CV75 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 How is denying blessing & baptism to children an act of love, compassion, and mercy?It's only a matter of timing and the bigger picture. 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.
stemelbow Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I don't get to excuse myself from the law because I have a predilection for a particular sin. Then don't do it anymore.
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 My wife's facebook feed is exploding with comments from church members. The great majority of these are very negative and many are waiting and hoping to hear this is not true. These are from very active members of the church too. But this affects so many now as most have family members or friends who are gay and many have children. 1
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 How is denying blessing & baptism to children an act of love, compassion, and mercy? Quite simple. Don't ask children to take on serious covenants with eternal consequences, when their parent(s) teach and live the opposite of those laws.
stemelbow Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I don't get to excuse myself from the law because I have a predilection for a particular sin. You do realize these kids wouldn't be trying to excuse themselves right?
JLHPROF Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 We must remember the reason the policy was put in place on the children of polygamists.At one point early in the fundamentalist movement, polygamists were coming to meetings or having their children be baptized into the Church so that they could receive temple ordinances, convert new members for their groups, find more wives, and as one early fundamentalist leader put it "be a leaven in the loaf".The policy was designed to protect Church members from fundamentalism. Does anyone think the children of SSM are wanting to join the church to turn people homosexual?Or is the fear that they may spread approval of SSM among members (where some estimate put approval as high as 1/4)? So are these two groups the same and is the reason for the ban the same? 3
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. Revelation is shared in many ways... Really? Is one of those ways to sneak it into a handbook a few weeks after general conference and then hide behind your PA department. 1
jbarm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Where is the outrage over similar restrictions on children of polygamous parents? I believe the same restrictions apply to them as well. The restrictions on children of polygamous parents have existed for decades. I guess it is more popular to be outraged over the children of people whose behavior you approve of (homosexual marriage participants) rather than those you disapprove of (polygamous marriage participants). jb
Buckeye Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) 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. I'm confused. The policy expressly states that a child cannot be "ordained to the priesthood." As for temple trips, that's an extension of another church policy that requires baptism for all youth to get a recommend, and ordination for boys to get a recommend. So a child who is excluded from baptism and/or ordination because they have a cohabitating/married gay parent is also excluded from temple trips. Imagine how well that one will go over with the YM and YW presidencies planning the next youth trip: YM President: "So I'm trying to get the final count of kids to the bishop. Is Suzzy going?"YW President: "She can't. Her dad is gay so she hasn't been baptized."YM President: "Right, I forgot."YW President: "How could you forget. This subject comes up every time there is a temple trip. It's the defining aspect of Suzzy's church experience." Edited November 6, 2015 by Buckeye 2
stemelbow Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Quite simple. Don't ask children to take on serious covenants with eternal consequences, when their parent(s) teach and live the opposite of those laws. umm...most children, even in the Church, find themselves in this exactly situation.
california boy 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.Why would you guess that a child who had a gay parent would have no interest in baptism? 1
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. It is not a matter of trusting children. It is a matter of not asking a child to enter into a serious and eternal covenant without a support structure that will help guide them to success in that covenant until they are an adult. It also has the effect of clarifying the church position to avoid lawsuits over the use of chapels for marriage, etc. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 We must remember the reason the policy was put in place on the children of polygamists.At one point early in the fundamentalist movement, polygamists were coming to meetings or having their children be baptized into the Church so that they could receive temple ordinances, convert new members for their groups, find more wives, and as one early fundamentalist leader put it "be a leaven in the loaf".The policy was designed to protect Church members from fundamentalism. Does anyone think the children of SSM are wanting to join the church to turn people homosexual?Or is the fear that they may spread approval of SSM among members (where some estimate put approval as high as 1/4)? So are these two groups the same and is the reason for the ban the same?Well said!
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 So are these two groups the same and is the reason for the ban the same?Do we know the purpose for this new policy regarding children of same sex relationships? I know there are a lot of ideas and thoughts being expressed here, but I haven't seen any reason or explanation given from the church leaders yet. I hope one is coming.
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 My wife's facebook feed is exploding with comments from church members. The great majority of these are very negative and many are waiting and hoping to hear this is not true. These are from very active members of the church too. But this affects so many now as most have family members or friends who are gay and many have children. I'm guessing most of these people (if they match the ones i personally know of) have no idea that this matches policies already in place for Muslims and polygamous children. Otherwise, them suddenly being upset about the policy would be strange.
jbarm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I realized I possible posted this on the wrong thread, so I'm reposting here.... Where is the outrage over similar restrictions on children of polygamous parents? I believe the same restrictions apply to them as well. The restrictions on children of polygamous parents have existed for decades. I guess it is more popular to be outraged over the children of people whose behavior you approve of (homosexual marriage participants) rather than those you disapprove of (polygamous marriage participants). jb
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 It's only a matter of timing and the bigger picture. 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. No, sorry, it's a saving ordinance... you don't get to write it off as "timing and the bigger picture". The Church is creating the problem for children of gay parents. Not the children. Just last month my ward bent over backwards to the get a child baptized. That child is the son of a man who is completely inactive and living in an adulterous relationship. That child did not have to move out of his father's home! He wasn't forced to answer for his dad's sins! We didn't need first presidency approval! This is a biased, mean-spirited policy. 1
stemelbow Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Why would you guess that a child who had a gay parent would have no interest in baptism? Plenty do, some don't, I'd guess. Some won't because their parents, being gay, may not show interest themselves. I'd say this is a consequence of the Church's stance towards gay couples, though.
HappyJackWagon Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 It is not a matter of trusting children. It is a matter of not asking a child to enter into a serious and eternal covenant without a support structure that will help guide them to success in that covenant until they are an adult. It also has the effect of clarifying the church position to avoid lawsuits over the use of chapels for marriage, etc.Except they are assuming that universally these children will not have a support structure. Bad assumption.Why not make this same requirement for every child who wants to be baptized while their parents belong to another church?
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 We must remember the reason the policy was put in place on the children of polygamists.At one point early in the fundamentalist movement, polygamists were coming to meetings or having their children be baptized into the Church so that they could receive temple ordinances, convert new members for their groups, find more wives, and as one early fundamentalist leader put it "be a leaven in the loaf".The policy was designed to protect Church members from fundamentalism. Does anyone think the children of SSM are wanting to join the church to turn people homosexual?Or is the fear that they may spread approval of SSM among members (where some estimate put approval as high as 1/4)? So are these two groups the same and is the reason for the ban the same? The fear that they will spread acceptance would be my guess. I don't think anyone is ignorant enough to think homosexuals turn heterosexuals into gays. There is a risk of recruitment into a sinful lifestyle for those who have predilections towards same sex attraction. (Which is distinct from "turning someone gay")
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Quite simple. Don't ask children to take on serious covenants with eternal consequences, when their parent(s) teach and live the opposite of those laws. We do that all the time already! If you want that to be church policy than make it policy for EVERYONE, not just children with a gay parent.
SeekingUnderstanding 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,BDThe policy as written does not allow for any latitude. Even when the kid turns 18 there is no latitude for a bishop to approve. It has to go all the way to the first presidency. 1
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Except they are assuming that universally these children will not have a support structure. Bad assumption.Why not make this same requirement for every child who wants to be baptized while their parents belong to another church?Or parents who have been excommunicated for other reasons. Or parents who aren't married but living together. Or single parent homes where there never was a marriage. How about some consistency?
Popular Post rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 6, 2015 I'm confused. The policy expressly states that a child cannot be "ordained to the priesthood." As for temple trips, that's an extension of another church policy that requires baptism for all youth to get a recommend, and ordination for boys to get a recommend. So a child who is excluded from baptism and/or ordination because they have a cohabitating/married gay parent is also excluded from temple trips. Imagine how well that one will go over with the YM and YW presidencies planning the next youth trip: YM President: "So I'm trying to get the final count of kids to the bishop. Is Suzzy going?"YW President: "She can't. Her dad is gay so she hasn't been baptized."YM President: "Right, I forgot."YW President: "How could you forget. This subject comes up every time there is a temple trip. It's the defining aspect of Suzzy's church experience." The policy is horrible on every level. 7
Buckeye Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Plenty do, some don't, I'd guess. Some won't because their parents, being gay, may not show interest themselves. I'd say this is a consequence of the Church's stance towards gay couples, though. There's lots of families where the dad comes out as gay, mom very much wants to keep the kids in the church, and dad supports the decision. Those are the kids that would be receiving baptism, confirmation, ordination, etc. but for this policy change. 1
Recommended Posts