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

[why me]

First to answer your question, I had my children when I was married to a woman.  I did that because I was following the counsel of church leaders when they would push gay men into marriage, telling them that if they married, they would no longer be attracted to the same sex. I think this was the beginning of my finding out that I personally could not trust church direction to be right.  I believe they were wrong again when they supported Prop 8.  And I believe they are wrong again denying baptism for parents of gay children.

Now you need to place yourself as a gay male who has adopted a baby with your male partner. Would you raise that child in the lds church? Most likely, no. Likewise for most gay families who have children. And then we must think of the 3 year old who is baptized at the age of 8 by their gay parents. Will the gay couple support that child in church? Will they refrain from being critical of lds policy toward gays? Will they turn that child's heart against the lds church? I think that the answer to these questions are: most likely. And what then? The child is a member and now wishes to leave the church. Muc better to wait until the child is a teen and then they can make up their mind to join or not to join.

[ksfisher]

Yes, too much legalism. Let God work it out in the end. Our leaders go more by the OT rule than the NT rule. Jesus needs to be the focus here. Joseph mentioned letting the members govern themselves. Free agency, then repenting if needs be. The new CH rule will most likely cause more members to leave and more children to not become members. I don't see the positives, just an iron hand.

Seems to be an almost perfect summation of the attitude found in 2 Nephi 2:28

And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God--he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

Edited November 7, 2015 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

This argument simply doesn't hold water. Where is the concern for the children of parents who are completely inactive? What about the children of unmarried heterosexual parents living together? What about the children of parents who are abusing alcohol, drugs, or family members? If this policy is about the children, where's the consistency? I'm completely baffled by this entire situation.

 

The difference between those families and a SSMarried family is that those families can repent and come into full activity (or be baptized) without breaking the family up.  Home teachers (which such children would be assigned) can go into that home and teach the doctrines of the gospel without threatening (for lack of a better word) the family structure the child depends on and loves.

 

That's not true for SSMarried families.  The only way for them to join their children in the gospel is to get divorced.  Home teachers coming into those homes wouldn't be able to teach gospel doctrine on the plan of salvation without undermining the child's family.  The church doesn't want children facing that. Neither does the church want to come between the child and their parents theologically.

[GingerRed]

This a good article I read this morning! This LDS woman reacted with anger first, too.....until she remembered HER past...

 

http://lemmonythings.com/2015/11/06/this-much-i-know-my-take-on-the-lgbt-mormon-controversy/

Edited November 7, 2015 by GingerRed

[Ahab]

The church could be consistent on the real issue then. Before allowing any investigator to be baptized, they should enquire if one or both of the investigator's parents support same-sex marriage, regardless of whether the parent is gay or not. If The parent does support same sex marriage, then the investigator should be required to repudiate his or her parent's opinion on the matter and get permission from the first presidency to get baptized.

i think you're confusing the policy on apostasy with the policy on parent/child relations.

The policy regarding apostasy states that a member who supports same sex marriage may be subject to Church discipline, depending on how much he shows his support.

The policy regarding parent/child relations states that a child under 18 may not become a member, or may not have some privileges as a member, depending on whether or not or how much he has a parent in a sexually immoral relationship.

What you're suggesting now would be yet another policy, if that was sanctioned.

After all, the purpose of the policy is to prevent people from joining the church who are sympathetic to same sex marriage, right?

No, not prevent. More like how to handle situations when they are. Edited November 7, 2015 by Ahab

[stephenpurdy]

I thought that this commentary was well thought out.

 

http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2015/11/response-to-new-church-policy-gay-marriage-children-baptism.html?m=1

 

-stephen

[Teancum]

No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not punishing anyone: it is preventing children from being placed in situations in which they make covenants it would be difficult for them to keep. I see that as an act of mercy, not as a punishment.

 

Your mileage obviously varies.

 

 

I think is it prudent to not let children under 18 of SSM couples be baptized, etc.  I think the same restriction should apply to children of heterosexuals who are living together out of wedlock as well as a number of other situation. 

 

Once 18 let the child make the decision.  But drop the disavowal requirement in all situations.  That requirement in my opinion is ludicrous.

[CV75]

So if a parent wants to maintain a presence in the church and gives permission for their child to be baptized than why would they be indoctrinating their child against the church. That just doesn't make sense.

This line of reasoning comes from people who really don’t understand how parent-child relationships actually work. Such parents indoctrinate the child in the virtues of same-gender marriage in word and deed while placing him in a spiritual community that indoctrinates the child in the virtues of temple marriage. That is incredibly irresponsible if not hypocritical and spiritually abusive. It is better to just participate socially, which is what the Church advocates in how we are to treat people, than to use spiritual covenants and commitments to impose conflict upon a tender, developing soul.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll admit when the alert came on my iPod that the Church was issuing a clarification, I felt a twinge of worry that the Brethren would be back pedaling in the wake of yesterday's uproar. I was relieved to see such was not the case. Clearly, this action was taken thoughtfully and deliberately, and the Church leaders are fulfilling their role to convey the word of the Lord and administer the Savior's Church in loving firmness. This action has been sorely needed for a long time. Elder Christofferson indicated the action came partly in response to questions that have arisen. Too many have gotten accustomed to deluding themselves into believing homosexual behavior does not offend God and does not bring on grievous consequences. The message that it does has now been affirmed with clarity, many don't like it, and that's why we're seeing the reactions we are.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

I think is it prudent to not let children under 18 of SSM couples be baptized, etc.  I think the same restriction should apply to children of heterosexuals who are living together out of wedlock as well as a number of other situation. 

 

Once 18 let the child make the decision.  But drop the disavowal requirement in all situations.  That requirement in my opinion is ludicrous.

 

I don't think the requirement is ridiculous--it seems obvious to me that a person would need to agree with the doctrines of the church before being baptized a member--but what i think is a double standard is that current members are not asked to disavow SSM.  

 

Current members can believe it's acceptable to God and that's fine as long as they don't advocate for it publicly.  Doesn't seem fair.

[CV75]

So maybe the church should stop baptizing all together since EVERY time a person is baptized they are making covenants that may be difficult to keep.  

So a child is a person just like any other LOL. That's a good way to disguise the power differential while meeting one's personal needs through them.

[omni]

The difference between those families and a SSMarried family is that those families can repent and come into full activity (or be baptized) without breaking the family up.  Home teachers (which such children would be assigned) can go into that home and teach the doctrines of the gospel without threatening (for lack of a better word) the family structure the child depends on and loves.

 

 

 

The policy doesn't just affect the children of gay parents who are married, but also those who currently co-habitate or have co-habitated in the past with someone of the same gender.  Shouldn't they be given the option to repent?  Isn't a home teacher teaching the doctrines of the gospel threatening the family structure of a child who's unmarried parents live together?  It would seem to me it would be wise to wait until the parents have actually repented rather than hope they do and risk putting their children in a situation in which they're likely to fail.

 

I actually support the idea of requiring the children of non-member or completely inactive parents to wait until their 18th birthday to be baptized.  IMO, a loving God would never allow a child to make such an important decision with eternal consequences in situations in which they're set up to fail.  What I don't see from Elder Christofferson's clarification is consistency.  If the policy is about concern for the children, then it should be broadened to include those groups I mentioned, rather than narrowly focused on two already marginalized groups (gays and polygamists).

[CV75]

This "official" explanation makes me a bit ill.  He basically said the church is using children to make their point even stronger (as if they haven't been clear enough) against gay marriage.  (just so we are clear)

 

The only children of gay couples that want their children to be baptized in the church would be where joint custody may be involved with a spouse that is a member.  Now the support of church membership is withdrawn from them.

 

Or a gay couple who knows the the church is not a great place for gay members, but certainly is a good place for straight children.  Now that option is taken away from both the parents and the child.  Because why?  Gay parents can't explain to a child why the church may not be good for them, but would be good for their children?  Sad.

 

I am sure this explanation will work for those that want to support the church badly enough to not see the illogical reasoning for the policy.  I guess that is all it was intended to do.  Mission accomplished.  The rest is collateral damage.

This line of reasoning comes from people who really don’t understand how parent-child relationships actually work. Such parents indoctrinate the child in the virtues of same-gender marriage in word and deed while placing him in a spiritual community that indoctrinates the child in the virtues of temple marriage. That is incredibly irresponsible if not hypocritical and spiritually abusive. It is better to just participate socially, which is what the Church advocates in how we are to treat people, than to use spiritual covenants and commitments to impose conflict upon a tender, developing soul.

[Teancum]

I personally admit I am shocked God wants us to make the covenants he does so I sympathize with this point of view.

 

 

 

 

I am personally shocked that people actually believe God is behind so much of this nonsense.

[Teancum]

Once upon a time the church claimed to be lead by revelation. Nowadays they just roll out one of the 15 from time to time so they can waffle about policy and clarifications of official practices.

 

Some quotes from the interview (notes in parenthesis mine):

 

This interview is a useful reminder that this is an American church lead by right wing conservatives men. Gay marriage has been around for years outside USA but it's only the US change and Supreme Court judgement that has been the impetus for their leaders to make an official statement about it. Not to receive a revelation... just make a clarification of policy. 

 

 

Oh so well said.  Canard I am always impressed with your comments and insight. I would love to talk about so much of this with you in real time.

 

Thank you.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Teancum

[bluebell]

The policy doesn't just affect the children of gay parents who are married, but also those who currently co-habitate or have co-habitated in the past with someone of the same gender.  Shouldn't they be given the option to repent?  Isn't a home teacher teaching the doctrines of the gospel threatening the family structure of a child who's unmarried parents live together?  It would seem to me it would be wise to wait until the parents have actually repented rather than hope they do and risk putting their children in a situation in which they're likely to fail.

 

I actually support the idea of requiring the children of non-member or completely inactive parents to wait until their 18th birthday to be baptized.  IMO, a loving God would never allow a child to make such an important decision with eternal consequences in situations in which they're set up to fail.  What I don't see from Elder Christofferson's clarification is consistency.  If the policy is about concern for the children, then it should be broadened to include those groups I mentioned, rather than narrowly focused on two already marginalized groups (gays and polygamists).

 

I'm not seeing this in the change (but could have missed it) can you quote it or show a reference?

[CV75]

I'm not usually critical of the church, and I'm not particularly edgy, but I just don't buy this protecting the children logic. This feels more like an ill-considered application of the polygamist policies to a different scenario.

He does draw a parallel with children raised in polygamous households.

 

The policy protects the children by inviting them to participate on a social basis but not on a covenant basis during those formative years where their parents start out as gods, then become idiots, then become tolerable for material resources, to well, maybe they had their reasons. They would be participating on the same level their parents might, removing the destructive challenges that come from seriously mixed messages.

[Scott Lloyd]

An important point from the video: The Church will abide by the law of the land as pertaining to same sex marriage, but it is free to observe the laws of God and the Church within the sphere of the Church. Indeed it must do so. If not, Christ would quite justifiably reject us as a people and deliver His gospel keys and authority to those who would be more obedient and wise.

[bluebell]

I just read a kind of funny post, written by a gay man, on Facebook.  It's being shared so i assume that it's being shared with his permission.
 
"There have been a lot of posts about the recent LDS news regarding children of same sex marriages and also same sex marriages being viewed as apostasy. I'm sorry to add to those posts filling up your newsfeed but as a gay man who does not feel victimized by this decision I feel the need to share my side. I'm confused by a few things. First off, why is everyone so surprised! The church has never pretended to be anything other than exactly what it is. Their stance on same sex marriages has never changed. I also don't understand how this affects about half of the people posting about it. Over half the people posting about it are not members of the church or don't believe in the LDS church to begin with. How does this decision in anyway affect you. If you are a gay couple, were you really going to send your child to an LDS church to begin with? If you are an active LDS member posting, again, why are you so surprised!!! If you truly believe in your church, then you believe that the prophet is a prophet of God who speaks directly to him. If this is you... then have some faith and then be quiet. If you disagree with this view on same sex marriage, then by all means just choose another church. No one is forcing you to stay. I guess being from South Carolina I get confused when people act like the Mormon church is the only religion that exists, or the only religion that does not believe in same sex marriage for that matter. In South Carolina it was just another church, there to seek shelter from the storm if need be. It wasn't a cultural thing, which I guess could be the reason for everyone commenting on something that I don't believe affects them. In the LDS church, whether your parents are gay or not, you still have to have permission to be baptized either way. I'm sorry, but I don't disagree with the church when they say that it might not be in the child's best interest to be baptized into a church that does not support their parents marriage, seeing as this could cause issues in the home and could even result in the child being kicked out of the home. This is something that often happens with gay children who come out to straight parents. In my opinion, the church is not shunning these children but rather asking them to wait till they are 18 and can move out in hopes to prevent them from having issues at home. I'd also like to pose the question: do these children of same sex marriages really want to join a church that doesn't support their parents marriage? If they do, well then the church is not asking the children wanting to join the church to disown their parents. They just want them to understand that the church does not support same sex marriages and wants to make sure this is something they support as well before being baptized into a church that believes this. AGAIN, not something you HAVE to do! You do not have to join a church you disagree with! I don't feel children of same sex marriages are being outcast. They are still welcome to attend. But it has always been the churches policy that whether your parents are gay or straight, if your parents disagree with the beliefs of the church, you need to wait until you are of legal age to be baptized in an effort to keep the peace at home."

This was written by Jason Buonforte.

 

I just thought the bolded part was a little humorous.  

[Ushuaia]

I'll admit when the alert came on my iPod that the Church was issuing a clarification, I felt a twinge of worry that the Brethren would be back pedaling in the wake of yesterday's uproar. I was relieved to see such was not the case. Clearly, this action was taken thoughtfully and deliberately, and the Church leaders are fulfilling their role to convey the word of the Lord and administer the Savior's Church in loving firmness. This action has been sorely needed for a long time. Elder Christofferson indicated the action came parlay in response to questions that have arisen. Too many have gotten accustomed to deluding themselves into believing homosexual behavior does not offend God and does not bring on grievous consequences. The message that it does has now been affirmed with clarity, many don't like it, and that's why we're seeing the reactions we are.

 

Scott, why has this action been sorely needed for a long time? Is gay marriage any more contrary to the laws of the Gospel now that it was before this policy was drafted for inclusion in the Handbook? Is the Church's position on traditional marriage any clearer now than it has been since these discussions began in earnest during Prop 8? 

 

Based on the plain language of the policy (http://www.scribd.com/doc/288685756/Changes-to-LDS-Handbook-1-Document-2-Revised-11-3-15-28003-29)%C2'> and I understand that clarifying direction may come later - the following scenario is very well within the pale of plausibility:

 

A 25 year-old man has lived a gay lifestyle for several years, cohabiting with another during that time. Later, he meets missionaries, desires to conform his life to the standards of the Church, gains a testimony, etc. He is cleared for baptism by the mission president. Two years later, he marries a wonderful woman in the Church who knows his past struggles and who loves him. They remain steadfast, active, and as obedient as human beings can be. They have children together. As the children near the age of 8, the family is crestfallen to learn that the kids cannot be baptized for at least 10 more years later because one of their parents (their father) - to use the language of the policy - "has lived... in a same-gender relationship". 

 

Again, I acknowledge (and dearly hope) that some clarifying direction on how to handle situations like this, and other similar situations.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think the requirement is ridiculous--it seems obvious to me that a person would need to agree with the doctrines of the church before being baptized a member--but what i think is a double standard is that current members are not asked to disavow SSM.  

 

Current members can believe it's acceptable to God and that's fine as long as they don't advocate for it publicly.  Doesn't seem fair.

On my mission, I interviewed people for baptism. If they were unable at the time or unwilling to obey the Word of Wisdom, I would not have approved the baptism. To do so would have been contrary to instruction.

Are you saying it's a double standard that we don't excommunicate members who won't obey the Word of Wisdom?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, why has this action been sorely needed for a long time? Is gay marriage any more contrary to the laws of the Gospel now that it was before this policy was drafted for inclusion in the Handbook? Is the Church's position on traditional marriage any clearer now than it has been since these discussions began in earnest during Prop 8? 

 

Based on the plain language of the policy ( and I understand that clarifying direction may come later - the following scenario is very well within the pale of plausibility:

 

A 25 year-old man has lived a gay lifestyle for several years, cohabiting with another during that time. Later, he meets missionaries, desires to conform his life to the standards of the Church, gains a testimony, etc. He is cleared for baptism by the mission president. Two years later, he marries a wonderful woman in the Church who knows his past struggles and who loves him. They remain steadfast, active, and as obedient as human beings can be. They have children together. As the children near the age of 8, the family is crestfallen to learn that the kids cannot be baptized for at least 10 more years later because one of their parents (their father) - to use the language of the policy - "has lived... in a same-gender relationship". 

 

Again, I acknowledge (and dearly hope) that some clarifying direction on how to handle situations like this, and other similar situations.

As I said earlier on another thread, gay "marriage" has ony been widely legal for a very short time. It is not surprising a new provision in the handbook has only now come about.

Regarding your scenario, I don't see it as a problem. It seems self-evident to me that the Church would recognize the repentance that had taken place and that children in the home were not being taught to accord with a sentiment favoring same-sex marriage.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

On my mission, I interviewed people for baptism. If they were unable at the time or unwilling to obey the Word of Wisdom, I would not have approved the baptism. To do so would have been contrary to instruction.

Are you saying it's a double standard that we don't excommunicate members who won't obey the Word of Wisdom?

No, I'm saying it seems like a double standard that a child of ssmarried parents can't be a member unless he disavows ssm, but my friend (who's a bishop and a very good man) can support ssm completely and be a member, and even a leader.

[The Nehor]

I am personally shocked that people actually believe God is behind so much of this nonsense.

 

And I am personally shocked that people who think it is nonsense spent so much time fixated on it.

[volgadon]

I'm not sure what you are saying.  Are you saying you doubt the Brethren's love for the children of gay parents (therefore protecting children can't be their real motivation), that you think Elder Christofferson is not telling the truth about their motivation, or are you trying to say something else?

I'm saying that the argument's logic doesn't hold, and it feels post hoc. He was also being a little disingenuous when it came to explaining the reasoning behind the polygamist policies.