This morning the Office of the First Presidency clarified the handbook changes. These clarifications alleviate or resolve many of the problems being discussed. I’m relieved to hear the intent, much of which aligns with what I had hoped for. While many will still disapprove, the clarification verifies that this was the most poorly written policy since Brigham Young codified the temple/priesthood ban.
Coders, engineers, and lawyers—at very least—should have been able to detect the fundamental flaws in the original language of this policy. (See Bad Code for a description.) I don’t know what filter new policy runs through at headquarters, but the team was certainly off their game this time—and the fallout has been tremendous.
Today we learned some important things that were not clear (and some not even addressed) in the original policy: [click to continue…]
We should show love and kindness and sympathy and welcome all to our friendship.
At the same time, we need to be careful that we do not “cast out” and “mock” the words of our prophets and “destroy” or discredit them by using social media as a forum to breed anger and criticism of the prophets and our church.
As angry as some of you have been about one part of the new policy, do not forget about the definition of apostasy that was laid out in the handbook as well:
Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
How can we share the gospel, be a missionary, and further the work of the Lord when we discredit and shame our own prophet? [click to continue…]
Over the last couple of chaotic days, I’ve seen a number of misrepresentations of the new church policy. Some people are willfully misconstruing (of course, because how else does a religion-baiter maintain relevance?), but some of the responsibility lies with the church. The crew who wrote this policy got it wrong.
One of the incorrect statements I keep hearing is that the policy disallows baptism of children whose parents have ever been in a same-gender relationship. But it doesn’t. But it kind of does. The policy is badly written and hard to follow. Add to that what I think (hope?) are some unstated assumptions and it turns the policy from a difficult one to gobbledygook.
Below I’ll be fisking with the new handbook policy (Handbook 1, number 16.3) in purple (how appropriate!) and my own thoughts in black. My point is to note what I think is the intent of the policy as it is currently written, what it can’t logically mean, and what I hope (and pray) will be changed.
The last few days have been a frenzy of activity in the LDS world. As someone with a more progressive view of things, it has been a pretty difficult few days. I have been inundated with information from both sides and finally have a minute to sit down and reflect on all of what I’ve seen and heard. Here is my take on things.
First of all, I want to give some information for context. I am active in the church, a returned missionary, temple recommend holder, and have callings in the church. My husband is currently bishop of our ward (makes for some interesting times at our house!).
I think we all know by now what the policy says, so I won’t reiterate that here. What I would like to focus on are the explanations of the policy that I’ve heard and seen, including the video that the church put out last night in which Elder Christofferson gives insight and context to it. My concern is not so much with the apostasy aspect of this for adults, so I’m focusing on the other part of it, which involves blessing and baptizing children of gay parents. [click to continue…]
Mormon Momma has 1,565 published posts and 347 drafts—most of them mine. Last night my Facebook feed filled up with references to yesterday’s two changes in church policy. Soon after I began getting private messages and emails, asking my take on the new church policies. If I wanted to write today, this wouldn’t be the topic. It would, instead, come from one of the other 340-ish posts I’ve already started. But this issue is exploding, so I’ll do my best.
I reserve the right (as always) to change my mind or reconsider. At the top I will ask readers to consider the many factors in play before giving a reactionary response. (That’s just about all I’ve seen on social media on either side.)
Homosexuality and Consistency
One of the overriding principles in my life is consistency. I try to make sense of the world and of my positions and values. Almost never do I take a hard stance based on my feelings without some rational basis included. When I do make a position, I try very hard to make it fit coherently with the others. That’s not always possible, but I believe one day a grand, unifying theory will emerge. [click to continue…]
Last August I cooked a t-bone steak. For the first time in my 51 years. If I cook meat its either chicken, fish, or the occasional pork loin, so my husband’s birthday dinner request was not met with much rejoicing. Chances were much higher that a bunch of expensive meat would be ruined than that it would be edible. But I tried anyway.
I’m a few hours late in opening the thread. I remembered halfway through the General Women’s Session (I still love to say that…) and then forgot as soon as it ended. Better late then never! Please leave your thoughts and insights here!
Love does not mean sacrificing any and all personal desires to fill the desires of someone else. It does not mean allowing people to mistreat you in the name of loyalty or peace or tolerance. It does not mean “never having to say you’re sorry.” It does not mean that you own someone (or they own you).
We are commanded to love others as God loves us. Charity. The pure love of Christ. With unfailing compassion, patience, and mercy. The past few weeks I’ve been pondering a great deal on love and relationships and family and eternity.
What does love mean to you? How do you show love in difficult circumstances? What does Christlike love look like? [click to continue…]