Sensationalism

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Mystery Meat said:

We will have to agree to disagree on the effect of the policy, as I believe (and know from interactions) that the intent was to help these families and children. I also think the actual outcome will be to help them as well.

I think "protection" probably was the intent, at least in part, but as I said, I don't think it was well thought out. Most of the children in this situation have one parent who is gay and one who is not, and the heterosexual parent is a believing Latter-day Saint and takes the children to church. If the gay parent marries, the heterosexual parent is certainly not going to stop taking the child to church, but now the child cannot be baptized or receive the priesthood, even if both parents consent. If the child continues to go to church, whatever conflict there is between church teachings and the gay parent's lifestyle is still going to be there, only this child will be the "different" one in Primary, Sunday School, Young Men, and Young Women. In the cases I'm aware of, this is exactly how things are playing out.

Giving the church the benefit of the doubt that they were trying to reduce this conflict, it should have been obvious that this policy doesn't protect most of the kids in this situation. As Pa Pa said yesterday, where a gay couple has a child, and there is no LDS parent involved, there may be little incentive for the parents to have the child baptized. But then I know some gay couples who, although they are living in apostasy as defined by the church, still believe in the church and want their child to be baptized. And of course, there are a lot of LDS grandparents who have an interest in their grandchildren being baptized.

I just don't see the upside to any of this, and it just makes the church seem unnecessarily cruel to families and children in this situation. It strikes me that, if I were still a believer, I probably would have tried to rationalize this, though I doubt I would have been successful. Many of my believing LDS friends are as appalled at this as I am.

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

1- How does acknowledging the fact that SSM exists in society constitute "embracing sin". Or how does acknowledging a SSM of a sibling or cousin or whatever embrace sin and therefore destroy the family eternally?

It doesn't. To my knowledge I have never said as much. I have said that calling it good and embracing it does.

2- What you seem to be describing is that those who engage in SSM are sinning and therefore will not be an eternal family. OK. But how does that destroy others who simply show love and compassion to all family members, including those who are SSM?

It doesn't. But if the love and compassion goes to such extreme as condoning, supporting, tolerating, and advocating for the acceptance of sin as good, it crosses that line. That is all I have been trying to say, even if I have done so poorly.

You are not describing how someone else's SSM destroys other peoples families. (See above. That is how families are destroyed/weakened) Are SSM causing divorces of others? Infidelity among others? Financial ruin? Family abandonment? How does it destroy others? Seriously, this makes NO sense and you haven't explained it at all.

I am not aware of any of the above, but I am aware of loss of the Spirit when it is embraced, condoned and championed.

 

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I think "protection" probably was the intent, at least in part, but as I said, I don't think it was well thought out. Most of the children in this situation have one parent who is gay and one who is not, and the heterosexual parent is a believing Latter-day Saint and takes the children to church. If the gay parent marries, the heterosexual parent is certainly not going to stop taking the child to church, but now the child cannot be baptized or receive the priesthood, even if both parents consent. (this is not true, and has been clarified by the Church, if I recall) If the child continues to go to church, whatever conflict there is between church teachings and the gay parent's lifestyle is still going to be there, only this child will be the "different" one in Primary, Sunday School, Young Men, and Young Women. In the cases I'm aware of, this is exactly how things are playing out.

Giving the church the benefit of the doubt that they were trying to reduce this conflict, it should have been obvious that this policy doesn't protect most of the kids in this situation. As Pa Pa said yesterday, where a gay couple has a child, and there is no LDS parent involved, there may be little incentive for the parents to have the child baptized. But then I know some gay couples who, although they are living in apostasy as defined by the church, still believe in the church and want their child to be baptized. And of course, there are a lot of LDS grandparents who have an interest in their grandchildren being baptized.

I just don't see the upside to any of this, and it just makes the church seem unnecessarily cruel to families and children in this situation. It strikes me that, if I were still a believer, I probably would have tried to rationalize this, though I doubt I would have been successful. Many of my believing LDS friends are as appalled at this as I am.

 

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think "protection" probably was the intent, at least in part, but as I said, I don't think it was well thought out. Most of the children in this situation have one parent who is gay and one who is not, and the heterosexual parent is a believing Latter-day Saint and takes the children to church. If the gay parent marries, the heterosexual parent is certainly not going to stop taking the child to church, but now the child cannot be baptized or receive the priesthood, even if both parents consent.

https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

Quote

Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions ofHandbook 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. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

 

I get that. I know of quite a few families where the gay parent has primary custody, but the LDS ex-spouse has an agreement to raise the child in the church. Needless to say, the new policy has caused some real conflict in people who are suddenly revisiting custody issues that had previously been settled amicably. Again, there's no real upside to this.

[consiglieri]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I just don't see the upside to any of this, and it just makes the church seem unnecessarily cruel to families and children in this situation. It strikes me that, if I were still a believer, I probably would have tried to rationalize this, though I doubt I would have been successful. Many of my believing LDS friends are as appalled at this as I am.

Many Christians miss the fact that Jesus's main beef with the Pharisees was that they put religious scrupulosity ahead of the needs of the people.

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Many Christians miss the fact that Jesus's main beef with the Pharisees was that they put religious scrupulosity ahead of the needs of the people.

As far as I can see, the group this policy is meant to affect is the tiny percentage of children whose gay parents want them to be raised in the LDS church, and there are no heterosexual parents involved. Most often, these are families where the parents allow the grandparents or other family members to take the children to church, though I know a few instances in which the gay parents attend church with their children. The policy seems to be designed to get gay parents to not bring their children to church because the policy now makes the kids outsiders and does create a real conflict in the family that may not have existed before. Of course, LDS relatives are probably no less motivated to take the kids to church, though I can imagine some gay parents will now decide not to allow it.

Edited May 25, 2016 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

1- How does acknowledging the fact that SSM exists in society constitute "embracing sin". Or how does acknowledging a SSM of a sibling or cousin or whatever embrace sin and therefore destroy the family eternally?

It doesn't. To my knowledge I have never said as much. I have said that calling it good and embracing it does.

2- What you seem to be describing is that those who engage in SSM are sinning and therefore will not be an eternal family. OK. But how does that destroy others who simply show love and compassion to all family members, including those who are SSM?

It doesn't. But if the love and compassion goes to such extreme as condoning, supporting, tolerating, and advocating for the acceptance of sin as good, it crosses that line. That is all I have been trying to say, even if I have done so poorly.

You are not describing how someone else's SSM destroys other peoples families. (See above. That is how families are destroyed/weakened) Are SSM causing divorces of others? Infidelity among others? Financial ruin? Family abandonment? How does it destroy others? Seriously, this makes NO sense and you haven't explained it at all.

I am not aware of any of the above, but I am aware of loss of the Spirit when it is embraced, condoned and championed.

So would it be more correct to say that sin "destroys families" or is SSM a sin of greater magnitude that destroys families more than all other sins including regular h0mosxuality?

I mean, there must be a reason to single out SSM as the destroyer of families, right?

Also, I'm not sure how you distinguish when "love and compassion goes to such extreme as condoning, supporting, tolerating, and advocating for the acceptance of sin as good, it crosses that line." I find the concept of extreme love and compassion to be a godly characteristic we should all aspire to.

If I were NOT to tolerate a specific sin in others, what should I do to show that I don't tolerate that? How does it look in real life?

[Rockerwife]

I have read all of comments including the clarification from Elder Christofferson last year.  I have read so many things that many of you have posted sharing how you struggled with the policy at first but have come to understanding and peace with the policy. I respect your opinions and I believe the Church has the right to make these changes. I also believe the leaders of the church feel this change is in the best interest of the families the policy affects. I know that the leaders meant no harmful intent.  But...(there's always a but)

I know that one day this policy will directly affect my family. ..My son, who happens to be gay, at some point will marry a nice young man, and will most likely want to start a family. This will be my family, this child, or these children will be my grandchildren. If these children spend any time with me, I would hope they might have a desire to join the church. I would want them to have the opportunity to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (If they received their parents permission ) I believe the Holy Ghost would lead them to make good choices and to comfort them when they need comfort.

I am so grateful for the gift of the Holy Ghost in my life, I have received comfort, personal revelation and a confirmation of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ through this wonderful gift. How could I not want that for my future grandchildren (while still children) if they have that desire?

The policy of last November has shaken me to my core.

 

 

[Ahab]

21 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I disagree on both accounts. I am aligned with the Prophets and Apostles, and so I feel I am on VERY strong ground.

I think it is rude to not call evil, evil.

Yes you're right and those who disagree that you are right are wrong.

And I could have wriiten you a list of pretty much everyone on this board who would disagree with you, too.  Look at them all.  They're the ones who you can pretty much count on to disagree with what our Lord's prophets and apostles have said about what is good and what is evil.

So what do propose we do now that we have identified the rabble rousers and told them of the tactics Satan and his cohorts are using?

I predict there will be some more denials and refusing to believe that what is evil is really not evil and acting as if the good guys are causing the problems.   But it's war, isn't it, so what else should we expect to happen.

Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, too, I think,  kinda like beauty is,  and some people just really really really like sensationalism. 

 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes you're right and those who disagree that you are right are wrong.

And I could have wriiten you a list of pretty much everyone on this board who would disagree with you, too.  Look at them all.  They're the ones who you can pretty much count on to disagree with what our Lord's prophets and apostles have said about what is good and what is evil.

So what do propose we do now that we have identified the rabble rousers and told them of the tactics Satan and his cohorts are using?

I predict there will be some more denials and refusing to believe that what is evil is really not evil and acting as if the good guys are causing the problems.   But it's war, isn't it, so what else should we expect to happen.

Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, too, I think,  kinda like beauty is,  and some people just really really really like sensationalism. 

 

It makes me sad that you and MM think you're making some kind of moral stand here. I suppose opponents of mixed race marriage thought the same way, in their time. 

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Rockerwife said:

I have read all of comments including the clarification from Elder Christofferson last year.  I have read so many things that many of you have posted sharing how you struggled with the policy at first but have come to understanding and peace with the policy. I respect your opinions and I believe the Church has the right to make these changes. I also believe the leaders of the church feel this change is in the best interest of the families the policy affects. I know that the leaders meant no harmful intent.  But...(there's always a but)

I know that one day this policy will directly affect my family. ..My son, who happens to be gay, at some point will marry a nice young man, and will most likely want to start a family. This will be my family, this child, or these children will be my grandchildren. If these children spend any time with me, I would hope they might have a desire to join the church. I would want them to have the opportunity to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (If they received their parents permission ) I believe the Holy Ghost would lead them to make good choices and to comfort them when they need comfort.

I am so grateful for the gift of the Holy Ghost in my life, I have received comfort, personal revelation and a confirmation of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ through this wonderful gift. How could I not want that for my future grandchildren (while still children) if they have that desire?

The policy of last November has shaken me to my core.

 

 

I appreciate your honesty and empathize greatly with what may happen.  It just doesn't affect gays.  It affects everyone in the family!

[jkwilliams]

49 minutes ago, Rockerwife said:

I have read all of comments including the clarification from Elder Christofferson last year.  I have read so many things that many of you have posted sharing how you struggled with the policy at first but have come to understanding and peace with the policy. I respect your opinions and I believe the Church has the right to make these changes. I also believe the leaders of the church feel this change is in the best interest of the families the policy affects. I know that the leaders meant no harmful intent.  But...(there's always a but)

I know that one day this policy will directly affect my family. ..My son, who happens to be gay, at some point will marry a nice young man, and will most likely want to start a family. This will be my family, this child, or these children will be my grandchildren. If these children spend any time with me, I would hope they might have a desire to join the church. I would want them to have the opportunity to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (If they received their parents permission ) I believe the Holy Ghost would lead them to make good choices and to comfort them when they need comfort.

I am so grateful for the gift of the Holy Ghost in my life, I have received comfort, personal revelation and a confirmation of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ through this wonderful gift. How could I not want that for my future grandchildren (while still children) if they have that desire?

The policy of last November has shaken me to my core.

 

I'm sorry you have been affected by this. I can't imagine how you must feel. 

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, Rockerwife said:

I have read all of comments including the clarification from Elder Christofferson last year.  I have read so many things that many of you have posted sharing how you struggled with the policy at first but have come to understanding and peace with the policy. I respect your opinions and I believe the Church has the right to make these changes. I also believe the leaders of the church feel this change is in the best interest of the families the policy affects. I know that the leaders meant no harmful intent.  But...(there's always a but)

I know that one day this policy will directly affect my family. ..My son, who happens to be gay, at some point will marry a nice young man, and will most likely want to start a family. This will be my family, this child, or these children will be my grandchildren. If these children spend any time with me, I would hope they might have a desire to join the church. I would want them to have the opportunity to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (If they received their parents permission ) I believe the Holy Ghost would lead them to make good choices and to comfort them when they need comfort.

I am so grateful for the gift of the Holy Ghost in my life, I have received comfort, personal revelation and a confirmation of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ through this wonderful gift. How could I not want that for my future grandchildren (while still children) if they have that desire?

The policy of last November has shaken me to my core.

 

 

I am sorry this has happened. I wish things were different for everyone involved! You have my prayers and sympathy.

[Mystery Meat]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So would it be more correct to say that sin "destroys families" or is SSM a sin of greater magnitude that destroys families more than all other sins including regular h0mosxuality?

I mean, there must be a reason to single out SSM as the destroyer of families, right?

Also, I'm not sure how you distinguish when "love and compassion goes to such extreme as condoning, supporting, tolerating, and advocating for the acceptance of sin as good, it crosses that line." I find the concept of extreme love and compassion to be a godly characteristic we should all aspire to.

If I were NOT to tolerate a specific sin in others, what should I do to show that I don't tolerate that? How does it look in real life?

It would be correct to say that sin destroys families. It is also true to say SSM/homosexual sex destroys families. I do not believe SSM or homosexuality is a sin of greater magnitude, but I do believe it a sin that many people are embracing right now, and so the Church is right to warn against it and spend particular time focusing on it. That is the reason for its emphasis now.

People are capable of doing bad things out of love and do so all the time. In this particular case, while it would be good to show forth an increase of love to a gay family member, it would not be good to allow that love to drive the individual to advocate for the acceptance of sin because they love their son/daughter/brother/daughter, etc. That is what I meant by crossing the line. 

As far as real life application, I am sure that will differ from time to time, and person to person. My gay cousin knows I value him. But in conversation and after showing an increase in love, my gay cousin assumed that I disagreed with the Church's position on homosexuality. In that moment I believe it was appropriate and important to settle in his mind that I loved him and also believe his actions were sinful. There are a variety of other ways I am sure to demonstrate loyalty to the Kingdom of God, eternal truth, priesthood authority and God himself while still showing love to those who are sinning.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It makes me sad that you and MM think you're making some kind of moral stand here. I suppose opponents of mixed race marriage thought the same way, in their time. 

There is nothing wrong with any color of skin but to say there is nothing wrong with anything same sex people do together would be a bit ridiculous, don't cha think?

The line gets crossed when people choose to do something that is evil, even if it's what they have chosen to do as consenting adults.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oh. "THE Family".

I'm curious how that happens. It hasn't affected his family directly. It hasn't affected my family negatively in any way. Has it affected yours?

I'm trying to understand how saying that SSM destroys the family is a real thing and not some form of fear mongering. Please help me understand how families are being destroyed.

No need to get rude. I will answer this in PM, if you will answer this question; do you see any activity between consenting Adults wrong? 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

No need to get rude. I will answer this in PM, if you will answer this question; do you see any activity between consenting Adults wrong? 

Are you talking sxual only or are you including "ANY" activity like human sacrifice where one party agrees to be sacrificed? Are you talking illegal behaviors or are they all legal? If you can make your question a little more precise I'd be happy to answer.

[Rock_N_Roll]

Thanks to those that came to my defense in my absence.  Due to my schedule, I’m usually not able to linger long on these boards. I didn’t mean to start any contention.  I will say that the struggle with SSA, that some members of my immediate and extended family have/are dealing with, has made my family stronger in some ways, in that we’ve had to “circle the wagons” on some occasions and rely on each other’s strength.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you talking sxual only or are you including "ANY" activity like human sacrifice where one party agrees to be sacrificed? Are you talking illegal behaviors or are they all legal? If you can make your question a little more precise I'd be happy to answer.

Only what the tread topic is about, marriage (which of course includes all within it), as for what happens between adults in relation  to sexual matters that is no one else's business. Also, God will judge the right and wrong of any issue; him and his word. I am not trying to trick you...that is not in my nature (gotcha questions) anyway. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

There is nothing wrong with any color of skin but to say there is nothing wrong with anything same sex people do together would be a bit ridiculous, don't cha think?

People used to think standing up against "race mixing" was drawing a hard line in the sand for traditional morality. 

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The line gets crossed when people choose to do something that is evil, even if it's what they have chosen to do as consenting adults.

 

The evil action in this case is condemning gay couples and their children. 

[Mystery Meat]

35 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

Thanks to those that came to my defense in my absence.  Due to my schedule, I’m usually not able to linger long on these boards. I didn’t mean to start any contention.  I will say that the struggle with SSA, that some members of my immediate and extended family have/are dealing with, has made my family stronger in some ways, in that we’ve had to “circle the wagons” on some occasions and rely on each other’s strength.

 

Nor did I intend to start a brew-haha. I think it is important we love our families, no matter their sins and weaknesses. My point was simply that we cannot sacrifice truth and righteousness in order to try and support our families.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Only what the tread topic is about, marriage (which of course includes all within it), as for what happens between adults in relation  to sexual matters that is no one else's business. Also, God will judge the right and wrong of any issue; him and his word. I am not trying to trick you...that is not in my nature (gotcha questions) anyway. 

There are just so many possibilities I'm sure I won't be able to consider everything...but I'll try to answer.

I'm inclined to think that whatever consensual activity happens in the married couples bedroom is between them and I have no desire or business trying to say what is or isn't appropriate. I think the 1st Presidency learned that lesson in the early '80's. 

I don't think it would be appropriate to bring additional participants into the bedroom even if consensual. It's certainly not my thing, but it still wouldn't be my business to condemn others who do. Nor would it be appropriate for me to claim that the activity between married people is destroying the family.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Nor did I intend to start a brew-haha. I think it is important we love our families, no matter their sins and weaknesses. My point was simply that we cannot sacrifice truth and righteousness in order to try and support our families.

That's a much sweeter way of putting it.  I'll go with you on this.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

The evil action in this case is condemning gay couples and their children. 

I understand that you believe that so I can understand you being as obstinate in defending your position as I am defending my position.

We are simply on opposite sides on this issue, and you are as wrong as I am right.