Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Bobbieaware]

I didn't say they are lying, just that their claims are ridiculous that the new policy will help children of gays avoid conflict.

So if a child of gay married parents attends a church that teaches gay marriage is a grevious sin worthy of expulsion from the Church, how could this not cause inner confusion and conflict? The child would have to oblivious, disengaged and living in la la land not to see the conflict.

[bluebell]

I didn't say they are lying, just that their claims are ridiculous that the new policy will help children of gays avoid conflict.

There have been a few adults who were raised by gay parents while growing up in the church and they have expressed their support of the policy.

I'm not suggesting that other people in similar circumstances can't disagree, but I'm wondering how you reconcile your assertion (that the policy is obviously and factually ridiculous) with the opinion of a few who actually have some life experience with the issue and do not find it ridiculous at all?

Are they deluded in some way in your opinion?

[Ron]

So if a child of gay married parents attends a church that teaches gay marriage is a grevious sin worthy of expulsion from the Church, how could this not cause inner confusion and conflict? The child would have to oblivious, disengaged and living in la la land not to see the conflict.

 

Any conflict they feel is not going to be resolved by excluding them, as I see it.  Excluding them will be harmful if they are believers. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by Ron

[Storm Rider]

The "harm" that activists are talking about are all the result of projected harm, future issues.  No action has occurred, nothing has happened, and fear has run amok....or maybe the perception of fear and harm has run amok.  

 

Yeah, I still don't like propaganda posing as a serious problem.  Has anyone had the sky fall on them; I am certain that the sky is falling.  

[Avatar4321]

I didn't say they are lying, just that their claims are ridiculous that the new policy will help children of gays avoid conflict.

So their claims are ridiculous, but true? How is that possible?

[Bobbieaware]

Any conflict they feel is not going to be resolved by excluding them, as I see it.  Excluding them will be harmful if they are believers.

If the child is not raised in the church, where will the conflict come from?

[Ron]

There have been a few adults who were raised by gay parents while growing up in the church and they have expressed their support of the policy.

I'm not suggesting that other people in similar circumstances can't disagree, but I'm wondering how you reconcile your assertion (that the policy is obviously and factually ridiculous) with the opinion of a few who actually have some life experience with the issue and do not find it ridiculous at all?

Are they deluded in some way in your opinion?

 

So their claims are ridiculous, but true? How is that possible?

 

Being wrong doesn't mean you are lying.

[carbon dioxide]

Any evidence that this decades-old policy harmed the children of polygamists? The potential population would be tens of thousands of children.

I don't think there will be many examples of children to SSM couples anyway even if the policy was not made.  I think most members will not even know a kid that the policy applies to.  If there is harm it will be to individual members who are already struggling in the church with other things.  I don't see how the policy brings the average member closer to Christ but for many weak members, it could be an added challenge that perhaps was not really needed.  I think it would have been better to hold back and wait to see if cases actually occur.  Deal with those cases on an individual basis and then if a pattern emerges and then address the patterns and make policy for that.  Then when the policy is made, the church could add examples of these case studies to show the reasoning for it.  That route would help those weaker in the faith to understand things better and it would not be as much as a stumbling block for them.  I fear that in addressing one potential issue, it has created other issues that will actually affect far more members than the handbook policy was directed to address.

Edited November 12, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Avatar4321]

I don't know any children of polygamists.  But I know of a family in our ward who the new policy has harmed.

And how were they harmed?

[JAHS]

So if a child of gay married parents attends a church that teaches gay marriage is a grevious sin worthy of expulsion from the Church, how could this not cause inner confusion and conflict? The child would have to oblivious, disengaged and living in la la land not to see the conflict.

 

Not oblivous or disengaged, but how often is the subject actually brought up; especially in primary and jr sunday school and how much do they really hear in Sacrament meeting if the rare occaision should happen when it is mentioned? I really don't think the children are even made aware of the whole subject as much as the adults might be (which is very little)

[Ron]

If the child is not raised in the church, where will the conflict come from?

 

I think you are correct here, if the child abandons the church and decides to live with the gay parent then there will likely be no conflict.  The situations I see though are much sticker than that.  The child believes in the church and wants to attend and is supported by the gay parent (although may not live with them).  Now the child may blame the parent or be ashamed or think something is wrong with themselves for being genetically related to that gay parent.

[Avatar4321]

May being the key word. Just speculation

[KevinG]

I fear that in addressing one potential issue, it has created other issues that will actually affect far more members than the handbook policy was directed to address.

It is helpful to remember the excommunicated John Dehlin was the one to make this confidential instruction for Bishops a public news item.

I beleive the policy may have been created in part to clarify the seriousness of an issue society and some Saints were rationalizing as something that the Lord quietly accepted.

Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG

[Ron]

May being the key word. Just speculation

Maybe but it seems obvious this situation is ripe for harm to occur.  And once it happens it cannot be taken back.

[carbon dioxide]

So if a child of gay married parents attends a church that teaches gay marriage is a grevious sin worthy of expulsion from the Church, how could this not cause inner confusion and conflict? The child would have to oblivious, disengaged and living in la la land not to see the conflict.

Of course but as long as the gay parents understand that there will be a conflict and tell there kids that they have to make up their own mind, then its not that big of an issue.  I don't think the Church should be too concerned about conflicts because conflicts occur in heterosexual marriages where the parents are not doing what the child is taught in the church.   As long as the parents give consent and they know the position of the Church on the issue and accept it, it would be no different than two unmarried parents living together giving consent to their 14 year old to join the church.

Edited November 12, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Avatar4321]

Maybe but it seems obvious this situation is ripe for harm to occur.  And once it happens it cannot be taken back.

There is nothing obvious about that.

[Ron]

Maybe but it seems obvious this situation is ripe for harm to occur.  And once it happens it cannot be taken back.

 

Also I just googled mormon on google news and there are already several credible stories of church members who claim they and /or children have been harmed already.

[bluebell]

Being wrong doesn't mean you are lying.

You didn't answer my question. Being wrong is different than being ridiculous.

When you say something is ridiculous you are saying it's absurd and worthy of mockery.

[KevinG]

HUGE difference between not doing what is right or failing to love up to covenants

And

Intentionally entering into an arrangement in opposition to church teachings and failing to repent of it.

Both are bad.

[KevinG]

And in how many of those stories was there already harm the the family from divorce, adultery?

Blaming the harm on the new policy is misplaced. Especially if you take Elder Christofferson at his word and understand that the policy is designed to delay baptism to avoid putting children in opposition to their parents.

Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG

[Bobbieaware]

I think you are correct here, if the child abandons the church and decides to live with the gay parent then there will likely be no conflict. The situations I see though are much sticker than that. The child believes in the church and wants to attend and is supported by the gay parent (although may not live with them). Now the child may blame the parent or be ashamed or think something is wrong with themselves for being genetically related to that gay parent.

That's why reasonable and compassionate gay parents should not raise the child in the Church. Given the new policy, except in the rarest of circumstances only a foolish or sadistic gay parent would think it's a good idea to raise the child in the LDS Church.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Ron]

You didn't answer my question. Being wrong is different than being ridiculous.

When you say something is ridiculous you are saying it's absurd and worthy of mockery.

 

Yes in my opinion it is so wrong it seems absurd.

[Ron]

That's why reasonable and compassionate gay parents should not raise the child in the Church. Given the new policy, only a foolish or sadistic gay parent would think it's a good idea to raise the child in the LDS Church.

 

Yeah I think you nailed it, in light of the new policy a good gay parent should resign immediatly and force their children to cease attending (and resign if already baptized).   However, I'm afraid that will only cause harm to families and those relatives around them who are not gay.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Ron

[carbon dioxide]

Yeah I think you nailed it, in light of the new policy a good gay parent should resign immediatly and force their children to cease attending (and resign if already baptized).   However, I'm afraid that will only cause harm to families and those relatives around them who are not gay.

That is my thinking too.  I wonder 10 years from now and we count the number of gay families whose kids who got a benefit from the policy verses the number of individuals and families in the Church that were negatively affected by it how it will balance out.  For every gay family that is helped we might loss 25 families in the church.  Not to mention that this is a horrible policy in terms of missionary work in the US.  I guess I need to have more faith but my natural instinct tells me the upsides to the policy are very small and the downside is quite substantial. 

[Bobbieaware]

Yeah I think you nailed it, in light of the new policy a good gay parent should resign immediatly and force their children to cease attending (and resign if already baptized). However, I'm afraid that will only cause harm to families and those relatives around them who are not gay.

At least in part, that's the unspoken point of the policy: It's designed to dissuade gay married parents from raising children in the Church under such unusual circumstances. This way the child will not be exposed to the Church and Gospel under circumstances that are unavoidably conflicted and inherently dysfunctional. But when the children are grown and the Gospel is presented to them by the missionaries -- either on earth or in the spirit world -- they will be able to listen to and consider the Gospel message while possessed of a more mature mind without all the destabilizing drama that would occur if they were raised in the Church with parents who model a family dynamic that is at total odds with the most sacred teachings of the Church.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Bobbieaware