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

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for answering.  Does the church try to keep track of them, where they live etc, like members still on the roles so that the bishop or EQ president can visit them?  I imagine that those who asked to be removed probably don't want visits but those who were removed from a disciplinary council are a little more ambiguous.

I think it would be up to the local ward and stake leadership to see that this happens. The ideal would be to continue to minister to them and help them toward repentance and rebaptism, but it can be challenging enough just to keep track of less-active members, those who have not been excommunicated but have stopped attending meetings and participating.

 

This is probably a situation where a team approach works best: Family members and friends of one who has been excommunicated can maintain a caring relationship and help local ward leadership keep track of and work with the person.

 

Just a thought from one who has never been a bishop or stake president but who can conceive of how these things might transpire.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Apostasy is not exclusively about beliefs; behavior plays a large part.

[Scott Lloyd]

Assuming the document is accurate, this is not the only amendment to the Handbook:

 

 

It would appear to be accurate.

I can see the necessity of this in avoiding problematic cultural entanglements.

 

In cases of youth baptism and priesthood ordinations, for example, how would you involve parents in a same-sex "marriage" household without giving tacit acceptance to the relationship? As others have pointed out, this seems to be the Church drawing a clear boundary as to what it will not accept in terms of accommodation with worldly whims and shifting values.

 

Moreover, the household has such a profound influence, the Church would need to make certain children in that household were not trying to straddle the fence in terms of Church doctrines and teachings vs. unacceptable lifestyles.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thus reinforcing the line between weakness and open rebellion. As Elder Scott (and others) have clearly taught, 'The joyful news for anyone who desires to be rid of the consequences of poor choices is that the Lord sees weaknesses differently than He does rebellion. Whereas the Lord warns that unrepented rebellion will bring punishment, when the Lord speaks of weaknesses, it is always with mercy'.

 

Trying to live the law of chastity but failing -- even repeatedly -- is a matter of weakness. Embracing and celebrating sinfulness by engaging in same-sex 'marriage' is an act of open rebellion against and public rejection of all that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches and holds dear.

This is a very important point. And a beautiful quote from Elder Scott. I shall try to remember it.

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for answering.  Does the church try to keep track of them, where they live etc, like members still on the roles so that the bishop or EQ president can visit them?  I imagine that those who asked to be removed probably don't want visits but those who were removed from a disciplinary council are a little more ambiguous.

 

There is an effort to know and recognize all members within a region of a ward (congregation) or stake.  Obviously, some people are lost and the Church does not know where they live.  Their name stays on the rolls until such time they make themselves known.

 

Individuals can ask for no contact and that can happen.  However, that request may need to be given periodically as leaders are released and newly called individuals begin their time of service.  

 

If a member has their name removed from the rolls of the Church then their name is removed.  From that point forward no church record will show them has having been a member; with no record their is no purpose in visiting them or to care for their needs by their own choice and demands.

 

Some individuals do not participate in the church activities, do not want any contact, yet have no interest in removing their name from the rolls of the church.  They will continue to periodically be contacted and given the opportunity to state their wants.  

[Rivers]

There are a lot of upset people on Facebook right now. The church is receiving some really heavy criticism for this one.

[Meadowchik]

A member of Mormons Building Bridges shared this quote on their public FB page today:

 

"I was born into polygamy and couldn't be baptized until I moved from my mothers home. I was never encouraged to leave and didn't leave until after I was married. Not once did I feel different or not loved by the church, it's members and leadership. In fact it was quite the opposite. I understood the reasoning behind it. My mother was also treated with nothing but kindness. My ward family loved her and so did the leadership with who interviewed me. I waited 8 yrs. I did everything a member did (minus temple work) I even had a calling. The church teaches nothing but to love others. I understand the reasoning behind this. Maybe because I went thru it myself."

"Legally, if an organization can be shown to be interfering with a child and their relationship with their parents, a lawsuit can be brought against them. Even if a gay couple has consented to an underage child being baptized, that child would be learning that their parents' marriage was something their new religion considered a sin. Can you imagine the confusion and heartache it could cause, plus the potential legal ramifications?

This is not only to protect the church, but also those families. I truly believe it is meant to be merciful, not hateful."

[Meadowchik]

So... A child of gay man/woman who is living or has ever lived in a gay relationship can't be blessed (even if he mum is fine with it).

And... A teen who wants to be baptised can't be until they are an adult.

What's more, they have to move out of their parent's home and disavow their parent's current or former relationship...

And you're ok with that?

I have huge admiration for you Cal. But I'm sad to see your loyalty to the church being so strong that you can't see that this policy is utterly vile.

What you've described is exactly true. Older children (18+) of a man or woman who is living or who has ever lived in a gay relationship will have to move out of their home and disavow their parents' relationship. They will have to choose between honouring their parents or the church.

This was posted on the public FB page of Mormons Building Bridges and I posted this on the Apostasy thread, but it addresses your question:

 

"I was born into polygamy and couldn't be baptized until I moved from my mothers home. I was never encouraged to leave and didn't leave until after I was married. Not once did I feel different or not loved by the church, it's members and leadership. In fact it was quite the opposite. I understood the reasoning behind it. My mother was also treated with nothing but kindness. My ward family loved her and so did the leadership with who interviewed me. I waited 8 yrs. I did everything a member did (minus temple work) I even had a calling. The church teaches nothing but to love others. I understand the reasoning behind this. Maybe because I went thru it myself."

"Legally, if an organization can be shown to be interfering with a child and their relationship with their parents, a lawsuit can be brought against them. Even if a gay couple has consented to an underage child being baptized, that child would be learning that their parents' marriage was something their new religion considered a sin. Can you imagine the confusion and heartache it could cause, plus the potential legal ramifications?

This is not only to protect the church, but also those families. I truly believe it is meant to be merciful, not hateful."

[Gray]

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,

 

We've added so many things that are now defined as "apostasy" (including disobeying priesthood orders) that the word has become fairly meaningless in an LDS context

[Gray]

Apostasy is not exclusively about beliefs; behavior plays a large part.

 

If we're discussing what the word actually means, then it's just about beliefs.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

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."

 

There is nothing in the handbook to prevent a child like that from being baptized. And of course this ignores the case where gay parents are actually believers and would want their child baptized.

[Gray]

Gay marriage is like polygamy in that it puts a legal stamp on your sin. It is not unforgiveable but it is unrepentant.

 

Polygamy puts a legal stamp on sin only in the same way that any other illegal activity does. But not all illegal activities are treated this way. And of course gay marriage is legal and lawful.

[HappyJackWagon]

It's in the updated Church Handbook 1.

 

It also means that in most cases a person excommunicated for this reason will need First Presidency approval for rebaptism. If someone is excommunicated for "moral" reasons a Stake President and Bishop can approve rebaptism. If it's for apostacy, it generally requires first presidency approval.

 

So the message seems to be clear. "GET OUT" and "STAY OUT".

 

This comes on the heels of Elder Ballard's talk at the World Conference of Families where he says that just as we shouldn't shun family, we shouldn't shun people who believe or act differently than we do. Excommunication is a pretty severe shunning.

Update:

 

"AND WE DON'T WANT YOUR KIDS EITHER!"

[busybee]

And if an adult they still have to repudiate their parents lifestyle.

Hyperbole, I know. But if a parent was a hitman, would you feel the same way about asking a child to repudiate that lifestyle? Or are some sins less repudiable (yes, I made that up) than others?

[Buckeye]

I am interested in understanding how the newly-announced policy will be applied to LDS children currently being raised, at least partially, in SS households (of which there are 1000s). This is not a thread for discussing the pros/cons of the policy itself. Please just put yourself in the shoes of a bishop faced with these scenarios and tell me your understanding of what the new  policy requires.

 

As background, here is the policy:

 

 

The handbook addition also states that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting," can only be baptized, confirmed, ordained to the priesthood or serve a full-time mission with approval from the Office of the First Presidency. A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "the child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage"; and "the child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640835/Church-updates-policies-on-families-in-same-sex-marriages.html

 

Under my reading, it appears that the church's role with respect to a child changes the instant that her parent begins cohabitating or gets married (or at least the instant that the bishop becomes aware of that fact). It seems clear that a child cannot engage in any new ordinances, ordinations, or missionary service until they (i) reach adulthood, (ii) disavow their parent's behavior, and (iii) obtain FP approval. (Man, the office of the FP is going to be pretty busy)

 

But I still am unclear of what happens in the following scenarios:

• 13 year old boy. Deacon. Can he be ordained a Teacher? Notice the wording in the policy: "ordained to the priesthood." That's not a correct phrase. Under traditional LDS teachings, a person is "conferred" the priesthood and "ordained" to an office. So if a boy has already been conferred the Aaronic Priesthood and ordained to the office of a deacon prior to his parent's cohabitation/marriage, can he be ordained to another office within that priesthood under this policy?

• 17 year old boy. Priest. Can he continue to administer the sacrament and perform baptisms (just not for his younger siblings)? I think the answer is yes. The policy is not retroactive. 

• 12-17 year old youth. Can they continue to attend temple trips and perform ordinances for the dead? Again, I think so. But it seems odd that such a child could not be baptized herself because of the policy, but could be baptized for the deceased.

• 11 year old boy comes in for interview to be ordained. Does the bishop have an obligation to investigate whether the boy has a parent in a SSM? Does the mother have an obligation to disclose her ex-husband's situation? And what action does the bishop take against the mother if she conceals the situation and the boy is ordained in violation of the policy? 

Again, thanks in advance for not discussing the merits of the policy itself in this thread.

 

[CV75]

The definition of Apostasy in Handbook 1 has been updated to now list being in a same-gender marriage.  Here's the text from Section 6.7.3:

I think specifying same-gender marriage as a form of apostasy is an example of continued revelation suiting the needs of the day and forecasting the dawning and distilling yet to come (2 Peter 1:19; D&C 121:45).

[CV75]

This seems pretty harsh. Looks like with this policy and the adding same sex marriage to the definition of apostasy the church is doubling down agains same sex attraction.

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-membership

I don't think it's so much harsh as it is clarifying. If same-gender marriage is apostasy, it is only fair to treat the children of that marriage as those of other apostates. In some cases disavowal before joining the Church is a necessary step to manifest a godly walk and conversation (D&C 20:69), a requirement for all wishing to be baptized.

[carbon dioxide]

I am interested in understanding how the newly-announced policy will be applied to LDS children currently being raised, at least partially, in SS households (of which there are 1000s). 

Are there thousands? 

[busybee]

And if an adult they still have to repudiate their parents lifestyle.

Would you expect them to repudiate a lifestyle of drugs and alcohol? Repudiating a lifestyle is not the same a repudiating a person. No-one is asking them to shun their parents or cut them out of their lives. It is important for these children to understand  (when they become adults) that their parents lifestyle is not in harmony with the teachings of the church. That is all that is being asked. And it would be unkind to ask that of a child, hence, they can choose to be baptized when they are old enough to understand. It's about not putting children in a position where they are forced to deal with adult issues over which they have no control (Thank you Dr. Phil)

[busybee]

And if an adult they still have to repudiate their parents lifestyle.

 If a parent was a drug dealer, would you expect a child to repudiate that lifestyle? Or are some sins less repudiable (yes, I made that word up) than others?

 

So much for the 2nd Article of Faith:

Children pick up the tab for the mistakes that their parents make all the time. But that doesn't mean they will be held accountable for them at the judgement seat. If we are 'lukewarm' in the Church, not bothering too much about teaching the gospel at home or not being willing to take our children to Seminary or Youth activities, they pay the price for our laziness in this life, but they won't be punished for it on judgement day. We will.

[carbon dioxide]

I don't think it's so much harsh as it is clarifying. If same-gender marriage is apostasy, it is only fair to treat the children of that marriage as those of other apostates. In some cases disavowal before joining the Church is a necessary step to manifest a godly walk and conversation (D&C 20:69), a requirement for all wishing to be baptized.

If it is apostasy, the Church has changed the meaning of apostasy and I wonder if they will include other things as part of apostasy in the future.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

This isn't accurate.

 

The policy regarding the children of polygamists does not go as far as this policy does. Leaders are encouraged to be "cautious" when allowing baptism and temple recommends to the children of polygamists but it does not require First Presidency approval. That is an entirely new and high hoop to jump through.

 

Example 1- In my ward we have a couple who was excommunicated for polygamy. The 1st wife brought the issue to the attention of the church which led to discipline of the couple and disavowed the practice. She is no longer part of that family and she gets her children on a shared basis as is common. She is not polygamist even though she accepted it for a time in her household.

 

She has 2 sons who live with the father and his 'other' wife and they continue to get recommends and advance in the priesthood even though they have not "disavowed" the father's "lifestyle". First Presidency approval was not required when the daughter was baptized at 8.

 

According to this new policy the 8 year old couldn't have been baptized until age 18 which means she couldn't have served in leadership in YW programs or gone to the temple to do baptisms. At age 18, after she disavowed her father and his other wife, after she no longer lives with them (even part time), and after she receives 1st presidency approval she would be able to be baptized if these policies were the same. They're not.

 

Example 2- 17 year old laurle class president wants to go on a mission and is preparing. Her parents divorced when she was young and her father came out as gay and is currently in a relationship. To receive recommendation to serve a mission she will need to formally disavow her father's lifestyle, further wedging and damaging that relationship, and then she will need to have first presidency approval to be recommended to serve a mission.

 

This policy is uneven, unfair, and unchristlike. It's as if the real world consequences weren't even considered. The church seems more concerned about avoiding contamination from gays and the children of gays than they are about trying to save the souls of the children by refusing saving ordinances until an older age. It is written in such a way that very active, engaged children and youth will be negatively impacted if the policy is followed precisely. Hopefully bishops and stake presidents will ignore the policy or even better, hopefully the church leadership will reconsider the harm they are causing.

[Buckeye]

Are there thousands? 

 

If you include partials, yeah. There are lots of families where the parents divorce because of SS issues and they split custody in some arrangement. 

 

But that doesn't really matter for the policy. Even if the SS parent does not have any custody of the child, the new policy kicks in merely from the existence of the SS relationship.

[HappyJackWagon]

I have 1 question about this policy I really cannot understand.

 

1- What does the church gain by implementing this policy? What's the upside?

         Does any good it will do (assuming somehow there is some kind of good) outweigh the harm

[Duncan]

I think in those cases then they would have to get First Pres. approval