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

[carbon dioxide]

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?

Depends on what is being advocated.  Advocating a legal right to get a SSM marriage is different than advocating that SSM is morally right and good.  Legal SSM does not bother me too much but I will oppose the notion that SSM can be acceptable to God and the Church itself should recognize and practice it.   I hold the same view towards illegal drugs. I believe people have a right to put whatever they want in their bodies.  The government does not own our bodies and can tell us what we can and can't put in it.  I also believe those people who use cocaine for example have to accept the negative health consequences that come from it. 

[Calm]

I can't imagine there would be that many people in that boat. I knew of one or two people that their folks came out of the closet, while their kid was on a mission, but it seems rare.

In some ways it will likely occur less often now that those who experience homosexual feelings are not encouraged to get married to solve them so there will be less that grew up as LDS or converted getting married, having children and then getting divorced and then developing a gay relationship or getting married.

 

OTOH, there will be more gay marriages with children in the general population but it seems unlikely to me that many married gays will be attracted to the Church given its stance of gay marriage and just as now with parents of other faiths, there won't be that many underaged children that will be attracted to the Church when their parents are not either.

 

I don't know personally any underaged converts who parents were not also converted, though I know they are out there, have read stories of them.  Living in Utah right now and no child of several nonmormon families in the neighborhood has been coming to church for as long as I've been here (almost 13 years).  One came for a bit from an inactive family.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

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.

There is a difference between denouncing the person and denouncing what a person does or is involved in.  I would not denounce my son if he used pot but I would denounce his use of it.

[smac97]

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?"

 

Bad faith.  Your remark here is in bad faith.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[LDSGuy]

How about we not baptize children whose parents are not also going to be baptized, until they are 18? To many kids are baptized and then fall away because the parents are not members or active. I think we do more harm than good when we baptize someone without a proper support system for church attendance.

[The Nehor]

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.

 

I will put my money where my mouth is:

 

"If the LDS Church at the highest levels (prophetic or apostolic statement, clear PR release, CHI, or instructions from the Brethren to local leaders) universally demands that parents sever relationships with children either tempted by or living in a same sex relationship then I, the Nehor, will donate $2000 to any charity doing reasonably good things chosen by consensus amongst those who feel hurt by this issue on this board. This also applies if children are instructed to sever their relationships with parents in the same situation. This does not apply to individual cases where people may sever a relationship due to reasons of personal or emotional safety or something of that nature. In other words, anecdotes or individual instances do not count."

 

Now if it happens everyone can agree that some good will come out of it.

Edited November 6, 2015 by The Nehor

[Zakuska]

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

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

Actually, apostasy is rebellion.

a·pos·ta·sy

əˈpästəsē/

noun

noun: apostasy; plural noun: apostasies

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

So now the church is the ultimate Big Brother policing our very thoughts? What ever happened to "not ever having done any good or evil"? Are we not condemned for our actions ? Edited November 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[Stone holm]

Same principle it seems to me as children in polygamous families.

I think it is wise because it could create situations where grandparents get their grandchildren blessed or baptized and then later on this causes contention plus older children would be placed in positions that they might feel they had to choose between honouring their parents or the Church.

I agree this is the best explanation. But we are all going to take a major PR hit over this.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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...

And it's not just baptism. An 11 year old member that is turning 12 can't be ordained a deacon if their mom or dad marries someone of the same gender. A deacon can't be ordained a teacher. For what purpose?

[The Nehor]

But we are all going to take a major PR hit over this.

 

Yep, and real people will be hurt. I hope more good is done then harm. I think that will be the case but it does not mitigate the pain.

[The Nehor]

So now the church is the ultimate Big Brother policing our very thoughts? What ever happened to "not ever having done any good or evil"? Are we not condemned for our actions ?

 

No, God is.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

 

How is this avoiding conflict? It is causing conflict. If Daniel has a member son who attends every week, he won't be allowed to be ordained with his peers. Won't this drive a wedge between him and his Dad? Between his Mom and his Dad? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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) 

He already answered that question with an unequivocal yes. He was very supportive of his children getting baptized and ordained in a church that teaches this. He says the decision causes much more pain than anything the church has done to date. Does asking him again make you think he will answer differently?

[Calm]

This is a situation where there are going to be people, including children, hurt no matter what decision is being made.  The question is what action will result in the least conflict, not which action will prevent conflict.

 

If, however, the decision was to just judge on an individual basis, I believe there would be more false expectations set up leading to more conflict and hurt in the long run.

 

There will likely be a higher number of tragic situations that might be better if the rule wasn't there immediately because this is something new, but I think long term there will be less.

 

I may be wrong.  If I am, I hope the leadership will figure this out quicker rather than slower and change the policy.

[Calm]

He already answered that question with an unequivocal yes. He was very supportive of his children getting baptized and ordained in a church that teaches this. He says the decision causes much more pain than anything the church has done to date. Does asking him again make you think he will answer differently?

Sorry, I am getting tired and not everything is penetrating.  Will go and reread his comment.

 

add-on:  just found out I should have taken my sleep meds an hour ago.  My apologies if I have said anything really stupid this past hour.  I should have stopped doing anything serious two hours ago...at least.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[David13]

I'm glad to see it.

I'm glad to know that there is still somebody, somewhere that knows the difference between right and wrong.  And where perversion falls in that reckoning.

dc

[Calm]

He already answered that question with an unequivocal yes. He was very supportive of his children getting baptized and ordained in a church that teaches this. He says the decision causes much more pain than anything the church has done to date. Does asking him again make you think he will answer differently?

This is what I read that makes me wonder if Daniel was expecting that the Church's position was going to ultimately change so his kids wouldn't have to make that type of choice or that at least the Church wasn't forcing anyone to make that choice:

 

now that they will be subjected to the LDS cultural climate that fosters that kind of familial division and a need for children to condemn the practices of a parent such as I

 

It seems like he is saying the Church before this announcement allowed children to hold a position where they did not have to condemn a parent's gay marriage or relationship as sinful somehow.  I hope he clarifies this if I have misunderstood.  Like I said, I am tired (was tired at about 5 and trying to keep myself awake until the time I could sleep and stay asleep and it looks like I am way past that time...what happened to 8:30?...I just lost three hours) and have no doubt I am missing some points people are making.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This is a situation where there are going to be people, including children, hurt no matter what decision is being made.  The question is what action will result in the least conflict, not which action will prevent conflict.

 

If, however, the decision was to just judge on an individual basis, I believe there would be more false expectations set up leading to more conflict and hurt in the long run.

 

There will likely be a higher number of tragic situations that might be better if the rule wasn't there immediately because this is something new, but I think long term there will be less.

 

I may be wrong.  If I am, I hope the leadership will figure this out quicker rather than slower and change the policy.

I can't see how this can possibly be the case. There aren't a lot of people who are non-lds children with a parent in a gay relationship that want to get baptized in this church. Instead this rule is going to affect people like Daniel and his family going forward. The children impacted by this decision will be those that have been raised in the church, have most of their social ties with the church, have grandparents, at least one parent, and cousins in the church. Their parents will be recently divorced, and now they find out that they can't be baptized, ordained a deacon, teacher or priest until they are 18 (and only if they repudiate their gay parent's lifestyle choices). This will drive a huge wedge between the divorced parents, and the children and the gay parent. This will not get easier as time goes on. No way. Until the church bans gay people from getting married to straight partners (and having kids) this rule will cause a lot of unnecessary heart ache and pain for families like Daniel's. What a mess.

Edited November 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

I am not going to contribute a lot to this thread.  But I would like to comment on a few things.

 

If the goal of the church is to bring people to Christ, how does this forward that mission.  How does excluding those who want to keep the commandments from fully participating in the church?  That seems odd to me.

 

 

How about the gay couple who know nothing about the church.  Their child is invited to church by their friends.  Even when the parents tell them, it is the child's decision whether to join the church or not, that is now taken away from them.  How does that help bring them to Christ???

 

Some have suggested that the reason the church is doing this is because it puts the children in an awkward position of having parents that are not keeping the commandments, while attending church that teaches against what their parents are doing.  Sorry I don't get this at all.  There are thousands, maybe millions of members whose parents aren't living the commandments.  That has never been a requirement of membership into the church of Christ.  I have never heard of a single candidate for baptism that was required to repudiate their parents living outside the gospel.  The only requirement has always been that THEY commit to living the commandments.

 

It always seemed that one of the main goals of the church was to unite and strengthen families.  I see this policy as nothing more than attacking and tearing some families apart.  Now, a child is resentful of a father or mother.  An ex spouse now not only has to deal with a divorce and all the struggles that brings, they also face their children of that former marriage not being allowed to fully participate in the church.  Boys won't be allowed to participate in the priesthood.  Children will not be allowed to feel they belong to the church.  

 

As a gay father, I have always encouraged and supported my children to be involved in the church if that is what they wanted to do. Now my supporting them makes no difference if they are under 18. They aren't gay.  They don't have the same reasons I have for not being a part of the church. I just don't see how this is helpful or strengthens families.  

 

This police will only further solidify the commonly held belief that the church is anti gay.  Perhaps that is what the church intends. They certainly have every right to determine who is allowed to be a member and who is not.  Looks like now innocent children will not be allowed to participate fully in the gospel.  Oh well.  I guess the leaders know what they are doing.  It is just hard to see any rational reason for this latest move.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It seems like he is saying the Church before this announcement allowed children to hold a position where they did not have to condemn a parent's gay marriage or relationship as sinful somehow.  I hope he clarifies this if I have misunderstood.  Like I said, I am tired (was tired at about 5 and trying to keep myself awake until the time I could sleep and stay asleep and it looks like I am way past that time...what happened to 8:30?...I just lost three hours) and have no doubt I am missing some points people are making.

I am a temple attending, tithing paying, hometeaching, serving latter-day saint who doesn't find Daniel's lifestyle sinful. At no point have I ever been asked to disavow it or others in his situation as sinful. Until today his children could have done the same thing. No longer.

[Calm]

I am walking away from the conversation now not because of lack of interest, but to avoid making any mistakes, especially since it looks like I've made one already but I can't figure out what it is.  And given that the drug I just took will end up with me probably being totally confusing even if I think I've figured it out myself.

 

Might not get a chance to talk again till tomorrow night.  Might be wiser to take a few days given what is on schedule for me.  Doing Mom's stuff is always a little crazymaking for me.

[Mystery Meat]

I believe this issue is significantly different from just about any other issue that has been raised here as a comparable "sin" (like cohabitation, for example). At this point in the dialogue and in our culture (both inside and outside of the Church) entering into a same sex relationship is absolutely a sign of apostasy because of the way the issue has been framed by its advocates. Institutions, such as the Church, have been placed squarely in the cross hairs, and many are advocating a rejection of modern day prophets and apostles in favor of the teachings of the world. To embrace such teachings and enter into a same sex relationship is apostasy.

 

This also explains why this issue is different when it comes to children of such a couple. When the church has no plans of changing it stance on homosexuality, to allow a young child to be placed in a situation where family and faith are so diametrically opposed would be irresponsible. Having them disavow ssm when they are 18 and desire to get baptized is necessary in order to make sure they understand the covenants they are making and that they don't enter into them in a state of apostasy. 

[Duncan]

In some ways it will likely occur less often now that those who experience homosexual feelings are not encouraged to get married to solve them so there will be less that grew up as LDS or converted getting married, having children and then getting divorced and then developing a gay relationship or getting married.

 

OTOH, there will be more gay marriages with children in the general population but it seems unlikely to me that many married gays will be attracted to the Church given its stance of gay marriage and just as now with parents of other faiths, there won't be that many underaged children that will be attracted to the Church when their parents are not either.

 

I don't know personally any underaged converts who parents were not also converted, though I know they are out there, have read stories of them.  Living in Utah right now and no child of several nonmormon families in the neighborhood has been coming to church for as long as I've been here (almost 13 years).  One came for a bit from an inactive family.

 

 

true but let's face it as soon as you come out of the closet you are done with the church, I know of 2 people who did and have stayed in but they are the minority

[Duncan]

My question is if gay people are going to be "fixed" in the next life (as per Elder Hafen), why do anything about it here? they would just be alienating potential converts in the next life it seems

[Calm]

I am a temple attending, tithing paying, hometeaching, serving latter-day saint who doesn't find Daniel's lifestyle sinful. At no point have I ever been asked to disavow it or others in his situation as sinful. Until today his children could have done the same thing. No longer.

One more comment...I see that my age is likely showing.  Certain assumptions made based on the culture I grew up in that is not the culture I am now.

 

For example when I read this " There are thousands, maybe millions of members whose parents aren't living the commandments" my reaction is, yeah, but children can encourage or hope for parents to quit sinning in all their situations and be able to look forward to a better family relationship save pretty much only one, that where the parents are in a gay marriage/relationship.  If their parents repent, the marriage will cease to exist.

 

to me this makes sense.  Somehow I am missing a connection  you others are making.  Maybe tomorrow reading more comments can help me see.

 

I am perfectly happy to say as an individual if I think a policy of the Church is wrong.  I am open to being wrong in this case, I am basing my judgment on my experience with polygamist families, apostate families and mixed faith families and how I see the children get caught between two undesirable choices.  If there is a better way, I look forward to learning of it.

 

Now off to sleep or at least stop writing as the page is turning pink and the letters green.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm