- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Wow. Where is the Christianity here? I guess it doesn’t surprise me that the Church would make it official that they would ex SS married couples, but to prevent a child from being baptized===>Where in the world does that come from??? The child of a sex offender, abuser, drug addict, prisoner etc… Can join the church but not one living with a LGBT parent. Absolutely incomprehensible.
Imagine a worldchurch where a same sex couple were accepted as normal and valued to an equal degree as any other couple. The LoC rules could still apply to pre marital relations. This approach would actually strengthen the core idea of a family being central to the success of our society. Children reared under these unions would not be treated any differently, but loved just like they should be.
These relationships would not threaten to destroy the family>>>give me a break.
I’m astronomically more concerned about infidelity, deadbeat dads, abusive, and drug/alcohol addicted … parents destroying their children, the central role of the family, and our society than I ever will be by any perceived threat from any LGBT cause.
I’ve really been struggling to make the church work for me in spite of my doubts and things that I just can’t accept as being inspired of God (such as polygamy). I am not a millenial, and I am not gay, but this new policy troubles me greatly. How could something so un-Christ-like come from a church that is led by God? How do I and others that are so bothered by this still stay LDS? Help me out here. I’m grabbing at straws.
😯 FaithfulSkeptic wrote:I’ve really been struggling to make the church work for me in spite of my doubts and things that I just can’t accept as being inspired of God (such as polygamy). I am not a millenial, and I am not gay, but this new policy troubles me greatly. How could something so un-Christ-like come from a church that is led by God?
How do I and others that are so bothered by this still stay LDS? Help me out here. I’m grabbing at straws.
😯 I would say in the end you will have to make the choice of if you can handle being associated with the church on this issue. Also keep in mind just because you dont agree doesnt mean that you have to stop going. I for sure don’t agree at all but I choose to give it a good honest effort to make my church experience about service and showing love to my fellow man, regardless of what the church says they believe.
This is my rebuttal of that apologetic explanation on Well Behaved Mormon Woman. http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/06/protectionism-and-policy-failure/ On the upside, hopefully the fact that the church hasn’t yet released an official statement means that they are giving it more thought in light of all the disillusionment this has caused. Any port in a storm.
hawkgrrrl wrote:This is my rebuttal of that apologetic explanation on Well Behaved Mormon Woman.
http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/06/protectionism-and-policy-failure/ On the upside, hopefully the fact that the church hasn’t yet released an official statement means that they are giving it more thought in light of all the disillusionment this has caused. Any port in a storm.
I’m so glad someone responded to this.:thumbup: My kids read the “Well Behaved…” post before I did and thought it was nonsensical. And it’s unfortunate for the church that it became the go-to Facebook share for so many today.It is interesting to me that the church is stating that baby blessings and 8 year old baptisms are traditions, but really don’t count or matter. They are just rites of passage. Real membership in the church happens in adulthood. The church doesn’t see them as ordinances that are essential for salvation. If the church saw then as truly important, they would allow them for all children, no matter their family circumstances. It is also interesting to me that the church leadership is more comfortable with homosexuals having random sexual encounters than they are with committed relationships. All the activities that keep that population on the fringe of society are not apostate. Committed relationships ARE apostate. This approach gives me a lot to think about.
Tonight, my heart aches for the huge number of people who are personally affected by this.
Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson?HP_FR_11-6-2015_dPAD_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-A_ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson?HP_FR_11-6-2015_dPAD_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-A_ SALT LAKE CITY —
In a video interview Friday in Salt Lake City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed the Church’s position on marriage and outlined handbook changes in Church policy affecting same-sex couples and their children. The interview will help Church members, the media and the public better understand the context and purpose of the changes, which have been discussed extensively in the news media, on social media and elsewhere.
I just went and watched the video. I can comprehend why they felt they had to clarify on gay adult relationships. I give them credit for taking the point on kids. But the answer does not answer the question of why the other “sinful” parents can have their kids participate. So the kids of unmarried cohabitating parents have zero restrictions while if a parent is in a gay relationship the door is 100% shut for those kids. I do not get it. And listening to the justification on the kids part I don’t understand why they didn’t change to policy to, “families in this situation should be counseled on the serious ramifications, specifically …” instead of “no” (yes I know they can appeal to the 1st presidency, but that in itself says “only extraordinary circumstances”)
Then on drawing parallels to polygamy dealing with going on a mission it states that the child must understand polygamy is a sin (even though it is in D&C 132?) Between this and the latest “Preisthood” and the slicing and dicing of “priesthood authority” vs. “Priesthood keys” vs. “under the direction of the priesthood” vs. “priesthood …” it is just very confusing. I don’t see “the simplicity of the gospel.”
I also feel for Elder Chirstopherson. For a moment I did think, “what if he does not completely agree, but he is being asked to be the spokesperson on this topic.” My heart went out to him.
LookingHard wrote:I also feel for Elder Chirstopherson. For a moment I did think, “what if he does not completely agree, but he is being asked to be the spokesperson on this topic.” My heart went out to him.
It is a possibility he is the lead spokesman on this because of his position on the PR committee. On the other hand, I think he’s strong enough that if he really disagreed he wouldn’t do it. I also think this change to the handbook did not come about without unanimity in the Q15. While I believe they do have disagreements and diverse points of view, I also believe they don’t make major changes without consensus. We need to recognize that Elder Christofferson’s brother of his own choosing no longer cohabits with his partner and thus is not in a state of apostasy in the church’s eyes. This may actually have made it easier for some to reach consensus.
I still think these changes are going to be gone within a relatively short time. And I wonder how the Newsroom will manage to spin or justify it when they are forced by public backlash to remove them. Quote:DJ wrote: “We need to recognize that Elder Christofferson’s brother of his own choosing no longer cohabits with his partner and thus is not in a state of apostasy in the church’s eyes. This may actually have made it easier for some to reach consensus.”
So if someone waits until they are very old and the viagra no longer works, they can move next door to their partner and be neighbors instead of roommates, and the apostasy goes away. Great. SMH.
An article on the fallout of the new policy on children raised in same sex marriages. http://news.yahoo.com/gay-mormon-church-members-rules-devastating-040135357.html I was appalled when Fair Mormon said the rules are for the protection of the children etcetera. It sounds like 1984 to me, where the department that rewrites history is called “The department of Truth”.
I believe the church is trying to deter sympathy for same sex relationships from growng in the church. Make people who are raised in them, and find them OK, take hits for being sympathetic to their heritage. I”m sure this policy will also encourage people to leave the church who have gay children. Note the Pew survey says that 36% of Mormons are more sympathetic to gay marriage than in 2007, and 25% support gay marriage. I can see church leaders wanting to stem the tide of growing support for same sex marriage in the church. This will nip off those who have gay parents and children to some extent, with a policy that is hard to bear.
I find it very hard to see the church as a loving force based on what they have done with this policy. Read the very last quote in the article I quoted above. I feel some, but not all, of those sentiments.
SD- you might very well be right on the intent is to deter sympathy for gays – and I expect that for many it will be what they think of over the talk back a few months ago about loving all. I had to chuckle at
Quote:“It feels like they are extending an olive branch and hitting you with it,” said Wendy Montgomery, who is Mormon and has a 17-year-old gay son.
So the general membership of the Church is still free to support SSM as they see fit. The only ones required to disavow it are people with SSM parents. Well, that makes perfect sense. Just for accuracy: The disavowal is for same-sex marriage of LDS members – or, in other words, an acceptance of non-LDS members being free to be in same-sex marriages but not LDS members. Members are free to advocate for civil rights but not to work to try to force the LDS Church to sanction same-sex marriage internally. The central issue is, unfortunately, the Church’s right to set its own standards for membership – and I support that right completely, even if I would want different boundaries than many members. In the case of children with same-sex parents who want to be baptized, they would disavow their parents’ relationship for themselves as LDS members but not have to oppose their parents’ relationship in any legal or active way.
I know that still is not acceptable to many here (since it still considers the parents’ relationship as sinful), but it is an important point, nonetheless. It is a fine distinction that requires maturity to understand.
I also believe they are sincere about not wanting to pit minor children against their parents but allow them to reach the age of legal maturity (18) in order for their decisions to be fully informed. That is the part of this that I appreciate the most, as a father. It also is a statement that being baptized at 8 is not critical, in the grand scheme of things, and is not about fully informed decision-making but only about theoretical accountability. That has fascinating implications.
Finally, I personally don’t like the example of murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. being used. There is no assumption that anyone is going to advocate for those actions to be seen as acceptable, and children raised by those people nearly universally disavow those actions naturally. There is no fine distinction in those cases, and having children hear those actions described as sin at church carries no serious potential damage for them. The only examples I like are polygamy and cohabitation. I think cohabitation is the best analogy to oppose this decision, since it is legal, but it is so widespread that missionary work might grind to a halt if this policy existed for those children. Polygamy is the best example, in reverse, in church history.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.