Fether

Church policy change on same sex marriage

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, bytebear said:

What does “temporal well-being” even mean, from a clinical standpoint?  Wealthier?  More educated?  More likely to have a greater number of sexual partners?  More likely to have fewer kids?  More likely to not be a stay-at-home parent?  More likely to vote Democrat?  More likely to be atheist? 

I *do* think that most commandments have a set of temporal blessings attached to them, that the line between “temporal” and “spiritual” is practically nonexistent from a standpoint of divine truth (it was Laman and Lemuel who were obsessing over whether Lehi’s prophecies were temporal or spiritual); and that all other things being equal, in the most complete sense of the word the “temporal well-being” of children is indeed facilitated by their being raised in the environs of a heterosexual, as opposed to homosexual, relationship.

But I also agree with you that the 2015 policy was primarily not about deterring that kind of situation; it was about dealing with the luckless kids who have been put into spiritually untenable situations through the narcissism of their sex-obsessed parents.  The Church has got to play the hand it’s been dealt, I suppose.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that the prophet of the Lord just allowed the blessings of baptism be given to the children of gay parents.   And yet, we are still questioning that that child will not receive the blessings of the Lord?

I have no reason to believe that such a child will be blessed any less than that of a child of a non-member. 

I also take heed from the scriptures for those who reject this decision, just as I did those who rejected the decision made 3 years ago.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’…"

Driving out demons?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I find it interesting that the prophet of the Lord just allowed the blessings of baptism be given to the children of gay parents.   And yet, we are still questioning that that child will not receive the blessings of the Lord?

I have no reason to believe that such a child will be blessed any less than that of a child of a non-member. 

I also take heed from the scriptures for those who reject this decision, just as I did those who rejected the decision made 3 years ago.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’…"

Driving out demons?  

This is so vaguely broad that I sincerely have no idea what it means, or what it’s responding to.  Who, on this forum, is rejecting the First Presidency’s decision?  What blessings, specifically, is some participant here saying that particular kids won’t get?  

And what makes you think, as a generality, that all kids are blessed alike regardless of the actions of their parents; and would a morning spent in juvenile court change your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wenglund said:

Early into Christ's 3-year mission, he ordained the twelve and commissioned them to not go unto the Gentiles, but only go to the house of Israel (Mt. 10:5-6). About 3 years later, Peter had the vision that opened the door to the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles. (Acts 10)

Or, as a quippy answer to any Christian taking issue with our changing revelations:

"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" - Jesus 
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" - Jesus (A few chapters later)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My first impression is that Heavenly Father & Jesus Christ want to reclaim and save those children whose parents have decided to live contrary to God's commandments. It puts these children on The Church's rolls/ records so that active members can minister to these "little ones."
 
My heart is deeply touched by these new adjustments - is it packed with sincere care and love. My daughter said it best, "it's not about changing doctrine or accepting the immorality but allowing those who are or would be withheld from eternal blessings because of the immoral actions of others to still receive them. God wants all of His children home."
 
"But behold, I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance." 1 Ne. 1:2
 
God is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Or, as a quippy answer to any Christian taking issue with our changing revelations:

"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" - Jesus 
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" - Jesus (A few chapters later)
 

There was an even quicker turn around. A Canaanite/Greek (Gentile) women pleaded with Jesus to cast the devil out of her daughter. Jesus replied, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Yet several verses later, after an exchange about dogs and crumbs,  Jesus said, "O woman, great is they faith.: be it unto thee as thou wilt." (Mt 15:21-28

There were other exception to Jesus' revealed policy (the Samaritan woman at the well, and the Roman Centurion), which should give some pause when considering policies too rigidly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wenglund said:

There was an even quicker turn around. A Canaanite/Greek (Gentile) women pleaded with Jesus to cast the devil out of her daughter. Jesus replied, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Yet several verses later, after an exchange about dogs and crumbs,  Jesus said, "O woman, great is they faith.: be it unto thee as thou wilt." (Mt 15:21-28

There were other exception)  to Jesus' revealed policy (the Samaritan woman at the well, and the Roman Centurion), which should give some pause when considering polcies too rigidly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well, the first shows the differences between the law and mercy and how mercy can interact with the law.

It's as much parable as it is the event.

With your earlier example it was a distinction between two different eras.  There was literally a specific event that divided the two eras.  Previously, when it was for the Jews, he was sent to the Jews. 

After he fulfilled the law and promise, it was a different era.  Other things were changed, such as the need for animal sacrifice was replaced.  The Lord had been sent to the Jews (and then crucified and atoned for sin) and his mortal ministry and mission was complete.

Not that I disagree, but I think that holes can be pointed out in the theory as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really having a problem with this announcement.  And I'm not jumping for joy either.  It seems like a nothingburger to me.

I had considered the policy on "apostasy" to be a legal maneuver, not a statement of doctrine.  A maneuver inspired by the Lord, but just a legal maneuver nonetheless.  It was instituted in a period where SJWs were winning at virtually every turn in every courthouse.  Today, let's face it, because of Trump, they're losing ground.  The Church doesn't have to be as cautious.  So, the switch back is also simply a legal maneuver.  We can reach out to those children, and even to some of the parents.

We don't care what liberals say -- that it isn't enough.  We don't care what conservatives say -- that it goes too far.  We care about what the Lord says.  And He cares about the preservation of the Kingdom of God on earth.  We do what we need to do, that we may be protected.  We do what we need to do, that we may spread the Gospel and bring people to Christ.  Sometimes it is a razor's edge that we walk upon.  And too often, we have "solutions" the results of which are negative side effects.  But we need to keep centered on Christ and the gospel He has provided.

If it were only about doctrine and the gospel, it would be a lot easier to show compassion and love and extend a hand of friendship.  But when the Adversary is making everything a legal issue, we know how to fight back.  We also know how to bend with the wind while keeping our roots firmly planted.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought to bring another dimension into the discussion with a simple question - How many people are right handed?  

The reason for this question may not be as obvious as everybody thinks.  Are we born right or left handed or do we learn to be right or left handed.  The answer may not be as simple as it appears.  If we are born right or left handed why is the vast majority of people right handed?  If we learn sided dominance - why is anyone left handed.

The reason the vast majority is right handed is because our human cultures and norms favor those with right side dominance.  One simple example is the standard of screws and bolts.  The power to tighten screws and bolts in a clockwise orientation favors right sided dominance.  As subtle as all these human favors are there are still left handed individuals.

One element that remains unsettled concerns infant children and perhaps even before a child is born.  How much is learned by an infant prior to their birth and during their first few months of life?  I remember a study 50 years ago I encountered in college that the disposition circumstance of a mother before a child is born and shortly after birth has an effect on the disposition of the child.  I remember thinking that perhaps this is why men have evolved into providers and women evolve into neuters.  Because neutering mothers are necessary for children to have the best opportunities and providing husbands are necessary for the best opportunities for neutering mothers.  

It would be nice if all things in life were directly solvable but the reality is that life dishes out varying circumstances.   Sometimes a parent dies leaving the spouse as a single parent to raise their children – sometimes there is divorce because of abuse.  In such circumstance we must be careful as a society to help through unfortunate circumstance without causing worse problems.  For example treating single parents adversely may help in encouraging them to remarry for the sake of the children but a remarriage made in adversely may be worse in some circumstances than remaining a single parent – specifically for the children.

What do we do about same sex attractions?  Maybe not every circumstance needs be dealt with in the exact same manner.  Hopefully we can recognize that same sex sexuality is problematic.  Both for those that are involved in same sex sexuality as well as those that associate with them.  And the more those involved in same sex sexuality make or desire to make their activities publicly  known the more this must be dealt with publicly.  When should gentle encouragement be used and when should force become necessary and does it matter if we are talking about support or criticism or those in favor on one thing or those that oppose it?

In truth the question goes far beyond same sex sexuality to perhaps every human moral principle that governs a culture or society.  How do we let people know we love and care about them but we disagree with some of their behaviors and their intelligent choices to pursue behaviors that are harmful both to them and those that associate with them?  I personally do not believe there is a one size solution to fit all problematic circumstances.  And yet I often experience resistance from those I intended to assist.  The attitude I least understand is – if you love me you will accept me as I am.  I am not even sure if an individual loves themselves that they should accept themselves as they are – should not we all attempt to achieve that which is above what we think we can?

 

The Traveler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some wild assumptions and reactions that are surprising out there in cyber world. I’m trying to get my head around them.

I think what it boils down to is that mostly, three years ago the word “apostate” created a visceral reaction in people who don’t want to be told what they are doing is so wrong. And the baptism issue infuriated people who don’t like to be told “no” whether it was something they wanted or not. 

I don’t understand why babies of gays couldn’t be given a blessing. It’s not a saving ordinance and if it makes the parents feel better- then why not. But that’s the least of the issues.

I really can’t imagine that a gay couple would want their child to get baptized. Perhaps it was the grandparents of the child who were hurting the most over the policy?

I can imagine though, a slightly older child or teenager who investigates the Church and wants to get baptized. So it makes sense to allow them to before they lose interest or change their mind before turning 18.  But I still feel it will be confusing for younger kids who live with two gay parents.

In any case, I feel bad because people, especially non-gays, misconstrued the original policy and reacted in such a self centered way as to leave the Church over it. I’m disappointed in those who say it was all a huge mistake by President Monson and the damage done can’t be repaired. I think it’s a generous outreach to soften the wording of “apostate” if it makes folks feel better. I sincerely doubt it will change the numbers of baptisms of children of gays though.

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, carlimac said:

There are some wild assumptions and reactions that are surprising out there in cyber world. I’m trying to get my head around them.

I think what it boils down to is that mostly, three years ago the word “apostate” created a visceral reaction in people who don’t want to be told what they are doing is so wrong. And the baptism issue infuriated people who don’t like to be told “no” whether it was something they wanted or not. 

I don’t understand why babies of gays couldn’t be given a blessing. It’s not a saving ordinance and if it makes the parents feel better- then why not. But that’s the least of the issues.

I really can’t imagine that a gay couple would want their child to get baptized. Perhaps it was the grandparents of the child who were hurting the most over the policy?

I can imagine though, a slightly older child or teenager who investigates the Church and wants to get baptized but might lose interest or change their mind by the time they are 18.

In any case, I feel bad because people, especially non-gays, misconstrued the original policy and reacted in such a self centered way as to leave the Church over it. I’m disappointed in those who say it was all a huge mistake by President Monson and the damage done can’t be repaired. I think it’s a generous outreach to soften the wording of “apostate” if it makes folks feel better. I sincerely doubt it will change the numbers of baptisms of children of gays though.

One point - I do not understand the term "babies of gays".  Gayness does not result in babies.  In all honesty - I have difficulty in understanding why those that are not involved in loving hederoisexual relationships are of the notion that they should have babies?  I have heard the arguments that gay couples are better for children than screwed up (abusive) hederoisexual couples.  But that is a strawman argument.  Just because something is better than feeding children to crocrodiles does not mean that it is desirable beyond that single circumstance.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

One point - I do not understand the term "babies of gays".  Gayness does not result in babies.  In all honesty - I have difficulty in understanding why those that are not involved in loving hederoisexual relationships are of the notion that they should have babies?  I have heard the arguments that gay couples are better for children than screwed up (abusive) hederoisexual couples.  But that is a strawman argument.  Just because something is better than feeding children to crocrodiles does not mean that it is desirable beyond that single circumstance.

 

The Traveler

Besides the fact that many people have children in heterosexual marriages or relationships before giving it up for a homosexual relationship, I think it’s simply because they want them. They love children. They want to be parents and it’s legal for them to adopt or IVF or whatever it takes to acquire a child. Maybe some are desperate to prove their worth to society by becoming parents. Maybe some want to thumb their nose at traditional families. But mostly I believe there is some level of genuine desire to “parent” involved.

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all I can say is: I knew it was coming from the moment when they made the first announcement 3 years ago. Back then, I disagreed with the policy 100%.

I dare to say this is not the last thing or the last time we will hear about the topic.  The first decision divided the Church immensely and it affected the Church as an institution.

However, all these sudden changes are making members question now whether it is inspiration or desperation behind all of this.

Some people talk about a legal standpoint, perhaps in an attempt to understand a move they are struggling to comprehend but the Church clearly mentioned "continuous revelation" from God so no legal angle here.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Traveler said:

One point - I do not understand the term "babies of gays".  Gayness does not result in babies. 

I can share two anecdotes from folks I know on Facebook:

- Bro M was married, had two kids, got divorced, came out of the closet, married a dude, and had his name removed from church records.  Former-Bro M and step-dude are now raising four daughters - Former-Bro M's two, and step-dude's 2 daughters.  I'm not exactly sure how custody with the exes is arranged, but they have no shortage facebook updates with the 6 of them off doing family things.

- Bro C married a lady who apparently had some surgery and now identifies as male.  C has a daughter from a prior marriage.  Again, not sure about custody, but C sometimes shares details on how C goes about parenting his daughter.  

Yes, same-sex fornication does not result in babies.  Yet here are two examples of how gays (or folks in transgender marriages) have parental stewardship and involvement over babies.  

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Well, all I can say is: I knew it was coming from the moment when they made the first announcement 3 years ago. Back then, I disagreed with the policy 100%.

I dare to say this is not the last thing or the last time we will hear about the topic.  The first decision divided the Church immensely and it affected the Church as an institution.

However, all these sudden changes are making members question now whether it is inspiration or desperation behind all of this.

Some people talk about a legal standpoint, perhaps in an attempt to understand a move they are struggling to comprehend but the Church clearly mentioned "continuous revelation" from God so no legal angle here.

 

I believe there is historical evidence that "continuous revelation" is not what you may be thinking it is or what it initials.  When Moses went up to Mt. Sinai to get the law by which G-d would have the Children of Israel governed – he returned with G-d’s law but the people were worshiping the Golden Calf of Baal.  Moses returned to Mt. Sinai again and received a preparatory law which became known as the Law of Moses.  

The assumption that different covenant understanding or preparation portends the absents of continuous revelation - I believe is in error for many possible reasons.  But I will only list a few.  One possibility is that G-d intends that both the leaders and members need to be united and that the process is not one step and everyone is forever afterwards in step.  As a side note and observation – when I served in the army there always seemed to be someone out of step when the company was marching to cadence.   As no surprise the troop out of step was usually one of a few that had what appeared to me as a focus problem and as such seem oblivious to what was happening and since they only had two feet they had a 50% chance of being in step at any moment.

G-d commands the cadence by which his saints march – but regardless there are always some that cannot stay in step.  In the eternal scheme of things – I do not see any significant change.   Things that are a sin remain a sin and our leaders are not leading anyone astray.  And yet, we all need to repent and do better – both in following or in other words - being in step and yet loving those out of step - be it out of step with leaders or anybody else that is out of step with us.

 

The Traveler

. dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Well, all I can say is: I knew it was coming from the moment when they made the first announcement 3 years ago. Back then, I disagreed with the policy 100%.

I dare to say this is not the last thing or the last time we will hear about the topic.  The first decision divided the Church immensely and it affected the Church as an institution.

However, all these sudden changes are making members question now whether it is inspiration or desperation behind all of this.

Some people talk about a legal standpoint, perhaps in an attempt to understand a move they are struggling to comprehend but the Church clearly mentioned "continuous revelation" from God so no legal angle here.

 

 

 

I'm trying to understand, as an outsider. Members believe not only in continuing revelation, but that the church's leaders are God-placed and have prophetic office. Members sustain both the doctrine and the leadership. Along comes a difficult decision--one that an individual member might have opposed, had it been a decision up for a vote. However, it was not. It was a divinely originated mandate. Three years later, there are a series of new decisions--ones that seem to take a different approach.

So, whatever personal opinions members may hold, ultimately, these types of decisions are affirmed...they are given by God's selected leaders, and they are God's decisions. Yes?

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm trying to understand, as an outsider. Members believe not only in continuing revelation, but that the church's leaders are God-placed and have prophetic office. Members sustain both the doctrine and the leadership. Along comes a difficult decision--one that an individual member might have opposed, had it been a decision up for a vote. However, it was not. It was a divinely originated mandate. Three years later, there are a series of new decisions--ones that seem to take a different approach.

So, whatever personal opinions members may hold, ultimately, these types of decisions are affirmed...they are given by God's selected leaders, and they are God's decisions. Yes?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

So, whatever personal opinions members may hold, ultimately, these types of decisions are affirmed...they are given by God's selected leaders, and they are God's decisions. Yes?

Yes... But it is also common throughout the world to "make God after your own image"  (a form of idolatry)  When God is moving in lock-step with your personal beliefs it is easy to call it revelation.  When God moves in ways opposite of what you personally believe (like in cases where he tests us) it is very temping to say it is not of God... it is of men and excuse yourself from following and doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, anyone wanna comment on how this news was released . . . A glurgey, warm-fuzzy article about how awesome Leadership Session was, that just sort of drops this bombshell in at the tail end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Yes... But it is also common throughout the world to "make God after your own image"  (a form of idolatry)  When God is moving in lock-step with your personal beliefs it is easy to call it revelation.  When God moves in ways opposite of what you personally believe (like in cases where he tests us) it is very temping to say it is not of God... it is of men and excuse yourself from following and doing. 

Catholics have taken that option, in the U.S. And, indeed, the vast majority of comments issued, even by the Pope, are not infallible. Special declarations of an infallible dictate come somewhat rarely. Likewise, even within my branch of Protestantism that believes in modern revelation and prophesy (Pentecostal/Charismatic), we test the spirits. It would not be too strange for individual members, even when leadership has not called a particular utterance into question, to reject it as "in the flesh" (i.e. not from God). LDS are not really suppose to have the option--unless there is opportunity to sustain (or not). Am I understanding right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, anyone wanna comment on how this news was released . . . A glurgey, warm-fuzzy article about how awesome Leadership Session was, that just sort of drops this bombshell in at the tail end?

If by “tail end” you mean last 50% of the short 10ish paragraph article than ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now