Same sex marriage considered apostasy

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

Go listen to a thoughtful faith podcast. It is putting forward some possible legal underpinnings driving this

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Legal underpinnings that don’t apply equally for straight non-member or part-member families?

[Anonymous]

Talking about scenarios and people we know with wife. Her comment…”what this is, is an assault on single moms”.

Maybe this is why female input into these decisions would be good.

[Anonymous]

Man, I am NOT looking forward to the next fast & testimony meeting. There is an element in my ward that tends to be self-congratulatory from the pulpit on issues like this… And they are the ones that get up every month.

On the other hand, I’ve been really pleasantly surprised by the conversations I’ve had with my husband. I always assumed he was totally orthodox/TBM (and maybe he was at one time) but he’s actually fairly progressive. He just plays it a lot closer to the vest than I do. So in a weird way, this situation has strengthened my marriage.

[Anonymous]

churchistrue wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

Go listen to a thoughtful faith podcast. It is putting forward some possible legal underpinnings driving this

Legal underpinnings that don’t apply equally for straight non-member or part-member families?

I don’t know if you listened to the podcasts or not, but I understood that they are SAYING it is to protect children from getting mixed messages, but it could be that the REASON is that the church could be sued for creating some of this discord. It made some sense, but I am a nerd – not a lawyer.

I also listed to the last Mormon matters released today. It was also very good. Lots of talk about “this is a gift in disguise” and will cause more progress in the long run.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

churchistrue wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

Go listen to a thoughtful faith podcast. It is putting forward some possible legal underpinnings driving this

Legal underpinnings that don’t apply equally for straight non-member or part-member families?

I don’t know if you listened to the podcasts or not, but I understood that they are SAYING it is to protect children from getting mixed messages, but it could be that the REASON is that the church could be sued for creating some of this discord. It made some sense, but I am a nerd – not a lawyer.

I also listed to the last Mormon matters released today. It was also very good. Lots of talk about “this is a gift in disguise” and will cause more progress in the long run.

Listened to the podcast. The issue I see that this concept of protecting the church legally from parental alienation lawsuits is valid (sort of). But the issue is not unique to gay parent. It also potentially comes into play with a parent who drinks alcohol, has straight sex outside marriage, or even is Catholic or doesn’t believe LDS. As a missionary, I observed some pretty serious tension between non-member adults, child investigators/members, and the church. For me, this is a much more common and serious issue with more potential risk to church (which is also why I dismiss this whole issue as a red herring–designed to move the focus away from what the policy really is, gay bashing) as applied to non-members in convert baptism situations than it does with gay parent.

[Anonymous]

churchistrue wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

churchistrue wrote:

LookingHard said “Go listen to a thoughtful faith podcast. It is putting forward some possible legal underpinnings driving this”

Legal underpinnings that don’t apply equally for straight non-member or part-member families?

I don’t know if you listened to the podcasts or not, but I understood that they are SAYING it is to protect children from getting mixed messages, but it could be that the REASON is that the church could be sued for creating some of this discord. It made some sense, but I am a nerd – not a lawyer.

I also listed to the last Mormon matters released today. It was also very good. Lots of talk about “this is a gift in disguise” and will cause more progress in the long run.

Listened to the podcast. The issue I see that this concept of protecting the church legally from parental alienation lawsuits is valid (sort of). But the issue is not unique to gay parent. It also potentially comes into play with a parent who drinks alcohol, has straight sex outside marriage, or even is Catholic or doesn’t believe LDS. As a missionary, I observed some pretty serious tension between non-member adults, child investigators/members, and the church. For me, this is a much more common and serious issue with more potential risk to church (which is also why I dismiss this whole issue as a red herring–designed to move the focus away from what the policy really is, gay bashing) as applied to non-members in convert baptism situations than it does with gay parent.

Agreed. You did get the same conclusions and then some of the same issues about this being very inconsistent. They have stopped short of saying that it is the equivalent (or even worse) than denying the holy ghost!

[Anonymous]

churchistrue wrote:

Listened to the podcast. The issue I see that this concept of protecting the church legally from parental alienation lawsuits is valid (sort of). But the issue is not unique to gay parent. It also potentially comes into play with a parent who drinks alcohol, has straight sex outside marriage, or even is Catholic or doesn’t believe LDS. As a missionary, I observed some pretty serious tension between non-member adults, child investigators/members, and the church. For me, this is a much more common and serious issue with more potential risk to church (which is also why I dismiss this whole issue as a red herring–designed to move the focus away from what the policy really is, gay bashing) as applied to non-members in convert baptism situations than it does with gay parent.

PS, I know it’s not politically correct but I think both James Ord and Gina Colvin are overly dramatic and extreme with their views on the church. Stuff like “they never regret their decisions.” Their extremely cynical view that the brethren’s decisions are 100% based on protecting financial assets, etc. It’s too bad we have leaders in Progressive Mormonism that are this close minded and extreme.

[Anonymous]

I talk to my ex bishop dad last night about this and brought up some good points.

1. The handbook is a guideline on a case by case experience and should be up to Bishop/SP. Yes, will be mistakes be made (authority roulette) but for the most part people will be good.

2. In the handbook disavowing means you don’t disavow your relationship with the parent, it means just disagree with the act of homosexuality that parent is doing. Disavow was probably not the best word to use and people got a little too hung up on it.

3. He also thinks this is for protecting the child’s relationship but I think most of us think that is BS. At least this is the intention but the fruits will be nothing but that.

My dad is a big apologist as you can tell. He still thinks this policy isn’t the best still.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

My only point at pointing to the podcast that James to me made a case for why the church would do this to protect themselves. I don’t agree with the entire podcast. In fact I disagree with some of the comments made

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone,

I don’t really participate in Mormon discussions anymore, not online or in real life. My heart will always love this community though, and love the compassion and faith you all show for each other. Whatever God and Christ are, they are a part of you all, and you are a part of them. Thank you for continuing to do that work to make the world we live in a better, more loving place to experience life. You can’t fix it all, but you can leave it at least a little better than you found it, wherever you leave your footprints along the journey.

This policy change … it breaks my heart.

I didn’t think I could be shocked anymore. I was wrong. I don’t even know why I should care, but I can’t not care. I still have many friends and family in the LDS Church, many who are already struggling to stay in and be a part of it. They are such good people, trying so hard to live a good life and love others — and they make a positive difference in the lives others. They make the world a better place.

People in a same-sex marriage are apostates and must be excommunicated? Fine. I don’t personally agree at all … but fine. I get it. That isn’t really even a change on any level. That truly is a policy clarification, a standardization of interpretation and implementation.

But children? [sigh…] Children need to be protected from the Church by being excluded from any meaningful level of participation? We all know what it means socially and spiritually to be excluded. The only reason any of us are here or have been here is because we have felt that way deeply (for whatever reasons) and/or have spent great personal energy ministering to those who have felt this way. I instantly flash in my memory to the thousands of times I have told someone on the margins or the fringes (for whatever reason) that they are loved and we can find a way to include them. I think of the people I used to home teach who didn’t fit the mold in one way or another, who felt like they couldn’t be a part of the congregation, who desperately NEEDED to be a part of the ward and faith community. I didn’t care what anyone else thought, they could always come and sit with me in the pews, or go with me to Sunday School. We can find a place for them.

Or was I always mistaken? Did I just make it worse by giving false hope? This is what races through my mind and my soul.

So this is a policy to protect children? The deep sucker punch baked right into it: this policy change is made to protect these children from what the church knows it will do to them. They must be excluded to protect them from the church, from the people at church. That’s the social and spiritual reason given.

The legal worries? Lawsuits? What is the LDS Church worried about losing in a lawsuit? Money? This is what my former religion worries the most about? But it takes money to run such a big, worldwide organization. We have to protect the assets of the church.

I didn’t grow up in the Mormon corridor. My fondest memories of church are as a child, living in the midwest, where we met in a local elementary school. Cub Scouts was held at one of the member’s houses that had a farm. Or when I was serving in the Army, and we held church in an unused building on base, or literally in a tent in the wilderness, because we all wanted to just be together and commune spiritually for a little while, to take rest and renewal in each others company. God, Christ, The Church, the religion is an idea in the hearts and minds of people. It takes almost no money at all. If there even were enemies, they can’t sue an abstract concept. They can’t get a legal injunction against being nice to people and helping others in need.

Anyways … I could ramble on and on.

I’m just popping back on here to say that I love you all. My heart goes out to you all having to deal with this and pick up the shattered pieces. Thank you for putting love out into the world, and for being there for others who come here needing to talk with others who can just listen and not freak out.

[Anonymous]

Brian said:

Quote:

Anyways … I could ramble on and on.

Please ramble on. It’s good to hear your voice on this site again.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

Brian said:

Quote:

Anyways … I could ramble on and on.

Please ramble on. It’s good to hear your voice on this site again.

I agree. I’ve wondered if more distance would help, but you seem to be saying it doesn’t. Thanks for watching over us.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I am a business man. Where I work we have a policy …

I look at this new policy from that same perspective and I believe that church leadership does too.

I like Roy’s summary…and I think my heart is heavy because that is exactly what this all feels like…policy and business.

The church and their lawyers have drawn a line in the sand with homosexuality stance, and these seem to be actions out of how to protect their line in the sand. And perhaps that is why it feels so wrong. It feels like business, not like gospel.

Perhaps the reason it is getting so complex and difficult to manage the line, is because drawing the line is the problem where no problem should be there. When the policy gets so hard to maintain and justify, that could mean the policy should go away. We need a leader like SWK to remove a policy based on traditional teachings that are assumed to be God’s will, when I find no Book of Mormon scripture that teaches such a thing, only vague biblical teachings and traditional christian belief. Book of Mormon teachings talk about innocence of little children, and gospel teachings of love.

Have we not learned anything from our mormon history and man-made agendas that cloud eternal principles?

Brian Johnston wrote:

We all know what it means socially and spiritually to be excluded. The only reason any of us are here or have been here is because we have felt that way deeply (for whatever reasons) and/or have spent great personal energy ministering to those who have felt this way. I instantly flash in my memory to the thousands of times I have told someone on the margins or the fringes (for whatever reason) that they are loved and we can find a way to include them. I think of the people I used to home teach who didn’t fit the mold in one way or another, who felt like they couldn’t be a part of the congregation, who desperately NEEDED to be a part of the ward and faith community. I didn’t care what anyone else thought, they could always come and sit with me in the pews, or go with me to Sunday School. We can find a place for them.

Or was I always mistaken? Did I just make it worse by giving false hope? This is what races through my mind and my soul.

Thanks Brian. These are my exact thoughts at the time. I just started a thread “The Church has something for everyone” …and yes…these discussions make me now wonder if I have false hope.

I hold out with faith that I was not wrong, there is something for everyone…and we all must work through the real issues about what this policy is and isn’t, and how it will be practiced. I do not give up hope yet. But…things like this test it.

In the end, I hope Love wins. I do not think that is foolish to hope for. I think the church can get this right. But right now, it doesn’t feel they have figured it out. This is part of our journey. We are in the middle of it.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I agree. I’ve wondered if more distance would help, but you seem to be saying it doesn’t. Thanks for watching over us.

The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.

Can’t really escape from problems. Mostly just have to dig in and solve them … or let go of our attachment, let them drift away on the winds.

Distance away isn’t really a help or a hindrance, although we all need to step outside our routine and comfort zone from time to time just to keep things in perspective. I’m doing really good though. I was happy before, and I am happy now. My family is doing good. I am closer to my wife and we have a great relationship (just celebrated out 25th anniversary). I’ve been actively focusing on being healthy. Life is busy. Life is good.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

My only point at pointing to the podcast that James to me made a case for why the church would do this to protect themselves. I don’t agree with the entire podcast. In fact I disagree with some of the comments made

I agree that there is always a legal imperative and always a financial imperative. I do not think that church leaders reduce it down to loss of tithing revenues, as though each of us where walking dollar signs – that is just too cold and calculating. I really believe that these men want to do the right thing. I just believe that they see protecting the church from legal liability to be consistent with doing the right thing.

It can be hard to argue with that reasoning. Can you imagine trying to make a case that exposing the church to an increasing number of lawsuits and potential bad press claiming parental alienation would be the smart move?

Heber13 wrote:

The church and their lawyers have drawn a line in the sand with homosexuality stance, and these seem to be actions out of how to protect their line in the sand. And perhaps that is why it feels so wrong. It feels like business, not like gospel.

Brian Johnston wrote:

If there even were enemies, they can’t sue an abstract concept. They can’t get a legal injunction against being nice to people and helping others in need.

This seems to be the case with all religions. After the fiery eruption of creative spiritualistic force, the lava flows almost immediately begin to harden and calcify into hierarchy and policy. There are both good things and bad things about modern corporate church conformity … at least it is dependable. 🙂

[Author]

Posts