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

[The Nehor]

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?

 

Don't be deliberately dense. You are dense enough already.

[Mars]

Quite the contrast.  

 

indeed.  mormon belief doesn't say unbaptized people/children are denied access to heaven.

[ALarson]

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

Are you sure about that?  I think you're wrong here.

 

(I think I misread you.  Are you saying that Catholics DO believe this?)

Edited November 6, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

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?

Is there not opposition in all things - even the covenants they've made?

 

There is simply no way around the fact that children of gay parents are being treated, by policy, differently than other children. They are not being allowed to make decisions for themselves even when the parents support the decision to be baptized, ordained, etc.

 

This policy wreaks of control. The plan involves allowing people to make their own decisions NOT having a paternal organization make our decisions for us in an effort to ensure our salvation. That is the antithesis of the plan of salvation.

[Mars]

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.

 

i'm sorry that your ex-wife has made it so difficult on you to keep a relationship with your children.  that must be difficult.

[SmileyMcGee]

Same principle it seems to me as children in polygamous families.

I think it is wise because it could create situations where grandparents get their grandchildren blessed or baptized and then later on this causes contention plus older children would be placed in positions that they might feel they had to choose between honouring their parents or the Church.

This would be no different in the case of children with non-lds parents and lds grandparents. An lds child in a home where the parents are of another faith could (and likely has) caused serious contention and may make them feel like they are choosing between honoring their parents or the church. So why not exclude children of non-lds parents?

 

I agree with you that these things would likely happen in a home with same-gender parents, but I don't know that it is the impetus behind the policy change. 

Edited November 6, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Mars]

Are you sure about that?  I think you're wrong here.

 

which part?  i'm fairly certain mormons aren't catholic... 

[Gray]

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

 

The idea that gay marriage is apostasy is nonsensical. It's like saying that yellow is heavy. 

Edited November 6, 2015 by Gray

[rockpond]

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

 

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

 

I cited the evidence.  Nothing else to link to.  Their actions are the evidence.

 

As for your link... it still does not support your claim that there was a revelation behind this policy change.  Nor does it claim that the Handbooks are revelation.  Here is what it says: (emphasis mine)

 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has taught, “While [the] handbooks do not have the same standing as the scriptures, they do represent the most current interpretations and procedural directions of the Church’s highest authorities.”1 President Russell M. Nelson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, added that those authorities—the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—are men of “seasoned maturity, experience, and extensive preparation.”2

 

Thus, the Church handbooks reflect the collective wisdom—derived from tested, proven experiences—of prophets and apostles. That wisdom teaches us the best way to achieve good results in carrying out the mission of the Church over time. The Lord has counseled, “Seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom” (D&C 88:118; 109:7). Certainly, the wisdom in the handbooks qualifies them as “best books.”

[KevinG]

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.

 

They can attend, they can worship, they can be around members, and so can their gay parents.  They are only restricted from entering into the baptismal covenant or being made members of record.

 

I have first hand witnessed and counseled children of non-member parents.  And even in the best circumstances (open parental support of their choice) the challenges faced by some caused them to drift away from that covenant.

[rockpond]

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.  

 

I wasn't assuming that but the interpretation I was responding to did not reflect a full understanding of Section 6.

[KevinG]

Is there not opposition in all things - even the covenants they've made?

 

There is simply no way around the fact that children of gay parents are being treated, by policy, differently than other children. They are not being allowed to make decisions for themselves even when the parents support the decision to be baptized, ordained, etc.

 

This policy wreaks of control. The plan involves allowing people to make their own decisions NOT having a paternal organization make our decisions for us in an effort to ensure our salvation. That is the antithesis of the plan of salvation.

 

You go ahead and add your own opposition to your children's faith.  Its not like they face enough in the world.

[Mars]

Are you sure about that?  I think you're wrong here.

 

(I think I misread you.  Are you saying that Catholics DO believe this?)

 

perhaps i ought to clarify, as our contexts might not match.

 

the impetus for catholic infant baptism is those who perish without it are condemned.  mormons do not share this belief.  delay of baptism until such a time as when the choice between supporting gay parents in their relationship or disavowing it carries no risk of condemnation per mormon belief.

 

as such, saying "yay pope!  yay catholics!  yay catholic baptism of children of gay parents" and "boo mormons!  boo no baptism at age 8 of children of gay parents! because catholics do!!"  isn't a proper comparison.  our belief on what baptism is and what it requires and what it allows for/prevents in terms of condemnation are different.

[bluebell]

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.

 

My friend was 'rejected by the church' as a child because it would not let her get baptized until 18 without her parents' consent.  (Though she would laugh and roll her eyes if she heard you call her experience "a rejection of her by the church").  I can tell you that in my experience, that policy did not change her view of the church at all.  The three people that had that happen to them when i was on my mission also did not lose interest in the church because of that policy.  

 

I think that the teaching of the church on SSM would cause a child of such a parent or parents to feel much more rejected than the policy ever would.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

If the church doesn't mean for this policy to be interpreted as it is written, it had better start editing and revising the policy.

 

Buckeye is exactly right. It identifies the subject, which is a child of a gay parent, married or cohabitating and doesn't make a difference where the parent lives or what the custody arrangement is.

 

That's how it is written.

What you seem to be waiting for is the church to tell us that it doesn't mean what it says.

[rockpond]

My friend was 'rejected by the church' as a child because it would not let her get baptized until 18 without her parents' consent.  (Though she would laugh and roll her eyes if she heard you call her experience "a rejection of her by the church").  I can tell you that in my experience, that policy did not change her view of the church at all.  The three people that had that happen to them when i was on my mission also did not lose interest in the church because of that policy.  

 

I think that the teaching of the church on SSM would cause a child of such a parent or parents to feel much more rejected than the policy ever would.

 

I think the policy increases the feeling of rejection.

 

But our teachings shouldn't make them feel rejected either.

[KevinG]

Somehow I'm not feeling bound by the interpretation of the Handbook instructions on the families of gay marriage, by someone who is openly opposed to the churches teachings on homosexuality.

 

Go figure?

[Mars]

The idea that gay marriage is apostasy is nonsensical. It's like saying that yellow is heavy. 

 

google: define apostasy

 

a·pos·ta·sy

əˈpästəsē/

noun

noun: apostasy; plural noun: apostasies

1. the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

    

in the context of mormon apostasy, i think 'gay marriage == apostasy' is spot on.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Mars

[Walden]

Children can't be punished for parental sin (meaning, they are not considered to be sinful just because their parents sinned-they don't need to repent of anything).  Children are never free of the consequences of their parents sins in mortality.  We aren't free of the consequences of adam's sin, even though we aren't held accountable for it.  This policy seems to work the same way for the children of ss adults.  I'm not seeing the conflict.

 

Do you believe that with this policy the church is teaching that the children of SS parents are sinful and are accountable for their parents' sins?

 

I get that bishops have some leeway, but if the handbook says specifically "you cannot baptize these people" can the bishop baptize those people and he retain his calling?  Is there a line that a bishop cannot cross?

 

My question would be, why is the church exclusively focused on this particular parental sin....why does this exclusive parental sin forbid children from fully participating in the church versus other parental sins? If both parents were adulterers, would the church withhold their children's full participation in the church? If both parents are lying, cheating, abusive, alcoholic/drug-addled thieves, the church does not restrict the participation of their children.

 

God forbid that believing, obedient children raised in a loving home by same-sex parents should be accountable for their own sins.

 

This policy makes no sense, and it is a manipulative and hurtful and sad policy, and makes me glad that I am no longer a member of the LDS church. 

[ALarson]

perhaps i ought to clarify, as our contexts might not match.

 

the impetus for catholic infant baptism is those who perish without it are condemned.  mormons do not share this belief.  delay of baptism until such a time as when the choice between supporting gay parents in their relationship or disavowing it carries no risk of condemnation per mormon belief.

 

Ok.  Gotcha.  And we agree on this

[Buckeye]

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?

 

Silly me. I thought the following scripture was still in effect. I guess I'll just take my kids out of the church now. Apparently it's in their own interest that they not learn about Christ, nor take upon his name, until they're an adult.

 

 

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

 

 26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.

 

 27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

[Buckeye]

Somehow I'm not feeling bound by the interpretation of the Handbook instructions on the families of gay marriage, by someone who is openly opposed to the churches teachings on homosexuality.

 

Go figure?

 

How about someone who can read english?

[SmileyMcGee]

Having different beliefs is not defined as a sin so I don't see it as being inconsistent, though the Church does have a policy of not allowing baptisms unless the parents give permission iirc.  I am pretty sure missionaries are not to teach under age minors without parents' permission.

 

Unwed parents...don't know.  I do think this probably would be a good idea if the child was living with or at times with parents or parent who were unwed and cohabitating.

Ah, but in addition to being in a SSM, formally joining another church is considered apostasy. If parents who were once members join another church are their children barred from joining the church until they are 18 (even if their parents consent before then)? The issue being argued is that of consistency--wondering why SSM is being singled out and not other forms of apostasy. 

[Daniel2]

Subject to the particularly faith- and covenant-undermining circumstance of being raised and indoctrinated by a same-gender couple, a person needs time to see the bigger Gospel picture and demonstrate that he captures it, and so the body of Christ shepherds him in a particularly attentive and sensitive manner so that all receive the full blessings of D&C 20:37.

 

Bull.  As a BYU-graduate, returned missionary, and very happily FORMER-latter-day saint, who is happily married to an amazing husband, father, and grandfather (who's also an RM and still regularly is invited to sing at LDS memorial services), both my husband and I have been VERY supportive of our children who have chosen to pursue membership and activity in the LDS Faith.  We have attempted on EVERY occasion to be supportive of our kids; funding ward scouting jamborees, helping prep for Girls' camp, financially contributing to mission funds, weekly fast offerings, and ward fund-raisers, attending Standards' Night, Mission farewells, baptisms, and blessings, driving them to church services, weekly young men and women activities, and achievement days, Temple Square concerts, and even General Conference... 

 

NEVER have I caused or leveraged either my love for my children or my love for and marriage to my husband as a wedge between my children and I, nor between my children and the church.  NEVER have I demanded that my children disavow the church's teachings regarding same-sex relationships--I have only taught and expected them to respect that my beliefs differ from theirs, and taught them to treat those who have different beliefs (including differences between family members) with respect, love, and understanding--which I thought was what the LDS church taught, anyway...

 

Now, the CHURCH has chosen to made MY marriage a wedge between my children and the church, and as a wedge of hostility, resentment, and alienation between my children and I.  It is NOT my husband's behavior nor mine--it is your church.  We have not made THE CHURCH our enemy--THE CHURCH has made US their enemy, and caused unnecessary contention between family members.

 

As a founder of the Utah Gay Father's Association (most of whom are in my same position as my husband and I, being RMs, BYU grads, and fathers who love and support our LDS kids), I can unequivocally say you are unknowingly and unrighteously mischaracterizing and passing judgment on supportive gay parents for false "faith-and covenant-undermining indoctrination" here. 

Edited November 6, 2015 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

My question would be, why is the church exclusively focused on this particular parental sin....why does this exclusive parental sin forbid children from fully participating in the church versus other parental sins? If both parents were adulterers, would the church withhold their children's full participation in the church? If both parents are lying, cheating, abusive, alcoholic/drug-addled thieves, the church does not restrict the participation of their children.

 

God forbid that believing, obedient children raised in a loving home by same-sex parents should be accountable for their own sins.

 

This policy makes no sense, and it is a manipulative and hurtful and sad policy, and makes me glad that I am no longer a member of the LDS church.

 

I would guess that it's because this particular sin is considered apostasy by the church, and also that living within the culture of SSM while being asked to accept the teachings of the church regarding SSM would be difficult for a child to resolve.  The church generally goes the route that the less conflict in a family, the better.  It has often created policies meant to lessen such conflict, especially for kids.

 

I'm guessing this is the reason because it matches the reasons given for why the church generally won't allow polygamist children or Muslims to be baptized.

 

Per the words of the church-"the concern is that the expectations of church attendance, baptism, priesthood ordination and other ordinances would put the child in a very difficult position, considering the parents could not be church members. And, the teachings in the home most likely would not be consistent with LDS Church doctrine."