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

[rockpond]

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.

 

We bent over backwards to get the child baptized.  And he does have custody.  And there's no policy to discourage it.

 

The new policy says nothing about "public preaching" of anything.  The gay parent could believe that he/she is sinning and the policy still stands.

[rockpond]

I'm sorry if i misunderstood you.  I thought you said that what the church is teaching and doing isn't the gospel.  

 

I don't condemn the entire church because of one mistake in policy.  If I were to do that, I'd have to have left a long time ago.

[bluebell]

Any co-habitating couple can separate and repent.

 

Sorry, it sure feels like doubling down on hating gay people.

 

Do you believe that Pres. Monson or any of the 12 apostles actually hates gay people?

[bluebell]

I don't condemn the entire church because of one mistake in policy.  If I were to do that, I'd have to have left a long time ago.

 

Got it.

[rockpond]

Do you believe that Pres. Monson or any of the 12 apostles actually hates gay people?

 

No.

[Zakuska]

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."

 

Thanks for that link!

 

This is what causes issues with the Policy in my mind the way the section is worded is very poor and contradicts what the church is claiming in your above quote. The way the section is worded is not a simple "disavow" of the practice. It flat out says they cant be living with either one of their gay parents, even if they are of Legal age, disavow the practice, covenant to God and the church etc.

 

Heres the Policy from your link.

 

Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

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.

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.

 

So what this is saying is that if a child who has grown up in a Same Sex house hold, turns 18, wants to be baptized, disavows SSM, SGA, etc. etc.  but are still living with either one or both of their gay parents. They aren't eligible for baptism or being recommended to serve a mission. There's going to be a lot of kids who fall into this category and because of the Policy,  be denied from serving a mission or even getting baptized, simply because they happen to still live with a gay parent at that age in their life where they should be focusing on going to and paying for college. Parents at this time in kids lives are helping them get stood up even paying for their insurance. This is going to  unnecessarily make things very difficult. The "who has lived" part causes even more problems, because lets say the 18-26 year old child still lives with a single/divorced gay parent now, they still wont be able to.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[Daniel2]

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.

 

Children and teenagers are often baptized while living in their divorced parents homes, cohabiting parents, smoking/drinking parents, parents who break the Sabbath, don't pay tithes, affiliate with individuals or groups that are contrary to church standards, and a plethora of other activities and lifestyle choices that are actively opposed to LDS doctrines.

 

But such teens and children in such family arrangements are still allowed to get baptized...

[Nofear]

This policy says that cohabitation in a gay relationship is worse than cohabitation in a heterosexual relationship.  Do you agree with that?

 

A grave sin that might be a slap on the wrist as it were for a member might result in excommunication if committed by a general authority or officer of the Church. There are other factors than just the gravity of the sin.

[Mars]

 

Children and teenagers are often baptized while living in their divorced parents homes, cohabiting parents, smoking/drinking parents, parents who break the Sabbath, don't pay tithes, affiliate with individuals or groups that are contrary to church standards, and a plethora of other activities and lifestyle choices that are actively opposed to LDS doctrines.

 

But such teens and children in such family arrangements are still allowed to get baptized...

 

yeah, but you can be trying to quit, trying to fix your life, and trying to repent while still mired in some of those lifestyle choices.  you can't do that and be in a gay marriage.

 

but - again - i think you have a fair point.

[The Nehor]

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.

 

You might consider consulting sheep entrails or tea leaves.

 

But really you are just in it for the fearmongering. I mean, we know that you have spoken out in defense of gay marriage. Is there any reason you couldn't in the future develop a mind-control device and force everyone into homosexuality?

[CV75]

And a married man moving in with his girlfriend isn't actively opposed to our doctrines?

Not necessarily. It is different in that there is no additional covenant-making or covenant-mimicking involved. Just plain old covenant-breaking. It is also different in that the offense isn't so enmeshed with political opposition in the public square.

[ERayR]

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.

 

I don't know if this will help or not but think of the the conflict of loyalties which confront a child with gay parents and the teachings of the church on the subject.   Since it has long been the policy of the church to not be disruptive to the family the baptism of under age children from a same sex couple is at high risk for causing disruption to that family.

[Mars]

i also haven't really paid much attention to the eternal consequences

 

children of parents who are engaged in sin can be sealed together in the great welding link as the hope prevails that their parents will one day renounce their sin and be sealed.

 

children of parents who are in a gay marriage can't be sealed together in the eternities.  it just doesn't fit in the big picture of ordinances and sealings which are to bind up the entirety of the human family.

 

more spitballing.

 

boy, this one sucks, huh?  what a mess.

[CV75]

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.

Seems you’ve calmed down awfully quick!

 

It is good that you understand the addition of same-gender marriage to the list of member activities that apostasy refers to. Children unfortunately always get caught up in their parents’ difficulties, one way or another. The Church will not be a referee between parents nor get between the parents and how they raise their children.

 

In a case where children are unavoidably indoctrinated against Church teachings and her most sacred covenant by precept and example, and in concert with public and political controversy, special care must be taken before they  make sacred commitments. It would be irresponsible not to.

[Alvino]

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.

 

I have a question for you and for anyone who believes this is a good reason for the policy: does an analogous policy apply to a minor whose parents live in any other state of apostasy? 

 

To be clear, someone in another post quoted the updated description of what Apostasy is and I'll repost it here as well:

 

 

 

Apostasy

 

 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

 

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Are in a same-gender marriage.

5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

 

 

The Deseret News article on this states that:

The handbook addition also states that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting," can only be baptized, confirmed, ordained to the priesthood or serve a full-time mission with approval from the Office of the First Presidency. A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "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"; and "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.deseretnews.com/article/865640835/Church-updates-policies-on-families-in-same-sex-marriages.html

 

Do you also support something like the following change?

[That a] handbook addition [...] states that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a [state of apostasy], whether the couple is married or cohabiting," can only be baptized, confirmed, ordained to the priesthood or serve a full-time mission with approval from the Office of the First Presidency. A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "the child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the church, and specifically disavows the [specific reason for Apostasy of the parent or parents] "; and "the child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a [a state of Apostasy]." 

 

if not, why not?

Edited November 6, 2015 by Alvino

[Scott Lloyd]

I hope Brother Scott Lloyd has his iPhone handy because I have a prediction!

 

Within 30 years I predict that this unscriptural policy will be the subject of an "essay" posted to the Church's website.  The Church will explain why it ignored its own teachings and doctrines and describe how past (our current) Church leadership sometimes made mistakes by ignoring:

 

1.  Children are accountable at age 8

2.  Men/women are only accountable for their own actions and not the actions of others 

 

What's next?  Denying baptism to children of smokers, coffee drinkers, or alcoholics?  What about obese parents?  Or parents who don't pay a full tithe?  

When I was on my mission in Sweden 40 years ago, during the days of Osmondmania, it was common for teenage female fans of the Osmond brothers to seek out and investigate the Church. It became a repeated scenario that the parents in the household, not interested in the Church themselves, would allow their daughter to receive the missionary lessons, but, when it became clear that the daughter was serious about being baptized, and the missionaries were serious about performing it, the parents would put their foot down and forbid it. It became the mission-wide policy that "Osmond frökens," as we called them, could not receive the missionary lessons without the parents being present during the lessons.

 

The point being that the prudence on the part of the Church in teaching and baptizing under-age children in a household without the parents being part of the package has longtime precendent. Your casting the policy as a mistake that ignores doctrine is overblown and simplistic hyperbole.

[Storm Rider]

It appears that the basis of God's plan, the importance of the family i.e. a man and a woman joined together to propagate and create an eternal unit, has little understanding found among a significant portion of the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ and certainly the world at large.  

 

Sexuality, without the main purpose to create children, is little better than mutual masturbation.  A gay union is sterile and will always be sterile.  It has no eternal purpose because it wholly lacks the ability to create.  

 

There is no family without a man and a woman joined together.  Yes, there are social relationships of various creations, but those that go beyond a man and a woman are only imitations of what God created for his children.  We may love our children, our brothers and sisters, and friends that are gay and have taken the step to live a gay lifestyle; we may maintain close relationships and acknowledge that they share with their significant other, but we know the sand upon which they have built their house.  

 

Disciples of Jesus Christ need to become far more comfortable and understanding of what it means to love ourselves and others in spite of the sins we all commit.  We need to recognize and condemn sin for what it is without sensing any degree of discomfort because we or others are found in sin.  Jesus still extends the same invitation given thousands of years ago to repent.    

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR that revelation is behind this policy.  Seriously -- I'd love to see it.

 

They are hiding behind their PA department.  The Brethren have access to the media.  They have the ability to publish statements.  They have, so far, chosen not to.  If you consider that a cheap shot than it reflects your approach.  I'm just stating what has actually happened.

Your habit of denying something is revelation if it is not written down and printed within a leather cover is shortsighted and unwise. And it is not binding on others.

[KevinG]

 

I have a question for you and for anyone who believes this is a good reason for the policy: does an analogous policy apply to a minor whose parents live in any other state of apostasy? 

 

To be clear, someone in another post quoted the updated description of what Apostasy is and I'll repost it here as well:

 

 

 

 

 

The Deseret News article on this states that:

The handbook addition also states that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting," can only be baptized, confirmed, ordained to the priesthood or serve a full-time mission with approval from the Office of the First Presidency. A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "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"; and "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.deseretnews.com/article/865640835/Church-updates-policies-on-families-in-same-sex-marriages.html

 

Do you also support something like the following change?

[That a] handbook addition [...] states that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a [state of apostasy], whether the couple is married or cohabiting," can only be baptized, confirmed, ordained to the priesthood or serve a full-time mission with approval from the Office of the First Presidency. A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "the child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the church, and specifically disavows the [specific reason for Apostasy of the parent or parents] "; and "the child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a [a state of Apostasy]." 

 

if not, why not?

 

 

I could go for that.

 

However I'd like to see how many parents living in an open state of apostacy are clamoring for their children to be baptized in the LDS Church.

 

People who support Homosexual unions on the other hand are clamoring for the LDS Church to change their doctrines.

[Buckeye]

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.

 

Prayin' for you friend. Seriously, take a break from here too. There's clearly enough confusion and angst in the bloggernacle that the brethren will issue some clarification in the future. Until then, we're mostly just annoying each other. Also, if your'e up to talking with your bishop, I would expect that he would be understanding of the confusion surrounding the new policy and how it will be applied. He may well have some confusion himself.

[KevinG]

 

Children and teenagers are often baptized while living in their divorced parents homes, cohabiting parents, smoking/drinking parents, parents who break the Sabbath, don't pay tithes, affiliate with individuals or groups that are contrary to church standards, and a plethora of other activities and lifestyle choices that are actively opposed to LDS doctrines.

 

But such teens and children in such family arrangements are still allowed to get baptized...

 

Again you failed to see the distinction between actively engaging in an ordinance that is opposed to church doctrine and

failing to keep a law of church doctrine.

 

Although even then if two parents were excommunicated, even for reasons of sin, I would exercise caution in encouraging the baptism of a young child until that situation was more stable.

[Scott Lloyd]

You do realize Scott that the Gospel Topic headings aren't scripture and without a single verse to back up the bald assertion hold little weight at all.

Tell me Scott. In all the 40 years the "Lords Anointed", Moses spent in the desert with the murmuring Israelites, can you show me one verse that claims they sinned when they complained about their leaders (aka the Lords "Anointed")?

 

 

Well that's not difficult. You just have to go Numbers 12:12, where Miriam and Aaron opposed Moses and "the anger of the Lord burned against them." They were trying to usurp Moses's authority and were severely chastened.

 

Significantly, this is placed in the scriptures immediately after the chapter where it is recounted that Moses said, "Would that all God's people were prophets and that he would put his spirit on every one of them."

 

It is as though it were strategically placed  to teach a lesson to those, like you, who would declare that one person has just as much authority as another as a rationalization for murmuring against appointed leaders.

 

 

You and I are just as much the "Lords Anointed" as Any of the 12 Apostles or even President Monson for that matter. Are we not as the scriptures say a nation of Prophets? Do we not all have the Holy Spirit just like they do? We hold just as much Authority as any of the 12 do, the only difference is, they hold keys that we do not. Any one of us at any time could theoretically be called to be the Prophet of the church.

 

Heh. See above. You are not "just as much the Lords anointed as any of the 12 Apostles or even President Monson for that matter." You do not have authority for the Church as a whole. It is dangerous to you and others to presume that you do."

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

Sexuality, without the main purpose to create children, is little better than mutual masturbation.  A gay union is sterile and will always be sterile.  It has no eternal purpose because it wholly lacks the ability to create.  

 

  

 

Sorry, but it needs to be made clear that this is your own opinion, and at odds with the teachings of Church leaders who have clearly taught that sex has two purposes, and I don't think they've ever said that one purpose has primacy over the other:

 

“The lawful association of the sexes is ordained of God, not only as the sole means of race perpetuation, but for the development of the higher faculties and nobler traits of human nature, which the love-inspired companionship of man and woman alone can insure.” (Joseph F. Smith, Improvement Era, June 1917, p. 739.)

 

“‘The Bible celebrates sex and its proper use, presenting it as God-created, God-ordained, God-blessed. It makes plain that God himself implanted the physical magnetism between the sexes for two reasons: for the propagation of the human race, and for the expression of that kind of love between man and wife that makes for true oneness. His command to the first man and woman to be “one flesh” was as important as his command to “be fruitful and multiply.” (Spencer W. Kimball quoting Billy Graham, Ensign, May 1974, pp. 7–8.)

 

“We know of no directive from the Lord that proper sexual experience between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation of children, but we find much evidence from Adam until now that no provision was ever made by the Lord for indiscriminate sex.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, Oct. 1975, p. 4.)

 

“The object of the union of the sexes is the propagation of their species, or procreation; also for mutual affection and cultivation of those eternal principles of never-ending charity and benevolence which are inspired by the Eternal Spirit; also for mutual comfort and assistance in this world of toil and sorrow and for mutual duties toward their offspring.” (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978, p. 105.)

[Alvino]

I could go for that.

 

However I'd like to see how many parents living in an open state of apostacy are clamoring for their children to be baptized in the LDS Church.

 

People who support Homosexual unions on the other hand are clamoring for the LDS Church to change their doctrines.

 

 

Okay, that's what I'm driving at. Policies regarding other states of apostasy have been in place for a long time. Since these new policy does things that don't apply to other states of apostasy, then that would mean that, at least for the General Authorities, the reason to institute it can't be to avoid drama with the parents, can it? If it is then it's inconsistent with what appears to be the reason for having the other measures for dealing with children with parents in other states of apostasy. 

 

It also seems to me that there would be more drama with parents who aren't even seeking a change of LDS doctrines, so my point is even stronger given that. No?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Entering into same-gender "marriage" is apostasy. It is directly defying the teachings of the Church on this subject. If it were to be tolerated, it would undermine foundational doctrines which are based on the family unit being the basic unit of the Church and the people of God, both here and in the eternities.