This is topic LDS church declares SSM couples apostates and their children banned from attending in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16857.html

Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
So I could understand perhaps somewhat that LDS would reject SSM couples - but it also rejects their children and their children can't receive baptism or blessings? Anyone able to explain or rationalize this?

quote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has instructed local church leaders that same-sex couples are apostates and that children living with them can't take part in church activities until they're adults and leave home, the church told NBC News on Thursday night.

[...]

A separate section of the handbook includes new language instructing local leaders that a child — biological or adopted — of parents living in a same-gender relationship may not receive the church's blessing, begin training to become missionaries, or be baptized, confirmed or ordained without permission of top church leaders.

Even then, such approval would be allowed only if the child is 18 or older, leaves home and "specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage," according to the revisions.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mormon-church-bars-children-same-sex-couples-baptism-blessings-n458416?cid=sm_fb
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
I think that they are applying the current policies for children of polygamists to children of SSM couples.

But it gets complicated when they don't live with the SSM parent. Parents get divorced because dad likes men, kids are with mom, why should it matter what dad does?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Very distressing. Even we won't refuse to baptise a child whose parents sincerely want it - although some priests might.
quote:
...when people living in such unions request a child’s baptism, almost all the responses emphasize that the child must be received with the same care, tenderness and concern which is given to other children. Many responses indicate that it would be helpful to receive more concrete pastoral directives in these situations. Clearly, the Church has the duty to ascertain the actual elements involved in transmitting the faith to the child. Should a reasonable doubt exist in the capability of persons in a same sex union to instruct the child in the Christian faith, proper support is to be secured in the same manner as for any other couple seeking the baptism of their children. In this regard, other people in their family and social surroundings could also provide assistance. In these cases, the pastor is carefully to oversee the preparation for the possible baptism of the child, with particular attention given to the choice of the godfather and godmother.
THE PASTORAL CHALLENGES OF THE FAMILY IN THE CONTEXT OF EVANGELIZATION INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS VATICAN CITY
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Just to be clear, the norm is to be baptized as a child in the LDS not as an "adult" after turning 18 right?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I believe it is after the child reaches an "age of accountability" which is around 8. But I am not an expert.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Yes, the threshold and norm is 8 years old.

The church - and its many volunteer apologists - are spinning this as an effort to protect children from a heavy and confusing conflict between their family, including what is valued and taught in the home, and what the church teaches. This is, admittedly, a benefit of the policy not to baptize children living at home with parents whose very lifestyle is at odds with the church. (Not that I'm saying that it's a compelling benefit.)

But that's not the only restriction - adult children have to move out and specifically disavow their parents' same sex relationships in order to apply for approval for baptism.

So I think the real motivation is to create a clear division between the church and those who support others in their same sex relationships. Right now, a substantial fraction of the LDS church members know and support people in same sex relationships: generally their family members who are probably not observant Mormons. I think this is an alarming (to the church leaders) pattern of unorthodoxy and the church is trying to stamp it out.

The same restriction exists for children of polygamists, because the church needed to distance itself from the practice after the Manifesto that ended official support for it. The association stuck, and there were even pockets of disobedient members who still practiced it for a few years after the Manifesto, so they took extra measures to create and maintain that separation. (Of course, the association of Mormons with polygamy will probably never go away completely.)

The leaders of the LDS church are seeing growing support for same sex relationships within the church, and have so far responded by affirming the church teaching that such relationships are deeply sinful - second only to murder. The divide between the beliefs of some of the membership and the entrenched position of the church is difficult to reconcile.

For the church to change that teaching is the type of reversal that has only happened twice before (polygamy, then black men and the priesthood), and this is arguably a more entrenched and fundamental position than the past examples, given that their position on same sex marriage ties in with their view of gender and marriage being eternally significant - one of the taught requirements for exaltation in the afterlife is marriage between a man and one or more women (the church has never disavowed the doctrine of polygamy, only the current practice of it).

They are trapped. They either undermine their own authority in a direct way by reversing some of the most fundamental of their teachings - supposedly revealed by God - or undermine it slowly, by tolerating divisions of belief and practice within the church in ways they have never tolerated before, with theological implications for the members' salvation.

Or, they do what they are doing, and try to stamp out the unorthodoxy. It's not surprising to me that fearful old men who have bought fully into the fantasy that they are God's instruments on earth in a top down authoritarian spiritual regime would choose the path they have chosen, but it is still sad to see members of the church lose hope that some other form of reconciliation was possible.

[ November 06, 2015, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
A side benefit for the church: children who are giving a name and blessing at birth, or baptized at 8, become part of the church's recorded population. It's much more likely for children with gay parents to end up leaving later (based on anecdotal evidence but I think for obvious reasons it's true). That leaves the church with either "inactive" members or exits. And that hurts their narrative of growth and success.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
It's interesting to watch theological darwinism at work. Is it odd the number of religions dealing with serious issues of doctrine all at the same time, or is this (and other religion's issues) a result of the information age and globalization? It's not like all religions are dealing with the same societal change/influences.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I think it's a result of the information age and a lot of that information being at odds with institutions that are especially committed to their own inerrancy.

Although, really, it's also the specificity of the doctrines.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" Even we won't refuse to baptise a child whose parents sincerely want it - although some priests might"

That would be relevant if baptism meant anything like the same thing to you that it does to mormons.

Not being baptized in this life does not condemn you to hell. I was personally taken off church rolls myself, exed, not punish me but to withraw me from covenants that would prove to my damnation if I failed to live up to them.

Note that there is no policy against same sex members or their families receiving church welfare, which is often still bestowed on me, despite my exmo status.

I had not heard of this policy and am somewhat surprised, but suggest you check the LDS press as ABC has a history of sometimes distorting LDS positions. But Phil is right; what is described is the precise policy that has been applied to plig families for decades. But to those ignorant of LDS culture and policy, it sounds much harsher than it is. The LDS community is forbidden in both the Book of Mormon and current church talks to shun excommunicants. The welfare program is open to them. And there is no teaching that excommunication involves helfire and all that scary stuff. Being part of the LDS church means representing God on a set of specific projects
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I've been pretty immersed in talk about this issue for the last couple of days, and you're the first person I've seen mention the church welfare program. It hadn't occurred to me. So, two things: I don't think this is something people are concerned about, HOWEVER, it's nice to know that the church would not be against helping those children with material needs. I'm not sure what I would assumed about it if I hadn't read your post before I ever thought about it.

quote:
But to those ignorant of LDS culture and policy, it sounds much harsher than it is. The LDS community is forbidden in both the Book of Mormon and current church talks to shun excommunicants.
True, it's not quite shunning that's involved. But what people think of the church is not the point.

The people who really care about this are not people who are ignorant of church culture - they are the families where a gay ex-spouse has joint custody, and suddenly this makes it impossible for the other parent to continue with raising the kids in the church in a normal fashion. I've seen several examples already of families that are directly impacted - and they are telling heartbreaking stories of their children's confusion about how living part of the time with dad and dad's husband is going to affect whether they can get baptized, ordained, or serve missions.

These are situations where the gay married couple had agreed to support the children's religious life, although such an accommodation was no doubt difficult. And the church has caused a crisis for those families that had already bent over backwards in favor of making church attendance as easy on the kids as possible.

In the future, it will cause parents to try to prevent such custody arrangements, tearing children away from one of their parents so they can continue to have full access to church ordinances.

The church was caught off guard by the backlash, which makes a lot of the last few years' "we love our gay church and family members" rhetoric ring hollow. They don't understand the types of families they are interfering with.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I've been pretty immersed in talk about this issue for the last couple of days, and you're the first person I've seen mention the church welfare program. It hadn't occurred to me. So, two things: I don't think this is something people are concerned about, HOWEVER, it's nice to know that the church would not be against helping those children with material needs.

My point was broader that that. It was that equating LDS "excommunication' to Catholic excommunication, as Kate did explicitly and zs others seem to be implicitly, is painfully ignorant at best and hatefully doshonest at worst. LDS excommunication is closer to what the Catholics call defrocking, as the typical active member has duties comparable to those of a catholic deacon to parish priest. And to suggest that the LDS church is not concerned with the spiritual welfate of excommunicants is as misleading as claiming that Catholics dont care about the spiritual welfare of a defrocked Catholic priest, monk or nun. The folks that brought me, unsolicited, 8 bags of groceries last week also prayed with me and laid on hands to give a blessing. As conversant as you are in lds culture would you argue for a moment that (1) the LDS curch would withhold priesthood blessings and fellowship of the sort I just described from the kids of same sex couples or (2) that home visits, prayer and priesthood blessings or being welcome to LDS meetings does not represent an interest in their spiritual welfare as well as their spiritual?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"True, it's not quite shunning that's involved"

It isnt shunning at all that's involved. And yet the media blitz attempts to protray that the issue *is* shunning. I dont see an honest effort by detractors to adress what the church actually is doing,

I wont say that there is not a real issue or grievance here. But I have yet to see a grievance articulated that isn't grossly misleading.

When I see remarks like 'The church was caught off guard by the backlash" I am dismayed and bewildered by the implication that the church has committed some sort of sin by failing to have its PR department run its excommunicaqtions policy. Is THAT really the world you want to live in?

[ November 08, 2015, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
So I think the real motivation is to create a clear division between the church and those who support others in their same sex relationships. Right now, a substantial fraction of the LDS church members know and support people in same sex relationships: generally their family members who are probably not observant Mormons"

As an attorney, I knew supported and protected civil right of same sex couples, but being a member of the LDS church is not a civil right.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
A side benefit for the church: children who are giving a name and blessing at birth, or baptized at 8, become part of the church's recorded population. It's much more likely for children with gay parents to end up leaving later (based on anecdotal evidence but I think for obvious reasons it's true). That leaves the church with either "inactive" members or exits. And that hurts their narrative of growth and success.

But your narrative of a supposed church narrative of growth and success doesnt ay attention to the actual church narrative. The news was still describing the LDS church as a rapidly growing presence in America a decade ago when the church was telling a starkly different story in General Conference: that the church had stopped growing overall in America.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
So...the children of a parent in a SSM must move out of said parent's home, and disavow the relationship, in order to be a member in good standing, and you can't see how this issue is in the same ballpark as "shunning?"

[Roll Eyes]

[ November 09, 2015, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I didnt say it wasmt in the same *ballpark*. Jesus said being angry with your brother is in the same ballark as murder. But only a really stupid or dishonest person pretends that he said that someone who gets mad is an actual murderer, or that a kid who peeps at a picture of a topless lady jas ACTUALLY committed adultery. Au fond, mon cher sp, your own contortions of reality are painfully parallel to those of the illiterate literalists who sent you running and screaming from the church of your childhood. Hope you can look at the subject with adult eyes when you grow up.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I also think that it's a bit hysterical and hatemongering to discuss excommunication and apostasy un the LDS church, comparing policies to Catholicism, without noting that the LDS church does not have centuries of established formal tradition of shunning and violence against apostates and excommunicants. And in fact such actions are explicitly forbidden by the book of mormon, the doctrine and covenants, and repeated teachings of modern living authorities.

To throw around those terms knowing that you will be misunderstood my 99 perdent of your listeners is to lie by omission.

The I could fully sympathize and might be inclined to agree if someone were to argue that LDS church may have overacted when it applied its precedent of plig marriages to ssm. But what I see here is an effort to coerce the church into change, by using obvious duplicity and gross ignorance and misunderstanding to creating a media backlash. Much as the right used Silent Scream to speed up and slow down the4 images of fetal movement to give the false impression of a baby fighting in frenzied agony against an abortion.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Is the church policy adress the childrean of ALL samecsex couples or only against the children of same sex couples who have specifically used the rulings of a the United States Supreme Court to assert marriage status?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
SciFi, i recognize that these are not the questions you had askec but that is because you have asked the wrong ****ing questions


The *last* time the feds declated war against the LDS church, the church had to recognize that declaration of war too. Burnt down Fort Sumpter against the march of the advance of federal troops.

As those troops wintered in the ashes of Fort Sumpter, they were, like the couples who have declared "Marriage" under the belligerent terms set forth by the same federal government, recipients of mormon church welfare. Mormons labored then and I suuspect will continue to labor now to see that those that war against them do not die in winter. And the church may compromise itself and offer terms of surrender now as it did then. But what it wont and cannot do is bend over and surrender without terms. Accept a Roman surrender. The church aint Nazi Germzany and it aint reasonable for you to expect a surrender on the same terms we gave the Nazis. The feds have declaredd war on the church and those that walk into the church waving their flag are, by definition, apostates, i.e. ersons who make war on the church. But unlike other historical 0organizations, the LDS church does not have a history of burning or strangling its apostates. So Kate's analogy is rather foolish, if not murderously stupid. Traditionally, at worst the lDS church locks apostates out in the cold for half a winter, brings them blankets and warm soup, then brings them in and negotiates terms for the church's surrender.

[ November 09, 2015, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The feds have declaredd war on the church...
When did they do that, exactly?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
he people who really care about this are not people who are ignorant of church culture - they are the families where a gay ex-spouse has joint custody, and suddenly this makes it impossible for the other parent to continue with raising the kids in the church in a normal fashion. I've seen several examples already of families that are directly impacted - and they are telling heartbreaking stories of their children's confusion about how living part of the time with dad and dad's husband is going to affect whether they can get baptized, ordained, or serve missions.

These are situations where the gay married couple had agreed to support the children's religious life, although such an accommodation was no doubt difficult. And the church has caused a crisis for those families that had already bent over backwards in favor of making church attendance as easy on the kids as possible.

In the future, it will cause parents to try to prevent such custody arrangements, tearing children away from one of their parents so they can continue to have full access to church ordinances.

All of these are excellent arguments that I hope that church leaders will consider prayerfully, weighed against the consideration of damage that would be inflicted on the church if its members were led to believe that "media backlash" was the reason for a change in policy.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The feds have declaredd war on the church...
When did they do that, exactly?
Exactly ... March 4, 1857. Sorry; I could not find the time of day.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I've been pretty immersed in talk about this issue for the last couple of days, and you're the first person I've seen mention the church welfare program. It hadn't occurred to me. So, two things: I don't think this is something people are concerned about, HOWEVER, it's nice to know that the church would not be against helping those children with material needs.

My point was broader that that. It was that equating LDS "excommunication' to Catholic excommunication, as Kate did explicitly and zs others seem to be implicitly, is painfully ignorant at best and hatefully doshonest at worst. LDS excommunication is closer to what the Catholics call defrocking, as the typical active member has duties comparable to those of a catholic deacon to parish priest. And to suggest that the LDS church is not concerned with the spiritual welfate of excommunicants is as misleading as claiming that Catholics dont care about the spiritual welfare of a defrocked Catholic priest, monk or nun. The folks that brought me, unsolicited, 8 bags of groceries last week also prayed with me and laid on hands to give a blessing. As conversant as you are in lds culture would you argue for a moment that (1) the LDS curch would withhold priesthood blessings and fellowship of the sort I just described from the kids of same sex couples or (2) that home visits, prayer and priesthood blessings or being welcome to LDS meetings does not represent an interest in their spiritual welfare as well as their spiritual?
I wasn't, actually, talking about Catholic excommunication at all; I was talking about baptism. Although your view of Catholic baptism is pretty skewed as well. And perhaps I should have been talking about excommunication in the sense that ex-communication is closer to what both Churches do. In Catholic excommunication, one is specifically denied communion, is prevented from being part of the Body of Christ. Now that doesn't mean that people can't be nice or charitable to them - but we are called to be charitable to strangers too. My grandmother went through this for decades and I saw how painful it was to her. We, as far as I know, don't do this to children.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
So...the children of a parent in a SSM must move out of said parent's home,,

In many states and Canada, an unemployed husband or adult son living from the proceeds of a prostitute who is his mother or wife, must by statute move out of her house or be charged with pimping. So at worst the church policy is less unfair that the actual law of the land.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Kate, I am offered communion each weeek but was asked in 2012 upon my excommunication to not take it until I was rebaptised into the church. Yes it is painful. But someone who has n0ot been baptised or exed (such as an unbaptised child or adult) is actually encouraged to take the saacrament. I will look uo a link to sources on this. So here again, we speak of drastically different policies.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
kmbboots, wasn't it done to whole countries in the old days? Excommunicate the king and nobody gets sacraments, including kids? But that was the bad old days.

Pete, our laws on prostitution have changed. I don't know if it's still illegal to live on the avails.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" your view of Catholic baptism is pretty skewed as wel"

Please correct any of my staements that are incorrect. Did I err when I said that nonCatholics cannot take communion? Becayse when I attend Mass, I cross my arms and receive the priest's blessing rather than taking the Ostia (not sure what they are called in English). While I criticize Catholic history and doctrine where I disagree in this forum, I freely admit there are aspects of Catholic worship that I prefer to what I grew up with.

Since an unbaptised child or adult can take LDS communion, do you see why I resist the analogy to Catholic excommunication?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
kmbboots, wasn't it done to whole countries in the old days? Excommunicate the king and nobody gets sacraments, including kids? But that was the bad old days.

Pete, our laws on prostitution have changed. I don't know if it's still illegal to live on the avails.

It may have changed, but last I checked, prostitution in Canada was LEGAL but living on avails was criminal.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Our Supreme Court ruled that the law against living on the avails was unconstitutional. I don't remember the details of the Harper (spits) government's legislation in response.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
n Catholic excommunication, one is specifically denied communion, is prevented from being part of the Body of Christ. Now that doesn't mean that people can't be nice or charitable to them - but we are called to be charitable to strangers too. My grandmother went through this for decades and I saw how painful it was to her. We, as far as I know, don't do this to children.
The LDS church has never done that to children. The unbaptized child of an excommunicant can take "the sacrament" which is what Mormons tend to call Communion. (On that terminology and many other though not all points, Catholicism is more true to scripture than Mormonism. I dont claim to be unbiased but I try to give credit where it is due).
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Our Supreme Court ruled that the law against living on the avails was unconstitutional. I don't remember the details of the Harper (spits) government's legislation in response.

Thank you for the update. Good for Canada! Chalk another win for the paper King. I will have to read the decision. Would love to see how judicial review works in Canada, and I always love a story eith a happy ending. [Smile]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" your view of Catholic baptism is pretty skewed as wel"

Please correct any of my staements that are incorrect. Did I err when I said that nonCatholics cannot take communion? Becayse when I attend Mass, I cross my arms and receive the priest's blessing rather than taking the Ostia (not sure what they are called in English). While I criticize Catholic history and doctrine where I disagree in this forum, I freely admit there are aspects of Catholic worship that I prefer to what I grew up with.

Since an unbaptised child or adult can take LDS communion, do you see why I resist the analogy to Catholic excommunication?

Non-Catholics are discouraged from taking communion because Catholics and Protestants disagree about what the Host is. I am talking about communion in the wider sense. My parents are not Catholic but I was not required to disavow them when I became Catholic.

It is not merely baptism that is being denied to children with parents in a SS relationship. It is blessing and participation in those things that I have been led to understand are an important part of being in the LDS community such as mission work.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
kmbboots, do you remember if Anglicans/Episcopalians have problems with trans-sub? Back when I was theoretically an Anglican I could never remember if I was supposed to skip communion at Mass.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I think I recall it being a big stumbling block between Catholics and Anglicans in the 16th century but some of them have worked it out since then. [Wink] Actually, there is a variety of opinions on trans v con- substantiation in the Anglican Church.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I've been pretty immersed in talk about this issue for the last couple of days, and you're the first person I've seen mention the church welfare program. It hadn't occurred to me. So, two things: I don't think this is something people are concerned about, HOWEVER, it's nice to know that the church would not be against helping those children with material needs.

My point was broader that that. It was that equating LDS "excommunication' to Catholic excommunication, as Kate did explicitly and zs others seem to be implicitly, is painfully ignorant at best and hatefully doshonest at worst. LDS excommunication is closer to what the Catholics call defrocking, as the typical active member has duties comparable to those of a catholic deacon to parish priest. And to suggest that the LDS church is not concerned with the spiritual welfate of excommunicants is as misleading as claiming that Catholics dont care about the spiritual welfare of a defrocked Catholic priest, monk or nun. The folks that brought me, unsolicited, 8 bags of groceries last week also prayed with me and laid on hands to give a blessing. As conversant as you are in lds culture would you argue for a moment that (1) the LDS curch would withhold priesthood blessings and fellowship of the sort I just described from the kids of same sex couples or (2) that home visits, prayer and priesthood blessings or being welcome to LDS meetings does not represent an interest in their spiritual welfare as well as their spiritual?
Uh, you need to catch up on your facts, Pete. Elder Christofferson - in his hurriedly taped interview to justify the policy - specifically mentioned home teaching as something they are trying to avoid in these situations.

Your outrage that someone might think this kind of excommunication is like Catholic excommunication is a uniquely Pete-like concern. That potential association is something that literally no one else cares about, because it has no impact on anything. And yet you're concerned that it might be murderously stupid. [Roll Eyes] (Not to mention, you didn't seem to understand her in the first place. This happens often enough that you should really make a rule for yourself to read her posts three times and check with someone else what a decent person might have meant by her words before you respond.)

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"True, it's not quite shunning that's involved"

It isnt shunning at all that's involved. And yet the media blitz attempts to protray that the issue *is* shunning. I dont see an honest effort by detractors to adress what the church actually is doing,

I wont say that there is not a real issue or grievance here. But I have yet to see a grievance articulated that isn't grossly misleading.

When I see remarks like 'The church was caught off guard by the backlash" I am dismayed and bewildered by the implication that the church has committed some sort of sin by failing to have its PR department run its excommunicaqtions policy. Is THAT really the world you want to live in?

Pete, I am not concerned about the church's PR. I'm concerned about the fact that the church did something that caused a great deal of pain to its members - and their ex- or non-mormon family members - without anticipating it. They don't understand. That's the problem.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Is the church policy adress the childrean of ALL samecsex couples or only against the children of same sex couples who have specifically used the rulings of a the United States Supreme Court to assert marriage status?

Again, I kind of wish you'd catch up on the facts before attempting to play apologist. It's cohabiting same sex couples as well as those who are legally married.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
n Catholic excommunication, one is specifically denied communion, is prevented from being part of the Body of Christ. Now that doesn't mean that people can't be nice or charitable to them - but we are called to be charitable to strangers too. My grandmother went through this for decades and I saw how painful it was to her. We, as far as I know, don't do this to children.
The LDS church has never done that to children. The unbaptized child of an excommunicant can take "the sacrament" which is what Mormons tend to call Communion. (On that terminology and many other though not all points, Catholicism is more true to scripture than Mormonism. I dont claim to be unbiased but I try to give credit where it is due).
I feel the need to point out that the church's reasoning for this policy also works to argue that those children should not attend church at all. They've said they don't want kids tormented by different messages at church and at home - that argument applies to church participation more than baptism.

It's honestly hard to believe them, for that reason. This is more about something OTHER than wanting to avoid confusing children. Or the rule would be against having them attend.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"My parents are not Catholic but I was not required to disavow them when I became Catholic"

Nonmormons are not required to disavow their parents when they become Mormon.

I was told that an Orthodox Christian can take mass but an Episcopal cannot. A married Anglican priest or Orthodox priest can become a Catholic priest while remaining married. And a Hindu fakir can baptize you a Catholic in a pinch if no Catholic priest can be found, but a Mormon cannot, because apparently the lds "three persons in One God" poses mo0re of a difficulty that actual polytheism. Nevertheless the LDS church and Catholic church work together on many projects both spiritual and material with mutual respect and admiration. There are bigots in the trenches on both sides, sad to say. I have sharp differences with Kate but dont consider her a bigot.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
Your outrage that someone might think this kind of excommunication is like Catholic excommunication is a uniquely Pete-like concern"

Kate's the one who brought up the analogy to Catholic excommunication. And several of her argu,emts (eg denial of commun ion to kids) reflect her erroneos assumption that LDS doctrine and practive resemble the Catholic.

I also subit that eben if I was the first to bring something up, does not mean that others might not agree with me that it's relevant to the discussion and illuminates. If you did not think that these points cut against your argument, why would you labor to exclude them?
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think I recall it being a big stumbling block between Catholics and Anglicans in the 16th century but some of them have worked it out since then. [Wink] Actually, there is a variety of opinions on trans v con- substantiation in the Anglican Church.

That explains why I was confused. We didn't have a proper rule. Figures.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"My parents are not Catholic but I was not required to disavow them when I became Catholic"

Nonmormons are not required to disavow their parents when they become Mormon.

I was told that an Orthodox Christian can take mass but an Episcopal cannot. A married Anglican priest or Orthodox priest can become a Catholic priest while remaining married. And a Hindu fakir can baptize you a Catholic in a pinch if no Catholic priest can be found, but a Mormon cannot, because apparently the lds "three persons in One God" poses mo0re of a difficulty that actual polytheism. Nevertheless the LDS church and Catholic church work together on many projects both spiritual and material with mutual respect and admiration. There are bigots in the trenches on both sides, sad to say. I have sharp differences with Kate but dont consider her a bigot.

I have no idea what you mean by a Hindu fakir baptizing people. It is true that ordinary Catholics can baptize in an emergency. The reason that someone who has been baptized in certain non-Trinitarian - not just LDS - traditions must be re-baptized if they convert to Catholicism is that - as you pointed out earlier - baptism means something different.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"his is more about something OTHER than wanting to avoid confusing children"

Well That's implicit in my argument as well. I said that the church is following the only gtradition that it has for dealing with those that war on the church. And in the LDS experience, duplicitious federal proclamation followed by a show of force and rallied by resentful exmormons, looks an awful lot like an enemy's charge. Good thing that Mormons are relatively peaceful and creative in dealing with perceived enemies. I'm sure that if it becomes apparent that church land wont be seixed and church leaders jailed for our peculiar beliefs and practices re marriage. That the defensive alert will die back. But the Mormons didnt light this fire or set the precedents. The feds and press set the rules of how mormons had to deal with pligs in order to be considered separate from them. So that's what the church deels it must do to convince the world that it rejects ssm to the same degree that it has ceased the practiv e of polygamy. Sure, it sucks for the kids. Show the LDS a less painful way to unambiguously reject ssm as valid, and they will probably take it.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Show the LDS a less painful way to unambiguously reject ssm as valid, and they will probably take it.

I did when I quoted the Catholic stance on baptism for the children of SS unions.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Show the LDS a less painful way to unambiguously reject ssm as valid, and they will probably take it.

I did when I quoted the Catholic stance on baptism for the children of SS unions.
I am willing to believe that you think you did. But when the LDS church took such steps with pligs and their families, it was still accused of and believed to be tacitly accepting modern practice of polygamy. So it's understandable that church leaders to expect that they need to take the same harsh exclusionary policies in order to be believed as repudiating the redefinition of marriage.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"My parents are not Catholic but I was not required to disavow them when I became Catholic"

Nonmormons are not required to disavow their parents when they become Mormon.

I was told that an Orthodox Christian can take mass but an Episcopal cannot. A married Anglican priest or Orthodox priest can become a Catholic priest while remaining married. And a Hindu fakir can baptize you a Catholic in a pinch if no Catholic priest can be found, but a Mormon cannot, because apparently the lds "three persons in One God" poses mo0re of a difficulty that actual polytheism. Nevertheless the LDS church and Catholic church work together on many projects both spiritual and material with mutual respect and admiration. There are bigots in the trenches on both sides, sad to say. I have sharp differences with Kate but dont consider her a bigot.

I have no idea what you mean by a Hindu fakir baptizing people. It is true that ordinary Catholics can baptize in an emergency.
You err when you restrict the emergency baptizer to ordinary Catholic since Catholicism accepts the baptism of most Protestaznt sects. According to a number of Catholic sources, in emergencies the baptiser need not be Catholic or even Christian, so long as he say the words. And the consensus at catholic forums was that a hindu fakir could carry out an emergency catholic baptism. But a mormon could not because a hindu could imagine the Trinitarian conception of God while a Mormon had been brainwahed to believe in "a different jesus". (grand hypocrat Eric Hilbert kicked me off that forum for pointing out, on a mountain meadows thread, the parallels between Bishop Lee and certain Rwandan parrish priests ...)

"ust LDS - traditions must be re-baptized if they convert to Catholicism is that - as you pointed out earlier - baptism means something different"

The latter is true but that's not the reason, as most of the Protestant sects whose baptism you accept conceive baptism more like the LDS do than as the Catholics do. EG restricting baptism to someone who can talk, etc. The words of the covenant are identical, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The reason given is not that Mormons have a different concept of the trinity than the one that evolved from the second Nicene Creed. So while they chafed at my choice of examples, they agreed that they were more vomfy with a Hindu fakir baptizing a dying wannabe Catholic, than say a mormon paramedic
paramedic.

I have no problem with Catholics rejecting the LDS baptism. But pity the twit who buys that the LDS three person in one god concept is so horribly different from the Catholic three persons in one God that you are better in a pimch to seek salvation from a fakir.

[ November 09, 2015, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
You spend a lot of time on the wrong Catholic forums. I believe I have already told you this.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
quote:
it's understandable that church leaders to expect that they need to take the same harsh exclusionary policies in order to be believed as repudiating the redefinition of marriage.
Well, at least we can all agree that the policy should be characterized as "harsh" and "exclusionary."

Out of curiosity, can you see any parallel between this new LDS policy, and this text from Matthew?
quote:
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

For my part, I'm sure any resemblance is slight. After all, we all know that Jesus was very opposed to communing with sinners and anyone who had violated the old traditional law...
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
You spend a lot of time on the wrong Catholic forums. I believe I have already told you this.

You did tell me that, and I have not been back there since you told me that. Nor have I met any Catholics who could show me contrary authority to what I saw there. Funny, my high opinion of Catholics was damaged by two days on Catholic Answer forums just as my previou8sly favorable impressiohn of Muslim integrity was shattered by conversations on a few Muslim forums. And don't even get me started on the Mormon forums ;(

Dont assume that because I disagree with you passionately on a few issues that I pay as
Ittle heed to what you say as you do with me. I remember, for example, that you said that they hated you more than they hate me. And given what they say about Jesuits, and several other respected Catholic groups, I believe you.

[ November 09, 2015, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
it's understandable that church leaders to expect that they need to take the same harsh exclusionary policies in order to be believed as repudiating the redefinition of marriage.
Well, at least we can all agree that the policy should be characterized as "harsh" and "exclusionary."

I am touched, SP. For once you seem to be reading what I said rather than what you think your childhood bugbears would have said.

quote:
quote:
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.


Indeed. And that's an argument that can be made against the policy without lying about what the policy is, or why it was implemented. Godspeed.

"r all, we all know that Jesus was very opposed to communing with sinners and anyone who had violated the old traditional law..."

I tend to agree thzt Elde K, as quoted, seems to fall short of the Savior's advice and example. As did the apostles of old. WhICH IS WHY I would like to see critics set aside the bullcrap and misleading arguments and focus on the valid critical points like the one you just made.

[ November 09, 2015, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
You spend a lot of time on the wrong Catholic forums. I believe I have already told you this.

You did tell me that, and I have not been back there since you told me that. Nor have I met any Catholics who could show me contrary authority to what I saw there. Funny, my high opinion of Catholics was damaged by two days on Catholic Answer forums just as my previou8sly favorable impressiohn of Muslim integrity was shattered by conversations on a few Muslim forums. And don't even get me started on the Mormon forums ;(

Dont assume that because I disagree with you passionately on a few issues that I pay as
Ittle heed to what you say as you do with me. I remember, for example, that you said that they hated you more than they hate me. And given what they say about Jesuits, and several other respected Catholic groups, I believe you.

Dude, there are 1.2 billion Catholics. How many of them did it take to change your opinion?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thanks for making my point, Kate. '(

I wish Carlotta and Pan were here. They actually listened to me before responding rather than endlessly trying to turn me into a refried stereotype. I think I have their number somewhere.

In case any Catholic with reading skills is paying attention, I am still bothered by what I was told on CAF, and would like better sources.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Out of curiosity, can you see any parallel between this new LDS policy"

Just to clarify, you mean certain Ornerians' rendition of ABC's rendition of LDS policy?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has instructed local church leaders that same-sex couples are apostates and that children living with them can't take part in church activities until they're adults and leave home, the church told NBC News on Thursday night.

OK, this is either a misquote or written by a total fool.

All same sex couples cannot conceivably be "apostates" because most same sex couples in the USA cannot possibly know, let alone be in rebellion against the LDS church. That would be like Pakistan declaring me a traitor when I owe no allegiance abd have never had any ties to Pakistan. Some jackass has left out context. I suspect that the group targeted was much narrower, say members of the church that enter into same sec marriages.

And no, that doesnt rebut SPs valid concerns.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Yep, the policy is written for members of the church who enter into same sex relationships. But when it comes to their children, it doesn't matter what the parents' relationship to the church is - they are subject to the same restrictions. (Just trying to be clear - it is absolutely mostly a problem for people who have existing ties to the church.)

Just read another account from a man who has several LDS children, got divorced a few years ago and is living with his same sex partner now. His ex-wife is suing for full custody in reaction to this policy change.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Well thank (someone) we live in a nation with clear boundaries between the law and religion and this couldn't possibly be cause alone for a change in custody. Right?

At least the lawyer's children will be well provided for...
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Actually, I can see the argument for change in custody. The very prohibition on government interference in religion recognizes religion's importance. I'm glad I'm not the judge deciding that case either way is likely to be sticky.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Yep, the policy is written for members of the church who enter into same sex relationships. But when it comes to their children, it doesn't matter what the parents' relationship to the church is - they are subject to the same restrictions. (Just trying to be clear - it is absolutely mostly a problem for people who have existing ties to the church.)

Just read another account from a man who has several LDS children, got divorced a few years ago and is living with his same sex partner now. His ex-wife is suing for full custody in reaction to this policy change.

See? If your goal is change, it doesnt hurt your argument to be specific and avoid broad misleadingly statements. The latter are good for stirring up angry mobs but not particularly good for persuading religious authorities with a history of perceived persecution.

I honestly believe that specificity and accuracy is everyone's friend here.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I honestly can not see what you think you've demonstrated or corrected me on, Pete. What did I previously say that was misleading?

You didn't respond about your misleading claim that this policy won't deprive children of any pastoral care.

[ November 09, 2015, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Yep, the policy is written for members of the church who enter into same sex relationships. But when it comes to their children, it doesn't matter what the parents' relationship to the church is - they are subject to the same restrictions"

If you are right sbout the policy then it sounds doctrinally inconsistent. Affixing the apostasy label to nonmormon same sex couples would be like calling a muslim polygamous man a mormon apostate. That's a queerly parrochial view for an increasingly worldwide church.

Even though the policy is harsh and unfair to the kids, I can understand its application to Mormon pligs, many of whom have insstitutionalized murder, kidnapping and child rape. Of them, I can appreciate application of Jesus' words about cutting off your arm to save the body.

To my knoowledge same sex couples and their kids do not bring the same sort of violent baggage to the table than modern pligs bring. So I suspect the church will moderate and amend this policy. Assuming that what I've been told here is the whole story.

Remember this is the same church that just used its influence (pissing off some former allies) to get the Boy Scouts to accept gay scout kids. Thomas Monson is as tender hearted a president as Mormons have ever had. He seems to consistently speak the level of the youngest members of the audience eben though he is afaik the highest iq president in church history, with an eidetic memory, etc.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
"Assuming that what I've been told here is the whole story."

Have you looked into the handbook text and the church's statements on the matter?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
?

You didn't respond about your misleading claim that this policy won't deprive children of any pastoral care.

When did I claim that? Yes it deprives them of a great deal of pastoral care. not of alll but of most. so it was misleading for you to say the church at most only cared about their material needs. scifi, I went ouy of my way to avoid accusing you directly of being misleading, but you forced my hand by asking, " What did I previously say that was misleading"

I think highly of you.. I had said some stuff in the article was misleading and you seemed to be arguing with me citing a cause that I have sympayhy for and to some extent agree with.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"Assuming that what I've been told here is the whole story."

Have you looked into the handbook text and the church's statements on the matter?

No. Do you know of a BHI that's current and online?

how about a link to that cell phone keyboard you spoke of?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I believe that this is the change under discussion:

quote:
Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.



 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Well thank (someone) we live in a nation with clear boundaries between the law and religion and this couldn't possibly be cause alone for a change in custody. Right?
..

In some states it could go the other way. In NV for example, the gay daddy might sue to get full custody because the mom's religion interfered with his relationship with his children.

What happens in case of shared custory? say minor kids live with mom and spend every other weekend with dad and dad's partner? does the LDS church really want to be in the business of estranging children from their parents? I wish I knew what the actual policy was.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Note I posted the above before seein g Kate's previous post. Thank you Kate.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Here is a link that I think includes the relevant information: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"ame-gender cohabitation "

??

Doesnt that same gender cohabitation arrangement describe most BYU dorms? who wrote that?
?

But I still dont think that saying it means they have to denounce their parents is an accurate or sane assessment.

What the writer seems to be trying to do is to be fair and consistent with the policy towards apostate plig families. Fairness and consistency are virtues but as I have argued ago, there are issues with pligs that require such harsh measures, and afaik may not be applicable to same sex couples.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
To be specific: you said kids affected by this policy won't be deprived of home visits. Home visits to same sex relationship households is one situation that the church is trying to avoid, according to Christofferson. I didn't see you respond when I pointed that out previously.

Sorry about saying you said they won't be denied any pastoral care. That wasn't accurate.

I never said the church "at most" cared about their material needs. I was acknowledging your point that they might help with material needs.

There's a transcript of Christofferson's remarks here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

The text of the new policy regarding children is this:

quote:
Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1.

The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.

The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage

The disciplinary requirements for same sex couples (don't feel like cleaning up the formatting from the PDF copy/paste):
quote:

When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary Serious Transgression
. . . It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, . . .


Handbook 1, number 6.7.3 is also to be updated immediately as follows (addition is highlighted): When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory Apostasy
As used here,
apostasy
refers to members who: 1.

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. 2.

Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. 3.

Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. 4.

Are in a same-gender marriage. 5.

Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Email me your address and phone model and I'm happy to send you a compatible bluetooth keyboard if I can find one.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Here is a link that I think includes the relevant information: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288

Thank you again Kate!

As I suspected and hoped, the "apostasy" label is not brooadly applied to members in a same sex relationship as sf said but specifically to those in a same sex MARRIAGE." it's specifically the marriage term that invokes the apostasy issue.

This isnt a periferal issue blown wide out of homophobia. Marriage as the eternal union of man and woman is at the core of what distinguishes the LDS church from other Christian sects. Call it heterocentrism if you like.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Or "cohabitation". Or "living in a same-gender relationship". I don't think anyone was confused about why. None of us are unfamiliar with the "heterocentrism" of the LDS church.

[ November 09, 2015, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Well, I apparently missed that you were specifically concerned with the apostate label and how it applied. Sorry about that.

That's a side effect of the fact that I don't really care about that aspect of the issue. LDS people living in a same sex sexual relationship have all obviously decided to reject the church's teachings on this matter.

When it comes to the policy regarding children, it's not limited to children of apostates. [Frown]

[ November 09, 2015, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I missed that, too. Sorry.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Well, I apparently missed that you were specifically concerned with the apostate label and how it applied. Sorry about that.

That's a side effect of the fact that I don't really care about that aspect of the issue. [Frown]

I think you assumed everything I said applied to your argument. I was adressing the thread title, which is the first I had heard about this issue. I do not think LR meant to mislead. But whether you care or not, I hope you will acknowledge that the LDS church and culture do not treat "apostates" as ...other prominent groups in the nedia have treated "apostates." Note Maxine Hanks is back in the church ... That's half of the september six, and counting. Hoping Lavinia Fielding Andersen will be soon...

On a personal note, wince you dont email anymore, I wish I could talk to you because am getting kind of headspun with a single mom who like you is reasonably leftish and quite atheistic. Hope you would chat by phone or email. About from your experience if such a relationship can possibly end well. Would it have been easier if you were not living in Utah? or if you were both middle aged and not going to have kids? I dont want to live through another divorce but ,,, well in some respects it is a match made in a heaven she doesnt believe in. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Or "cohabitation". Or "living in a same-gender relationship". I don't think anyone was confused about why. None of us are unfamiliar with the "heterocentrism" of the LDS church.

Kate, I do not think you unintelligent. On many topics you keep me informed and on some others you challenge me. Onh some you have even persuaded me and that takes some doing. But on this topic if you understand that aspect of LDS theology, your words do not reflect that understanding nor any desire to be informed. That's ok; there are issues such as sports where I have no desire to understand what's going on either. But then I dont pass judgment on referee calls.

[ November 09, 2015, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Go ahead and email me Pete
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"LDS people living in a same sex sexual relationship have all obviously decided to reject the church's teachings on this matter."

Exactly. While I think that it's been exaggerated above to say that the kids have to repudiate their parents, I think it would be more consistent with. LDS respect for family to have them explicitly accept the teachings of the church on the matter. And why single out kids of same sex parents? Put the question to all prospective converts as part of the standard interview.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Or "cohabitation". Or "living in a same-gender relationship". I don't think anyone was confused about why. None of us are unfamiliar with the "heterocentrism" of the LDS church.

Kate, I do not think you unintelligent. On many topics you keep me informed and on some others you challenge me. Onh some you have even persuaded me and that takes some doing. But on this topic if you understand that aspect of LDS theology, your words do not reflect that understanding nor any desire to be informed. That's ok; there are issues such as sports where I have no desire to understand what's going on either. But then I dont pass judgment on referee calls.
"Heterocentrism" was your word. I get that eternal gender roles are central to Mormon theology As I said, it is hardly new information. That doesn't mean that I have to like the harm it does any more than I like the harm that rigid sexual doctrine does in my Church.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
""Heterocentrism" was your word."

Yes it was. But I dont think you know as much as you think you know about what I was alluding to with that word.

"I get that eternal gender roles are central to Mormon theology?"

Oh? eternal "gender roles" are *central* to LDS theology? Please expound. [Smile] in this central LDS doctrine, what is the role of Mother in. Heaven? why dont we know more about her? why did President Hinkley say he knew of "no precedent" for praying to a Mother in Heaven when we are told that Hymns are prayers to the almighty and we explicitly pray to a mother as well as a father in heaven in the hymn once called an invocation and now called 'oh My Father." If you understand perfectly this stuff about the eternal roles of men and women in LDS theology, then please ecplain it to me. I've only.prayed and studied and cried and asked about this since I was three years old when my aunt told me that I shouldnt nurse my stuffed tiger and that boys grow up. To be daddies whose job is to take home money.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Where did I claim to know everything? One doesn't have to know everything to know what you just said . How does being aware of the importance of gender roles expand on your head to understanding them perfectly even if I thought that it was possible to understand any theology "perfectly"?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
What I mean is that you neither understand n or seem to want to understand what I am talking about.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Kate, unlike Catholics, mormons dont have a millennium and a half of theological musing. They have twice as much scripture as you and 10% of the time to sort it out and talk about it. They need a few centuries to sort out what you said you understand without kackboot thugs marching thru the slc temple as occurred in the late 19th century at the command of the Inited States Supreme Court in US v Reynolds.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Fine. What nuances of theology do you think it is necessary for me to know?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"One doesn't have to know everything to know what you just said . How does being aware of the importance of gender roles"

what I said did not refer to the "importance of gender ROLES" and that characterization feels like complete mockery of something I feel deeply and struggle to underatand. I believe that you simply do not understand, but they are the same words which TomD and apostate exmormons and others use intentionally to lampoon and mock my beliefs, so I am sensitized. I am giving yo0u the benefit of the doubt when I say, Kate, you really dont understand the issue here, and some of the sweeping statements you have made are galling.

If anything I have said about Catholicism bugs you, I'd be happy to hear specifics from you, and sources. you bring lots of good sources to the table. that's something I appreciate about you.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
So it is the word "roles" that you find problematic? Do you imagine that I am using it in some sort of theatrical way?

[ November 09, 2015, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Fine. What nuances of theology do you think it is necessary for me to know?

That sources we regard as a hair's breath from canonical proclaim that oue gender IDENTITY (not role) is eternal, and that there is a mother in heaven whose approval we seek along with the father's to reenter heaven. (reenter because our spirits came from her in heaven).

"In the heavens are parents single, no the thought makes reason stare,
Truth is reason, truth eternal, tells me I've a mother there
when I leave this frail existence, when I lay this mortal by
Father Mother may I meet you in your royal courts on high,
When at length when I've accomplished all you've sent mr forth to do,
With your mutual approbation, let me come and dwell with you."

(Words of Eliza R Snow, confirmed by the Prophet Joseph Smith to be inspired and true)
Some mormon conservatives treat it as smug and pat doctrine that mother in heaven's role is relegated to bearing spirit after spirit, and there sre even some folks that tell this revolting concept that father in heaven keeps knowledge of her from us to "protect" her name from blasphemy from her own kids. [Frown] but that's about as doctrine as the crap that Catholic Answers forum used to spout about Jesuits until the current Pope came in. [Smile] (if you check the dates you will see that was about the time I was looking into taking RSCIA classes or whatever that's called [Smile]

What we have isnt a thrology but a few obscure but fascinating teasing facts and a whole lot of speculation. And temple ceremonies. But there I go with we again and I am not one of them.

If you meant roles like father and mother, then I apologize. Tom goads me with crap like eternal housecleaning and subordination of the female. Which doesnt fit the spirit of ":h my Father" nor o


More later. Gotta run. Gonna talk to my lover [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So it is the word "roles" that you find problematic?

Good question.

To me, "roles" suggest that we have some fixed correct idea what a man's role or a woman's role is in a fixed immortal sense. As best I can tell, men and women have different strengths that may suit them for one division of roles in one set of circumstances, and another division of roles during another facts set, while in yet another fact set, there might be no difference in the roles of father and mother ... All might be shared. Roles should be negotiable, and adapt to circumstances.

"Ro you imagine that I am using it in some sort of theatrical way?'

No. My objection is the specificdenotation of the word roles, as I understand it.

"Daddya job is to go to work and get money" is a gender role. Daddy has a deeper voice than mommy describes a sex trait.

[ November 10, 2015, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
This time last week, Alyssa Paquette’s twelve-year-old stepson was preparing to be ordained to the priesthood in the LDS Church. Now that has all changed. On November 5, the Church confirmed a new policy that forbids baby blessings, baptisms, and priesthood ordinations for minor children who reside at least part of the time in a home where a parent is in a same-sex marriage. The sadness has been palpable. After a crushing weekend spent trying to understand what the Church’s new policy means for him, the boy* is crestfallen.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
There are a lot of those families. A lot of them reached the agreement that children from a previous marriage, where one of the parents is now in a same sex relationship, would be raised in the LDS church.

It's quite predictable:

If you are a gay LDS member who married someone of the opposite sex because you believed it was the right thing to do (because your church told you it was the right thing to do), it stands to reason that when you reach the point that you can't sustain it any longer, you will choose the exit path that appears most gentle to your loved ones: let them continue with their lives as much as possible. You may no longer believe that the church is correct about homosexuality and gay marriage, but you recognize that breaking up the family because of your orientation is traumatic, and you don't want to add to the trauma by actively challenging the faith of your family members. You do find some happiness in your new relationships, and eventually you marry or live with someone who loves you.

So you suck it up, and you attend the primary programs and the baptisms and the ordinances that you are allowed to attend. You cringe at the things they are taught about you, you weep when you can't attend the temple weddings, but you grin and bear it because it seems like the best way to be supportive to this family you created and later divided.

And then the church throws a wrench into it. However willing you were to swallow your own feelings and preferences for the sake of your children, they now have an additional and huge reason to resent your existence. You are the reason they can't get baptized, or pass the sacrament, or participate in home teaching.

Or if you dodge that bullet, the kid doesn't blame you, but still can't do those things, and when he or she is sitting them out, they will get glances and whispers. To the extent they believe that baptism and confirmation literally lead to blessings, they will believe that their life is less blessed because of their gay parent.

It's really difficult to believe the church is trying to protect those kids, since this is the most common scenario where the policy even freaking applies.

[ November 10, 2015, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Just posting that I am not ignoring this new line of argument. Havent yet followed the links but the stuff posted in the last post by scifi and the previous by Kate, moves me and I dont have any answers that satisfy me. Other than I appreciate and am more persuaded this line of citing specific stories and not misrepresenting LDS doctrine and practice when making valid criticism.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Thanks for that, Pete.

I'm an atheist and my stepson is attending church with his bio-dad and stepmom. I'm living out a partial form of that story that I told up above - I'm doing my best to stay out of the way of his happiness, despite the fact that I disagree with the church and wouldn't choose to raise him in it if it were my decision. Attending his baptism was a profound and beautiful experience, even though I was privately disapproving, because ALL of his family came together in support of something that he wanted to do.

It would be devastating to him, and to me, if my apostasy, as the church sees it, blocked his access to church rituals and offices.

[ November 10, 2015, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
LGBTQ advocates see spike in suicide calls after announcement of LDS policy change, officials say
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I misread that as a sppike in actual suicides when I first read the thread and literally ran back to bed and put my head under my pillow.

Thank God they have someone to call

SciFi, I think that what has happened here is that some church leaders, acting in an attempted sense of fairness, have drawn an analogy to plig apostates. While church action there is likewise tragic, there is solid reason for applying it to a group of cults whose practice of kidnapping, brainwashing and outright murder verges on the satanic. It seems to me that ssm does NOT share the specific traits that require the heavy handed policy that is regrettably but IMO justifiably applicable to pligs.

In short, I think the policy will change. In the mean time thank God there are other support structures for those families. I raised welfare and other points earlier specifically to dispute earlier sweeping and erroneous statements made IIRC by others, not you. Thanks for recognising that I am not arguing to justify application of the plig policy to kids of ssm families.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
If you have the time to listen (I may have posted this elsewhere here before) this addresses a related situation occurring in the wake of the PCUSA adjusting its language on marriage in a way that allowed congregations that wanted to to recognize and conduct same sex marriages. The reaction from those opposed isn't as severe as the LDS reaction but I think it addresses the general feeling of schism pretty well.

https://soundcloud.com/kate-davoli/stolen-blessings-kad
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
To my knowledge the LDS church is the only church in the country that's had a declaration of war again st it by the US government, a SCOTUS ruling supporting its people and lands being seized, over it's distinct definition of marriage. So there's a little institutional sensitivity and suspicion. Give them some time and space to come to veliece that government jackboots arent going to be stomping through the slc temple again, and I think folks will come to see lds ssm couples as neighbors rather than cultural turncoats.

But I do weep for those kids in the mean time. I think the church will lose some good and decent people over this.

Note that there is no language adressing parents of gay adults allowing the gay couple to live with them. This strikes me as a decision made in a hurry by few people without a whole lot of thinking about ramifications.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
The idea that a Who Can Get Baptized decision went out as a policy change without even being announced in General Conference, let alone subjected to common consent is disturbing even aside from the effects of the rule.

If these are saving ordinances, then who gets to have them is an enormous decision.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
In the same vein, elevating SSM to apostasy is a sleight of hand.

The Proclamation on the Family has never been made canon, yet the claims therein would seem to be the main basis for treating members who engage in SSM as apostates.

So: don't bother claiming revelation and obtaining common consent, but go ahead and treat disobedience to those instructions as apostasy...

The current leadership doesn't seem to understand how they are supposed to do things.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
It's an understandable reaction, even if improper. They're standing in the path of a significant social shift that represents an effective subversion of their sense of how things are supposed to work. It's a desperate attempt to try and claw back a sense of comfort and normalcy, even if their fears blind them to just how hurtful they're being.

In an ideal world it wouldn't have happened, but in the real world, it's the expected outcome and people just need to be ready to step in and provide support for those who need it until the fear fades and they're ready to reconcile.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Well, as I mentioned earlier, I think they've painted themselves into a corner, so I tend to agree with you. Still, they apparently aren't even getting/taking any good advice on the topic, which is disappointing.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"In the same vein, elevating SSM to apostasy is a sleight of hand"

No. It's the closest available analogy.

The proc has never been made canon, and neither has the ban on polygamy. Both the proc and the plig ban represent the unanimous voice of the living prophet and apostles, opposition to which is opposition to the church. Canonicity simply affects the endurance of a rule or doctrine. The plig ban could be rescinded. So be careful who you vote for on that issue.

For the moment both represent the voice of the church, opposition to which is. ... Apostasy.

Unanimity of 15 people is a much stricter standard than the 5/9 vote that twerked federal marriage into its present form.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Yeah, I might be conflating canon and doctrine.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Policy is probably the best word we have. For example if I got up in Testemony meeting and and from the pulpit offered a prayer to Mother in Heaven, I'd be considered apostate, even though there is no canon agqinst it, and the sole authority against it is President Hinkley's speech saying that he knew of no precedent for such prayer and would not recommend it unless and until revelation makes it clearly ok. I'd call this theory, authorized noncannonical doctrine or simply borrow an equivalent legal term, authority.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
The idea that a Who Can Get Baptized decision went out as a policy change without even being announced in General Conference, let alone subjected to common consent is disturbing even aside from the effects of the rule.

If these are saving ordinances, then who gets to have them is an enormous decision.

Hmm, Hadnt thought of that. Wonder if there was something submitted to CC regarding pligs.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Odd. Thing is afaik the priesthood ban was never submitted to cc either, but rescinding it was.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
The first presidency has issued a clarification.

https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

quote:
The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.
Why do they insist on presenting this as if it was always their intent? The language of the policy was clear, and it was not written to apply only to children whose "primary residence" (whatever that means) is with a same sex couple.

They are reacting to the outcry and changing the policy while pretending that they are not changing the policy. This is dishonest.

quote:
When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.
Again, changing the policy without admitting to changing it.

quote:
All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.
Welcoming these children to attend is contrary to their initial justification for the policy, which was to prevent confusion and conflicts between church teachings and what is taught in the home. They haven't retracted that justification.

The policy still stinks, and is harmful, although they've reduced its reach. It's adding insult to injury that they refuse to admit error.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
The newsroom commentary really ramps up the dishonesty:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook

quote:
ecause the letter was an instructional document to leadership throughout the world, and not a Church-wide announcement through LDS.org or through Church Public Affairs, there was no additional information or context on the usual Church websites. That prompted questions from many Church members, who were mostly reading media headlines portraying the instructions as a rejection of children and refusal to name babies. Members understandably had specific questions about how the announced change might affect their loved ones.

The episode demonstrates clearly the dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete news reports, tweets and Facebook posts without necessary context and accurate information. The Church quickly responded to many of those concerns with a video interview with Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. By the end of the weekend, that interview had been viewed by millions.

This is unmitigated bull****. The reaction was to the text of the policy, and Christofferson's interview did nothing to clarify the policy or mitigate the outrage.

They are telling church members "do not look behind the curtain."
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
The policy still encourage straight parents to attempt to withhold custody from gay exes. It still drives a wedge between children and their gay parents.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
So, you are assuming that the policy as earlier written reflected the wishes of the united leadership. I take it you have never worked in a consensus organization, or been asked to write something for a group of leaders who don't realize to what degree they disagree.
.

[ November 14, 2015, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"The language of the policy was clear, and it was not written to apply only to children whose "primary residence" (whatever that means) is with a same sex couple"

I disagree. That was one of my questions reading the ambiguous original. Whether "living with" meant primary residence or visitation as well.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
So, you are assuming that the policy as earlier written reflected the wishes of the united leadership. I take it you have never worked in a consensus organization, or been asked to write something for a group of leaders who don't realize to what degree they disagree.
.

If the church issued a policy whose literal effects weren't intentional, or they learned something in the meantime that changed their intention, then the honest thing to do is say "oops, that was a mistake and we are sorry." (It is also the best way to retain your pissed off customers - this is a lesson that many of their corporate peers have learned already.)

Instead, they are attempting to gaslight the people who got mad, and say "if you only had waited and trusted, you'd have seen that this wasn't what you thought it was".

Bureaucracy and forced consensus can lead to mangled policies, yes. But the text that made it into the manual wasn't ambiguous enough to have been meant to represent the "clarified" intent, even allowing for some of that.

Furthermore, they had plenty of time between the leak and Christofferson's interview to notice if the policy's text was accidentally misleading, and address that at the time. Certain specific pernicious effects that were later ruled out were immediately identified by critics. Yet Christofferson, after more than 24 hours, defended the policy as written. He seemed to think the only misunderstanding was whether it was a good policy or a bad one. The "clarification" (policy change) came a week later.

So it's obvious: they changed their intent, and are pretending that they didn't, and (through the newsroom) they are chastising their critics for jumping the gun.

Why? Either they are deluded and arrogant, and really don't think that they can learn anything about how to do their jobs from their spiritual inferiors, and are denying even to themselves that they changed their minds or didn't think it through...or they are deliberately trying to discourage church members from criticizing them, no matter how badly they screw up, by trying to convince them that their activism had no effect.

Am I missing another possibility?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"The language of the policy was clear, and it was not written to apply only to children whose "primary residence" (whatever that means) is with a same sex couple"

I disagree. That was one of my questions reading the ambiguous original. Whether "living with" meant primary residence or visitation as well.

That was only mentioned in the rules for appeal. That ambiguity didn't exist in this section:

quote:
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows


 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Ambiguous as to whether it applies to children who simply have part time visitation.

Read up on the rules of construction.

I agree that the rules sound unambiguous to someone ignorant of rules of construction. Hence the church protest that the rules were not meant to be read by untrained laymen.

Anyone with an educated eye for this sort of thing sees the "natural or adopted language and recognizes there is an obvious gap as to whether only primary households are involved.

My guess is that someone without legal training drafted this using legal language as a model, or that they used plug policy language as a model where split partial custody cases are really not a significant issue.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
That's not a satisfying explanation, given the missed opportunity for clarification when Christofferson and the newsroom made their initial responses. Those objecting immediately outlined various scenarios involving divorce and custody arrangements; none of them were specifically addressed or distinguished from each other, by the church, in that first week.

I believe the church leaders had two real aims with this policy. 1) Avoid even the limited recognition of those relationships that would occur if same sex legal parents both signed consent forms, and 2) Avoid normalization of same sex relationships among church members.

The original policy, on its face, accomplishes both aims nicely.

They got caught unprepared to answer for how it affects children in various scenarios. They had to come up with an explanation for the policy that sounded better than "we're trying to limit normalization of same sex relationships with connections to the church [because of the dangerous truth that same sex relationships can be happy and healthy, and part of happy and healthy families, which is quite contrary to our doctrine]".

If the policy was motivated, as they claim, by concern for the children, in order to protect them from conflicting messages, this would have looked different.

quote:
My guess is that someone without legal training drafted this using legal language as a model, or that they used [polygamy] policy language as a model where split partial custody cases are really not a significant issue.
Remember the aim of the polygamy policy. It wasn't to protect the children of polygamists from difficult circumstances. It was to distance those people from the church.

[ November 16, 2015, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Of course it doesn't satisfy. If you had ever been the designated writer for a consensus organization you would not expect a satisfactory answer to the nonsensical question or what the ORGANIZATION intended.

If you were conversant in reading of rules, laws, agreements you would not have argued the text was "clear.". Your very word "clear" shows you don't know what you should have been looking for. To those that know how to read that stuff the operative word is UNAMBIGUOUS. The handbook was ambiguous with regard to non primary physical custody.

If you care to understand run a search on "rules of construction." I have explained this stuff on ornery before.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Remember the aim of the plig policy". Yeah, that's my point. That's why it's the wrong analogy, even though it makes a superficial sense. Bureaucracies tend to forget the why of things.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:

[QUOTE]A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows


If you read those rules as a freaking literal fundamentalist, NATURAL PARENT would apply even if the child was conceived from a sperm or egg donor who lived In a same sex relationship. But let's not be obtuse. Obviously that's not what it meant.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Hence the church protest that the rules were not meant to be read by untrained laymen.
Pete, since when do LDS bishops get the same training as judges? I see no reason to think they'd apply rules of construction in the way you seem to be saying they would. The manual IS their training.

"You all didn't understand this" is just gaslighting, Pete. If there was significant misunderstanding, the church would have addressed it right away, instead of focusing their initial explanation on their tender intentions.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Remember the aim of the plig policy". Yeah, that's my point. That's why it's the wrong analogy, even though it makes a superficial sense. Bureaucracies tend to forget the why of things.

Please restate your point, because I think you've lost the thread.

MY points are:

1. The church issued a policy that would have caused harms that they didn't think about or didn't care about as much as they cared about what they were trying to achieve.

2. The justifications offered by the church were disingenuous, in a way that can't be blamed on bureaucracy. (If the apostle spokesperson who defends the policy offers the justification, it's not because of the corporate telephone game.)

3. The church is pretending that their clarifications (changes) weren't offered because of the backlash, even going so far as to chide people for jumping the gun. There is no motive for this that reflects well on them.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
You don't need law school to learn the rules of construction. 10 minutes and a little honest effort would suffice. Don't know if Bishops are trained in them.

you aren't reading what I said and the argument has turned from shared concern for same sex couples and their families to a rather shallow and meaningless argument about how much egg is on the church's face. So I am not inclined to repeat myself as your other questions are already asked and answered abovabove and my thumb hurts from typing on a cell. I'm not the church PR dude, just a friendly EX. Call me if you seriously don't understand why I think this last phase of the argument is a tempest in a tcup. It is just not worth spraining my thumb over.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
#3 annoys me, since I dressed it at the onset of the discussion. Page one iirc

[ November 17, 2015, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I would say rather that the backlash was originally formed because of an ambiguity in a church manual that any thinking soul should have suspected the church would remedy, and this "backlash" was simply an attempt to gain credit for what would have happened anyway as thinking Bishops and stake presidents read the rules and asked the church for clarification. Perhaps not all think. Perhaps not all know rules of construction. While I appreciate Me Gore's enthusiasm and initiative, I suspect the Internet would have been invented without him.

[ November 17, 2015, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Pete, how could you have addressed #3 on page 1, since I'm talking about a news release that came out on Nov 13?

I even pasted part of it and linked to it above.

quote:
you aren't reading what I said and the argument has turned from shared concern for same sex couples and their families to a rather shallow and meaningless argument about how much egg is on the church's face.
No, I'm not doing this, and I am reading what you said. I'm restating my points because your responses aren't on point. I'm hoping to convince you that you're wrong about these leaders and their motives. Their so called love toward gay people bears nothing but rotten fruit, and this series of events is an example of how little they weigh the well being of LGBT members and their family members against their other priorities. I am happy to chalk this up to their elderly inflexibility, but that doesn't mitigate the harm.

This stuff matters. And the more creative volunteer apologetics they get, the longer the damage will continue.

You haven't shown that you understand my points, and you appear to be fixated on a legal theory that makes this series of events a PR mistake instead of a show of careless bigotry.

I don't think you have answered this: why do they continue to invite people who are excluded from ordinances to attend meetings? How does this square with their proferred intent to prevent putting those minors in a position where church teachings conflict with teachings at home?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Feel free to respond from a library or after your thumbs heal, Pete, if you need my permission.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
By the way, how are you simultaneously mocking the idea that there was an intent behind the policy and still advocating for a constructive reading? Whose intent are they supposed to construe?
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
While I can understand why a lawyer might try to appeal to the rules of construction in this case, I'm not convinced it fully applies.

Here's a couple of excerpts from the legal-dictionary definition that seems relevant:
quote:
The judge examines the circumstances surrounding the provision, laws, other writings, verbal agreements dealing with the same subject matter, and the probable purpose of the unclear phrase in order to conclude the proper meaning of such words...

...If a statute is so ambiguous that a judge cannot make a reasonable construction of its disputed provisions, and a reasonable person could not determine from reading it what the law orders or prohibits, it is void for vagueness because it violates the guarantee of Due Process of Law.

First, the principle itself doesn't really apply to church policy, as the issue of whether it violates Due Process of Law--and can thus be voided for for vagueness for due process reasoning--doesn't apply to church policy.

Like you said, it's probably not a lawyer drawing up church policy--precisely because church policy isn't subject to the same standards as are legislature or legally binding contracts.

Secondly, the wording of the policy doesn't seem so ambiguous that a reasonable person can't see the plain English meaning:
quote:
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not (yada yada)...

...until...

...The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

In other words, even if the policy were subject to Due Process stipulations, and even if you were able to take (hypothetically legally binding text) before the court and convince the Judge that there might be some ambiguity in the question of whether a child living with a parent in a SSM (etc) is constructively identical to a child living part time with a parent in a SSM, the Judge would read through the rest of the initial policy and note the plain English where it says the child can't (yada yada) until they are "not living with a parent in a same sex marriage," and rule against voiding the plain English meaning based on your constructively ambiguous reasoning argument.

It's not really ambiguous in the first clause: "living with A parent," is pretty plain English, and the exception clause clears up any potential ambiguity. It's not "until they're living less than 50% of the time with a parent in a SSM" or somesuch, it's "until they're not living with A parent in a SSM."

It's still the tack a good lawyer is gonna take, but it's a losing tack...

It's not really a "clarification." It's a change.

[ November 17, 2015, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I am not mocking the idea that there was an intent behind the policy.

I am (as a former tech writer who ghost wrote policy stuff for 4,different tech companies in the 1990s) mocking the ludicrous assumption that the first published writing issued to leaders only represented the consensus or even the tentative agreement of the leaders.

The reason that RULES OF CONSTRUCTION even exist in the first place is precisely because organizational writing tends to screw up in precisely this way.

Like I said, if you care to actually get it in detail, you have my phone, or you can search the archives for when I explained rules of construction in a non church context.

I don't assume all or even most church leaders know the rules of construction. As already addressed in this post and twice before on this thread.

I have labored to avoid becoming the church apologist for this forum. The fact that active Mormons in good standing don't frequent this site anymore is not my doing and I cannot and will not fill that gap. Please don't push me into a position / which I neither belong nor aspire to. Even when I was a good Mormon I never did the or thing.

[ November 17, 2015, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
As for "good lawyer" -- cheap shot. Saying my opponent is a better lawyer and therefore not to be trusted is literally the oldest cheapest dirty lawyer trick in the book. See Korax v Tisias, circa 500 BCE, the oldest known court record.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
quote:
As for "good lawyer" -- cheap shot. Saying my opponent is a better lawyer and therefore not to be trusted
[LOL]

I didn't say you weren't to be trusted--I just implied that you're a good lawyer. As in, someone capable of finding the strongest argument to try to advocate for a client, even if it's a losing case.

It was intended as a sincere compliment.

[Smile]

And nobody (except maybe you) is putting you in the role of church apologist, bud. People are criticizing the church, and you seem to be jumping in to defend the church against such criticisms. If it stresses you out, or you feel thrust into such a position when people respond to your posts on the topic, I suggest you avoid posting on the issue.

I certainly don't expect you to have to adopt such a position, and wouldn't judge you whatsoever for not involving yourself in the matter.

I'm pretty sure scifi would feel the same.

[ November 18, 2015, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
It's a change from less clear to more clear. On that reasonable and informed persons cannot disagree.

From my experience writing for groups, I will also state my informed opinion (happy to discuss my basis verbally) that it is also a change from a writing reviewed by no leaders or few leaders, to a writing reviewed by a greater number of leaders.

I doubt that any significant organization, religious or non, would respond more openly. Organizations that are more open with their internal workings generally don't issue written policies and press statements.

Please try not to confuse public relations and "lawyering" again in my company. LaWyering has a checkered history but at least it isn't PR.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Feel free to respond from a library or after your thumbs heal, Pete, if you need my permission.

Thanks. I will. Please remember I have been shamed and harassed for writing imperfectly from my phone, though not by you.

..let's see if the voice on this thinglet's see if the voice on this thing works.

Naw. Al would have another fit.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I appreciate that,so

if you haven't noticed, I tend towards defense wherever I perceive a potentially unfair accusation. The Ornery archive will show this was my disposition on this forum even before I conceived of going to law school.

Just yesterday I took to defending Sa'eed (with whom I had just strongly disagreed, then defended you from some of Sa'eed's attacks. As the thread continued I played defense to multiple sides of a thread that evolved into a Mexican standoff. Neither you nor Sa'eed nor anyone else on that thread solicited encouraged or to my knowledge appreciated my selective defense and you are right that it is stressful, but this is my reflexive response to scrutinize accusations, and not only those against the church.

Apologies to you and sci-fi if I confused attribution above. This is partly cell phone and partly low testosterone-induced short term memory farts.
 
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 3043) on :
 
quote:
Please try not to confuse public relations and "lawyering" again in my company. LaWyering has a checkered history but at least it isn't PR.
[LOL]

I'm not sure that I did this (I first claimed constructive reasoning didn't apply to church policy, and then I presented an argument about how I thought the argument might go in a hypothetically legal setting, mostly out of interest) but in any case, I can't say that I disagree with one part of your value system:

Shysters > Flacks.

But I'd be careful bandying about your writing creds, because, in my book (writes a writer):

Flacks > Hacks.

[Wink]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
SciFi can I answer how it "squares" without being read as agreeing with the policy?

Need I remind you I am myself banned from all ordinances and church leadership while still welcomed to come to church? Do you really need me to explain why I regard being welcomed there as a positive?

Can you consider the possibility that I interpret these church utterances and evolving policy through the lens of my own experience as an XMo who wants to come back while you see it through the lens of your personal experience?

As for nothing but rotten fruit, do you know something I don't know about the gay rights legislation the church supported in all, or the new policy including gay scouts but not scout leaders, where the church support was supportive? Did the doc legislation somehow "rot"?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
By the way, how are you simultaneously mocking the idea that there was an intent behind the policy and still advocating for a constructive reading? Whose intent are they supposed to construe?

Rules of construction are based on the assumption that we follow the clear unambiguous and reasonable intent of the writers.

Any divorced parent who sees his kids less than half of the week knows that whether he "lives",with his kids is not a yes/no question. Or is answered differently in different contexts.

The policy writer here was specific enough to say natural or adopted parent. The policy should have dealt separately with kids with primary custody s visitation. Why didn't it? Because the policy was probably hastily ported over from plug families where visitation is not an issue, and because the writer probably is not divorced.

Most kids who have a parent in a same sex relationship probably have some sort of custody arrangement. So it seems obvious to me that failure to specifically dress that issue was an oversight by the writer. So yes, the change can probably accurately be called a clarification. It may have been a clarification of an original group intent, or it may have been a more specific policy decided on when leaders had it clarified to them what the situation was that their rules applied to. I doubt very much that anyone ever intended to apply the restriction to kids who lived with mom and only visited on the weekend with dad and dad's husband.

As for restriction in ordinances, the affected kids can take the sacrament, participate in scouts and say prayers in church, so they are less excluded from church than I am as an exec member. And please believe me when I say the crappiest thing about my situation is going to church and having to say no when the deacon brings me the sacrament tray. At least the kids are spared that.

How does it fit that they can go to church but don't have as much of a conflict with church teachings s what they see at home? Because listening to those talks as a nonmember without callings feels different in my experience. Feels more like what AA says, take what you need and leave the rest. Without the underlying baptismal covenant there is no sense of obligation to agree. That's my experience with attending church as a nonmember. I do see some validity to the reasoning that there would be less conflict with how they are being raised.

[ November 19, 2015, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Pete, after cooling off, I would say that you're right that the clarifications are a sideshow and not that important. Because the clarified policy is still almost as harmful as it was before, and if anything the pressure to limit the presence and influence of gay parents on their own children is in sharper relief.

quote:
How does it fit that they can go to church but don't have as much of a conflict with church teachings s what they see at home? Because listening to those talks as a nonmember without callings feels different in my experience. Feels more like what AA says, take what you need and leave the rest. Without the underlying baptismal covenant there is no sense of obligation to agree. That's my experience with attending church as a nonmember. I do see some validity to the reasoning that there would be less conflict with how they are being raised.
Well, that's a pretty good effort at an explanation of how it might square, but I respectfully submit that a child or adolescent is usually incapable of a nuanced relationship to the kinds of monumental but simplified truth claims and associated consequences that are taught to children at church. It's possible the brightest ones will pick up more nuance listening in general meetings, but most won't. I was a bright kid, and I got the simplified messages.

In reality, the more likely effect is that such children will either:

1) Reject all of it, because the way the church guides children is heavily dependent on rehearsing what should happen and then offering praise when it does happen. Children sing about getting baptized and going on a mission from an early age, and from the examples I've seen, each milestone from baptism on is met with enormous helpings of beaming approbation. This cycle of rehearsal and approval may be key for some (I'd guess most) kids, so being on the outside of that dynamic will cause it to lose its appeal to some of them. This is the more likely situation if the kids have a support system that remains mostly intact if they reject the church, in my opinion. I think this is a small group: without a motivated LDS support system they likely wouldn't be there in the first place.*

2) Accept what they hear at church, and feel ashamed that they aren't allowed to do the same things as their peers, feel fear at their lack of the benefits of the ordinances that they hear about (not saved, no Holy Ghost to protect them). And that difficult experience you mentioned about not being allowed to partake of the sacrament? It will be similar for the boys whose friends (who they mostly know to be not really all that upstanding) are allowed to pass it, and praised for it, and get assigned home teaching partners, etc. If they endure all that shame for long enough, they will eventually get to play catch up, but only if they promise that they think their parents are terrible sinners. [Frown] This is the bigger group, because either their gay parents want them to be there**, or they have an extended family that makes it happen. Opting out as a child in this kind of family is not a realistic option.

[*I'm not sure how it will shake out with my step son. Our household will be supportive if he rejects the church, and our side of the extended family is already tolerant and steady with the non-participation of my kids. But there will likely be consequences from his bio-dad's family.]

[**Being a gay Mormon is tough, and I've heard from them various attitudes toward the church. Some believe it's the one true church but wrong about homosexuality - these people vary from romantically isolated to technically celibate to married, but all are waiting for things to change. Some of them have always been immersed in Utah LDS culture and whether it's true or not, it's the only pattern and system they know for raising children. Some of them would prefer to keep their kids away but give in to pressure from extended family. I can relate to this. Long after I stopped believing, I let my infant children receive the name&blessing thing, not because I thought it was important but because I hadn't figured out how to tell the extended family that I was against it. Perhaps that indicates a lack of courage, but the culture is overwhelming and I forgive myself for taking a long time to figure out my relationship to it. ]

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Feel free to respond from a library or after your thumbs heal, Pete, if you need my permission.

Thanks. I will. Please remember I have been shamed and harassed for writing imperfectly from my phone, though not by you.

..let's see if the voice on this thinglet's see if the voice on this thing works.

Naw. Al would have another fit.

Well, I'm certain I've at least teased you about that kind of thing. I've been on the edge of objecting to your recent instances of wanting to participate in the discussion but only if others bring you the facts you request; the constraints on your participation really shouldn't be anyone else's problem.

But:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
And nobody (except maybe you) is putting you in the role of church apologist, bud. People are criticizing the church, and you seem to be jumping in to defend the church against such criticisms. If it stresses you out, or you feel thrust into such a position when people respond to your posts on the topic, I suggest you avoid posting on the issue.

I certainly don't expect you to have to adopt such a position, and wouldn't judge you whatsoever for not involving yourself in the matter.

I'm pretty sure scifi would feel the same.

Yes, I feel the same. There's certainly more to discuss if you want to take that side, but if you don't feel like it, feel free to drop out.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

As for nothing but rotten fruit, do you know something I don't know about the gay rights legislation the church supported in all, or the new policy including gay scouts but not scout leaders, where the church support was supportive? Did the doc legislation somehow "rot"?

This is a good question and I have praised the church in the past for taking the correct side on certain non-discrimination ordinances. They've moved in the right direction in the past couple of decades on their attitude toward what sexual orientation is, as well. And less frequently recommend damaging ideas like "marry the opposite sex anyway, it'll be fine."

I still think they do more harm than good to gay people, but it's not ALL bad, or as bad as it can be.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"How does it fit that they can go to church but don't have as much of a conflict with church teachings s what they see at home? Because listening to those talks as a nonmember without callings feels different in my experience. Feels more like what AA says, take what you need and leave the rest. Without the underlying baptismal covenant there is no sense of obligation to agree. That's my experience with attending church as a nonmember. I do see some validity to the reasoning that there would be less conflict with how they are being raised"

I don't think either of us can speak for less intelligent kids since neither of us has ever been one, Scifi. I can say that as a kid I did attend other churches and experienced their messages much more critically than I processed those I heard in the church I was baptised into. I submit that being offended by what is said in a church is, from my own experience, less painful than feeling judged and condemned by a group one felt like they belonged to.

The issue is really whether the church is to remain true to its core beliefs re spiritual identity and eternity (beliefs that were NOT formed with intent to exclude gays!) or change these core beliefs to avoid hurting feelings. I applaud what I see as their good faith effort to take a middle course, and hope God will inspire a better policy when we have ears to hear.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"This is a good question and I have praised the church in the past for taking the correct side on certain non-discrimination ordinances. They've moved in the right direction in the past couple of decades on their attitude toward what sexual orientation is, as well. And less frequently recommend damaging ideas like "marry the opposite sex anyway, it'll be fine."

I appreciate the restraint in your assessment. I will take it a step further: my LDS General Conference Search shows that it has been four decades since any church leader used the hateful and spiritually erroneous phrase "sin of Sodom",to reference consensual homosexuality.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"There's certainly more to discuss if you want to take that side, but if you don't feel like it, feel free to drop out. "

I defend the LDS church against unfair unreasonable and demonstrably false accusations for the same reason I defend anyone, including folks on this forum I don't even like, against the same sort of accusations.

Some accusations against the church I actually agree with. Some (like when you said the church does gays more harm than good) I disagree with but don't find them "unfair unreasonable and domonsrably false." So I don't argue the point. So not dropping out, but rather I am only taking up certain arguments in the first place.

Once I actually take up an argument I very rarely set it down unless someone persuades me or threaten to kill a hostage unless I shut up [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
Well, I'm certain I've at least teased you about that kind of thing. "

I have enough of a sense of humor to distinguish teasing from shaming.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1