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

[Senator]

"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."

 

 

Ahh.....and there it is!

 

I was waiting to hear of "legal ramifications" being the impetus behind this policy.

[stemelbow]

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.

Sheesh. Myself and my kids, at least the ones old enough, disagree with the Church regarding SS people. I don't have to and have not renounced any gay couples relationship. I'm curious what happens here. Some months ago, as I shared here, my teenage son had a real problem with the way the directive discussion was handled in our ward, so much so we went to have a talk with our bishop. Our bishop assured us then, we and our son are fine to disagree with the Church's stance, but that we ought not try and influence others. Maybe we're going to get called in since he knows we won't renounce the relationships of gay couples.

[CV75]

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

We gain a modern application of what apostasy refers to for those that require clarification for the Lord’s will on same-gender marriage.

 

Because extreme and antithetical philosophies can be so entrenched in the minds and hearts of children due to the nurturing of their parents, more care must be taken in their coming into the body of Christ, and we gain a level of shepherding commensurate with the degree of waywardness imposed upon the children.

Edited November 6, 2015 by CV75

[KevinG]

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.

 

I am certain the Prophets and Apostles are comfortable that this is already covered in the Old and New Testament, with the Proclamation on the Family being a recent reaffirmation.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

 

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.

 

Right. But as a bishop you may be able to ignore the restriction and baptize a child if it makes sense. Also, once a YM is ordained, even if he can't advance because of this policy, it would seem he could still have a recommend even if he is a perpetual Deacon.

[Rivers]

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.

Darn. I knew the blogger's alias sounded familiar. Edited November 6, 2015 by Rivers

[Buckeye]

 

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

 

Again (for the third time), custody does not matter. If a child's mother has sole custody, and her birth father lives with a boyfriend on the other side of the planet, the child falls under the policy.

 

As for the number of children affected, here's some back of the envelope math:

• The church as 15.3 million members (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics)
• Applying US demongraphics, roughly 25% of the population is under the age of adulthood (0-18) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States)
• 37% of lesbian, gay, or bisexual adults say they have had a child (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf)
• 2% of the population is gay (this is on the low end; google it)

 

So, as a rough analysis: 15.3 million members x .75 (% of adults) x .02 (percentage of adults who are gay) X .37 (percentage of gay adults who have kids) = appx. 90,000. This is the number of gay LDS adults who have at least one kid. The number of children would be higher because some have multiple kids, sometimes many multiples (that's mormons for you).

 

So, yeah, it's safe to say that 10s of thousands of kids will be affected.

 

ETA: Of course, this is not taking into consideration activity levels. Only about 1/3 of adult members are active. But children and youth tend to be much higher. 

Edited November 6, 2015 by Buckeye

[Brian 2.0]

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.

I thought you were using the apostate designation as reason for the policy. Why did you bring it up? That seems off topic from your post then.

[ALarson]

It's actually a guest post written by somebody else.

Oh, ok.  Just posted by Kathryn Skaggs on her blog?  Thanks for the clarification.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

If we have revelation on this issue it would be great to add it to the D&C. Make it official. Otherwise, we're just seeing a number of policies and changes to practice that are decided by the arm of the flesh.

[rockpond]

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:

 

 

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.

 

The policy doesn't mention priesthood ordination or temple recommends for youth with gay parents.  So I would assume they could be ordained and act in priesthood office as usual.

 

If I were a bishop I would ignore this policy... it conflicts with scripture and A of F 2.

[mtomm]

The one huge difference I see is that polygamy is not legal and they are not legal marriages. It's the opposite for same-sex couples. They are legal marriages. 

[Mystery Meat]

I am absolutely shocked (that's my fault, I suppose) at the reaction to this. What is so obviously an act of love, compassion and mercy to anyone who is not unreasonable is creating a whole lot of emotional reactions.

[KevinG]

I thought you were using the apostate designation as reason for the policy. Why did you bring it up? That seems off topic from your post then.

 

To illustrate that people are freaking out over the same policy we've had since the inception of the church over 150 years ago.

 

Namely if you teach ___________ and live ____________ in opposition to the church doctrines and practices you cannot claim to be a member in good standing of the church.

 

This is true no matter what you put in the blank.

 

Polygamy

Same Sex Marriage

Ordaining Women

Taking Innocent Life

Selling Marijuana

Denying the Existence of Christ

etc, etc, etc.

[CV75]

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.

Not necessarily. Revelation is shared in many ways, and is behind many such actions the Lord's servants undertake in administering the affairs of His kingdom on earth.

[KevinG]

The one huge difference I see is that polygamy is not legal and they are not legal marriages. It's the opposite for same-sex couples. They are legal marriages. 

 

Which puts even more pressure on the church to define its practices clearly, as to avoid lawsuits and confusion over the matter.

[HappyJackWagon]

The policy doesn't mention priesthood ordination or temple recommends for youth with gay parents.  So I would assume they could be ordained and act in priesthood office as usual.

 

If I were a bishop I would ignore this policy... it conflicts with scripture and A of F 2.

It does mention ordination.

 

 

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met

Nothing riles up people more than going after the kids. This was poorly thought out. (And it's a generous assumption that it was thought out at all)

[KevinG]

I am absolutely shocked (that's my fault, I suppose) at the reaction to this. What is so obviously an act of love, compassion and mercy to anyone who is not unreasonable is creating a whole lot of emotional reactions.

 

This tends to happen when someone's hobby horse gets hobbled.

[HappyJackWagon]

This tends to happen when someone's hobby horse gets hobbled.

It also tends to happen when agency is usurped, inequality is codified, and children are effected.

[CV75]

It also tends to happen when agency is usurped, inequality is codified, and children are effected.

This is why a modern application of what apostasy refers is needed for those that require clarification for the Lord’s will on same-gender marriage.

 

Because extreme and antithetical philosophies can be so entrenched in the minds and hearts of children due to the nurturing of their parents, more care must be taken in their coming into the body of Christ: the level of shepherding is commensurate with the degree of waywardness imposed upon the children.

[rockpond]

I am absolutely shocked (that's my fault, I suppose) at the reaction to this. What is so obviously an act of love, compassion and mercy to anyone who is not unreasonable is creating a whole lot of emotional reactions.

 

How is denying blessing & baptism to children an act of love, compassion, and mercy?

[KevinG]

I don't get to excuse myself from the law because I have a predilection for a particular sin.

[HappyJackWagon]

To illustrate that people are freaking out over the same policy we've had since the inception of the church over 150 years ago.

 

Namely if you teach ___________ and live ____________ in opposition to the church doctrines and practices you cannot claim to be a member in good standing of the church.

 

This is true no matter what you put in the blank.

 

Polygamy

Same Sex Marriage

Ordaining Women

Taking Innocent Life

Selling Marijuana

Denying the Existence of Christ

etc, etc, etc.

Of course this existing policy regarding the children of polygamists and the new policy regarding children of gays changes this to say...

 

If one of your parents teach __________ or live _______________ then as a child you aren't trusted and therefore are not permitted to receive the saving ordinances of the gospel. Get over it.

[stemelbow]

I am absolutely shocked (that's my fault, I suppose) at the reaction to this. What is so obviously an act of love, compassion and mercy to anyone who is not unreasonable is creating a whole lot of emotional reactions.

Looks like you haven't been paying attention to humanity for the past, say, 30 years or so?

[rockpond]

It does mention ordination.

 

Nothing riles up people more than going after the kids. This was poorly thought out. (And it's a generous assumption that it was thought out at all)

 

Dang.  I missed that.

 

Yes, very poorly thought out.