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


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

In Lehi's vision of the tree of life he saw many who had grasped the iron rod and partaken of the fruit...  Then they look around and see the great and spacious building.  They see the people of that building laughing, at them mocking them, scorning them, and they feel ashamed that they grasped the rod and partook of the fruit... and they fall away and are lost.

 

Predictions of a mass exodus from the church over this action might turn out to be true or they might not be.  But wither people leave or not has no standing on if the Church is being lead by God or not.  At some point the church will be sifted.  The wheat and the tares will be separated that could very well take the shape of a mass exodus..  It is my opinion that what we end up being (wheat or tare) is directly related to how firm we are in holding on to the rod (aka the word of God)

Your mention of Lehi's vision led me to this Ensign talk. It was edifying for me and I enjoyed it.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/10/lehis-dream-holding-fast-to-the-rod?lang=eng

Edited by jerome1232
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thread mentioned 2 Nephi 28 (related to All is Well in Zion -- but entirely missing the point, imo), and my bishop also shared with me this scripture from it today. I think it interesting as related to some of the reactions seen:

 

...and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;

 

For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

 

(vs 19 and 20)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making some really huge assumptions here based on guesses and prejudice (your distaste for anyone who disagrees with you is clear from your "squealing" comment).  

 
Speaking of making assumptions...
 
First let me be clear that I couldn't possibly care less whether or not anyone agrees with me, nor do I have a "distaste" for anyone who does. I am in agreement with the Brethren; if anyone disagrees with me they should take it up with them.
 
As for my observations, they are just that---observations. Assumptions and prejudice aside, I believe they accurately portray the situation. 
"Squealing" is an apt description of how most of the detractors responded to the policy announcement. Rather than wait for an explanation or clarification from official channels, they immediately threw a conniption fit and began name calling. "Bigoted", "Hateful", "Abhorrent", "Despicable", "Disgusting", "Spiteful", and "Vile" were just a few of the adjectives used by Mormons (the faithful kind I suppose) and non-Mormons alike in the news articles and videos which I have read and seen.
 
So there are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned because it does effect them or someone they love personally.
 
I acknowledged in my post that there may be some who are genuinely concerned for the children. But I maintain that the vast majority of detractors are only using the kids as sympathetic  props. What they are really concerned about is that the Church has upset the LGBT crusade; a crusade that demands acceptance and tolerates no dissent. 
 
Why didn't anyone make a fuss about this policy for polygamist children?  Easy, because polygamists have their own church and have no desire to attend our "fallen" meetings anyway.
 
Just an assumption on your part. I personally know of a case where a woman left a polygamous marriage and took her children with her. She moved into the home of her sister who was an active member of the Church, and she began regular attendance. After a long court battle her husband was awarded joint custody, and despite the fact that the children (by that time) wanted to be baptized they were not allowed to do so until they turned 18. No doubt there have been similar cases elsewhere.
 
Further we all know members of this forum who have children who are gay.  What if they have children?  The concern for these members is genuine and born of love not rebellion.
 
Repudiating a unanimous decision by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is a decision born of rebellion not love.
 
I believe the Lord would want us to put a loving arm around (figuratively) around those who are struggling with this and try to help them.
 
I'm not opposed to helping those who are "struggling" with the decision. But I haven't been talking about those who are "struggling". My comments have been directed towards those who have come out in open rebellion. And I have little regard for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I remain frustrated and baffled by the practice of church members who castigate other members for "judging" anyone outside the church but then never hesitate themselves for even an instant to judge those inside the church. I've never seen the likes of it anywhere else and it's just as off-putting now as when I was investigating the church. You will embrace anyone living life at distinct odds with the gospel but won't extend the same kindness to fellow members of the church.

 

 

 

We always tend to hurt the ones closest to us. This is a common behavior within any group of people not just Mormons. For example domestic violence - Husbands/Fathers will beat their own wives and children but they wouldn't dare offend their neighbors or friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

My goodness you guys!  I can't keep up.   :)  For the most part, this has been a very interesting and thought-provoking thread.   I don't have time to respond to everything I would like to, but I did want to make a few comments...

 

LP, your post is beautiful.

But please don't make the mistake of brushing off the children of polygamists. Because despite what your experience has seen, I personally have seen the problem of these kids trying to join the church (I have relatives).

It is a problem and yes, I find those upset about the gay community when they spent literally years ignoring the same policy for others hypocrites to some extent.

 

Backroads, thank you for the compliment (much appreciated!) and for the correction (much needed).  You are absolutely right that I should not judge a whole group of people by a few....this is the very thing I've been trying to tell others not to do, and then I fell into the same trap.  

 

 

I happened to speak with my stake president about this policy and he expressed a great amount of grace on how and why the policy was implemented. The news headlines did no justice to what he communicated, nor the guidance he said he had been given.

If you are struggling with this, I plead with you to pray with an open mind, and if needed ask those you trust within the church for better understanding.

 

IMO, this is the best post in this thread!  Thanks so much Crypto!

 

I have to say that yjacket speaks for himself in saying that he refuses to associate at all with gay people. For me, like with any group, it depends on the person. 

 

Well said, Eowyn.  I feel the same way. 

 

Tonight, as part of homework for a Book of Mormon class, I stumbled upon this quote from Elder Holland (I'll share it in a moment) that so clearly sums up what I feel about all of this.  I support the Brethren.  And I understand that there are those that are complaining about this policy that are just looking for a reason to be angry at the church.  I don't care about them..."when an elephant walks through town all the little dogs bark."  

 

My concern then is two-fold.  I worry (as I have said) for those who are hurt by this and I worry about those who have a "this is a wheat and tares thing".  I don't think that is the attitude the Lord would want from us.  I think he would want us to do all we can to help others, like our own Strawberry Fields, to grapple with this and stay faithful.

 

Well, how about if I just share the Elder Holland's quote, he says it better than I can.  

 

This link is to an excerpt of his talk The Grandeur of God

https://content.byui.edu/items/1d9b5080-5789-4e81-8247-e6ee2cd13205/1/?attachment.uuid=d9dcc5c0-4ab7-4b01-a686-1ea6a65983ed&attachment.stream=true

 

And here is the text (though I cut off the text before the video portion ends.)  You can, of course, find the whole talk online.

 

There, in the midst of grand vision of humankind which heaven opened to his view, Enoch, observing both the blessings and challenges of mortality, turns his gaze toward the Father and is stunned to see Him weeping. He says in wonder and amazement to this most powerful Being in the universe: “How is it that thou canst weep? … Thou art just [and] merciful and kind forever; … Peace … is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?”

Looking out on the events of almost any day, God replies: “Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands. … gave unto them … [a] commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood. … Wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?” 10 

That single, riveting scene does more to teach the true nature of God than any theological treatise could ever convey. It also helps us understand much more emphatically that vivid moment in the Book of Mormon allegory of the olive tree, when after digging and dunging, watering and weeding, trimming, pruning, transplanting, and grafting, the great Lord of the vineyard throws down his spade and his pruning shears and weeps, crying out to any who would listen, “What could have done more for my vineyard?” 11 

What an indelible image of God’s engagement in our lives! What anguish in parent when His children do not choose Him nor “the gospel of God” He sent! 12  How easy to love someone who so singularly loves us!

 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

On a lighter/humerous note . . .

 

A typo in my email to my missionary son in Africa caused him a bit of concern.  I had wondered what (if anything) they had heard about all this, so I tried to give him a brief summation.

 

He said: 

 

you should really specify same sex marriage... "anyone in a marriage is considered apostate" that sentence caused some alarm... but I skimmed the article on lds.org, and I understand what they are trying to say.

 

 

Proof-reading is important.   :)  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

The advantage of being awake in the middle of the night is that I get to dominate the conversation...for a moment...LOL.

 

Seriously though...StrawberryFields, I just read a bog post I found really helpful, perhaps it will be helpful to you too.  

 

http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2015/11/waiting-on-lord-same-sex-adoption.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern then is two-fold.  I worry (as I have said) for those who are hurt by this and I worry about those who have a "this is a wheat and tares thing".  I don't think that is the attitude the Lord would want from us.  I think he would want us to do all we can to help others, like our own Strawberry Fields, to grapple with this and stay faithful.

 

The thing is those who in truth want to be faithful should not take comments that are not directed to them as a personal attacks.  Many comments have been directed to those already in full on rebellion due to this and other issues..  And calling them to repentance and pointing out the error and the consequences of their choices IS the Christ-like thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

The thing is those who in truth want to be faithful should not take comments that are not directed to them as a personal attacks.  Many comments have been directed to those already in full on rebellion due to this and other issues..  And calling them to repentance and pointing out the error and the consequences of their choices IS the Christ-like thing to do.

 

There are too many different issues, too many different people, and too many different attitudes going on here to pinpoint any one way as THE right way.  Each of us will have to decide for ourselves whether our behavior and attitude in this matter (or any) is Christ-like or not.  I stand by what I said.  There may be some circumstances where I would agree with you.  But I think the cases you speak of are the people (the ones in open rebellion) I tend to ignore.  There's nothing I can do to help the "John Dehlin" types, but maybe I can help someone like, StrawberryFields, who is sincerely questioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are too many different issues, too many different people, and too many different attitudes going on here to pinpoint any one way as THE right way.  Each of us will have to decide for ourselves whether our behavior and attitude in this matter (or any) is Christ-like or not.  I stand by what I said.  There may be some circumstances where I would agree with you.  But I think the cases you speak of are the people (the ones in open rebellion) I tend to ignore.  There's nothing I can do to help the "John Dehlin" types, but maybe I can help someone like, StrawberryFields, who is sincerely questioning.

 

You say we each have to decide for ourselves if our behavior and attitudes are Christ-like in this matter and I agree...  But I only posted quoting you because you posted that were other were doing it wrong and needed to stop.  You seem to have a hard time accepting people that are have different ideas then you, while saying in effect everyone needs to accept you no matter how different your ideas are from theirs.  Christ-like acceptance the differences needs to go both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

You say we each have to decide for ourselves if our behavior and attitudes are Christ-like in this matter and I agree...  But I only posted quoting you because you posted that were other were doing it wrong and needed to stop.  You seem to have a hard time accepting people that are have different ideas then you, while saying in effect everyone needs to accept you no matter how different your ideas are from theirs.  Christ-like acceptance the differences needs to go both ways.

 

Well, Estradling, The thing is those who in truth want to be faithful should not take comments that are not directed to them as a personal attacks. 

 

My response to you above in #204 was accepting that there was truth in what you said.  But that wasn't good enough for you.  I also thanked Backroads in post #200 for pointing out that I was being (unintentionally) hypocritical.  Also not good enough for you apparently. 

Christ-like acceptance needs to go both ways.  Yes. 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Estradling, The thing is those who in truth want to be faithful should not take comments that are not directed to them as a personal attacks. 

 

My response to you above in #204 was accepting that there was truth in what you said.  But that wasn't good enough for you.  I also thanked Backroads in post #200 for pointing out that I was being (unintentionally) hypocritical.  Also not good enough for you apparently. 

Christ-like acceptance needs to go both ways.  Yes. 

 

 

Indeed it was and all my posts have been my best attempts to apply Christ-like love.   Even when those I am trying to work with mistake my intentions.  I have been called angry, hateful, mean, stubborn (not by you necessary) but that does not change what my intentions really are nor does it stop me from trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Indeed it was and all my posts have been my best attempts to apply Christ-like love.   Even when those I am trying to work with mistake my intentions.  I have been called angry, hateful, mean, stubborn (not by you necessary) but that does not change what my intentions really are nor does it stop me from trying.

 

In case you didn't notice, I "liked" one of your posts.  I don't agree with everything you said, but I did agree with that post.

Edtied to add:  I don't know what you are referring to when you said, "Indeed it was..."  What was what?

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Being liked doesn't change why I do things either

 

Are you being intentionally disagreeable?  I wasn't referring to "liking" you as a person.  "Like" meant that I agreed with you on that point because you were talking about people calling you hateful.  

 

What is your point with all this? I lost it somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets recap then...  You made the statement (I will simplify greatly) that people should not do X because it might hurt other people.

 

I though a great addition to that idea would be for people to exercise their agency to not take offense or hurt from people who aren't actually addressing them but addressing other related circumstances.

 

Apparently you didn't agree that it would be a good addition and you've been misunderstanding everything I have said since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Lets recap then...  You made the statement (I will simplify greatly) that people should not do X because it might hurt other people.

 

I though a great addition to that idea would be for people to exercise their agency to not take offense or hurt from people who aren't actually addressing them but addressing other related circumstances.

 

Apparently you didn't agree that it would be a good addition and you've been misunderstanding everything I have said since then.

 

LOL, unbelievable.  This is not how I understood our conversation at all.

 

Where did you get the idea that I didn't think your addition as asserted here was correct?  I didn't say anything like that.  

 

Here's my recap:  You quoted me.  I responded accepting that there was some truth in what you said.  

 

Your response to that was to accuse me of not willing to see other points of view.  I called you on that.  

 

Then you started talking about how people misunderstand you and call you hateful etc.  From that I surmised that YOU were the one who was taking offense where none was intended (ironic, I know) so I reminded you that I had agreed with one of your previous comments.  

 

But in your opinion this is all about me not understanding you?  You are right, I don't understand and you obviously haven't understood me either.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 At some point the church will be sifted.  The wheat and the tares will be separated that could very well take the shape of a mass exodus..  It is my opinion that what we end up being (wheat or tare) is directly related to how firm we are in holding on to the rod (aka the word of God)

Yes, and I imagine there will be many self-righteous people who are gobsmacked to find out they've been tossed out with the tares! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, unbelievable.  This is not how I understood our conversation at all.

 

Where did you get the idea that I didn't think your addition as asserted here was correct?  I didn't say anything like that.  

 

Here's my recap:  You quoted me.  I responded accepting that there was some truth in what you said.  

 

Your response to that was to accuse me of not willing to see other points of view.  I called you on that.  

 

Then you started talking about how people misunderstand you and call you hateful etc.  From that I surmised that YOU were the one who was taking offense where none was intended (ironic, I know) so I reminded you that I had agreed with one of your previous comments.  

 

But in your opinion this is all about me not understanding you?  You are right, I don't understand and you obviously haven't understood me either.  

 

 

You said some truth... as related to calling people like "John Dehlin" being tares...  Which completely miss the point, because it was not the point I was even remotely trying to make.  Agreeing with something I did not mean is not an agreement or understanding.

 

Christ suffered more pain and more agony then anyone (bar-none)...  For everyone of us is he is the example we are to emulate.  How much pain we suffered offers no out to following Christ.  Everyone of us Offends Christ daily, hourly, by the minute, by our sins, which caused his suffering.  His example is to not take offense even though we caused him pain.  For those that sin in ignorance he completely lets it go.  For those that know better he forbears allowing repentance.

 

That is the example we are to take when some one give us offense.  Anything less will not hold.  If you want to help someone who is suffering from others offensiveness, it is the only sure and long-term fix. You can try to band-aid it by trying to alter everyone else to not give offense but that will be like trying to drain the ocean with a eyedropper.  Plus the simple fact that some of these "offensive" people are trying to follow Christ as best they know how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

You said some truth...

So let me see if I understand you...all those things you said about me not being tolerant of views other than my own....all that was because I didn't agree with you, right away, 100%?

That makes ME intolerant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me see if I understand you...all those things you said about me not being tolerant of views other than my own....all that was because I didn't agree with you, right away, 100%?

That makes ME intolerant?

 

Are you being intentionally disagreeable? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are too many different issues, too many different people, and too many different attitudes going on here to pinpoint any one way as THE right way.  

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.

 

Neither was was I.

 

I offered what I though was an important addition to your comment.  You said you agreed in part but the part you agreed to wasn't and any way what I said.  Which implies you disagreed with what said.  While in the very same post you pronounce that we should allow everyone to follow Christ. Which I do agree with but find it to be a bit hypocritical for you do say in the same post you told me I was wrong except where you had your non-existent agreement with me.

 

Then in my latest post I rephrase what I meant... And you completely ignore it to continue stirring up things...  I am done.  I will let what I posted stand 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share