KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Denying a child the right to worship in their church because of perceived sins of their parents is harm. Please show where the right to worship was denied anyone in the handbook of instructions or Elder Chistofferson's comments. Any quote that backs up your assertion would be sufficient. 3
Russell C McGregor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Denying a child the right to worship in their church because of perceived sins of their parents is harm. Not only is that not what the Church is doing, it doesn't even superficially resemble what the Church is doing. 2
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Have explained how they came to implement this policy? I missed that. I've heard them offer a weak justification, that it's compassionate to exclude the kids, but they haven't done anything to explain their process. My guess is it works better as a mystery than a rational process of reviewing in a counsel, passing memos between the brethren and the legal department, not to mention the possible inner dynamics of how they achieved unanimity amongst the Q15. If this has truly been in the queue for 1 year like has been mentioned previously, it would be interesting to know if the deaths in the Q12 and their replacements impacted that unanimity. Do they feel a revelation was received or was it an administrative decision just like many, many others they make? None of this sounds interesting to you? I've been in enough church counsels to know how it's done. I suspect the actual process can be found in the other chapters of the church handbook of instructions, under counsels. Do you suppose something was different in this case. Sacrifice of small animals, or light minded laughter over a few beers?
Mystery Meat Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 I disagree. A fix is the only way out of this mess. Trying to find a respectful way to tell a family they are no longer welcome will not reverse the harm that is taking place. Well if that isn't a perverse mischaracterization of Church policy, I don't know what is. You destroy credibility when you discuss in bad faith. 3
Mystery Meat Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Not only is that not what the Church is doing, it doesn't even superficially resemble what the Church is doing. Facts are tedious and get in the way, though. 2
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Just in case you missed it... Michael Otterson: So in the last couple of years there’s been a tone from the Church of understanding and acceptance of those people who experience same-sex attraction, and this policy seemed to be rather abrupt. What actually prompted this handbook change?Elder Christofferson: To some degree it came from questions that have surfaced in different parts of the world and the United States. With the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord and how we respond to that. So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt. We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that. We’re not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know sin does not. And so we’re going to stand firm there because we don’t want to mislead people. There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ.
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Facts are tedious and get in the way, though. Not only is that not what the Church is doing, it doesn't even superficially resemble what the Church is doing. That is exactly what the church is doing. Excommunicating gay parents and forbidding their children from participating fully going forward.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 That is exactly what the church is doing. Excommunicating gay parents and forbidding their children from participating fully going forward. You missed this about "going forward". We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.
Mars Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 That is exactly what the church is doing. Excommunicating gay parents and forbidding their children from participating fully going forward. do you feel that homosexuality in any form is a sin? do you feel that gay marriage is ceremonial declaration that something is right and good, when the church teaches it is wrong and harmful?
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 You missed this about "going forward". We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years. By the time they are 18 it is likely too late. The disruption to the family has already occurred and the damage is done.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) By the time they are 18 it is likely too late. The disruption to the family has already occurred and the damage is done. You are telling this to a convert who joined the LDS church at the age of 21 in the face of everything from benign opposition to derision to shunning from friends and family. The disruption to the family already occurred when Dad or Mom left to take a gay lover. The alienation from the gospel already occurred when adoptive mom and mom chose to marry contrary to the laws of the church, gospel and God they claim to want to worship. Hypothetically. I have still to hear of two gay parents wanting to raise their adopted child in the LDS church from age 8. Why would any of those who reject the law of chastity ask to be bound by it, unless they are repentant? ...and to top it off you then claim you are so sickened by the policy that you desire to pull your family from the church and prevent them from worshiping as they would like? Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG
Russell C McGregor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 That is exactly what the church is doing. Excommunicating gay parents and forbidding their children from participating fully going forward. Which is not the same as "Denying a child the right to worship in their church because of perceived sins of their parents." The children are welcome to participate; just not as covenant members of the community. They get the benefits of participation without the responsibilities of membership. While it's not the best possible arrangement for them, the brethren believe that it's better than having them make covenants that are at odds with the way their parents (or one of them) have chosen to live. Tell me you wouldn't be berating the brethren if they did expect minor children to make such covenants. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 If the age of accountability is 8, shouldn't children need to be baptized as soon as possible to receive the Holy Ghost to help guide them in their lives? And didn't Jesus say something about not coming between Heavenly Father and children?
Russell C McGregor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 I disagree. A fix is the only way out of this mess.The only "mess" is that some people choose to grumble. Trying to find a respectful way to tell a family they are no longer welcome will not reverse the harm that is taking place.In that case, we won't tell them they're no longer welcome.Because, of course, they are.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 If the age of accountability is 8, shouldn't children need to be baptized as soon as possible to receive the Holy Ghost to help guide them in their lives? And didn't Jesus say something about not coming between Heavenly Father and children? That would be great if they were in a home life that didn't oppose the same covenants they were making. The Holy Ghost will still be able to guide them, even without the ordinance. Yes Jesus said "suffer not the little children to come unto me." And we are not preventing that. We are asking them to delay their baptism until they are adults and can choose to do so without putting them in opposition to their parents, who choose to defy the church when it comes to living the law of chastity. 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 If I believed in the church and was like 14 years old and had to wait until I was 18 and move out I'd be really mad and hurt and impatient. I'd want the ordinances done soon so I could get on with my salvation. Having to wait when you believe sucks while you watch as all your fellow aged friends can get baptized and advance in the Aaronic priesthood no problem. You'll feel like the black sheep in the group. 1
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The only "mess" is that some people choose to grumble. In that case, we won't tell them they're no longer welcome.Because, of course, they are. Partially welcome. 1
Danzo Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 If I believed in the church and was like 14 years old and had to wait until I was 18 and move out I'd be really mad and hurt and impatient. I'd want the ordinances done soon so I could get on with my salvation. Having to wait when you believe sucks while you watch as all your fellow aged friends can get baptized and advance in the Aaronic priesthood no problem. You'll feel like the black sheep in the group.Other people who had to wait disagree.It is quite common for people to have to wait until they are eighteen.
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Other people who had to wait disagree.It is quite common for people to have to wait until they are eighteen. When has it been quite common for worthy already baptized members of the church to have to wait until they are 18 for anything?
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 What are the reasons for it being quite common to have to wait until they are 18? If the age of accountability is 8, that's 10 years of being prone to the influence of Satan, without having the Holy Ghost with you. And if you say the Holy Ghost is with them anyway, then that cheapens the importance of sacred ordinances.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 What are the reasons for it being quite common to have to wait until they are 18? If the age of accountability is 8, that's 10 years of being prone to the influence of Satan, without having the Holy Ghost with you. And if you say the Holy Ghost is with them anyway, then that cheapens the importance of sacred ordinances. Every missionary has come across situations like this. The most common reason is that one or both of the parents objects. I know that there will be gay parents in SSM's who, even knowing the Church's teachings, will be willing to support the child's membership, but I suspect they will be a vanishingly small minority. It may be that, when Stake Presidents and bishops receive actual training in how to apply this new policy, the supportive attitude of such parents might be a factor to be taken into consideration, but the policy as written will remain the default. 1
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 It does not cheapen an ordinance to insure that someone entering into a covenant lives in a home that can support that covenant. On the contrary it shows that we do not consider entering into such covenants something to be taken lightly or with no support system.
Thinking Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 I have a personal pet theory that like the law of Moses, we could be governed without the handbook of we would stop trying to find ways around God's plain laws and doctrines. That's a fair assessment. Every time one of those church bulletins is circulated with a new policy I wonder to myself, "who was stupid enough to think (whatever the subject of the bulletin is) was a good idea in the first place?" 1
HappyJackWagon Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 I apologize if this has already been posted. (I haven't read all 9 pages) This is a post from The Times and Seasons outlining some of the intended and/or unintended consequences of this policy. Would it make you feel better if these consequences are unintended and hadn't been considered prior to the release of the new policy? Or would it make you feel better if the Brethren fully intended all of these consequences of the policy? http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise/ 3
JAHS Posted November 12, 2015 Author Posted November 12, 2015 I apologize if this has already been posted. (I haven't read all 9 pages) This is a post from The Times and Seasons outlining some of the intended and/or unintended consequences of this policy. Would it make you feel better if these consequences are unintended and hadn't been considered prior to the release of the new policy? Or would it make you feel better if the Brethren fully intended all of these consequences of the policy? http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise/ The list was too long to read it all. I started to get bored with all the very unlikely situations she came up with. I am sure others are making equally longs lists of every possible situation they can imagine. All of these can be handled on a case by case basis according to the discretion and inspiration of the Bishop who would be aware of all the details of a particular case. If not they can make a quick call to church leaders for advice. I think it might even possible that church leaders are letting this stew for a while to see what kinds of situations people might come up with that might need to be considered as they proceed to make some clarifications about the policy.
Recommended Posts