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

[Daniel2]

I just saw this question asked on another forum:

What about a divorced parent who shares joint custody with their ex who is now in a same sex marriage? Can their child not be baptized?

I'd really love to know the answer to this.

How are teenagers being raised in predominantly-LDS communities going to feel anything but anger and resentment towards their same-sex parents, if they experience an internal desire (not to mention social pressure) to join the church, but known their parents' marriage (or relationship) is the only thing preventing them from doing so?!

**Scratching my head over how hurtful this policy is towards kids of gay parents, and how destructive it is upon paternal/maternal relationships...

Edited November 6, 2015 by Daniel2

[Calm]

The Church was restored in 1830.

18 as the age of majority is a much more recent development. 

Probably 18 has become the 'new' age of adulthood because society has developed in such a way that slows the need for youth to make adult decisions...and given the brain doesn't function in the same way as older adults until the age of 25 or so, there may be good reason for this in a society that functions less on physical attributes (which mature faster) and more on intellectual and emotional ones.

 

Though iirc, women couldn't assume certain adult rights until older than 21 in many cases.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[Danzo]

Apostasy is about beliefs, not lifestyle. So this new rule doesn't seem to make much sense.

Actually, apostasy is rebellion.

[carbon dioxide]

You may not, but the Church just defined it that way for someone who is a member of the Church.

I recognize that.  They offer no reason to explain why it is apostasy.  If you look at the list of 5 things it considers as apostasy, the SSM part is a fish out of water to the others.

[Gray]

Ones lifestyle reflects their true beliefs, thought their stated beliefs may vary.

 

But you can be a rapist, a child molestor, a murderer, or a Juggalo. None of those things are called apostasy in the handbook (arguably the last one should be).

 

Is rape more in keeping with the gospel message than gay marriage?

[Gray]

Actually, apostasy is rebellion.

a·pos·ta·sy

əˈpästəsē/

noun

noun: apostasy; plural noun: apostasies

1. the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

[Danzo]

I recognize that. They offer no reason to explain why it is apostasy. If you look at the list of 5 things it considers as apostasy, the SSM part is a fish out of water to the others.

You might want to give them time to make explanations, this change was just made.

[Danzo]

a·pos·ta·sy

əˈpästəsē/

noun

noun: apostasy; plural noun: apostasies

• the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from aphistasthai to revolt.

[The Nehor]

Is rape more in keeping with the gospel message than gay marriage?

 

Ideally rapists are not able to function as parents due to being behind bars. Rapists who are open with their families and communities about their rapeyness are almost certainly locked up.

 

In either case they do not function as a parent for some time.

 

Disclaimer: I do not consider consensual homosexual relationships, either married or not, to be nearly as abhorrent as rape unless said homosexual relationship also involves rape.

[Gray]

Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from aphistasthai to revolt.

 

I'm fairly certain the Handbook of Instructions isn't written for a Middle English audience.

[Gray]

Ideally rapists are not able to function as parents due to being behind bars. Rapists who are open with their families and communities about their rapeyness are almost certainly locked up.

 

In either case they do not function as a parent for some time.

 

Disclaimer: I do not consider consensual homosexual relationships, either married or not, to be nearly as abhorrent as rape unless said homosexual relationship also involves rape.

 

Some rapists are parents, unfortunately. They'll be excommunicated if found out, but not for apostasy.

 

It's also strange that active members are able to advocate for gay marriage and not be considered in apostasy. But children of gay parents cannot?

Edited November 6, 2015 by Gray

[The Nehor]

Some rapists are parents, unfortunately. They'll be excommunicated if found out, but not for apostasy.

 

It's also strange that active members are able to advocate for gay marriage and not be considered in apostasy. But children of gay parents cannot?

 

Agreed but unless the child is raised in such a way that they believe rape is healthy and normal (i.e. by an amazingly open rapist) joining the church and learning rape is wrong will not split the loyalty of the child. In another way you can see this as the church treating rape more seriously. To the gay parent they say "We are going to have your child hold off so we do not split the loyalty of your child." To the rapist they say: "We do not give a damn what you think either way."

[carbon dioxide]

I'd really love to know the answer to this.

**Scratching my head over how hurtful this policy is towards kids of gay parents, and how destructive it is upon paternal/maternal relationships...

I don't think it is saying to hate your gay parents or disown them or anything else.  What is is establishing is what the Church believes as right and wrong.  I suppose the Church does not want kids to be baptized and then advocate that SSM is ok.  I wish it included unmarried heterosexual couples living together with the SSM group.  That would have neutered the policy being just "anti-gay" as simply apply a blanket standard for all situations where the law of chastity is being violated. 

 

I also believe that the policy may be modified in the future to be more fair to the children.  I don't see the harm of a baby blessing.  Lets keep in mind as well that a baby blessing is not mandatory in the Church.  It is like a patriarchal blessing.  It may be encouraged but it is not a required ordinance.

[Calm]

I like you and I grieve with you.

 

I still think the decision wise and needful but I wish it did not cause you pain.

I feel like the reality was always there, always heartbreaking but always needing to be faced to so that false expectations don't end up hurting people more...if we believe homosexual behaviour is a sin, than we will be requiring members to see the behavour of friends and family members, even parents, who are gay and acting on it as sinful.  I don't think it is better to just avoid talking about it so we can pretend that it isn't that way.  Potential members need to know what they are getting into.  Family members and friends of potential members need to know.

 

Daniel's own situation shows how traumatic this is for family members.  But surely it is better to be fully out there with what we believe so as to avoid as much as possible this conflict occurring for families or if it is going to happen, to let people know the conflict is there so they can prepare for it, teach their children how they want them to behave and to know what kind of situation their children may face if they decide to investigate the LDS Church.

 

In the long run, I believe there will be less pain if we don't have false expectations of what the other person thinks and feels and wants to be, we need to learn how to love others even when we disagree on fundamentals.  A family cannot survive if they don't.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[Danzo]

I'm fairly certain the Handbook of Instructions isn't written for a Middle English audience.

Actually, the church is very clear on how the word is defined for them. Read the opening post.

Also, the scriptures, written in middle English use the word with the definition I posted,

[carbon dioxide]

You might want to give them time to make explanations, this change was just made.

Sure.  I also think it is possible they might rewrite is as they get more imput on the issue.  If the handbook can be changed, it can be changed again.

[carbon dioxide]

Does anyone know if a formal ban on missionaries teaching SSM couples the discussions exists.  I have expected that for a while but have not heard anything.

[Danzo]

Sure. I also think it is possible they might rewrite is as they get more imput on the issue. If the handbook can be changed, it can be changed again.

Quite likely. One of the advantages of continuing revelation.

[The Nehor]

Does anyone know if a formal ban on missionaries teaching SSM couples the discussions exists.  I have expected that for a while but have not heard anything.

 

I have not but I doubt there is a ban. It is just like teaching an unmarried heterosexual couple cohabiting or sexually active except instead of three options:

 

A) Cut back the relationship to fit within the law of chastity

B) Terminate the relationship

C) Get Married

 

...you can only take Option B.

[Calm]

I'd really love to know the answer to this.

How are teenagers being raised in predominantly-LDS communities going to feel anything but anger and resentment towards their same-sex parents, if they experience an internal desire (not to mention social pressure) to join the church, but known their parents' marriage (or relationship) is the only thing preventing them from doing so?!

**Scratching my head over how hurtful this policy is towards kids of gay parents, and how destructive it is upon paternal/maternal relationships...

Do you see it as better for them to join the Church when the Church teaches that their parents are committing a sin and if they repent, that means the marriage must be dissolved?

 

Rock and hard place....(not meaning to trivialize it, the enormity of the inherent conflict is inexpressible) 

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

I have not but I doubt there is a ban. It is just like teaching an unmarried heterosexual couple cohabiting or sexually active except instead of three options:

 

A) Cut back the relationship to fit within the law of chastity

B) Terminate the relationship

C) Get Married

 

...you can only take Option B.

Yeah and option B is pretty hard.  It is a lot easier to tell a heterosexual couple to get married before baptism than telling a gay couple to get a divorce.

[The Nehor]

Yeah and option B is pretty hard.  It is a lot easier to tell a heterosexual couple to get married before baptism than telling a gay couple to get a divorce.

 

No argument here.

[carbon dioxide]

Apostasy is about beliefs, not lifestyle. So this new rule doesn't seem to make much sense.

Unless the lifestyle is done to mock the beliefs.  So in some cases I can see SSM being apostasy but in most cases not. 

[Daniel2]

Does anyone know if a formal ban on missionaries teaching SSM couples the discussions exists. I have expected that for a while but have not heard anything.

Ironically, the missionaries and ward mission leader (with whom we've discussed our former memberships, our own missions as we're both RM's, and our same-sex marriage) in my husband's and my neighborhood have repeatedly stopped by our home and invited us to church, especially to participate on ward choir, and attend to initiate thr missionary discussions with us. We've always been kind and gracious and invited them in, but stopped short of baptismal discussions. My husband and I have consistently donated monthly fast offerings and Friends of a Scouting.

Time to reevaluate all of the above. :-/

[CA Steve]

Next up faithful LDS parents of gay children of what ever age will be required to denounce their own kids to church leadership in order to keep their membership.

 

"Brother Christensen, are you now or have you even been a member of a gay family?"

Edited November 6, 2015 by CA Steve