Policies on Same Gender Marriage remain unchanged

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Actually, in Handbook 1, the terms you mention here are dealt with in two different sections:

I know. That's why I described it the way I did: changing it from being treated as straight-up apostasy to being involved in an inappropriate relationship. 

 

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Section 6.7.2 identifies when a disciplinary council MAY be necessary.  Within that there is a subsection titled Serious Transgression.  Per that subsection, serious transgressions include adultery, fornication, and homosexual relations (among other things). Section 6.7.3 identifies when a disciplinary council is MANDATORY.  Within section 6.7.3 is the section defining apostasy.  That’s where same-gender marriage currently is listed.

I'm aware of that, but let's not sugar coat it. A "serious transgression" is defined in the handbook as being "a deliberate and major offense against morality."  

And the "among other things" which you omitted include such transgressions as attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, and many others. Now, I can think of situations where things like theft and some of the other sins listed in that section may not mandate church discipline in every instance (depending on various factors), but it seems to me that some of them are pretty much always going to be a problem.

 

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

So, knowing the handbook, the language in the news release seems to imply that the intent is to move gay marriage from the mandatory discipline category to the possible discipline category (speaking of formal disciplinary councils).

Sure, but let's be honest here - it isn't like someone who is involved in a same sex marriage is going to be considered a member in good standing. The church will treat them the same way they treat cohabiting opposite sex couples. Such relationships are considered immoral and, if never changed, may ultimately result in church discipline. I suppose if they never make a stink or try to hold themselves out as 'married gay Mormons' or whatnot, local leaders may likely allow them to continue in their inactivity but remain on the rolls of the church - after all, there is always a possibility that they may repent. Perhaps that is for the best.

 

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Would those be the critics who argued in favor of reversing this policy for over three years before the Lord told the prophet to reverse it?

Which policy? The one regarding SSM or the one regarding children of those involved in a SSM? Because, while I know there are some who opposed both, I remember there being much more sympathy for one of those policies being reversed than the other. 

 

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I see apostasy as a term better reserved for an active, intentional opposition to the Gospel, not just something someone would do even if the Gospel or Church didn't exist.

I think my personal view of apostasy is perhaps just a little more broad than your own. I agree that active, intentional opposition to the gospel should be considered apostasy. But I think that deliberately and persistently refusing to follow the gospel, even after being counseled to change, can amount to apostasy as well. 

I'm not talking about people who constantly struggle with keeping church standards like paying tithing, or people who have non-traditional views on esoteric points of doctrine. But if someone willfully / intentionally refuses to follow core gospel teachings, even after they have been counseled by local authorities to do so, then apostasy may very well be the correct designation for someone in that situation. 

 

Quote

This modification allows leaders to focus on what is the most motivating reason someone participates in SSM, imo.  If there is no intent to make a public statement against the Church, there is no need imo to have discussions about their possible issues with the Church, for example.  Otoh, if part of the reasoning of marriage is to show opposition to the Church's view of homosexual behaviour and relationships, then it makes sense if there is interaction with church leaders to have that as part of the discussion.

So if I were to take a second wife, not because I'm interested in making a public statement against the church, but merely because I wanted to, there would be no need for my Bishop to have a discussion with me about my possible issues with the church? I tend to think that my Bishop (or Stake President) would have an obligation to call me to repentance, and if I refused to follow their guidance and persisted in keeping my second marriage then it seems like I could properly be considered an apostate at that point. 

 

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm aware of that, but let's not sugar coat it. A "serious transgression" is defined in the handbook as being "a deliberate and major offense against morality."

Agreed.  I was simply responding to your question when you asked me what I thought was going to change.  What I thought (and still think) is going to change is the moving of same-gender marriage from the apostasy definition and mandatory church discipline to the serious transgression section and possible church discipline.

46 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And the "among other things" which you omitted include such transgressions as attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, and many others. Now, I can think of situations where things like theft and some of the other sins listed in that section may not mandate church discipline in every instance (depending on various factors), but it seems to me that some of them are pretty much always going to be a problem.

I intentionally left out attempted murder, forcible rape, and sexual abuse because I know many people get upset to see those things placed in the same list with gay marriage.  I was trying not to raise another controversial issue that could derail the thread.

46 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sure, but let's be honest here - it isn't like someone who is involved in a same sex marriage is going to be considered a member in good standing. The church will treat them the same way they treat cohabiting opposite sex couples. Such relationships are considered immoral and, if never changed, may ultimately result in church discipline. I suppose if they never make a stink or try to hold themselves out as 'married gay Mormons' or whatnot, local leaders may likely allow them to continue in their inactivity but remain on the rolls of the church - after all, there is always a possibility that they may repent. Perhaps that is for the best.

Likely true in a majority of wards but I have heard of bishops that are comfortable with active gay married couples participating in their wards without the threat of discipline.

46 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Which policy? The one regarding SSM or the one regarding children of those involved in a SSM? Because, while I know there are some who opposed both, I remember there being much more sympathy for one of those policies being reversed than the other. 

I agree that more sympathy was given to the children who are innocent in regard to their parents marriage but I still am aware of many (myself included) who felt that deeming gay marriage as apostasy was not appropriate.

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  I was simply responding to your question when you asked me what I thought was going to change.  What I thought (and still think) is going to change is the moving of same-gender marriage from the apostasy definition and mandatory church discipline to the serious transgression section and possible church discipline.

I think we are in agreement on that point - though I suspect we may differ in our estimation of how likely it is that church discipline will be administered when it gets moved to the 'possible' category. 

 

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I intentionally left out attempted murder, forcible rape, and sexual abuse because I know many people get upset to see those things placed in the same list with gay marriage.  I was trying not to raise another controversial issue that could derail the thread.

Fair enough. It's your thread after all, and this is already kind of a tangent.

 

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Likely true in a majority of wards but I have heard of bishops that are comfortable with active gay married couples participating in their wards without the threat of discipline.

Perhaps this is another reason why it is taking so long for the changes to be implemented. A policy manual exists, at least to some extent, to help ensure that everyone is on the same page. So maybe the next revision will include additional clarifying information on how or to what extent one can participate in church while simultaneously being involved in a same sex marriage - even if it's just to state that they can participate to the same extent as anyone else who is, shall we say, living in sin. 

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

So you are standing by calling me a liar after I’ve shown you that you have misunderstood my words and are claiming that I said something I didn’t actually say?  Nice. 

I am not convinced I misunderstood and find your explanation for what you supposedly did mean flimsy.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not convinced I misunderstood and find your explanation for what you supposedly did mean flimsy.

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills.  And I'll work on avoiding future dialogue with you as I prefer to discuss things with people who can stay respectful and intellectually honest.

Edited August 23, 2019 by rockpond

[The Nehor]

Just now, rockpond said:

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills.  And I'll work on avoiding future dialogue with you as I prefer to discuss things with people who can stay respectful and intellectually honest.

Good luck with that.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

y. But I think that deliberately and persistently refusing to follow the gospel, even after being counseled to change, can amount to apostasy as well. 

My personal definition of apostasy is probably pretty wide as I would agree with the above and even take it further with unintentional but persistent walking away from the Gospel; what I tend to keep pretty narrow is my public use of the term to avoid confusion because of the variation in how I see others use it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

there would be no need for my Bishop to have a discussion with me about my possible issues with the church?

I think you misunderstood me, there would need to be an interview anytime a significant problem arises, I am talking about what is focused on in that discussion. If a person does something as an intentional rebellion against the Church, that complicated things imo and needs to be dealt with along with the transgression itself. I think identifying apostasy helps target those types of behaviours....behaviours that have an additional layer of rebellion to them in most cases imo. (An analogy would be a kid that unintentionally broke curfew because they lost track of time vs one that watched the clock to ensure they broke it in protest, maybe even held back so they could walk through the door exactly one minute past....unless the parents deal with what causes the rebellion instead of just grounding for the curfew breaking, no repentance is likely going to take place while if the parents focus on why the rebellion took place, the issue of the curfew breaking may resolve without action because the underlying problem was solved).

[marineland]

On 8/21/2019 at 11:33 AM, rockpond said:

The news release stated:  "Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline."

Why is same-sex marriage regarded as a serious transgression instead of a sin?

[Stargazer]

35 minutes ago, marineland said:

Why is same-sex marriage regarded as a serious transgression instead of a sin?

The word "sin" is basically equivalent to the word "transgression."  In this context, they mean the same thing.

It's easy to get hung up on semantics, and some people make a hobby out of it (and that includes me sometimes).  You'll find the word "sin" sometimes being distinguished from "transgression" by regarding the former as intentional and knowing, whereas the latter as non-intentional or done in ignorance.  For example, if you did not know that stealing was one of those things God had commanded people not to do, and you stole something, then it's a transgression, not a sin.  Or if you took something because you didn't know it belonged to someone else (his lunch sack looked identical to yours).  But if you did know that stealing was against God's law, and you stole anyway, then you sinned.  But regardless of what you call it, they're the same thing, i.e. a violation of God's law.

You'll no doubt wonder why the adjective "serious" is in there.  Well, the reason for this is that a "serious transgression" is something bad enough that you should confess it to your ecclesiastical leader and start out on the path to repentance.  But there might be something that is not as serious, such as using the name of God in vain in a momentary lapse while angry, which you would work on repenting at your own initiative.

I hope I'm not overcomplicating this.  I often do.

 

[rockpond]

13 hours ago, marineland said:

Why is same-sex marriage regarded as a serious transgression instead of a sin?

“Sin” is not a category in the handbook.  I believe sin and transgression are synonyms in this context. 

[Damien the Leper]

On 8/21/2019 at 8:33 AM, rockpond said:

I was looking up something in Handbook 1 yesterday when I noticed that we now have a new revision:  May 2019 (online version).

At the time of the First Presidency announcement that the policies regarding same gender marriage would be reversed (4 April 2019) we were on the March 2019 revision.  And we were on that revision for at least a month or two after the announcement.  

So I decided to check out the new wording for the two sections that would have been impacted by that April 4th announcement.  But, they are still the same as before:

 

The news release stated:  "Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline."

Section 6.7.3.4 still defines same-gender marriage as apostasy and still requires church discipline in such instances.

 

The news release also stated:  "At the direction of the First Presidency, President Oaks shared that effective immediately, children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender may be baptized without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents give permission for the baptism and understand both the doctrine that a baptized child will be taught and the covenants he or she will be expected to make."

Section 16.13 has not been changed and still prohibits blessing children of same-gender couples.  And the section still requires First Presidency approval to baptize, confirm, ordain, or recommend for missionary service the children of these couples.

 

As a side note, the original (circa 5 Nov 2015) language that does not limit the policy to children whose custodial parents are in the same-gender relationship has remained the published policy with a link to the First Presidency letter that added that qualification.

 

I'm curious why they would make the announcement that this policy would be removed and then, nearly four months later and AFTER a revision of the handbook, still have all of the old language remain.

I stated in another thread that members should not have any expectations of the leadership. This stands true here. A public statement should not be expected to be upheld. The leadership has no obligation to keep promises or to uphold its intent to make certain changes.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I stated in another thread that members should not have any expectations of the leadership. This stands true here. A public statement should not be expected to be upheld. The leadership has no obligation to keep promises or to uphold its intent to make certain changes.

Is this a joke?

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I stated in another thread that members should not have any expectations of the leadership. This stands true here. A public statement should not be expected to be upheld. The leadership has no obligation to keep promises or to uphold its intent to make certain changes.

How does the church, then, have a productive relationship if it is not reciprocal at some level? The body of Christ does work together, right? What is the point if it doesn't?

[Damien the Leper]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is this a joke?

No, it's not.

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How does the church, then, have a productive relationship if it is not reciprocal at some level? The body of Christ does work together, right? What is the point if it doesn't?

The leadership is going to do what it wants because it doesn't answer to the rest of the members. 14.8 million people could resign their membership and leave the church and it would still survive.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

No, it's not.

The leadership is going to do what it wants because it doesn't answer to the rest of the members. 14.8 million people could resign their membership and leave the church and it would still survive.

Ah... so you’re saying that legally they could keep all the church assets with no obligation to members.  Yes, I think that’s true. 

But, spiritually, they have an obligation to be honest. 

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

No, it's not.

The leadership is going to do what it wants because it doesn't answer to the rest of the members. 14.8 million people could resign their membership and leave the church and it would still survive.

Well sure. Even President Nelson himself could, per his authority in the corporation sole, defy absolutely everyone else in the body of believers and do what he wants. But I think that isn't really the point of a church, is it? I would hope to see the leadership do its best to be one of integrity and good stewardship.

[Damien the Leper]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, spiritually, they have an obligation to be honest. 

So you say. Can you provide a spiritually or physically contractual agreement where they are bound to this? As I said, they don't answer to the underlings. They will have to answer to God but even then that will not include the the underlings and their grievances. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

So you say. Can you provide a spiritually or physically contractual agreement where they are bound to this? As I said, they don't answer to the underlings. They will have to answer to God but even then that will not include the the underlings and their grievances. 

13th Article of Faith.  Also, the covenants those men have made. 

These are not dishonest, deceitful men.  I believe that they’ll make the handbook updates they announced, I’m just surprised that they didn’t get them into this latest revision. 

[USU78]

On 8/22/2019 at 4:57 PM, The Nehor said:

Liar.

You libeled the prophet by suggesting that he lied about countless meeting discussing it and instead he just found it in the handbook one day and changed it. You did this because he correctly said that the handbook previously said something else which it did and does not imply there were no meetings or revelations. So you were making him an offender for a word. Dead on accurate.

Now you are backtracking and saying you were quibbling about his verbiage. Kind of pathetic really.

 

Nehor is on a small break.  ~Mods

And another one bites the dust.

[marineland]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You'll find the word "sin" sometimes being distinguished from "transgression" by regarding the former as intentional and knowing, whereas the latter as non-intentional or done in ignorance

Does this mean the LDS Church referred to same-sex marriage as a transgression instead
of a sin because it views the participants are non-intentionally getting married or getting
married in ignorance?

 

[marineland]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

“Sin” is not a category in the handbook.  I believe sin and transgression are synonyms in this context. 

Thanks.  Your signature (?) said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply concerned that the 
ongoing conflicts between religious liberty and LGBT rights are poisoning our 
civil discourse... and preventing diverse Americans of good will from living 
together in respect and peace."  Official Statement, 13 May 2019, 
MormonNewsroom.org

How are LGBT rights poisoning our civil discourse?

[bluebell]

I got an official communication yesterday that parts of both handbooks had been updated. 

Was this topic one of the updated sections?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Thanks.  Your signature (?) said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply concerned that the 
ongoing conflicts between religious liberty and LGBT rights are poisoning our 
civil discourse... and preventing diverse Americans of good will from living 
together in respect and peace."  Official Statement, 13 May 2019, 
MormonNewsroom.org

How are LGBT rights poisoning our civil discourse?

I don't think they are.  I posted the two quotes in my signature to illustrate a problem I see in our discourse within the church.