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

[sethpayne]

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.

 

Ok.  So we should stop baptizing all children who are raised in atheist homes as well?  What about Muslim or Buddhist homes?  Some of those teachings are VERY different from Church teachings/norms.

Edited November 6, 2015 by sethpayne

[KevinG]

Ok.  So we should stop baptizing all children who are raised in atheist homes as well?  What about Muslim or Buddhist homes?  Some of those teachings are VERY different from Church teachings/norms.

 

You are conflating a difference of belief with apostasy.  

 

Even then, if it were my call I would be very hesitant to recommend a family allow their minor child to be baptized into a faith that is not somewhat consistent with their own beliefs.

[rockpond]

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.

 

They won't lose out on any blessings???

 

You don't consider your baby blessing a blessing?  Your baptism and confirmation?  Serving a mission isn't a blessing?  Participating in the church isn't a blessing?

 

If you want to narrowly define accountable and responsible such that this policy fits within your understanding of doctrine, I can accept that.

 

But I cannot accept that these kids won't be missing out on blessings.

[bluebell]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

You can spell it out as much as you want.  The church has not stated how children will be handled who do not live with or have contact with SS parents who are cohabitation or married.  Nothing you say or try to interpret changes that.  

 

Let's wait for the church to tell us exactly what they mean.

[CV75]

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.

I won’t withdraw a statement made on well-informed faith. But this covers the latest policy: D&C 1:38-39; 43:24-25).

 

It is obvious you are not interested in Googling conference talks, but I suppose you know what talks I'm referring to anyway (those that speak to the Brethren operating the affairs of the Church by revelation, how involved the Lord is with the Church's activities, etc.).

 

Sneaking: 

Hiding:

I get it -- it's how you view things but you can’t cite a reference for it! Do some legitimate research.

[RevTestament]

The handbook already identified homosexual behavior as grounds for excommunication.  This week's handbook change added to that and made same-gender marriage equivalent to apostasy (a different category than adultery/fornication with different discipline requirements).

 

You might want to study the entire section of Handbook 1.  There is a lot of detail there that you are missing.

One can repent of a homosexual act. One can repent of an adulterous act.

Entering an ongoing covenant is a hard thing to "repent" of. It's an intentional cold shoulder to the authority of the church - whether it be a polygamous marriage or a homosexual one. I understand the distinction. I imagine somewhere in all that material, the reader should understand that to continue unrepentant down a sinful road is apostasy. To continue to push for practices contrary to the teachings of the church is apostasy. I think Kate Kelly may understand that. To enter such unions is to intentionally and ignoringly (I know) continue down a path which is contrary to the law of the Lord. That is the definition of apostasy according to the church. I don't really think they need to spell it out for each type of possible apostate act.  Again, I don't see "a change" - just some additional directness about it to those who may argue otherwise.

[Mystery Meat]

One thought for perspective: In areas of the world where the church is growing the fastest, this policy will be embraced and accepted.

[rockpond]

I won’t withdraw a statement made on well-informed faith. But this covers the latest policy: D&C 1:38-39; 43:24-25).

 

It is obvious you are not interested in Googling conference talks, but I suppose you know what talks I'm referring to anyway (those that speak to the Brethren operating the affairs of the Church by revelation, how involved the Lord is with the Church's activities, etc.).

 

I get it -- it's how you view things but you can’t cite a reference for it! Do some legitimate research.

 

I get it -- it's revelation because you have faith that it is.  But they haven't bothered to provide any such revelation to us, the members of the church.

 

I've done legitimate research and I've cited the evidence that supports my claim.

[CA Steve]

Meanwhile the pope is encouraging Catholic priests to baptize children of gay parents.

 

http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/pope-francis-tells-priests-do-not-deny-baptisms

[CV75]

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

LOL you obviously have a simplistic, unnuanced interpretation...

 

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

Atheism does not go so far as to mimic an original covenant and assert the legitimacy of that covenant; it is simply a decided lack of belief in the existence of God, and by extension that He has authorized the covenant of marriage.

[KevinG]

They won't lose out on any blessings???

 

You don't consider your baby blessing a blessing?  Your baptism and confirmation?  Serving a mission isn't a blessing?  Participating in the church isn't a blessing?

 

If you want to narrowly define accountable and responsible such that this policy fits within your understanding of doctrine, I can accept that.

 

But I cannot accept that these kids won't be missing out on blessings.

 

In fact the opposite is true.  If a child is raised with opposition to the covenant they made, they are much less likely to adhere to those covenants, than if they wait until adulthood and enter into them as an independent agent.

 

Enduring in faith to the end will be much easier for the adult.

 

Take off the gay lens for a moment and think this through with Muslim parents, Polygamist parents, Ordain Women parents, or anyone else in active opposition to the teachings and doctrines of the church.  Do you really suppose it is a mercy to enter that child into a covenant as opposed to having them wait until they are their own adult?

[rockpond]

One can repent of a homosexual act. One can repent of an adulterous act.

Entering an ongoing covenant is a hard thing to "repent" of. It's an intentional cold shoulder to the authority of the church - whether it be a polygamous marriage or a homosexual one. I understand the distinction. I imagine somewhere in all that material, the reader should understand that to continue unrepentant down a sinful road is apostasy. To continue to push for practices contrary to the teachings of the church is apostasy. I think Kate Kelly may understand that. To enter such unions is to intentionally and ignoringly (I know) continue down a path which is contrary to the law of the Lord. That is the definition of apostasy according to the church. I don't really think they need to spell it out for each type of possible apostate act.  Again, I don't see "a change" - just some additional directness about it to those who may argue otherwise.

 

Being in a calling where I have to participate in disciplinary councils, I was familiar with the handbook section before the change, and have now read it after the change.  You are obviously not familiar with the section or what the changes indicate.  Kindly do some reading before you continue making incorrect assumptions about the change.

[Mars]

You are conflating a difference of belief with apostasy.  

 

Even then, if it were my call I would be very hesitant to recommend a family allow their minor child to be baptized into a faith that is not somewhat consistent with their own beliefs.

 

i don't understand why this thought process is so prone to criticism.

 

people are trying to find these inconsistencies that make it so that the church is singling out gay parents.

 

the only reason the policy specifically names minor children of gay marriages is because of the cutural crossroads we find (found) ourselves at.

 

children whose parents have beliefs, practices, or habits that are contrary to the gospel will have a thorough vetting process.  this is not crazy or kooky talk, this is common sense.  at home you will hear one thing.  at church you will hear another.  at church you will be told to honor your parents, whose beliefs, opinions, and practices will be contrary to what the church teaches.  and in the case of gay married couples, in a very real way and not just a "my dad doesn't believe in God" kind of way.  just by virtue of two men being your parents, the church will be saying one thing and your parents another.

 

i'm mystified at why people are so angry at this.

 

would we want the church to actively bless infants to put them on the path that eventually leads to them saying their parents marriage is sinful?  or that we want access to baptize them to achieve the same means?

 

mystified.

[cynth]

Those teaching and living in same sex relationships are now considered apostate.  Technically and practically speaking this is accurate since the church is in opposition to that practice in precept and doctrine.

 

Claiming that a child of a same sex married person cannot attend and participate in church with an active divorced parent who does sustain the church is reading too much into the handbook of instructions.  It is not a likely scenario.  

Maybe you can clarify, it looks like the policy says the 'child of a parent...' has to go through the process, including getting approval from the first presidency and disavowing SSM in order to be named and blessed, baptized, ordained, etc. 

 

The way the policy is stated, even if they live with a parent who is fully compliant with Mormon conditions, it seems it required that the child has to go through this difficult process.

 

If you are arguing that the child can attend and participate, then it would be the same as a nonmember or visitor attending and participating, correct?  That is quite a burden to put on a child.  Consider a 12 year old finding out he cannot be ordained with all of his classmates without going through the above process, solely because of a parent.

[rockpond]

In fact the opposite is true.  If a child is raised with opposition to the covenant they made, they are much less likely to adhere to those covenants, than if they wait until adulthood and enter into them as an independent agent.

 

Enduring in faith to the end will be much easier for the adult.

 

Take off the gay lens for a moment and think this through with Muslim parents, Polygamist parents, Ordain Women parents, or anyone else in active opposition to the teachings and doctrines of the church.  Do you really suppose it is a mercy to enter that child into a covenant as opposed to having them wait until they are their own adult?

 

You think they are going to have any interest as an adult after being rejected by the church as a child?  Good luck with that.

[Okrahomer]

• 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.

 

 

According to KSL, Sarah would have to live with Susan.

 

"The LDS Church confirmed Thursday that children living with same-sex parents or guardians will not be allowed membership in the church until reaching "legal age" and the individual "disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage."

Edited November 6, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Daniel2]

Ahh.....and there it is!

 

I was waiting to hear of "legal ramifications" being the impetus behind this policy.

 

Speaking of legal ramifications, as a former-Mormon, openly gay father who has had to fight tooth and nail to maintain even a small shred of custody of and relationship with my children in the face of overwhelming parental alienation by my actively-LDS former wife, I have already experienced pro-LDS bias in the family court system in the Provo District Court.

 

I dread the impact that this policy will further have in an already pro-LDS, pro-Mother-preference  court system when deciding custody of children who's parents divorce because one parent was counseled by his/her former bishops to "just get married and start having kids, and your homosexual desires will diminish."  LDS judges now have another reason to place such children in the LDS parent's custodial care, regardless of other parental-fitness factors.

[CV75]

I get it -- it's revelation because you have faith that it is.  But they haven't bothered to provide any such revelation to us, the members of the church.

The D&C references cover it, and say it is revelation. The latest revelation is provided in the handbook obviously, where the members of the Church will have the greatest benefit (in consultation with heir leaders who share it with them as circumstances require). I knew I'd have to post this link eventually *sigh* poor me: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng

 

I've done legitimate research and I've cited the evidence that supports my claim.

Then post it or link it right here! Thank you in advance!

[Mars]

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.

 

anecdotal evidence: on my mission in france in the early 2000s, we were required to obtain area authority presidency permission to teach muslims.  we were strictly forbidden from talking to muslim women per mission rules.  we were also never spoke to children only, irrespective of faith/culture/religion, and since there were few (none?) families where a parent was muslim and the other a practicing mormon, this point was moot.

 

1st presidency permission was necessary to baptize any muslim who wanted it.  in years past, both missionaries and muslims who were being taught or wanted to be baptized, were  physically threatened by the convert's extended circle that if things continued, there would be problems.

[Mars]

The way the policy is stated, even if they live with a parent who is fully compliant with Mormon conditions, it seems it required that the child has to go through this difficult process.

 

which part of the policy led you to believe that this is the case?

[Gray]

Yet these definitions are in agreement with the ancient, scriptural definition of the word. Interesting.

 

I don't know that that's true. 

[KevinG]

Being in a calling where I have to participate in disciplinary councils, I was familiar with the handbook section before the change, and have now read it after the change.  You are obviously not familiar with the section or what the changes indicate.  Kindly do some reading before you continue making incorrect assumptions about the change.

 

Don't assume those of us who disagree with you have not or are not serving in positions where we use the Handbook #1 to guide our stewardships.

 

I am familiar with the handbook before, and have read the section after.

 

And he is absolutely right about the differences between non-belief and active apostasy.

 

The biggest reason gay marriage is now specifically listed is because it is an issue that is current, and needed clarification.  

[bluebell]

They won't lose out on any blessings???

 

You don't consider your baby blessing a blessing?  Your baptism and confirmation?  Serving a mission isn't a blessing?  Participating in the church isn't a blessing?

 

If you want to narrowly define accountable and responsible such that this policy fits within your understanding of doctrine, I can accept that.

 

But I cannot accept that these kids won't be missing out on blessings.

 

I agree that they are missing out on blessings because of the choices of their parents.  I'm guessing that that is one reason the church views SSM as apostasy and such a serious sin-the consequences of it are huge and affect many innocent people.  

 

That happens all the time though and has nothing to do with the kids and says absolutely nothing about the kids.  It's not a punishment of the children, nor a judgement against them.  As i said before, children have always been subject to the consequences of the sins of their parents.  That reality has never conflicted with A of F 2.

 

Remember that we're discussing the meaning of that specific article of faith.  This policy does not conflict with the doctrine taught in A of F 2, as you've admitted.  A of F 2 is about eternal punishment and personal responsibility, and the church is not suggesting that these children are sinful, have anything to repent of, or are responsible for their inability to receive these blessings while children because of the choices of their parents.  

 

If you don't like the policy, if you think it's cheating kids or harmful to kids or whatever else then that's valid, but don't try to suggest that the reason it's bad is because it conflicts with the church's article of faith.  It conflicts with an inaccurate and non doctrinal view of A of F 2, not the church's actual teachings on that verse.  

[ALarson]

Meanwhile the pope is encouraging Catholic priests to baptize children of gay parents.

 

http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/pope-francis-tells-priests-do-not-deny-baptisms

Quite the contrast.  

[Mars]

Meanwhile the pope is encouraging Catholic priests to baptize children of gay parents.

 

http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/pope-francis-tells-priests-do-not-deny-baptisms

 

mormons ain't catholic.  lack of mormon baptism != condemnation to hell.  that's not true for catholics.

 

mormons want to delay the choice until such a time that it's more clear to the person being baptized what they're getting into.  mormons think this can happen at 8, 18, 81, or after death.  when isn't so much the point.