Duty Bound to Reject It!
Duty Bound to Reject It!
I tried to list as cleanly as I could why this new policy rubs me the wrong way and why I am dissenting quite strongly. I would love your guys thoughts
http://www.wheatandtares.org/19575/duty ... reject-it/
http://www.wheatandtares.org/19575/duty ... reject-it/
reelmormon@gmail.com
http://mormondiscussionpodcast.org
https://www.facebook.com/Mormondiscussion
http://www.fairblog.org/2012/12/12/keep ... eel-story/
"His Grace is Sufficient" It truly Is!
http://mormondiscussionpodcast.org
https://www.facebook.com/Mormondiscussion
http://www.fairblog.org/2012/12/12/keep ... eel-story/
"His Grace is Sufficient" It truly Is!
- nibbler
- Posts: 5027
- Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
- Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe
Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!
I like it and I like the quote from Joseph F. Smith at the end. The only thing is that I didn't like the focus on the phrase "duty bound." These days I'm exhausted from everyone telling me what I'm obligated to do or believe based on promises I either have or haven't explicitly made in the past. I feel like someone telling me that I'm duty bound to reject the policy is really no different than my SP telling everyone that disagrees with the policy that they are duty bound to follow the prophets.
I do like the quote and I like that there is a call out to be duty bound to reject it. I just think the quote should stand on its own. If people chose to focus on "duty bound to reject it" then that's fine but I'd rather see the quote getting people to think. Making the focus of the quote a rally cry to reject the new policy may make it easier for people to dismiss the entire argument without really thinking through the points being made.
I agree with all of your points. I guess I'm saying that I'm tired of being bound by things.
Side note:
What I feel is lost in all of this is that there's a handbook from which members are being judged that only a privileged few have access to. I believe we've been through this exercise before and at least handbook 2 is out there for the world to see. Still it feels like a throwback to medieval days were only religious leaders had access to the scriptures so everything had to go through them. The printing press led to wider access to information, more informed discussions, possibly the protestant movement. We have the internet in our day doing much of the same.
The handbooks aren't a part of our canon, yet in some ways we've elevated them to be above canon.
Edit: Maybe the distinction is that in one case I'm being asked to be duty bound to someone else and in the other case I'm being asked to be duty bound to myself.
I do like the quote and I like that there is a call out to be duty bound to reject it. I just think the quote should stand on its own. If people chose to focus on "duty bound to reject it" then that's fine but I'd rather see the quote getting people to think. Making the focus of the quote a rally cry to reject the new policy may make it easier for people to dismiss the entire argument without really thinking through the points being made.
I agree with all of your points. I guess I'm saying that I'm tired of being bound by things.
Side note:
What I feel is lost in all of this is that there's a handbook from which members are being judged that only a privileged few have access to. I believe we've been through this exercise before and at least handbook 2 is out there for the world to see. Still it feels like a throwback to medieval days were only religious leaders had access to the scriptures so everything had to go through them. The printing press led to wider access to information, more informed discussions, possibly the protestant movement. We have the internet in our day doing much of the same.
The handbooks aren't a part of our canon, yet in some ways we've elevated them to be above canon.
Edit: Maybe the distinction is that in one case I'm being asked to be duty bound to someone else and in the other case I'm being asked to be duty bound to myself.
I kept a diary right after I was born. Day 1: Tired from the move. Day 2: Everyone thinks I'm an idiot.
— Steven Wright
— Steven Wright
- DevilsAdvocate
- Posts: 1392
- Joined: 19 Feb 2010, 12:56
- Location: Utah
Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!
I already had pretty low expectations of Church leaders before they pulled this stunt but this really did surprise me because like you said they basically contradicted the Church's own doctrines or at least what many faithful Church members thought the Church was about such as people freely choosing what is supposedly right for themselves regardless of what others around them do or think about it. And why was it so important to spell out this highly questionable policy in the first place? Apparently because they didn't like to see increasing acceptance of homosexuals in the Church and they saw this as a threat to the Church, temple marriage, "traditional" families, etc. so they went out of their way to single out and try to reject a small minority of Church members that probably represent less that 5-10% of Church members many of whom are already inactive anyway.
Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel even if we recognize that they think homosexuality is a serious and unacceptable sin and are old and relatively conservative men that grew up in a time when there typically weren't people living in openly homosexual relationships. I still find it somewhat hard to believe that even one of them actually thought this was a good idea much less enough of them to go forward with this as an official policy with their stamp of approval. I do think that they didn't expect it to get this much attention from typical chapel Mormons largely because similar treatment of the children of polygamists never got anywhere near this much attention.
However, even after all the public disapproval and negative media attention their attempted explanations and "clarifications" didn't do much to help the situation. In fact, if anything I think their reactions show just how little they care about or respect what rank-and-file members think and feel because they basically blamed anyone that was upset about this change for supposedly misunderstanding it and jumping to conclusions about it when in reality many of these people understood the policy perfectly based on the way it was actually worded in the handbook and they simply disagreed with it and/or thought it didn't make sense, wasn't fair, etc. In any case, their lame excuses are not going to change the fact that in many cases this gives members a glaring and perfectly understandable reason to seriously question Church leaders' inspiration and judgment and for some of them it was already the final straw.
Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel even if we recognize that they think homosexuality is a serious and unacceptable sin and are old and relatively conservative men that grew up in a time when there typically weren't people living in openly homosexual relationships. I still find it somewhat hard to believe that even one of them actually thought this was a good idea much less enough of them to go forward with this as an official policy with their stamp of approval. I do think that they didn't expect it to get this much attention from typical chapel Mormons largely because similar treatment of the children of polygamists never got anywhere near this much attention.
However, even after all the public disapproval and negative media attention their attempted explanations and "clarifications" didn't do much to help the situation. In fact, if anything I think their reactions show just how little they care about or respect what rank-and-file members think and feel because they basically blamed anyone that was upset about this change for supposedly misunderstanding it and jumping to conclusions about it when in reality many of these people understood the policy perfectly based on the way it was actually worded in the handbook and they simply disagreed with it and/or thought it didn't make sense, wasn't fair, etc. In any case, their lame excuses are not going to change the fact that in many cases this gives members a glaring and perfectly understandable reason to seriously question Church leaders' inspiration and judgment and for some of them it was already the final straw.
"Truth is what works." - William James
Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!
You've laid out some very good arguments why you feel duty bound to reject that policy. Sincerely, those are good arguments. I don't agree with them all, but you lay out good thoughts and scriptural interpretations to support them.
My 2 questions are:
1) Can a person feel that way about the policy and clarification, and still stay in the church?
2) Is it possible to ever conclude with certainty any sweeping world-wide policy based on Standard Works alone?
If you were to sit down with Elder Christofferson and present this statement:
No...he would say you're not interpreting them correctly, that those don't apply to this situation, that the policy is not contradictory to these scriptures or the teachings of Jesus Christ.
And when there is a difference of my interpretation or the brethren in unison as a quorum...the lesson is that I need to better understand it because God will reveal it to his servants, the prophets. To go against them is apostasy. If I am truly seeking, I will come to see it their way and bring my opinions into alignment with theirs. Round and round we go.
To answer my own 2 questions above:
1) Yes - This policy is like a hair in my soup. I don't consume it, I remove it and enjoy the rest, even if it feels a little squirmy to me, the rest is actually still good.
2) No - Scripture bashing does not reveal truth.
My 2 questions are:
1) Can a person feel that way about the policy and clarification, and still stay in the church?
2) Is it possible to ever conclude with certainty any sweeping world-wide policy based on Standard Works alone?
When I have this discussion with faithful members, it seems to become a circular argument. Scriptures are used to support the things the church teaches, based on interpretation from the church leaders who are teaching. Self-fulfilling revelation. How do you argue it?It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.
-Joseph Fielding Smith, quoted in the post on W&T here
If you were to sit down with Elder Christofferson and present this statement:
His response would not be: "Oh, flip...you're right. We totally didn't see those scriptures."This policy seems to run contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.
We have in this policy pushed innocent children away and made it much less likely that the kids affected will return to the faith later in life.
“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” – Jesus
“Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” – Jesus
No...he would say you're not interpreting them correctly, that those don't apply to this situation, that the policy is not contradictory to these scriptures or the teachings of Jesus Christ.
And when there is a difference of my interpretation or the brethren in unison as a quorum...the lesson is that I need to better understand it because God will reveal it to his servants, the prophets. To go against them is apostasy. If I am truly seeking, I will come to see it their way and bring my opinions into alignment with theirs. Round and round we go.
To answer my own 2 questions above:
1) Yes - This policy is like a hair in my soup. I don't consume it, I remove it and enjoy the rest, even if it feels a little squirmy to me, the rest is actually still good.
2) No - Scripture bashing does not reveal truth.
Luke: "Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father."
Obi-Wan: "Your father... was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."
Luke: "A certain point of view?"
Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to...depend greatly on our point of view."
Obi-Wan: "Your father... was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."
Luke: "A certain point of view?"
Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to...depend greatly on our point of view."
- On Own Now
- Posts: 1801
- Joined: 18 Jan 2012, 12:45
Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!
DB,
It's a well-written piece. I, like you, feel the need to be more vocal now, and I'm trying to find a way ahead that will allow me to stay in the conversation, but still get my radical views out there. It'll be a balancing act, for sure.
I do want to offer some thoughts on the impact to children. FWIW, I'm not as offended by that part of it. You mentioned AoF #2. I have to say that if I put on my true-believer hat from my prior life, I would use that same Article of Faith to JUSTIFY the policy. My old thinking would have gone along the lines of not holding children accountable for not being baptized, if they were being kept out of it by the actions of their parents.
The main reason I don't find "the children" to be a compelling counter argument is that the Church has already had an identical long-standing policy with regards to children of polygamous families. To me, that one makes perfect sense, and I support it whole-heatedly. From my perspective, there is a huge difference between polygamy and SSM, but I can understand from the believer's perspective that the difference would be much less obvious.
One of the principal arguments against SSM by faithful people from all kinds of religious traditions is that making SSM common and normalized will result in eroding the position previously held by traditional marriage. From their perspective, it creates an environment that they see as welcoming of something they dislike, preach against, and for which they want their kids to have no open avenue. The fact is, there is truth embedded in that argument. It's an outcome that I welcome and hope for; it's an outcome that they are trying to prevent.
I believe that the Church's current position on SSM makes it impossible for the Church to accept same-sex couples/families into its fellowship. I strongly disagree, but I understand their position. The prohibition isn't targeted at kids, but at parents. When the Church draws the 'apostate' line in the sand, the prohibition on SSM families is a logical step, from their perspective, no matter how uncomfortable it is for you, me, and an awful lot of believers.
For me, I've chosen to stay away from this particular "the children" argument. There is way too much subjectivity to make it effective for convincing anyone. What saddens and disturbs me in the new policy is the designation of 'apostate' for adults in same-sex marriage or cohabitation. That's what I think is not supported in our Standard Works, and it creates an unfortunate no-tolerance environment, that seems out-of-character and out-of-line. I have to conclude that I, myself, am an apostate; not because I practice SSM, but because I support it.
If there is a "the children" argument I do make it's not about the children of SSM couples who want to be baptized, but rather about the orders-of-magnitude more numerous gay/lesbian children of standard Mormon families, who grow up to find that there is no room for them in the inn. There's some young kid in every ward primary, singing I Am a Child of God, who just doesn't know yet that they are homosexual. That's far more destructive and dangerous, IMO.
It's a well-written piece. I, like you, feel the need to be more vocal now, and I'm trying to find a way ahead that will allow me to stay in the conversation, but still get my radical views out there. It'll be a balancing act, for sure.
I do want to offer some thoughts on the impact to children. FWIW, I'm not as offended by that part of it. You mentioned AoF #2. I have to say that if I put on my true-believer hat from my prior life, I would use that same Article of Faith to JUSTIFY the policy. My old thinking would have gone along the lines of not holding children accountable for not being baptized, if they were being kept out of it by the actions of their parents.
The main reason I don't find "the children" to be a compelling counter argument is that the Church has already had an identical long-standing policy with regards to children of polygamous families. To me, that one makes perfect sense, and I support it whole-heatedly. From my perspective, there is a huge difference between polygamy and SSM, but I can understand from the believer's perspective that the difference would be much less obvious.
One of the principal arguments against SSM by faithful people from all kinds of religious traditions is that making SSM common and normalized will result in eroding the position previously held by traditional marriage. From their perspective, it creates an environment that they see as welcoming of something they dislike, preach against, and for which they want their kids to have no open avenue. The fact is, there is truth embedded in that argument. It's an outcome that I welcome and hope for; it's an outcome that they are trying to prevent.
I believe that the Church's current position on SSM makes it impossible for the Church to accept same-sex couples/families into its fellowship. I strongly disagree, but I understand their position. The prohibition isn't targeted at kids, but at parents. When the Church draws the 'apostate' line in the sand, the prohibition on SSM families is a logical step, from their perspective, no matter how uncomfortable it is for you, me, and an awful lot of believers.
For me, I've chosen to stay away from this particular "the children" argument. There is way too much subjectivity to make it effective for convincing anyone. What saddens and disturbs me in the new policy is the designation of 'apostate' for adults in same-sex marriage or cohabitation. That's what I think is not supported in our Standard Works, and it creates an unfortunate no-tolerance environment, that seems out-of-character and out-of-line. I have to conclude that I, myself, am an apostate; not because I practice SSM, but because I support it.
If there is a "the children" argument I do make it's not about the children of SSM couples who want to be baptized, but rather about the orders-of-magnitude more numerous gay/lesbian children of standard Mormon families, who grow up to find that there is no room for them in the inn. There's some young kid in every ward primary, singing I Am a Child of God, who just doesn't know yet that they are homosexual. That's far more destructive and dangerous, IMO.
- - -
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ― Carl Jung
- - -
"Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another." ― Romans 14:13
- - -
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ― Carl Jung
- - -
"Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another." ― Romans 14:13
- - -
Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!
Good point. I also think that it can be argued it doesn't directly go against AoF#2. That AoF was about Adam and Eve's original sin specifically, which means it is out of context for this new policy. However...out of context as it may be...the idea of people being deprived baptism because of others is a logical question when we want to believe we are judged for our own sins, and not for others...but specifically...this policy isn't about original sin. So it is an understandable stretch in my opinion, but a stretch the same, and so people will argue both sides of that.On Own Now wrote:You mentioned AoF #2. I have to say that if I put on my true-believer hat from my prior life, I would use that same Article of Faith to JUSTIFY the policy. My old thinking would have gone along the lines of not holding children accountable for not being baptized, if they were being kept out of it by the actions of their parents.
OON, I like how you see it from the church's viewpoint and can understand it...and can also disagree with it, even if you can see why the policy is a logical step from their prior teaching. That is a very reasonable approach.
I don't think this topic is easily explained or explained away. I think it will be around for a while to contend with. The only duty I have is to my heart and head.
Luke: "Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father."
Obi-Wan: "Your father... was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."
Luke: "A certain point of view?"
Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to...depend greatly on our point of view."
Obi-Wan: "Your father... was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."
Luke: "A certain point of view?"
Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to...depend greatly on our point of view."
Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!
I also like the article.
I personally am not particularly swayed by arguments about how particular policies contradict scripture. Part of this is because I see scripture as holy men's best guess at what God want us to do. It is a useful guide but only a guide. Since scriptures contradict against each other it would be almost impossible to not have a policy contradict against certain scriptures. Lastly, I hope that the church at some point is more welcome of homosexuals and homosexual couples in our community ... this course would probably contradict some scriptures. So I cannot complain too loudly when a policy that I do not agree with contradicts scripture.
I personally am more motivated by the personal example stories of people that get chewed up by the system than by examples of how we supposedly break our own rules. I want to break our own rules when we might do so for the sake of compassion and mercy. I want policies that are flexible enough to take individual circumstances into account. I want people to matter more than policy.
I personally am not particularly swayed by arguments about how particular policies contradict scripture. Part of this is because I see scripture as holy men's best guess at what God want us to do. It is a useful guide but only a guide. Since scriptures contradict against each other it would be almost impossible to not have a policy contradict against certain scriptures. Lastly, I hope that the church at some point is more welcome of homosexuals and homosexual couples in our community ... this course would probably contradict some scriptures. So I cannot complain too loudly when a policy that I do not agree with contradicts scripture.
I personally am more motivated by the personal example stories of people that get chewed up by the system than by examples of how we supposedly break our own rules. I want to break our own rules when we might do so for the sake of compassion and mercy. I want policies that are flexible enough to take individual circumstances into account. I want people to matter more than policy.
I agree.On Own Now wrote:If there is a "the children" argument I do make it's not about the children of SSM couples who want to be baptized, but rather about the orders-of-magnitude more numerous gay/lesbian children of standard Mormon families, who grow up to find that there is no room for them in the inn. There's some young kid in every ward primary, singing I Am a Child of God, who just doesn't know yet that they are homosexual. That's far more destructive and dangerous, IMO.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood
“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223
"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13
“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223
"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13
- SilentDawning
- Posts: 7602
- Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55
Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!
Wow Bill! You came out with a rapid fire of solid reasons.
This one really struck me:
You make a lot of good points, and I was able to get them with the short bold headings, most of them...good job of writing!
This one really struck me:
I personally don't like it when people implement policies that hurt others, and then label them as being for "their protection". They try to make the policy seem as if it is there to serve the wounded person's interests....This policy creates a litmus test where Elder Christofferson just a few months ago said there was none.
Why just a few months ago say that members were free to support Same Sex Marriage and now place language in the manual that states that such support is no longer acceptable for those with gay parents? This is how it now stands for children of gay parents who want to join the church; they must disavow their gay parent(s)’ marriage:
“There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support that if you want to support it,” Christofferson said, “if that’s your belief and you think it’s right.” Any Latter-day Saint can have a belief “on either side of this issue,” he said. “That’s not uncommon.” – Elder Christofferson
You make a lot of good points, and I was able to get them with the short bold headings, most of them...good job of writing!
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young
"The wise man has the power" -- adapted from What A Fool Believes -- The Doobie Brothers
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young
"The wise man has the power" -- adapted from What A Fool Believes -- The Doobie Brothers
Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!
I appreciated the article.
One other concern that irks me the most and spills over into other topics is this: namely, D&C121:41-44. Top down edicts are angering because the GAs don't provide much of an explanation, and what Christopherson as well as the FP said on this, didn't satisfy me at all. How can driving a wedge between some parents and their child (who most likely didn't get to decided if they would be part of the family themselves in the first place) protect a child?
From something Oaks has written, the Lord doesn't often provide the "why" for His edicts. Now the church appears similar. And, the church doesn't apologize for its choices either, nor does it make corrections that are clear in past decisions--it just preaches something counter, if that.
It has become frustrating to see the distance grow from what the leadership says and what appears to be an ever dividing gulf between what members think or feel about it.
One other concern that irks me the most and spills over into other topics is this: namely, D&C121:41-44. Top down edicts are angering because the GAs don't provide much of an explanation, and what Christopherson as well as the FP said on this, didn't satisfy me at all. How can driving a wedge between some parents and their child (who most likely didn't get to decided if they would be part of the family themselves in the first place) protect a child?
From something Oaks has written, the Lord doesn't often provide the "why" for His edicts. Now the church appears similar. And, the church doesn't apologize for its choices either, nor does it make corrections that are clear in past decisions--it just preaches something counter, if that.
It has become frustrating to see the distance grow from what the leadership says and what appears to be an ever dividing gulf between what members think or feel about it.
-
- Posts: 2221
- Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 13:40
Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!
DB, I like your post. My feelings & beliefs are as follows.
I've always liked David O McKay's quote:
I consider myself in the 1st category. If the church in general knew my background, they wouldn't want to associate with me much
less have me as a member.
This new policy has really made me review my role as a missionary. I have friends & neighbors who are gay. Friends whose children
are gay. I won't be talking to them about the gospel anytime soon. I probably won't talk to anyone about the gospel unless asked a
direct question. That is sad to admit.
I've always liked David O McKay's quote:
I've always believed that the gospel was offered to those of us who needed it the most. Not future Stake Presidents & GA's.“The purpose of the gospel is to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”
I consider myself in the 1st category. If the church in general knew my background, they wouldn't want to associate with me much
less have me as a member.
This new policy has really made me review my role as a missionary. I have friends & neighbors who are gay. Friends whose children
are gay. I won't be talking to them about the gospel anytime soon. I probably won't talk to anyone about the gospel unless asked a
direct question. That is sad to admit.