Jump to content

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


JAHS

Recommended Posts

Anyone want to guess how many actual cases will happen over the next decade ? This was a policy looking for a problem. It would have been simpler to make a statement that such cases, should they arrive at a Bishop's desk, would require the First Presidency involvement. Given the climate ,I highly doubt there would be more than a couple of cases a year. That presupposes there would not be some political agenda to deliberately cause difficulty as some are wont to do.

Link to comment

 

The definition of responsible is "being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited."  Do you think that's what the church is saying about children of SS parents?

 

I don't think that is what they are saying or that it is what they want to communicate.  But they are preventing them from accessing saving ordinances because of a specific sin of their parents.  Put whatever name you want on it but it certainly conflicts with our doctrine of only being accountable for our own sins.

Link to comment

Obviously you do not know the difference between "apostasy" and the other issues you mentioned.

 

Oh I get it.  Perhaps I missed the article of faith that says "We believe children will be punished -- or denied the blessings of baptism and the HG -- for their own sins EXCEPT if their parents end up being filthy apostates."

 

Are in favor of excommunicating children if their parent's are excommunicated for apostasy?  I'm guessing you must be if you are in favor of denying baptism to children of "apostates."

Link to comment

Maybe you should spend some time perusing LDS groups on Facebook... there is a whole lot of dissonance right now.

Our policies are increasingly becoming contradictory with our scripture. That dissonance will grow.

Dissonance with culture, yes, but dissonant with scripture? How so?

Link to comment

Every child has parents who sin.  This policy singles out children of gay parents and prevents them from accessing saving ordinances until they are adults.

Well now you're quibbling. I explained how apostasy of this kind is a special case requiring special handling. Do you have a question about that?

Link to comment

As for revelation being behind this policy, that is a matter of well-informed faith. Do you really need me to Google a few General Conference talks and Ensign articles for you? Or context support your reading of post #121?

 

CFR that the Brethren are sneaking and hiding as you accused them of!

 

I'm not interested in you googling conference talks.  I asked for a revelation that supports the policy change.  That was the claim you made.  Provide a reference or withdraw the claim.

 

Sneaking:  just a few weeks ago the Brethren had the eyes and ears of church membership during general conference.  They could have mentioned this upcoming change.  Instead, they waited until John Dehlin exposed it on social media.

 

Hiding behind the PA department:  So far, only the public affairs folks have spoken on this issue.  Can you produce a quote from one of our prophets/seers/revelators that speaks to this handbook change?

Link to comment

No.  As if you needed that answered.

Of course that needs answering. How in the world can the church require kids to openly declare the do not agree with the life style of one or both of their parents, move out of their parents house, while at the same time allowing parents to invite their gay married children into their homes?

 

Care to tell me the difference there?

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment

where in the update does it say that? as I read it it says the stake or mission pres. can recommend to the 1st Pres. a child or older for baptism 

 

They have to be 18 before the recommendation can be sought.  That's the policy.

 

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:
 
1.  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.
 
2.  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.
Link to comment

Of course that needs answering. How in the world can the church require kids to openly declare the do not agree with the life style of one or both of their parents, move out of their parents house, while at the same time allowing parents to invite gay couples into their homes?

 

Care to tell me the difference there?

 

Apostasy is much more than not agreeing with a parents lifestyle.  It is open teaching and actions against the laws of the gospel.

 

We are also talking about minor children who are influenced, raised and taught by those parents, not other adults who can freely make covenants as independent agents.

Link to comment

Apostasy is much more than not agreeing with a parents lifestyle.  It is open teaching and actions against the laws of the gospel.

 

We are also talking about minor children who are influenced, raised and taught by those parents, not other adults who can freely make covenants as independent agents.

How then is a parent allowing his gay married child and spouse into their house not an action?

 

Are we also going to be prohibited from attending a gay wedding of our own children or grandchildren?

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment

Oh I get it.  Perhaps I missed the article of faith that says "We believe children will be punished -- or denied the blessings of baptism and the HG -- for their own sins EXCEPT if their parents end up being filthy apostates."

 

Are in favor of excommunicating children if their parent's are excommunicated for apostasy?  I'm guessing you must be if you are in favor of denying baptism to children of "apostates."

No, that's apostates of a particularly difficult kind. In this case due to the juxtaposition of loving, nurturing parents who are instilling in the innocent an appreciation of a covenant that is completely antithetical to the doctrines of the Church. Someone brought up like that is going to need some special attention, and they get it (otherwise they would not want to be baptized in the first place).

 

(You guess wrong!)

Link to comment
 

As i said before, i've read it.  

 

It does not address children who have never lived with a SS parent or who have no contact with such parents (which would be very sad for the child and the parent but that does happen regardless of sexual orientation).  

 

I can't believe I have to spell this out is so much detail. Let's look at the baby blessing statement first:

  • "A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing."
  1. Baby is the child of Susan. 
  2. Susan lives in a same-gender relationship.
  3. Baby therefore cannot receive a name and a blessing

As you can see, nothing in the statement references where, or who, Baby lives with.  If Baby lives full time with biological father James, it does not matter. Baby is excluded by the mere fact that Susan is her mom and Susan lives in a SS relationship.

 

Now let's look at the other statement:

 

  • "A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be  baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: 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:
    • 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. 
    • 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."
  • Sarah is the child of Susan.
  • Susan lives in a same-gender relationship.
  • In order for Sarah to be baptized, her MP or SP must request approval from the FP. The approval must specify (i) that Sarah disavows the "practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage," (ii) that Sarah is of legal age, and (iii) that Sarah does not live with Susan.
  • Therefore, Sarah cannot be baptized until she turns 18 (the legal age in the US).

Again, nothing in the statement references where, or who, Sarah lives with.  If Sarah lives full time with biological father James, it does not matter. Sarah is excluded from baptism by the mere fact that Susan is her mom and Susan lives in a SS relationship.

 

The key phrase is "parent living in a same-gender relationship." The "living" has to refer to the parent, not the child, because if the child was living in a same-gender relationship the new policy would be unnecessary - the child would not meet the church standards in her own regard.

Link to comment

I don't think that is what they are saying or that it is what they want to communicate.  But they are preventing them from accessing saving ordinances because of a specific sin of their parents.  Put whatever name you want on it but it certainly conflicts with our doctrine of only being accountable for our own sins.

 

Again though, the children are not being held accountable for any of their parents sins, you're already admitted that.  Also, our doctrine specifically teaches that no one will be judged for not being able to receive any ordinance when it was out of their control.  

 

These children will not lose out on any blessing because of choices their parents have made, and perpetuating the idea that blessings are being withheld from these children seems disingenuous, since you know it's not true.

Link to comment

Hey Kevin -- explain to me how Children are accountable for the actions of their parents?

 

This concept just completely upends the Articles of Faith.

 

 

They are not.  That isn't even an issue with this policy.

 

What the policy does in effect is prevent a minor child making covenants in opposition to the teachings of their parent(s).  When they are grown and independent they can participate fully in all of the ordinances and blessings of the Gospel.

Link to comment

No, that's apostates of a particularly difficult kind. In this case due to the juxtaposition of loving, nurturing parents who are instilling in the innocent an appreciation of a covenant that is completely antithetical to the doctrines of the Church. Someone brought up like that is going to need some special attention, and they get it (otherwise they would not want to be baptized in the first place).

 

(You guess wrong!)

 

So you are being inconsistent then.  Thats OK.  Cool for you to admit it.  :)

 

Atheism is also antithetical to the teachings of the Church.  Should children of atheists also be denied baptism?

Link to comment

 

They have to be 18 before the recommendation can be sought.  That's the policy.

 

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:
 
1.  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.
 
2.  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.

 

 

 

hmm, odd I read legal age as being over eight, which is why they used the word "child" BUT some 18 yr olds are children :crazy:

Link to comment

Of course it is!  Why should a child be denied the blessings of baptism and the HG for 10 years?  

 

Their parents might think about that before leaving their other parent to live in a homosexual relationship.

 

In the case of adoptive parents they might not want to encourage a child to make covenants in opposition to their own beliefs.

 

Either situation is a cruelty to that minor child.

Link to comment

Again it would be a cruelty to baptize a minor child into a covenant that their own parents oppose. 

Are you willing to expand that to ALL children of parents who don't support the covenants made at baptism or in the temple?  Or just who have parents that are gay?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...