Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Honestly? No one has to wait 18 years. The absolute maximum would be 10 years.

We have a young man who has been attending our ward and receiving missionary visits since he was 11. He's waiting till he's 18 in order to be baptised. (He's 17 now.) It doesn't seem to have had any impact on him since he clearly has a testimony. Our former bishop likewise waited till he was 18 to get baptised. It just solidified both his determination and his desire.

It means accepting and acknowledging that their parents' marriage is an extreme (because intentionally formalised) violation of God's law. I think that's a pretty straightforward point.

The potential of 18 years of not attending.  That’s the difference with your example is that the young man is attending and receiving visits. Per Elder Christofferson, that would not be appropriate for the child of gay parents. 

Is there any documentation from the church that says the child of gay parents needs to say that his parents’ marriage is “an extreme violation of God’s law”?  I guess that’s not seen as potentially causing acrimony in the family. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In other words, you want certain people who come to our services to be sheltered from God's call to repent even when their behaviour is egregious sin according to His law. If not telling people that their sins are sinful is a requirement for the Church to be welcoming, then absolutely no one is going to feel welcome at church, including you and me. Why don't you make this same demand for all of us?

Nope, I don't want anyone to be sheltered from God's call to repent.  But in the case of the gay married couple, we are telling them that their own path is divorce and dissolution of their family.  I don't consider that to be welcoming.

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And another misrepresentation. No one has told any children not to attend church. No one.

That was the message from Elder Christofferson's interview after the policy was leaked.  If the children of gay couples are welcome to attend, than they are going to be taught about the sin of their parents and it would create the conflicts that Elder Christofferson said the policy is designed to avoid.

If we are going to welcome these children to attend than it defeats the purpose of the policy.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Rockpond has falsely argued, repeatedly, that we as a church as not welcoming to gay couples because we refuse to turn a blind eye to their sins and withhold from them the sacred privilege of repenting therefrom. This is the religious equivalent of accusing a doctor's office of being unwelcoming to patients because the doctor actually tells her patients that they need to shed a few kilos, exercise more, drink less, etc. It just doesn't fly. I'm left concluding that Rockpond's goal is to play word games in order to smear and antagonise the Saints who, unlike him, accept what ancient and modern prophets have unitedly taught regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex behaviour.

These are false statements about me.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, it would appear that you equate being respectful and welcoming with not preaching repentance to certain people with certain sins. 

No, I do not.

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nor is disregarding revelatory instructions.  You are acting as if the Church implemented this policy arbitrarily.  It did not.

No, not arbitrarily.  Based on what the Brethren have said, I believe that members of the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency discussed it and reached a consensus to implement it.

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet nobody has said boo about it.  Funny, that.

I didn't know it existed until this policy leave in November 2015.  Also, I don't know any polygamists so there is less of an emotional connection for me.

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  And?  

Three or four of you points arguing in favor of the policy state that it was implemented to clarify to and provide guidance for the members.  But if it was never meant to be published to the membership at large and was only done so because of the leak, than it discounts the idea that the policy was originally implemented to teach members.  The Brethren have multiple means of reaching church membership, Handbook 1 isn't really one of those (at least not for the majority of members).

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My concern is that people like you are setting yourselves up for disappointment in the future.  If and when the Church does not alter course, and instead maintains its teachings pertaining to the Law of Chastity, what would you do?  I ask this sincerely (and rhetorically).

Well, I'm fairly disappointed (with respect to this issue) already.  And I'm still very active in and committed to the church.  I can't say what the future will hold as the restoration continues to unfold.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's a pretty significant one, too.

And boundary maintenance aligns with the reasons I gave for my belief about the policy implementation.  So we're in agreement on this one.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

t was described as a revelation by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, speaking on behalf of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

Honestly.  How long is this "Elder Nelson just went rogue" theory going to be tossed around?

I didn't say that Elder Nelson went rogue, so you'd have to address that with someone making that claim.

I said that revelation has been described by our prophets and apostles recently as unity or consensus among them.  I accept that it may fit that definition of revelation.  But my understanding also is that the Prophet and President of the Church is the one responsible for declaring revelation for the Church.  In this case, I don't recall President Monson doing that.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You presume that which has yet to be demonstrated.  Even after years of discussing this topic over and over and over, objections to it boil down to "I don't like it" emotionalisms.

Let me be clear (again) -- this is not a "I don't like it" emotionalism.  I believe the policy to be incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I really don't get this.  Guidance from the Brethren is only appropriate when it is socially popular?  And otherwise it's "unfortunate?"

It has nothing to do with its social popularity or lack thereof.

[kllindley]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

These are false statements about me.

That you've argued that the Church isn't welcoming? That's false? 

The other statement was what your comments lead Hamba to conclude. That's not a statement about you. 

You said it was untrue when I commented that you believe the worst of Church leaders and members. I suppose to are right. You claim to be unable to know whether local church leaders participated in infanticide and cannibalism. But you are quick to point out how you believe anyone who supports the policy I being dishonest in their reasoning. Including apostles and prophets.  We're all disingenuous.

President Nelson (he was president of the quorum of the 12 at the time) is just "an apostle" to you until you are called on it. 

If so many of us here read your comments in a way you didn't mean, maybe it would be a good idea to consider what in your words or posting style keeps giving us that impression. Because according to your logic, you are smearing fellow Saints. If the feelings of some gay people make the Church unwelcoming regardless of our intentions, then the feelings of fellow Saints likewise make you hostile toward us. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That you've argued that the Church isn't welcoming? That's false? 

The other statement was what your comments lead Hamba to conclude. That's not a statement about you. 

You said it was untrue when I commented that you believe the worst of Church leaders and members. I suppose to are right. You claim to be unable to know whether local church leaders participated in infanticide and cannibalism. But you are quick to point out how you believe anyone who supports the policy I being dishonest in their reasoning. Including apostles and prophets.  We're all disingenuous.

President Nelson (he was president of the quorum of the 12 at the time) is just "an apostle" to you until you are called on it. 

Hamba said, about me:  "...because we refuse to turn a blind eye to their sins and withhold from them the sacred privilege of repenting therefrom."  I've never made such a claim.

And Hamba's conclusion "I'm left concluding that Rockpond's goal is to play word games in order to smear and antagonise the Saints who, unlike him, accept what ancient and modern prophets have unitedly taught regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex behaviour." is also incorrect.

I don't believe that anyone who supports the policy is being dishonest or disingenuous in their reasoning.  That is a mischaracterization of what I have said.

President Nelson was an apostle at the time, as well as being President of the Quorum of the Twelve.  I've not denied that... what do you mean "until you are called on it"?  If I incorrectly used the title Elder when describing his time as President of the Quorum, I apologize.  It was not intentional.  But we should also be clear that he was not the president of the church at that time.

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If so many of us here read your comments in a way you didn't mean, maybe it would be a good idea to consider what in your words or posting style keeps giving us that impression. 

I believe that those reading my comments in ways that I didn't mean are often doing it to create strawmen that they can defeat.  I try to be precise in what I write.  I try to answer all sincere questions.

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Because according to your logic, you are smearing fellow Saints. If the feelings of some gay people make the Church unwelcoming regardless of our intentions, then the feelings of fellow Saints likewise make you hostile toward us. 

I don't believe that "the feelings of some gay people make the Church unwelcoming regardless of our intentions".  I believe that telling someone their marriage makes them an apostate is inherently unwelcoming to that couple.  I believe that telling someone that our teachings to their children could cause acrimony in their home does not make us welcoming to those families.  It has nothing to do with feelings.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

That’s the difference with your example is that the young man is attending and receiving visits. Per Elder Christofferson, that would not be appropriate for the child of gay parents. 

No, according to his words, it would not be appropriate to create that expectation by making a membership record for the child or administering the ordinance of baptism. Should that happen, ward members and leaders would automatically reach out and seek to involve the individual, minsters would be assigned, etc. He said nothing about banning someone attending church. We don't have angels with flaming swords posted at the doors to our chapels. Anyone who walks in the door will be welcomed. What he did say was that there should be no conflict between how the parents may feel and the expectations of the Church -- expectations that are 'triggered' by ordinances that create a membership record.

Speaking from experience, there are no expectations for a non-member child who attends church. He's not 'ours', so to speak.

Quote

Is there any documentation from the church that says the child of gay parents needs to say that his parents’ marriage is “an extreme violation of God’s law”?

Elder Christofferson:

Quote

We regard same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline ... Anyone coming out of a polygamous setting who wants to serve a mission, it has to be clear that they understand that is wrong and is sin and cannot be followed. They disavow the practice of plural marriage. And that would be the same case here. They would disavow, or assent I guess would be a better way to say it, to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regards to same-sex marriage.

I don't think those words differ much in content from mine.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Nope, I don't want anyone to be sheltered from God's call to repent.  But in the case of the gay married couple, we are telling them that their own path is divorce and dissolution of their family.  I don't consider that to be welcoming.

In other words, you don't consider the message of repentance to be welcoming 'in this case'. Which is precisely what I've stated all along.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Hamba said, about me:  "...because we refuse to turn a blind eye to their sins and withhold from them the sacred privilege of repenting therefrom."  I've never made such a claim.

Do you accept that we can be welcoming as a church if we tell a gay couple that homosexual behaviour and especially same-sex 'marriage' are serious and grievous sins?

Do you believe we can be welcoming as a church if we teach a gay couple that they should repent of any homosexual behaviour and end any 'marriage'?

If not, you are just using a rhetorical dodge here.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, according to his words, it would not be appropriate to create that expectation by making a membership record for the child or administering the ordinance of baptism. Should that happen, ward members and leaders would automatically reach out and seek to involve the individual, minsters would be assigned, etc. He said nothing about banning someone attending church. We don't have angels with flaming swords posted at the doors to our chapels. Anyone who walks in the door will be welcomed. What he did say was that there should be no conflict between how the parents may feel and the expectations of the Church -- expectations that are 'triggered' by ordinances that create a membership record.

Speaking from experience, there are no expectations for a non-member child who attends church. He's not 'ours', so to speak.

 

He went on to say:  "It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender."

If a child of gay parents attends church, the potential conflicts are created (whether blessed, baptized, ordained, or not on the records at all).  So if the position of the church (and the position outlined by Elder Christofferson) is that these children are welcome to attend, why have the policy?

Does that makes sense?  It isn't the blessing that creates the potential conflicts in the child's home setting, it's the attendance at church.  It isn't the child being on the records of the church... or having ministers... or being baptized that creates issues "where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different".  The problems are created when the child sits in a chair in primary and is taught his/her parents are committing an "egregious sin", right?

This is why I honestly don't get the claim that we welcome them when I understand Elder Christofferson to be saying that it is problematic for these kids to be there at church.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So if the position of the church (and the position outlined by Elder Christofferson) is that these children are welcome to attend, why have the policy?

Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen if a child from a sex-same couple were to attend church because the parents fully supported it or even insisted upon it? Would s/he be banned somehow?

With the policy in place, how careful do you think ward members and ward leaders would be in how they would treat and respond to and interact with the child?

Now contrast that with how the child would be treated if s/he were a baptised member in full fellowship. There's your answer.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In other words, you don't consider the message of repentance to be welcoming 'in this case'. Which is precisely what I've stated all along.

It isn't specifically the message of repentance that is unwelcoming, it is that the only repentance path we offer them is divorce and dissolution of their family.

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you accept that we can be welcoming as a church if we tell a gay couple that homosexual behaviour and especially same-sex 'marriage' are sinful?

Do you believe we can be welcoming as a church if we teach a gay couple that they should repent of any homosexual behaviour and end any 'marriage'?

No to both questions... I don't think such an environment is welcoming to a gay married couple.

If you and your wife walk into a church and are told that your marriage must end in order for your to repent, do you feel welcomed?

If you and your wife were to talk into ANY organization and they told you:  you are welcome here but to fully participate, you must divorce.  Do you feel welcomed?

To be clear, I recognize the right of the Church to teach its morals, values, laws, etc.  But, logically, I have a problem with us claiming that we welcome gay married couples while at the same time excommunicating them and telling them that to be in full fellowship they must divorce.  I find the two positions to be mutually exclusive:  we can be welcoming to them or we can excommunicate them and tell them the only way back is divorce.  Claiming both doesn't make sense.

Yes we are all called on to repent, but can you see the difference when that repentance requires divorcing your spouse?  And how that likely wouldn't feel welcoming to the couple?

[Calm]

“The problems are created when the child sits in a chair in primary and is taught his/her parents are committing an "egregious sin", right?“

I think the problem moves to internal conflict once a child is baptized if they understand that baptism means they have promised to be committed to living and accepting the teachings of the Church. 

Prior to that, while they may feel uncomfortable on the occasions such things are taught, they can tell themselves “well, I don’t believe that and I don’t have to accept it because I am not a member”.  Once they have made a choice and are baptized, they don’t have that path of reconciliation. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen if a child from a sex-same couple were to attend church because the parents fully supported it or even insisted upon it? Would s/he be banned somehow?

No.  (I've had that happen in my ward.)

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

With the policy in place, how careful do you think ward members and ward leaders would be in how they would treat and respond to and interact with the child?

Now contrast that with how the child would be treated if s/he were a baptised member in full fellowship. There's your answer.

I"m not sure.  Are you saying that if a child wasn't baptized we'd shelter them from the conflict engendering teachings?  How would we do that?  For years the ward would just avoid teaching certain principles?  If we can do that for the non-member child, why not do it for the member child?

[Calm]

“it is that the only repentance path we offer them is divorce and dissolution of their family.“

I don’t understand why you think baptism should be offered to the children if you understand that adults would feel conflict if their family was criticized this way. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

“The problems are created when the child sits in a chair in primary and is taught his/her parents are committing an "egregious sin", right?“

I think the problem moves to internal conflict once a child is baptized if they understand that baptism means they have promised to be committed to living and accepting the teachings of the Church. 

Prior to that, while they may feel uncomfortable on the occasions such things are taught, they can tell themselves “well, I don’t believe that and I don’t have to accept it because I am not a member”.  Once they have made a choice and are baptized, they don’t have that path of reconciliation. 

My children internalized what they were taught in primary long before they were baptized.  Those first 5-6 years (depending on whether we are counting Nursery) were extremely formative in their understanding of the gospel.  And, there is no shying away from teaching about man-woman marriage in junior primary.

I don't believe that primary aged children have the self-awareness to take what they are taught each week and bucket it differently based on whether or not they have made baptismal covenants.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

“it is that the only repentance path we offer them is divorce and dissolution of their family.“

I don’t understand why you think baptism should be offered to the children if you understand that adults would feel conflict if their family was criticized this way. 

It is problematic but denying baptism based on the sin of the parents, IMO, violates the child's agency.  I don't think we have that right when the child desires baptism and the parents consent.

[Hamba Tuhan]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It isn't specifically the message of repentance that is unwelcoming, it is that the only repentance path we offer them is divorce and dissolution of their family.

Yes, tragically this is the outcome when people try to form a family in direct contradiction to the divine mandates of the Lord. The prophets have done everything in their power to prevent this situation occurring in the first place, but a handful of governments haven't listened. Now, via the policy, they are trying to be careful and respectful in how they respond to the complexity of this situation ... and as is often the case with prophets, they get to perform this difficult task whilst critics, both inside and outside the Chirch, are busy accusing them of false and even nefarious motives.

Quote

If you and your wife walk into a church and are told that your marriage must end in order for your to repent, do you feel welcomed?

I don't have a wife, but the honest answer is yes, if we are humble and open to following the Lord. No, if we aren't.

As a 21-year-old missionary, I actually found myself in the position of having to tell a woman many years older than I was (and one who possessed a postgraduate degree in French literature, as an aside) that if she wanted to truly repent and fully participate in the Church, she would need to leave her de facto partner of 12 years. Tough stuff. She didn't understand it at first, and then she agonised over it for a long time. I don't blame her. I'd have agonised too! But in the end, she and her seven-year-old son made the choice to follow Christ.

I spoke to her a short time ago. Her son is now an adult. She is serving as the Young Women president in her ward. Contrary to her expectations at the time, she is sealed to a member husband, and the son has been sealed to both of them. (She was absolutely willing, though, to spend the rest of mortality alone, and I expected that would be the case too.) She spoke with deep gratitude that she made the difficult decision that she did years ago.

If what we have is true, there is literally no other answer.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Are you saying that if a child wasn't baptized we'd shelter them from the conflict engendering teachings?

No, I'm saying specifically what Elder Christofferson said: we would have completely different expectations. It's almost like you don't trust him to know what he is talking about. This is about protecting the child from the expectations of members and leaders. Without the policy, we would baptise the child and then impose on her/him all the usual expectations. That's not fair.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Denying baptism based on the sin of the parents, IMO, violates the child's agency.

This is another attempt to evoke a mediaeval construct that not a single Church leader has even alluded to. This is not about denying anything as a punishment for the parents' sins; rather, it's an acknowledgement of an almost total inability to meet the conflicting needs of a child because of a situation created by the parents' sins. Two very, very different scenarios.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is problematic but denying baptism based on the sin of the parents, IMO, violates the child's agency.  I don't think we have that right when the child desires baptism and the parents consent.

And that child will resent the church for denying him/her the ability to be baptized and perhaps be one of the crowd, especially if they live in a predominately LDS neighborhood. 

[gopher]

On 11/11/2018 at 11:28 AM, Tacenda said:

(bold mine)

Absolutely not, I'd say it comes from those that rose above the policy and reached out in love to their gay loved ones, 100%! Or, if you are saying once the church came out against having gays be members, who are living the "lifestyle", are able to finally be free of the chains of the church, I guess I can give you that.

And there were people 100% convinced the policy caused a sharp increase in suicides.  I wonder how many members left the church because that believed that?  Hopefully they will find their way back some day.  Maybe it would be a good idea for critics to be as wary of claims against the church as they are of claims made by the church.

I do want to to thank all those here that take the time to answer the accusations that come up regularly against the church.  How many times have there been seemingly devastating claims made that turned out to be false, misleading, or incomplete?  Few of us have the time to go through all the evidence and unravel the claims to come to an informed conclusion.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And that child will resent the church for denying him/her the ability to be baptized and perhaps be one of the crowd, especially if they live in a predominately LDS neighborhood. 

Sadly, children in such a situation who genuinely love the Church may well come to resent their parents. 

I know of two convert sisters in our stake who were raised by Lesbian couples. One of them deeply loves her mother (who attended her baptism); the other one not so much. But both of them have spoken to me personally of the deep resentment they harbour for the decisions their respective mothers made to deny them fathers. I would fear a similar outcome in this situation as well.

For what it may be worth -- the sister who was in our ward for a number of years (and who is estranged from her mother) started attending church in her teens and was baptised, with permission, before she turned 18. Interestingly, she said to me that she is happy that she got baptised when she did but that she completely understands the rationale behind the policy and fully supports it since it was all so hard for her to navigate -- a bit of a mixed message, but I suspect that reflects the complexity of these situations.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

My concern is that people like you are setting yourselves up for disappointment in the future.  If and when the Church does not alter course, and instead maintains its teachings pertaining to the Law of Chastity, what would you do?  I ask this sincerely (and rhetorically).

I’m not so sure the arguments to drop ssm as a form of apostasy and the policy are so much about the quest for satisfaction (the symptom) as it is for control of how the Church expresses the exercise of her religious freedom (the cause for satisfaction). Of course one can say he merely wishes the Church to change these things and not control or influence a single thing, but in this the disappointment is already exists.