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

[Gray]

The Church is using the same definition for "apostasy" as always, which in policy then says, "refers to members who..." do certain things. Same-gender marriage has simply been added to that list of things.

 

Yes, it's not a new problem. Just a growing one.

[KevinG]

Denial for 10 years.  I would imagine it will feel like they have been denied these blessings during that 10 year span if they desire to be baptized, receive the Priesthood or serve a mission.

 

A premature entry into eternal covenants, and subsequent loss of faith due to lack of consistent parental and church influence resulting in eternal loss of blessings would be more cruel.

[The Nehor]

So you can't answer a simple question? Instead you resort to a personal attack.

 

If the church makes children of gay parents wait until they are old enough to make an informed declaration about their gay parents, way can't parents of adult gay children, who are both already adults, be held to the same standard?

 

No, you are being deliberately dense. The new rule is in print for you to read. We all saw the same text. You asked if the same rule applied in reverse. The answer is clearly no or the rule would say that. So either you are attempting to confuse or incite anger or you are very dense. I don't seen any other options here. Please supply one if there is one.

[Gray]

It is really difficult to discuss this in good faith when opponents of the church (including loyal opponent members) are arguing in bad faith.

 

The policy does not deny anyone saving ordinances

The policy does not make children apostates (actual headline today)

The policy is not effectively different than it is for polygamists, muslims, etc.

The policy does not discriminate against those who sin, it discriminates (rightly) against those who act and teach in open opposition to the church laws and doctrines.

 

Most of these bullet points are incorrect. 

[rockpond]

It is really difficult to discuss this in good faith when opponents of the church (including loyal opponent members) are arguing in bad faith.

 

The policy does not deny anyone saving ordinances

The policy does not make children apostates (actual headline today)

The policy is not effectively different than it is for polygamists, muslims, etc.

The policy does not discriminate against those who sin, it discriminates (rightly) against those who act and teach in open opposition to the church laws and doctrines.

 

Not in bad faith.  Deny:  refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone).

 

That it can be received a decade later under extra conditions doesn't change that it has been denied.

[bluebell]

I'll be interested to hear experiences of how the rubber meets the road with this policy, particularly, experiences from missionaries who have the privilege of trying to explain to a 16 year-old referral why they can't join yet because their parents are the same gender. 

 

Referral: "I've read the BOM feel its true and would love to join the Church."

Missionary: "Sorry, you're parents are both chicks. You'll have to wait 2 years, and at that point the first presidency will determine if you can join, as long as you disavow your parents marriage."

Referral: "My parents said they're cool with me joining, can I just join?"

Missionary: "Nope, we only care about the consent of straight, non-polygamous parents."

Referral: "I don't think I want to join your church anymore."

Missionary: "No skin of my back. I couldn't report you as one of my baptisms anyways, but if you know anyone else that's interested let us know if we can share a message of God's love for them!"

 

I've had this conversation with kids who's parents won't let them be baptized as well as Muslim people who we were forbidden to teach.  It's never fun, but in my limited experience, it never changed the person's beliefs in the church.

 

What i've seen cause that change was when the child was asked to denounce their parents' lifestyle as being sinful (and this is also in my very limited experience).

[Gray]

A premature entry into eternal covenants, and subsequent loss of faith due to lack of consistent parental and church influence resulting in eternal loss of blessings would be more cruel.

 

Are we changing our baptismal policies across the board then? Because in the mission field they'll baptize just about anyone who is willing and over age 8

[Mars]

Okay... denial until they are 18, move out of their parent's home, and disavow their parents marriage.  A condition not put on any other sin with the exception of polygamy.

 

Everyone happy with that?

 

Great.  Now go be proud of what our church has done.  Sorry I can't join you.

 

a condition also put on muslim kids.

 

"are you ready to say that the core belief of islam - that Allah is a distinct and different entity who could not have a son, a belief Islam feels is blasphemous - is wrong?"  that's essentially the byproduct of "do you have a testimony of Jesus Christ?"  we're asking them to renounce their cultural heritage and in many cases, sever contact with family.  this is not a target on the backs of gay families, however much it might feel that way.

 

i'm not happy, this doesn't give me the high of hatin' on gay folks.  this sucks.  not every gay marriage is totally ready to love and support the church despite what the church teaches about their marriage.  a lot of gay couples on my fb feed prepend their statements with "not that i'd ever want my children to join that stupid church anyway"

 

gay people have been upset for a LONG TIME (understandably so, i might add) at our teachings about their lifestyle.  and we want to move that fight and pain squarely on the shoulders of young children?

 

it's a painful solution to a painful problem.  proud of what the church is doing?  more like mourning that it has to be done.

 

don't impute that kind of garbage to me, rockpond.  i don't do it to you.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Mars

[CV75]

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

Your interpretation does not qualify as an independent documented source such as scripture (as i provided), I guess you'll have to retract it.

 

Here is what it says: (emphasis mine)

Enough said LOL.

 

I think you're mixing things up, anyway: That link is not to show that the latest revelation is provided in the handbook, that was already provided in the D&C verses). That link shows how the members of the Church obtain the benefit of the revelation provided in the handbook: by consultation with their leaders who share its contents with them as circumstances require (and with the spirit of revelation, by the way).

[Mars]

Are we changing our baptismal policies across the board then? Because in the mission field they'll baptize just about anyone who is willing and over age 8

 

no, they won't.

[CV75]

Yes, it's not a new problem. Just a growing one.

...and?

[Senator]

One of the more uncomfortable teachings of Jesus:

 

Matthew 10:34-38

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

Funny, I don't hear this from the leaders of the church as the driving mantra.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Senator

[KevinG]

 

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."

 

Can you share where this quote is from?  Link?

[bluebell]

None of that is part of the policy.  It doesn't account for that at all.  A child could have a gay parent, living with someone of the same gender, who believes that what he is doing is a sin and the policy STILL prevents the child from being baptized.

 

Meanwhile, a child could be living with a parent in an adulterous relationship who thinks that said relationship is okay and that child can be baptized (this just happened in my ward).

 

It's definitely not exactly the same, but i think the differences (as they affect the mental and emotional well being of the child) are less important than you feel they are.

[canard78]

 

This was posted on the public FB page of Mormons Building Bridges and I posted this on the Apostasy thread, but it addresses your question:

 

"I was born into polygamy and couldn't be baptized until I moved from my mothers home. I was never encouraged to leave and didn't leave until after I was married. Not once did I feel different or not loved by the church, it's members and leadership. In fact it was quite the opposite. I understood the reasoning behind it. My mother was also treated with nothing but kindness. My ward family loved her and so did the leadership with who interviewed me. I waited 8 yrs. I did everything a member did (minus temple work) I even had a calling. The church teaches nothing but to love others. I understand the reasoning behind this. Maybe because I went thru it myself."

"Legally, if an organization can be shown to be interfering with a child and their relationship with their parents, a lawsuit can be brought against them. Even if a gay couple has consented to an underage child being baptized, that child would be learning that their parents' marriage was something their new religion considered a sin. Can you imagine the confusion and heartache it could cause, plus the potential legal ramifications?

This is not only to protect the church, but also those families. I truly believe it is meant to be merciful, not hateful."

 

 

It's just such a horrible double standard.

 

The fact that Mormons are running around in a tizz trying to engineer a justification for such a horrible policy simply illustrates how loyalty to Mormonism trumps reason.

 

You quoted:

 

"Even if a gay couple has consented to an underage child being baptized, that child would be learning that their parents' marriage was something their new religion considered a sin. Can you imagine the confusion and heartache it could cause, plus the potential legal ramifications?

This is not only to protect the church, but also those families. I truly believe it is meant to be merciful, not hateful."

If this is really the justification, then why the double standard? My children continued attending church for several years after their mum (my wife) left the church. Why was I still able to baptise them at 8 into a church that taught that their mum was a living a life that "their new relgion considered a sin." So why were my children considered mature enough to cope with that possible personal dilemma and contradiction, but children of gay parents are not?

I don't buy it, not one second. If that were really the concern then there would be a broader, more consistent policy.

I don't believe this has anything to do with protecting the children and probably far more to do with protecting the membership from associating with gay people. It's very easy to be a bigot until you actually spend time getting to know the person to whom your bigotry is directed. By keeping gay adults and their children at arms length the leadership are reducing the risk of Mormons opening their minds and recognising that the relationships these couples have with each other and their children are genuine, wholesome and productive.

[Gray]

...and?

 

Words mean things. Apostasy is not about whether or not you are living in sin. Or whether or not you fail to follow directions of your stake president. 

Edited November 6, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

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.

 

This passage presupposes the parents are faithful members of the gospel covenant.

 

That same scripture puts the blame on apostate parents, and parents who do not live the law of the gospel.  Squarely where it should be.  Not on the church that is trying to teach and encourage faithfulness in parents and children.

 

There is a huge difference between the age of accountability for a child born in the covenant, and being a legal, independent adult who can make a different moral choice than their parents.

[bluebell]

Can you share where this quote is from?  Link?

 

Yep, sorry.

 

http://fox13now.com/2015/11/05/lds-church-changes-policies-regarding-members-in-same-sex-marriages-their-children/

[Zakuska]

The Policy sure seems to go against Scripture...

Acts 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

[Mars]

I don't buy it, not one second. If that were really the concern then there would be a broader, more consistent policy.

If this is really the justification, then why the double standard? My children continued attending church for several years after their mum (my wife) left the church. Why was I still able to baptise them at 8 into a church that taught that their mum was a living a life that "their new relgion considered a sin." So why were my children considered mature enough to cope with that possible personal dilemma and contradiction, but children of gay parents are not?

 

i think this is a fair question, but i can do without the "lol mormons are so faithful they're stupid" dig, thank you very much.

[rockpond]

don't impute that kind of garbage to me, rockpond.  i don't do it to you.

 

I'm sorry.  Sincerely.  I'm very emotional about this.  Too emotional.  I want to take a break from church and sort through it but I can't.  I'll spend my weekend conducting a baptism, extending callings, conducting sacrament meeting, collecting fast offerings.  Meanwhile I am torn apart inside but have to push it all down because of the responsibilities I've got and commitment to my Bishop and ward.

[rockpond]

Your interpretation does not qualify as an independent documented source such as scripture (as i provided), I guess you'll have to retract it.

 

Enough said LOL.

 

I think you're mixing things up, anyway: That link is not to show that the latest revelation is provided in the handbook, that was already provided in the D&C verses). That link shows how the members of the Church obtain the benefit of the revelation provided in the handbook: by consultation with their leaders who share its contents with them as circumstances require (and with the spirit of revelation, by the way).

 

Your quote of D&C isn't a revelation that explains the policy change.

 

And what I provided wasn't an interpretation... it is what actually happened.

[Nofear]

Funny, I don't hear this from the leaders of the church as the driving mantra.

 

And I doubt you will. Nor do I think it is a driving mantra. Doesn't makes Christ's prophetic words less true.

[Mars]

It's just such a horrible double standard.

 

The fact that Mormons are running around in a tizz trying to engineer a justification for such a horrible policy simply illustrates how loyalty to Mormonism trumps reason.

 

You quoted:

 

"Even if a gay couple has consented to an underage child being baptized, that child would be learning that their parents' marriage was something their new religion considered a sin. Can you imagine the confusion and heartache it could cause, plus the potential legal ramifications?

This is not only to protect the church, but also those families. I truly believe it is meant to be merciful, not hateful."

If this is really the justification, then why the double standard? My children continued attending church for several years after their mum (my wife) left the church. Why was I still able to baptise them at 8 into a church that taught that their mum was a living a life that "their new relgion considered a sin." So why were my children considered mature enough to cope with that possible personal dilemma and contradiction, but children of gay parents are not?

I don't buy it, not one second. If that were really the concern then there would be a broader, more consistent policy.

I don't believe this has anything to do with protecting the children and probably far more to do with protecting the membership from associating with gay people. It's very easy to be a bigot until you actually spend time getting to know the person to whom your bigotry is directed. By keeping gay adults and their children at arms length the leadership are reducing the risk of Mormons opening their minds and recognising that the relationships these couples have with each other and their children are genuine, wholesome and productive.

 

one other thought:

 

i don't know how useful your comparison is.  it'd be different if BOTH of you were atheists who had quit the church but still - for the sake of the example - wanted to baptize your children.  or allowed your children to be taught that the church was true and sanctioned their desire to get baptized.

 

in my experience, when this kind of thing has happened, clarity is sought before moving forward with the baptism rather than "oh whew, they're not gay!  can't have none of those gay folks 'round these parts.  let's fill the waters and git goin'!!!"

 

it's different if one of the parents is a member and the other has divorced and married another person of the same gender, or one parent is still a member and another has left the church.

 

food for thought.

[canard78]

Would you expect them to repudiate a lifestyle of drugs and alcohol? Repudiating a lifestyle is not the same a repudiating a person. No-one is asking them to shun their parents or cut them out of their lives. It is important for these children to understand  (when they become adults) that their parents lifestyle is not in harmony with the teachings of the church. That is all that is being asked. And it would be unkind to ask that of a child, hence, they can choose to be baptized when they are old enough to understand. It's about not putting children in a position where they are forced to deal with adult issues over which they have no control (Thank you Dr. Phil)

 

Baptise them when they are old enough to understand? You mean 8? Or are you admitting that baptising an 8 year old is an irresponsible age to baptise a child? A child who likely believes as strongly in Santa as he or she does in God.

I repeat my earlier question. Why avoid children of gay marriages being put in a position where they have to deal with adult issues over which they have no control, but not take the same caution over children of straight (unmarried) couples?

 

It's a horrible double standard.