Are Mormon historians rewriting history, what is the truth?

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Sin is generally an individual thing, but apostasy is rightfully treated as an infectious disease.  It could eventually destroy the church if not contained.

This is just reality, and the church leaders have a responsibility to protect the church.

To the both of you, While philosophical discussions are interesting, is it wise to try and speak for the Church on very specific circumstance that the Church has not spoken, ergo one couples living situation v another couples living situation.

[cdowis]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

To the both of you, While philosophical discussions are interesting, is it wise to try and speak for the Church on very specific circumstance that the Church has not spoken, ergo one couples living situation v another couples living situation.

The church has spoken in the Handbook of Instructions.  Have you been keeping up on this??????

[provoman]

Back to the Stoddards and thier gripe against Bushman and others. It seems a percarious perch to soapbox from, railing against Bushman, when his work practically has approval of the LDS Church.

If Rough Stone Rolling approached the villainy the Stoddards square peg it into, does anyone think the book would be permitted at Deseret Book?

[provoman]

Just now, cdowis said:

The church has spoken in the Handbook of Instructions.  Have you been keeping up on this??????

Are you saying the handbook specifically addresses why children of an unmarried hetero couple can recieve baptism and that thise children are not required to renounce the sins of their parents?

[cdowis]

Just now, provoman said:

Are you saying the handbook specifically addresses why children of an unmarried hetero couple can recieve baptism and that thise children are not required to renounce the sins of their parents?

I was responding to what you actually said in your post, not to what you meant to say.

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I was responding to what you actually said in your post, not to what you meant to say.

Is it fair to say that the handbook does not specifically address why children of an unmarried hetero couple can recieve baptism and that these children are not required to renounce the sins of their parents?

[california boy]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

Soo, polygamy is allowed in your  view of the universe.  Come on,  get yourself educated before making absurd comments.

Get educated?  Seriously?  You don't think I understand the church's position on how it treats gays?

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

Look, I am sympathetic to your viewpoint.  I wish that there was some meeting ground with the church with SSM couples, but I also wish the same for polygamous families.  Yes, it is unfortunate.  The gap is too wide and I do not see common ground except between individuals on both sides.  There is no reason that we cannot associate with one another,  but a formal relationship with the church itself is not possible

Just to be clear, it is the church that has created this gap that is far wider than it ever had to be.  Look,  I get that the church considers homosexual relations as a sin.  But the church considers all sex outside of marriage a sin.  It is the church itself that has blown this chasm up into a valley so deep that it becomes an us vs them attitude both in the public's mind and with the members themselves.  Just think how differently the church would be viewed if the church treated all sex outside of marriage the same.  

The opinions of so many outside the church would not be of a church that is bigoted and hates gays.   So many doors have been slammed.  So many families have been torn apart.  So many youth leaving the church.  So many gays leaving the church.  So many disparaging articles and posts and interviews.  So little understanding of the love of Christ.  And for what?  So the church can name call gays as apostate?  So children can be refused baptism?  So the church can try and prevent gays being denied their civil right to equal protection?  This is not about the results of condemning sin.  That is what church's are suppose to do.  This is far past that line into something much more dark.   The church wants to be known as the church that Christ leads.  Do these actions really reflect who Jesus is?  Did Christ cause deep chasms between Him and sinners?  Did He name call sinners apostates?  Did he refuse to baptize little ones?  That is a question all who ponder the claims of the church's mission must ask.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

But the Church treats everyone the same. The covenants are the same for everyone, and there is an important difference between sin and apostasy.

What separates the Handbook 1 policies about discipline for sin from those about apostasy is the respective disposition on covenants. The set of policies covering sin and transgression deals with breaking Church covenants. The set covering apostasy additionally deals with openly opposing the first set of covenants and entering alternative and in some cases opposing covenants altogether.

Sex outside of the traditional marriage oath and covenant breaks Church covenants, and same-gender marriage is an oath and covenant condoning it in opposition to the Church’s.

 

You got to be kidding me.  The church treats everyone the same????  See my post above.

EVERY SIN is in open opposition to covenants.  When anyone has sex outside of marriage they are choosing an alternative lifestyle that opposes church teachings.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

The Church uses this definition of apostasy for her own doctrinal purposes: “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.” https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

That definition isn't much different than the one I supplied, but let's use yours. According to church policy and based on the definition, individuals in SSM are turning away from principles of the gospel and are therefore in a state of apostasy. Yet individuals in an unmarried, hetero relationship who are also turning away from principles of the gospel are NOT in a state of apostasy.

It isn’t logical that a Church adopt a secular definition to teach gospel principles.

It's logical but I also recognize that tweaking it for their specific needs for policy reasons is fine.

For the administration of and disciplinary action for individual apostasy, she has provided policy in Handbook 1. This does not define apostasy, but only lists the behaviors that manifest individual apostasy. Hence the introduction, “As used here [bold mine], apostasy refers to members who…” This list is consistent with her doctrinal definition of apostasy.

Right. So we have the definition of apostasy and then a handbook policy which doesn't perfectly match that definition. By singling out a few behaviors that are "apostate" it essentially states that other behaviors that may fit the definition, but are not included in handbook policy, are not really apostate or at least don't rise to a certain level of apostasy that would require a DC. So apparently there is a continuum of apostasy.

The Church has defined apostasy and has set administrative policy identifying specific behaviors that demonstrate it; there is nothing circular or capricious about that.

Reading administrative policies warms the cockles of my heart  It's super inspiring. But it is capricious when policy changes indict individuals as "apostate" where previously they were not labeled as such. It is circular because the church says a certain behavior is apostate and we know that the person is apostate because of the certain behavior. (Please read that a few times if necessary because it is clearly circular logic)

Serious sin and transgression do not necessarily constitute apostasy.

Agreed. Only certain serious sins the church chooses.

What separates the Handbook 1 policies about serious transgression from those about apostasy is their respective disposition on covenants. The set covering sin and transgression deals with breaking Church covenants, which include the priesthood order. The set covering apostasy additionally deals with openly opposing covenants and priesthood order, or entering alternative covenants altogether.

Interesting theory. I think you're stretching things a bit but it's as good a guess as any. Yet members are allowed to openly support SSM, which doesn't necessarily mean they are opposing traditional covenants. I can support SSM and have a Temple recommend but the child with gay parents must denounce SSM in order to be considered for baptism at age 18. Vastly different criteria between children of SSM and every other member.

Sex outside of a traditional marriage oath and covenant breaks Church covenants, and same-gender marriage is an oath and covenant condoning it (and publicly).

As I just stated, I can publicly condone SSM and still be a member in good standing with a TR.

It is telling to me that you were unable/unwilling to address my first question, and hopefully my re-explanation can help with that. “…[Do] you understand why the Church defines a different relationship with apostates than with run-of-the mill sinners, and why among apostates there is additional differentiation when it comes to independent involvement with their dependents? Please explain how you see it.” Hopefully you can begin to hear what’s been said many, many times before, and that no one has been circular in their logic or capricious in saying it.

No. I don't understand it. I understand that the church claims there is a difference between the two but the differences seem arbitrary and spiteful. You've done your best to explain the difference lies in the covenants but as I've pointed out, your reasoning doesn't hold up consistently. It still singles certain people out while others are exempt.

If the church followed their definition of apostasy, it would need to label anyone who turns away from the principles of the gospel in any way, as an apostate. Then you argue that the handbook policy defines which apostates are really the worst ones. Fine. Still, not only is the labeling of individuals in SSM a new addition to policy as an interpretation of the church definition, but the refusal to allow children of "apostates" to receive ordinances runs counter to the scriptures. We're not going to convince each other and when it comes down to it, your answer to my original question of "why are individuals in SSM apostate while hetero couples living together outside of marriage are not" is summed up as "Because the church said so."

You're right. The church said so. But that answer is still inconsistent with other church teachings. It purposely singles out one small group of people and their families. I see no Christianity in the policy so I reject it.

This quote applies.

Quote

STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.  –  Joseph Fielding Smith

 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

So no direct quote or teaching from modern Prophets. 

John Taylor is a modern prophet in my mind.  Also my comment was a summation of things.  Not based off one singular quote.   We are to follow the law generally speaking but there is always exceptions.  LDS are not required or expected to follow wicked laws.  Especially if following such laws would violate the laws of God.

Edited December 24, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

John Taylor is a modern prophet in my mind.  Also my comment was a summation of things.  Not based off one singular quote.   We are to follow the law generally speaking but there is always exceptions.  LDS are not required or expected to follow wicked laws.  Especially if following such laws would violate the laws of God.

Yeah, this understanding is pretty common and runs through many Book of Mormon & Bible stories, (Daniel and the Lions Den etc)

FYI- there's an old thread about this exact topic. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57002-obey-the-laws-of-the-land/

 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Is it fair to say that the handbook does not specifically address why children of an unmarried hetero couple can recieve baptism and that these children are not required to renounce the sins of their parents?

This is one flaw in the current church policy in my opinion.  It does not explain why SSM is apostasy while other violations of the law of chastity is not apostasy.    For me apostasy is very simple.  It is rejection or rebellion against the Church and its authority.  I don't see SSM to be any more apostasy as one who breaks the Sabbath or heterosexuals who have premarital sex.  SSM is a violation of the law of God but not apostasy in the normal sense.  By calling it apostasy, it creates confusion as to what apostasy is.  Really anything can be called apostasy. One could argue that failure to pay tithing is apostasy.

I see no reason why children of SSM couples can't be baptized.  They are no different than children of unmarried couples.  As long as the parents understand the position of the Church and it will not change its position, if they are ok with it then what is the problem?  Even if the parents have committed apostasy in its regular sense, that should not have bearing on the children.  My 6 year old will probably be baptized in a couple of years.  If baptism and confirmation are good and helpful to him at age 8, clearly it would be good and helpful to kids of a SSM couple.  If those kids really do not need it, perhaps my son does not really need it as well?  Is the Church saying that the kids of SSM are better than my son since they don't need to be baptized before 18 but my son does?  

Edited December 24, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

You got to be kidding me.  The church treats everyone the same????  See my post above.

EVERY SIN is in open opposition to covenants.  When anyone has sex outside of marriage they are choosing an alternative lifestyle that opposes church teachings.

I have rarely see such insistence to not understand.

Every sin can be said to be open opposition to covenants, even those no other person ever discovers, because God sees all. But in Church disciplinary policy, where apostasy is certainly such a sin, it also consists of making covenants contrary to Church covenants (either or both general or temple), which ssm is.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I have rarely see such insistence to not understand.

Every sin can be said to be open opposition to covenants, even those no other person ever discovers, because God sees all. But in Church disciplinary policy, where apostasy is certainly such a sin, it also consists of making covenants contrary to Church covenants (either or both general or temple), which ssm is.

 

So you agree that like the SSM couple the unmarried couple is also apostate and so is any other person who chooses to sin. Perhaps we should begin calling them apostate as well.

Except the church, by policy, chooses to impose the label of "apostate", and the associated punishments, on a certain minority group. By definition this is discriminatory. The only argument should be about whether or not the church is right in its discrimination.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This quote applies.

Open support of ssm is not entering into a covenant of ssm, and so it is not apostasy. Open support for ssm without an emphasis on clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders as part of the platform and strategy is not apostasy either.

It is very evident you are not hearing the actual message, as you've admitted. Why do you think that is? Why do you think you see sin and apostasy as administered in the Handbook as the same thing after you have been informed (and hopefully have read for yourself) on how they differ?

It's not a matter of apostasy being a label for "the worst ones." It is a matter of it being a designation, in the case of ssm, of making other covenants, not just breaking the baptismal covenants by sinning. The Handbook doesn't come close to suggesting such a thing. Do you really think that the Church is saying that joining another church makes people the "worst ones"?

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you agree that like the SSM couple the unmarried couple is also apostate and so is any other person who chooses to sin. Perhaps we should begin calling them apostate as well.

Except the church, by policy, chooses to impose the label of "apostate", and the associated punishments, on a certain minority group. By definition this is discriminatory. The only argument should be about whether or not the church is right in its discrimination.

LOL no, see above. LDS in ssm have proceeded to enter a ssm covenant in opposition to what the Church offers and acknowledges as vaild, and have not simply broken an existing covenant.

You're getting way off track here.

Edited December 24, 2016 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Open support of ssm is not entering into a covenant of ssm, and so it is not apostasy. Open support for ssm without an emphasis on clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders as part of the platform and strategy is not apostasy either.

It is very evident you are not hearing the actual message, as you've admitted. Why do you think that is? Why do you think you see sin and apostasy as administered in the Handbook as the same thing after you have been informed (and hopefully have read for yourself) on how they differ?

It's not a matter of apostasy being a label for "the worst ones." It is a matter of it being a designation, in the case of ssm, of making other covenants, not just breaking the baptismal covenants by sinning. The Handbook doesn't come close to suggesting such a thing. Do you really think that the Church is saying that joining another church makes people the "worst ones"?

LOL no, see above. LDS in ssm have proceeded to enter a ssm covenant in opposition to what the Church offers and acknowledges as vaild, and have not simply broken an existing covenant.

You're getting way off track here.

You keep saying that, but it's merely your opinion unless you'd like to provide a CFR from the church that explains the difference between covenants.

Also, I'd disagree with the way you qualify the covenant making of SSM. If they aren't getting married in the temple or by priesthood authority I don't see how they are making any kind of church related covenant.

In any case, have a merry Christmas!

 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you agree that like the SSM couple the unmarried couple is also apostate and so is any other person who chooses to sin. Perhaps we should begin calling them apostate as well.

Except the church, by policy, chooses to impose the label of "apostate", and the associated punishments, on a certain minority group. By definition this is discriminatory. The only argument should be about whether or not the church is right in its discrimination.

 

The policy really is not a discrimination against a minority group but against a certain action that a minority group might choose to do.  SSM is not a group but an action.  The church can label an action anyway it chooses to do.  I don't personally agree with the label of apostate for those in SSM.   I really don't see a distinction between gays who marry and gays who live together and are not married so why one is apostate and the other is not is not explained.  I will not defend the action by the Church since it has not desired to explain it but the Church does have the right to label something however it wants.  

[provoman]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

John Taylor is a modern prophet in my mind.  Also my comment was a summation of things.  Not based off one singular quote.   We are to follow the law generally speaking but there is always exceptions.  LDS are not required or expected to follow wicked laws.  Especially if following such laws would violate the laws of God.

My mistake for the failure of terminology.

Do you have quote from a living Prophet or Apostle (or even something from the last 50 or 60 years), a quote that has been sanctioned by the Church to support you claim:

"As to following the law, LDS are expected to follow Constitutional, morally correct laws but if a law violates the Constitution, or violates our conscience, we do not need to obey."

 

If we are going to make statement about what the LDS people are expected to do or not do, we should backup such claims with Official current direct teachings, not supposition.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

Is it fair to say that the handbook does not specifically address why children of an unmarried hetero couple can recieve baptism and that these children are not required to renounce the sins of their parents?

These explanations were given in a press conference.  Forgot who spoke on the subject.  

I added some context to his remarks, regarding the polygamy policy and the underlying LDS viewpoint for those policies.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I have rarely see such insistence to not understand.

Every sin can be said to be open opposition to covenants, even those no other person ever discovers, because God sees all. But in Church disciplinary policy, where apostasy is certainly such a sin, it also consists of making covenants contrary to Church covenants (either or both general or temple), which ssm is.

 

Hummm.  I don't think it is me that has the understanding problem.  I am in complete agreement with what other posters are telling you.  They are making my point in the exact same way.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Hummm.  I don't think it is me that has the understanding problem.  I am in complete agreement with what other posters are telling you.  They are making my point in the exact same way.  

Oh gosh now I have to get into it if he is out here being the lone supporter of the church.

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

Are you saying the handbook specifically addresses why children of an unmarried hetero couple can recieve baptism and that thise children are not required to renounce the sins of their parents?

Of course it does not address that because that is not the issue.

Children of hetero couples do not have the central conflict of being taught one thing in the home by seeing it every day, and another in church.  THAT is the conflict.

The conflict results when a homosexual couple desires their children to be taught that homosexuality is wrong while they practice it at home

The fault is with the homosexual couple who would send their children to a place where the poor children are forced into trying to resolve conflicting lessons at such an early age.

I personally feel that if I was gay, I would view sending my children to the LDS church to be tantamount to child abuse.   What kind of parenting is that???

Were I gay I would have NOTHING to do with such a church!

CAN anyone here actually cite an example of such a child who is actually coming to church with gay parents?

Edited December 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

My mistake for the failure of terminology.

Do you have quote from a living Prophet or Apostle (or even something from the last 50 or 60 years), a quote that has been sanctioned by the Church to support you claim:

"As to following the law, LDS are expected to follow Constitutional, morally correct laws but if a law violates the Constitution, or violates our conscience, we do not need to obey."

 

If we are going to make statement about what the LDS people are expected to do or not do, we should backup such claims with Official current direct teachings, not supposition.

The quote he already made backs up his position- did you read it?????

Quote

STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.  –  Joseph Fielding Smith

PERSONAL REVELATION is the basis of this church- who with any brain would believe the crazy stories about angels and plates if they did not have a testimony??  Not me!  And I have been a member in good standing for nearly 40 years with many leadership callings.

Do you want citations that testimony is prior to and more important than what some alleged "prophet" says?  How are you supposed to know who IS  a prophet without a testimony??   How about Jim Jones as a prophet?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

How about David Koresh?   How long a list do you want??  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

It only stands to reason that if a principle violates one's conscience, he ought not to be compelled by force to carry it out.  Lincoln freed the slaves- did you get the memo?

We still have the right to vote with our feet.

In this church orthopraxis is the ruling principle- if you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview in good conscience you are a member in good standing of the church.  You don't have to believe that Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago or any of the alleged history whatsoever.

[ERMD]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Get educated?  Seriously?  You don't think I understand the church's position on how it treats gays?

Just to be clear, it is the church that has created this gap that is far wider than it ever had to be.  Look,  I get that the church considers homosexual relations as a sin.  But the church considers all sex outside of marriage a sin.  It is the church itself that has blown this chasm up into a valley so deep that it becomes an us vs them attitude both in the public's mind and with the members themselves.  Just think how differently the church would be viewed if the church treated all sex outside of marriage the same.  

The opinions of so many outside the church would not be of a church that is bigoted and hates gays.   So many doors have been slammed.  So many families have been torn apart.  So many youth leaving the church.  So many gays leaving the church.  So many disparaging articles and posts and interviews.  So little understanding of the love of Christ.  And for what?  So the church can name call gays as apostate?  So children can be refused baptism?  So the church can try and prevent gays being denied their civil right to equal protection?  This is not about the results of condemning sin.  That is what church's are suppose to do.  This is far past that line into something much more dark.   The church wants to be known as the church that Christ leads.  Do these actions really reflect who Jesus is?  Did Christ cause deep chasms between Him and sinners?  Did He name call sinners apostates?  Did he refuse to baptize little ones?  That is a question all who ponder the claims of the church's mission must ask.

If this were about PR and popularity, you would have point.

It is not, so you don't.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

This is one flaw in the current church policy in my opinion.  It does not explain why SSM is apostasy while other violations of the law of chastity is not apostasy.    For me apostasy is very simple.  It is rejection or rebellion against the Church and its authority.  I don't see SSM to be any more apostasy as one who breaks the Sabbath or heterosexuals who have premarital sex.  SSM is a violation of the law of God but not apostasy in the normal sense.  By calling it apostasy, it creates confusion as to what apostasy is.  Really anything can be called apostasy. One could argue that failure to pay tithing is apostasy.

I see no reason why children of SSM couples can't be baptized.  They are no different than children of unmarried couples.  As long as the parents understand the position of the Church and it will not change its position, if they are ok with it then what is the problem?  Even if the parents have committed apostasy in its regular sense, that should not have bearing on the children.  My 6 year old will probably be baptized in a couple of years.  If baptism and confirmation are good and helpful to him at age 8, clearly it would be good and helpful to kids of a SSM couple.  If those kids really do not need it, perhaps my son does not really need it as well?  Is the Church saying that the kids of SSM are better than my son since they don't need to be baptized before 18 but my son does?  

What homosexual would want their child raised in a church to taught that their parents were living in sin?

If they can't see the conflict there, the church does and wants to protect that child even if they do not.