A (Potentially) Interesting Thought Exercise

[Ouagadougou]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You could talk to your Bishop instead of making a public fuss....but that does not get you accolades and likes. Now who needs validation?

I personally know people who have been called in to talk with the bishop because of things they have shared or said online (and it wasn't even too critical about the church, but it was true and made the church, in a way, look unfavorable).  And here you have the thought police; if the church's narrative is true and they (leaders) are truly the Lord's anointed, then why even care about a "public fuss?"  Are they that sensitive and the narrative that fragile that no public criticism is allowed?  

Doesn't a bishop have more important things to worry about than someone's social media account or blog?  

 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree that a direct comparison is not apt.  I was thinking more broadly about the pastor's shift in thinking once he was given an opportunity to see and experience the perspective of law enforcement.

As an attorney, I have had many experiences where I have to substantially shift my thinking on a disputed issue based on new information, based on learning more about the other side's perspective, based on the objective evaluation of a judge or mediator, etc.  These experiences have actually been quite illuminating and helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

It should be noted that a lot of the reason we can't understand what happens at GA level is because the Church leadership chooses not to share it with us.

[Calm]

Quote

A polygamous parent can teach his child to become a polygamist. A gay parent does not teach his child to become gay

A polygamous parent can and most likely will teach his child to accept polygamy as righteous and doctrinally acceptable to be practiced.

A gay parent can and will most likely teach his child that God views homosexual marriage as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Both are doctrinally incorrect according to the Gospel as taught by the Church.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I personally know people who have been called in to talk with the bishop because of things they have shared or said online (and it wasn't even too critical about the church, but it was true and made the church, in a way, look unfavorable).  And here you have the thought police; if the church's narrative is true and they (leaders) are truly the Lord's anointed, then why even care about a "public fuss?"  Are they that sensitive and the narrative that fragile that no public criticism is allowed?  

Doesn't a bishop have more important things to worry about than someone's social media account or blog?  

Well then, don't do that.

And yes the Bishop does have more important things to do. And less important things. Presumably it is a moderately important thing he makes time for.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

A polygamous parent can and most likely will teach his child to accept polygamy as righteous and doctrinally acceptable to be practiced.

A gay parent can and will most likely teach his child that God views homosexual marriage as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Both are doctrinally incorrect according to the Gospel as taught by the Church.

Through his teachings a polygamist can make more polygamists.

A gay person does not teach someone else to be gay. So a parent in a SSM is not going to be creating more gays in SSM.

So your argument isn't about behavior, it's about belief.

Quote

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

— Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

Substitute "old man" with "gay man". JS seems to be saying that we should not trammel on people for their beliefs. And again, lets keep in mind, we're talking about a child who might possibly, maybe, be taught that SSM is a legitimate secular marriage. So the church is willing to trammel a child and refuse baptism because he might someday err in doctrine.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Through his teachings a polygamist can make more polygamists.

A gay person does not teach someone else to be gay. So a parent in a SSM is not going to be creating more gays in SSM.

So your argument isn't about behavior, it's about belief.

Substitute "old man" with "gay man". JS seems to be saying that we should not trammel on people for their beliefs. And again, lets keep in mind, we're talking about a child who might possibly, maybe, be taught that SSM is a legitimate secular marriage. So the church is willing to trammel a child and refuse baptism because he might someday err in doctrine.

Whatever the child believes, he is still under the "control" (I prefer to use "maintenance" per D&C 83:4-5) of his parents. When the parents are apostate on the specific subject of covenants, there can be no covenant interface with the Church. to paraphrase that scripture (since temporal things are spiritual also):

All children have claim upon their parents for their spiritual and covenant maintenance until they are of age. And after that, they have claim upon the church, or in other words upon the Lord’s covenants, if their parents have not wherewith, due to apostasy against the covenants, to give them a covenant heritage.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Whatever the child believes, he is still under the "control" (I prefer to use "maintenance" per D&C 83:4-5) of his parents. When the parents are apostate on the specific subject of covenants, there can be no covenant interface with the Church. to paraphrase that scripture (since temporal things are spiritual also):

All children have claim upon their parents for their spiritual and covenant maintenance until they are of age. And after that, they have claim upon the church, or in other words upon the Lord’s covenants, if their parents have not wherewith, due to apostasy against the covenants, to give them a covenant heritage.

So this would apply to every child/parent relationship, correct?

I'm reading you to mean that if a parent is apostate on the subject of covenants then a child should not be baptized. This would apply whether the parent's apostasy regarding covenants included SSM, polygamy, adultery, a parent's church resignation, a parent leaving the church to officially join another church. So whether a parent believes and/or acts against covenants of baptism/confirmation, sealing/marriage, endowment, priesthood, garment wearing (  ), their child should not be baptized until they are an adult. Correct?

And this ideology only relates to apostasy relating to "covenants" and no other type of apostasy. Is that correct?

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Substitute "old man" with "gay man". JS seems to be saying that we should not trammel on people for their beliefs. And again, lets keep in mind, we're talking about a child who might possibly, maybe, be taught that SSM is a legitimate secular marriage. So the church is willing to trammel a child and refuse baptism because he might someday err in doctrine.

I think the difference is that JS was talking about erring in doctrine not advocating for sin.  If SSM really isn't condoned of God, if it really is a very serious sin, then those who support it are not just 'erring in doctrine'.  

 

 

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Through his teachings a polygamist can make more polygamists.

A gay person does not teach someone else to be gay. So a parent in a SSM is not going to be creating more gays in SSM.

So your argument isn't about behavior, it's about belief.

Quote

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

— Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

Substitute "old man" with "gay man". JS seems to be saying that we should not trammel on people for their beliefs.

Here are my thoughts on this:

First, I think there is a fairly significant difference between holding an erroneous belief and openly advocating it and encouraging others in the Church to accept it.

Second, not all heterodox viewpoints are created equal. Some points of doctrine are open to some fairly broad interpretation. Latter-day Saints hold all sorts of viewpoints about things like the scope of Noah's flood, evolution, and so on. I think about such things it's hard to claim there are orthodox/heterodox positions, largely because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to be able to definitively state the scope of the flood, or the role (or lack thereof) of evolution in the creative process and/or the development of man, and so on. 

In contrast, homosexual behavior being a grievous sin is not really open to "broad interpretation," nor is the incompatibility of same-sex marriage with discipleship and membership in the Church.  These things are really, really clear.  So people who falsely characterize these things as acceptable behavior by members of the Church are in demonstrably serious error.

Third, notwithstanding point no. 2 above, there are some beliefs, as publicly taught to others, that are susceptible to testability and being found incompatible with maintaining good standing in the Church.  The Restored Gospel allows us a fair amount of flexibility of belief and conduct, but that flexibility is not unlimited. For example, Amasa Lyman, a prominent early leader of the Church, was excommunicated for repeatedly giving sermons "which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" and for his association with apostates (Godbeites). 

Fourth, we are repeatedly commanded to not preach or accept false doctrine:

• Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you: Deut. 4:2 . ( Deut. 12:32 ; Prov. 30:6 ; Rev. 22:18–19 . )
• How then comfort ye me in vain, seeing in your answers there remaineth falsehood? Job 21:34.
• Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad.  Ezek. 13:22.
• If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.  Gal. 1:9.
• But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.  2 Pet. 2:1.
• Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.  2 Nephi 28:9.
• Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.  2 Nephi 28:12.
• And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ.  Jac. 7:2.
• Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor.  Alma 1:16.
• That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.  Eph. 4:14.

Similarly, we are repeatedly commanded to not ignore apostasy:

• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Fifth, preaching of false doctrine is not a whoopsy daisy.  If continued in defiance of priesthood counsel, it amounts to apostasy.

Sixth, to the extent holding or teaching heterodox views = preaching of false doctrine in continued defiance of priesthood counsel, that amounts to apostasy and requires disciplinary action.

Seventh, the notion that Joseph Smith was indifferent to the preaching of false doctrine is unsound.  A sizable number of dissenters were excommunicated during the Kirtland Era (see here, starting on page 10).  The dissension appears to have originated in "temporal" matters (predominantly the failing of the Kirtland Safety Society).  However, "temporal" and "spiritual" dissent appear to bleed into each other, not unlike the "political"- and/or "social justice"-flavored dissent that seems to be coming from folks like Dehlin, Kelly, Young, Colvin, etc.

From the above link:

Quote

Thomas B. Marsh wrote to fellow apostle Wilford Woodruff:

Quote

It seems that [Warren] Parrish, J[ohn]. F. Boynton, Luke Johnson, Joseph Coe, and some others, united together for the overthrow of the church. President [Joseph] Smith, and his company, returned [to Kirtland], on, or about the 10th of December [1837]; soon after which this dissenting band, openly, and publicly, renounced the church of Christ, of Latter Day Saints, and claimed themselves to be the old standard; called themselves the church of Christ, excluded that of Saints, and set at naught Br[other]. Joseph [smith], and the whole church, denounced them as heretics.

During the week of 24-30 December 1837, twenty-eight members, including Martin Harris, were cut off from the church or excluded (excommunicated) by the High Council of Kirtland. It is not known if any of these church members were present at this meeting. According to John Smith, in a letter to his son, George A. Smith:

Quote

The spiritual condition at this time is gloomy also. I called the High Council together last week and laid before them the case of dissenters; 28 persons were, upon mature discussion, cut off from the Church; the leaders were Cyrus Smalling, Joseph Coe, Martin Harris, Luke S. Johnson[,] John R Boynton and W[arren]. W. Parrish. We have cut off between 40 and 50 from the Church since you left.

On 7 January 1838, Joseph Smith received a revelation for Edward Partridge instructing: "[L]et my people be aware of [dissenters] among them, lest the enemy have power over them; Awake my shepherds and warn my people! for behold the wolf cometh to destroy them,—receive him not."

I think the narrative you a proposing about Joseph Smith (that he was indifferent to the propagation of false doctrine in the Church) is not correct.

Quote

And again, lets keep in mind, we're talking about a child who might possibly, maybe, be taught that SSM is a legitimate secular marriage.

That's not the sole purpose of the policy.  This issue was explained by Elder Christofferson three years ago:

Quote

Speaking not only as an Apostle, but also as a husband, father, and grandfather, Elder Christofferson said the new policy originates out of compassion. “It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.”

For example, Elder Christofferson explained that a baby blessing in the Church places a child’s name on the records of the Church and triggers many things—including the assignment of home and visiting teachers and the expectation that the child will attend Primary and other Church-sponsored activities. “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.”

After the child reaches maturity, he or she can make an informed and conscious decision about their own Church membership, said Elder Christofferson. “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.”

...

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.”

...

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.

“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.”

...

Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, “but we know sin does not.”

“There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,” he said.

...

The new policy is “really two sides of the same coin,” Elder Christofferson said. “On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.”

In sum, there are quite a few rationales for the policy:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“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.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("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.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“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...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...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

You are not addressing these.

Quote

So the church is willing to trammel a child and refuse baptism because he might someday err in doctrine.

Again, yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.

It sure would be nice to dispense with the emotionalisms.  This "sins of the parents" stuff is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  There are all sorts of circumstances in which baptism may be appropriately delayed (or, in rare instances, denied).  The Lord will sort out such things in the end.  See D&C 137:8 ("Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom.").

Moreover, the 2015 policy changes were implemented by revelation.  It's rather difficult to characterize these changes as "anti-doctrinal/scriptural" given that fact (unless, of course, one prescribes to the "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" school of thought on this subject).

Then-Elder Russell M. Nelson characterized the Church's 2015 policy changes in January 2016 as being revelatory.  So the comparison between the Church's posture towards polygamy (which nobody seems to be bothered about) and its posture towards same-sex marriage (which you describe as a "tangible and explicit injustice") makes a lot of sense.  This is all the more evident given that Elder Christofferson expressly characterized the Church's position on the flatter as "a parallel with polygamy."

You continue to refuse to address this very important point.  I will continue to raise it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 13, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So this would apply to every child/parent relationship, correct?

I'm reading you to mean that if a parent is apostate on the subject of covenants then a child should not be baptized. This would apply whether the parent's apostasy regarding covenants included SSM, polygamy, adultery, a parent's church resignation, a parent leaving the church to officially join another church. So whether a parent believes and/or acts against covenants of baptism/confirmation, sealing/marriage, endowment, priesthood, garment wearing (  ), their child should not be baptized until they are an adult. Correct?

And this ideology only relates to apostasy relating to "covenants" and no other type of apostasy. Is that correct?

Yes D&C 83:4-5 applies to every child/parent relationship.

The key to this particular issue is the covenant that creates the covenant inheritance of the child: a) the sealing of parents; b) sealing of parents to children; c) children born in the covenant of their parents.

Apostasy on the point of covenants and breaking covenants are two different things. SSM and polygamy do apply to apostasy on the points of marriage. Adultery, resignation, etc. do not apply to apostasy but to sin, so while such a sinner may be subject to Church discipline, the policies covering apostasy to not apply. Of course, someone can be both apostate (handbook definition) and sinner (anyone’s definition), but the application of the policy about child ordinances is clearly applied only on the basis of the parents’ apostasy, not their sins.

I suppose that someone be an apostate because they persistently teach against baptism and endowments and so forth. But their children are not given maintenance or a covenant inheritance under those particular covenants, only under their parents’ relationship, whether that entails a marriage or not, a covenant or not, a social or Church covenant or not, or whether the relationship is a good one or not.

So, your proposal that a child should not be baptized due to the parent’s sins or apostasy on matters other than the marriage covenant is not a correct application of these principles, and reflects a misunderstanding of them.

Of course it doesn't require an understanding of or agreement with the Church's doctrine and covenants to dislike the policy; that is obviously done on other grounds.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think the difference is that JS was talking about erring in doctrine not advocating for sin.  If SSM really isn't condoned of God, if it really is a very serious sin, then those who support it are not just 'erring in doctrine'.  

 

 

I understand what you're saying but I was responding to Calm who stated that the main issue is because the person erred in doctrine and therefore would lead the child to err in doctrine. Because like I've said, a gay parent isn't going to teach a child to be gay and be in a SSM the same way a polygamist would create additional polygamists.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand what you're saying but I was responding to Calm who stated that the main issue is because the person erred in doctrine and therefore would lead the child to err in doctrine. Because like I've said, a gay parent isn't going to teach a child to be gay and be in a SSM the same way a polygamist would create additional polygamists.

I think the answer to that was valid though, in that a gay person is certainly going to teach their child that their marriage is valid and no sin, which can have just as much of a impact on future generations as a polygamist can (though probably not as many people in each generation.   ).

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with analytics that your analogy is quite flawed. I like the example of the pastor who was willing to see things from a new perspective. I think what Analytics is saying is that the "faithful perspective" is not new to Sam Young and Bill Reel, or many of us. We have vast experience living that POV so introducing us to a "faithful perspective" isn't really a new thing. Does that make sense. If Bill and Sam had never been faithful, and had never experienced leadership roles within the church, then you'd have a much better point. But they have. They know what it's like being "on the street" and having their decisions questioned/challenged. They've lived and experienced those things so when they critique they are coming at it from a POV of experience and knowledge. Admittedly, they don't know what it's like to be prophet or lead the entire church but the ward is essentially a microcosm. A bishop doesn't set church-wide policy, but he does set ward policy and is much more open to be criticized by people he knows.

So what are you even suggesting as the thought experiment? You want critics to offer suggestions so you can critique them? That happens here every day.

What would be interesting is if there were a way to take a person with a "faithful perspective" and help him see a new POV from the critics perspective. For the exercise to be useful, and for the analogy to have any semblance of relevance, a new perspective must be presented to the person. Again, I don't know what kind of simulation would allow for that kind of radical POV shift.

Maybe you could imagine a couple of scenarios, but I think for a different POV to sink in it often needs to move out of the theoretical realm  and into lived experience.

One can imagine many scenarios which might be educational, and many of them are encountered in real life -- real lile as it is lived by any of us each day, and for a lifetime.  However, sometimes actual experiences can be arranged and taken into account as a mode of training:

Recall the method used by Max B. Skousen (author of How to Pray and Stay Awake) in Los Angeles many years ago.  If I recall correctly, he got a group of stake presidents together, had them grow scruffy beards for a week, then buy and dress in old clothes from thrift stores, and then spend some time out on the street with the down and out, eating at soup kitchens, staying overnight at the Union Rescue Mission, etc., for the ultimate purpose of engendering within them a more immediate basis for understanding and compassion.  A mere thought experiment is not quite so realistic, even if it is helpful.

The other problem is that even someone as experienced as Max Skousen was not able to avoid his own later apostasy, and this has been true of LDS members and leaders since the founding of the LDS Church.  The notion that some people are above the fray has always been nonsense.  Everyone is vulnerable, regardless of personal experience and evanescent POV.  Indeed, smug self-satisfaction has always been a grave danger.

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

..........

Your son comes out as Gay. He now lives with his husband and has shared custody of his children with his former wife. Your grandchild is approaching baptism age and both his father and mother would like for him to be baptized, but he's not allowed as per policy. He's told that when he turns 18 and disavows his father's gay marriage, he can be baptized. But not to worry, there will not be any missed opportunities during those 10 years of non-baptism.............

You have a close friend from college who was married in the temple and has 5 children. Last year her husband had a revelation that he was supposed to practice plural marriage. Your friend tells you of the many ways he attempted to manipulate her into accepting plural marriage. He claimed it was revelation. He claimed that they would receive special blessings if they were faithful to this command from God, but conversely they would be destroyed if they didn't. He told her he had a vision that she would pass away of a sudden illness within the next couple of years and that by having a 2nd mother in the home the family would be prepared for her death and be able to survive. He introduces her to a woman God has chosen for him but your friend refuses to accept polygamy. Your friend then finds out her husband had already secretly had a spiritual marriage to the woman. You study Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy and see many similarities. The entire concept of polygamy now appears deceitful and abusive to you as you've experienced it through her eyes.

There are so many scenarios that could be imagined (and have been lived by others numerous times) that could alter a person's perspective when it moves from theoretical to lived experience. When a person is faced with the tangible and explicit injustice of certain policies, or the discrepancies in theology that destroys their trust in others, a person will really see from a different POV.

Every religion, philosophy, anti-religion, etc., has its own public and private face and "brand.".  Its own set of particular rules and boundaries, some not even explicitly stated.  Some of those characteristics are more malleable than others, and some respond more readily to outside pressure than others.  One can chart changes over time, and many a group may with time go through a remarkable metamorphosis.  For some, even "truth" (whatever that is) can become malleable, some groups becoming all things to all people, and in the process losing all distinctiveness, becoming a sort of bland nothing, at which point they may just wither away and die . . .

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Through his teachings a polygamist can make more polygamists.

A gay person does not teach someone else to be gay. So a parent in a SSM is not going to be creating more gays in SSM.

I think that assumes homosexual essentialism. As you know that's controversial even in the gay community. If you look at popular media you'll see that the trend, particularly among young stars, is to be undefined. This has two implications. First that for many people even if they are primarily gay or heterosexual they're open and willing to be in a spectrum of behaviors. Second that it happens after the move to legitimizing and mainstreaming homosexuality that there is that social effect leading people to engage in homosexual behaviors who are likely heterosexual. You see this in lots of public statements by people like Miley Cyrus, Kristen Stewart and many others.

Even accepting the notion of bisexuality was for years controversial in some homosexual circles. For some it was due to pushing a sexual essentialism perhaps to justify the attraction. For others it was for more political reasons. But it seems clear that we've now mainstreamed gender fluidity in many ways. The implication being that at least for many people this is a learned behavior.

Of course the idea that the Church could prevent this with this policy seems doomed to failure. This is a mainstream view even now in popular TV shows targeting the young such as Supergirl. Kids are exposed and hiding from the mainstream never works. So I think both sides in the debate - the brethren and their critics are problematic.

Which of course says nothing about the policy. I'm far from convinced this was the purpose of the policy. Even if it was there are almost certainly other aims as well.

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the answer to that was valid though, in that a gay person is certainly going to teach their child that their marriage is valid and no sin, which can have just as much of a impact on future generations as a polygamist can (though probably not as many people in each generation.   ).

I'm not convinced that's the purpose of the policy. However I'd just say that if this is one of the main goals, it's doomed. The problem is that society is preaching that gay marriage is valid at such a high level that'd it'd drown out the rest. Further when you look at polling on 20 somethings they overwhelmingly do consider it valid. Contrast this with say polygamy where society (including Mormon society) pushes completely the opposite direction.

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here are my thoughts on this:

First, I think there is a fairly significant difference between holding an erroneous belief and openly advocating it and encouraging others in the Church to accept it.

And the assumption is that every gay person in a SSM is openly advocating it and encouraging others in the church to accept it.

Second, not all heterodox viewpoints are created equal. Some points of doctrine are open to some fairly broad interpretation. Latter-day Saints hold all sorts of viewpoints about things like the scope of Noah's flood, evolution, and so on. I think about such things it's hard to claim there are orthodox/heterodox positions, largely because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to be able to definitively state the scope of the flood, or the role (or lack thereof) of evolution in the creative process and/or the development of man, and so on. 

In contrast, homosexual behavior being a grievous sin is not really open to "broad interpretation," nor is the incompatibility of same-sex marriage with discipleship and membership in the Church.  These things are really, really clear.  So people who falsely characterize these things as acceptable behavior by members of the Church are in demonstrably serious error.

It's grievous, not like those piddly little sins.

With the church's focus on family I would argue that a gay person being in a SSM could be more compatible with church teachings than a gay person NOT in a SSM, yet only one is considered an apostate. And lets be clear about what is being advocated; the legal right of gays to marry and enjoy all legal rights of a married couple in society. It does not require SSM in temples, or even performed by LDS clergy. It's the acceptance of federal law.

Third, notwithstanding point no. 2 above, there are some beliefs, as publicly taught to others, that are susceptible to testability and being found incompatible with maintaining good standing in the Church.  The Restored Gospel allows us a fair amount of flexibility of belief and conduct, but that flexibility is not unlimited. For example, Amasa Lyman, a prominent early leader of the Church, was excommunicated for repeatedly giving sermons "which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" and for his association with apostates (Godbeites). 

Again, in the case of SSM, it is assumed that a couple entering into the marriage is also publicly teaching others about why it's a good thing. I would agree with them if they did teach that, but you're assuming that all gays in SSM are vocal activists, which obviously isn't the case.

Fourth, we are repeatedly commanded to not preach or accept false doctrine:

• Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you: Deut. 4:2 . ( Deut. 12:32 ; Prov. 30:6 ; Rev. 22:18–19 . )
• How then comfort ye me in vain, seeing in your answers there remaineth falsehood? Job 21:34.
• Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad.  Ezek. 13:22.
• If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.  Gal. 1:9.
• But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.  2 Pet. 2:1.
• Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.  2 Nephi 28:9.
• Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.  2 Nephi 28:12.
• And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ.  Jac. 7:2.
• Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor.  Alma 1:16.
• That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.  Eph. 4:14.

Similarly, we are repeatedly commanded to not ignore apostasy:

• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

I guess Joseph Smith was wrong, then. The Methodists had it right. We should trammel on men for erring in doctrine.

Fifth, preaching of false doctrine is not a whoopsy daisy.  If continued in defiance of priesthood counsel, it amounts to apostasy.

Does everyone who gets married go out and actively teach about the greatness of marriage, or do most people simply get married and live their lives? Why do you think it would be different for SSM couples? You keep equating their marriage with "preaching false doctrine". I'll also note, that even if they share their opinion about SSM it is only a false doctrine if they claim it to be a doctrine. Maybe you're seeing SSM couples preaching it as doctrine. I'm not.

Sixth, to the extent holding or teaching heterodox views = preaching of false doctrine in continued defiance of priesthood counsel, that amounts to apostasy and requires disciplinary action.

Should everyone who is in defiance of priesthood counsel face church discipline? Every couple living out of wedlock? Every person who doesn't pay a full tithe, or keep the word of wisdom, or go home teaching ministering on a regular basis despite being by counseled by priesthood leaders to do so? Let's be honest, priesthood counsel is defied all the time, but because it's often by an act of omission instead of commission, it goes unnoticed. But you seem to be saying that everyone who defies priesthood should be disciplined.

I would challenge you to argue how "holding" a heterodox view = preaching of false doctrine. Or for that matter can you explain how being unorthoprax in a matter = preaching false doctrine. That seems to be what we're really talking about. If you get married in a SSM that is equivalent to preaching false doctrine.

Seventh, the notion that Joseph Smith was indifferent to the preaching of false doctrine is unsound.  A sizable number of dissenters were excommunicated during the Kirtland Era (see here, starting on page 10).  The dissension appears to have originated in "temporal" matters (predominantly the failing of the Kirtland Safety Society).  However, "temporal" and "spiritual" dissent appear to bleed into each other, not unlike the "political"- and/or "social justice"-flavored dissent that seems to be coming from folks like Dehlin, Kelly, Young, Colvin, etc.

From the above link:

I think the narrative you a proposing about Joseph Smith (that he was indifferent to the propagation of false doctrine in the Church) is not correct.

That's not the sole purpose of the policy.  This issue was explained by Elder Christofferson three years ago:

In sum, there are quite a few rationales for the policy:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“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.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("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.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“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...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...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

You are not addressing these.

I've addressed these numerous times on various threads. Do you really want me to answer them again? Really?

Again, yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.

I find this funny. I've seldom been accused of being emotional and unreasoned.

It sure would be nice to dispense with the emotionalisms.  This "sins of the parents" stuff is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  There are all sorts of circumstances in which baptism may be appropriately delayed (or, in rare instances, denied).  The Lord will sort out such things in the end.  See D&C 137:8 ("Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom.").

It would also be nice to dispense with the dismissiveness of this kind of attitude. If you think you are wholly rational and not emotional in your assessment, you are wrong. We are all a combination of both. I'd refer you to the elephant and rider metaphor.

Moreover, the 2015 policy changes were implemented by revelation.  It's rather difficult to characterize these changes as "anti-doctrinal/scriptural" given that fact (unless, of course, one prescribes to the "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" school of thought on this subject).

Yes, he did say that the policy, as approved by Pres. Monson, was "revelatory". I wonder if everything that is said to be "revelatory" is a direct "revelation" from God and I wonder how he would know for sure what Pres. Monson's experience was. Did Pres. Monson also call it revelatory, or a revelation? 

Then-Elder Russell M. Nelson characterized the Church's 2015 policy changes in January 2016 as being revelatory.  So the comparison between the Church's posture towards polygamy (which nobody seems to be bothered about) and its posture towards same-sex marriage (which you describe as a "tangible and explicit injustice") makes a lot of sense.  This is all the more evident given that Elder Christofferson expressly characterized the Church's position on the flatter as "a parallel with polygamy."

I've already addressed that

You continue to refuse to address this very important point.  I will continue to raise it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the answer to that was valid though, in that a gay person is certainly going to teach their child that their marriage is valid and no sin, which can have just as much of a impact on future generations as a polygamist can (though probably not as many people in each generation.   ).

Ok, but it's just a different argument. You were saying that my argument did answer your argument, which was different than yours. That's all I was saying.

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that assumes homosexual essentialism. As you know that's controversial even in the gay community. If you look at popular media you'll see that the trend, particularly among young stars, is to be undefined. This has two implications. First that for many people even if they are primarily gay or heterosexual they're open and willing to be in a spectrum of behaviors. Second that it happens after the move to legitimizing and mainstreaming homosexuality that there is that social effect leading people to engage in homosexual behaviors who are likely heterosexual. You see this in lots of public statements by people like Miley Cyrus, Kristen Stewart and many others.

Even accepting the notion of bisexuality was for years controversial in some homosexual circles. For some it was due to pushing a sexual essentialism perhaps to justify the attraction. For others it was for more political reasons. But it seems clear that we've now mainstreamed gender fluidity in many ways. The implication being that at least for many people this is a learned behavior.

Of course the idea that the Church could prevent this with this policy seems doomed to failure. This is a mainstream view even now in popular TV shows targeting the young such as Supergirl. Kids are exposed and hiding from the mainstream never works. So I think both sides in the debate - the brethren and their critics are problematic. (Which of course says nothing about whether the policy is right - there are other aspects to the policy than "creating more gays.")

I'm not convinced that's the purpose of the policy. However I'd just say that if this is one of the main goals, it's doomed. The problem is that society is preaching that gay marriage is valid at such a high level that'd it'd drown out the rest. Contrast this with say polygamy where society (including Mormon society) pushes completely the opposite direction.

 

It's true that I don't believe a person is taught to be gay. A person may experiment, but that behavior doesn't make them gay either. As you know, it's not binary gay/hetero. There is a vast spectrum of attraction and behavior. I don't know how many people who are merely experimenting are likely to marry a SS partner. I could be wrong and maybe you have evidence to the contrary, but I suspect the VAST majority of SSM couples are not experimenting, but rather are seeking committed, long term relationships with someone they love.

There will always be people who feel that having gay characters on TV is pushing a nefarious agenda, but others will claim that it is more accurately portraying the reality of the diverse spectrum of human experience.

I wonder how much society would "preach that gay marriage is valid" if they weren't trying to counteract religions claim that it is invalid. The church beats the drum that SSM is an abomination, so of course people are going to fight back against that. If people didn't feel such a need to defend their identity from church's and society at large I'm guessing the issue would die down. But yes, there would be married gay people. As  long as people want to fight against that reality, others will fight back. As long as there is discrimination and intolerance, people will fight back against it...as they should.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Here are my thoughts on this:

First, I think there is a fairly significant difference between holding an erroneous belief and openly advocating it and encouraging others in the Church to accept it.

And the assumption is that every gay person in a SSM is openly advocating it and encouraging others in the church to accept it.

That is not my assumption.

Quote

Second, not all heterodox viewpoints are created equal. Some points of doctrine are open to some fairly broad interpretation. Latter-day Saints hold all sorts of viewpoints about things like the scope of Noah's flood, evolution, and so on. I think about such things it's hard to claim there are orthodox/heterodox positions, largely because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to be able to definitively state the scope of the flood, or the role (or lack thereof) of evolution in the creative process and/or the development of man, and so on. 

In contrast, homosexual behavior being a grievous sin is not really open to "broad interpretation," nor is the incompatibility of same-sex marriage with discipleship and membership in the Church.  These things are really, really clear.  So people who falsely characterize these things as acceptable behavior by members of the Church are in demonstrably serious error.

It's grievous, not like those piddly little sins.

I assume you are being ironic here.

Quote

With the church's focus on family I would argue that a gay person being in a SSM could be more compatible with church teachings than a gay person NOT in a SSM, yet only one is considered an apostate.

Entering into a form of marriage incompatible with the doctrines of the Church is a form of apostasy.

Engaging in sexual conduct in violation of the Law of Chastity is a separate, but also serious, sin.

Quote

And lets be clear about what is being advocated;

Yes.  Let's.

Quote

the legal right of gays to marry and enjoy all legal rights of a married couple in society.  It does not require SSM in temples, or even performed by LDS clergy. It's the acceptance of federal law.

Malarky.  Nobody is "advocating" this because nobody needs to.  Same-sex marriage is a fait accompli.  It's a done deal.  The Church recognized this years ago as the law of the land and does not dispute it.

Quote

Third, notwithstanding point no. 2 above, there are some beliefs, as publicly taught to others, that are susceptible to testability and being found incompatible with maintaining good standing in the Church.  The Restored Gospel allows us a fair amount of flexibility of belief and conduct, but that flexibility is not unlimited. For example, Amasa Lyman, a prominent early leader of the Church, was excommunicated for repeatedly giving sermons "which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ" and for his association with apostates (Godbeites). 

Again, in the case of SSM, it is assumed that a couple entering into the marriage is also publicly teaching others about why it's a good thing.

Not necessarily.  In the case of same-sex marriage, a person has elected to engage in a form of apostasy.  Whether or not he/she is explicitly teaching/encouraging others regarding that form of apostasy does not erase the conduct itself.

Quote

Fourth, we are repeatedly commanded to not preach or accept false doctrine:

• ...

Similarly, we are repeatedly commanded to not ignore apostasy:

• ...

I guess Joseph Smith was wrong, then. The Methodists had it right. We should trammel on men for erring in doctrine.

Sarcasm and emotionalisms in lieu of substance.

Quote

Fifth, preaching of false doctrine is not a whoopsy daisy.  If continued in defiance of priesthood counsel, it amounts to apostasy.

Does everyone who gets married go out and actively teach about the greatness of marriage, or do most people simply get married and live their lives? Why do you think it would be different for SSM couples? You keep equating their marriage with "preaching false doctrine". I'll also note, that even if they share their opinion about SSM it is only a false doctrine if they claim it to be a doctrine. Maybe you're seeing SSM couples preaching it as doctrine. I'm not.

I previously quoted, and then summed up, Elder Christofferson's explanation for the policy.  Here are bits of the summary as to why the policy was necessary:

Quote

• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“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.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("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.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“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...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...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

If a member of the Church enters into a polygamous marriage, he is engaging in a form of apostasy and is demonstrating that to everyone who knows about it.  He doesn't need to publish a website advocating polygamy.  He is advocating polygamy by entering into it.

The same can be said about members of the Church who enter into same-sex marriage.  They of course have the legal right to do so, but exercising that right is incompatible with membership in the Church.

Quote

Sixth, to the extent holding or teaching heterodox views = preaching of false doctrine in continued defiance of priesthood counsel, that amounts to apostasy and requires disciplinary action.

Should everyone who is in defiance of priesthood counsel face church discipline?

No.  Some, yes, but not all.

To the extent someone is engaging in apostate behavior, a disciplinary council is mandatory.

Quote

Every couple living out of wedlock?

That is not apostasy.  It is a violation of the Law of Chastity.  Disciplinary action is left to the discretion of the local leaders.

Quote

Every person who doesn't pay a full tithe, or keep the word of wisdom, or go home teaching ministering on a regular basis despite being by counseled by priesthood leaders to do so?

Meh.  These aren't serious questions. 

Quote

Let's be honest, priesthood counsel is defied all the time, but because it's often by an act of omission instead of commission, it goes unnoticed.

I completely agree.

Quote

But you seem to be saying that everyone who defies priesthood should be disciplined.

I am saying nothing of the sort.  I am saying everyone who engages in apostasy should be disciplined.  Apostasy is defined in section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1:

Quote

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

A disciplinary council is mandatory for these forms of misconduct.

Quote

I would challenge you to argue how "holding" a heterodox view = preaching of false doctrine.

I decline the challenge.  I disagree that "holding" a heterodox view = preaching of false doctrine.

Quote

Or for that matter can you explain how being unorthoprax in a matter = preaching false doctrine.

No need.  Entering into same-sex marriage is a form of apostasy.  No need to argue about whether it constitutes "preaching false doctrine."

Quote

That seems to be what we're really talking about. If you get married in a SSM that is equivalent to preaching false doctrine.

No.  We're talking about apostasy, which is defined above.  Entering into same-sex marriage is a form of apostasy.  Preaching false doctrine, after having been counseled to stop by priesthood authorities, is a separate form of apostasy.

Is there overlap?  Can conduct be construed as a form of "preaching false doctrine?"   Dunno.  Not really invested in that issue.  No need to explore it.  

Quote

Again, yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.

I find this funny. I've seldom been accused of being emotional and unreasoned.

Again, your argument is an emotional, not a reasoned, one.

Quote

It sure would be nice to dispense with the emotionalisms.  This "sins of the parents" stuff is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  There are all sorts of circumstances in which baptism may be appropriately delayed (or, in rare instances, denied).  The Lord will sort out such things in the end.  See D&C 137:8 ("Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom.").

It would also be nice to dispense with the dismissiveness of this kind of attitude.

More emotionalisms.  In response to my rejection of previous emotionalisms.

Quote

If you think you are wholly rational and not emotional in your assessment, you are wrong. We are all a combination of both. I'd refer you to the elephant and rider metaphor.

I'll own that.  But in this discussion, my arguments are not based on emotion.  Yours are pretty much entirely based on emotion.

Quote

Moreover, the 2015 policy changes were implemented by revelation.  It's rather difficult to characterize these changes as "anti-doctrinal/scriptural" given that fact (unless, of course, one prescribes to the "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" school of thought on this subject).

Yes, he did say that the policy, as approved by Pres. Monson, was "revelatory".

Let's review, what Pres. Nelson said:

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.

...

This prophetic process was followed ... 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. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

"When the Lord inspired His prophet, 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."

Again, it is rather difficult to characterize these changes as you do ("anti-doctrinal/scriptural") given the foregoing remarks.  Unless, of course, one prescribes to the "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" school of thought on this subject.

Quote

I wonder if everything that is said to be "revelatory" is a direct "revelation" from God and I wonder how he would know for sure what Pres. Monson's experience was. Did Pres. Monson also call it revelatory, or a revelation? 

On this issue I am going with the unanimous voice of the First Presidency that the Quorum of the Twelve, and my own assessment.

The policy changes are difficult, to be sure.  I freely acknowledge that.  But they were also clearly necessary.

Quote

Then-Elder Russell M. Nelson characterized the Church's 2015 policy changes in January 2016 as being revelatory.  So the comparison between the Church's posture towards polygamy (which nobody seems to be bothered about) and its posture towards same-sex marriage (which you describe as a "tangible and explicit injustice") makes a lot of sense.  This is all the more evident given that Elder Christofferson expressly characterized the Church's position on the flatter as "a parallel with polygamy."

I've already addressed that

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 13, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So this would apply to every child/parent relationship, correct?

I'm reading you to mean that if a parent is apostate on the subject of covenants then a child should not be baptized. This would apply whether the parent's apostasy regarding covenants included SSM, polygamy, adultery, a parent's church resignation, a parent leaving the church to officially join another church. So whether a parent believes and/or acts against covenants of baptism/confirmation, sealing/marriage, endowment, priesthood, garment wearing (  ), their child should not be baptized until they are an adult. Correct?

And this ideology only relates to apostasy relating to "covenants" and no other type of apostasy. Is that correct?

Yes D&C 83:4-5 applies to every child/parent relationship.

The key to this particular issue is the covenant that creates the covenant inheritance of the child: a) the sealing of parents; b) sealing of parents to children; c) children born in the covenant of their parents.

Apostasy on the point of covenants and breaking covenants are two different things. SSM and polygamy do apply to apostasy on the points of marriage. Adultery, resignation, etc. do not apply to apostasy but to sin, so while such a sinner may be subject to Church discipline, the policies covering apostasy to not apply. Of course, someone can be both apostate (handbook definition) and sinner (anyone’s definition), but the application of the policy about child ordinances is clearly applied only on the basis of the parents’ apostasy, not their sins.

I suppose that someone be an apostate because they persistently teach against baptism and endowments and so forth. But their children are not given maintenance or a covenant inheritance under those particular covenants, only under their parents’ relationship, whether that entails a marriage or not, a covenant or not, a social or Church covenant or not, or whether the relationship is a good one or not.

So, your proposal that a child should not be baptized due to the parent’s sins or apostasy on matters other than the marriage covenant is not a correct application of these principles, and reflects a misunderstanding of them.

Of course it doesn't require an understanding of or agreement with the Church's doctrine and covenants to dislike the policy; that is obviously done on other grounds.

[clarkgoble]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A person may experiment, but that behavior doesn't make them gay either. As you know, it's not binary gay/hetero. There is a vast spectrum of attraction and behavior. I don't know how many people who are merely experimenting are likely to marry a SS partner. I could be wrong and maybe you have evidence to the contrary, but I suspect the VAST majority of SSM couples are not experimenting, but rather are seeking committed, long term relationships with someone they love.

More or less what I'm saying is that this gender essentialism, often cast as "most people are heterosexual or gay" is itself under sustained attack socially. So many share your view. Many, perhaps swiftly becoming the majority, of young people do not. To them even calling it "experimenting" is offensive. It's interesting since in many ways this is conceding to arguments that anti-gay movements in the 80's and 90's made. Which is why I think gender essentialism was so heavily pushed in the gay community in that era. Now homosexuality is mainstream yet the essentialism behind so many of the arguments are under attack. The people making these attacks will say that a committed long term relationship with someone you love simply isn't an issue something essential. Fluidity is becoming the new norm although I don't think we have trustworthy statistics on how widespread that is. 

Don't get me wrong, I rather suspect sexuality is more essentialist in many ways. But I also think humans are more fluid than many want to admit. Further even if attraction and gender identity are primarily genetic, I also suspect gene expression has social triggers. Twin studies certainly point in that direction.

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There will always be people who feel that having gay characters on TV is pushing a nefarious agenda, but others will claim that it is more accurately portraying the reality of the diverse spectrum of human experience.

Well I wasn't saying it was nefarious, but to people who don't share the view of such shows it definitely highlights conflicts with society. My point was much more that such shows drown out prior views whether conservative Christian or the type of gender essentialism that once was dominant in the LGBT community. Although you still have elements of gender essentialism persisting in such shows. The very idea of discovering or acknowledging one is gay as a trope or cliche is a feature of that gender essentialism. Now again you might agree with gender essentialism but I think it becoming clear that's under attack and presumably you'll see a shift in mainstream entertainment rather than just on more fringe shows.

Hollywood is an interesting mix of fringe social perceptions and a very small c conservatism. That gets manifest in shows and often you have a competition between trying to signal to their community that they validate social view while simultaneously fearing driving off viewers. As such you tend to get ham fisted expressions of social awareness a decade or so behind social changes. 

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder how much society would "preach that gay marriage is valid" if they weren't trying to counteract religions claim that it is invalid.

Hard to say since if there weren't religious claims that it were invalid everyone would accept it, wouldn't they? So it seems almost tautologous.

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If people didn't feel such a need to defend their identity from church's and society at large I'm guessing the issue would die down. But yes, there would be married gay people. As  long as people want to fight against that reality, others will fight back. As long as there is discrimination and intolerance, people will fight back against it...as they should.

As an issue I think you're right. But my point is more that the quest for gay marriage is wrapped up in a certain approach to the issues more characteristic of the 80's and 90's. Even the shift in some religious people, such as in the "conservative case for gay marriage" tend to assume gender essentialism and the importance of marriage. Yet we see in secular societies that marriage becomes less and less significant. Throw in gender fluidity as a dominant view over gender essentialism and you'll see a huge shift socially. Elements of this are already in place. Something like ⅓ of couples plan to have no children at all. Of the remainder most want only one. At that stage many of the structural social reasons for marriage start disappearing. Some remain such as certain legal and tax rights which gays have fought for over the decades. We can't neglect those. But in the broader society I think we'll see a shift to relatively short term monogamous relationships untethered to heterosexuality or homosexuality and presumably the rise of the mainstreaming of gender performance fluidity. i.e. instead of a kind of gender essentialism behind the current trans rhetoric where one might be essentially male trapped in a female body you'll see more movement. 

Of course I don't know for sure. You've seen such things in popular culture before - notably the 70's punk rock and glam rock movements. But that was in certain ways more fringe than what we're seeing today. My guess is that once religion becomes such a minority, the opposition and bigotry becomes much more marginalized, that people will find things not going where they expect.

Edited December 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is not my assumption.

I assume you are being ironic here.

Darn. I was trying to sneak one by you

Entering into a form of marriage incompatible with the doctrines of the Church is a form of apostasy.

Engaging in sexual conduct in violation of the Law of Chastity is a separate, but also serious, sin.

Yes.  Let's.

Malarky.  Nobody is "advocating" this because nobody needs to.  Same-sex marriage is a fait accompli.  It's a done deal.  The Church recognized this years ago as the law of the land and does not dispute it.

No one needs to argue against it, yet they still do. They really should stop. Don't you agree?

Not necessarily.  In the case of same-sex marriage, a person has elected to engage in a form of apostasy.  Whether or not he/she is explicitly teaching/encouraging others regarding that form of apostasy does not erase the conduct itself.

Sarcasm in lieu of substance.

Sorry, I didn't realize referencing the Joseph Smith quote was unsubstantial. You quoted the scriptures to show how JS was wrong in his statement. That's cool. I've got no problem with it.

I previously quoted, and then summed up, Elder Christofferson's explanation for the policy.  Here are bits of the summary as to why the policy was necessary:

If a member of the Church enters into a polygamous marriage, he is engaging in a form of apostasy and is demonstrating that to everyone who knows about it.  He doesn't need to publish a website advocating polygamy.  He is advocating polygamy by entering into it.

OK- this is the one thing I actually wanted to respond to. A reasoned person my expect consistency in this approach, mainly that any person who engages in sin, whether it be apostasy, some other grievous sin, or one of the little inconsequential sins, he is an advocate of that sin to everyone who knows about that sin. So every adulterer is an advocate of adultery because he entered into the relationship. Essentially, to do= to advocate. If I don't pay my tithing and others know I don't pay my tithing then I am advocating that people not pay their tithing. If a person attends another church, is that person advocating the teachings of the other church?

People engage in sin on a daily basis without publicly advocating anything, just as gay people get married and don't publicly advocate anything. Doing is not the same as advocating for that action. Have you ever done something you are opposed to? Would you say you advocated for that thing when you did it?

Yours is not a well-reasoned response. It comes across as an emotional need to avoid. Darn. There's that emotionalism again.

The same can be said about members of the Church who enter into same-sex marriage.  They of course have the legal right to do so, but exercising that right is incompatible with membership in the Church.

True. The church does not want gay (SSM) members of the church.

No.  Some, yes, but not all.

To the extent someone is engaging in apostate behavior, a disciplinary council is mandatory.

That is not apostasy.  It is a violation of the Law of Chastity.  Disciplinary action is left to the discretion of the local leaders.

Except that he violated his baptismal, endowment, and sealing covenants.

Meh.  These aren't serious questions. 

You stated that people who disregard priesthood counsel should be disciplined. Did you really mean to say that only certain people who disregard certain types of priesthood counsel on certain subjects should be disciplined?

I completely agree.

I am saying nothing of the sort.  I am saying everyone who engages in apostasy should be disciplined.  Apostasy is defined in section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1:

A disciplinary council is mandatory for these forms of misconduct.

I decline the challenge.  I disagree that "holding" a heterodox view = preaching of false doctrine.

No need.  Entering into same-sex marriage is a form of apostasy.  No need to argue about whether it constitutes "preaching false doctrine."

What about people who were already in a SSM prior to the church declaring it to be apostasy? They didn't enter into it knowing it's apostasy. Do they get grandfathered in as non-apostates or does the policy act as some kind of ex post facto law where they are guilty of a crime that wasn't a crime at the time they did it?

No.  We're talking about apostasy, which is defined above.  Entering into same-sex marriage is a form of apostasy.  Preaching false doctrine, after having been counseled to stop by priesthood authorities, is a separate form of apostasy.

Yep, it's been apostasy for 3 years. Before that it was only a grievous sin.

Is there overlap?  Can conduct be construed as a form of "preaching false doctrine?"   Dunno.  Not really invested in that issue.  No need to explore it.  

Again, your argument is an emotional, not a reasoned, one.

Dismissiveness instead of a reasoned argument. Seriously, are you incapable of recognizing that your argument is also emotional? I wouldn't say it has NO reason to it. I wouldn't be that rude. But you must be able to see how your emotional need to sustain, obey, believe drives your reason.

More emotionalisms.  In response to my rejection of previous emotionalisms.

So dismissive and lacking self-awareness. Whatever. I suspect I'll see "emotionalism" from you at least 10 more times today. It's the soup of the day.

I'll own that.  But in this discussion, my arguments are not based on emotion.  Yours are pretty much entirely based on emotion.

Nope.

Just because you declare something to be so doesn't mean it is.

Let's review, what Pres. Nelson said:

"When the Lord inspired His prophet, 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."

Again, it is rather difficult to characterize these changes as you do ("anti-doctrinal/scriptural") given the foregoing remarks.  Unless, of course, one prescribes to the "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" school of thought on this subject.

On this issue I am going with the unanimous voice of the First Presidency that the Quorum of the Twelve, and my own assessment.

I haven't heard any of the Q15 vocally oppose the policy, but neither have I heard them speak about it with unanimous voice. I think you're assuming that out of the emotional need you have for them all to be in agreement. If you have statements from all of them I'd be interested in reading their unanimous voice.

The policy changes are difficult, to be sure.  I freely acknowledge that.  But they were also clearly necessary.

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes D&C 83:4-5 applies to every child/parent relationship.

The key to this particular issue is the covenant that creates the covenant inheritance of the child: a) the sealing of parents; b) sealing of parents to children; c) children born in the covenant of their parents.

Apostasy on the point of covenants and breaking covenants are two different things. SSM and polygamy do apply to apostasy on the points of marriage. Adultery, resignation, etc. do not apply to apostasy but to sin, so while such a sinner may be subject to Church discipline, the policies covering apostasy to not apply. Of course, someone can be both apostate (handbook definition) and sinner (anyone’s definition), but the application of the policy about child ordinances is clearly applied only on the basis of the parents’ apostasy, not their sins.

I suppose that someone be an apostate because they persistently teach against baptism and endowments and so forth. But their children are not given maintenance or a covenant inheritance under those particular covenants, only under their parents’ relationship, whether that entails a marriage or not, a covenant or not, a social or Church covenant or not, or whether the relationship is a good one or not.

So, your proposal that a child should not be baptized due to the parent’s sins or apostasy on matters other than the marriage covenant is not a correct application of these principles, and reflects a misunderstanding of them.

Of course it doesn't require an understanding of or agreement with the Church's doctrine and covenants to dislike the policy; that is obviously done on other grounds.

OK.

Are there examples of apostasy on the issue of covenants that would also apply and thus restrict the child of the apostate from being baptized? For example, if a member of the church chooses to officially join another church and is baptized in that church. The church defines that as apostasy. It seems to be related to a misuse of the baptismal covenant. Would that person's children be forbidden baptism?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not convinced that's the purpose of the policy. However I'd just say that if this is one of the main goals, it's doomed. The problem is that society is preaching that gay marriage is valid at such a high level that'd it'd drown out the rest. Further when you look at polling on 20 somethings they overwhelmingly do consider it valid. Contrast this with say polygamy where society (including Mormon society) pushes completely the opposite direction.

I don't believe that's the purpose of the policy either.  

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK.

Are there examples of apostasy on the issue of covenants that would also apply and thus restrict the child of the apostate from being baptized? For example, if a member of the church chooses to officially join another church and is baptized in that church. The church defines that as apostasy. It seems to be related to a misuse of the baptismal covenant. Would that person's children be forbidden baptism?

The handbook definition of apostasy in this regard is simply formally joining another church and advocating its teachings. Baptism isn’t mentioned, because it isn’t relevant. While the Church member indeed breaks his baptismal covenant, his apostasy is not in that but in joining another church and advocating its teachings. Members break their baptismal covenants all the time; that is not apostasy as defined in the handbook. As I already pointed out the applicable covenant vis-à-vis children is their parents' marriage or other social relationship and the resulting custodial relationship for the children, not the parents' baptism, religious affiliation or alignment with Church worthiness standards.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Malarky.  Nobody is "advocating" this because nobody needs to.  Same-sex marriage is a fait accompli.  It's a done deal.  The Church recognized this years ago as the law of the land and does not dispute it.

No one needs to argue against it, yet they still do. They really should stop. Don't you agree?

Again, nobody is arguing against the legality of same-sex marriage.  

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I previously quoted, and then summed up, Elder Christofferson's explanation for the policy.  Here are bits of the summary as to why the policy was necessary:

If a member of the Church enters into a polygamous marriage, he is engaging in a form of apostasy and is demonstrating that to everyone who knows about it.  He doesn't need to publish a website advocating polygamy.  He is advocating polygamy by entering into it.

OK- this is the one thing I actually wanted to respond to. A reasoned person my expect consistency in this approach, mainly that any person who engages in sin, whether it be apostasy, some other grievous sin, or one of the little inconsequential sins, he is an advocate of that sin to everyone who knows about that sin.

You keep pushing the advocacy angle.  I'm not.  Entering into a same-sex marriage alone is a form of apostasy.  

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The same can be said about members of the Church who enter into same-sex marriage.  They of course have the legal right to do so, but exercising that right is incompatible with membership in the Church.

True. The church does not want gay (SSM) members of the church.

That's not true.  The Church wants everyone in the Church.  But membership is conditioned on making and keeping covenants, on obedience to the commandments of God.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No.  Some, yes, but not all.

To the extent someone is engaging in apostate behavior, a disciplinary council is mandatory.

That is not apostasy.  It is a violation of the Law of Chastity.  Disciplinary action is left to the discretion of the local leaders.

Except that he violated his baptismal, endowment, and sealing covenants.

Yes.  But whether a disciplinary council is necessary is left to the discretion of the local leaders.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Meh.  These aren't serious questions. 

You stated that people who disregard priesthood counsel should be disciplined. Did you really mean to say that only certain people who disregard certain types of priesthood counsel on certain subjects should be disciplined?

Yes.  

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I completely agree.

I am saying nothing of the sort.  I am saying everyone who engages in apostasy should be disciplined.  Apostasy is defined in section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1:

A disciplinary council is mandatory for these forms of misconduct.

I decline the challenge.  I disagree that "holding" a heterodox view = preaching of false doctrine.

No need.  Entering into same-sex marriage is a form of apostasy.  No need to argue about whether it constitutes "preaching false doctrine."

What about people who were already in a SSM prior to the church declaring it to be apostasy?

I would assume 6.7.3 would still apply.  I'll leave that to those in authority.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They didn't enter into it knowing it's apostasy.

Right.  They were babes in the woods. 

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do they get grandfathered in as non-apostates or does the policy act as some kind of ex post facto law where they are guilty of a crime that wasn't a crime at the time they did it?

I don't know.  I think the number of such cases is vanishingly small, so I've never given it much thought.  Plus I lack stewardship and authority over such matters, so I don't feel it deserves much thought.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is there overlap?  Can conduct be construed as a form of "preaching false doctrine?"   Dunno.  Not really invested in that issue.  No need to explore it.  

Again, your argument is an emotional, not a reasoned, one.

Dismissiveness instead of a reasoned argument. Seriously, are you incapable of recognizing that your argument is also emotional?

I don't think my argument is emotional.  If there is an emotional component, it's fairly de minimis.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wouldn't say it has NO reason to it. I wouldn't be that rude. But you must be able to see how your emotional need to sustain, obey, believe drives your reason.

Meh.  You're just mindreading.  I've said nothing about my "emotional need to sustain, obey."  I've made no argument predicated on such contrivances.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll own that.  But in this discussion, my arguments are not based on emotion.  Yours are pretty much entirely based on emotion.

Nope.

Yep.

"I think most hurt comes from the perceived callousness of leaders in addressing this issue."

"You and the c hurch are welcome to hold your opinion about how appropriate the discrimination is. No one can stop you. But neither can you stop the disgust and betrayal people feel because of that discrimination."

"JS seems to be saying that we should not trammel on people for their beliefs."

"So the church is willing to trammel a child and refuse baptism because he might someday err in doctrine."

"The church does not want gay (SSM) members of the church."

These are intended to provoke an emotional response, not a reasoned one.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just because you declare something to be so doesn't mean it is.

I agree.  But your constant refrains about the Church "trammeling" children, and comparable rhetoric, are appeals to emotion.  Nothing but.

I'm not doing that.  

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Let's review, what Pres. Nelson said:

"When the Lord inspired His prophet, 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."

Again, it is rather difficult to characterize these changes as you do ("anti-doctrinal/scriptural") given the foregoing remarks.  Unless, of course, one prescribes to the "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" school of thought on this subject.

On this issue I am going with the unanimous voice of the First Presidency that the Quorum of the Twelve, and my own assessment.

I haven't heard any of the Q15 vocally oppose the policy, but neither have I heard them speak about it with unanimous voice.

Hence the implied "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" notion.

I get it.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you're assuming that out of the emotional need you have for them all to be in agreement.

And even more emotion-based arguments from you.  

I'm not speaking based on an "emotional need."  I'm speaking based on the public remarks made by Pres. Nelson nearly three years ago.

Here it is again (emphasis added):

Quote

This prophetic process was followed ... 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. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

I also infer that the entirety of the First Presidency was on board.  Not from emotion, but because of this:

Quote

Unanimity is the ideal for all these decision processes because of the importance of unity in the Church: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). The three presiding quorums over the whole Church are of equal authority within their own spheres (D&C 107:22-26), but their decisions are of "the same power or validity" only when made "by the unanimous voice" of the quorum (D&C 107:27). Many important decisions take shape over what seem like long periods because achieving unanimity is highly valued by the quorums.

I think that's a safe assumption.  Much safer than the implied "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" relied upon by some.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you have statements from all of them I'd be interested in reading their unanimous voice.

I sense a bit of special pleading going on here.  What's next?  Notarized signatures from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?  Sworn deposition testimony?  How far down the field can the goalposts be pushed?

Pres. Nelson's remarks above were given while he was acting formally in his capacity as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.  During an official Church function.  Being broadcast to the entire world.

Pres. Nelson's public remarks are sufficient for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ouagadougou]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Well then, don't do that.

And yes the Bishop does have more important things to do. And less important things. Presumably it is a moderately important thing he makes time for.

Don't talk about or share historical facts publically that might cast the church in a negative light?  For a church that claims to be the ONLY true church on earth, I think it makes them (leaders) look insecure and desperate when they have to worry about what members are posting on their social media accounts or blogs, especially if the criticism is true.  Criticism, IMO, can be a powerful tool for any institution to help it and its leaders grow.

IMO, you are only really free to express your true beliefs in the church publically (without any repercussions), as long as they align with what the church wants; I think the overarching theme is, follow the leaders...and let them do the thinking for you. 

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

 

  

Edited December 13, 2018 by Ouagadougou