CFR & Discussion about Missionaries advised NOT to encourage Polygamist families raising children to divorce to get baptized

[Daniel2]

In a previous, now-closed thread that veered off-topic and was eventually shut for reasons unrelated to what I'm sharing here, I wrote the following post.  I believe it's significant enough to warrant it's own separate thread, because there were several CFRs that had been raised (which I've included as links in this post, should anyone wish to refer to their original context).  I'd like to continue this tangent as it's own thread, which the request that anyone posting herein be respectful, regardless of your beliefs and world paradigm, as per Board Guidelines and by way of just being respectful and patient with one another.    The "you" in what I wrote below refers to comments originally made by USU, but anyone responding can generalize those comments in the spirit of responding to try and find answers to both the CFRs and the subsequent questions I raise, below.

By the way, USU and I have communicated privately and he apologized for the case of mistaken identity that ultimately seems to have contributed to the previous thread being closed.  I just didn't want anyone to continue to believe that USU wasn't above acknowledging his mistake and owning up to it--and since the other thread was closed and he was unable to respond, I think it's appropriate that everyone understand that, here.  My hope is that this thread will be devoid of any hostility and name-calling.

I would like to build on comments [made in the previous thread] to try to clarify that, from my perspective, there are still unanswered CFRs from several pages back that have gotten lost and muddled in the shuffle.

1. You're saying that "sometimes, however, divorce is preferable, and the Church has been very clear that that is the case."  If I understand your earlier posts correctly, you feel that some examples that the Church feels that divorce is preferable are when child abuse or spousal abuse is occurring.  Your words here seem to be suggesting that the Church (in having 'been very clear that [divorce is sometimes preferable] is the case') has explicitly gone on record as being OK or even promoting that "divorce is sometimes preferable," given certain circumstances.  (For the record, I think most people I know would fully agree that divorce is definitely warranted if child or spouse abuse is occurring--I think that it's entirely reasonable for the safety and health of spouses and especially children to be prioritized over saving an unsalvageable marriage).

 

2. With the announcement of the November 2015 policy on children of same-sex couples, the Church (and many posters here) emphasize that this new policy treats the children of married/cohabiting same-sex couples "the same" as the Church's policy regarding the children in polygamist families.  Church leaders have also claimed that the policy was implement "in consideration of" the children of gay couples, and not wanting them to hear conflicting messages at church about their home life--indicating, at least to me, that the Church is attempting to suggest it wouldn't and doesn't want to interfere with the stability/emotional development of children being raised by gay couples. 

 

3. Multiple times over multiple threads (see earlier posts in this thread documenting such), including Calm's own post here in this thread, there has been anecdotal evidence that in countries where polygamy IS legal, the Church has directed it's missionaries to recommend that polygamist families raising children stay together and NOT get baptized.  These claims are not being made by critics of the LDS Faith, as far as I'm aware... all instances of the anecdotal evidence on this board are being given by (I believe?) devout members of the Church.  I have asked for a CFR for this.... As a first step, Calm shard her own personal experience in this post (for which I'm grateful, Calm--thank you!), but I still haven't seen actual documentation, evidence, a letter, a scan, a link, or anything else...  As such, this CFR is still outstanding, and I still welcome further scrutiny and input from our vast experience of posters here to help track any such evidence down. Can ANYONE find ANY actual documented proof (i.e. one of these letters, or an online announcement, or a handbook entry, or anything?) from the Church itself demonstrating that the Church recommends that polygamists raising children not get divorced and don't get baptized....??

 

4. Now--WHY am I asking for this CFR?  Because USU, Scott, and others are suggesting that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce... there's a lot of rhetoric about children having to suffer due to the sins of their parents, the fact that the Church isn't responsible for causing any emotional fall-out that children who's same-sex parents divorce may feel, and that if the children would so-suffer, it's the parents' fault and just the price that any mortal pays in following God's commandments...

 

5. IF USU, Scott, and others ARE right in saying that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce, AND IF the anectodal evidence is true that the Church DOES encourage polygamist families raising children to stay together and not get baptized, THEN the November 2015 policy VERY MUCH treats same-sex families DIFFERENTLY than it does polygamist families.

 

6. Additionally, IF USU, Scott, and others ARE right in saying that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce, then Elder Christofferson's words suggesting the policy is merciful in it's concern and consideration of wanting to avoid causing children being raised in same-sex families angst/emotional harm seems misplaced and/or insincere--especially if polygamist families raising children aren't advised to divorce and "just let the children suffer the consequences of their parent's sinful (from the Church's perspective) choices to enter a marriage that contradicts what the Church teaches is currently God's law."

I hope this helps sort our at least my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks in advance to any who can help with the CFR for documentation about the Church's stance that missionaries advise polygamist parents not to divorce if they are raising children.

D

[Darren10]

" I just didn't want anyone to continue to believe that USU wasn't above acknowledging his mistake and owning up to it--"

 

[Marginal Gains]

As I understand it, the Church had a specific problem with polygamy in Africa. They dealt with the problem of polygamist families by making the case that the patriarch would need to divorce all but one of his wives, co-habit with only his one wife, but still financially support all his other wives and children, before they could join the Church. Not sure if that was a documented policy or just reported anecdotally. I'll do some checking.

[ALarson]

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

4. Now--WHY am I asking for this CFR?  Because USU, Scott, and others are suggesting that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce... there's a lot of rhetoric about children having to suffer due to the sins of their parents, the fact that the Church isn't responsible for causing any emotional fall-out that children who's same-sex parents divorce may feel, and that if the children would so-suffer, it's the parents' fault and just the price that any mortal pays in following God's commandments...

 

5. IF USU, Scott, and others ARE right in saying that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce, AND IF the anectodal evidence is true that the Church DOES encourage polygamist families raising children to stay together and not get baptized, THEN the November 2015 policy VERY MUCH treats same-sex families DIFFERENTLY than it does polygamist families.

 

6. Additionally, IF USU, Scott, and others ARE right in saying that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce, then Elder Christofferson's words suggesting the policy is merciful in it's concern and consideration of wanting to avoid causing children being raised in same-sex families angst/emotional harm seems misplaced and/or insincere--especially if polygamist families raising children aren't advised to divorce and "just let the children suffer the consequences of their parent's sinful (from the Church's perspective) choices to enter a marriage that contradicts what the Church teaches is currently God's law."

.....

Thanks in advance to any who can help with the CFR for documentation about the Church's stance that missionaries advise polygamist parents not to divorce if they are raising children.

D

Is this just a general CFR or are you specifically issuing it to someone here?  (Just trying to clarify.)

To quote Calm's post (referenced above) from the other thread, she stated:

Quote

My info on legal polygamous marriages was from senior couples previously serving in such countries where divorce would leave children and wives in difficult situations, as social outcasts due to the stigma attached to divorce.  Anecdotal...sorry.  I have not been able to find confirming documentation, this might be an unwritten rule or a "hotline" to SL advice kind of thing so as to avoid confusion with areas where polygamy is illegal or to avoid the appearance The Church values polygamy more than baptism.

And this from Calm as well:

Quote

 

If the Church does not allow children under 18 in polygamy and SSM families to be baptized or go through other ordinances to protect the children, to avoid conflict for the child having to choose between viewing their parents' marriage as sinful, etc., then it would be very odd, Imo, for church leadership as a policy to then encourage the parents to be divorced so the parents can be baptized...thus resulting in conflict and pain for the child. 

The policies would contradict each other in general.

......

"As for breaking up families, a divorce in such a situation would not amount to the breakup of a family,  not in the sense of family as defined in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World.""

That makes no difference in the view of a child though, so if protection of the child is paramount, that argument is irrelevant.

 

I agree with Calm.  I highly doubt that leaders would ever advise a SSM couple with children to divorce for baptism.

A SSM couple with children is very much a family and I cannot imagine the church leaders ever having a desire to break up a family and cause harm to children.

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Is this just a general CFR or are you issuing it to Scott and USU?  (Just trying to clarify here.)

To quote Calm's post (referenced above) from the other thread, she stated:

And this from Calm as well:

I agree with Calm.  I highly doubt that leaders would ever advise a SSM couple with children to divorce for baptism.

A SSM couple with children is very much a family and I cannot imagine the church leaders ever having a desire to break up a family and cause harm to children.

 

I don't know that the Church would explicitly advise it either.  But if a family, with the parents being of the same sex, want to join the Church, the only option they would have is to first divorce.  If they decide to divorce to join I don't know that any leader in the Church would advise against their plan, and from their perspective I'd wager they'd feel like every leader would completely support them in breaking up the family.  In this way, I can see where Daniel is coming from. 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that the Church would explicitly advise it either.  But if a family, with the parents being of the same sex, want to join the Church, the only option they would have is to first divorce.  If they decide to divorce to join I don't know that any leader in the Church would advise against their plan, and from their perspective I'd wager they'd feel like every leader would completely support them in breaking up the family.  In this way, I can see where Daniel is coming from. 

But apparently that goes against what has been advised regarding breaking polygamous families up for baptism (when children are involved keeping the family together comes first).  I can see that the church would accept a couple's decision if they decided on their own to do that, but I would be very surprised to see leaders approach or actually advise them to divorce if children are involved.

If you listen to or read about the recent lesbian couple who divorced so one of them could be baptized, they made it quite clear that they were just loved and never encouraged or advised to divorce.  They were allowed to come to that decision on their own and decide what was best for them in their individual situation (and they had no children).  I think the leaders are wise not to ever advise a married couple to divorce (unless there is abuse or unrepentant, repeat infidelity).

Edited August 29, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But apparently that goes against what has been advised regarding breaking polygamous families up for baptism (when children are involved keeping the family together comes first).  I can see that the church would accept a couple's decision if they decided on their own to do that, but I would be very surprised to see leaders approach or actually advise them to divorce if children are involved.

If you listen to or read about the recent lesbian couple who divorced so one of them could be baptized, they made it quite clear that they were just loved and never encouraged or advised to divorce.  They were allowed to come to that decision on their own and decide what was best for them in their individual situation (and they had no children).  I think the leaders are wise not to ever advise a married couple to divorce (unless there is abuse or unrepentant, repeat infidelity).

I agree, that Church would not advise it.  But, that doesn't mean that such a couple or family would not get the impression that is what the Church wants from them. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree, that Church would not advise it.  But, that doesn't mean that such a couple or family would not get the impression that is what the Church wants from them. 

Possibly.  I guess it would depend on the circumstances and the leaders involved.  I would be very surprised though to see any direction come from Salt Lake regarding encouraging a married couple with children to divorce just for baptism.    

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly.  I guess it would depend on the circumstances and the leaders involved.  I would be very surprised though to see any direction come from Salt Lake regarding encouraging a married couple with children to divorce just for baptism.    

We are having a fireside in the next couple of month that will be given by a member who used to be Muslim.  For a long time the church refused to baptize him.  In my mission in California, where there were many muslims, we were not allowed to even teach them.  The precedent is there for the church to refuse baptism to people for whom baptism would hurt more than it helps.

I agree with you that I would be very surprised if the church was giving the impression to married parents that they wanted them to divorce for the sake of baptism.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly.  I guess it would depend on the circumstances and the leaders involved.  I would be very surprised though to see any direction come from Salt Lake regarding encouraging a married couple with children to divorce just for baptism.    

Well I guess i'm confused.  Didn't we just see a lesbian couple divorce, feeling like they needed to, in order to join the Church without being explicitly told they should?  I think that's expressed exactly what I'm saying.  There was no direction given by anyone, in particular.  But obviously they felt they had to end their marriage. 

[ALarson]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Well I guess i'm confused.  Didn't we just see a lesbian couple divorce, feeling like they needed to, in order to join the Church without being explicitly told they should?  I think that's expressed exactly what I'm saying.  There was no direction given by anyone, in particular.  But obviously they felt they had to end their marriage. 

Yes, but they were allowed to come to that decision on their own (from what I have heard and read).  They stressed that they felt loved no matter what they decided to do (from ward members. leaders and family).  I think the key word is "advise".  Leaders are not going to "advise" a married couple to divorce for baptism.  And according to anecdotal evidence, polygamous couples have been advised to keep their family together rather than divorce for baptism (if I have understood correctly). 

[Tacenda]

I've read about bishops advising a spouse to give ultimatums to get their apostate spouse back to the church. I wonder if we need to add a third situation to the mix. That of bishops breaking up heterosexual marriages too with bad advice.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've read about bishops advising a spouse to give ultimatums to get their apostate spouse back to the church. I wonder if we need to add a third situation to the mix. That of bishops breaking up heterosexual marriages too with bad advice.

I've heard anecdotal evidence of this happening too, but hope no one would ever advise that.   However, church leaders (SLC) cannot control what some local leaders may recommend at times.

Edited August 29, 2017 by ALarson

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've read about bishops advising a spouse to give ultimatums to get their apostate spouse back to the church. I wonder if we need to add a third situation to the mix. That of bishops breaking up heterosexual marriages too with bad advice.

I don't have access to Handbook 1 but Elder Oaks taught this in General Conference:

"Bishops do not counsel members to divorce, but they can help members with the consequences of their decisions. Under the law of the Lord, a marriage, like a human life, is a precious, living thing. If our bodies are sick, we seek to heal them. We do not give up. While there is any prospect of life, we seek healing again and again. The same should be true of our marriages, and if we seek Him, the Lord will help us and heal us."

The way that he phrases this, it comes across as if church policy prohibits bishops to counsel for divorce, otherwise it would be weird for him to think he could make such a blanket statement with any level of accuracy.  But without the handbook it's hard to say for sure.  Maybe previous bishops could help clarify.  

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by bluebell

[RevTestament]

On 8/29/2017 at 8:48 AM, bluebell said:

We are having a fireside in the next couple of month that will be given by a member who used to be Muslim.  For a long time the church refused to baptize him.  In my mission in California, where there were many muslims, we were not allowed to even teach them.  The precedent is there for the church to refuse baptism to people for whom baptism would hurt more than it helps.

I agree with you that I would be very surprised if the church was giving the impression to married parents that they wanted them to divorce for the sake of baptism.

Curious policy given the fact that recent Church Pres seem to give Muhammed some praise.

Is it better for Muslims to convert to serve their Lord or to cower in fear of being killed? This problem will not go away for them until Islam is finally defeated.

Matthew 19:29

29 And every one that hath ^aforsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my ^bname’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit ^ceverlasting life.

The only way to defeat Islam is for Muslims to be converted to the truth. I admire many Muslims for the true desire they have to worship in truth, and look for that day when they will begin to see the truth in larger numbers. Nevertheless, this will not be easy for them for a long time. That is the nature of the cult they are in. Converts need a safe place to go to or otherwise their lives are in jeopardy.

We seem to have a thread ban glitch or you would have been removed.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

In a previous, now-closed thread that veered off-topic and was eventually shut for reasons unrelated to what I'm sharing here, I wrote the following post.  I believe it's significant enough to warrant it's own separate thread, because there were several CFRs that had been raised (which I've included as links in this post, should anyone wish to refer to their original context).  I'd like to continue this tangent as it's own thread, which the request that anyone posting herein be respectful, regardless of your beliefs and world paradigm, as per Board Guidelines and by way of just being respectful and patient with one another.    The "you" in what I wrote below refers to comments originally made by USU, but anyone responding can generalize those comments in the spirit of responding to try and find answers to both the CFRs and the subsequent questions I raise, below.

By the way, USU and I have communicated privately and he apologized for the case of mistaken identity that ultimately seems to have contributed to the previous thread being closed.  I just didn't want anyone to continue to believe that USU wasn't above acknowledging his mistake and owning up to it--and since the other thread was closed and he was unable to respond, I think it's appropriate that everyone understand that, here.  My hope is that this thread will be devoid of any hostility and name-calling.

I would like to build on comments [made in the previous thread] to try to clarify that, from my perspective, there are still unanswered CFRs from several pages back that have gotten lost and muddled in the shuffle.

1. You're saying that "sometimes, however, divorce is preferable, and the Church has been very clear that that is the case."  If I understand your earlier posts correctly, you feel that some examples that the Church feels that divorce is preferable are when child abuse or spousal abuse is occurring.  Your words here seem to be suggesting that the Church (in having 'been very clear that [divorce is sometimes preferable] is the case') has explicitly gone on record as being OK or even promoting that "divorce is sometimes preferable," given certain circumstances.  (For the record, I think most people I know would fully agree that divorce is definitely warranted if child or spouse abuse is occurring--I think that it's entirely reasonable for the safety and health of spouses and especially children to be prioritized over saving an unsalvageable marriage).

 

2. With the announcement of the November 2015 policy on children of same-sex couples, the Church (and many posters here) emphasize that this new policy treats the children of married/cohabiting same-sex couples "the same" as the Church's policy regarding the children in polygamist families.  Church leaders have also claimed that the policy was implement "in consideration of" the children of gay couples, and not wanting them to hear conflicting messages at church about their home life--indicating, at least to me, that the Church is attempting to suggest it wouldn't and doesn't want to interfere with the stability/emotional development of children being raised by gay couples. 

 

3. Multiple times over multiple threads (see earlier posts in this thread documenting such), including Calm's own post here in this thread, there has been anecdotal evidence that in countries where polygamy IS legal, the Church has directed it's missionaries to recommend that polygamist families raising children stay together and NOT get baptized.  These claims are not being made by critics of the LDS Faith, as far as I'm aware... all instances of the anecdotal evidence on this board are being given by (I believe?) devout members of the Church.  I have asked for a CFR for this.... As a first step, Calm shard her own personal experience in this post (for which I'm grateful, Calm--thank you!), but I still haven't seen actual documentation, evidence, a letter, a scan, a link, or anything else...  As such, this CFR is still outstanding, and I still welcome further scrutiny and input from our vast experience of posters here to help track any such evidence down. Can ANYONE find ANY actual documented proof (i.e. one of these letters, or an online announcement, or a handbook entry, or anything?) from the Church itself demonstrating that the Church recommends that polygamists raising children not get divorced and don't get baptized....??

 

4. Now--WHY am I asking for this CFR?  Because USU, Scott, and others are suggesting that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce... there's a lot of rhetoric about children having to suffer due to the sins of their parents, the fact that the Church isn't responsible for causing any emotional fall-out that children who's same-sex parents divorce may feel, and that if the children would so-suffer, it's the parents' fault and just the price that any mortal pays in following God's commandments...

 

5. IF USU, Scott, and others ARE right in saying that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce, AND IF the anectodal evidence is true that the Church DOES encourage polygamist families raising children to stay together and not get baptized, THEN the November 2015 policy VERY MUCH treats same-sex families DIFFERENTLY than it does polygamist families.

 

6. Additionally, IF USU, Scott, and others ARE right in saying that the Church likely would/should/will encourage same-sex parents raising children to divorce, then Elder Christofferson's words suggesting the policy is merciful in it's concern and consideration of wanting to avoid causing children being raised in same-sex families angst/emotional harm seems misplaced and/or insincere--especially if polygamist families raising children aren't advised to divorce and "just let the children suffer the consequences of their parent's sinful (from the Church's perspective) choices to enter a marriage that contradicts what the Church teaches is currently God's law."

I hope this helps sort our at least my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks in advance to any who can help with the CFR for documentation about the Church's stance that missionaries advise polygamist parents not to divorce if they are raising children.

D

I won't be contributing in this thread or responding to this post except to say that my position has not been accurately restated here.

Those who care can go back and read the old thread, I suppose.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Curious policy given the fact that recent Church Pres seem to give Muhammed some praise.

Is it better for Muslims to convert to serve their Lord or to cower in fear of being killed? This problem will not go away for them until Islam is finally defeated.

Matthew 19:29

29 And every one that hath ^aforsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my ^bname’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit ^ceverlasting life.

The only way to defeat Islam is for Muslims to be converted to the truth. I admire many Muslims for the true desire they have to worship in truth, and look for that day when they will begin to see the truth in larger numbers. Nevertheless, this will not be easy for them for a long time. That is the nature of the cult they are in. Converts need a safe place to go to or otherwise their lives are in jeopardy.

There is no safe place for converts from muslim to really go and that's part of the problem.  When i was in college we had a muslim convert missionary in my area and he had to be moved every few weeks, with completely secrecy, because he had family actively looking for him to kill him.  

And Islam isn't any more of a cult than mormonism is.  

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I won't be contributing in this thread or responding to this post except to say that my position has not been accurately restated here.

Those who care can go back and read the old thread, I suppose.

What is misrepresented?  You responded with this (in the other thread) when asked why you believe church leaders would push for divorce in a SSM if they do not advise this for polygamous marriages (in order to be baptized into the church)? :

Quote

For the reason I have already given. It is not recognized as a marriage in the ecclesiastical sense, legal though it may be (see the quote from President Nelson in my sig lines below). In fact, any homosexual relationship is regarded by the Church as a sin in the eyes of God. I think USU makes a good point in saying the Church would be inconsistent with its own position were it not to advise individuals to end any sinful relationship, whatever it might be, with the caveat I gave earlier, that the individual would still be required to fulfill any obligation he/she had taken on with regard to the care of dependent children.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69439-lesbian-couple-divorce-to-join-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209748213

Have you changed your views regarding believing that a SSM involving children is not a family?  Or changed your views that the church would not advise that a SSM couple divorce for baptism?

Just trying to clarify and correct any wrong impression given in the OP.

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is no safe place for converts from muslim to really go and that's part of the problem.  When i was in college we had a muslim convert missionary in my area and he had to be moved every few weeks, with completely secrecy, because he had family actively looking for him to kill him.  

And Islam isn't any more of a cult than mormonism is.  

I definitely admire Muslim converts. Virtually all of them are giving up the only life they have ever known in order to follow Yeshua. This is getting a little off topic so I won't comment again, but to say "cult" is a undefined word. In its original usage all religions are cults since they have a leader whom they follow. However, in its modern usage cults refer to groups who tend to use force and fear tactics to prevent members from leaving the group. In this regard the LDS faith is nothing like Islam, so I have to disagree with you that mormonism is just as much a cult as Islam. Not even the FLDS make that grade. 

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I won't be contributing in this thread or responding to this post except to say that my position has not been accurately restated here.

Those who care can go back and read the old thread, I suppose.

 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

What is misrepresented?  You responded with this (in the other thread) when asked why you believe church leaders would push for divorce in a SSM if they do not advise this for polygamous marriages (in order to be baptized into the church)? :

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69439-lesbian-couple-divorce-to-join-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209748213

Have you changed your views regarding believing that a SSM involving children is not a family?  Or changed your views that the church would not advise that a SSM couple divorce for baptism?

Just trying to clarify and correct any wrong impression given in the OP.

Given ALarson's direct post which seems, from my perspective, to support what I wrote in my original post, I'm puzzled as to how you think I've mischaracterized your position.

Could you clarify, or, if you prefer, re-phrase/add additional context to help us understand where I'm misunderstanding, instead of simply declaring I'm inaccurate and declining to participate further....?

D

[provoman]

The answer to the CFR seems clear, no one can provide official information regarding the claim. They can only provide hearsay and explanations for belief based on known confirmed statements.

 

So I wouldnt bother to request official verifiable information.

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I won't be contributing in this thread or responding to this post except to say that my position has not been accurately restated here.

I went back and read through your posts again and I think Daniel was very fair and accurate with what you at least appeared to be stating.  USU78 maybe was more blunt, but you agreed with him and also responded with your own thoughts that agreed with his.  I hope you'll at least come back to this thread and be more clear about where you disagree with Daniel's restating of your position.

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, ALarson said:

Is this just a general CFR or are you specifically issuing it to someone here?  (Just trying to clarify.)

To quote Calm's post (referenced above) from the other thread, she stated:

And this from Calm as well:

I agree with Calm.  I highly doubt that leaders would ever advise a SSM couple with children to divorce for baptism.

A SSM couple with children is very much a family and I cannot imagine the church leaders ever having a desire to break up a family and cause harm to children.

 

 

3 hours ago, provoman said:

The answer to the CFR seems clear, no one can provide official information regarding the claim. They can only provide hearsay and explanations for belief based on known confirmed statements.

 

So I wouldnt bother to request official verifiable information.

In answer to you both, ALarson and Provoman, I understand that thus far, no one has been able to verify with anything other than hearsay or offer anything substantive--yet (that last word being key, from my perspective).  And I very much appreciate and welcome Calm's response and experience (in fact, if any others also have unofficial evidence that haven't yet shared it, they are also more than welcome to chime in).

My CFR isn't extended with malice or a desire to prove anyone wrong about the policy towards polygamists in countries where it's legal, nor do I intend to imply any threat to withdraw the claim if it can't yet be fully proven-----rather, my CFR is extended as an invitation in the hopes that even if the many individuals who've mentioned they're aware and/or have heard of the concept being discussed can't themselves prove it, that someone, somewhere might be able to uncover and share a copy of the letter(s), evidence in The Church Handbook, a directive from a 70 or and apostle to missionaries serving in lands where polygamy is legal.  That's why I'm leaving it open-ended, without asking anyone to recant, per se, what they've heard.

I hope it's clear my intention isn't simply to win an argument--it's a genuine desire and hope to get to the bottom of it... because whether or not it's of significance to others, I believe that evidence of the church refraining from encouraging polygamists raising children to divorce to get baptized is a positive thing.... and since I think that's a positive thing, I hope it's the same counsel the church would (and should) give to same-sex couples raising children.

Further, as I mentioned, if we are to accept Elder Christofferson's explanation that the November 2015 policy is born out of a desire to respect the needs of children in families being raised by same-sex couples and avoid causing them trauma or dissonance from hearing conflicting things at church vs. the reality of their parents both sharing the same gender, a letter suggesting missionaries avoid teaching married or cohabiting same-sex parents raising children together would affirm Elder Christofferson's proffered respect and concern for said children.

Additionally, if polygamist families are counseled not to divorce to baptize, the same counsel being extended to missionaries about respecting the boundaries of same-sex families would also indicate another similarity that the Nov 2015 policy truly is similar to how the church approaches the concerns surrounding children being raised by polygamist families.

I'm still unsure why Scott feels I've misrepresented his position in the earlier thread, but it seems very clear to me that at least some posters here are arguing something along the lines that the church "would never" encourage a non-traditionally-married family in a configuration currently viewed as apostate by the LDS Faith not to do anything possible to reach the waters of baptism--including divorce for a same-sex couple.  The scriptures in the New Testament in which the Savior called for his followers to forsake their family members to follow him, or they are not worthy of him, has been cited as evidence that the church would never encourage non-traditional (but martially-prohibited, according to LDS standards) to avoid baptism.

But this 'hearsay' evidence about polygamists seems to indicate otherwise. 

It may seem insignificant to some, but to those of us who are married to a spouse of our same gender, and who have LDS family members and friends, the clarification helps underscore that the church truly seems to be at least attempting to respect our families, especially where our children are involved.  And that is no small--nor negative--thing, in my mind.

Thanks in advance, and I hope we can continue to respectfully discuss this issue, understanding it's a sensitive topic and deals with fundamental beliefs that are likely near and dear to all our hearts, regardless of which 'side' (or facet) of this issue we fall in.

Finally, I continue to welcome anyone who can find any official evidence (as I described above) that in countries where polygamy is legal, the church encourages it's missionaries not to seek out polygamists, nor to encourage them to divorce in order to get baptized--------and, for that matter, I'd be just as interested if the church were to issue any letters to current missionaries about avoiding teaching same-sex families, and not encouraging them to divorce in order to get baptized.

Hope that helps clarify, ALarsen (and Provoman).

Thanks,

D

Edited August 30, 2017 by Daniel2

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I hope it's clear my intention isn't simply to win an argument--it's a genuine desire and hope to get to the bottom of it... because whether or not it's of significance to others, I believe that evidence of the church refraining from encouraging polygamists raising children to divorce to get baptized is a positive thing.... and since I think that's a positive thing, I hope it's the same counsel the church would (and should) give to same-sex couples raising children.

Further, as I mentioned, if we are to accept Elder Christofferson's explanation that the November 2015 policy is born out of a desire to respect the needs of children in families being raised by same-sex couples and avoid causing them trauma or dissonance from hearing conflicting things at church vs. the reality of their parents both sharing the same gender, a letter suggesting missionaries avoid teaching married or cohabiting same-sex parents raising children together would affirm Elder Christofferson's proffered respect and concern for said children.

Additionally, if polygamist families are counseled not to divorce to baptize, the same counsel being extended to missionaries about respecting the boundaries of same-sex families would also indicate another similarity that the Nov 2015 policy truly is similar to how the church approaches the concerns surrounding children being raised by polygamist families.

I'm still unsure why Scott feels I've misrepresented his position in the earlier thread, but it seems very clear to me that at least some posters here are arguing something along the lines that the church "would never" encourage a non-traditionally-married family in a configuration currently viewed as apostate by the LDS Faith not to do anything possible to reach the waters of baptism--including divorce for a same-sex couple.  The scriptures in the New Testament in which the Savior called for his followers to forsake their family members to follow him, or they are not worthy of him, has been cited as evidence that the church would never encourage non-traditional (but martially-prohibited, according to LDS standards) to avoid baptism.

But this 'hearsay' evidence about polygamists seems to indicate otherwise. 

It may seem insignificant to some, but to those of us who are married to a spouse of our same gender, and who have LDS family members and friends, the clarification helps underscore that the church truly seems to be at least attempting to respect our families, especially where our children are involved. 

I agree and share your feelings about this, Daniel.  I don't believe this is insignificant either and understand why it would be upsetting to those in SSM if they learned that church leaders were advising any of them to divorce when there are children involved.  From all indications so far, this is not happening and I doubt it will in the future.

 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree and share your feelings about this, Daniel.  I don't believe this is insignificant either and understand why it would be upsetting to those in SSM if they learned that church leaders were advising any of them to divorce when there are children involved.  From all indications so far, this is not happening and I doubt it will in the future.

 

That is my hope, as well, ALarson... and I hope the church takes that path... but oftentimes, from my perspective, the church's recent activity regarding LGBT issues has been one step forward, two steps back... so while I hope your doubt that it will happen in the future is well-founded, I'd love to see any info, either way, if/should it become available.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Daniel2