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

[Daniel2]

And do you support the Church stance on SSM?

What do you believe "support" of "the church's stance on SSM" would/should look like, in my children's and my circumstances?

The extent of my comments in conversations that I have had with my kids about the morality of SSM (including discussing my own marriage) has been to say,

"I know you guys have different beliefs about gay relationships--and that's ok. We are all free to follow our own beliefs, and we don't have to agree on things to be loving, respectful, and kind to one another."

Incidentally, that is the same approach I take whenever there's an issue that my kids may encounter in which they and I, or we together, may disageee on, whether it stems from the church or anyone or any other organization and I/we may not agree on or with, and which isn't limited solely to gay subjects.

By saying the above, I feel I'm showing support of my kids' beliefs about SSM (as taught by the church), whether or not I personally support the church (which is really entirely irrelevant in teaching kids how to live peacefully and cooperatively in a pluralistic society--including family members who do and believe things differently).

So, how would you judge my approach above--would you say I'm being "supportive"...?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Daniel2

[halconero]

Well here I am all excited about a discussion on material evidence versus feelings of the numinous or collective effervescence and I come into another damn thread about homosexuality. Screw this.

 

[rodheadlee]

The part of the policy that gets me is this situation.

 

Lets say a child raised by a gay couple is excluded from joining the church till they are 18 per this new policy.  Well the Policy says they have to move out of their parents house prior to being baptized then probably waiting a full year to go on a mission etc. etc.

 

How many 18 year olds do you know who fly out the door the minute they turn 18, get an apartment  and start living independently enough that they could do this?

 

Back in the 60s and 70s nearly everyone moved out the day they turned 18 if not sooner. 

[rockpond]

I believe we should give each other space, and room to grow into the people God wants us to be, edifying each other as much as we can along the way.  Right now, this may mean excommunication for same-sex married couples in the Church. 

 

I have no idea how to even make sense of that.  Sorry.

[rockpond]

Interesting claim. Is there any substantiation to back up that assertion?

 

The June 26, 2013 SCOTUS decision on the appeal of Hollingsworth v Perry (aka the Prop 8 case).

[Deborah]

The extent of my comments in conversations that I have had with my kids about the morality of SSM (including discussing my own marriage) has been to say, "I know you guys have different beliefs about gay relationships--and that's ok. We are all free to follow our own beliefs, and we don't have to agree on things to be loving, respectful, and kind to one another."

 

I have a couple of questions. Do you think that God accepts different beliefs about something so inherent as sexual orientation, especially in light of the purpose of eternal marriage? Also do you think you would feel the same were you not gay? I am curious how one reconciles his prior faith with a new lifestyle. I do agree with being respectful and kind to one another, which sadly is a big issue even among church members.

[Meadowchik]

I have no idea how to even make sense of that.  Sorry.

 

Space means that we do what we're commanded to do, we love everyone and fellowship all who wish to be at church, regardless of their Church standing. We respect that they may have sincere convictions divergent from our own, just like we do from theirs. And then we hope that eventually the divide will be bridged.

[rockpond]

Space means that we do what we're commanded to do, we love everyone and fellowship all who wish to be at church, regardless of their Church standing. We respect that they may have sincere convictions divergent from our own, just like we do from theirs. And then we hope that eventually the divide will be bridged.

 

I can respect that.

 

Can you understand how the events of the past two weeks might make a gay youth feel like they are not loved or fellowshipped?

[CV75]

 

I was referring to the parental consent section:

 

16.3.6 Minors

 

A minor child, as defined by local laws, may be baptized and confirmed only when both of the following conditions are met:

 

1. Consent has been given by the custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The person who conducts the baptism and confirmation interview may ask for this consent to be in writing if he feels it will help prevent misunderstandings.

 

If you are going to add that the parents' lifestyle also cannot be "rejecting" fundamental teachings of the church than that ought to be applied to all situations, not just gay parents.

 

But your assertion here is part of why this policy is so hurtful -- this idea that gay parents in particular cannot be supportive of their child being a member of the church but we don't have any prohibitions against baptizing children with parents who are not members, parents who are not active, parents who are not keeping their own covenants, parents who are in adulterous relationships, etc.

 

Same-gender marriage, covenant-wise, represents a unique condition that prevents parents from genuinely and authentically supporting a child in incorporating and achieving the aims of Church membership (eternal families).

 

In #1, it would seem that consent is not even being sought in cases where there would be clear misunderstandings if a child were to be baptized. What is the second condition; can you copy-and-paste that?

 

I don’t think any prohibition of a child’s baptism is primarily about the membership or moral / worthiness status of the parents. The Church community can supplement the spiritual nurturing of the child for whatever is lacking at home and as welcomed by the consenting parents. I think that, when in deed prohibited, it is more fundamental than that, from the child’s perspective while his self-identity is developmentally entwined with the couple’s and as he processes any dichotomies he perceives in association with a supportive community of saints and Church leaders (or without it), and where the couple is recognizing the Church covenants as the only way to go despite their evident personal shortcomings (or not). To bring a child’s personal covenants into that dynamic generally leaves it open to an unnecessary level of conflict for his level of understanding/misunderstanding.

 

Whether the parent is married or not; active or not; worthy or not, etc., there would be no misunderstanding that they are welcoming the teaching of covenants (even the ones they are breaking) and the condemnation of sins (even the ones they are committing). Same-gender couples cannot do that with a straight face. It is not a credible claim to welcome traditional marriage as the only way to go, as the Church teaches, when the one making the claim is part of an apostate alternative.

 

Did you mean to exclude apostates in your list of types of parents? Or non-member parents who are openly opposed to Church teachings? What areas of apostasy have additional conditions on children receiving consent to be baptized? Can you copy-and-paste that?

[ERayR]

What do you believe "support" of "the church's stance on SSM" would/should look like, in my children's and my circumstances?

The extent of my comments in conversations that I have had with my kids about the morality of SSM (including discussing my own marriage) has been to say,

 

"I know you guys have different beliefs about gay relationships--and that's ok. We are all free to follow our own beliefs, and we don't have to agree on things to be loving, respectful, and kind to one another."

Incidentally, that is the same approach I take whenever there's an issue that my kids may encounter in which they and I, or we together, may disageee on, whether it stems from the church or anyone or any other organization and I/we may not agree on or with, and which isn't limited solely to gay subjects.

By saying the above, I feel I'm showing support of my kids' beliefs about SSM (as taught by the church), whether or not I personally support the church (which is really entirely irrelevant in teaching kids how to live peacefully and cooperatively in a pluralistic society--including family members who do and believe things differently).

So, how would you judge my approach above--would you say I'm being "supportive"...?

 

 

It is probably the best approach given the circumstances. 

[Zakuska]

Back in the 60s and 70s nearly everyone moved out the day they turned 18 if not sooner.

Those were the days!

Can't do that now our government has screwed up the economy so bad that you commonly find several married families with small children living together under one roof to make ends meet.

[Meadowchik]

I can respect that.

 

Can you understand how the events of the past two weeks might make a gay youth feel like they are not loved or fellowshipped?

 

It depends on where in the maelstrom they were.  Most likely, the majority of gay youth in the church were unaware of the policy change.  I do believe any hurt was easily increased by mischaracterisations of the policy itself.  On the other hand, many were comforted and supported by members reaching out to them in what they (the other members) felt might be a painful time for them.

 

I do think that, long-term, the policy will help children in same-sex couple households to more healthily approach the dissonance between Church and their own family experience. This will, in turn, be better for their family and, by experience their gay parents.

[Daniel2]

I have a couple of questions. Do you think that God accepts different beliefs about something so inherent as sexual orientation, especially in light of the purpose of eternal marriage? Also do you think you would feel the same were you not gay? I am curious how one reconciles his prior faith with a new lifestyle. I do agree with being respectful and kind to one another, which sadly is a big issue even among church members.

I appreciate the questions, Deborah.

I believe and feel that the love that my husband and I share is a divine gift, including all the forms/facets/manifestations that our love can and does take between he and I (self-sacrificing or serving one another and others in our family and communities, the pull to be someone greater than our most base desires through the commitment we share, the gentleness, tenderness, physical attraction and intimate forms of expression through which love manifests itself, etc).

The scripture that says that "God looks not on outward appearances, as mankind does, for God looks on the heart" resonates with me, and I believe that God understands my husband's and my heart, mind, intent, motivations, and love far more than the (heterosexual--and even some homosexual) majority of humanity do and/or are able to understand.

I think it's understandable that same-sex affection feels foreign and 'wrong' to those who are heterosexual; that's just how I felt when I was trying to fit into the heterosexual mold.

 

I understand that if I were staight, I may feel differently (but not necessarily so--case in point, Rockpond and others like him), just as if you were gay, you may feel differently (but not necessarily so--case in point, Gillebre, and others like him).

I believe what matters most when it comes to love is thst we find a committed, and mutual (i.e. consensual and non-abusive) relationship which is congruent with our innate romantic, emotional, spiritual, and self, including the aspect of our sexual orientation. I think God understands and accepts us, and whatever grace he offers is sufficient for us, when we are lucky and blessed enough to find that type of love in our lives.

I believe God understands that an eternal same-sex relationship has a different identity and purpose than heterosexual marriages, and God isn't as concerned about the configurations of our families (i.e. polygamous vs. monogamous, as just one example) as the majority of humankind are. I think God is more concerned about our hearts and loving intentions than our genitals, and I think God has a place in his kingdom for all orientations when his children choose the type of committed relarionship I previously described.

I believe God is watching us all stumble through this current "dark glass," allowing us to grope our way to a better understanding of what it means to "love one another" and to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us," especially in light of so many groups and individuals who claim to be The Chosen Ones who have God's Exclusive Truth. I am reminded of the poem about the six blind men and the elephant; each having a piece of the divine and comprehending what portion we are each capable of, in our own sphere and influence, and all right in our own way, but all of us having an incomplete picture of how we all fit together into the divine plan.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Daniel2

[Ron]

The letter states:

"When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church..."

Which logically means that a child who has already been baptized and has been living with a same-gender couple and has not been actively participating in the Church, the policy can still apply.  In other words, a baptized child who has been living with a same-gender couple and has not been active in the Church, who decides to start going to church when he is a teenager, may have to wait until eighteen to be ordained or considered for a mission.  I am not sure why you are making this so difficult.

 

So you are saying if a 12 year old already baptized SSM child wants to get ordained a deacon and is not active that he will be told he has to wait until he is 18 and get first presidency approval first?  Wouldn't he just be required to become active first (this seems obvious would have to happen anyway).  

 

Its difficult because the arguments from believing mormons about this do not add up and make no sense to me!

Edited November 18, 2015 by Ron

[Deborah]

We must learn to take the ebb and flow of reality without panic and alarm. 

 

Much like the ebb and flow of the stock market which has resulted in an ebb and flow of my IRA.

[rockpond]

Same-gender marriage, covenant-wise, represents a unique condition that prevents parents from genuinely and authentically supporting a child in incorporating and achieving the aims of Church membership (eternal families).

 

Did you mean to exclude apostates in your list of types of parents? Or non-member parents who are openly opposed to Church teachings? What areas of apostasy have additional conditions on children receiving consent to be baptized? Can you copy-and-paste that?

 

To borrow a phrase from Scott... your first statement above is not self-evident.  You are making an assumption about people that I find to be unwarranted.  I also believe it sends a clear and damaging message to our gay youth that they are "less than".

 

The term "apostates" is hard to define precisely. But if you go by the handbook definition only one type of apostate if formally prohibited from having their child baptized and that would be parents in a same-gender marriage.  I'm not sure what you want me to copy/paste... it is ONLY brought up in the new policy section. The Church only decided to call out gay people on this one.

 

Here's the number 2 item you asked for under 16.3.6 Minors:

2. The person who conducts the baptism and confirmation interview discerns that there is clear evidence that the child understands the baptismal covenant and will make every effort to keep it through obeying the commandments, including faithfully attending Church meetings.

 

If the intent of the policy was to prevent children from "unsupportive" homes from being baptized, we already had provisions in place for that without making a special section about gay parents.

[rockpond]

It depends on where in the maelstrom they were.  Most likely, the majority of gay youth in the church were unaware of the policy change.  I do believe any hurt was easily increased by mischaracterisations of the policy itself.  On the other hand, many were comforted and supported by members reaching out to them in what they (the other members) felt might be a painful time for them.

 

I do think that, long-term, the policy will help children in same-sex couple households to more healthily approach the dissonance between Church and their own family experience. This will, in turn, be better for their family and, by experience their gay parents.

 

First, the policy was not mischaracterized.  It was published in its full form as it was written.  If it was written incorrectly, poorly, or if it reflected an intent different than what the Brethren wanted, than say that.  But it was not mischaracterized.

 

I have been pleased to see many church members reaching out and comforting those impacted.  But I'm not sure the efforts to heal those hurt by this policy can be considered a net positive.

 

How do you anticipate the policy helping children in same-sex couple households to more healthily approach the dissonance between Church and their own family experience?  What does that look like?  I can't quite see it so I'd love if someone could help me understand how that will work.

[Steve-o]

The clarification of the handbook change seems to say that if a child living within SSM is already baptized then they can continue to receive ordinances, serve a mission, etc.

 

Would it not then be impossible for the situation of denying ordinations or missionary service to ever occur?  If you have never been baptized then it would be impossible to get ordained or serve a mission?  If so why even include those situations in the handbook at all?

 

Or am I mis-interpreting the clarifiation? Or is my logic faulty?

I think I understand what you're saying. If the clarified version of the policy had been the original intent of the policy, then there would have been no need to specifically state that children couldn't be ordained or serve missions because it would be obvious that they could not do those things if they had not already been baptized. So it's a redundancy in the policy if the original intent is as stated.

 

This redundancy makes it appear as if the original intent does not match the clarified intent.

[Steve-o]

To borrow a phrase from Scott... your first statement above is not self-evident.  You are making an assumption about people that I find to be unwarranted.  I also believe it sends a clear and damaging message to our gay youth that they are "less than".

 

The term "apostates" is hard to define precisely. But if you go by the handbook definition only one type of apostate if formally prohibited from having their child baptized and that would be parents in a same-gender marriage.  I'm not sure what you want me to copy/paste... it is ONLY brought up in the new policy section. The Church only decided to call out gay people on this one.

 

Here's the number 2 item you asked for under 16.3.6 Minors:

2. The person who conducts the baptism and confirmation interview discerns that there is clear evidence that the child understands the baptismal covenant and will make every effort to keep it through obeying the commandments, including faithfully attending Church meetings.

 

If the intent of the policy was to prevent children from "unsupportive" homes from being baptized, we already had provisions in place for that without making a special section about gay parents.

I find the new designation that SSM is apostasy incompatible with Elder Christofferson's statements that members can hold different opinions on the matter. Is there any other situation where the church would allow a member to agree with apostasy while not being apostate themselves? Doesn't this contradict the TR question about supporting or affiliating with a group or individual whose practices or beliefs directly contradict the teachings of the church.

 

It doesn't feel like the church has thought through these implications. Or maybe they will roll that piece of the policy out at a later date.

[Steve-o]

This is a very important point that underscores my understanding of the situation.  I suspect it is an assumption of the brethren and Elder Christofferson also.  That having someone enter into a covenant with no support to help them keep it, or opposition to at least part of the covenant, would be a cruelty not a kindness.

 

This is the same reason I think outsiders don't realize why we say excommunication is often a kindness and gives the excommunicated person time to repent and return to the fold, while not condemning themselves for repeatedly breaking the covenants they made.

 

The church is not a social club, although it does have a social component.  The covenant God made with Israel, and now with us is a critical reason for our membership.

The assumption seems to be that they would have no support. If existing policy was followed and both SSM parents approved of the baptism, wouldn't it be realistic to think there would be some level of support similar to any other child being baptized with non member or inactive parents?

[rockpond]

I find the new designation that SSM is apostasy incompatible with Elder Christofferson's statements that members can hold different opinions on the matter. Is there any other situation where the church would allow a member to agree with apostasy while not being apostate themselves? Doesn't this contradict the TR question about supporting or affiliating with a group or individual whose practices or beliefs directly contradict the teachings of the church.

 

It doesn't feel like the church has thought through these implications. Or maybe they will roll that piece of the policy out at a later date.

 

Definitely problematic from that perspective.  And we haven't even gotten into that discussion much on here regarding Elder Christofferson's statements earlier this year about it being okay to support SSM, even publicly.  Tough to reconcile that with the apostasy definition, the TR question, AND the requirement that children of same-sex married parents disavow the marriage in order to be baptized.

[Deborah]

Thank you for your response Daniel. I talked about my one daughter who has chosen a lesbian lifestyle. I truly believe it was for her something she chose and not innate. In fact I think this applies to a lot of young women today who have bad experiences with men and found an alternate way of loving.

 

On the other hand my older daughter is also lesbian and is in a committed and legalized relationship (not married but legalized through the state). I suspected that she was that way even at 4 years old. I love her companion. They are both wonderful people. But for this daughter it was a very difficult choice. She loves the church; she went through the temple she read the BOM daily. She fought her inclinations for years and finally couldn't any more. When I asked her why she finally gave in she said she just didn't want to be alone for the rest of her life. She also said she knew she would have to pay the price but was willing to do so. And btw she doesn't think her younger sister is that way by nature either.

 

Anyway the point is I know how difficult the challenge is, especially for those who have a testimony of the church. And if I know in my limited mortal frame of reference imagine how God knows.

 

Many years ago when I was young there was a man in our ward who always greeted everyone at the door of the chapel. This wasn't an assignment but something he loved to do. He wasn't married and said he never planned to marry but he wanted to be a ministering angel in the Celestial Kingdom. We all of course knew he was gay but he was very faithful; I hope he was able to remain so. I can't even imagine such a challenge, though I have been single a long time and have had to live a celibate life as well and it has not been easy.

 

I expect God has a place for everyone. Our job is to love and be kind to everyone, though I must admit I get irritated at the whiners.

[Steve-o]

I fail to see why it would matter at all how John Dehlin received the policy. The policy was published by the church and that information was put online. Should anyone expect that a significant policy change like this wouldn't be spread across the internet?

 

What if the church changed the policy and began allowing polygamy and published that policy in the handbook. Would anyone expect that wouldn't catch like wildfire and spread across the internet? Who's fault would it be if that created a stir within the church? Someone like John Dehlin? That makes no sense. The policy is what caused the stir.

[Steve-o]

Definitely problematic from that perspective.  And we haven't even gotten into that discussion much on here regarding Elder Christofferson's statements earlier this year about it being okay to support SSM, even publicly.  Tough to reconcile that with the apostasy definition, the TR question, AND the requirement that children of same-sex married parents disavow the marriage in order to be baptized.

That's a good point. If Christofferson's statement still stands, it would seem there is a different standard for children of SSM parents and the rest of church membership. If others can support SSM and are not required to disavow it, why would there be a different requirement for children of SSM? Wouldn't they have the same right to support SSM as the rest of the church?

 

It seems to me there is a decent chance Christofferson's statement will be walked back, just like the recent policy. His statement just isn't consistent with the Church's policy and highlights a double standard.

[Meadowchik]

First, the policy was not mischaracterized.  It was published in its full form as it was written.  If it was written incorrectly, poorly, or if it reflected an intent different than what the Brethren wanted, than say that.  But it was not mischaracterized.

 

I have been pleased to see many church members reaching out and comforting those impacted.  But I'm not sure the efforts to heal those hurt by this policy can be considered a net positive.

 

How do you anticipate the policy helping children in same-sex couple households to more healthily approach the dissonance between Church and their own family experience?  What does that look like?  I can't quite see it so I'd love if someone could help me understand how that will work.

 

"Punishing Children for parents' sins"

 

"Children of Same-sex couples unworthy of baptism"

 

"LDS bans acceptance of children of same-sex couples"

 

....all mischaracterisation.

 

If those are accurate, for instance, then we could also say:

 

"Church Punishes the Chinese for China government's sins"

 

"Children in Israel unworthy of baptism"

 

"LDS bans acceptance of children under 8 years old"

 

"LDS Church Punishing Children whose parents are against the Church"

 

"Children with Down Syndrome unworthy of baptism"

 

"LDS bans acceptance of Muslims living in Muslim countries"

 

"LDS bans acceptance of children of polygamous families"

 

...which are not accurate, either.

 

 

 

How I see it helping? You have to compare with the alternative: a child raised by a gay couple, entering into baptism commiting to the Church and doctrine and sustaining Church leaders, while at the same time growing up win a family that cannot last within that doctrinal paradigm to which the child has committed, seeing this from their youthful perspective.  This versus, being raised by their gay parents, attending church and hearing the gospel, only being baptised and committing to the Church once they have understood the full implications of it on their family with the developed brain of an adult. The latter, bolded, seems better than the former, imo.