I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[Zulu]

Its been crazy week and I have gone back and forth with this issue and just wanted to share some of my conclusions.

1. I want to thank Colton for his thoughts a honest opinions on this topic. It is healthy in an discussion to have both sides heard and he did an incredible job, especially when it came to the actual letter of the policy and how it differed from initial reports. I also commend him on his support but being able to say some parts of the policy seemed odd.

2. A few people are saying this is a none issue, its only the anti-mormorms that are just seeing another opportunity or if you are LDS and this bothers you than your testimony must not be strong and you were already out the door. From my experience there are a lot of faithful LDS members who took major pause to this. This is healthy, in history we have seen big organization and religious organizations make wrong decisions. As a member I should be able to disagree with the church and not have my faith questioned, as long as I am being respectful and not being disruptive towards other members who agree.

3. I originally thought the big issue with this was not allowing the children of gay couples to be baptized, but I can see that there is precedence for this to be beneficial to these kids, by not allowing them to deal with conflict between their church and their parents sexual orientation, but there is also precedence to tear families apart. To me its a bit 50/50

4. What I think the bigger issue with this is the singling out of the LGBT demographic. While the church does say this is to help the kids of gay couples, they are also ignoring all the other kids that live in homes where the parents are in conflict with the church. This include co-habbiting adults, Non-member parents, parents not living the WOW or law of charity. If this is really about the children shouldn't the policy focus on all children in these circumstances not just gay couples?

5. Many say, but this policy also is for polygamous groups and there for not singling out. In my opinion the church did single out polygamous groups with this policy. Especially during the FLDS fiasco over the past number of years the church has done everything they can to distance itself from polygamy. I remember being on mission in the early 2000's and hearing Gordon B. Hinkley in a talk say how vile and despicable polygamy is. This rubbed me wrong just base on our history and currently held doctrines involving polygamy. The church already has a history of going after the LGBT demographic during the Prop 8 initiative in California. So this is reason to believe that this policy is tied to those same sediments the church had then.

As for me I'm choosing to stand as I did in elders quorum yesterday, I'm going to still go to church, I'm going to follow the gospel, but I disagree with this policy and will let people know that if the subject is brought up.

 

[Stoked]

Its been crazy week and I have gone back and forth with this issue and just wanted to share some of my conclusions.

1. I want to thank Colton for his thoughts a honest opinions on this topic. It is healthy in an discussion to have both sides heard and he did an incredible job, especially when it came to the actual letter of the policy and how it differed from initial reports. I also commend him on his support but being able to say some parts of the policy seemed odd.

2. A few people are saying this is a none issue, its only the anti-mormorms that are just seeing another opportunity or if you are LDS and this bothers you than your testimony must not be strong and you were already out the door. From my experience there are a lot of faithful LDS members who took major pause to this. This is healthy, in history we have seen big organization and religious organizations make wrong decisions. As a member I should be able to disagree with the church and not have my faith questioned, as long as I am being respectful and not being disruptive towards other members who agree.

3. I originally thought the big issue with this was not allowing the children of gay couples to be baptized, but I can see that there is precedence for this to be beneficial to these kids, by not allowing them to deal with conflict between their church and their parents sexual orientation, but there is also precedence to tear families apart. To me its a bit 50/50

4. What I think the bigger issue with this is the singling out of the LGBT demographic. While the church does say this is to help the kids of gay couples, they are also ignoring all the other kids that live in homes where the parents are in conflict with the church. This include co-habbiting adults, Non-member parents, parents not living the WOW or law of charity. If this is really about the children shouldn't the policy focus on all children in these circumstances not just gay couples?

5. Many say, but this policy also is for polygamous groups and there for not singling out. In my opinion the church did single out polygamous groups with this policy. Especially during the FLDS fiasco over the past number of years the church has done everything they can to distance itself from polygamy. I remember being on mission in the early 2000's and hearing Gordon B. Hinkley in a talk say how vile and despicable polygamy is. This rubbed me wrong just base on our history and currently held doctrines involving polygamy. The church already has a history of going after the LGBT demographic during the Prop 8 initiative in California. So this is reason to believe that this policy is tied to those same sediments the church had then.

As for me I'm choosing to stand as I did in elders quorum yesterday, I'm going to still go to church, I'm going to follow the gospel, but I disagree with this policy and will let people know that if the subject is brought up.

I absolutely agree.

You stood up in opposition?

Very thoughtful and appreciated post Zulu. Kudos.

 

[Zulu]

I absolutely agree.

You stood up in opposition?

Very thoughtful and appreciated post Zulu. Kudos.

The Elders Quorum Teacher brought up the policy change and asked for discussion, everyone in the class that commented agreed with the policy, some said it took sometime to do so. I said mainly what I put in my post.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

It's okay to disagree with "revealed" doctrine, so it's that much more okay (whatever that might mean) to disagree with policy that the church never even claimed was based on any revelation. I'm glad you stood up, Zulu and I would expect no less from a fellow Burks homer.

 

[colton]

Over the weekend I took some time to type up many of the thoughts that I developed in this thread and a couple of additional thoughts, for posting to Facebook. In case it's of interest to any of you, here's the result.

It's with some trepidation that I've decided to wade into the Facebook firestorm discussion about the change in LDS policy on gay partnerships and associated families. Warning: very long post. Please only read this if you are genuinely interested in what *I* have to say, not if you are looking for someone to rubber-stamp *your* own opinions (on either side of this issue!), nor if you are looking for a battle. I'm not writing this to attempt to persuade anyone here on anything, I'm doing this to express my own views so that my friends will know what *I* think. You're welcome to post your own views below, whether they agree with my own or not, but please do so in the same spirit--to share how you feel, and not to attack others or try to persuade them that they are stupid, wrong, bigoted, etc. (If you any attacking, I may remove your post.) Consider that that probably wouldn't work anyway, because everyone likely already has their own minds made up about this. That being said, maybe what I have to say will still give some of you some food for thought.

First, if you don't know the new policy, google it. My advice is to read websites hosted by both pro- and anti-LDS sources, so you get a more well rounded explanation. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to focus on the policy that involves children living with gay parents, because that seems to be the most controversial and is the one on which I’ve given the most thought. The heart of the change in policy there is that such children will have to wait until age 18 before joining the church (if they so desire), and that in order to join the church they will need to affirm a belief in the church's teachings against homosexual behavior in general, and against gay marriage in specific.

There are certainly reasons to be outraged by this and there are reasons NOT to be outraged, and I suspect most people will find whichever they are looking for. If you know someone who will be adversely affected by this change in policy, then it's only natural, and for that matter, only right to be focused on how this will affect your friend/family member. And so some outrage makes sense. But by the same token, there may well be families that this new policy will HELP, so there are similarly reasons to refrain from outrage. For example, what seemed clear to me from the outset is that this policy is motivated at least in part by a desire to protect the children in those situations from an untenable situation, where they would join a church that teaches their parent or parents' behavior is sinful and should be rejected. (The behavior should be rejected, I mean, obviously not the parents themselves; more on that below.) If a child wants to make that decision later, when he or she is an adult and more capable of dealing with family dynamics, then it will be permitted.

Another thing that was clear to me from the outset is that this is a *policy*, not a *doctrine*. The LDS doctrine is, and has long been, that homosexual behavior is sinful, and homosexual unions are not recognized in the sight of God. That shouldn't be news to anyone who is interested enough in this topic to have read this far. So that doctrine hasn't changed, nor do I expect it to change. If you are outraged because you hoped for a change to that doctrine, then it makes sense that you are disappointed and if you are an LDS church member maybe you should question whether your previous views were in fact in harmony with the gospel and with the church.

But policies can and do change. This policy could be changed next week, next month, or next year. I should note that it's also very possible to still support the church while disagreeing with some of its policies. For example, I disagree with the policy of not allowing caffeinated beverages to be sold on BYU campus. I think that’s stupid. I disagree with the policy of temple workers not being able to have beards (I think that's still a policy, anyway). I disagree with the policy of making couples in the US who get married civilly before getting married in the temple wait a year before getting sealed in the temple. I think that’s painful to some families and a change in policy should be made.

Do I fully agree with this policy? I'm not sure. As mentioned, I see some reasons for it and I see some reasons against it. I do think it makes sense to make sure people who want to join the church support the official church doctrine on this and other matters, but perhaps gay marriage shouldn't be singled out quite in this way. Also, I think it does make perfect sense to not put 8 year olds in a position where they would need to affirm they support the church's teachings on homosexual behavior (which they likely can’t even fully understand at that age) while living with someone who clearly feels otherwise. It seems to me that 14 year olds might be mature enough to deal with it, though, so maybe if I had designed the policy I would have set the age requirement lower than 18. I don’t think church members should just blindly agree with this policy, then, and perhaps some bounce-back from church members is good. Perhaps the policy could be reshaped to be less hurtful to those caught in the situation. It's also not clear to me from reading the policy language what will be the case for children in joint custody situations, where (by way of example) they live part time with a parent who is an active LDS member, and part time with a parent who not LDS and in a gay marriage. Unless I've missed something, that should be made more explicit, and in my opinion not treated quite the same as children who live full-time with parents in gay relationships. So I guess my bottom line for this thought is that church leaders are not perfect and undoubtedly this policy is not perfect. Maybe there could be a more humane (not quite sure if that's the exact right word, but I'll go with it) way of dealing with the situation than this, and other options should certainly be pondered and considered by church leaders.

Next thought... there seems to be a feeling that gays are being singled out in this. What many people don't seem to realize is that this same policy has already been in place for many years with regards to children living with polygamous parents. And for exactly the same reasons--the church wants to (a) make sure the individuals support church doctrine that their parents' lifestyle is not acceptable and (b) make sure that the children are mature enough to deal with the family repercussions that will undoubtedly arise from their rejection of their parents' lifestyle.

Another way that this situation is not unique to gay families: I’ve seen many people say that “This is horrible because forcing the individuals to reject their parents' lifestyle will cause familial disharmony”. That, in fact, is ALWAYS going to be the case when someone comes to believe that other family members are not living the way they should. There is nothing specific to gay marriage in that. I think that's exactly what Jesus was talking about when he said (from Matt 10)

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

In the end, an individual is going to stand before God and be held accountable for how they lived their life. Therefore they need to make sure they are acting in harmony with God’s teachings and His spirit—both in rejection of sinful behaviors themselves, and also in how they choose to express their rejection of sinful behaviors in others.

Next, I'd like to address two straw men that I've seen repeatedly. First is the statement that children are being required to "reject their parents". No. Rejecting their parents' *lifestyle* is very different than rejecting the parents themselves. And nowhere does the church teach that one should not associate with family members who believe and act differently than you. Quite the contrary, the church teaches that family relationships should be maintained and respected even in those cases where family members are acting against what the church itself teaches. There is no “shunning” in the LDS church.

The second straw man is those who are quoting Article of Faith #2, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression," as a rebuttal to the new policy. That's just plain idiotic in my opinion (pardon the strong language), because nowhere in this policy is the church saying that children in that situation will be damned because they weren't baptized at age 8! That verse is talking about *eternal punishment* after all, it's not discussing whether children will ever end up in a less-than-desirable situation due to their parents' actions. That clearly *does* happen ALL THE TIME in this world. But in the eternal scheme, the church has always taught, and continues to teach, that the children will indeed only be responsible before God for their own sins.

That being said, there is certainly the possibility here that children in such circumstances, namely ones that come to church but are for the time being prevented from being the baptized will experience rejection and cruelty from their peers in church because they are different. That must not happen! Local church leaders will need to be very vigilant to make sure the children don't suffer like that from this policy change.

Lastly, I finally have to wonder how many children will actually even ever be in this situation? Unless I’m greatly mistaken it's already been church policy for a very long time that minors must get parental approval before joining the church. Are many people in gay unions giving approval for their children who are living with them to be baptized into a church that teaches that their union is sinful and against God's law? I doubt it's a frequent occurrence, at least not for children who are 8 years old. Perhaps with teenagers it could happen more often, which I suppose is part of the reason for my thought above that maybe the age requirement should be 14 instead of 18.

That's all I've got for now. If you made it to the end I hope you found some things in there that were of interest to you.

In hindsight I should have also mentioned the discussion about unmarried heterosexual couples, the example that I brought up very early in this thread and that others have similarly mentioned since then (Zulu's point #4, most recently). I do think that's a fair comparison for people who feel that this new policy unjustly singles out gay couples.

 

[colton]

I was referring to the topic of the thread, not your behavior (although the sanctimonious BS is less than appreciated. The last thing I need is a lecture on appropriate behavior from someone who belongs to a ***-hating organization).

I waited a couple of days to see if I still felt I needed to respond to this, and apparently I do. Just two thoughts. First, I'm genuinely trying to live the Golden Rule, and without any reservation I urge others to do the same. The world would be a much better place if more people had that same "sanctimonious BS" in their lives. Second, there is a difference between being against sinful behavior, and hating the sinner. My "organization", as you called it, teaches nothing but love for others and that's how I strive to live my life.

 

[colton]

At the very least, would you be willing to accept that the clandestine nature of the multiple exits from and entries into the country - which almost certainly don't involve an honest statement of the purpose of the visits - is both suspicious and dishonest if not actually illegal (which is still possible if not probable)?

Suspicious, certainly. But was it dishonest? Or was it done just to avoid drawing attention to a legal activity which, if fully known, might have been made illegal? Hard for me to say.

As for what happened in Indonesia, as I said earlier, what we did was plainly dishonest. We skirted the law to the benefit of the church because we could get away with it. It really is that simple.

I tried finding your earlier post in the thread where you talked about the details of what was done in Indonesia, but I couldn't locate it. But sure, I'll grant that there were questionable things done there as well.

 

[Zulu]

Over the weekend I took some time to type up many of the thoughts that I developed in this thread and a couple of additional thoughts, for posting to Facebook. In case it's of interest to any of you, here's the result.



In hindsight I should have also mentioned the discussion about unmarried heterosexual couples, the example that I brought up very early in this thread and that others have similarly mentioned since then (Zulu's point #4, most recently). I do think that's a fair comparison for people who feel that this new policy unjustly singles out gay couples.

!!!

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I can't speak for all eight year olds, but with my two daughters, we made sure that they both understood the gospel and the church at a reasonable level, and that they understood what they were committing to, again to a reasonable level. And they certainly were able to tell right from wrong in terms of general behavior. It was very different from baptizing babies.

It's different from baptizing a baby but I'll bet it's incredibly rare (if not completely unheard of) that an eight year old decides he won't get baptized when his family wants him to.

"No Daddy, I'm not ready to take on those covenants. I think I need gain a little more maturity, and while I do I'd like to further investigate what this decision means to my future. I'll get back to you."

Personally, I was excited to be baptized at 8 because all my friends were doing it and everyone in my family was very excited for it to happen. I was the center of attention and everyone was very proud of me for reasons that were not entirely clear in my mind. No way was I going to put the brakes on that event, though.

At age 13 I had an experience (a seminary teacher who taught some weird ideas) that caused me to start questioning the church in a way I could not possibly have done at 8.

 

[colton]

It's different from baptizing a baby but I'll bet it's incredibly rare (if not completely unheard of) that an eight year old decides he won't get baptized when his family wants him to.

"No Daddy, I'm not ready to take on those covenants. I think I need gain a little more maturity, and while I do I'd like to further investigate what this decision means to my future. I'll get back to you."

Personally, I was excited to be baptized at 8 because all my friends were doing it and everyone in my family was very excited for it to happen. I was the center of attention and everyone was very proud of me for reasons that were not entirely clear in my mind. No way was I going to put the brakes on that event, though.

At age 13 I had an experience (a seminary teacher who taught some weird ideas) that caused me to start questioning the church in a way I could not possibly have done at 8.

Sure, that's all reasonable. But the reason why children are baptized at age 8 in LDS circles is because they are old enough to be "accountable", i.e. old enough to know right from wrong. And because they have a desire to follow Jesus. Not because they have a perfect knowledge of LDS doctrine (although SOME knowledge is obviously desired/required) or the sophistication to challenge authority figures.

(Edit: It should go without saying that by contrast babies aren't accountable for their actions and therefore cannot sin.)

 

[♪alt13]

"The Mormon church is full of discrimination and they're a bunch of bigots who cause people to commit suicide." Not that I deny this voice, but just think the following is interesting. Black parents probably don't want their kids join the KKK, Jewish parents probably don't want their kids to join the a Nazi group, so why would gay parents be upset if their kids are denied membership into a group that teaches so called discrimination, bigotry and that being gay is a sin? It makes no sense to me.

Weddings, funerals, baptisms, are a family thing. It isn't like some gay couple unfamiliar with the church is having to deal with this with their children. It's more like a gay couple with children where both sets of grandparents are LDS and all their cousins are LDS. Interpersonal relationships are way more complicated than you are making them out to be.

Also the KKK/Nazi thing? really? There is bigotry, hate, and homophobia that exists within LDS circles but they aren't stringin people up, putting them in ovens, or even support such a deplorable thing. This is more like a white kid that wants to be Rastafarian than it is like a black kid that wants to join the kkk.

 

[GVC]

Second, there is a difference between being against sinful behavior, and hating the sinner. My "organization", as you called it, teaches nothing but love for others and that's how I strive to live my life.

Accepting the "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument in relation to the Mormon church's doctrines and policies on homosexual behavior and relationships requires me to agree with the following:

1. Denying people emotional and physical/sexual intimacy with the person of their choosing for life is love. Shaming and stigmatizing children with same-sex attraction and/or non-traditional families is love. Getting involved politically - both by encouraging members to sacrifice time and money to the cause, and by speaking out through non-church media sources - to deny people equal protection under the law is love. Effectively, fighting an active war against basic human needs and dignity by any legal means is love.

2. Private, consensual, innocuous sexual behavior and relationships between two people of the same sex is sinful.

It's absurd. Just as up is not down and black is not white, hate is not love and harmless, consensual behavior is not sin. These doctrines and policies are based on historical prejudice and bigotry, Mosaic law (no longer in effect, according to LDS doctrine), a few unclear, likely mistranslated verses written by Paul (thanks, tink), and the thoughts and desires of ignorant, straight, white American lay-clergymen. That you would cite that empty, lazy, self-serving/affirming nonsense - "love the sinner, hate the sin" - so cavalierly is shameful. Where is the demonstrable harm sin requires? Where is the empathy and compassion love requires? To any reasonable, thinking person, this attack on homosexuality is pure prejudice. In your support of this attack - in the time and money you devote to the church, and in your pro-doctrine discussions with others - you are part of the problem.

First, I'm genuinely trying to live the Golden Rule, and without any reservation I urge others to do the same. The world would be a much better place if more people had that same "sanctimonious BS" in their lives.

You seem to not understand the Golden Rule. A couple questions:

1. Do you support the church's doctrines and policies regarding homosexual behavior and relationships with your time, money, and in your conversations with other people? Have you ever done anything to affect change in these doctrines and policies?

2. Would you like your relationships with your wife and kids to be treated the same way as you treat the relationships of those who love someone of the same sex or have parents of the same sex?

The Golden Rule is not "do unto others as you would have them do unto you when it's convenient" (i.e. when it doesn't conflict with your prejudices). Church doctrine is incompatible with the Golden Rule because it is built on the two non-virtuous "virtues" of obedience and faith.

So yeah, I overreacted and told you to **** off. There's a decent chance I do it again at some point. Despite your attempts to chastise me because of my anger and lack of virtue, I feel confident in claiming the moral high ground in this thread (the irony still seems lost on you). Because you belong to and support a ***-hating organization, that openly claims moral authority (some would say moral superiority) from God himself, you should expect a ****-load of scorn. Fortunately, the tide is turning, and in the long-run, you will lose.