Page 14 of 20

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 08:37
by Minyan Man
Brian said:
Anyways ... I could ramble on and on.
Please ramble on. It's good to hear your voice on this site again.

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 10:47
by Ann
Minyan Man wrote:Brian said:
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.

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 11:59
by Heber13
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.

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 12:56
by Brian Johnston
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.

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 13:06
by Roy
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. :smile:

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 21:36
by DevilsAdvocate
Roy wrote:I have read a bunch about this new policy. Most of what I am reading does not appear to get to what I believe to be the heart of the issue...I am a business man. Where I work we have a policy where no outside organizations or individuals can post signs or solicit. This means that you can't put up a sign for a fundraiser for children with cancer or ask your coworkers to buy a candy bar for your kid's soccer team. This policy is to protect against unions...I look at this new policy from that same perspective and I believe that church leadership does too...I do not think it reasonable to fear that gay people would sue to get married in the temple and actually believe that this is an element of fear mongering. There seem to be very strong protections on the division of church and state that would protect this from happening. However, I could see people suing for other reasons. Suppose that I am in a gay marriage and am enrolled at BYU - should I not have access to married student housing?...But why the stuff about not baptizing the kids until they turn 18, etc. etc?...In summary, for me all this talk of protecting children vs. punishing children is actually a distraction from the much more straightforward reasons for this policy. I do not like this policy but at least from this perspective I can better understand it.
I could see some of them being paranoid about lawsuits with some of the hype about religious freedom supposedly being under attack even though there isn't much compelling evidence of this being a very valid threat to worry all that much about. However, even if that was one of their primary concerns it still doesn't explain why they would have included some of the details such as that if someone's parents were ever in a same-sex marriage or cohabitation relationship they should have to get special permission from the First Presidency before getting baptized even after they are legally adults. To be honest it seems like many apologists and critics alike are giving Church leaders more credit than I think they really deserve as far as carefully thinking this policy change through, knowing exactly what they were aiming for and why, and having a good idea what the likely results of it would actually be.

For example, in addition to this theory about being afraid of possible legal liabilities to the point that they supposedly felt like they had to do something to try to protect the Church another fairly popular theory is that they supposedly intended this as sort of a purge to separate the wheat from the tares because they don't really want liberals in the Church that sympathize with gays and lesbians and that supposedly don't really believe in the Church and don't pay much if any tithing anyway. However, I see this as an example of Church leaders basically shooting themselves in the foot because it has mostly turned out to be a major PR blunder that has also caused many Church members to question the Church more than they would have otherwise and my guess is they didn't expect it to get anywhere near the attention it already has in part because they had already been treating the children of polygamists the same way without getting nearly this much attention.

In fact, when was the last time, before this, that any policy in the local leadership handbooks got very much public attention outside of the DAMU? Also there was some talk about this supposedly only directly affecting 1% of Church members so maybe they thought it wouldn't matter that much if most of them were excluded from the Church because so few children of openly gay parents are even active members of the Church anyway. However, I think this is one area where they miscalculated the costs versus benefits because like the Pew survey showed the the number of self-identified Mormons that said homosexuality should be accepted by society has already increased from 25% to 36% between 2007 and 2014 and that doesn't even count all the ones that think homosexuality should be discouraged but will still have a hard time understanding or accepting the idea that the children of gays and lesbians should be singled out and treated differently than everyone else because of who their parents are.

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 10 Nov 2015, 22:29
by hawkgrrrl
Check back with me in three weeks. We will be at a very different place by then I hope.

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 11 Nov 2015, 09:30
by Brian Johnston
Roy wrote: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. :smile:
An old parable:

"God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand.

"Ah, Truth," he said.

"Here, give it to me," the devil said. "I'll organize it."

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 11 Nov 2015, 11:16
by mackay11
churchistrue wrote:I have kind of set myself up to be a Mormon apologist, so I feel obligated to defend the church. This is the safest place online I have to complain. I've had some angry moments the last few days. It's very, very difficult not to see this as a spiteful, immature reaction to the gay community after losing every fight it's picked recently on the subject. I thought we were moving on, but it doesn't look like it. Yesterday, I'm talking at home with wife and older kids and younger kid says "can someone please tell me whether or not my church hates gays." The situation just sucks. I hope we can make it right soon. I was very hopeful when I heard the church was making a clarification that it would be something like "oops that got out into the media before it was finalized." or at least "it's been interpreted wrong, it only applies to adopted children of same sex parents not split parents". But instead, Elder Christofferson seemed to double down and remove wiggle room in his clarification. None of the logic being used to defend it makes any sense. It hurts a lot of children and families in LGBT community. And not just that. Members who don't hate gays are assumed to be gay bashers. Just four years ago, we were in the middle of the Mormon moment. Mitt Romney was running for president. Book of Mormon musical was popular. Mormons had reputation of being faithful, a little weird, but super nice, hard working, high achievers. Dammit, that's how I want to be perceived! Now we're quickly trying to ruin that reputation for one that is obsessed with discriminating against gays.
Thanks for your honest reaction. One of the things that bothers me most about this policy is that it will twist people's arms to feel obliged to support it. Intuitively many people will feel uncomfortable about it, but feel a loyalty pushing them to accept it and post-rationalise it.

I think that's what bothers me the most. It pushes people to be something they're not and believe something they don't.

Any your youngest's question was a corker...

Re: Same sex marriage considered apostasy

Posted: 11 Nov 2015, 11:22
by mackay11
DarkJedi wrote:
Ann wrote:The other hard thing about it all is that it (at least for now) deflates my optimism about the new members of the quorum.
I had this same thought, Ann, considering the timing. I would full well expect something like this from Packer and Perry but not necessarily the new ones.
The speed of movement in the church means this was probably signed off months ago.

It bothers me more that Elders Uchtdorf & Eyring would have perhaps had the opportunity to veto this and didn't. Perhaps. Purely speculation.