CV75 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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.Then I'll resume this conversation when you are up for it. All the best.
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 ...and just ribbing here Rockpond, but how the heck you do you have time to post on a discussion board with your current calling!
Mars Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. i feel like there are inherent differences between the two situations, but i admit i think you have a fair point. perhaps we ought to amend the guidelines for baptism to include language to help us clarify what to do when parents are adulterous or living in sin otherwise to help focus in on what to be careful of. i sincerely doubt it's to keep them rascal gays away from us. we have, as a matter of policy, guidelines on what to do when someone wants to get baptized but the cultural backdrop that the candidate finds themselves is judged to be a strong hindrance to their spiritual progression. baptism, as it's the start of things, and we love our lines, layers, and precepts, happens when a kid starts to feel out the difference between right and wrong. age 8, age 9, age 6, who cares - i think that anthropologically speaking, human children begin to develop a sense of rules and what's right and wrong at about that age. or so a podcast told me. we create policy and guideline as a reaction to the situation in front of us. missions with strong representations of muslim populations have similar guidelines. as such, given the cultural upheaval in america about gay marriage, we've added a new line to the policy. i imagine it's to avoid situations where a child who would need to clarify between what is being taught at home by virtue of two dads or two mothers and what is taught at church. an adulterous couple doesn't broadcast their adultery in the same sense by virtue of being together, reducing the confusion. that's my take. i'm sure you'll find it's perfectly logical even if you don't agree.
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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.) I understand. Personally I'd have one heck of a time giving a temple recommend interview when my definition of apostasy was different from the brethren's. I truly hope you can reconcile this. 1
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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." Sorry, not a satisfactory explanation for me. We bless, baptize, and ordain kids all the time knowing that teachings in the home are not consistent LDS doctrine.
Okrahomer Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. Not that it matters...but I did point this out back in post #77. My link was to the KSL's report from last night's news. "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." 1
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm willing to be made uncomfortable by the gospel. But this is not the gospel. If it's not the gospel, then you need to go find the church that you believe teaches the gospel and is led by God. That is more important than being loyal to a church that doesn't do either of those things. But i would miss you greatly. From my perspective, it's a policy that is consistent with scripture and the teachings of Christ. Our differing perspectives is what puts us at opposite sides of belief with this issue. Each of us can present our beliefs as statements of fact, but they are beliefs nonetheless. 3
Mars Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Sorry, not a satisfactory explanation for me. We bless, baptize, and ordain kids all the time knowing that teachings in the home are not consistent LDS doctrine. that's a very fair point. i don't completely identify with it or share it, because i view gay marriage as a sticking point that's different in other ways. but i think it's a fair point. 2
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I understand. Personally I'd have one heck of a time giving a temple recommend interview when my definition of apostasy was different from the brethren's. I truly hope you can reconcile this. For the record, I can support the change to the definition of apostasy. I don't like its addition to that list but I understand it. It's the issue with kids who have gay parents that is a problem for me.
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 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. It appears that news reports are reporting on clarification given by the church on the policy, and not just reporting on the policy alone. I have seen several mention things the church has said about the policy that is not actually in the policy. Hopefully the church will clarify on it's own website. 2
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Sorry, not a satisfactory explanation for me. We bless, baptize, and ordain kids all the time knowing that teachings in the home are not consistent LDS doctrine. I have a problem with that too. I've seen it end in disaster too often. However the big distinction here is that entering into same sex marriage is actively opposed to our doctrines. Having same sex attraction. Believing that someday we may engage in same sex marriages, failing to avoid temptation, etc. are not conditions that are considered apostasy, and children of anyone in those situations can be baptized with their permission. 2
Nofear Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Sorry, not a satisfactory explanation for me. We bless, baptize, and ordain kids all the time knowing that teachings in the home are not consistent LDS doctrine. Not all inconsistent teachings are of equal gravity. When asked in my temple recommend interview if anything in my behavior is out of harmony with the Gospel, I usually say, "Yes, a lot." But amend it to suggest nothing real big that would call into question my discipleship.
cynth Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 which part of the policy led you to believe that this is the case?The part that says 'Children of a Parent': From Salt Lake Trib article:"Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender RelationshipA 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.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: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."http://www.sltrib.com/home/3144035-155/new-mormon-policy-would-make-apostates
Popular Post rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 6, 2015 If it's not the gospel, then you need to go find the church that you believe teaches the gospel and is led by God. I'm already there. 5
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I think I made my point with the title of this thread... and our discussion is getting split between several threads. I allowed Cynth time to answer the question posed to her. So for those reasons I'm closing this one. Thanks everyone! 1
Rivers Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2015/11/two-items-relevant-to-the-new-policy-on-children-of-same-sex-couples-and-five-comments.htmlHere are Dan Peterson's thoughts on everything. Edited November 6, 2015 by Rivers 1
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 However the big distinction here is that entering into same sex marriage is actively opposed to our doctrines. And a married man moving in with his girlfriend isn't actively opposed to our doctrines?
Mars Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) And a married man moving in with his girlfriend isn't actively opposed to our doctrines? he can always have the intention of mending things and remaining with her. that recourse doesn't exist for the gay couple. i get it, it can feel like we're doubling down on hating on gay people. i don't think that's the case, but i get it. edit- read this as an UNmarried man, but i'm still using my point to say someone who is living in sin but hetero has the option of mending their ways and living the law of chastity with that other person in a way that the gay couple cannot. Edited November 6, 2015 by Mars
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Not all inconsistent teachings are of equal gravity. When asked in my temple recommend interview if anything in my behavior is out of harmony with the Gospel, I usually say, "Yes, a lot." But amend it to suggest nothing real big that would call into question my discipleship. This policy says that cohabitation in a gay relationship is worse than cohabitation in a heterosexual relationship. Do you agree with that?
KevinG Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 And a married man moving in with his girlfriend isn't actively opposed to our doctrines? If I were a Bishop I'd be very hesitant to baptize his child if he had custody too. However- if he were publicly preaching the Church should authorize his affair and hold it on par with a Temple sealing, I'd excommunicate him for Apostasy too. 2
TheSkepticChristian Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I think the church shouldn't allow missionaries to baptize a child without their parent or legal guardian also getting baptized. And a married man moving in with his girlfriend isn't actively opposed to our doctrines? True, in some countries of South America the church allowed unmarried couples to be baptized. Edited November 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Mars Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I think the church shouldn't allow missionaries to baptize a child without a parent or legal guardian getting baptized. True, in some countries of South America the church allowed unmarried couples to be baptized. that was a failing in the interview process. in my mission i had to deny delay (for rockpond) baptism to a couple for this exact reason, though they had cohabited for 7 years. Edited November 6, 2015 by Mars 1
Okrahomer Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 that was a failing in the interview process. in my mission i had to deny delay (for rockpond) baptism to a couple for this exact reason, though they had cohabited for 7 years. I had to do the same thing on my mission.
bluebell Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm already there. I'm sorry if i misunderstood you. I thought you said that what the church is teaching and doing isn't the gospel.
rockpond Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 he can always have the intention of mending things and remaining with her. that recourse doesn't exist for the gay couple. i get it, it can feel like we're doubling down on hating on gay people. i don't think that's the case, but i get it. edit- read this as an UNmarried man, but i'm still using my point to say someone who is living in sin but hetero has the option of mending their ways and living the law of chastity with that other person in a way that the gay couple cannot. Any co-habitating couple can separate and repent. Sorry, it sure feels like doubling down on hating gay people.
Recommended Posts