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

[rockpond]

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.

 

Well, I'll give the Brethren (not PA) some time to explain this and, hopefully, retract it.

 

But ultimately, this may be a final straw.  For me it is a rejection of scripture and a mean-spirited attack on the children of gay people.

[Mars]

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.

 

it's fine, don't worry about it.

[bluebell]

I think the policy increases the feeling of rejection.

 

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

 

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't agree.  

 

Like i've said, i have limited experience with kids who have been kept from being baptized because of policy, and none of them felt rejected by the church (especially and specifically because they were still very much welcome at church and were obviously wanted and loved by the members) regardless of them not being able to be baptized.

 

And i agree that it's never good when church teachings make people feel rejected, but that is not a reason to change a teaching that you believe comes from God.  Christ was clear-His teachings will cause conflict, even among loved ones.  

 

We all have to be willing for the gospel to make us uncomfortable sometimes.  That is something that adults are capable of dealing with but which asking of children is not really fair.

[Buckeye]

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.

 

Kids don't only have one parent. Quite often there is a faithful member parent. Would you say that such a parent is no longer under the obligation to teach her children faith, repentance and baptism simply because her ex-husband is living in a SS relationship?

[bluebell]

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.

 

If these children had already received the gift of the Holy Ghost, you'd have a point.  But since that hasn't happened, the comparison isn't reasonable.

[Meadowchik]

Other than the denial of saving ordinances.

Postponed, not denied.

[KevinG]

Well, I'll give the Brethren (not PA) some time to explain this and, hopefully, retract it.

 

But ultimately, this may be a final straw.  For me it is a rejection of scripture and a mean-spirited attack on the children of gay people.

 

You might find yourself more at home with the Unitarian Universalists.  My brother is one, and I respect him very much.  We just differ on the question of authority.

[CV75]

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. 

Bull? Naturally, as a founder of the Utah Gay Father's Association you can unequivocally say that the example set for a child by loving couples in a same-gender marriage or relationship is not a "faith-and covenant-undermining indoctrination." A dependent/minor child who is raised by good people who love him, but who engage in a covenant or relationship that the Church does not doctrinally recognize or allow, cannot help but get indoctrinated by the conflicting example and values, no matter how supportive the couple is of him in pursuing membership and activity in the LDS Church.

 

Here's the "bull" -- a loving gay father not admitting his example isn't in conflict with the teachings of the Church he left, an example that will not be rejected out-of-hand by the innocents he is raising, no matter how much lip-service he gives them about making their own choices.

 

Does the Utah Gay Father's Association have a stance on this policy?

[bluebell]

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.

Or, it could provide clarification for bishops that have questions on a case by case basis.

 

The church doesn't have to make sure that every person who has a problem with a policy understands it perfectly.  The policy wasn't written for every person.  rockpond has already pointed out the gray area that exists and places where bishops could interpret it differently.

[Buckeye]

 

 
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."

 

BB, it appears that the news reports are saying something different from the literal language of the Handbook statement. For another reference, see this post at FAIRMormon, which also says the policy applies only to children living in a SS household (http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/11/06/a-look-at-the-churchs-new-policy-on-children-of-gay-couples/).  I tend to believe the actual document over news reports, but at least this gives me hope that the document is wrong and will be revised to better fit with a more lenient intent of the FP/Q12. 

 

If the policy is limited to kids in SS households, that will cut down a lot of the harm. But there would still be questions as to split custody, etc. And there would still be kids harmed. Just fewer.

 

ETA: If I were a bishop faced with this situation, I certainly would use the news reports to seek clarification before taking any action.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Buckeye

[Meadowchik]

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.

Dude. Hugs to you.

I'm trying to understand, too.

I'll pray that we can get some help in that!

[KevinG]

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

 

I wish we would.  I've seen too much heartbreak from doing that.

 

On the other hand I have seen the power of a youth waiting until they were 18 to be baptized without needing parental permission, and remaining faithful.

 

Before we impart cruelty to the church perhaps we ought to be looking at the parents who rejected their first spouse and family and decided to take a gay partner in the first place?

[Nofear]

Well, I'll give the Brethren (not PA) some time to explain this and, hopefully, retract it.

 

But ultimately, this may be a final straw.  For me it is a rejection of scripture and a mean-spirited attack on the children of gay people.

 

Public Affairs already confirmed the leak as essentially being accurate. Nor does Public Affairs say anything but it is vetted by the Brethren. They try very hard to accurately convey the position of the Church.

[CV75]

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. 

Well, I explained that to you already. Do you have a question aboutthe difference between "definition" and "referral" or "application"?

[rockpond]

You might find yourself more at home with the Unitarian Universalists.  My brother is one, and I respect him very much.  We just differ on the question of authority.

 

It would be difficult for me to attend any church other than the LDS Church... that's where my testimony is and it's where my faith has been built.  

[rockpond]

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't agree.  

 

Like i've said, i have limited experience with kids who have been kept from being baptized because of policy, and none of them felt rejected by the church (especially and specifically because they were still very much welcome at church and were obviously wanted and loved by the members) regardless of them not being able to be baptized.

 

And i agree that it's never good when church teachings make people feel rejected, but that is not a reason to change a teaching that you believe comes from God.  Christ was clear-His teachings will cause conflict, even among loved ones.  

 

We all have to be willing for the gospel to make us uncomfortable sometimes.  That is something that adults are capable of dealing with but which asking of children is not really fair.

 

I'm willing to be made uncomfortable by the gospel.  But this is not the gospel.

[CA Steve]

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.

Umm try actually reading what I said. I asked if we were "going" to be prohibited, not if we are.

 

The question I am asking isn't if the current church policy says this, but more about why it could not also (note the acknowledgement that it doesn't) be extended in the future to parents of gay married children.

[KevinG]

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.

 

I recommend you confess your difficulty with the brethren's decision to the Bishop, then let the consequences follow.  

 

You are no help at all going through the motions if you cannot sustain the authority from which your calling is derived.

[rockpond]

Public Affairs already confirmed the leak as essentially being accurate. Nor does Public Affairs say anything but it is vetted by the Brethren. They try very hard to accurately convey the position of the Church.

 

I have access to the online Handbook so I knew the changes were accurate yesterday.

 

What I'm looking for is an explanation that makes me not think we've completely gone off the rails with this.

[Meadowchik]

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.

That's not quite fair, your "tizz" remark.

Plenty are running around calling foul in angry exaggeration of the policy.

Some of us are trying to understand and, by dialogue, trying to do so with multiple input.

[CV75]

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.

Oh my... the verses in D&C say that the voice of the Lord comes through His servants. His servants spoke, in this case, through the handbook.

 

What you provided is a cartoonish representation of what you suppose happened, and not properly documented anywhere else.

[bluebell]

Well, I'll give the Brethren (not PA) some time to explain this and, hopefully, retract it.

 

But ultimately, this may be a final straw.  For me it is a rejection of scripture and a mean-spirited attack on the children of gay people.

 

Your's would be a great loss to the church.   But it's understandable that you have to go to a church that you believe contains God's doctrines and is also lead by Him.

[KevinG]

It would be difficult for me to attend any church other than the LDS Church... that's where my testimony is and it's where my faith has been built.  

 

Then you should probably take time to ask God why the brethren have made this policy you will be called upon to enforce, rather than spend time arguing against the authority your calling is derived from.

 

I am a convert, so I know first hand the difficulty of following ones conscience over the traditions and expectations of culture and family.  I also know firsthand the struggle to reconcile my own thoughts with those of God and His representatives.  But you from your own admission are tearing yourself apart.  That is not fair to you or the members you serve as a member of the Bishopric.

[rockpond]

I recommend you confess your difficulty with the brethren's decision to the Bishop, then let the consequences follow.  

 

You are no help at all going through the motions if you cannot sustain the authority from which your calling is derived.

 

I sustain the authority.  That's why I'm hoping they'll speak to us about this.  (And I don't want to hear about how PA is the same as the prophet... that's not scriptural.)

[KevinG]

I have access to the online Handbook so I knew the changes were accurate yesterday.

 

What I'm looking for is an explanation that makes me not think we've completely gone off the rails with this.

 

From the church's statement to Fox 13...

 

"The LDS Church says 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."