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

[rockpond]

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.

 

I'm not sure that Christofferson's interview of the policy will be walked back.

 

If the tort law theory is correct (speculating because it's the only explanation that makes sense to me) then Elder Christofferson's statement supports the policy's intent.  And it also explains why they haven't edited the policy to reflect the language of the Nov 13 letter.

 

Now, the Brethren could decide that this plan of trading members for legal protection isn't the right way to go, in which case they'll change the policy.  But, they already took a week to think about it so I'm guessing that the Nov 13 letter is their final response.

 

And if all that happens to be the case...

The debate will continue on about whether faithful LDS can support SSM.

Both Christofferson's video and the Nov 13 FP letter will fade into history as CHI1 is handed out to more and more generations of church leaders.

And this issue will continue to be divisive and problematic.

[CV75]

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.

Covenant-wise, it is a 180 degree departure from the covenant of an eternal family. This is self-evident (same gender vs. male-female). This 180 degree departure prevents the covenant from pointing in the same direction as the covenant of the eternal family, and this too is self-evident. Breaking a legitimate covenant is not the establishment of an anti-covenant, and this is self-evident..

 

From some of the recent threads, there seems to be a Handbook definition of “apostate” or “apostasy” and conditions placed on children of polygamous families. I don’t mind you copy-and-pasting them; I think it would be helpful.

 

Regarding condition #2, I can see how a child might find conflict in making every effort to understand and keep the baptismal covenants in light of his self-identity being entwined with a custodial same-gender couple’s. His life would be continually directed by the naming/blessing and baptism covenants toward the temple and marriage covenants by his religious conscience and his Church community while the same-sex couple’s life (and by extension that kind of opposing family life that is imposed on him) is directed by a counter-covenant. Even at the age of majority, such conflict can continue to create significant problems for his commitment to Church membership, but this and the new policy is for minors.

 

Both #1 and #2 are not about preventing children from same-gender couple homes from being baptized, but about requiring custodial parent consent and the child’s discernible intent. On the other hand, the new policy does allow the prevention of children from such homes from being baptized, and according to what you have provided from the Handbook, we did not already have such provisions in place.

[rockpond]

"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.

 

All of those headlines are correct.  The church is punishing children for their parents' sins.  They are delaying baptism because of something that parents are doing.  The policy does deem those children unworthy (using non-LDS vernacular) of baptism.  And the church is not accepting them into full fellowship in the church.

 

The policy was not mischaracterized, it was just that the media didn't try to portray it in the softest way possible as most church members are doing.

 

So you are saying that delaying baptism helps them by keeping them from taking on a covenant that they don't fully understand?

 

What did the Lord have to say about the age of accountability?

 

How does denying them the gift of the Holy Ghost help them with their familial situation?  Do we still believe that gift is critically important for our children?

 

How are they helped by not being able to attend the temple to participate in baptisms?  Or not being able to serve in class/quorum leadership positions?

 

How is a young man helped by not being able to bless, pass, and prepare the sacrament?

 

Will these kids be helped by being left out of all these things?

[CV75]

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.

No; belief is not action. Just like religious conscience is not religious expression.

[Zakuska]

(Sappy post warning! Not on purpose, I just realize that I am sappier-than normal today. Go figure.)

Excellent pun and perfect segway... 

Have we been told to expect a large proportion of people to attain exaltation?  They are the only ones who enjoy a marital relationship extended into the eternities. Something tells me that these couples, once they've reached that point, they've followed Christ's steps in consecrating all they have to God, their desires included.

 

Whatever way we think about romance and marriage, whatever apex of righteousness we may possibly attain in this life, whatever archetype of marital happiness and perfection that we can humanly conceptualize, the oneness that God has planned for His exalted far transcends that. I don't think we'll be that recognizable if we're able to look at ourselves from the same eyes we use to see today.

 

To me, the most important thing I can hold onto, the surest, is to strive to live my convictions about what God wants for my life.

 

So that, regardless of what other people say or feel and regardless of what I myself want, the most important is to discover and live what God wants for me.  That's how Christ lived.  We'll all have to let predispositions fall by the wayside at some point.

 

So, like I believe I said to you on another occasion, (on second thought, I think I said it to buckeye) in our Church fellowship and as brothers and sisters in the world, 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.  Even then, they're still our brothers and sisters, and we can learn from each other, and hopefully one side or the other or both will learn how to bridge the divide.

Your point assumes that every plant in the Lords garden were raised by the Lord with the same purpose and end in mind.

What of the plants destined to decorate the other areas of Gods mansions on high?

For all intents and purposes a Gay couple is a Eunuch. Meaning... they can't breed without the miracle of modern medicine or the touch of a master gardeners hand, or adoption.

Eunuchs are promised better blessings by the Lord than us heterosexual breeders.

Isa 54

3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

You know why I think they are given better blessings than us breeding plants?

Because they have been cut off from the Lord House since the time of Sodom and Gamorraha.

If the Lord says he won't cut them off and give them a better name for all they have endured at the hands of "Chistians" through out history by way of the Prophet Isaiah... why the Modern Bretheren decide to persist in excommunicating and excluding them from the Lords plantation is beyond me.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

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?

Some level of support, but not where it counts; not where the rubber hits the road.

 

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.

 

Covenant-wise, same-gender marriage is a 180 degree departure from the covenant of an eternal family. This 180 degree departure prevents the covenant from pointing in the same direction as the covenant of the eternal family. Breaking a legitimate covenant is not the establishment of an anti-covenant. Many serious differences at play between the two home and family covenant conditions.

[Russell C McGregor]

Your logic is sound. It would be incredibly refreshing if the leaders of the church simply offered some sort of mea culpa. They can make policy mistakes and still claim to be prophets of God.

Whether you believe the clarification offered by brother Otterson was just that, or a bit of back pedaling, there is no denying mistakes were made. IMO, offering an apology for the poorly written policy would have gone miles further than essentially blaming social media.

I'd support the brethren apologising, if they had actually done anything wrong.

But they didn't. The policy is sound.

The disapproval of the, um, parties who are harping on about it is evidence that it is sound.

[Russell C McGregor]

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?

Can you understand how agitators constantly harping on the theme of how gay youth are unloved might make a gay youth feel like they are not loved or fellowshipped?

[omni]

I'd support the brethren apologising, if they had actually done anything wrong.

But they didn't. The policy is sound.

The disapproval of the, um, parties who are harping on about it is evidence that it is sound.

You don't believe the poorly worded policy was a mistake? Not the intent of the policy, but the actual wording of the policy?

[HappyJackWagon]

You don't believe the poorly worded policy was a mistake? Not the intent of the policy, but the actual wording of the policy?

Either the original intent or the original wording is a mistake. They don't match so one must be. But for some it is impossible to admit any kind of error by the church or its leaders, not that we claim either to be infallible or anything.

[Bob Crockett]

I once had a productive listserve conversation with the editors of Sunstone, long ago, where I complained about the fact that homosexual topics had hijacked Sunstone.  (I knew that one or more of the editors was gay.)  The editors actually commented that perhaps they should do something about that.  I don't think they really did, however,

 

The exact problem is happening with this board.  Why no angst over the children of polygamists being denied baptism?  

[Ron]

I'd support the brethren apologising, if they had actually done anything wrong.

But they didn't. The policy is sound.

The disapproval of the, um, parties who are harping on about it is evidence that it is sound.

 

That last sentence says a lot about the way I've seen you arguing on these boards.  My feeling is you would argue anything for the brethren regardless of the evidence presented.  Then you end your posts with some condescending remark.

[HappyJackWagon]

Some level of support, but not where it counts; not where the rubber hits the road.

 

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.

 

Covenant-wise, same-gender marriage is a 180 degree departure from the covenant of an eternal family. This 180 degree departure prevents the covenant from pointing in the same direction as the covenant of the eternal family. Breaking a legitimate covenant is not the establishment of an anti-covenant. Many serious differences at play between the two home and family covenant conditions.

Again, saying they don't get the support where "it counts" is making an unfounded assumption. If the parents don't support the ordinance then it is unlikely they would give approval for the baptism, in which case the child would already be prevented from being baptized according to policy about parental consent. But in a situation where the parent consents to the ordinance for their child I don't understand why the overriding assumption must be that the parent will NOT give support to the child.

 

If they don't support- child isn't baptized due to parental consent requirement.

If both parents do support- child isn't baptized because they assume the parent won't really be supportive.

 

I'm curious. If a child isn't held accountable if they die prior to baptism at 8 and automatically inherits the celestial kingdom, would the same be said for a child in this situation who dies before turning 18 because he/she didn't have the capability of making the baptismal covenant?

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you understand how agitators constantly harping on the theme of how gay youth are unloved might make a gay youth feel like they are not loved or fellowshipped?

I think that's what at least some of the agitators are going for. It's what they do.

 

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, agitators gotta rile.

[rockpond]

Covenant-wise, it is a 180 degree departure from the covenant of an eternal family. This is self-evident (same gender vs. male-female). This 180 degree departure prevents the covenant from pointing in the same direction as the covenant of the eternal family, and this too is self-evident. Breaking a legitimate covenant is not the establishment of an anti-covenant, and this is self-evident..

 

From some of the recent threads, there seems to be a Handbook definition of “apostate” or “apostasy” and conditions placed on children of polygamous families. I don’t mind you copy-and-pasting them; I think it would be helpful.

 

Regarding condition #2, I can see how a child might find conflict in making every effort to understand and keep the baptismal covenants in light of his self-identity being entwined with a custodial same-gender couple’s. His life would be continually directed by the naming/blessing and baptism covenants toward the temple and marriage covenants by his religious conscience and his Church community while the same-sex couple’s life (and by extension that kind of opposing family life that is imposed on him) is directed by a counter-covenant. Even at the age of majority, such conflict can continue to create significant problems for his commitment to Church membership, but this and the new policy is for minors.

 

Both #1 and #2 are not about preventing children from same-gender couple homes from being baptized, but about requiring custodial parent consent and the child’s discernible intent. On the other hand, the new policy does allow the prevention of children from such homes from being baptized, and according to what you have provided from the Handbook, we did not already have such provisions in place.

 

You said that we need to keep children from unsupportive homes from being baptized.  We already had provisions in place for that (parental consent, bishop's interview).  Many children are baptized from homes that are a 180-degree departure from the covenant of an eternal family.  There a specific prohibitions against baptizing a child who lives with a divorced parent and that parent's live-in opposite-sex partner and yet that is still a 180-degree departure from the covenant of an eternal family.

 

You wrote:  "I can see how a child might find conflict in making every effort to understand and keep the baptismal covenants in light of his self-identity being entwined with a custodial same-gender couple’s. His life would be continually directed by the naming/blessing and baptism covenants toward the temple and marriage covenants by his religious conscience and his Church community while the same-sex couple’s life (and by extension that kind of opposing family life that is imposed on him) is directed by a counter-covenant."

 

What does that say to the gay youth in our wards?  Maybe we should have them wait until they are 18 to decide if they should be baptized.  Oh wait, they don't often know/understand their sexual orientation until closer to puberty.  Maybe we should have all youth wait.  Just delete what the Lord said in section 68.

 

You are creating a have & have-not situation:  Instead of determining if someone is worthy of a covenant on their own merits, you are deciding if their home environment is capable of supporting such covenants.  But, to make things worse, this policy only makes such a determination based on sexual orientation.

[rockpond]

Can you understand how agitators constantly harping on the theme of how gay youth are unloved might make a gay youth feel like they are not loved or fellowshipped?

 

 

I think that's what at least some of the agitators are going for. It's what they do.

 

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, agitators gotta rile.

 

Right... we should just keep our mouths shut.  Never mind the spike in calls to Utah suicide hotlines after this policy was published.

 

You two are unbelievable.

[SmileyMcGee]

An oft repeated claim is that once you get to know a gay couple your whole perspective on gay marriage changes. I believe the theory goes that before it is very easy to cling to the belief that gay marriage is wrong and evil, but once you meet a loving and committed, gay couple you cannot deny the goodness of the relationship. This is only compounded when they have kids.

 

Throughout my life I have been friends or closely acquainted with many gay and lesbian couples, one of which had children. I have multiple gay family members. I can say, with only one exception (and that is a VERY good track record) that they are all fantastic human beings. The couple with children loved their kids and were qualified, from a worldly standpoint, to provide for their children. They are good parents. To that end, there is no denying that such relationships yield a type of good fruit, if judged purely by worldly standards.

 

None of this changes the fact that homosexuality has been called an abomination in scripture and is a sin in our day (and always has been and always will be). "Seeing and knowing" does not change that. The fruit of homosexuality is still sin and no amount of good parenting or love can ever make those family units eternal. And that is the fruit that matters above all. When judged through the lens of the restored gospel, these families are temporary and can never be eternal. They are depriving themselves and their children of blessings that extend beyond this life in exchange for niceties that expire and terminate in the short term.

 

No matter how much they love their children (and I am sure they do), their family units are finite as presently constituted. And they always will be in the eyes of the Lord.

I guess don't see why God cannot condone SSM and allow families with same-gender parents to exist in the eternities, and I don't think anyone else here understands it either. All the arguments seem to reduce to speculative varieties of "because God said so." Well, if it is because God said so, why can't he say yes to SSM? Why can't he just say, "Straight people weren't ready for the divinity of SSM to be revealed to them, and I reveal to you now that SSM is not a sin and families with same gender parents will be together in the next life. President [current prophet] I command you to append these words to D&C 131 and remove the incorrect policies from the church handbook, which were put there without my consent but which I suffered to be placed therein since the heterosexual leadership of my church was not sufficiently humble before me to accept my truth." </bad attempt at sounding like verses in d&c>

Edited November 18, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Thinking]

I think it's cowardly and "easy"... to try to avoid having the bishop confirm receipt of the letter. If you're so brave that you're very publicly taking this big step and resigning, go ahead and actually follow the resigning process. You want to stick it to the Church and show your bishop how fed up you are with "the last straw" ---- tell him. 

 

That's right, you should only leave the LDS Church in a church approved way.

 

Pre-priinted, fill-in-the blank resignations. Very courageous.

 

I believe the church uses pre-printed fill-in-the-blank forms for things like baptism and tithing (among other things).

[Zakuska]

Right... we should just keep our mouths shut.  Never mind the spike in calls to Utah suicide hotlines after this policy was published.

 

You two are unbelievable.

Tell me about it. Next thing we'll hear is how they're all just throwing temper tantrums and being drama queens.

The 1st step in disassociation: dehumanize those who you ridicule so you don't feel remorse from the harm you may cause.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Zakuska

[Mystery Meat]

Right... we should just keep our mouths shut.  Never mind the spike in calls to Utah suicide hotlines after this policy was published.

 

You two are unbelievable.

 

Nobody said keep your mouth shut, but there was a lot of hyperbole that made the policy more confusing than it needed to be. Instead of jumping to conclusions, would it not have been more reasonable for everyone to give the Church ample time to train, explain and implement the policy? Perhaps the unneeded spike in phone calls to the suicide hotline would never have happened had people been as charitable with the brethren as they insist they want the brethren to be with others, a lot of the hubbub and chaos could have been avoided.

 

Instead many, including you, were implying if not out and out saying that the Brethren were not following the Savior with this policy and telling everyone who would listen, including many young, gay Mormons, that the Brethren did not love them and that they did not consider them worthy. I can certainly imagine why that would cause a whole lot of confusion and anguish.

[Zakuska]

Either the original intent or the original wording is a mistake. They don't match so one must be. But for some it is impossible to admit any kind of error by the church or its leaders, not that we claim either to be infallible or anything.

The original wording has lawyer written all over it. You can see the same thinking in the "Minors" policy else ware in the book. The way its worded protects the church so that if Gay Couples do raise their kids in the church and they are taught their parents are living in sin like they will be. Since the child's records wont be on the records of the church, any law suit brought by any discord caused by said teachings, the responsibility will lie squarely in the laps of the Gay parents for willfully exposing their children to said teachings. The policy is nothing more than legal maneuvering and leveraging to absolve the church from any culpability from lawsuits that might be brought.

It's an attend the church at your own risk clause.

Added: You can also see the same thinking in the teaching polygamist child policy. Nothing more than legal maneuvering. It even says so right in the policy.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Zakuska

[rockpond]

Nobody said keep your mouth shut, but there was a lot of hyperbole that made the policy more confusing than it needed to be. Instead of jumping to conclusions, would it not have been more reasonable for everyone to give the Church ample time to train, explain and implement the policy? Perhaps the unneeded spike in phone calls to the suicide hotline would never have happened had people been as charitable with the brethren as they insist they want the brethren to be with others, a lot of the hubbub and chaos could have been avoided.

 

Instead many, including you, were implying if not out and out saying that the Brethren were not following the Savior with this policy and telling everyone who would listen, including many young, gay Mormons, that the Brethren did not love them and that they did not consider them worthy. I can certainly imagine why that would cause a whole lot of confusion and anguish.

 

Actually, many of us were out there arguing against it, telling the gay youth that we felt what the church was doing was wrong.  Rather than agreeing with the new policy.  Which to do you honestly think is more damaging to a gay youth.

 

You keep referring to hyperbole and mischaracterization.  Well, when I first heard that there was a new policy, I went directly to the handbook and read it for myself.  The words were clear.  Then I went to church where my Bishop said that he was meeting with the Stake President at the invitation of our Area Authority.  My Bishop came back from that meaning and confirmed exactly what I had understood the policy to mean.

 

What exactly do you think we should have waited for?  The policy WAS implemented.  It WAS published.  There have been no plans announced to train any of us.  The explanations are out there (first from Elder Christofferson and then from the FP).   All of that has happened and I find the policy to be just as discordant with my beliefs about the gospel as I found it to be the day I first read it.

 

If you like the policy that's fine.  If you believe it was inspired, that's fine.  But you can't blame others for the effects of it.

[Thinking]

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 try to imagine being told that I would never be able to satisfy my intense desire to be with a woman. I can't. It bothers me when some people ask the question, "Why would they want to belong to a church that doesn't approve of their lifestyle?" That might be a valid question if intimate relations was the only thing that defined the LDS Church. Perhaps a SS couple loves everything else about the church. Can you blame them for trying to change that one part?

[Thinking]

Just flaky people supporting flaky behavior.  

 

Yep. Just kick 'em on their way out.

[CV75]

Again, saying they don't get the support where "it counts" is making an unfounded assumption. If the parents don't support the ordinance then it is unlikely they would give approval for the baptism, in which case the child would already be prevented from being baptized according to policy about parental consent. But in a situation where the parent consents to the ordinance for their child I don't understand why the overriding assumption must be that the parent will NOT give support to the child.

“Again,” where the ordinances trigger a cascade of other individual, joint and communal obligations on the part of the child, parents, leaders, members and relevant organizations (quorums, axillaries), the same-gender couple, in a 180-degree departure from the direction these obligations require, cannot offer the kind of support that will prevent conflict for the child exercising his religious conscience and conflict with theirs. This lack of the right kind of support contributes to the kind of conflict calling for the new policy.

 

“Again,” it’s not primarily about the parents’ sin and inability to support the LDS marriage covenant, but about the effect these have on the child as part of a larger, conflicting dynamic with other players as well as with the child, and the child with the other players, that arises from his membership in the Church.

 

If they don't support- child isn't baptized due to parental consent requirement.

The new policy addresses cases where a couple might push or give consent for Church ordinances and obligations that fly in the face of their same-gender arrangement and their home environment, creating conflict for the child that the Church does not wish to promote.

 

If both parents do support- child isn't baptized because they assume the parent won't really be supportive.

That’s not an assumption: no amount of social, emotional, family-pressure, put-on-a-brave-face support changes the fact that the marital, and by extension, family, environment is in complete opposition to the covenants of exaltation.

 

I'm curious. If a child isn't held accountable if they die prior to baptism at 8 and automatically inherits the celestial kingdom, would the same be said for a child in this situation who dies before turning 18 because he/she didn't have the capability of making the baptismal covenant?

In my opinion, nothing necessarily needs to be lost to them. Nothing was lost to Alvin, and he died after age 18.