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

[Senator]

Sorry, never seem to have the time for it.

 

It's been eye opening.

 

The church really is infallible.

[mfbukowski]

It's called Loyal Opposition. There's a place for it. The members at Mountain Meadows would have benefited from a little loyal opposition.

Where exactly is the loyalty here?

 

All I see is opposition

Edited November 6, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

But the policy is that a child of a gay parent in a relationship cannot be blessed, baptized, or ordained.  Period.  No opportunity there to enter "wisdom and order".

Why can't you see that baptizing such a child will just result in family grief and conflict????    For what???  For nothing!!!

 

What is wrong with you all? (You plural!)

[Ahab]

Which is so strange for a church so focused on legalism and Public Relations.

They clearly didn't expect this firestorm. They have yet to grasp the magnitude of the problem and the reality of the internet.

It got your attention, didn't it. And it will probably get a lot more attention in the media as time keeps rolling on.

I think the "brethren" are more media savvy than you realize.

And even if the more "disturbing" ideas did somehow slip by the brethren without them fully realizing all of the "problems" and "troubles" that are associated with children who have a parent with sexual immorality issues, the parents will still be held responsible for not teaching their children what our Lord still expects them to learn.

[mfbukowski]

Not sure what you're talking about... old or new testimony?

 

If my service suffers, they can release me.  I don't have a duty to defend this policy change.

Good, then you will let your bishop decide that.  I think you do have a duty to defend it or at least discuss it frankly with your Bishop

Edited November 6, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Senator]

Why can't you see that baptizing such a child will just result in family grief and conflict????  

 

I would suppose that perhaps many don't see what you have stated, as a given.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Senator

[sethpayne]

Why can't you see that baptizing such a child will just result in family grief and conflict????    For what???  For nothing!!!

 

What is wrong with you all? (You plural!)

 

Hey mfbukowsi -- didn't Jesus have something to say about the impact his teachings would have on family relationships? Specifically when one family member becomes a disciple while other members of the family may not?

Edited November 6, 2015 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't going to post this link, but I think it would be advisable now.

 

It is from Ardis Parshal, who authors the blog Keepaptichinin. She gives a very calm and reasoned analysis of the issues of the past day. And she exposes alot of the arguments for what they are: emotional reaction and hyperbole.

 

A snippet:

 

There is no reason, only emotion, to interpret the newly announced consequences for children of gay parents as punishments for those children. Infant blessing is not a salvific ordinance. It is one that not only welcomes the child into the fold of the Church, but initiates a qualified membership record for that child. But there is no long-lasting consequence, or punishment, to the child who is not blessed.

Neither are the restrictions permanent. They only delay essential ordinances, like baptism, until a child who can easily be expected to be sympathetic to unacceptable marriage arrangements can be mature enough to deal with the additional stumblingblock to his making that covenant.

Holocaust victims are not being punished because their temple ordinances are delayed indefinitely for the sake of agreements made by the Church. Converts from Islam are not being punished because they are asked to delay baptism indefinitely for their own safety.

Children of single-parent families are not being punished because they are not permitted to be sealed to their single parent. That blessing is delayed until they can be sealed as children of an appropriate marriage, but that delay is not imposed as a punishment to children.

3. Church leaders have, in fact, told us that we can support same-sex marriage without consequence to individual membership. Some people are interpreting this overnight news as a recision of that promise. I think that’s a misunderstanding: It seems to me that whenever I have heard a Church leader speak about our right to support same-sex marriage, it has been in the context of civil or legal or social support. We can still support same-sex marriage in the civil sphere. But the Church has not changed its moral or doctrinal opposition to same-sex marriage, and we’ve never been told it’s okay to assume it has, or that to advocate for such changes is acceptable.

 

Edited November 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Walden]

Why can't you see that baptizing such a child will just result in family grief and conflict????    For what???  For nothing!!!

 

What is wrong with you all? (You plural!)

No more so than baptizing the child of unmarried hetero parents, yet the church does not deny those children baptism. 

 

Is it only "living in sin" if the relationship is same sex? Then why the exclusive obsession by the church over the SSM type of sin, but not the hetero type of sin?

[Damien the Leper]

No more so than baptizing the child of unmarried hetero parents, yet the church does not deny those children baptism. 

 

Is it only "living in sin" if the relationship is same sex? Then why the exclusive obsession by the church over the SSM type of sin, but not the hetero type of sin?

Because the church has an agenda to keep. Some sins just aren't good enough for that agenda.

[hope_for_things]

Why can't you see that baptizing such a child will just result in family grief and conflict????    For what???  For nothing!!!

 

What is wrong with you all? (You plural!)

I usually can see your point, but this time I completely disagree.  If we were to extend this logic of preserving families from having conflict, then we would restrict children of part member families from being baptized as well.  The church is in essence taking away the agency of the family to decide whether or not the child can be baptized.  The family should be able to determine whether the child can be baptized or not.  The new church policy is punitive and takes away agency from the family to determine the destiny of its children.  All conservatives and libertarians should be outraged at the loss of freedom from this new policy.  

[rockpond]

Why can't you see that baptizing such a child will just result in family grief and conflict????    For what???  For nothing!!!

 

What is wrong with you all? (You plural!)

 

1.  The mechanism to counter that concern was already in place:  parental consent for minors.

2.  It doesn't have to result in family grief and conflict.  That may be the case in some instances (in which case we rely on #1 above) but in others it may not be a problem.  In the rest of the cases, why make a blanket policy preventing blessing, baptism, and ordination.

 

Examples...

 

A)  I have a gay friend who was raised in the church.  If he ever marries (same-gender marriage) and adopts children, he has said he would really like to have his baby blessed by his father.  If all agree, what is the harm?

 

B)  Say you have an 11 year old boy living in your ward with his divorced mother who is active, TR-holding, LDS Church member sealed to her new husband.  The 11 year old boy's father has married into a same-sex marriage.  The boy lives most of the time with his mother but visits his out-of-state father on holidays and in the summer.  According to this new policy, this 11 year old boy can NOT be ordained as a deacon.  Full stop.  Does that make sense?

[rockpond]

Good, then you will let your bishop decide that.  I think you do have a duty to defend it or at least discuss it frankly with your Bishop

 

Well, I don't think I have a duty to defend a policy in Handbook 1... it's a document that is not even published to general membership.

 

Not every policy in there is even followed.

Edited November 6, 2015 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

I usually can see your point, but this time I completely disagree.  If we were to extend this logic of preserving families from having conflict, then we would restrict children of part member families from being baptized as well.  The church is in essence taking away the agency of the family to decide whether or not the child can be baptized.  The family should be able to determine whether the child can be baptized or not.  The new church policy is punitive and takes away agency from the family to determine the destiny of its children.  All conservatives and libertarians should be outraged at the loss of freedom from this new policy.  

Ardis Parshal makes a valid comparision between same-sex marriage and polygamy, both of which are prohibited under the laws of God.

 

What strikes me first about the restrictions on the membership of children of married/cohabiting gay parents is that they are identical to the restrictions that have long (since the 1920s) been in place for the children of polygamous parents. Children of polygamous parents could not and cannot be baptized until they are of legal age, disavow their parents’ polygamous example, and receive permission from the First Presidency. No, I can’t quote Handbook 1 or some other official document on this point, but I have seen it explained over and over and over in correspondence throughout the 20th century which I have read in the course of my historical research: from time to time, local Church leaders have written to general Church with questions about the children of polygamists who live in their wards whose polygamous parents nevertheless want them blessed or baptized, or who themselves ask for baptism in their teens, and those general Church leaders have written back to the local leaders to explain the policy. For the sake of discussion on this post, please assume that I know what I’m talking about; you can dispute me another time if you think I’m wrong.

I think it might be useful in helping us move beyond the emotional outburst of tonight if we looked for patterns between the two situations. Finding those patterns could help us understand what underlies the Church’s position. It is not necessary to assume without question that the Church hates gays, or that the policy is a punishment for children or a pressure point for parents. That is not generally how the Church operates, despite what disaffected or believing-but-disappointed people immediately conclude.

When I mentioned on Facebook the similarity of policy between the children of married gay parents and the children of polygamists, some immediately proposed objections:

One said that the situations were different because polygamous families were not members of the Church, and gay families are members. That is true … but only because the policy is so new (hours old). Gay families are members, and polygamous families are not members, in 2015. In 1925, however, many polygamous people weremembers, and tried to hide their polygamous status in order to remain members. The child of parents discovered to be in polygamy but who had previously been active, even holding temple recommends, was in the same position in 1925 as the child of a gay parent or parents is today. It isn’t hard to imagine that as today’s gay couples are “handled” for their membership (that’s an old term, but one that was very widespread in the 20th century), the children of those gay parents in 2025 could easily be in exactly the same boat as the children of polygamous parents are today.

Someone else objected to my putting the two situations in parallel because “fundamentalist polygamous marriages usually involve claims of authorized priesthood ordinances contrary to the Church’s claims of sole authority to perform sealing ordinances.” That is a difference, but it doesn’t negate everything else the two situations have in common – it’s as irrelevant as other easily noted differences, such as the difference that polygamous marriages involve at least three adults, while gay marriages involve two.

Both situations involve marriages of types that are strongly disapproved by the Church. That is a compelling similarity. It is a relevant similarity because the formation of the right kind of families (“right” being defined as those eligible for priesthood sealing) is of paramount importance in Mormon doctrine.

The relationship of gay parents is supported by civil society, and is becoming more and more accepted by society, protected by law, and welcomed by friends and family. That would seem to put it at odds with the relationship of polygamous families … but that’s true in 2015, and not necessarily in the Church culture of 1925. As much as Church members strongly disapprove of polygamous relationships today, that was not always the case. There were many sympathizers in the first generation after the Manifesto. Even today mainstream Latter-day Saints are drawn away into polygamous practices, convinced of its rightness by those who teach it. That was certainly true in the 1920s and 1930s – I’ve seen the letters by local leaders who investigated such cases, and seen the lists published in Church publications of excommunications of those found in polygamy.

So perhaps the Church is concerned about a growing acceptance of same-sex marriages and practices, in the same way they were concerned about acceptance of polygamy within the Church in an earlier generation. Perhaps that is one reason for the new policy: prohibiting the baptism of those who might theoretically be most sympathetic to gay marriages could help to “keep the doctrine pure,” as the phrase is.

 

Emphasis mine.

[Meadowchik]

This was a response to reactions to the new policy regarding children of ss couples, but I think it applies to much.

Whatever your opinion on the policy, this seems like the sensible approach: seek answers with faith, not anger and fear.

http://middleagedmormonman.com/home/2015/11/church-announcements-two-wolves/

I'm not saying to accept blindly, but actually I'm suggesting this:

Suppose "x" is the right and good answer. Let's assume we don't know it yet.

Now, are you more likely to find x in rage and negativity, or are you more likely to find it in a spirit of patience and genuine searching? Whatever God's truth is, I think we're more likely to get there in a spirit of faith, love and patience.

[hope_for_things]

Ardis Parshal makes a valid comparision between same-sex marriage and polygamy, both of which are prohibited under the laws of God.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

I agree that the policies seem very similar, but there are too many differences to make that comparison justifiable.  What about the loss of freedom for the family.  I would think this would strike a cord with conservative republican and libertarian sensibilities.  These are new institutional restrictions and this is a loss of agency.  

 

A Ben Franklin quote that I've always loved I believe is applicable here.  "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  Its the temporary security of peace in the family, that is being used as justification for this loss of liberty.  Sad....

[Zakuska]

There is a loop whole to this policy as well as the Polygamy policy.  All a child of 8 years old of a SSC Or POLYGAMISTS needs to do to get baptized is to not be living with their gay / polygamist parents at the time of their baptism.  Go live with Grandma & Grandpa for a month and get baptized during that time.  Then you can move back in with Mum & Mum or Dad & Dad because there's nothing saying you can be Exed for living with Gay Parents.

 

This could also work to side step this uninspired rule for 18 year olds and get them on a mission. Go rent an Apartment for a month get baptized then move back in.

 

Yes it would be a pain but... it does defeat the policy on a technicality.

 

Also what if Gay parents & children cohabit-ate with Mom & Dad? There's nothing stopping  Gma & Gpa from going to the Church with the child and getting a name and a blessing, Baptism, Priesthood etc. etc. etc.

 

These legalisms are getting way out of control and too complicated to administer. 

 

What ever happened to people getting baptized because they themselves want to get baptized and are repenting of their own sins and instead of being prevented from doing so because of the sins of their fathers?

 

This all reaks of the institutionalized divorce court set up by the Prophet Ezra.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

As long as I am posting links to blog posts, I may as well include this thoughtful one from FairMormon:

 

It makes much the same point that Ardis Parshal did, but in a different way:

 

The policies regarding children with same-sex married parents is the same as that for children whose parents are in polygamous relationships. In both cases, the children cannot be baptized while they are minors living in such circumstances. They must also both be interviewed carefully to confirm that they understand and accept the Church’s doctrine on same-sex relationships or unauthorized plural marriage.

It would be inappropriate and unfair for the Church to expect minor children to cope with the issue of divided loyalties. All children need the support of a family. Ideally, that support should be provided by a married mother and father. Some children do not have that advantage, but it is still important that the Church does not undermine a polygamist family’s relationship between parents and child, or a same-sex couple’s relationship with a child they are parenting.

To baptize a minor child in such a situation would be to put the child in a difficult position. Those who choose to be baptized must wholeheartedly endorse the Church’s doctrines and principles. Yet, children whose parents are in a same-sex marriage would be told at home that their parents’ marriage was valid and a model to follow; at Church they would hear that the marriage was invalid and deeply sinful. At best, this could be confusing; at worst, it risks alienating the child from to parental figures.

The Church is trying to balance the importance of baptism with the importance of family harmony and relationships. A child of parents in same-sex relationships might not be able to easily reconcile the love he feels for his parents with the teachings at church that the parents’ relationship is sinful. It takes maturity to be able to love and respect others whom we believe to be acting wrongly. When the child reaches adulthood, and is ready to make the mature choice to make covenants that require renouncing his parent’s (or parents’) lifestyle, and accept all of the challenges and implications of that choice, the time will be right for baptism.

Were the Church to do otherwise, its critics and detractors would likely complain that it was undermining parents’ authority or depriving the minor member child of the benefits of family life by teaching against same-sex acts and same-sex marriage.

 

 

Also, it looks at it from the angle of potential for manipulation. ( I alluded to this earlier.):
 

Those who are the members of polygamist groups have also, on occasion, sought to have their children join the Church in order to access temple ordinances. Thus, parents may occasionally push children into Church membership to achieve goals of their own, and not out of sincere belief.

In a similar way, it is conceivable that at least a few same-sex parents might seek to use a child’s baptism as a way to make a political point in the media, or gain leverage over a local Church unit’s handling of their same-sex relationship.

Children and local Church leaders should not be put in such a position, and so the Church’s policy protects both.

 

Finally, a reasoned response from FairMormon's Mike Parker to the question of why the Church seems to be singling out the gay lifestyle (as opposed to, say, illicit heterosexual relations):
 

The answer to your question is that a heterosexual cohabiting couple can resolve their situation by getting married. From the Church’s doctrinal point of view, gay cohabitation or marriage cannot be “fixed”; it can only be abandoned.

This is similar to children of parents who are guilty of other sinful behavior (drug or alcohol use or abuse, pornography, abuse, etc.): These things can be corrected and the family unit can be maintained intact. Homosexual relationships cannot, from a standpoint of moral standards proclaimed by the Church.

 

[Meadowchik]

This is true. If a member chooses to a porn star they are not in apostasy but same sex marriage is apostasy? I see SSM as a violation of the law of chastity but not apostasy. Both are serious and can get one exed but I do think there is a difference between the two.

From dictionary.com on apostasy ""a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc." If SSM is apostasy then perhaps any action the violates the principles of the church is apostasy. I just don't see this.

Look how serious it is, though. Pick a sin, any sin. When repenting of given sin, which one would require the abandonment of one's family?

There's no way to keep a ss marriage while repenting of it. You start that path and there's no way to repent within the lifestyle.

Do you see that?

[Gervin]

I don't suppose the Church has to think about the implications of such rules but it will effectively dissuade anyone from a SSM from joining the Church.  Whether you're exposed to the Church as a minor or an adult the message will always be, "you're different and different rules apply to you ... and by the way, the adults that are raising/raised you are really messed up and we have special rules for them, too."

 

Good luck with that.

[mfbukowski]

That is not true....if it were, then blessings would also be delayed for children of heterosexual couples who are not married, since the church teaches that those who have sex outside of marriage are committing a grievous sin.

Totally misses the point.

 

The sin which "created" the child can be repented of in a heterosexual marriage.  There is no on-going split with church policy.  The church believes in heterosexual marriage.  Is that news?  Typically no one would even know if a child in the church is "legitimate" or not and it is irrelevant ultimately with repentant parents.

 

In the case of homosexual marriage, there will be direct and on-going conflict with church policy for the lifetime of the child, and everyone will know the parents are gay.

 

In one case the parents created the conflict with their lifestyle decision while affirming their membership in the church and remaining gay and yet desiring apparently that the children should be baptized

 

The conflict is created by the parents by affirming two conflicting principles- being gay and denying church doctrine in that regard while also affirming that LDS baptism is desirable for the children.  They are the ones trying to have it both ways.

 

In the other case, the parents simply made a mistake of which they are more than willing to repent. They are agreeing that they made the mistake and are giving the child a consistent message that LDS values are "correct"

 

This is not rocket science.

[mfbukowski]

This last line here..is how a lot of people feel about this policy and the church today. 

A debatable and pointless assertion.

 

I have not seen the church ever hold the position that it should decide doctrine by majority rule, have you?

Edited November 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And it would be absolutely ridiculous for a child of SS parents to put in their will that after death they wish for proxy baptism. I know not a single person dumb enough to even consider such a course.

I know of no one dumb enough to think that was necessary.

 

The logic here is that God will read the will and agree to honor the apostate parent's request? 

[Jeanne]

A debatable and pointless assertion.

 

I have not seen the church ever hold the position that it should decide doctrine by majority rule, have you?

I agree...hardly ever by majority rule..which begs the question as to why ask members to sustain or support leaders anyway? 

[mfbukowski]

Hey mfbukowsi -- didn't Jesus have something to say about the impact his teachings would have on family relationships? Specifically when one family member becomes a disciple while other members of the family may not?

I already answered that Seth

 

He wasn't talking about doing that at the age of 8.

 

By having a ssm and having children while simultaneously teaching their kids that LDS baptism was important, THEY are the ones setting up the conflict.  The church is opposed to ssm.

 

The parents are the ones introducing the conflict, not the gospel