LDS SSA Policies in Context

[kllindley]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Where do you believe there have been mistakes made?  I would really be interested in hearing when you felt they were mistaken.  

For me, I do feel that the recent policy on SSM and the children involved is a mistake.  I’m not sure I feel that about anything else in recent years.  I do believe and hope that this mistake will be corrected at some time too.

As in wrong to affirm that marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God and that any homosexual behaviors are sinful and contrary to God's plan for his children?  Or just wrong in how they chose to implement that belief through labeling it as apostasy and requiring children to delay baptism?

[kiwi57]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Where do you believe there have been mistakes made?  I would really be interested in hearing when you felt they were mistaken.  

For me, I do feel that the recent policy on SSM and the children involved is a mistake.  I’m not sure I feel that about anything else in recent years.  I do believe and hope that this mistake will be corrected at some time too.

Why do you feel that it is a mistake?

Do you believe that a child being raised in an SSM household is going to receive the kind of family support that makes meaningful Church activity possible?

Do you believe that a child or a youth who has made sacred covenants, including baptism, confirmation and (if a young man) priesthood ordination, can reasonably be expected to grow to adulthood keeping those covenants while the closest and most significant adults in his/her life are continually demonstrating that they hold those covenants in the utmost contempt?

[smac97]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

Where do you believe there have been mistakes made?  I would really be interested in hearing when you felt they were mistaken.  

With respect, I decline to have such a public discussion.  If the General Authorities of today make a mistake, I would hope I would address such things appropriately and privately (such as by following the counsel of Elder Oaks here).

Quote

For me, I do feel that the recent policy on SSM and the children involved is a mistake.  

I would be interested in understanding why you feel that way.  Elder Christofferson's remarks explained quite a few things:

Quote

During the video interview, Elder Christofferson said he is sympathetic to the questions that have arisen from the new policy. “They’re difficult, they’re sensitive, they tug at the heartstrings, and they’re very real.”

I think the Brethren are clearly aware of the ramifications of the policy changes, and that they were aware of these ramifications before announcing those changes.

Quote

He said the changes were necessary because the Church regards “same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline.”

“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”

Do you dispute Elder Christofferson's point here?  If so, in what respects?

Quote

Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between “what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.”

“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt,” Elder Christofferson explained. “We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained.

Do you agree with the distinction noted here by Elder Christofferson (between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord")?

Also, what are your thoughts about the "standards" referenced here?  What are those standards?  Who do you believe created them?

Quote

“That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

How have the General Authorities deviated from "the Savior's pattern?"

It seems like a lot of members of the Church have concerns about the policy changes because they have caused offense and/or adversely impacted a friend or loved one.  But to me this is sort of a tail-wagging-the-dog sort of thing.  The Law of Chastity is plainly part of the Restored Gospel.  That some people disagree with it, or choose to disregard it, does not invalidate it.

President Nelson's January 2016 remarks also provide some clarity as to the origins of the policy changes:

Quote

We sustain 15 men who are ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. When a thorny problem arises—and they only seem to get thornier each day—these 15 men wrestle with the issue, trying to see all the ramifications of various courses of action, and they diligently seek to hear the voice of the Lord. After fasting, praying, studying, pondering, and counseling with my Brethren about weighty matters, it is not unusual for me to be awakened during the night with further impressions about issues with which we are concerned. And my Brethren have the same experience.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was ... with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. 

It sounds like the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have done what they are supposed to do in terms of fulfilling their responsibilities. 

There is no hint of acrimony or malice here.  Nor indifference.  Nor condemnation.  Rather, they acted "with compassion for all, and especially for the children."

The policy changes were not off-the-cuff or created in the heat of the moment or in an ad hoc manner.  Nor were they the result of politicking and campaigns.   Rather, the Brethren "wrestled at length to understand the Lord's will" and "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."  They "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer."  They "sought further direction and inspiration."

The Brethren sought - and claim to have received - guidance from God.  All of them.  "The mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord" on this issue was given to and through President Monson, and the remaining 14 men "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation" and "sustain{ed} what had been revealed to President Monson."

I can't help but wonder if those who dispute or otherwise disagree with the policy changes have gone through the same efforts as are described above prior to concluding that the Brethren got it wrong.

Quote

I’m not sure I feel that about anything else in recent years.  I do believe and hope that this mistake will be corrected at some time too.

We will see, I suppose.  For me, I don't see the policy changes being undone.  Not because the Brethren are stubborn, but because the changes were needed and appropriate.  And revelatory.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 27, 2017 by smac97

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think what "changes" we have seen are being wrought in terms of tone and tenor, not content. 

The major changes, IMO, have been in the teachings and beliefs regarding the cause (theories or teachings from leaders as to why someone "becomes" gay) and the teachings that being gay can be cured.  Also the advice given to gay members has changed (no more recommending they date and marry the opposite sex, etc.).  As I stated in my post, that is where I usually see these older pamphlets from the leaders enter a discussion here.  And it is relevant when those are brought up for that reason.  Some here simply refuse there have been changes, but there have.  

I agree that the Law of Chastity has remained unchanged (other than minor changes).

Edited December 27, 2017 by ALarson

[JulieM]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Why do you feel that it is a mistake?

Do you believe that a child being raised in an SSM household is going to receive the kind of family support that makes meaningful Church activity possible?

Do you believe that a child or a youth who has made sacred covenants, including baptism, confirmation and (if a young man) priesthood ordination, can reasonably be expected to grow to adulthood keeping those covenants while the closest and most significant adults in his/her life are continually demonstrating that they hold those covenants in the utmost contempt?

That could go either way really, just as is the case with a child growing up in a home where parents aren’t married or where one is an alcoholic or any number of other things where they are not living the commandments or teachings of the church.

Also, your assumption that the parents must “hold those covenants in the utmost contempt” is a huge assumption and pretty extreme.  Some may feel that way, but it’s not right to assume all those in a same sex relationship have “utmost contempt” for these covenants.

This has been discussed to death already here, so I’m not interested in opening up another discussion on this.  I gave it as an example for smac as a mistake I feel has been made.  

This is in response to the others who asked too after my post (smac and kllindley) as I don’t want to appear rude and not respond to them.  I know many feel differently than I do and I respect that too.

I just believe the policy is the wrong way to handle this and most especially for the kids involved.  I hope it gets changed at some point in the future but of course it may not.  

Edited December 27, 2017 by JulieM

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That could go either way really, just as is the case with a child growing up in a home where parents aren’t married or where one is an alcoholic or any number of other things where they are not living the commandments or teachings of the church.

Perhaps so.  But in all of those alternative scenarios (unmarried parents, alcoholism, etc.), the parents can repent without destroying the family.  Such is not the case with same-sex marriages, which would require the destruction of the family (divorce) in order to repent.

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

This has been discussed to death already here, so I’m not interested in opening up another discussion on this.  I gave it as an example for smac as a mistake I feel has been made.  

I respect that and appreciate it.

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

This is in response to the others who asked too after my post (smac and kllindley) as I don’t want to appear rude and not respond to them.  I know many feel differently than I do and I respect that too.

I just believe the policy is the wrong way to handle this and most especially for the kids involved.  I hope it gets changed at some point in the future but of course it may not.  

Okay.

Thank you,

-Smac

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Also, your assumption that the parents must “hold those covenants in the utmost contempt” is a huge assumption and pretty extreme.  Some may feel that way, but it’s not right to assume all those in a same sex relationship [all those who have entered into a gay marriage] have “utmost contempt” for these covenants.

The policy doesn't involved people "in a same sex relationship;" it involves people who have entered into a gay marriage. *That* is now defined as apostasy under the policy, not violating the LoC through homosexuality. 

Do you argue that those who have entered into a gay marriage do not hold the covenants in contempt? Or that they at least don't care about or worry about them? The Church's action now requires that people knowingly declare where they stand. If they cross that line into gay marriage, then they do hold it in contempt (in the eyes of the Church). It has clarified things into a showdown ultimatum.

I agree that there are people who do not keep the law of chastity who believe that the covenants are valid and have respect for them (just not in their personal lives or actions). The big distinction made by the Church here is that gay marriage constitutes "crossing the Rubicon" (it is a big line in the sand, the crossing of which denotes apostasy).

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps so.  But in all of those alternative scenarios (unmarried parents, alcoholism, etc.), the parents can repent without destroying the family.  Such is not the case with same-sex marriages, which would require the destruction of the family (divorce) in order to repent.

And that’s why I believe we haven’t heard of any leaders advising that (at least from what I’ve read and heard).   I doubt they’d ever advocate that a couple divorce or break up a family.  Some may do that on their own, but I would be surprised if they’d be counseled to divorce.

Also, I’ve known of families where the father was an alcoholic and it came down to the mother needing to divorce him to make things right in their family and return to church.  So it’s not so cut and dried as is usually the case when real people are involved.

I get your point, but still don’t see it being a strong enough point to have put this new policy in place.  Again, those are my feelings and I know you and others disagree.  

Edited December 27, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

The policy doesn't involved people "in a same sex relationship;" it involves people who have entered into a gay marriage. *That* is now defined as apostasy under the policy, not violating the LoC through homosexuality. 

Do you argue that those who have entered into a gay marriage do not hold the covenants in contempt? Or that they at least don't care about or worry about them? 

They may not feel strongly about entering into them themselves, but I know of some (some on here too) who respect those who have and know how sacred they hold these covenants.  I haven’t seen contempt.

And I agree that I should have stated SSM instead of relationship.  Thanks for the clarification.  But that’s odd to me too.  They can live together with their kids, but if they marry they are apostates and their kids can’t be baptized?  

I’ve seen that discussed at length too and I know all of the reasons given.  I’m just not convinced and I know many other members who feel this policy is wrong.  You disagree, and I get that and respect that.

Edited December 27, 2017 by JulieM

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And that’s why I believe we haven’t heard of any leaders advising that (at least from what I’ve read and heard). 

That is perhaps also part of the reason the policy was implemented.  Rather than force families to choose between continually violating sacred covenants and divorce, they are excused from keeping those sacred covenants.

This may also partially explain why the Church has been so adamant regarding same-sex marriage.  It is utterly incompatible with membership in the LDS Church.  

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I doubt they’d ever advocate that a couple divorce or break up a family.  Some may do that on their own, but I would be surprised if they’d be counseled to divorce.

There was apparently an instance of this happening.  See here.  I think this was an error on the part of the bishop, who perhaps misconstrued or misapplied the policy (this was in February 2016, so only a few months after the new policy was implemented). 

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Also, I’ve known of families where the father was an alcoholic and it came down to the mother needing to divorce him to make things right in their family and return to church.  

That seems like an individual decision, not a necessary one across all situations (as contrasted with, say, members of the Church who enter into polygamy or same-sex marriage).

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So it’s not so cut and dried as is usually the case when real people are involved.

I'm not sure what this means.  "Real people" are always going to be involved.

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I get your point, but still don’t see it being a strong enough point to have put this new policy in place.  

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  Pres. Monson received a revelation about it that was unanimously sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  That's a "strong enough point" for me.

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Again, those are my feelings and I know you and others disagree.  

Yes.  I am glad that we can express such disagreements cordially and (hopefully) remain in fellowship with each other.  I've been working on this sort of thing.

I wish you well. 

-Smac

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There was apparently an instance of this happening.  See here.  I think this was an error on the part of the bishop, who perhaps misconstrued or misapplied the policy (this was in February 2016, so only a few months after the new policy was implemented).

I agree (that it was an error on the part of the bishop).  I hope there were no children involved, do you know?  I cannot imagine the church leaders advocating for the breaking up of families.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

They may not feel strongly about entering into them themselves, but I know of some (some on here too) who respect those who have and know how sacred they hold these covenants.  I haven’t seen contempt.

I agree that many people who disregard Church teaching on homosexuality don't feel that they hold the covenants in contempt. The distinction that the Church has made is that crossing a certain line (beyond simply living in sin) constitutes apostasy from the Church, and under that view, that particular crossing of the line holds the covenants in contempt to a point where excommunication is necessary. Whether or not one agrees with this, that is the Church's position as demonstrated by the dramatic action.

And I agree that I should have stated SSM instead of relationship.  Thanks for the clarification.  But that’s odd to me too.  They can live together with their kids, but if they marry they are apostates and their kids can’t be baptized? 

As the Church has defined it, that act is in open defiance of Church teaching and Church policy to such an extent that that action prevents children from receiving ordinances like baptism and ordination.

I agree that it is a dramatic and drastic action. I think the Church has tried to make the point as clearly as possible, so that there is no possible wiggle room for interpretation. Gay marriage is wrong and is to be resisted as much as the Church can. While this has a limited effect outside of the Church, the Church acts internally to make it clear where the Church stands on it. 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree (that it was an error on the part of the bishop).  I hope there were no children involved, do you know?  

I don't recall.  

41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I cannot imagine the church leaders advocating for the breaking up of families.  

Same here.  And yet I also cannot imagine the church leaders advocating violation of the OD-1 (prohibiting polygamy) or the Law of Chastity (prohibiting homosexual behavior).  This is perhaps part of the reason for the policy changes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

48 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree (that it was an error on the part of the bishop).  I hope there were no children involved, do you know?  I cannot imagine the church leaders advocating for the breaking up of families.  

I might be facing something like this. I am going to talk to an inactive member of our ward to try to get her to come back. She is living with her girlfriend in a lesbian relationship, and I want to let her know that we want her back and that we care about her (she used to be active, and is a beloved member of the community). 

I'm pretty sure that they aren't married, and I really hope that they aren't. Because that changes what I need to do in inviting her to repent . . . 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I decline to have such a public discussion.  If the General Authorities of today make a mistake, I would hope I would address such things appropriately and privately (such as by following the counsel of Elder Oaks here).

I would be interested in understanding why you feel that way.  Elder Christofferson's remarks explained quite a few things:

I think the Brethren are clearly aware of the ramifications of the policy changes, and that they were aware of these ramifications before announcing those changes.

Do you dispute Elder Christofferson's point here?  If so, in what respects?

Do you agree with the distinction noted here by Elder Christofferson (between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord")?

Also, what are your thoughts about the "standards" referenced here?  What are those standards?  Who do you believe created them?

How have the General Authorities deviated from "the Savior's pattern?"

It seems like a lot of members of the Church have concerns about the policy changes because they have caused offense and/or adversely impacted a friend or loved one.  But to me this is sort of a tail-wagging-the-dog sort of thing.  The Law of Chastity is plainly part of the Restored Gospel.  That some people disagree with it, or choose to disregard it, does not invalidate it.

President Nelson's January 2016 remarks also provide some clarity as to the origins of the policy changes:

It sounds like the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have done what they are supposed to do in terms of fulfilling their responsibilities. 

There is no hint of acrimony or malice here.  Nor indifference.  Nor condemnation.  Rather, they acted "with compassion for all, and especially for the children."

The policy changes were not off-the-cuff or created in the heat of the moment or in an ad hoc manner.  Nor were they the result of politicking and campaigns.   Rather, the Brethren "wrestled at length to understand the Lord's will" and "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."  They "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer."  They "sought further direction and inspiration."

The Brethren sought - and claim to have received - guidance from God.  All of them.  "The mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord" on this issue was given to and through President Monson, and the remaining 14 men "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation" and "sustain{ed} what had been revealed to President Monson."

I can't help but wonder if those who dispute or otherwise disagree with the policy changes have gone through the same efforts as are described above prior to concluding that the Brethren got it wrong.

We will see, I suppose.  For me, I don't see the policy changes being undone.  Not because the Brethren are stubborn, but because the changes were needed and appropriate.  And revelatory.

Thanks,

-Smac

This post has my nomination for Post of the Year on this board. We're close enough to the end of the year that I don't think another will come along to displace it.

 

[california boy]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Shifting the goalposts.  Again.

I am inclined to believe that President Nelson was speaking in a representative capacity.  That he was speaking on behalf of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

But this is neither here nor there, I think.  If and when other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve specifically corroborate Pres. Nelson's remarks about the policy changes being revelatory, will you have a sudden change of heart?  Or will there just be another shifting of goalposts?  (That's a rhetorical, food-for-thought question only.)

Will two witnesses work for you?  If not, then your complaint really isn't legitimate.

Okay.

You refuse to believe the plain words of President Nelson.

If and when his words are expressly corroborated by other prophets and apostles, I think many people in your "position" will remain unconvinced (I can't speak for you).  The problem, I fear, is not the lack of prophetic guidance.  The problem is the lack of acceptance of prophetic guidance.

I think these remarks by Elder Burton Howard of the Seventy merit some attention:

He then relates several experience he had as a bishop.  He then concludes:

I find a lot of comfort in these remarks.

Well, no.  I believe what I have determined for myself  to be true, not because I "want to believe" them.

I believe that polygamy is ordained of God.  I am really quite ill at ease with the concept, and am very grateful that we are not called upon to practice it.

I believe that animal sacrifice was previously commanded by God.  Again, not comfortable.  Again, grateful we don't have to do it.

I believe the Law of Chastity is being properly taught and applied by the General Authorities of the LDS Church.  I don't particularly enjoy being accused by your compatriots of being a bigoted hater because I believe this.  I recognize that good and decent people believe otherwise.  I recognize that the teachings of the Church regarding homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage, etc., cause distress and anger in some quarters.

Most of the Restored Gospel fits with what I "want to believe."  Most, but not all.  I recognize and concede that my own sense of right and wrong is not perfectly calibrated, such that there are certain issues and details on which I have to subordinate my personal preferences (what I "want to believe") in favor of what I understand to arise from the Spirit and from prophetic utterances.

Well, no.  The leaders of the Church operate in councils.  What they present to the Church (such as the Proclamation) is not a matter of what they "want to believe."  What they are presenting is what they cumulatively understand and sustain to be revelatory guidance.

If what you were saying were true, we'd have personal opinions (what each individual GA "want{s} to believe") being presented from the pulpit.  But instead, we are receiving . . . something very different.

I do not understand what this means.  "Any support in what has actually transpired?"

President Nelson has declared the policy changes to be the result of revelation.  Acceptance of that proposition is a matter of faith.

Elder Oaks has declared the Proclamation to be the result of a "revelatory process."  Acceptance of that proposition is a matter of faith.

So these are ancillary questions, really.  I think the only way to get off the merry-go-round is to make a determination in the first instance of whether the truth claims of the LDS Church are real and valid.  If they are not, then we're just getting on and off the merry-go-round every time these sorts of topics come up.  On the other hand, if they are real and valid, then there's room for some real progress.

So perhaps progress lies in re-assessing our assumptions.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You are a very interesting guy.  You give such. long answers to people's posts, but sometimes I wonder if you even read what people write.  I often find you answering/defending issues that have never been brought up.  Or attack points that were never made.

How may of my posts have you read in the past year?  I am guessing a lot.  Yet you never seem to grasp that I no longer believe that church leaders receive any kind of revelation.  I simply don't believe their claims.  I KNOW that they claim to know the will of God when what they are promising is not from God.  My post was not about what it would take for me to believe that church leaders receive revelation.  It was about the church CLAIMING to know the will of God when in fact there is no EVIDENCE to support that belief.  And in fact there is considerable evidence to show that there has been no inspiration on how the church has dealt with those that are gay. 

So yes Elder Nelson is the sole person to claim revelation on the new policies towards gay couples and their families. My point was not that I would believe him if more supported his view.  My point is that even by church standards, any other subject like say if man would ever step on the moon, the very same members like you would be saying as proof that it did not come from God would be that this one apostle was acting on his own and his statement would not be a confirmation of revelation.  It has NOTHING to do with what It would take for me to believe this policy came from God.  It has to do with what the church claims it takes for something to be deemed a revelation.  Can you name one other time where a single apostle has claimed revelation and that claim has been viewed as a revelation?  So why this time do you stand behind that lone apostle and go to great lengths to defend his statement as proof of a revelation from God?  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

The policy doesn't involved people "in a same sex relationship;" it involves people who have entered into a gay marriage. *That* is now defined as apostasy under the policy, not violating the LoC through homosexuality. 

Do you argue that those who have entered into a gay marriage do not hold the covenants in contempt? Or that they at least don't care about or worry about them? The Church's action now requires that people knowingly declare where they stand. If they cross that line into gay marriage, then they do hold it in contempt (in the eyes of the Church). It has clarified things into a showdown ultimatum.

I agree that there are people who do not keep the law of chastity who believe that the covenants are valid and have respect for them (just not in their personal lives or actions). The big distinction made by the Church here is that gay marriage constitutes "crossing the Rubicon" (it is a big line in the sand, the crossing of which denotes apostasy).

Quote

 

I agree that many people who disregard Church teaching on homosexuality don't feel that they hold the covenants in contempt. The distinction that the Church has made is that crossing a certain line (beyond simply living in sin) constitutes apostasy from the Church, and under that view, that particular crossing of the line holds the covenants in contempt to a point where excommunication is necessary. Whether or not one agrees with this, that is the Church's position as demonstrated by the dramatic action.

As the Church has defined it, that act is in open defiance of Church teaching and Church policy to such an extent that that action prevents children from receiving ordinances like baptism and ordination.

I agree that it is a dramatic and drastic action. I think the Church has tried to make the point as clearly as possible, so that there is no possible wiggle room for interpretation. Gay marriage is wrong and is to be resisted as much as the Church can. While this has a limited effect outside of the Church, the Church acts internally to make it clear where the Church stands on it. 

 

You have explained the church's position quite well.  You have also shown the absurdity of the church's position.  The church believes that entering into a marriage that the church doesn't recognize as a marriage to be apostate.  But if the gay couple just lived together without a marriage that is not a real marriage recognized by the church then they would not be apostates?

So if a gay couple is in a relationship that has children without being married then their children can be baptized because the family could repent, break up the family and join the church.  But if a gay couple is in a marriage that is not recognized by the church then their children can not be baptized and the church would be wrong in breaking up that family.

How does being in a marriage that the church does not recognize as a marriage become a bigger sin requiring a special label of apostate and not allowing the children of that marriage the church does not recognize worse than just living together.  Is the break up of a marriage that the church does not recognize as a valid marriage worse than the break up of a family whose parents have not married?  How do you guys make this all fit rationally?

Edited December 27, 2017 by california boy

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are a very interesting guy.  You give such. long answers to people's posts, but sometimes I wonder if you even read what people write.  I often find you answering/defending issues that have never been brought up.  Or attack points that were never made.

How may of my posts have you read in the past year?  I am guessing a lot.  Yet you never seem to grasp that I no longer believe that church leaders receive any kind of revelation.  

And yet you seem to sometimes speak as if they do.

Strange, that.

You dispute Pres. Nelson's remarks (that the policy changes were revelatory) on the basis that the other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have not publicly declared agreement with those remarks.  But I (correctly, it turns out) surmise that you wouldn't accept Pres. Nelson's statement even if it were specifically corroborated.  So your stated basis for not accepting his statement is manifestly inconsistent with your declaration that you dispute any sort of revelatory guidance at all.

Quote

I simply don't believe their claims.  I KNOW that they claim to know the will of God when what they are promising is not from God.  My post was not about what it would take for me to believe that church leaders receive revelation.  It was about the church CLAIMING to know the will of God when in fact there is no EVIDENCE to support that belief.  

Okay, I'll bite.  What "evidence" of "know{ing} the will of God" do you think could be propounded?

Quote

And in fact there is considerable evidence to show that there has been no inspiration on how the church has dealt with those that are gay. 

I quite disagree.

Quote

So yes Elder Nelson is the sole person to claim revelation on the new policies towards gay couples and their families. My point was not that I would believe him if more supported his view.  My point is that even by church standards, any other subject like say if man would ever step on the moon, the very same members like you would be saying as proof that it did not come from God would be that this one apostle was acting on his own and his statement would not be a confirmation of revelation.

Well, no.  Pres. Nelson was not expressing a personal opinion on a topic about which there is no claimed revelation.  He was speaking in a representative capacity (on behalf of the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) on a topic about which there is claimed revelation.

Quote

It has NOTHING to do with what It would take for me to believe this policy came from God.  It has to do with what the church claims it takes for something to be deemed a revelation.  Can you name one other time where a single apostle has claimed revelation and that claim has been viewed as a revelation?  So why this time do you stand behind that lone apostle and go to great lengths to defend his statement as proof of a revelation from God?  

I don't stand behind a "lone apostle."  He was not speaking just for himself.

And his statement does not really need "defense."  He is a percipient witness to the events he described.  He has established, in legal parlance, a prima facie case for the policy changes being revelatory.  Folks like you, on the other hand, have presented nothing to contravene Pres. Nelson's remarks.  No evidence at all. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 27, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

You have explained the church's position quite well.  You have also shown the absurdity of the church's position.  The church believes that entering into a marriage that the church doesn't recognize as a marriage to be apostate.  But if the gay couple just lived together without a marriage that is not a real marriage recognized by the church then they would not be apostates?

Apparently so.  I fail to see the absurdity.  Fornication is a serious transgression.  Entering into a form of marriage not recognized by God is, it seems, more so.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

So if a gay couple is in a relationship that has children without being married then their children can be baptized because the family could repent, break up the family and join the church.

No.  The policy postpones baptism for minor children "whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship."

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

But if a gay couple is in a marriage that is not recognized by the church then their children can not be baptized and the church would be wrong in breaking up that family.

See above.

We are now two years out from the policy changes being announced publicly.  I am surprised you are so unfamiliar with these changes.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

How does being in a marriage that the church does not recognize as a marriage become a bigger sin requiring a special label of apostate and not allowing the children of that marriage the church does not recognize worse than just living together.

Apostasy = entering into a form of marriage not authorized by God.

Not Apostasy = fornication, adultery, homosexual behavior.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is the break up of a marriage that the church does not recognize as a valid marriage worse than the break up of a family whose parents have not married?  How do you guys make this all fit rationally?

Your question is based on an erroneous understanding of the policy changes.  See above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet you seem to sometimes speak as if they do.

Strange, that.

You dispute Pres. Nelson's remarks (that the policy changes were revelatory) on the basis that the other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have not publicly declared agreement with those remarks.  But I (correctly, it turns out) surmise that you wouldn't accept Pres. Nelson's statement even if it were specifically corroborated.  So your stated basis for not accepting his statement is manifestly inconsistent with your declaration that you dispute any sort of revelatory guidance at all.

Okay, I'll bite.  What "evidence" of "know{ing} the will of God" do you think could be propounded?

I quite disagree.

Well, no.  Pres. Nelson was not expressing a personal opinion on a topic about which there is no claimed revelation.  He was speaking in a representative capacity (on behalf of the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) on a topic about which there is claimed revelation.

I don't stand behind a "lone apostle."  He was not speaking just for himself.

And his statement does not really need "defense."  He is a percipient witness to the events he described.  He has established, in legal parlance, a prima facie case for the policy changes being revelatory.  Folks like you, on the other hand, have presented nothing to contravene Pres. Nelson's remarks.  No evidence at all. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok I give up.  I am pretty sure most people are sick of me trying to explain this.  I must be the worse communicator on this board.

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently so.  I fail to see the absurdity.  Fornication is a serious transgression.  Entering into a form of marriage not recognized by God is, it seems, more so.

No.  The policy postpones baptism for minor children "whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship."

See above.

We are now two years out from the policy changes being announced publicly.  I am surprised you are so unfamiliar with these changes.

Apostasy = entering into a form of marriage not authorized by God.

Not Apostasy = fornication, adultery, homosexual behavior.

Your question is based on an erroneous understanding of the policy changes.  See above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you have a link to the actual handbook?  I couldn't find the exact wording.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you have a link to the actual handbook?  I couldn't find the exact wording.

I have access to the actual handbook.  The quote above, however, came from the First Presidency letter dated November 13, 2015.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have access to the actual handbook.  The quote above, however, came from the First Presidency letter dated November 13, 2015.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks.  The letter refers to gay couples this way.

Quote

 

The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.

 

Does the church mean any couple living together when they call it a similar relationship?  It is a bit confusing.  As you have explained, if the couple is legally married, then they are labeled apostates.  If they are not married then they get no such label.  It appears that the church looks at those relationships differently.  So not sure what a similar relationship means and why they would not be called apostates if the relationship is similar.

And does any couple living together warrant a Church disciplinary council or only gay couples?

If a single gay man and just dating other gay men is raising a child, is the child allowed to be baptized?  Why is a single gay man not called an apostate if he is sexually active with other gay men?

Edited December 27, 2017 by california boy

[Gray]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

Thanks.  The letter refers to gay couples this way.

Does the church mean any couple living together when they call it a similar relationship?  It is a bit confusing.  As you have explained, if the couple is legally married, then they are labeled apostates.  If they are not married then they get no such label.  It appears that the church looks at those relationships differently.  So not sure what a similar relationship means and why they would not be called apostates if the relationship is similar.

And does any couple living together warrant a Church disciplinary council or only gay couples?

If a single gay man and just dating other gay men is raising a child, is the child allowed to be baptized?  Why is a single gay man not called an apostate if he is sexually active with other gay men?

Because the policy was very poorly thought out.

[smac97]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

Thanks.  The letter refers to gay couples this way.

Does the church mean any couple living together when they call it a similar relationship?  It is a bit confusing.  

I'm not sure.  

20 hours ago, california boy said:

As you have explained, if the couple is legally married, then they are labeled apostates.  

They are subject to excommunication on grounds of apostasy, yes.

There is no "labeling."  The grounds for excommunication are in almost all instances kept confidential.

20 hours ago, california boy said:

If they are not married then they get no such label.  

It sure would be nice to have some good faith in discussions like this.

20 hours ago, california boy said:

It appears that the church looks at those relationships differently.  

Yes.  The Church is serious about the importance of marriage.  So unauthorized polygamous marriages are grounds for excommunication.  The same goes for same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, fornication may or may not be grounds for excommunication.  Adultery is (perhaps owing to its destructive and corrosive effect on a marital relationship).

20 hours ago, california boy said:

So not sure what a similar relationship means and why they would not be called apostates if the relationship is similar.

I'm note sure, either.

Again, some good faith sure would be nice.

20 hours ago, california boy said:

And does any couple living together warrant a Church disciplinary council or only gay couples?

I am not sure if there is a hard and fast rule.

20 hours ago, california boy said:

If a single gay man and just dating other gay men is raising a child, is the child allowed to be baptized?  

Possibly.  I don't think there is a hard and fast rule for this circumstance.

20 hours ago, california boy said:

Why is a single gay man not called an apostate if he is sexually active with other gay men?

Again, some good faith sure would be nice.

Thanks,

-Smac