stemelbow Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Considering the relatively few children this might affect, I find this policy disgusting. This is everything I don't like about the Church--pharisaic, exclusive, proud, and self-righteous. As long as things like this persist, I'm hopeful for change. My heart really sunk into my stomach when I heard this yesterday. 2
california boy Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. Yes I honestly believe children are being punished for their parents mistakes. Just because a parent is inactive and lazy doesn't mean a child doesn't find their own way to be involved in the church. They aren't excluded from becoming members because the parents are inactive or lazy. I know of a lot of children who are active in the church and their parents are not. I know of a lot of youth whose parents are not even members and they are active in the church, hold the priesthood, prepare for missions and marry in the temple. If the church announced tomorrow that any child living in a home where one or both parents weren't living the gospel, then they would not be allowed to have any of the children in that home be baptized, what impact do you think it would have on thousands, perhaps millions of lives. I just don't get your assertion. Children live different lives and make different choices than their parents ALL the time. And how can a gay couple who may never have joined the church be labeled apostate?? Is anyone not living the commandments now an apostate?? 4
HappyJackWagon Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. This policy does not allow for latitude. If it is applied as written every limitation Buckeye listed will be applied. Bishops will have to ignore or claim ignorance of a parents SS living conditions if they choose to baptize, ordain, or allow the child of a gay person to serve a mission. Curiously, they didn't address the issue of limited use temple recommends
california boy Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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.What confusion is the church dispelling? It is not like anyone is unclear how the church feels about gay marriage. Is all I am seeing is the pain. 2
CV75 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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.I think the Church is using the same definition as always. According to the quote provided in another thread, this same old definition "refers to members who..." do certain things. Same-gender marriage has been added to that list of things. 1
Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted November 6, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 6, 2015 If I were still serving as a bishop this is a policy I would ignore. Refusing to allow baby blessings, baptisms, ordinations etc solely because of the child's parent's SS activity is a horrible, hurtful policy. I honestly expect to see some minor alterations to the policy that will allow local leaders greater flexibility and perhaps "grandfather" in or in other ways limit the restrictions from the way they are currently stated. The policy is overly broad and sloppy. 5
Brian 2.0 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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.So apostate includes people that were never a part of the church? If the definition of apostasy is painted with that large of a brush there's a LOT more apostates now and plenty of other groups should have the same policy restrictions.
BlueDreams Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Probably not tens of thousands yet...because it does specify to cohabitation and marriages. There are those in SS relationships that don't fall into those categories (a substantial percentage). That said the number could likely increase because of legal bars that would have made adoption difficult are now less of barriers in many areas. I'm not sure how the policy will actually work. I assume that it would vary from bishop to bishop/stake-to-stake when it comes to those who may have joint custody or primary custody but with joint parental rights. My guess is for those that live primarily in the heterosexual parent's home, they will likely follow the same course as those who have a parent who isn't mormon, in which both parents will have to agree to receiving ordinances/rites. Particularly if the parent in question was mormon previously. But I'm just guessing. With luv,BD 2
Rivers Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2015/11/response-to-new-church-policy-gay-marriage-children-baptism.html?m=1This article had some good points on the matter. 1
Buckeye Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 This policy does not allow for latitude. If it is applied as written every limitation Buckeye listed will be applied. Bishops will have to ignore or claim ignorance of a parents SS living conditions if they choose to baptize, ordain, or allow the child of a gay person to serve a mission. Curiously, they didn't address the issue of limited use temple recommends If I were the bishop, I would give a recommend to any youth who qualified. But one of the requirements for a TR is baptism (for all youth) and ordination (for YM). So my hands would be tied. Any youth who is denied baptism and/or ordination because their parent is in a SS relationship is also denied a spot on the ward temple trip. Ironically, this part is worse for boys than girls. A girl only loses out if a parent enters a SS relationship before she turns 8. But because a boy requires ordination to get a recommend, his "window" of exclusion extends to age 12. Presumably, after that, he's safe. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Considering the relatively few children this might affect, I find this policy disgusting. This is everything I don't like about the Church--pharisaic, exclusive, proud, and self-righteous. As long as things like this persist, I'm hopeful for change.My heart really sunk into my stomach when I heard this yesterday.I don't think people realize how many people this will impact. If a child has divorced parents and one of those parents is gay, this applies to them and they will be restricted IF this policy is followed as written. 2
rodheadlee Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Jesus taught to repudiate a parent if the parent is not living a certain standard?51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son aagainst the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; themother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 So apostate includes people that were never a part of the church? If the definition of apostasy is painted with that large of a brush there's a LOT more apostates now and plenty of other groups should have the same policy restrictions. Word games... Of course not. I was referring to LDS who advocate and enter into arrangements opposed to church doctrine. Those who never were and are not LDS are not apostates. They do however teach in opposition to the church, and entering their children into a serious covenant without the common religious support of a member family would be a cruelty. I even doubt the wisdom of allowing children of non-members to be baptized prior to legal adulthood. I have seen that go wrong too many times.
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2015/11/response-to-new-church-policy-gay-marriage-children-baptism.html?m=1This article had some good points on the matter.Kathryn Skaggs? She's the same lady who stated that the Frozen song "Let it Go" was about gays.http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2014/02/movie-frozen-gay-homosexual-agenda.html She also has a gay daughter (they are estranged now, I believe, but she was raised in the church), so this new policy would affect her grandkids.
stemelbow Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I don't think people realize how many people this will impact. If a child has divorced parents and one of those parents is gay, this applies to them and they will be restricted IF this policy is followed as written. It'd still be relatively few from the Church's perspective, in terms of number of children that this applies to. Many of such children may have no interest in getting baptized at all. because of the Church's stances. That's what makes it most terrible to me. "we can push out a minor few and the risk is very little". That seems to be a message here, as I hear it. 1
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 How do you honestly expect this to ever happen? Two people of the same sex cannot have children together whether now or in the eternities. The Church was established and the priesthood restored to create Eternal families now and in the Eternities. It goes against the entire purpose of the restoration. We solemnize plenty of marriages in the temple which do not have any intention or possibility of producing children in this life (typically due to advanced age). And we don't know how spirit children are created, so that's just speculative. 2
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm sure the policy will be clarified for Bishops who have questions... Assuming that it automatically cuts off any child with a parent in a homosexual marriage even if they have another active parent is doom saying. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 It'd still be relatively few from the Church's perspective, in terms of number of children that this applies to. Many of such children may have no interest in getting baptized at all. because of the Church's stances. That's what makes it most terrible to me. "we can push out a minor few and the risk is very little". That seems to be a message here, as I hear it.And what does the church gain by refusing to baptize people who desire to be baptized?Are they attempting to prevent the membership from being infected by those who may be more accepting of gay marriage? If that's the case, they have a huge problem because the general church membership is already infected by that idea. 4
Popular Post rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 6, 2015 And the connection is...? Telling the children of gay parents that they cannot be blessed or baptized is not being "at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach." Sorry, it's just not. 7
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I hope I never become a bishop. You have just passed another qualification for being a Bishop. 2
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 There is no dissonance. The laws of God are and will remain what they are. It only remains for the Church and its members to hold fast to them, disregarding shifting societal whims.I'm reminded of what legendary filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille said at BYU in the 1950s: "We cannot break the Ten Commandments; we can only break ourselves against them." Maybe you should spend some time perusing LDS groups on Facebook... there is a whole lot of dissonance right now. Our policies are increasingly becoming contradictory with our scripture. That dissonance will grow. 1
Rivers Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 You have just passed another qualification for being a Bishop.
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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). If it is revelation it ought to be published as such and the prophet ought to attach his name to it. There is zero indication of this being revelation. 3
stemelbow Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Putting a number to this is way difficult. Where are we getting the idea that there are 1000s or probably 10s of thousands? I would guess many kids in split up families with one parent being gay has a problem with the Church's stance, and as such some of them would have no interest to be baptized anyway.
Recommended Posts