Fathers against sons….scriptural

Since my FC it seems every time I try and say, “OK – I am going to go study the scriptures” I end up with conflicts like the scripture you mention and then ones that to me sound like they say the opposite

Quote:

Malachi 4:6-6 – Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

It sounds like from this if we are not having parents and children turning towards each other (having a close loving relationship?) then the Lord is pissed and he is going to pull another “flood the planet and start over” move.

It also brings to mind what Joseph Smith said about different people understanding scripture differently,

Quote:

JS History 1:12 – …for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

I don’t see that with the additional scripture that we have that everything is suddenly crystal clear – in fact far from it.

But at another level, the church worships the (prescribed) family. I hear just about as much about family at church as I do Christ. That scripture in Matthew to me sounds anti-family.

I don’t know what others believe and how those scriptures are used for other situations.

But for me and my house…

I believe the gospel is about how to help my family in the eternities, which includes the here and now.

Others may see a need to divide family relationships in order to protect or teach or learn something. I had to make a decision once to divorce…that was to divide our family, but in doing so…ultimately…to help save my kids, and me, and my ex-wife.

I cannot find scriptures that tell me to divorce. I could probably find some scriptures that would suggest NEVER to divorce.

But those scriptures were not written about me and my specific situation. They were written for another lesson for another purpose. And so it is with scripture…it takes our wisdom to know what to apply and what is gospel to us and our family.

While others may feel it is right for them to take Matthew 10:35 to help them know to face their difficult family situation, I do not find an interpretation to help me with my children. I cannot imaging turning away from any of my kids, or my parents. No matter what they do…they will always be my family. Unless they try to kill me, then maybe I would need some boundaries. 😯

If a child has to wait a year to go to the temple, if I have to wait outside the temple to see them after being sealed, if some of my kids never go to the temple…those are church policies and we will deal with them and make the most of our family situation…but the connection and tie and love I have for my kids goes beyond any church policy or procedure or ordinance. I don’t give the church any power to decide for myself how I will love my kids eternally, and always seek their salvation.

Because the Matthew 10:35 has no application for my life that I can see, I dismiss it along with lots of other scripture that doesn’t speak to me.

These are the church teachings from an Apostle that I cling to:

Quote:

Our Father’s plan is about families, symbolized by a great tree. In order for a tree to live and grow, it needs both roots and branches. We likewise need to be connected both to our roots—our parents, grandparents, and other ancestors—and to our branches—our children, grandchildren, and other descendants. Several poignant scriptures use the analogy of a tree with roots and branches representing the family.

…[snip]…

We read in Doctrine and Covenants 128:18 of those who have passed on before us, that “we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect.” What does this mean? We find this answer in scripture:

And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect. (D&C 128:15; emphasis added)

“Their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation.” This means that the salvation of the whole human family is interdependent and interconnected—like the roots and branches of a great tree.

Taken from: Elder Quentin L. Cook, “Our Father’s Plan Is About Families”

I believe Mormonism preaches strongly the connection between family members is critical to our salvation…and yet…personal circumstances make the means on how that comes about look very different from family to family, including those individuals who never marry or have children. The underlying principles are NOT to teach contention, but to preach love. Perhaps, as hard as it is to understand for some families…perhaps some pruning actually leads to some healthy growth…and paradox is sometimes very real. Parents need to seek wisdom, from the scriptures and from their own spirits that help know what applies to their family.

I LOVED my kids enough to divorce their mother. No scriptures says that. I don’t need scripture to. Others will disagree with me strongly…and I will want to hear them out so I can learn from their perspective. But I choose what I believe.

Response? Well, in all honesty, I think if the conversation gets to the point that the other party is bringing out Matthew 10:34-35 or Luke 12:51-53, to me, it’s pretty unlikely to be productive.

I mean, you could maybe counter with Matthew 5:16 –

Quote:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

And then ask how people can see the light and glorify God if we stiff-arm them at the door.

Maybe a reminder of another verse in the same passage… Matthew 5:9 –

Quote:

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God

But none of that’s likely to change any views. After all, I think there is evidence that Jesus did probably have an undercurrent of teachings to separate-from-family-to-join-a-new-family. The above “children of God” passage can be seen in this way, and note Matthew 12: 46-50 (NRSV), and Matthew 8:19-22 (NRSV), both below –

Quote:

While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Quote:

A scribe then approached and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” Another of his disciples said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”

My own interpretation of these at-odds-with-family passages is different. I think they reflect the reality of the times. I do think that Jesus was a radical who was looking for people to leave family (as shown above), jobs (like fisherman and tax collectors), and traditions (sabbath observance, fasting, proscribed punishments) to build a new kingdom. However, I think it’s a stretch to say that his PURPOSE was to cause family strife. Rather, my reading of these passages is as an acknowledgment that such division would naturally follow. In other words, I think the division was the result… a side effect… of conversion, not the intent of it. If anything, though, that bolsters the Church’s position to choose the right and let the consequence(s) follow. Churches, including ours, usually see standing up for right, without regard for how others see it, as part of their purpose. The issue here is not really that, but rather the question of what is right, and no argument can succeed if the participants don’t agree on those grounds.

SilentDawning wrote:

This is why I find high level, unqualified scripture with violent or conflict-laden implications dangerous. It leads to conflict that can be very destructive. And the people who ascribe to the religious philosophy implement the destructive policy as if they are standing on the wall of truth.

I agree with you that I see that from some people. It doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t mean there aren’t others who do it more Christ-like. You just have to weed out the members who “get it” from the ones that are so focused on their own agenda and affirming their opinions over others, and hang out with the former group. Just because others do it in the church doesn’t mean it is how I will do it.

Also…as we’ve discussed over the years…there is no “church” voice. There is no one way all church leaders and apostles approach things. It is a collective voice that the Lord is pleased with, not speaking individually.

I disagree with people when they take up a hurtful argument like Matt 10:35 and say “The church teaches this”…as if that is the only thing mormons across the board preach. That isn’t accurate. Even if there is a valid feeling that some clearly do preach…even a majority may feel that way (regurgitating things their leaders say without thinking it through or studying various viewpoints).

SilentDawning wrote:

I also find it a double standard for the church to say, on one hand, families are eternal and so important, but then to justify, without apology and with confidence (in my experience) that it’s totally OK to divide families over the one year waiting period, over same sex relationships, etcetera.

So are there to be NO rules whatsoever in the church? How does that work? I feel you are conflating rules you don’t like with principles that are true. You may find it possible to separate them out, because a 1 yr waiting period is not a principle of the gospel, neither is the Handbook policy on children of SS parents. Families can be eternal is the principle. The principle is not “Families should be guaranteed to be eternal, no matter what they choose to do on earth”.

So, I don’t see it as a “double standard” if it applies to everyone the same way. What I do see is a rule that makes some families more uncomfortable than others. We can’t use a blanket statement like “families are eternal and so important” to the extremes that there can never be times when a men’s bathroom and woman’s bathroom is ruled out because families should always be together and never separated. Ok…that’s a stupid example…but the point is that there may be some rules you are totally fine with that the church has because they make sense to you, and then there are other rules you don’t like. Accept that is the way it is, and recognize both…instead of focusing only on the ones that bother you as if that is ALL the church teaches. It doesn’t equate to double standards…it simply are things on the buffet table that are distasteful to you…even if others in line are heaping it on their plates.

To sum my point…you are attacking the church directly and calling their waiting period wrong and against truth. You are calling their standards to be in violation of the gospel of love that Christ taught.

While I understand your emotional response, and believe you are completely valid in how you see it that way from your experiences, and I even agree with you on some of the results that I also at times dislike….with all the love and kindness I can try to muster, SD…I think you need to step back and look to see how you are doing the very thing you are frustrated at people in the church doing.

I’ll point this out, not to attack you, but in the spirit of vetting out these thoughts and the processes to reach some conclusions. If I cross the line, tell me and I will apologize, or other mods can moderate me. This is done to try to think through this issue of if the church has a purpose to divide families because of rules, which I see in a nuanced way.

Here is what I see, please tell me where I mistake you or join the conversation to challenge me if I’m off-base:

It seems to me you are making “high-level, unqualified statements” with conflict-laden dangerous implications to anyone who believes the church is true and temples require recommends to view a couple being sealed. Can you admit you are doing the thing you are complaining about?

Quote:

the church has certain standards, but then violates them as soon as church interests are at stake…[snip]…Families are eternal and central, unless they are non-members, in which case you have to get a temple marriage and leave them out of the experience

You are hunting and pecking for this example or that example to support your feelings, and then phrasing it unfairly to the church. As do people who want to use Matt 10:35 to support their view. It is the same approach. The assertion you throw out there does not lead to only one interpretation you reach about dividing families because temples are closed to the public. I do know it leads to people feeling that way, because they feel left out.

But the Church doesn’t teach those things alone. They teach things in context of all the elements of the gospel, with various levels of priority and conflicting interests and complexities of organization, for the benefit of the whole human race and eternal families everywhere. HOW they do that may be different than how you wish it was done, but it is not a double standard. It may be paradox, but that is different. And there is a place for you and how you see it in the church to be part of the discussion with others to show how that Matt 10 scripture can be interpreted in a loving way.

SilentDawning wrote:

I made that decision — to marry in the temple at the exclusion of my family. Now, fast forward 30 years — NONE of the people in the temple with me are important in my life any longer — not one.

To me…this last part is making a HUGE important point. TEMPLES do not make people sealed to each other or connected or important in our lives. Whether I am in the temple with my kids, or not, they will be my kids and I will be connected to them eternally. The people most important people to us will be most important to us with or without symbolism and promises from temples. There is a purpose the church teaches things, and we can understand those purposes and those meanings and apply them to our lives. We don’t need the church to be responsible for my relationships.

Let the church teach what it feels is important to teach…and find truth among those teachings and elsewhere, wherever you can find it. Live your life as yours. God is counting on you figuring out how to do that, and He doesn’t want his church to dictate that to you, so he gave us vague scriptures to wrestle with.

Heber13 wrote:

Also…as we’ve discussed over the years…there is no “church” voice. There is no one way all church leaders and apostles approach things. It is a collective voice that the Lord is pleased with, not speaking individually.

And as I’ve said over the years, I look at the church the same way we look at “organizations” in business management practice. An organization is made up of a variety of things — its culture, its staff, their skills, their systems, their policies, and more. Church policies and these other elements make up the church. Kind of how the British used to say “British policies make the world English”. Policies are one characteristics of the overall Church personality and represent collective will when most people abide by them.

Quote:

I disagree with people when they take up a hurtful argument like Matt 10:35 and say “The church teaches this”…as if that is the only thing mormons across the board preach. That isn’t accurate. Even if there is a valid feeling that some clearly do preach…even a majority may feel that way (regurgitating things their leaders say without thinking it through or studying various viewpoints).

Good — years ago I was on one discussion forum dominated by traditional thinkers, and they made NO APOLOGY for any policies that seemed to hurt innocent people, or send a message that is contrary to their mission.

SilentDawning wrote:

I also find it a double standard for the church to say, on one hand, families are eternal and so important, but then to justify, without apology and with confidence (in my experience) that it’s totally OK to divide families over the one year waiting period, over same sex relationships, etcetera.

Heber13 wrote:

So are there to be NO rules whatsoever in the church? How does that work? I feel you are conflating rules you don’t like with principles that are true.

I don’t see how you can take what I said, and conclude I am implying there are NO rules in the church. I didn’t say that anywhere. In terms of conflating rules, and principles, that doesn’t seem to hit the point here. Policies should align with principles. Not just temple marriage, but principles of love and compassion, care for the well-being of being of individuals (the key to 99 is the one), etcetera. When there are value or principle conflicts, what the church chooses to emphasize says volumes about what it thinks is important.

In the case of the one-year penalty, sending a message about the importance of temple marriage (to a couple who are already worthy and committed to such a marriage) by forcing them to exclude their non-mem parents from ALL ceremonial experiences associated with marriage is very selfish for the church in my view. I don’t take exception with excluding nonmems from the temple, but reaching into the civil experience as well?? That’s gone too far.

.

I would like to think that church policies, in an attempt to unite families over the long term, would not see a temple marriage as a reason to exclude the people who love the bride and groom from seeing the marriage happen in SOME context. They DO NOT have to give up their TR standards and let non-mems in the temple, but why implement policies that exclude the non-members COMPLETELY from the ceremonies associated with marriage??? What an utter disregard for the feelings of non-member families members, and what an alienating policy that is!! And how destructive to eternal families! Policies like that can make some people really detest the church before they even take the missionary discussions!

Quote:

You may find it possible to separate them out, because a 1 yr waiting period is not a principle of the gospel, neither is the Handbook policy on children of SS parents. Families can be eternal is the principle. The principle is not “Families should be guaranteed to be eternal, no matter what they choose to do on earth”.

I did not imply that either. Not sure where you are getting that from.

Heber13 wrote:

So, I don’t see it as a “double standard” if it applies to everyone the same way.

First, the the standard is NOT evenly applied across the world! In that sense, it IS a double standard by your own definition.

But that’s not what I was referring to — you’ve got the wrong actors in the standards application process. Like you, I believe there is no inequity in the application of the rules if they are applied to all members in the same way. At that applies to the application of good and bad rules. Where problems exist is when the church policies preach a principle to its members, but then relaxes the principle when the church’s temporal interests are at risk.

The fact that church leaders held on to the plural marriage practice even when their polygamists were thrown in jail, saw their businesses deteriorate, and then repealed the doctrine when the church’s own assets were at stake, is a case in point. I see similar parallels with temple marriage and the one year waiting period. That is where the double standard exists. One set of rules for the members, with such rules or ideals relaxed when it is inconvenient for the church.

Quote:

What I do see is a rule that makes some families more uncomfortable than others

WHOAAA!!! Uncomfortable??? We’re not talking about a slight chafing here, we are talking about turning non-mems against the church when they perceive church policies harsh and unfeeling toward the people who raised and loved the bride or groom all the way to the engagement commitment. We are talking about a lifetime of friction between families over policies that are not evenly applied across the world….the fact that you used the word “uncomfortable” shows that you don’t understand the depth and gravity of angst a one-year policy like this can cause.

Quote:

Accept that is the way it is, and recognize both…instead of focusing only on the ones that bother you as if that is ALL the church teaches.

Also, I am not implying that these policies represent everything. I didn’t say it. There are good youth programs, the church attracts people interested in good relationships (except perhaps when people stop towing the line, or going by the textbook). I have experienced some good leaders, and the members seem to care about each other — and in my experience — when leaders drop the ball.

Quote:

To sum my point…you are attacking the church directly and calling their waiting period wrong and against truth.

You can label this however you want, perhaps it seems like attacking to you, when to me it is simply objecting. I am objecting to the church policies, and patterns that seem to point to an unhealthy egocentrism that is often damaging to individuals and represents inconsistent application of principles to the church organization and to individuals. There are others I have seen over the years but I don’t want to go down that path in this conversation.

I take comfort in the fact that I am trying to create a very kinder, gentler, and more productive relationship in an organization I have started. Balancing organizational and individual interests is at the core of what I’m doing. And it seems to be mitigating the problems with lack of volunteer commitment. So, we have the church to thank for that. One of the benefits of adversity (without justifying the things I’m objecting to here).

Quote:

While I understand your emotional response, and believe you are completely valid in how you see it that way from your experiences, and I even agree with you on some of the results that I also at times dislike….with all the love and kindness I can try to muster, SD…I think you need to step back and look to see how you are doing the very thing you are frustrated at people in the church doing.

I felt no emotion when I wrote the piece you are quoting here. Perhaps it sounded that way, but if you had my facial expressions and tone of voice, you would see it is a cold and rational conclusion based on my experiences. I’m glad you acknowledge that these are the result of my own experiences.

I also don’t see how I’m doing what I’m objecting to. I am pointing out inconsistencies in policies when such policies, applied evenly to church members, seem to hurt church interests.

Quote:

This is done to try to think through this issue of if the church has a purpose to divide families because of rules, which I see in a nuanced way.

The purpose of the one-year waiting period hasn’t ever been explained to me. Some have said “without it, we cheapen the temple ceremony”, which I disagree with. “With it, we cheapen our relationship with our natural, long-term relationships with non-member family” I say in response.

The purpose I think it serves is to encourage MEMBER families, with less actives in it, to straighten up and go to the temple. If they are denied BOTH civil experience, and the temple experience, they are left only with getting a TR so they can go to the temple. However, this policy ignores important stakeholders — non-member family members who have made no commitment to the church, and may not even understand it. And these people can be really alienated by the church creating policies that discourage CIVIL marriage.

Quote:

It seems to me you are making “high-level, unqualified statements” with conflict-laden dangerous implications to anyone who believes the church is true and temples require recommends to view a couple being sealed. Can you admit you are doing the thing you are complaining about?the church has certain standards, but then violates them as soon as church interests are at stake…[snip]…Families are eternal and central, unless they are non-members, in which case you have to get a temple marriage and leave them out of the experience

You are hunting and pecking for this example or that example to support your feelings, and then phrasing it unfairly to the church. As do people who want to use Matt 10:35 to support their view. It is the same approach. The assertion you throw out there does not lead to only one interpretation you reach about dividing families because temples are closed to the public. I do know it leads to people feeling that way, because they feel left out. [/quote]

I gave those statements without the usual weasle words and qualifiers like we have to — I admit it. We have to use those qualifiers to avoid people hunting and pecking for exceptions and then nullifying your whole argument. Of course there are exceptions. Put a lot of “tends to” or “has shown a pattern of”, “seems to have a preference for” in my statements above to communicate trends and tendencies over the years.

Of course there are many good things the church does. But there has also been a pattern of egocentrism that really hurts individual members when principles/cultural values the church holds, threaten their own temporal or other interests. I could quote many other examples, but again, I don’t want to inflame you as you perceive this as an attack. Suffice to say, I really admire organizations that sacrifice their own interests for principle or alignment of principles with values.

Note — I still encourage my family to attend, I support my wife in her callings, and my daughter. If my son ever wants the priesthood, I will be there to support him. I am even talking about going back in some capacity in the new year. So far I haven’t seen much out there that’s better than our church although I’m pretty disillusioned with it right now.

Quote:

And there is a place for you and how you see it in the church to be part of the discussion with others to show how that Matt 10 scripture can be interpreted in a loving way.

I’m sure there is a loving interpretation. Scripture can be justified in many different ways. It can be contradicted with other scripture. I’m sure there are loving ways a person can disagree with their family while simultaneously coaxing them to the Mormon gospel. On the other hand, I’m not convinced that forcing people to disavow their parents life choices [speaking loosely], or excluding them from BOTH the temple experience AND the civil experience is an example of a loving implementation of Mathew 10.

Quote:

To me…this last part is making a HUGE important point. TEMPLES do not make people sealed to each other or connected or important in our lives.

I can’t address this directly as the statement above has me saying things I’m not. I will say this. In choosing a temple wedding, over a civil wedding, I sent the message to my parents they were less important than complying with church policy — not doctrine — policy. They sat at home while I shared the experience with people who had no long-term stake in my life. I wish I had’ve been married civilly first, and showed my family their were important, and then gotten married in the temple a year later. I could have had the civil wedding on that first marriage day, and then gone through the temple myself that day for an endowment, with my wife doing her own endowment (if that was allowed). This could have dispelled any rumors we were not worthy. Get married in the temple a year later to live church doctrinal principles without any eternal consequence.

Quote:

Whether I am in the temple with my kids, or not, they will be my kids and I will be connected to them eternally.

Not according to church doctrine — if not sealed to them (staying with the mem/non-mem family situation I am addressing here], then there is no eternal relationship other than perhaps in your memory. No salvation together unless they comply with the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

Quote:

The people most important people to us will be most important to us with or without symbolism and promises from temples.

Um — partly, but if we rebuff them with our actions, that relationship can wither and die. Those relationships don’t persist with out kind treatment, inclusion, and ongoing investments.

Quote:

There is a purpose the church teaches things, and we can understand those purposes and those meanings and apply them to our lives. We don’t need the church to be responsible for my relationships.

[/quote][/quote]

When the church places choices in front of me that make me choose between the church and my family, they ARE injecting themself in the relationship. Your statement above is part of what disturbs me about situations in life — where a powerful entity acts without accountability. If the church is going to impose policies on people that force them to choose between their family or the church, then the church will have to take responsibility for the outcomes of those policies. If they don’t want any responsibility, then reverse the policy and stay out of it….

That’s why I think the best way to handle the one year waiting period for worthy couples is to do as I said above. Get married civilly, go through the temple for endowments only on the same day with all your friends there, and then wait a year. In 30 years no one will remember. Your non-member family gets to share the marriage experience, the member couple gets their temple marriage and both sets of interests are met.

This one year thing is old news to many of the long timers on this board. We aren’t going to agree on it. I am sorry if I appeared to be “attacking” the church. I don’t agree with its egocentrism, but there are other aspects of the church that are admirable.

I would rather refocus the question on what the father against son scripture really means. And whether it represents sufficient jusification for policies that divide families. ..the one year period and the the same sex family disavowal requirement for adults? Can the policy be justified by this scripture?

SilentDawning wrote:

We aren’t going to agree on this Heber

It’s ok if we don’t agree. I still respect your opinions and how you try to run your volunteer organization differently. I hope your organization has so much success, you have 14 million volunteers to set policies for (which will create a complexity I’m sure not all will like all the policies…I think it is just the way it is…not because you don’t intend to do good 🙂 ).

Quote:

…unhealthy egocentrism that is often damaging to individuals and represents inconsistent application of principles to the church organization and to individuals.

I don’t agree with your attacks that the church acts with “egocentricism” and inconsistent principles. That is just a reflection of your experience, which I do not share. I hope I can make myself clear, SD….it is totally fine for you to post those comments on how you feel about it…that is what this forum is for. I’m not saying don’t post your thoughts…I’m just sharing mine that I don’t agree with those because I don’t think you’re being objective…you may be calm as your post contains an emotional slant, but it does not change that it contains your view based on your experience. I simply see a different conclusion that you are seeing.

My main point was to try to point out your argument was non-sequitur.

Mark 10 was not written about LDS temple marriages. I would disagree with people who apply it to that subject. That is how I can reconcile it with “Honor thy father and mother”. They are about different principles. They are not in conflict, unless you put the narrow interpretation of the scripture out of context to one modern day LDS church policy.

Mark 10 34-37 is about people having a choice to follow Christ and his Kingdom, or to follow the devil and his dominion. It is very broad, and very simple. Choose one or the other. What do you choose? Christ didn’t come to provide everyone with “one way”, even if that way was forced peace upon everyone (Satan’s plan)…but came to bring a division, an opposition in all things, so that we can choose right or wrong. There must be a division in order for there to be a choice. Just as He introduced conflict in the Garden of Eden with 2 different trees and commandments forcing a choice. The intent is not to create conflict, but to allow choice and learn how you overcome conflict by choosing wisely. (Adam and Eve went against policy, but still chose wisely).

It is what you choose as a family despite a policy, not the policy itself. The Lord came not to give you peace and ease of life…he came to divide the situation so you can choose good or evil. How you choose to apply that or interpret scripture is part of the choice you are making to show God your heart.

There is no easy answer on policies that complicate things for families. I know from my family experiences that church policies create divisions. But I will not let it destroy me, or blame it’s policies for my family’s ability or inability to have relationships. In that, I find my personal peace which Christ brought to this world.

I’m sorry when I hear how the policy has created strife with your family. I would be pissed off about it if that happened to me. (Well…actually…it has happened to me…but that is another story).

I think the church’s policy for waiting a year, for excluding family, and for disavowel requirements for children of same sex marriages to be stupid. I don’t like them. I don’t see scriptural justification for them. But…since that is what we have…I choose to move forward and find personal peace in my position to support the church and work around imperfections until they correct them, or I choose to be married civilly and later sealed in the temple which hurts no one. And I give myself permission to be pissed about the things the church does that complicate it.

With or without the temple, I am working on my eternal family, with hope and faith the details get worked out.

I’ll shut up now…I know you know how I feel about it. Others can share their views.

In so many cases, how we interpret scriptures says as much about us and our views as the scriptures say about other people and their views.

Yes, the Gospel pitting fathers against sons and causing division is scriptural – but so is the Gospel uniting mortal families and the all-encompassing family of God. Just about anything is scriptural – including things as disparate as genocide and love of enemies. Scriptures reflect life and views of everything relative to life, and “scriptural” means neither “universal” nor “logical”. In a real and important way, “scriptural” means “historical” – even if doesn’t mean “historically accurate”.