Same sex marriage considered apostasy

[Anonymous]

“The Church of course doesn’t attempt to practice mind control, and people have varying opinions. It’s only a problem if there is advocacy and people lobby and advocate against the standard and the very clear and expressed position of the Church as it has been stated repeatedly, and again now.”

This part of the interview concerns me. I have always thought the church was fine with our feelings about same sex issues, but it seems that he is saying here something different. Last week I publicly expressed my distaste for the policy, my dad called me an apostate for it, and now I am worried a leader could see it that way as well. Am I being paranoid?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

slowlylosingit wrote:

“The Church of course doesn’t attempt to practice mind control, and people have varying opinions. It’s only a problem if there is advocacy and people lobby and advocate against the standard and the very clear and expressed position of the Church as it has been stated repeatedly, and again now.”

This part of the interview concerns me. I have always thought the church was fine with our feelings about same sex issues, but it seems that he is saying here something different. Last week I publicly expressed my distaste for the policy, my dad called me an apostate for it, and now I am worried a leader could see it that way as well. Am I being paranoid?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not if you believe the Strengthening the Faith committee follows blog posts.

[Anonymous]

It shouldn’t. Expression of opinion and openly fighting the Church are different things.

Then there is that pesky leadership roulette.

[Anonymous]

That’s what worries me! Canada west is a lot different than the eastern US

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I checked out the CNN website this morning as I do most mornings to see what major news stories there are. The initial news about the new policy had made CNN. This morning on the front page there was a story about yesterday’s mass resignation event. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/us/mormon-mass-resignation/index.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/us/mormon-mass-resignation/index.htmlThese are actually held fairly often in SLC and it seems they are mostly attended by those who are already disaffected and have been for years and (sometimes mostly) by those who have already resigned mixed with some antis. If the lawyer’s numbers are not fabricated (and I see no indication they are) this one was relatively huge.

A related article is an opinion piece by a BYU professor and bishop. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/opinions/hertzberg-mormon-lgbtq/index.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/opinions/hertzberg-mormon-lgbtq/index.html He’s got some, hmm, can’t find the right appropriate words…. At any rate I agree with him mostly except that there are more than the two ways to deal with this that he asserts – we don’t have to accept or “loudly and publicly dissent.” We can quietly and more privately dissent – I like Ray’s “It hurts my heart” response.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote

Quote:

He’s got some, hmm, can’t find the right appropriate words.

Cojones – works for me.

Be interesting to see if there is fallout. We probably will never know.

[Anonymous]

Word on the street is that adults AND youth are meeting together for the 5th Sunday lesson at the end of the month.

I’m terrified. 😮

[Anonymous]

I personally view the recent clarification as backtracking. I imagine that if the original policy was not intended to arrest the progress of kids that have already been baptized then why did Elder Christopherson not point that out in his “clarification” interview. Also if the original policy only applied to kids living PRIMARILY in a gay marriage environment then that too would have been have been a really important point for Elder Christopherson to bring up in that same interview. I therefore believe that this is a modification of the original policy. I am really glad that the church is willing to make some small concessions in regards to this policy … I just find it interesting that those concessions are framed as clarifications.

[Anonymous]

richalger wrote:

Quote:

We should remember that most typically revelations are “conclusions” and not “explanations.” When we receive revelation for ourselves, we discover what God would have us do. He rarely provides a reason for why we should do what was revealed. Rather, He trusts us to be obedient to the revelation He has given us. (Facebook post, David A. Bednar, 26 Oct 2015) https://www.facebook.com/lds.david.a.bednar/posts/1130763450284728?hc_location=ufi” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.facebook.com/lds.david.a.bednar/posts/1130763450284728?hc_location=ufi

It is possible that the brethren do not know all the reasons this policy has changed the way it has. Is it also possible that they do not intend to share all the reasons why.

I can think of a lot of reasons. They are my speculation. I have detailed many of them in my post in an effort to sort through my own feelings and thoughts and so that I might be of help to those around me. There is a gulf between what the church says about gay sexual relations and what many in and around the church say. It seems to me that this is the source of the dissonance.

Many people do not see gay relations as sinful. To be honest, I see monogamous, committed gay, couples in a different light that I did even a couple years ago. The church teaches that these relations are not only a sin, but a grievous one. The policies really only puts a bright line on these differences. Whoever is closer to the Truth, I see this is the reason for the policy. The church is taking a stand for what it has stated in the past is its stand. To clarify to all bishops and stake presidents. To the membership. To the governments.

At the very least it will sort out what works and what does not work for Mormons, investigators and everyone else.

I am seeing the hurt affecting those I know online. I hope for a way forward in healing and connection.

Hi Rich,

I have thought about this many times over the weekend. I read your blog posts and found that we had been reading many of the same articles in trying to understand this new policy. While we may disagree on our interpretation of this issue, I hope we can do so in a friendly way.

I find the Bednar quote difficult for three reasons:

1) Nobody is saying that this policy was a revelation. I assume that the brethren pray about many things that they do administratively but that doesn’t mean that everything that they do is revelation. That is just not consistent with what I understand about church history and operation. Mistakes get made and are sometimes perpetuated for years before they get corrected. Fortunately I believe that mistakes do eventually get corrected.

2) That quote is so very similar to what Elder Oaks said in 1988 in regards to the priesthood ban – essentially that God commanded it but did not explain why. http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2215&hilit=+priesthood+ban+commandment+oaks The church has recently disavowed the priesthood ban and strongly suggested that it was culturally based racism.

3) If God gives commandments to his representatives that he expects to be followed without giving any explanation for the purposes behind the commandments and then the representatives give those same commandments and instructions to the membership then that quickly IMO becomes a situation of blind obedience. I can’t help but think of MMM. How willing should we be to do things that are hurtful to others without even understanding the reason why?

Now I want to point out how I believe you and I are similar. We both recognize that this policy has been hurtful to many individuals and we both are trying to come to an understanding of why. Both you and I are using speculation to help bridge the gap between what we know and what we do not know.

In my speculation, I have gravitated towards legal defenses, justifications, and imperatives. I can understand business decisions that become policy in order to protect company assets from a litigious environment. I personally do not want to give equal footing to the possibility that the church really does want to be free of the gay problem and is just trying to rip the Band-Aid off in one swift motion. That possibility chills me as it seems to me to be so cold and calculating … the exact opposite of the good shepherd that would leave the 99 to find the one that is lost.

It is ok if you come to different conclusions. I willfully admit that I do speculate and my speculations are biased by my life experiences and my desires (what I hope and want to be true). Once again, I believe both you and I both recognize that this policy has been hurtful to many individuals and we both are trying to come to an understanding of why.

[Anonymous]

My husband tells me that the ‘clarification’ was discussed in EQ. (I heard through the grapevine that it didn’t come up in RS. I wouldn’t have been there since I’m serving in YW.) Apparently one thing that came up is that several otherwise orthodox members questioned the fact that children of SSM parents are apparently being asked to disavow SSM when the rest of us are allowed to support it if we choose. A member of the stake high council apparently said that the stake is discussing this concern with SLC. I just thought that was interesting because our stake tends to be fairly conservative.

[Anonymous]

richalger wrote:

Eight years old is generally old enough to make the commitment of baptism.

It really depends on how one defines what we are committing ourselves to when we are baptized. I’ve heard people make statements like:

When you got baptized you agreed to __________.

Where the blank is filled with something that is wholly inappropriate for an 8 year old to be promising.

Eight can be old enough to make the commitment of baptism, so long as the commitment made is limited by the individual’s understanding and not extended to include other people’s interpretations of the commitment.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

richalger wrote:

Eight years old is generally old enough to make the commitment of baptism.

It really depends on how one defines what we are committing ourselves to when we are baptized. I’ve heard people make statements like:

When you got baptized you agreed to __________.

Where the blank is filled with something that is wholly inappropriate for an 8 year old to be promising.

Eight can be old enough to make the commitment of baptism, so long as the commitment made is limited by the individual’s understanding and not extended to include other people’s interpretations of the commitment.

I agree, Nibbler. For instance, I do think an 8-year-old is capable of deciding he or she wants to follow Christ. I also think they have the right to change their minds later in life (perhaps not all that much later) without repercussion. I have long had trouble with the LDS teachings about what we commit to at baptism, not only because it really is not spelled out anywhere (I don’t buy that this is what the sacrament prayers are referencing) but also because it’s not clearly explained to anyone, child or convert. Things may have changed, but when I was baptized in 1981 all that I knew about baptism was I would be forgiven of my sins, would become a member of the church, and it had to be done by immersion. I’m not at all sure 8-year-olds are capable of making the lifelong commitment decision often tied to baptism.

In the context of this discussion, I don’t think most 8-year-olds know if they are gay or not, nor do I think they are capable of the kind of rational thought processes to be able to disavow gay marriage (which I recognize is an argument for the policy). Perhaps there needs to be a consideration on whether 8 really is an appropriate age for baptism.

[Author]

Posts