Things went badly quickly and one result of that effort was that bishops and other temple recommend interviewers were instructed to ask only the questions on the form. Too many of them got too inquisitive.Originally Posted by Sullyute
Things went badly quickly and one result of that effort was that bishops and other temple recommend interviewers were instructed to ask only the questions on the form. Too many of them got too inquisitive.
Last edited by LA Ute; 11-06-2015 at 06:28 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Pat Bagley wins the internetz.
Last edited by NorthwestUteFan; 11-06-2015 at 06:02 PM.
"Stay in the moat" was a great talk.Pat Bagley wins the internetz.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not a draft. This wording appears in the current online version of Handbook 1. I checked personally.
“To me there is no dishonor in being wrong and learning. There is dishonor in willful ignorance and there is dishonor in disrespect.” James Hatch, former Navy Seal and current Yale student.
Yeah, they've come out and said it's accurate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Just out -- An official church video on the new policy:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...christofferson
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
That makes a lot of sense to me.
Either way the church was completely tone deaf when they released this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kind of. The change was officially made to the handbook for bishops and stake presidents. But it was leaked to the media. But it would have gotten out when bishops started enforcing it.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
This whole situation leaves me feeling sad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
God speaks.
Area Presidencies (several people x hundreds of areas)
Stake presidencies (3 + secretary x thousands of stakes)
Bishoprics (3+secretary)
Clerk
finance clerk
membership clerk
HPGL?
EQP?
(x 25,000+ wards and branches in the church)
A LOT of people have access to this document online through lds.org. And the hard copies will soon follow. This was going to get out somehow. Significantly more than one person in that group read the new manual or went to a stake leadership training and afterward said, "this isn't right".
At least one of those people out of a few hundred thousand dropped a dime.
After a few days reflection and consideration, it is still unclear to me why this policy needed to be stated. The LDS Church has made it clear that the doctrine is that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and any other marriage is not. I was not confused by this and I doubt anyone else was. Baptism of persons under the age of 18 requires the consent of the parents, whether the parent is single and never married, divorced, a member, a non-member, etc., etc., etc. It is extremely unlikely that gay parents would consent to the baptism of their child and, if they did, one would think that they would be supportive of the child in attending Church and participating in the programs of the Church. Put another way, they would be no less supportive than Catholic parents or atheist parents or inactive parents or adulterous parents. So if consent is granted . . .
As for the requirement of disavowing, Elder Christofferson indicated that you are not disavowing the parents, but rather assenting to the doctrine of the Church respecting marriage. Doesn't everyone who joins the Church and continues to participate assent to the doctrines of the Church?
I know that the Church leaders probably did not anticipate this material being made public, but that was naive thinking on their part. There had to be a better way to set out the policy in a more general way.
I don't know. I have heard it was leaked. Is it already in the Handbook? I don't have access anymore.
Even if the policy addition was in draft form it would have been better not to be playing catch up after a leak. It looks like they were unprepared for the totally foreseeable reaction.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I'm going to soften my initial reaction, that this was a simple pre-emptive legal move. Plenty of other scenarios where minors are not allowed to join before 18.
(Actually, I could have blocked my son's getting baptized at age 16, and initially my wife wanted to do that, but based on my kid, I persuaded her that it was OK for him to choose his direction, that I supported it. Things have worked out well. My wife got baptized as well, by my son, after he returned from his mission, and I have to say things have been good, but it all works mostly because I'm a live, and let live guy. If I was a very strong whatever else, it would have been hell.)
Very true about the dangers of trying to convert muslims, and actually I've heard a "less intense" version of this same aversion to changing religions by my Hindu colleagues. In their view, changing religions is a direct insult to their ancestors.
It's interesting the amount of research cited by the D-News on "imprinting" (my term) of kids, and the likelihood of children being faithful, based on whether both parents remain faithful, or one parent becomes "less active", etc. I'm sure this was fairly well known previously, which led to GA talks about the eternal importance of parents remaining strong in the faith, etc. "Not only does it impact you, it impacts your children, your grandchildren and descendants you'll never meet here on Earth".
My dad was a Jack Mormon, and I distinctly remember this message and how it made me conclude that our family was less "select", or less valiant, or whatever, which is part of why I always had an affinity for African-Americans and the Navajo kids in the placement program, because they came from disadvantaged backgrounds, as well. It's amazing how strong labeling is.
All of the scenarios the handbook and church policy tries to cover bring me back to the impression I got after being in the Native American sweat lodge, attending African American baptist church for years, and hanging out with the Polynesians and their diversity of Christian backgrounds: Religions become their own worst enemy in how detailed the ideologies, commandments, ordinances and rituals become. In this thread we're parsing the handbook like a bunch of lawyers (which I realize many are).
Shouldn't it be simpler than that? It is for the Native Americans, for African Americans, for Polynesians. I wonder how much of the complexity of western religion comes from the culture where it arose, or was restored to, etc.
What I'm getting at many Mormons get a taste of when they attend a ward service in an area where there are many more African American Mormons in the congregation. It's definitely a different "vibe". I've never been to one of these wards, but I completely understand, based on my years of going to Calvary Baptist in SLC.
After watching the interview, I'm speechless. Not really, but for now, I'm speechless. It's gonna take a bit of time to digest this unnecessary, confusing, illogical, mean-spirited moment in the church's history.
“Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman
"You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb
"Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.
It is very different, and as a result of my considerable experience with wonderfully diverse LDS—including a healthy population of adult individuals, of Iranian and middle eastern heritage, who require approval from SLC in order to be baptized because of the real threat of death etc.—Wards, the hand wringing on this site about this and many other issues by predominantly white, American and living in the Western US individuals, is insufferable.
This is nothing more than bigotry, plain and simple.
The only question is, when does the Church retract this and call Monson a bigot ala Brigham Young.
The Church has found its way out of anything. Just throw the past leader under the bus, call him uninspired, then show how inspired your new leader is by changing it.
This church is not led by revelation.
I was at the "insurfferable" stage in my reaction for quite awhile, but now I'm more at a "fascination" stage. Human beings are tribal creatures, in many ways. Within the tribe are different mindsets *about* the tribe. Orthodox / literal vs more nuanced perspectives, etc.
When I converse with Hindu colleagues about their background, the upwardly mobile, liberal Hindus I know share their frustration and disgust with the caste system, or the gang rape problem, etc. (very serious issues). The details change, the but conversations are essentially the same as I have with many good LDS friends who struggle with various issues in the LDS world.
I've heard the same discourse in Tongan (though my comprehension level is much lower, I can get the gist of the message), I've heard the same among good African American friends, who simultaneously value their community and culture, but disagree with some aspects, here and there.
It's not hard for me to imagine similar conversations among our ancestors, waaaaay back, like "I can't believe he had sex with that Neanderthal girl again! Where does he think this is taking us? We will be destroyed by Thor! Wait... that other group has a few half breeds, and they seem to be doing OK. Maybe we'll be OK".
I have to disagree. I'd bet my house that things will be quite different in the future, but I wince at the assertion of "bigotry". If it exists in result, it is certainly not by intent, not with guys like Christopherson, with his own family history, trying to reconcile all the issues they have to deal with.
As for revelation - what exactly does that mean? Is there some old guy with a long white beard answering questions from authorized agents? I just don't believe that. I can understand how that understanding evolved, but it just doesn't pass the rationality test, for me.
Have there been many different people throughout history who have yearned for answers and been inspired in the understandings they arrive at? Absolutely. Case in point: Pope Francis.
"Hold fast unto that which is good". Like creating a new position called "nickelback" to defend slot receivers, what is "good" evolves.
I am still digesting this development and reading what I can. This is a fascinating perspective from an active, believing gay Mormon:
http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/201...ption.html?m=1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
There's a 13 year old in my ward. His parents are divorced, dad remarried and active in the church, mom very antagonistic to the church. The kid has not been baptized but has been meeting with the missionaries on almost a weekly basis to try amend this. Given that I've taught the kid in Sunday School and soon to be in Young Men's when he turns 14 next month, I've been asked to participate in a few of these discussions.
The missionaries have used the commitment pattern for prayer to gain a testimony, to soften his mom's heart to allow him to be baptized and "a myriad of a few other things" to really twist this kid up. It's been hard to sit through at times. But with the dad there, he seems totally cool with the twisting, so who am I?
Seems like this new policy should be far more reaching than just children of a homosexual. Maybe not letting any child of a split family to get baptized until they're 18 is the policy where we end up down the road.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by Dwight Schr-Ute; 11-07-2015 at 01:16 PM.
Bill Reel is a podcaster even LA and Sancho can appreciate. He was a Bishop in the Midwest until his recent move to Southern Utah. He has a very Terryl Givens-esque approach to belief
He is having a difficult time with the new policy statement and he voices his concerns in a manner that I believe many believing members also feel.
Give it a listen. (After the game, of course) http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.o...s-my-thoughts/
I'm still trying to figure out why this was rolled out in such an unfortunate way. I understand the problem with a leak, but they should have been ready for that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I'm going to call this the LDS Bottomless Rule: Inevitably discussion of LDS Church issues reaches a level of impoverishment below what is worthwhile even to discuss. For example: Book of Mormon historicity; the latest official explanations for disqualifying children of same sex parents from membership.
One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
--Albert Einstein
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
--Richard Dawkins
Be kind to all, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.
--Philo
I'm pretty weary of this subject but I'll just point out that no one (no minor child, I should have said) is disqualified from membership by this policy. It's worthwhile and interesting to discuss and elucidate real facts or issues. Caricatures of issues and facts, not so much.
Last edited by LA Ute; 11-08-2015 at 07:12 AM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Interesting read. Within an LDS mindset, a powerful story, strong reinforcement. I'm always interested in the "flip side" perspective.
When my son was going to be baptized LDS, we were approached by good friends at Calvary who had had something similar happen to them. One of their daughters decided to become LDS, which wreaked havoc on her mom, and the daughter went on a mission, but came home early, shaken, and returned to Calvary, "came back into the fold".
"Have faith, pray, and hope it's God's will for them to come back".
A totally different situation happened with my childhood, super-LDS friend. He went on a mission, came back convinced that "Christianity" was the way - like the BYU WR Luke Ashworth - and his parents' faces would grow horrified when he came up in conversation. "We hope, we're praying and fasting. That's all we can do".
This is all evidence for me that Thomas Jefferson was right, God must be a Deist.
There's no way that God would allow this amount of angst and turmoil to occur, in polar opposite directions, over "him".
I think the church may end up clarifying the new policy. For example, I don't get why the consent of both parents doesn't clear the way for baby blessings, baptism, ordinations, and the rest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Did you watch Christopherson's Q&A? it is supposed to keep the child from having to, in their innocence, not have to deal with the dissonance of being taught to believe at church that what is happening at home is not right in a bigger way than normal sin. I guess polygamy and SSM count as bigger sins.
We'll be testing this in our ward soon. A current active deacon lives with his divorced mom, while his dad is in a SSM in California. According to the handbook, he can't be ordained a teacher when he turns 14 in January. The way it is written now is super-strict and doesn't allow for an exception until he is of "legal" age. It's these kind of scenarios that will cause clarification or change, hopefully in the near future. I don't see how stopping his progression protects his innocence at all.
“To me there is no dishonor in being wrong and learning. There is dishonor in willful ignorance and there is dishonor in disrespect.” James Hatch, former Navy Seal and current Yale student.
Your example is the type of situation I am thinking about. It's probably much more common than cases where both parents are in a SSM. When one parent bolts from the marriage the other ought to be able to carry on with raising the children. In cases where there is joint custody you'd still need both parents to consent but that is nothing new.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote