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

[carbon dioxide]

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

I am not sure what is accomplished by denying baby blessings.  I can't wrap my brain around that one.  I guess they just don't want to put minor children in a difficult position against the parents. Even if the parents agree to baptism, there is always something that could come up later that causes one or both of the parents to be against the child involvement in the Church.   I just think the Church needs to find better PR people who anticipate reactions better when things are done and explain things of why they are done. 

[busybee]

Rusell it has everything to do with the 2nd article of faith. These children at baptism age are being punished for the sins of another.

You need to look at things with an eternal perspective. Do you honestly believe that these children are being punished? If so, children of lazy members are also being punished. If I'm too lazy to take my children to activities, who is punishing them? If I don't teach them the gospel in my home, who is punishing them? God? They aren't getting the full benefit of the gospel because of my poor choices, for sure. But punished?  Never. If I have caused them to suffer, or retarded their spiritual progression, I will be punished, not them.

[HappyJackWagon]

I am not sure what is accomplished by denying baby blessings.  I can't wrap my brain around that one.  I guess they just don't want to put minor children in a difficult position against the parents. Even if the parents agree to baptism, there is always something that could come up later that causes one or both of the parents to be against the child involvement in the Church.   I just think the Church needs to find better PR people who anticipate reactions better when things are done and explain things of why they are done. 

But the PR department didn't create the policy. How do you put lipstick on that pig?

 

Remember, this policy is so broad that it could impact a 17 year old girl living with her straight mother, but who also has a gay father. This will effect children who attend weekly with a faithful parent but who may have a gay parent. The ripple effects of this are huge.

[HappyJackWagon]

You need to look at things with an eternal perspective. Do you honestly believe that these children are being punished? If so, children of lazy members are also being punished. If I'm too lazy to take my children to activities, who is punishing them? If I don't teach them the gospel in my home, who is punishing them? God? They aren't getting the full benefit of the gospel because of my poor choices, for sure. But punished?  Never. If I have caused them to suffer, or retarded their spiritual progression, I will be punished, not them.

This is a policy of exclusion.

 

What does the church gain with this policy and what does it potentially lose?

 

More importantly, what do the children lose?

[JAHS]

I honestly think that in these special circumstances the Bishops are given some latitude as to how they handle each situation, applying their right to revelation as a judge in Israel to determine what can be done. These kids are given interviews with the Bishop for each advancement in the priesthood and the Bishop can determine at that time how the boy feels about his own situation, considering also his past performance and faithfulness to the church.

I am sure there are some but I also find it hard to believe there are "thousands" of LDS kids in the situation where one parent has moved into a gay relationship and still has partial custody. 

[ALarson]

Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/05/mormon-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-getting-blessed-and-baptized-until-they-are-18/

[Daniel2]

Points being discussed on other sites:

Sad the church can't see the harm in the policy that children of same-sex couples can't get baptized until they turn 18----or such children die before reaching 18 (at which point, a baptism for the dead would be performed...).

And I REALLY struggle with understanding the need to exclude babies from being blessed and given a name... I've seen MANY inactive parents living contrary to church doctrine (including cohabitation) have their newborns be blessed by active family members.... why single out gay families to deny such children? Just awful.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Daniel2

[KevinG]

Since the policy of the last 100 years or so is effectively the same as the new clarification about the status of families practicing same sex marriage...

 

I was wondering what distinguishes children of polygamist families from children of gay marriages in the eyes of those who are expressing their concern about the new handbook of instructions and how it will be implemented?

[ALarson]

I have to believe that this will also socially affect children and teenagers who live in a same sex household.  If they live in an area where there are a lot of Mormon kids, they will not be invited to church, etc., and it definitely will affect how they're thought of and treated.  

 

I have to wonder if the leaders really thought about how far reaching the ramifications will be for this new policy.  And why now?  Why was it necessary to even do this or change anything?

[KevinG]

Points being discussed on other sites:

Sad the church can't see the harm in the policy that children of same-sex couples can't get married until they turn 18----or such children die before reaching 18 (at which point, a baptism for the dead would be performed...).

 

Sad that those pushing for acceptance of gay marriage as a sacrament cannot see the eternal harm it does to parents and children who embrace a practice God has forbidden.  While we are tisk tisking at the churches clarification of the status of families in apostasy (effectively the same as those who enter into polygamous relationships) don't forget that from the perspective of those who believe a God sanctioned, eternal sealing, is the only way to be together forever, this is merciful.

 

We are not universalists.  It is not anything goes.  

 

Nothing in this policy prevents us from loving each other, encouraging repentance and righteousness, baptizing adults, or fellow-shipping anyone we can.

 

I have never taught - go ahead and enjoy your beer and cigarettes, and go to the Temple.  Why should society pressure me into compromising on the Lord's laws concerning marriage?

[KevinG]

And why now?  Why was it necessary to even do this or change anything?

 

One of my suspicions is that we are preventing confusion over the true impact of breaking the Lord's laws on marriage, and from a legal perspective avoiding suits on performing gay marriages in chapels.

[Daniel2]

Sad that those pushing for acceptance of gay marriage as a sacrament cannot see the eternal harm it does to parents and children who embrace a practice God has forbidden. While we are tisk tisking at the churches clarification of the status of families in apostasy (effectively the same as those who enter into polygamous relationships) don't forget that from the perspective of those who believe a God sanctioned, eternal sealing, is the only way to be together forever, this is merciful.

We are not universalists. It is not anything goes.

Nothing in this policy prevents us from loving each other, encouraging repentance and righteousness, baptizing adults, or fellow-shipping anyone we can.

I have never taught - go ahead and enjoy your beer and cigarettes, and go to the Temple. Why should society pressure me into compromising on the Lord's laws concerning marriage?

I am not aware of anyone who's pushing for gay marriage to become a sacrament, nor do I see how that's relevant to preventing kids and teens from baptism.

[KevinG]

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.

 

If I were a Bishop and had a child of one parent who was active and not in apostasy, and another parent who was in apostasy, I would certainly allow the child to attend church and participate in ordinances with the support of the active parent.  I don't think the scenarios you present are common, or necessarily accurate.  

[HappyJackWagon]

Since the policy of the last 100 years or so is effectively the same as the new clarification about the status of families practicing same sex marriage...

 

I was wondering what distinguishes children of polygamist families from children of gay marriages in the eyes of those who are expressing their concern about the new handbook of instructions and how it will be implemented?

I'm glad you asked because the policy on gay children is much more restrictive than the policy on polygamist children.

 

For example, a child with both a polygamist parent and a non-polygamist parent is not absolutely required to wait until age 18 to be baptized. They are not required to disavow the lifestyle of the polygamist though they would need to show acceptance of a traditional lifestyle. They would not require First Presidency approval before being blessed, baptized, ordained, or serve a mission. Decisions and judgement in these cases are left to local leadership and do not require first presidency approval. That is a new and high hoop to jump through.

[KevinG]

I am not aware of anyone who's pushing for gay marriage to become a sacrament, nor do I see how that's relevant to preventing kids and teens from baptism.

 

I have long considered baptizing the child of any non-active, non-member, parent a huge risk.  I have counselled the young friends of my children to involve their parents in any decision like that.  We are bringing them into a serious, eternal covenant, without the same support network an active family provides a child.

 

In that sense asking the child to wait until adulthood is a mercy that prevents them from taking on a covenant without support, and perhaps condemning them if they fall away.

 

So extending that line of thought to any child of a family opposed to church teachings is not a stretch for me.

[ALarson]

Will a Mother or Father be allowed to baptize their child when they turn 8 if there is a joint custody situations where one of the parents is in a same sex marriage?

Edited November 6, 2015 by ALarson

[Meadowchik]

One of my suspicions is that we are preventing confusion over the true impact of breaking the Lord's laws on marriage, and from a legal perspective avoiding suits on performing gay marriages in chapels.

 

If they truly are stewards of God's word to the world, dispelling confusion is responsible, even when fully aware of the pain.  In the end, confusion causes even more pain than that.

[Brian 2.0]

Polygamous families are most often apostate groups, believing "Mormons" thinking they are living the correct way.

Same-sex parents aren't an apostate group.

Someone tried to tell me that this same policy exists for kids of Jewish and Muslim parents. Is that true?

[HappyJackWagon]

If I were a Bishop and had a child of one parent who was active and not in apostasy, and another parent who was in apostasy, I would certainly allow the child to attend church and participate in ordinances with the support of the active parent.  I don't think the scenarios you present are common, or necessarily accurate.  

They are common enough that I have been involved with each situation within the past 2 years in my ward.

Under the new policy the bishop would not have authority to approve ordinances for such children. He could ignore the policy if he chose, but keeping it would require that he restrict the children/youth from these opportunities.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

From handbook 1:

 

Children of parents who have practiced or are practicing plural marriage must receive approval from the First Presidency to be baptized. The mission president or bishop may request this approval when he is satisfied that the children (1) accept the teachings and doctrines of the Church and (2) repudiate the teachings upon which their parents based their practice of plural marriage. 

 

Differences:

• Don't have to be 18,
• Don't have to repudiate their parents marriage, just the doctrine behind it
• Don't need FP approval to get ordained to the priesthood or to go on a mission

Others?

[KevinG]

Those teaching and living in same sex relationships are now considered apostate.  Technically and practically speaking this is accurate since the church is in opposition to that practice in precept and doctrine.

 

Claiming that a child of a same sex married person cannot attend and participate in church with an active divorced parent who does sustain the church is reading too much into the handbook of instructions.  It is not a likely scenario.  

[HappyJackWagon]

Is the church changing the doctrine regarding the age of accountability? Is it now 18? Or is the church simply refusing to allow youth and their parents to choose baptism and ordination even though they are accountable? If this is the case it would seem the church is accountable for refusing an accountable person to make a choice to participate in a saving ordinance.

[Danzo]

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

Yet these definitions are in agreement with the ancient, scriptural definition of the word. Interesting.

[Buckeye]

I honestly think that in these special circumstances the Bishops are given some latitude as to how they handle each situation, applying their right to revelation as a judge in Israel to determine what can be done. These kids are given interviews with the Bishop for each advancement in the priesthood and the Bishop can determine at that time how the boy feels about his own situation, considering also his past performance and faithfulness to the church.

I am sure there are some but I also find it hard to believe there are "thousands" of LDS kids in the situation where one parent has moved into a gay relationship and still has partial custody. 

 

Will a Mother or Father be allowed to baptize their child when they turn 8 if there is a joint custody situations where one of the parents is in a same sex marriage?

 

Again, under the policy as expressed in the OP, custody does not matter. The policy kicks in simply because the child has a parent in a SS relationship. And so yes, there are thousands of such youth in the church. Probably 10s of thousands. 

[HappyJackWagon]

From handbook 1:

 

 

 

 

Differences:

• Don't have to be 18,
• Don't have to repudiate their parents marriage, just the doctrine behind it
• Don't need FP approval to get ordained to the priesthood or to go on a mission

Others?

Thanks for the clarification. I was going from memory and was off regarding the baptism requirement, though in practice I know this doesn't always happen and I don't think the policy takes into consideration mixed families.