KevinG 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? I change my earlier charge of comprehension difficulty to hyperbole. I never said they would not universally have a support structure that guides them to an adult understanding of their covenant. I have seen this happen again and again outside of the homosexuality issue, and it is a terrible thing to watch a teen without active LDS parents struggle with being an active LDS. I would be very comfortable advocating no child under the age of 18 be baptized without their family.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm sure the policy will be clarified for Bishops who have questions... Assuming that it automatically cuts off any child with a parent in a homosexual marriage even if they have another active parent is doom saying.That's what the plain language states. Have you read it?
RevTestament Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Well, that certainly undermines the assertion that "there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage." If you can get ex'd for it, it exists.A "marriage" can be looked at as a covenant between two people.However, what men may consider to be a binding covenant, does not necessarily mean it is recognized as legal or binding in heaven, which same sex marriage is not. 1
stemelbow Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. I know there are some. "Lots" is relative. I'm sure from the Church's perspective that "lots" is relatively few.
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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? There is a huge difference between a parent excommunicated for moral reasons, or addiction, who is repentant, and supportive of the laws of the gospel; and a parent who is in open apostasy, teaching and acting in opposition to gospel law and practice. 1
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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.But he couldn't serve a mission.
SeekingUnderstanding 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.Perhaps you should study up on the matter. This policy is far more restrictive.
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. I think for some (not everyone) this is upsetting because they were hoping that the church was moving towards a complete acceptance of SSM (somewhere down the road) and the new designation of SS couples as apostates, and their children being treated like the children of polygamists, is the dying of that hope. Obviously, few of these people cared when it just affected polygamists, so the policy itself can't be the reason for the angst. 2
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 That's what the plain language states. Have you read it? As much as anyone else here speculating on it. HappyJackWagon and others claim the policy will prevent an active parent from baptizing a child because of a married gay, ex-spouse. I'm doubtful. Don't ask me to disprove a negative assumption until you can show the policy would require that.
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Even if the SS parent does not have any custody of the child, the new policy kicks in merely from the existence of the SS relationship. Do we know this is a fact, or is this your assumption?
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 But he couldn't serve a mission. The moment he said "I love my two dads but their marriage is not sanctified by God according to my faith." he could serve without hesitation.
Brian 2.0 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I change my earlier charge of comprehension difficulty to hyperbole.I never said they would not universally have a support structure that guides them to an adult understanding of their covenant. I have seen this happen again and again outside of the homosexuality issue, and it is a terrible thing to watch a teen without active LDS parents struggle with being an active LDS. I would be very comfortable advocating no child under the age of 18 be baptized without their family.Your policy makes more sense consistency wise at least. Does anyone know what the policy is regarding Jewish or Muslim parents who give consent? Because someone told me they also can't be baptized.
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) The moment he said "I love my two dads but their marriage is not sanctified by God according to my faith." he could serve without hesitation.You don't know that and are just speculating here. Also, why force a boy to do this and also ask him to refuse to be in his Father's home in a joint custody situation so he can serve a mission? Edited November 6, 2015 by ALarson
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I think for some (not everyone) this is upsetting because they were hoping that the church was moving towards a complete acceptance of SSM (somewhere down the road) and the new designation of SS couples as apostates, and their children being treated like the children of polygamists, is the dying of that hope.Obviously, few of these people cared when it just affected polygamists, so the policy itself can't be the reason for the angst.The policy for polygamists is not the same. This policy is much more restrictive. 1
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Perhaps as a convert I'm biased... but the belief that the LDS Church has authority to perform saving ordinances, but that their Prophets and Apostles are out to lunch on what constitutes worthiness and faithfulness to the conditions of those blessings, just seems weirdly inconsistent to me. I detect many here who would probably be happier as Universalist Unitarians. 1
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. Some questions- As a bishop, who get's his authority to be such from the church, are they allowed to pick and choose what policies they want to follow? And which scriptures are you referring to and how does it conflict with A of F 2?
stemelbow Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I think for some (not everyone) this is upsetting because they were hoping that the church was moving towards a complete acceptance of SSM (somewhere down the road) and the new designation of SS couples as apostates, and their children being treated like the children of polygamists, is the dying of that hope. Obviously, few of these people cared when it just affected polygamists, so the policy itself can't be the reason for the angst. Please don't speak for me. You did a terrible job. I still think the Church will be blessed with more light and knowledge, someday, and accept SSM, I don't see this as hindering that hope. My stomach sunk into my stomach when I heard this yesterday not related to my hope there. It sunk because I felt terribly for people I know. I imagine this will add an unwanted complication to their lives, and will foster feelings, or great feelings in some cases, wherein they feel neglected and rejected.
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 The policy for polygamists is not the same. This policy is much more restrictive. A few people here have posited that theory... but in effect it is not. Unless of course you read into it.
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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) Unless it's Muslim kids or polygamist kids. Then people don't really care.
RevTestament Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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.The first presidency didn't sneak it into a handbook. It has been basic church policy to excommunicate for homosexual behavior ever since I can remember... nothing new there.The presidency also immediately responded to the Supreme Court decision in a church-wide statement which can be found here:https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision?lang=eng 1
california boy Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. Well now the beliefs of the church can not be entrenched in the minds and hearts of children due to a ridiculous policy. And you think this is a good reason the policy has been instituted??
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 You don't know that and are just speculating here. Also, why force a boy to do this and also ask him to refuse to be in his Father's home in a joint custody situation so he can serve a mission? Who is speculating? Where does the policy address joint custody at all? Hint: it doesn't.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 As much as anyone else here speculating on it. HappyJackWagon and others claim the policy will prevent an active parent from baptizing a child because of a married gay, ex-spouse. I'm doubtful. Don't ask me to disprove a negative assumption until you can show the policy would require that.You don't need to speculate. You can read the actual policy document. It is attached to several of the news articles. It doesn't leave any gray area or room for interpretation. 1
Buckeye Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 As much as anyone else here speculating on it. HappyJackWagon and others claim the policy will prevent an active parent from baptizing a child because of a married gay, ex-spouse. I'm doubtful. Don't ask me to disprove a negative assumption until you can show the policy would require that. Do we know this is a fact, or is this your assumption? People, please read the OP, including the policy itself (bolded this time). A child who has a parent in a SS relationship (married or cohabitating) is barred from baptism, baby blessing, ordination, etc. until she becomes an adult and meets with the SP or MP to (i) disavow her parent's relationship and (ii) seek FP approval for these ordinances. The restrictions kick in simply from the existence of the parent in the relationship. No custody or action by the child matters. Quote The handbook addition also states that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting," can only be baptized, confirmed, ordained to the priesthood or serve a full-time mission with approval from the Office of the First Presidency. A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "the child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage"; and "the child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage." http://www.deseretne...-marriages.html 1
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I detect many here who would probably be happier as Universalist Unitarians. "Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their Elder Brother, being at their head) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, … to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion." -- Brigham Young Edited November 6, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 2
Recommended Posts