Hamba Tuhan Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Wondering how the policy for baptizing parents of polygamous parents is implemented currently. I can check with one of my former housemates. His father has four wives. Of course, my friend had other complications as well: he was living at an Islamic boarding school when he met the missionaries, so I think he had complications on top of complications. Let me see what I can find out from him.
Ron Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 If that parent has no custody and never had custody the policy does not apply. Where in the policy does it mention custody?
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Nehor, Joseph Smith must be a Calvanist then... In reguards to this discussion we are having and metting out the Justice and "Love" of God like our bretheren are doing to gays and their children right now. Joseph Smith had this to say.... Why don't we let God be the judge and quit making "narrow, contracted notions" about who's marriage is better than others? And which type of Marriage God likes best, Because lets face it God has called prophets with some pretty scary back stories through out history. We would do well to follow a Proverb of Joseph Smith... our founder... This can be found in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and on the Church Website...https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwiIha_LoonJAhUCmYgKHSvHDQI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lds.org%2Fmanual%2Fteachings-joseph-smith%2Fchapter-35%3Flang%3Deng&usg=AFQjCNGrdUEJqP5xvwKI9CjsmZgkOv5DcQ&sig2=4M-fWAFWFVUFoBLiq9JzvwIf you are trying to convince me that the narrow contracted notions about marriage are those declared in scripture and by apostles and prophets then I am just going to laugh at you. 2
Ron Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Where in the policy does it mention custody? That was my original question and what brought me to these boards.
Daniel2 Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 If that parent has no custody and never had custody the policy does not apply. My understanding is that whether or not the gay parent has custody, the policy still applies. That's what I read from Rockpond's meeting with his stake presidency. 1
Storm Rider Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 I think this outrage is more about making the parents feel bad then it is about kids but kids make a nice shield so complainers can try to convince everyone it is not about them.Like how Laman complained about their wilderness wanderings by talking about how much the women were suffering. It does seem odd all of the crying and gnashing going on about the children. We are talking about Mormon children who have lived through a divorce and then have seen one of their parents begin living a gay lifestyle. Exactly how easy is that for children to live through? How difficult is it for children raised in the Church of Jesus Christ? Now I am supposed to believe that the Church is the bad guy in this situation? It is not the gay parent living a gay lifestyle, but the Church? Why is it the Church's fault now? Oh, I remember because the Church has called individuals in a gay marriage apostates. The problem is that they were already excommunicated. What has changed? Nothing - gay sex is still a sin like it has been for thousands of years. So that cannot be it. That some children with a practicing gay parent will now not be able to baptized. Now, this child has to tell all their friends that daddy, who used to live with the family and was married mommy, divorced mommy in order to marry another man. This is easy? For who? So the baptism is delayed unless authorization has been received. Let's assume that authorization is not obtained and the child has to wait to be baptized. What will have been lost? They can still attend church, still speak, give talks, go to mutual, etc. Young men will not be able to hold the priesthood; that will create some awkward moments. However, everything else will be available to the children. During this time of growing up and asking questions, what is the socialization process that is going on in the child's life to accept gay sex as perfectly normal? How does that skew their religious views? If when they turn 18 they still want to be baptized then they can. Now where was the Church bad? Run through for me where responsibility for the problems began and ended. Where was the Church in all of that? That's right - it was ignored by the gay parent. One more time, who is the cause of the problem? 2
Daniel2 Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 I am reading posts on other threads suggesting that a Bishop could still allow the baptism of a child of a parent cohabitating in a same sex marriage if he were so moved by the Spirit. I don't see that in the policy, does anybody else see that? That's not in the policy
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 And yet, the Book of Mormon is silent on homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. We can reasonably expect any text written before 1869 to be 'silent on homosexuality'.
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 What about friends in the church who were your age? Clearly they would have expecation that you would be baptized and get the priesthood just like they were. And i just don't think its right to force a child to explain that they cannot be a full mormon because their real father is in a gay relationship. Especially considering that the child does not even live with their real father and only sees them occasionally ( no custody ). I am a convert. However I mentioned before that one of my sons delayed his baptism because he wanted to have an answer to his prayers. His siblings and his friends at church didn't even question it. However if you are so concerned with what your children's friends think of their life choices, leaving a spouse and kids to live with a gay partner isn't exactly the most charitable move towards the children, or the most protective of their image. This policy change (or more accurately clarification of the church stance on gay marriage) is not to blame for the pain that was created when someone decided to break sacred covenants in order to follow a selfish desire. I view this no less egregious and harmful to children than a heterosexual man who leaves his family for a lover. 2
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Where in the policy does it mention custody?Yeah, my bad. I misread that "living with them" being applicable more generally as opposed to only the post 18 thing. My mistake. Edited November 11, 2015 by The Nehor
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 THe Nehor: Nehor, Joseph Smith must be a Calvanist then... In reguards to this discussion we are having and metting out the Justice and "Love" of God like our bretheren are doing to gays and their children right now. Joseph Smith had this to say.... Why don't we let God be the judge and quit making "narrow, contracted notions" about who's marriage is better than others? And which type of Marriage God likes best, Because lets face it God has called prophets with some pretty scary back stories through out history. We would do well to follow a Proverb of Joseph Smith... our founder... This can be found in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and on the Church Website...https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwiIha_LoonJAhUCmYgKHSvHDQI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lds.org%2Fmanual%2Fteachings-joseph-smith%2Fchapter-35%3Flang%3Deng&usg=AFQjCNGrdUEJqP5xvwKI9CjsmZgkOv5DcQ&sig2=4M-fWAFWFVUFoBLiq9Jzvw If the Brethren would quit making stupid policy, laws and hoops that we have to jump threw to make it to heaven we all could make it! Even Gays in SS Marriages. That does not mean throw out the law and let everyone do what they want because they love each other.
Daniel2 Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) The current policy does not apply retroactively. So kids of gay parents are not excommunicated. I imagine most local leaders will allow the kids to keep doing whatever already can. So if you're a deacon you can keep passing the sacrament. And if you have a TR you can keep doing temple work. The question becomes "retroactive to what?" When the children's current TR expires, can they renew? If a 12-yr-old has not yet been ordained, he's prevented from becoming a deacon (as we've seen from the article I posted on page 25 of this thread). If a just-turning 14-year-old was already ordained a deacon, can he be ordained a teacher? My son just turned 15 and was already ordained a teacher... next year, can he be ordained a priest? Or are his ordinations suspended to the office he's currently at? Edited November 11, 2015 by Daniel2
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 That's not in the policy Don't worry he was misrepresenting something I said on another thread. The whole notion is nonsensical and no one has suggested it on any thread.
Ron Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 I am a convert. However I mentioned before that one of my sons delayed his baptism because he wanted to have an answer to his prayers. His siblings and his friends at church didn't even question it. However if you are so concerned with what your children's friends think of their life choices, leaving a spouse and kids to live with a gay partner isn't exactly the most charitable move towards the children, or the most protective of their image. This policy change (or more accurately clarification of the church stance on gay marriage) is not to blame for the pain that was created when someone decided to break sacred covenants in order to follow a selfish desire. I view this no less egregious and harmful to children than a heterosexual man who leaves his family for a lover. Then do you agree then that it is unfair for children of a gay parent(non custody) to be treated differently than children of a heterosexual cheater and abandoner?
Popular Post DJBrown Posted November 11, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 11, 2015 It has not even been 5 months since the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Leading up to that decision, countless advocates of same-sex marriage insisted that legalizing such a union would not effect traditional marriages or the practice of religion on the part of those who opposed same-sex marriage. Five months. How soon we forget. Has the practice of our religion been effected by that decision? The church announces a modification or addition to a handbook policy and the world is now up in arms in criticizing the church. Mass resignations are organized. Online, many members of the church are declaring how confusing this is for them. Many are requesting their names be removed. Maybe this would be no different without the court decision. But I don't think so. I just read a talk by Elder Maxwell. In that talk, he said: "President Cannon further observed that the Saints—meaning you and I—must not make the mistake of assuming the existence of any truce between the forces of Satan and God. To believe so, said President Cannon, is “a very great delusion, and a very common one.”President Cannon then warned that the forms of resistance to righteousness will strike us “with wonder and astonishment.” This, he said, would occur because “the war” which was waged in heaven has been transferred to the earth,” and that this conflict, he said, “will [come to] occupy the thoughts and minds of all the inhabitants of the earth” (Journal of Discourses 11:227–29). Brothers and sisters, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be at the epicenter of all that. On the sixth of April, 1845, the Twelve Apostles issued a proclamation which included these words:As this work progresses in its onward course, and becomes more and more an object of political and religious interest and excitement, no king, ruler, or subject, no community or individual, will stand neutral. All will at length be influenced by one spirit or the other; and will take sides either for or against the kingdom of God." (Messages of the First Presidency, p. 257 5
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Then do you agree then that it is unfair for children of a gay parent(non custody) to be treated differently than children of a heterosexual cheater and abandoner?No.
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 It does seem odd all of the crying and gnashing going on about the children. We are talking about Mormon children who have lived through a divorce and then have seen one of their parents begin living a gay lifestyle. Exactly how easy is that for children to live through? How difficult is it for children raised in the Church of Jesus Christ? Now I am supposed to believe that the Church is the bad guy in this situation? It is not the gay parent living a gay lifestyle, but the Church? Why is it the Church's fault now? Oh, I remember because the Church has called individuals in a gay marriage apostates. The problem is that they were already excommunicated. What has changed? Nothing - gay sex is still a sin like it has been for thousands of years. So that cannot be it. That some children with a practicing gay parent will now not be able to baptized. Now, this child has to tell all their friends that daddy, who used to live with the family and was married mommy, divorced mommy in order to marry another man. This is easy? For who? So the baptism is delayed unless authorization has been received. Let's assume that authorization is not obtained and the child has to wait to be baptized. What will have been lost? They can still attend church, still speak, give talks, go to mutual, etc. Young men will not be able to hold the priesthood; that will create some awkward moments. However, everything else will be available to the children. During this time of growing up and asking questions, what is the socialization process that is going on in the child's life to accept gay sex as perfectly normal? How does that skew their religious views? If when they turn 18 they still want to be baptized then they can. Now where was the Church bad? Run through for me where responsibility for the problems began and ended. Where was the Church in all of that? That's right - it was ignored by the gay parent. One more time, who is the cause of the problem? Careful. I was called ignorant when I pointed that out. Apparently it is fine to imply Apostles and Prophets are wrong for drawing a line on the practice of gay marriage and asking that children of those arrangements wait until 18 to be baptized, but it is intolerant and cruel to point out that leaving a family for a gay lover may be the actual source of the child's discontent.
Ron Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Yeah, my bad. I misread that "living with them" being applicable more generally as opposed to only the post 18 thing. My mistake.I thought the same thing I at first assumed that the policy change was based on the gay parent having some sort of custody. I still thought it was bad, but finding out that seems to apply to those who no longer live with their gay parents at all makes it seem horribly wrong to me :-(
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Then do you agree then that it is unfair for children of a gay parent(non custody) to be treated differently than children of a heterosexual cheater and abandoner? If a heterosexual man abandons his family and leaves them, then teaches that this is a normal healthy relationship that the church should endorse, I'd excommunicate him for apostasy too.
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 I thought the same thing I at first assumed that the policy change was based on the gay parent having some sort of custody. I still thought it was bad, but finding out that seems to apply to those who no longer live with their gay parents at all makes it seem horribly wrong to me :-( This was addressed. Imagine if a non-gay custodial parent used this as a wedge against the gay non-custodial parent. Now you don't have to imagine it. Stemmelbow shared that this has already happened. (That must be one quick lawyer to bring it into a custody case when the announcement was made a few days ago).
KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 How is it fair? Once the covenant with God and the family was broken, nothing about this would be fair. The church policy is trying to minimize the conflict in the child's life. That is how it is written and its stated intent. Unless of course you want to argue that Elder Christofferson and the rest of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 are lying about the purpose of the policy update.
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 How is it fair?Because this is not a punishment. It is what it is for practical reasons. If you have to endure it you have to endure it. If you do not you do not. It is not a value judgement on whether a serial adulterer or an active gay parent is morally better or worse or will make a better or worse parent.
stemelbow Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 And I happen to think disobeying the covenants on marriage, divorcing, setting up household with a gay lover are very dysfunctional family behaviors. Then within one day of the church announcement the couple is fighting over custody (that is one fast lawyer!). If you think any of that is functional. Then I am happy to agree to disagree. P.S. Calling me ignorant is not very civil. Please try to keep the personal insults out of what is already a difficult and sensitive discussion. It's not a bad, negative nor uncivil thing to say you are ignorant of stranger's situation. You must realize you calling my friend's family dysfunctional without knowing anything about them is far more uncivil than I saying you don't know them. I'm at the point of agreeing to disagree, though. Take care.
Popular Post KevinG Posted November 11, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 11, 2015 When pointing out that giving same sex marriage legal status was something I would support civilly even if I didn't believe in it myself, I said that I would draw the line when others insist I change my religion to accommodate it. At the time I was accused of slippery slope fallacious thinking. Now members of my own religion are calling me ignorant or intolerant because I support the brethren in defining promotion and practice of same sex marriage within the church an apostate behavior. That didn't take long. 10
Recommended Posts