Gay Clergy- UMC Church Division

[HappyJackWagon]

Last year the Annual United Methodist convention agreed to disagree about the possibility of accepting gays in their congregations and leadership which seemed intended to quell talks of division within the church.

A new story describes how an Episcopal Bishop who was voted in to lead a Denver area region of the United Methodist Church is now subject to church discipline for violating church law by living in a SSM. It appears to me that the UMC group that voted this Bishop into leadership knew very well that it would restart the conversation and controversy of this topic within the UMC.

I find this fascinating for many reasons and feel it relates to the familiar struggle we feel within Mormonism for greater inclusion. The issue of SSM and how to welcome/accommodate/accept the LGBT community within the church community has shifted dramatically over such a short period of time that many organizations and churches are either scrambling to figure things out or clenching tightly to their traditions. Change is hard and often takes time. The UMC may not be quite ready for this shift yet and the LDS church is no where near making this kind of dramatic shift, but I'm confident that one day UMC will change. I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/methodist-court-ruling-blow-first-openly-lesbian-bishop-n752831

Edited April 29, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Jane_Doe]

One of my best friends is a UMC in Denver.  Her congregation openly welcomes gay couples and performs gay marriages and has for decades.  I've attended there many times when I visit her, including this last Easter for the baptism of her baby girl.  They have always welcomed me and my daughter with open arms.  This same friend has attended multiple LDS events with me, including temple open houses, every public ordinance, and supported me when I was contemplating taking out my endowments.  Our friendship is very deep.

That being said, I hesitate to compare UMC culture to LDS.  UMC is a Protestant sola scriptura faith, is lead by popular vote, though ultimately every congregation has very liberal freedoms to do what they want / interpret as they want.  This is very different than LDS priesthood and unified hierarchal leadership.  

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Last year the Annual United Methodist convention agreed to disagree about the possibility of accepting gays in their congregations and leadership which seemed intended to quell talks of division within the church.

A new story describes how an Episcopal Bishop who was voted in to lead a Denver area region of the United Methodist Church is now subject to church discipline for violating church law by living in a SSM. It appears to me that the UMC group that voted this Bishop into leadership knew very well that it would restart the conversation and controversy of this topic within the UMC.

I find this fascinating for many reasons and feel it relates to the familiar struggle we feel within Mormonism for greater inclusion. The issue of SSM and how to welcome/accommodate/accept the LGBT community within the church community has shifted dramatically over such a short period of time that many organizations and churches are either scrambling to figure things out or clenching tightly to their traditions. Change is hard and often takes time. The UMC may not be quite ready for this shift yet and the LDS church is no where near making this kind of dramatic shift, but I'm confident that one day UMC will change. I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/methodist-court-ruling-blow-first-openly-lesbian-bishop-n752831

Oh, I agree the UMC will change but the LDS Church, I'm not confident (and happily so).

As for the shifting in the LDS church to accommodate homosexuals, I agree there have been sudden changes but I find it within LDS culture for its doctrines have not changed, neither have its expectations of its members.

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

One of my best friends is a UMC in Denver.  Her congregation openly welcomes gay couples and performs gay marriages and has for decades.  I've attended there many times when I visit her, including this last Easter for the baptism of her baby girl.  They have always welcomed me and my daughter with open arms.  This same friend has attended multiple LDS events with me, including temple open houses, every public ordinance, and supported me when I was contemplating taking out my endowments.  Our friendship is very deep.

That being said, I hesitate to compare UMC culture to LDS.  UMC is a Protestant sola scriptura faith, is lead by popular vote, though ultimately every congregation has very liberal freedoms to do what they want / interpret as they want.  This is very different than LDS priesthood and unified hierarchal leadership.  

That's fantastic that you and your UMC friend have such a strong friendship. I hope it continues to strengthen.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.

What do you mean by "a purposeful division within both churches on this issue," and which churches are you referring to?

[rongo]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.

With our views on authority and keys, how do you find yourself wondering if there will be a division in the Church? Do you simply mean people leaving, or a shadow church of supportive bishops/congregants who defy Salt Lake policy on SSM, discipline, etc.?

If the latter, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" . . .  

[carbon dioxide]

Inclusion of people in the Church is ok. If that inclusion means the acceptance of behavior that deviates from the standards of God is not ok. 2 Nephi 28 is a good chapter to remember in how far the church can go.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find this fascinating for many reasons and feel it relates to the familiar struggle we feel within Mormonism for greater inclusion.

I think the Church has made a significant effort to pursue "greater inclusion."  But that effort necessarily has limits, wouldn't you say?  For example, it would not be reasonable to expect the Church to allow people who openly reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God into the Church.  

So the question becomes where those boundaries are, and what they mean.

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The issue of SSM and how to welcome/accommodate/accept the LGBT community within the church community has shifted dramatically over such a short period of time that many organizations and churches are either scrambling to figure things out or clenching tightly to their traditions.

I don't think the LDS Church is basing its position on "traditions."  Rather, it is basing its position on doctrine and on continuing revelation.

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Change is hard and often takes time. The UMC may not be quite ready for this shift yet and the LDS church is no where near making this kind of dramatic shift,

Do you think this "shift" is going to happen in the LDS Church?  That it's just a matter of when, not if?

To me, that seems like a bit of wishful thinking.  The Church has worked to make people with SSA feel more welcome within the framework of the Restored Gospel.  But the Brethren have given no indication whatsoever that this framework is going to undergo some sort of radical change vis-à-vis SSA in general or SSM in particular.  To the contrary, the Church's doctrinal posture has become more entrenched in what we have long understood it to be.

My dad has counseled that we need to be open to at least the theoretical possibility of this sort of "dramatic shift," but he's seen no evidence that it will happen.  I concur with him.

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but I'm confident that one day UMC will change. I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.

I think the LDS Church is structured very differently from the UMC.  I think we're too hierarchical and too well-organized to have significant schismatic events.  Local leaders are not careerists.  Stake presidents and bishops and RS presidents and so on are only in a position of authority for a few years.  They are part-time, lay volunteers.  So it seems highly unlikely that any particular leader at the local level will be in that position long enough to persuade significant numbers to his/her adverse position.

Take a look at recent efforts.  Kate Kelly made some waves and did some damage to some individuals and families, to be sure.  But did she cause a schism?  No.  Nowhere near it, in fact.  The same goes for Denver Snuffer, John Dehlin, the Calderwoods, Jeremy Runnells, Grant Palmer, and all the rest.

I don't see much of a risk of factionalization at the General Authority level, either.  They all know what each other is doing.  They function in quorums and groups with counselors and the like.  There simply isn't much of an opportunity for a GA to go too far astray doctrinally, or to attempt to improperly influence the church membership.

Just my two bits.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

I think Smac makes very good points. Doctrinally, I don't believe gay marriage or persons actively engaged in a homosexual relationship are options. The LDS church has a code of conduct in harmony with heterocentric fundamentals. Due to its theology on creation and the proscribed destination of mankind, there isn't any room for deviation. Knowing what I do about the church, I cannot fathom a time where this will change. It would seem the church would have to go through an all encompassing identity crisis but I cannot even fathom that.

[strappinglad]

There have been many " apostacies " from the Church since and during Joseph's time. Some lasted days, some months, some years, and some continue to this day. I can foresee such happening again over doctrine and practice. The more likely event is just a falling away rather than a formal organization arising. It's just too expensive.

Of course there is always the twitter world and a facebook religion.

Edited May 1, 2017 by strappinglad

[smac97]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

There have been many " apostacies " from the Church since and during Joseph's time. Some lasted days, some months, some years, and some continue to this day. I can foresee such happening again over doctrine and practice. The more likely event is just a falling away rather than a formal organization arising. It's just too expensive.

Of course there is always the twitter world and a facebook religion.

You are referring here to apostasies on an individual level, or perhaps small groups (think Kate Kelly and her sympathizers).  I agree with you that such things have happened and will continue to happen.  But in terms of schismatic factions leaving the Church, I'm not sure that will happen.  I think it would be hard for those factions to arise and gain traction within the Church.  I think those hoping to create such factionalization would be identified and rooted out before they had a chance to get too far.

Perhaps the closest thing we've seen to this in recent memory is Denver Snuffer.  See this blog entry on Wheat and Tares for what he has been doing lately, which walks and talks like a schism.  There is also discussion in the comments about Dehlin, Kelly, and Rock Waterman.

Putting aside the issue of whether Snuffer is creating a schism (he's apparently denying it, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck . . .), consider what all these people have in common (along with the Calderwoods, and Grant Palmer): all these folks have been excommunicated (Palmer was disfellowshipped in 2004, and then resigned his membership in 2010).

In other words, the Church seems to be paying attention to healthy boundary maintenance, and taking steps when necessary to ensure that apostasy does not make significnant inroads in the Church.  For further thoughts, consider this thread by DonBradley: Apostasy, Boundary Maintenance, And Strong Communities

Thanks,

-Smac

[strappinglad]

I think it would take a high level defection along the lines of the apostles who wanted to continue plural marriage around 1900. If one or more GAs broke ranks over , say, SSA/SSM then a conceivable split could happen. The huge stumbling block would be real estate as it is all owned by the current church. Like I said, expensive to start up . A virtual religion would be much easier.

[Calm]

Snuffer's group functions as a home Church, I believe.  Besides getting together in conferences, some members have a joint endeavor to create a new set of scriptures for the Snuffer community removing quite a bit of LDS unique ones and adding some from Snuffer.  Given publication costs these days, this doesn't need a big organization.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 4:51 PM, Darren10 said:

Oh, I agree the UMC will change but the LDS Church, I'm not confident (and happily so).

As for the shifting in the LDS church to accommodate homosexuals, I agree there have been sudden changes but I find it within LDS culture for its doctrines have not changed, neither have its expectations of its members.

I don't see any justification for claiming doctrines and expectations (standards) haven't changed. Not only have they changed on numerous subjects over the past 180 years but even on the LGBT subject this have shifted over the last few. Standards and doctrines seem to be in constant flux as the evolve to match the needs of the members and society at large.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I think Smac makes very good points. Doctrinally, I don't believe gay marriage or persons actively engaged in a homosexual relationship are options. The LDS church has a code of conduct in harmony with heterocentric fundamentals. Due to its theology on creation and the proscribed destination of mankind, there isn't any room for deviation. Knowing what I do about the church, I cannot fathom a time where this will change. It would seem the church would have to go through an all encompassing identity crisis but I cannot even fathom that.

What is the theology on creation that won't allow any room for deviation?

Is there a theology on how eternal spirits are organized/created? No, not really?

Is there a clear theology on how families will be organized in eternity, including polygamous/polyandrous godhood? No. There's nothing really clear on that either.

Is there a theology that allows for all men creating physical bodies for men and women without the aid of a woman? Yeah, that seems to be implicit in the temple creation narrative.

There is Soooooo much gray area in undeveloped theology that I think there is nothing but room for deviation/correction/greater understanding.

 

[stemelbow]

I'd say there's always room for the Church to change doctrinally since we know so little.  I think it'll always be so.  We should stop being so fond of ourselves and accept there is plenty we don't know.  This issue represents an example of what we don't know.   Positions change, policies change as doctrine changes.  The Church's ability to adapt to new truth as it gets to us will be key to our continued success and survival.  They have failed in times past, and our modern day Church really struggles, but I feel hopeful will come around.  Someday the Church will be more accepting of our LGBTQ friends and family.  We'll see a happy embrace wherein we give up our ignorance, pride and resentments and give preference to the notion of sacrifice and love in a way we simply have not done. 

 

[rockpond]

On 4/29/2017 at 9:58 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Last year the Annual United Methodist convention agreed to disagree about the possibility of accepting gays in their congregations and leadership which seemed intended to quell talks of division within the church.

A new story describes how an Episcopal Bishop who was voted in to lead a Denver area region of the United Methodist Church is now subject to church discipline for violating church law by living in a SSM. It appears to me that the UMC group that voted this Bishop into leadership knew very well that it would restart the conversation and controversy of this topic within the UMC.

I find this fascinating for many reasons and feel it relates to the familiar struggle we feel within Mormonism for greater inclusion. The issue of SSM and how to welcome/accommodate/accept the LGBT community within the church community has shifted dramatically over such a short period of time that many organizations and churches are either scrambling to figure things out or clenching tightly to their traditions. Change is hard and often takes time. The UMC may not be quite ready for this shift yet and the LDS church is no where near making this kind of dramatic shift, but I'm confident that one day UMC will change. I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/methodist-court-ruling-blow-first-openly-lesbian-bishop-n752831

While I don't see it as the most likely outcome, I do think that LGBT issues could lead to another split in the church much like the one we had 100 years ago caused by polygamy.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What is the theology on creation that won't allow any room for deviation?

Is there a theology on how eternal spirits are organized/created? No, not really?

Is there a clear theology on how families will be organized in eternity, including polygamous/polyandrous godhood? No. There's nothing really clear on that either.

Is there a theology that allows for all men creating physical bodies for men and women without the aid of a woman? Yeah, that seems to be implicit in the temple creation narrative.

There is Soooooo much gray area in undeveloped theology that I think there is nothing but room for deviation/correction/greater understanding.

 

It is our theology that only a man and woman, sealed together, can organize/create eternal spirits, though.  That's pretty clear.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is our theology that only a man and woman, sealed together, can organize/create eternal spirits, though.  That's pretty clear.

Can you share your source for the theology being that only a married man and woman can organize/create eternal spirits?

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is our theology that only a man and woman, sealed together, can organize/create eternal spirits, though.  That's pretty clear.

That is the assumption made by church leaders but I have seen no theology about creation to support it. To answer that question they would need to have some kind of explanation about how spirits are created. I'd love to read some church theology on this topic if any exists.

As it is, the only creation narrative we have seems to support the concept of men creating everything without the aid of women.

[hope_for_things]

On 4/29/2017 at 9:58 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Last year the Annual United Methodist convention agreed to disagree about the possibility of accepting gays in their congregations and leadership which seemed intended to quell talks of division within the church.

A new story describes how an Episcopal Bishop who was voted in to lead a Denver area region of the United Methodist Church is now subject to church discipline for violating church law by living in a SSM. It appears to me that the UMC group that voted this Bishop into leadership knew very well that it would restart the conversation and controversy of this topic within the UMC.

I find this fascinating for many reasons and feel it relates to the familiar struggle we feel within Mormonism for greater inclusion. The issue of SSM and how to welcome/accommodate/accept the LGBT community within the church community has shifted dramatically over such a short period of time that many organizations and churches are either scrambling to figure things out or clenching tightly to their traditions. Change is hard and often takes time. The UMC may not be quite ready for this shift yet and the LDS church is no where near making this kind of dramatic shift, but I'm confident that one day UMC will change. I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/methodist-court-ruling-blow-first-openly-lesbian-bishop-n752831

Thanks for sharing, its very interesting to look at how they are wrestling with this topic.  Unfortunately Mormon's are way behind the curve.  We're officially calling same sex marriage an apostate act and we're excluding not only LGBT individuals, but their children as well.

It will be sad if the UMC is so split over this issue that new separate factions are formed.  One easy mechanism to solve this issue would be to just modify a few passages of scripture.  Earlier generations of Christians had no problem modifying scripture to suit the needs of the times.  

Mormonism has the doctrine of continuing revelation, unfortunately the power of this doctrine is rarely used in recent years.  

[thesometimesaint]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is the assumption made by church leaders but I have seen no theology about creation to support it. To answer that question they would need to have some kind of explanation about how spirits are created. I'd love to read some church theology on this topic if any exists.

As it is, the only creation narrative we have seems to support the concept of men creating everything without the aid of women.

God the Father and Mary created Jesus.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

God the Father and Mary created Jesus.

That topic gets weird really fast.

How was Jesus' spirit created?

Edited May 1, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is the assumption made by church leaders but I have seen no theology about creation to support it. To answer that question they would need to have some kind of explanation about how spirits are created. I'd love to read some church theology on this topic if any exists.

As it is, the only creation narrative we have seems to support the concept of men creating everything without the aid of women.

The theology on who can create spirit children supports it.  Exaltation is only possible for male/female pairs.  No man without a woman, and no woman without a man, can be exalted.  

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The theology on who can create spirit children supports it.  Exaltation is only possible for male/female pairs.  No man without a woman, and no woman without a man, can be exalted.  

That's why I find the obstinance on the part of those who want the Church to liberalize on this to be contrived. They feign ignorance of this, or insist naively that this can simply be superseded by a future revelation, but we're pretty much painted into a corner on this. And happily so, in my book. 

Reiterating this was the primary purpose of the Proclamation on the Family.