Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Neither was was I.

I offered what I though was an important addition to your comment. You said you agreed in part...

Yes, I agreed in part and said so which led you to accusing me of being intolerant of other people's views and expecting everyone to agree with me.

Seems like an odd response. Thus my question.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I find this statement a bit odd. Seems to me that there's a very simple one right way. Follow the prophet. Trust the Lord. Don't criticize, complain, etc., Have faith. Understanding is not requisite to these things.

I was referring to people...there are many different people with different ideas and views as we have seen in this thread. I think sometimes we are as blind men each sharing out truths about the elephant...each of us right, and each wrong the same time.

I was trying to be agreeable. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

I was referring to people...there are many different people with different ideas and views as we have seen in this thread. I think sometimes we are as blind men each sharing out truths about the elephant...each of us right, and each wrong the same time.

I was trying to be agreeable. :)

 

Sure. But an implication (intentional or not) that one person's view is just as valid as another's is inaccurate. While there is a messy area of seeing through a glass darkly for anyone, there are also some pretty obvious -- you're not even facing the right direction in the first place to even look through the glass. Turn around -- sort of things (a whole lot of them with this particular issue).

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Sure. But an implication (intentional or not) that one person's view is just as valid as another's is inaccurate. While there is a messy area of seeing through a glass darkly for anyone, there are also some pretty obvious -- you're not even facing the right direction in the first place to even look through the glass. Turn around -- sort of things (a whole lot of them with this particular issue).

That not what I meant. I meant that we as board members could be talking about different issues. My approach to John Dehlin (and people like him) would be different than my approach to someone who is struggling like we have seen in this thread.

I was acknowledging Estradlings point that perhaps in some scenarios his approach was right. In other scenarios my approach would be right. There's not one right answer for everyone.

That's why his answer next to call me intolerant was and is so baffling.

Do you think that someone lIke StrawberryFields has the same end game and motivation as someone like John Dehlin? Should they be treated the same? I don't think so. That was my point.

Edited November 9, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest MormonGator]

Do you think that someone lIke StrawberryFields has the same end game and motivation as someone like John Dehlin? Should they be treated the same? I don't think so. That was my point.

 Exactly.

 

I'd commet on this but LitPar stole my thunder! 

Edited November 9, 2015 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

Do you think that someone lIke StrawberryFields has the same end game and motivation as someone like John Dehlin? Should they be treated the same? I don't think so. That was my point.

 

Yes they should be treated the same. They should be treated with love and respect, but firmly taught the truth, with a call to humility, faith, and trust in the Lord's servants.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Yes they should be treated the same. They should be treated with love and respect, but firmly taught the truth, with a call to humility, faith, and trust in the Lord's servants.

 

I really like that idea in theory, but we both know that is not how things happen in practice.  Take the recent situation with Byron...those who thought he was an anti-mormon were ready to run him out on a rail, and others who thought he was sincere in heart were willing to try a more patient loving approach.  I'm not saying either of those were wrong.  In fact, I think depending on the circumstances both can be the right response.  Of course, we don't have to let anti's come around and cause discord, and of course, we should be kind to those who are genuinely seeking.  In the scenario with the new policy, there are those who are just looking for an excuse to rail against the church.  We will naturally treat them differently than people who are honestly struggling.  

[Guest]

SUPPOSE:

 

A heterosexual couple with children are all active and faithful.  As does happen all too often, the parents decide to leave the Church, and they cannot leave it alone.  They start actively speaking out against the Church.

 

QUESTION:

 

If one or more of those children decide that they miss the Church and wish to be baptized -- and by some under some tremendously hypothetical circumstance, the parents agree to let them be baptized, what would be the policy on those children?

 

I believe the fundamental driver of this recent policy is that to remain in a gay marriage is a clear outward sign that they are unrepentant, and therefore, apostate. 

 

SUPPOSE:

 

A wife decides to have affairs (plural).  She talks to the Bishop.  The Bishop counsels her that 1) her membership may be in jeopardy and 2) to tell her husband about the affairs (per Church policy).  The wife objects saying that such a disclosure would surely cause a divorce.  The shame, the disappointment, the broken family, etc., the damage to the family, the suffering of the Children would be irreparable!!!

 

QUESTION:

 

Does anyone who is against this gay-marriage policy want to say that the Church policy should be to allow her to not tell her family (as long as she fully repents)?  What if she doesn't repent?

 

COMMENTARY:

I believe so many who are struggling with this issue are all considering that "It is the Church that is causing this suffering."

(honest, not rhetorical, question): Does it occur to you that the true source of the suffering is the couple who refuses to repent?  The real source of the division and the intolerance is a couple who says, "I want to be joined to a faith that I disagree with so I can get a whole lot of people to change to my way of thinking."

 

The purpose of true religion is for God to tell man how to behave.  Only false religions seek counsel from the people to decide how God should want to be worshipped.  Which way do you face?  The apostles face from the Lord to the People of this world--not the other way around.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

I really like that idea in theory, but we both know that is not how things happen in practice.  Take the recent situation with Byron...those who thought he was an anti-mormon were ready to run him out on a rail, and others who thought he was sincere in heart were willing to try a more patient loving approach.  I'm not saying either of those were wrong.  In fact, I think depending on the circumstances both can be the right response.  Of course, we don't have to let anti's come around and cause discord, and of course, we should be kind to those who are genuinely seeking.  In the scenario with the new policy, there are those who are just looking for an excuse to rail against the church.  We will naturally treat them differently than people who are honestly struggling.  

 

I think this is, interestingly, a core difference in the way you and I think. (Maybe not...but....)

 

Any struggling with the gospel stems from the same source. The Spirit does not lead us to discord, trauma, hurt, pain, fear, etc.  Those feelings come from another source. There is only one solution to any level of discord with the gospel, the church, the policies, principles, and doctrines therein. Whether those struggles are full on apostasy and railing against the church, or mere confusion and feelings of honest hurt, the path is the same. Humility, faith, trust, prayer, humility, service, fasting, humility, patience, long-suffering, humility. Oh...and did I mention humility?

 

What I see, for some reason, is that for some it seems to be acceptable to preach humility to those who are in outright, open, obvious rebellion against the church, but if someone's struggle is more subtle then preaching humility to them is suddenly offensive.

 

For me it's the same advice across the board. Put off the natural man. Humble yourself. Follow the Lord's servants. Put your trust where your trust should be, and not in the philosophies of man (including yourself). Service. Obedience. Honor. Commitment. Charity.

[AnnieCarvalho]

I'm curious what your definition of humility is?

 

Mine would be that humility is not only a modest opinion of your own importance, but also a quality of being courteously respectful of others.

 

That courteous respect of others, whether or not I agree with them, is something I've seen over and over in the lives of the Prophets. I think it's something we should look to emulate in our own lives.

 

It's not always easy, but a good goal.

[Guest]

From a gospel perspective, humility has nothing to do with our relationship or attitude with each other.  It is the simple recognition that God is above us all and the attitude of acknowledging His hand in our lives.

 

Our "humble" attitude toward one another (from this perspective) is to recognize that in God's eyes, we're all about the same.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm curious what your definition of humility is?

 

My definition is irrelevant.

 

What the church teaches is relevant.

 

"To make meek and teachable, or the condition of being meek and teachable. Humility includes recognizing our dependence upon God and desiring to submit to his will."

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/humble-humility?lang=eng

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm curious what your definition of humility is?

 

Mine would be that humility is not only a modest opinion of your own importance, but also a quality of being courteously respectful of others.

 

That courteous respect of others, whether or not I agree with them, is something I've seen over and over in the lives of the Prophets. I think it's something we should look to emulate in our own lives.

 

It's not always easy, but a good goal.

 Annie-You seem like such a sweet person! It's wonderful to see. I agree with so much of what you say. 

One thing to remember though- don't confuse "humility" with "agreement". I disagree strongly with several people here, but still like and respect them greatly. 

[The Folk Prophet]

...a quality of being courteously respectful of others.

 

That courteous respect of others, whether or not I agree with them, is something I've seen over and over in the lives of the Prophets. I think it's something we should look to emulate in our own lives.

 

As to this, humility would lead to this, but I don't think it's the core defining component of humility.

 

There is, for example, a time and a place to pick up your sword and contend with the encroaching Lamanite hoard, inflicting death and destruction upon them. I'm betting the Lamanite you just ran through didn't consider your response very courteous or respectful.

 

So when do we lay down our arms and let the Lamanites kill us and when do we pick up the sword and fight back?

 

The key? The Lord's will by way of guidance from His chosen servants and the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Following these is the essence of what humility truly means. And sometimes it means acting in a manner that another might consider offensive, rude, discourteous, or even murderous.

[Guest MormonGator]

As to this, humility would lead to this, but I don't think it's the core defining component of humility.

 

There is, for example, a time and a place to pick up your sword and contend with the encroaching Lamanite hoard, inflicting death and destruction upon them. I'm betting the Lamanite you just ran through didn't consider your response very courteous or respectful.

 

So when do we lay down our arms and let the Lamanites kill us and when do we pick up the sword and fight back?

 

The key? The Lord's will by way of guidance from His chosen servants and the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Following these is the essence of what humility truly means. And sometimes it means acting in a manner that another might consider offensive, rude, discourteous, or even murderous.

Agree totally. The world seems to focus on compassion (which is wonderful) more than righteous anger. Though I don't think the Nephites had to enjoy killing their enemies, even in righteous anger.  

[The Folk Prophet]

Agree totally. The world seems to focus on compassion (which is wonderful) more than righteous anger. Though I don't think the Nephites had to enjoy killing their enemies, even in righteous anger.  

 

Yeah. I don't think there's a righteous way to enjoy killing someone.

[AnnieCarvalho]

 Annie-You seem like such a sweet person! It's wonderful to see. I agree with so much of what you say. 

One thing to remember though- don't confuse "humility" with "agreement". I disagree strongly with several people here, but still like and respect them greatly. 

 

Thanks Gator.

I'm not confused  :)

I also strongly disagree with some here, but still like and respect them.

 

I just wondered what people's definition of humility was.

I understand it says at lds.org: 

"To make meek and teachable, or the condition of being meek and teachable, etc."

 

I guess my next question would be what is the definition of "meek and teachable?"

 

Using FP's example, I went to lds.org and found this.

 

I love the last example which I left in the cut/paste.

 

 

MEEK, MEEKNESS

See also Broken Heart; Humble, Humility; Patience

Godfearing, righteous, humble, teachable, and patient under suffering. The meek are willing to follow gospel teachings.

• Power and influence of the priesthood can be maintained by gentleness and meekness:D&C 121:41;

[Guest MormonGator]

 

Thanks Gator.

I'm not confused   :)

I also strongly disagree with some here, but still like and respect them.

 

I just wondered what people's definition of humility was.

I understand it says at lds.org: 

"To make meek and teachable, or the condition of being meek and teachable, etc."

 

I guess my next question would be what is the definition of "meek and teachable?"

 

Using FP's example, I went to lds.org and found this.

 

I love the last example which I left in the cut/paste.

 

 

MEEK, MEEKNESS

See also Broken Heart; Humble, Humility; Patience

Godfearing, righteous, humble, teachable, and patient under suffering. The meek are willing to follow gospel teachings.

• Power and influence of the priesthood can be maintained by gentleness and meekness:D&C 121:41;

 

  Oh I agree. You were not confused at all.. Some reading this might have been. My apologies. 

[AnnieCarvalho]

Gentleness and meekness.

I love those words.

I see them in President Monson every time he speaks.

 

I saw them in the video recording by Elder Christofferson explaining the recent decision.

The calmness, the gentleness and meekness, washed over me like a healing flood.

 

The demeanor and words of those great men are full of firm resolve, but also gentleness and meekness.

Gentleness and Meekness can be very powerful and influential.

[Guest MormonGator]

Gentleness and meekness.

I love those words.

I see them in President Monson every time he speaks.

 

I saw them in the video recording by Elder Christofferson explaining the recent decision.

The calmness, the gentleness and meekness, washed over me like a healing flood.

 

The demeanor and words of those great men are full of firm resolve, but also gentleness and meekness.

Gentleness and Meekness can be very powerful and influential.

He really is great, isn't he? 

[bytor2112]

I have heard some say this will cause a mass exodus from the church? I would think that any that left were searching for a reason already.

 

I am thankful for many things in life, among those is that I do not have same sex attraction. I think President Kimball was absolutely correct when he stated that it could only be overcome by a "deep and abiding repentance." I do have empathy for those who are afflicted with it and truly are in a battle to overcome it. 

 

But, while I have empathy, I also have resolve to sustain our Living Prophet and am thankful for clarity in a world of moral relativism. 

 

Who is on the Lord's side? I am.....

 

 Who's on the Lord's side? Who?

Now is the time to show.

We ask it fearlessly:

Who's on the Lord's side? Who?

We wage no common war,

Cope with no common foe.

The enemy's awake;

Who's on the Lord's side? Who? 

[Vort]

Those who tend to be against the gay marriage policy tend to be for the gun policy, and vice-versa.

 

You failed adequately to emphasize the mere tendency of this, e.g. by putting the word "tend" in boldface or italics (or preferably both) and/or making it a larger font size in addition to the underlining. So your point is not taken.

[Vort]

 

Just in case anyone is getting hung up on the word 'apostate':

 

a·pos·tate

NOUN

a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

synonyms: dissenter · defector · deserter · traitor · backslider 

ADJECTIVE

abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.

 

The LDS usage of the word "apostate" is unusual, covering the wider usage of the word but often more closely approximating the usage of the word "heretic" in other Christian churches.

• Someone who accepts non-orthodox and false ideas and teaches them as gospel doctrine is a heretic. Think ancient Gnostics, or modern-day Latter-day Saints who claim to be believing members but who advocate for homosexual marriage in the Church. However, in the LDS Church, we call such people apostates.

   

• Someone who rejects the claims of authenticity and authority of a gospel institution is an apostate. This sense is also used among Latter-day Saints; we don't really distinguish in terminology between heresy and apostasy.

[Vort]

 

This policy is exclusionary sorry, I guess they aren't saying never but they are saying disavow your family unit or you can't be a member of the club. Sorry I have a hard time breaking up a family unit gay or straight.

 

Well this is not true at all. Let's pretend that I am living a gay lifestyle with my partner, missionaries knock on the door, My partner and I accept the gospel in its entirety. We stop our homosexual practices, sleep in separate rooms, repent and disavow our past lives. Am I excluded from baptism because of my address and who I live with? No I am not. I am baptized and accepted into full fellowship

 

So you have made your loyalties exceedingly clear. You might want to consider closely what you are stating above. Beware of pride; it will be your downfall.

[Vort]

 

I can't imagine that church authority would object to a priesthood holder giving the child a name and blessing if the parents desired it. It just won't go on the official records of the church. The child won't have a membership number.  Really who is going to stop a righteous grandfather from giving his newborn grandchild a blessing? 

 

I don't believe the church is. No church authority has the power to interfere with a righteous priesthood holder blessing his family in any circumstance he desires. Don't mischaracterize this policy. 

 

Half my kids were named and blessed at home. there is more than one venue to perform this ordinance.  I never said blessing of homosexuals child could be done at church. I wouldn't recommend it even if it weren't now in the handbook. . 

 

Having your child's naming blessing given at home strikes me as next to useless. Naming a child is not a saving ordinance; it is done almost purely as a way to introduce the child to the ward family. (It also functions as an easy excuse for creating a membership record for the child, but that is hardly the reason for the blessing.)

 

I have always made sure my children are blessed in a meeting of whatever ward we are attending -- with grandfathers and uncles (and home teachers, and leaders) participating as able. We are members of a larger "ward family", and this description is perfectly valid, even if not exactly scriptural. My children have depended greatly on their "ward family" for their teaching and upbringing, just as I did without realizing it.

 

To me, it makes perfect sense that a child being raised by homosexual "parents" ought not be given an introduction into a ward family that (1) it's likely s/he will not be an ongoing part of and (2) will surely be taught doctrines that show that his homosexual "parents" are living in a manner fundamentally and irreconcilably different from what the Lord teaches. Such children are, of course, welcome to come to Church, attend classes, and enjoy the meetings, as are all sincere people. But membership questions, or even baby blessings, are another matter entirely.