folks for whom you are a collaborator an ally will refrain from bullying or ostracising LDS children.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

From Elder Oaks, Oct 2012:

"When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism."

Are you implying that the LDS Church's position amounts to "psychological abuse?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 12, 2016 by smac97

[Analytics]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The hyperbole being thrown around demonstrates the prevalence of emotion and the lack of reason underlying much of the opposition to the Church's changes to the CHI....

I feel compelled to point out the irony here.  First, I'll restate my position--I agree with you on this issue.  The policy change is a good, reasonable change.  In the words of Elder Christofferson,

It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … 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.

I find that reason compelling.  However, the stated reasons raise some questions:  Why should the kids of gays be the only ones protected from the issues that might arise when the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are different?  Why not protect other kids with this same issue?  Why should kids of part-member families be allowed to be blessed, baptized, and ordained?  Why should the kids with one or more less-active parents be allowed to do those things?  If we are going to be rational about this, why not be consistent too and exclude everybody from these expectations that don't have the benefit of being raised by people that are fully on board with the program?

I think that's the real issue here.  The problem isn't that this policy isn't rational--the problem is that this policy isn't consistent with the Church's established teachings and practices.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

I think that's the real issue here.  The problem isn't that this policy isn't rational--the problem is that this policy isn't consistent with the Church's established teachings and practices.

In what ways, specifically?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Are implying that the LDS Church's position amounts to "psychological abuse?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know... It seems that Elder Oaks is making a connection between psychological abuse and ostracizing young people.  Fast forward three years and now it is God revealing to the Prophet that the Church should ostracize* children based on the relationship status of their parents.

*Defintion of ostracize:  to exclude, by general consent, from society, friendship, conversation, privileges, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. The phrase "legally and lawfully" is not from the scriptures.  It is of more recent derivation.  So I don't think we can say that redundancies in scripture necessarily lead us to conclude that "legally and lawfully" are also redundant.

2. In years past The LDS Church, along with the rest of society, spoke of marriage, including lawful marriage, with "heterosexual" as an implied term.  Same-sex marriage did not really exist in any meaningful sense until the last few years.

3. Due to changes in social constructs, The LDS Church has refined and clarified the meaning and ambit of The Law of Chastity: "His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

4. Given the foregoing definition, arguments about "legally and lawfully" as pertaining to same-sex couples are moot.

5. Notwithstanding the mootness of the issue, here is an interesting explanation on the meaning of "legal" as compared to the meaning of "lawful":

So no, "legal" and "lawful" are not synonymous.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks.

That's what I was getting at concerning "legal and lawful," but I didn't  have the vocabulary or background to express it as well as you did here.

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I feel compelled to point out the irony here.  First, I'll restate my position--I agree with you on this issue.  The policy change is a good, reasonable change.  In the words of Elder Christofferson,

It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … 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.

I find that reason compelling.  However, the stated reasons raise some questions:  Why should the kids of gays be the only ones protected from the issues that might arise when the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are different?  Why not protect other kids with this same issue?  Why should kids of part-member families be allowed to be blessed, baptized, and ordained?  Why should the kids with one or more less-active parents be allowed to do those things?  If we are going to be rational about this, why not be consistent too and exclude everybody from these expectations that don't have the benefit of being raised by people that are fully on board with the program?

I think that's the real issue here.  The problem isn't that this policy isn't rational--the problem is that this policy isn't consistent with the Church's established teachings and practices.

All good points... it's not consistent or rational.

Also interesting that Elder Christofferson used the words "it originates from a desire to protect children".  I thought it originated from God's mind and will being revealed to the prophet.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Also interesting that Elder Christofferson used the words "it originates from a desire to protect children".  I thought it originated from God's mind and will being revealed to the prophet.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. 

Ending the priesthood ban originated from the problem of the Sao Paulo temple. I believe that drove the timing and the urgency, but one can also believe that it was God's will that it happen at that time. Ditto with ending polygamy.

It can originate from a desire to protect children and originate in God's mind and will being revealed to the prophet. It isn't "either/or."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is why I'm not particularly interested in discussing such "lines."  Not only are they generally hypothetical, they are pretty much exclusively so.  Folks online like to come up with "Sophie's Choice"-type scenarios.  And folks who are specifically hostile to the Church like to try to jam Mormons into a corner and fess up to either A) "following the Brethren" by committing some atrocity, or B) refusing to follow the Brethren, which the critic then uses as leverage to encourage more generalized disagreement with and refusal to sustain/follow the Brethren.

 

It's the same sort of thing antagonists do when they complain about the Church performing temple work for deceased individuals and create nonsensical comparisons to try to bolster their argument by uglifying or horribalizing what the Church does ("What if it were the church of Satan baptizing your relatives" etc.).

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I find that reason compelling.  However, the stated reasons raise some questions:  Why should the kids of gays be the only ones protected from the issues that might arise when the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are different?  Why not protect other kids with this same issue?  Why should kids of part-member families be allowed to be blessed, baptized, and ordained?  Why should the kids with one or more less-active parents be allowed to do those things?  If we are going to be rational about this, why not be consistent too and exclude everybody from these expectations that don't have the benefit of being raised by people that are fully on board with the program?
 

Because repentance of the one results in the immediate dissolution of a family, while repentance of the other results in a strengthening of the family.  It goes beyond protecting children from teachings that are simply different from their parents' behavior.  Rather it protects children from having to confront what "following Christ" would mean for a family that the child loves very much. 

The only way to avoid this is to either cave on the doctrine that homosexual relations are sinful or to cave on the doctrine that repentance requires forsaking our sins.  As long as we hold to both of those doctrines, neither of which are particularly unique to our brand of Christianity, then we'll have to implement policies that will shield minors from their implications until they are mature enough to give them the consideration they deserve. 

[Mystery Meat]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All good points... it's not consistent or rational.

Also interesting that Elder Christofferson used the words "it originates from a desire to protect children".  I thought it originated from God's mind and will being revealed to the prophet.

They are not mutually exclusive.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. 

Ending the priesthood ban originated from the problem of the Sao Paulo temple. I believe that drove the timing and the urgency, but one can also believe that it was God's will that it happen at that time. Ditto with ending polygamy.

It can originate from a desire to protect children and originate in God's mind and will being revealed to the prophet. It isn't "either/or."

I agree.  But that's also not quite what Elder Nelson said.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  But that's also not quite what Elder Nelson said.

As I took the message, he definitely implied it.

Are you going to make him an offender for a word (or lack of a word)?

Edited January 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Because repentance of the one results in the immediate dissolution of a family,...

Fascinated by this logic:  On one hand, we don't recognize the validity of the marriage and family.  On the other hand, we don't want the family to be dissolved.

I'm grateful for the latter.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I took the message, he definitely implied it.

Are you going to make him an offender for a word (or lack of a word)?

 

Of course not.  But the lack of references to this policy being the "revealed mind and will of God" (via Elder Christofferson, Elder Otterson, and the Nov 13 letter) prior to Sunday evening is making many, including myself, question the accuracy of Elder Nelson's recollection of events.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I feel compelled to point out the irony here.  First, I'll restate my position--I agree with you on this issue.  The policy change is a good, reasonable change.  In the words of Elder Christofferson,

It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … 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.

I find that reason compelling.  However, the stated reasons raise some questions:  Why should the kids of gays be the only ones protected from the issues that might arise when the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are different?  Why not protect other kids with this same issue?  Why should kids of part-member families be allowed to be blessed, baptized, and ordained?  Why should the kids with one or more less-active parents be allowed to do those things?  If we are going to be rational about this, why not be consistent too and exclude everybody from these expectations that don't have the benefit of being raised by people that are fully on board with the program?

Well, I'll take a stab at it. Many of these circumstances may not have parents who are diametrically opposed to church stances/teachings and there is fairly sizable chance that the kids would still be taught the gospel and church teachings in a number of these even in the home. So for example, a part-member family, still has a parent who is a member and would likely teach their kids the gospel, especially if the other parent was complicit enough to agree. Likewise families with a straight parent who has at least split custody aren't in this policy change. If the parent wasn't willing to allow them, we already have a system in place that wouldn't allow baptism....ie. the non-member parent would not give permission. That's what's happened for 3 of my siblings in a PM home, though in every other way they're being raised LDS. In other circumstances the parent may be very willing to teach that what they did wasn't right and that LDS teachings are correct. Like my mother who had a number of children out-of-wedlock. The dissonance is mitigated by the assertion that there is a better way. Where both parents are less active (to the point of almost never attending) may be a fair comparison. But it's not a complete parallel. I knew a couple on my mission, that minus their inactivity, lived and believed very strongly in LDS doctrines...and I could think of a few others. 

The majority of children who would be raised with a parent who is currently in a SSrelationship isn't likely to be taught by the parent that what they're doing isn't right by God's laws (or if one prefers the church's stance). It's similar to ones with polygamous parents who hold a very strong stance of the absolute righteousness of their choice. Though the other circumstances you mentioned may also warrant that and I would hope where the kids couldn't be supported in their decision their baptism would at least be delayed till they could. The stance behind the parents aren't likely to be as uniformly opposed to fundamental LDS principles in these cases.     

But I wouldn't mind at all if there was a policy that would mention some form of "proceed with caution" when there are circumstances where the gospel isn't taught in the home (though there are already a few). And who knows, there may be in time.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 12, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oblique but sacrilegious mockery.

 

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

He means he doesn't like it when others use it to counter his bloviations.

I don't like sacrilegious mockery under any circumstances.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Of course not.  But the lack of references to this policy being the "revealed mind and will of God" (via Elder Christofferson, Elder Otterson, and the Nov 13 letter) prior to Sunday evening is making many, including myself, question the accuracy of Elder Nelson's recollection of events.

I do believe that most of us -- and I'll definitely include myself -- already assumed that it was. Perhaps the Brethren didn't find it necessary until now to so state it.

Very often -- I'll say almost all of the time -- the revealed will of the Lord has practical benefits that are obvious on its face. That's why one need not conclude that being God's divine will and having obvious practical benefits are mutually exclusive.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Quote

Fascinated by this logic:  On one hand, we don't recognize the validity of the marriage and family.  On the other hand, we don't want the family to be dissolved.

I'm grateful for the latter.

The LDS Church also does not recognize the validity of polygamous marriages.  I am not sure about common-law (unsolemnized) marriages.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I do believe that most of us -- and I'll definitely include myself -- already assumed that it was. Perhaps the Brethren didn't find it necessary until now to so state it.

Very often -- I'll say almost all of the time -- the revealed will of the Lord has practical benefits that are obvious on its face. That's why one need not conclude that being divine will and having practical benefits are mutually exclusive.

Let's go over the timeline:

Unknown date:  God reveals policy to President Monson.  The apostles have a spiritual confirmation of the truth of the revelation.  They don't tell the Church membership.

Unknown date:  Policy is published in Handbook 1.  Church membership is still not informed.

Nov 5:  Policy is leaked creating concern and questions among church membership.

Nov 6:  Church publishes Elder Christofferson interview to the world.  He discusses the origins and reasons for the policy but does not mention that it was the revealed will of God to the Prophet.

Nov 13:  First Presidency publishes a letter on the policy and the reasons for it.  They do not mention that it was the revealed will of God to the Prophet despite a week filled with concern and confusion among church members and leaders.

Nov 14:  Church members hold a resignation event in SLC.  Neither the Brethren nor the Public Affairs group tell them that this policy came from a direct revelation.

Two months later...

Jan 10:  President Nelson announces to an audience of young adults that this policy was revealed from God to the Prophet as "His mind and will" with the confirmation of the remaining 14 prophets, seers, and revelators.  To my knowledge, this is the first time such a claim has been publicly made by the Brethren since 1978.  And we learned of it months after it happened through a broadcast that was aimed at a small group of church members.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Let's go over the timeline:

I may be wrong, but I assume the timeline would raise questions/concerns only for those who don't see this as roughly the pattern followed for all decisions taken by the First President and the Quorum of the Twelve. Based on personal experience, I've always assumed that most/all policies and procedures arise from revelatory experiences on the parts of the prophets.