jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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/ Excellent observations! 1
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Evidently most people dissing the church on this are having trouble grasping the fact that a child who is heavily influenced in a SSM environment - an environment that is fully inconsistent with the restored gospel - is going to be seriously and increasingly conflicted during their Primary and YM/YW years if they have feet in both camps. Elder Christofferson's explanation on that is more than appropriate in and of itself, though I think there are other reasons involved. Then why at least where I live do ward leadership work with missionaries in sending them to home of less actives that have non baptized children with parents that are living in a variety of sinful situations. The goal is to try to get these kids baptized. When I was a bishop I tried to reign this in and when there was child from such a home that might be baptized I asked for a commitment to support getting the child to primary, YM or YW and church in Sunday before we approved the baptism. Even with that more often than not the child was not supported in church activity and just became a name on the rolls.So how about not only applying this to SSM situation? Without it is does seem like SSM families are being singled out. 1
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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. You don't want it to hold water. What you're failing to grasp is that in all of the situations you mention, there are times when there does have to be additional approval for baptism - because of the situation the child is in. That happens all the time. It has simply been determined that a SSM environment is so inconsistent with the principles of the gospel, that those situations need special approval - when the child is of age. Elder Christofferson explained this very clearly in the video. I'm baffled as to why anyone would not understand. 2
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I am personally shocked that people actually believe God is behind so much of this nonsense. I'm not shocked that you're making inane statements like this.
volgadon Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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 peopleIf the child participates socially, attends Primary and, later, youth organizations, then doesn't that defeat the argument about protecting the child from all that? 2
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Then why at least where I live do ward leadership work with missionaries in sending them to home of less actives that have non baptized children with parents that are living in a variety of sinful situations. The goal is to try to get these kids baptized. When I was a bishop I tried to reign this in and when there was child from such a home that might be baptized I asked for a commitment to support getting the child to primary, YM or YW and church in Sunday before we approved the baptism. Even with that more often than not the child was not supported in church activity and just became a name on the rolls.So how about not only applying this to SSM situation? Without it is does seem like SSM families are being singled out. The official goal has always been to bring -->families<-- into the church together. The goal where I live is NOT to get kids baptized if their parents aren't going to be equally committed. 1
Avatar4321 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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/It's a very good blog post. The Lord tells us to act in wisdom for all things. Sometimes we are asked to wait for blessings we see others enjoy now. The question we must always ask ourselves is how do we respond when we are asked to wait for a blessing? Do we react in faith, having firm reliance on Divine Providence, to know the Lord knows when the time is right? Or do we complain, murmur, or worse declaring the an all loving God is mean and unkind.When I was growing up there were many time things my parents did seemed unloving and unkind that may have saved my life.We can't stop people from acting as if the brethren are acting out of spite toward children but we know the truth and we are to run the Church as the Lord directs 2
omni Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I'm not seeing this in the change (but could have missed it) can you quote it or show a reference? Part 2 of the qualifications for baptism, ordination, or missionary service in the handbook states, "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."
Kenngo1969 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 You'll have to answer that question for yourself. Best wishes in your searching, fearless, internal inventory.
Mystery Meat Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) I think in order to make things more consistent there needs to be a new temple recommend question and baptismal question for new converts age 12 and up, something along the lines of: Do you believe that marriage is a divine institution ordained by God and is defined in exclusivity as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman? If the individual cannot answer the question in the affirmative, they cannot qualify for a temple recommend. That way everyone must disavow the pernicious and sinful practice of SSM. Edited November 7, 2015 by Mystery Meat 1
Duncan Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Under what conditions would someone need to get 1st Pres. approval?
ERayR Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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. It is an excellent piece and reflects thought and reason. 1
ksfisher Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I think in order to make things more consistent there needs to be a new temple recommend question and baptismal question for new converts age 12 and up, something along the lines of: Do you believe that marriage is a divine institution ordained by God and is defined in exclusivity as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman? If the individual cannot answer the question in the affirmative, they cannot qualify for a temple recommend. That way everyone must disavow the pernicious and sinful practice of SSM. Right now the policy seems to be you can support SSM, just not enter into it. I think that this is the wisest policy for the time being.
bluebell Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Right now the policy seems to be you can support SSM, just not enter into it. I think that this is the wisest policy for the time being.I think it's the policy for current members or people not related to homosexuals. If you are the child of a gay person who is married or cohabitates, you can't support it though. You have to disavow it before you can become a member.
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 At a different level. Part member families may send mixed messages to the children, or at worst, have a parent who is simply unsupportive. Children become conflicted because of that, but not to the extent of the cognitive dissonance that exists in a SSM environment. This presupposes the SSM parent wont be supportive. At least one person on this board who is ex LDS and in a SSM disputes this. Also how supportive is an inactive non married heterosexual couple of the child that may have been baptized? I can tell you... not much. 2
bluebell Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Part 2 of the qualifications for baptism, ordination, or missionary service in the handbook states, "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."Thanks for finding that. I'm assuming it reflects families where the gay parent is fully supportive of ssm but is not currently living it (and thus the parent will probably cohabitate again in the future). It wouldn't make any sense for the child of someone who could repent and be baptized and be a member in good standing, not to be able to do the same while living with said member. But clarity is definitely needed.
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Never mind. Not worth dignifying. Edited November 7, 2015 by Valentinus
Traela Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 What everyone seems to ignore is that exceptions can be granted. A non-member guy in our ward, married to a member and with member children, embezzled a pretty serious amount of money. He repented and was baptized after he was released from prison but still on probation, even though that's against the Handbook. The bishop and SP were sufficiently convinced of his change of heart (he used to be a pretty arrogant jerk) that they appealed to the First Presidency, who granted the exemption.I suspect that there will be many exemptions, but the policy will keep bishops and missionaries from being quite so gung-ho about baptisms in a more-tricky-than-usual situation.
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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. All of the people condemning the church for not being open about its history are now condemning it for being open about where it stands on SSM. Go figure. 3
ksfisher Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I think it's the policy for current members or people not related to homosexuals.If you are the child of a gay person who is married or cohabitates, you can't support it though. You have to disavow it before you can become a member. You're right. I was thinking of it from the perspective of your friend the bishop you mentioned who you say supports SSM. Currently, it seems, he's welcome to do that. For the present time that, to me, seems to be the wisest policy.
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 As usual for those who want to find fault no explanation would be satisfactory. As usual those who want to believe will find a reason to do so even if the explanations are poor ones. 4
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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. I have no issue with this even though personally I think the new policy over reaches and I have posted why I think that.
bluebell Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 You're right. I was thinking of it from the perspective of your friend the bishop you mentioned who you say supports SSM. Currently, it seems, he's welcome to do that. For the present time that, to me, seems to be the wisest policy.I don't mind the policy as it now stands, and I also think it's wise not to allow people to join the church unless they accept the doctrines the church teaches. I don't think it's fair for members to have beliefs that people trying to become members are not allowed to have. I'm not sure what the answer is.
Wants2know Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I can't believe they did this. I'm definitely done.
Senator Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 All of the people condemning the church for not being open about its history are now condemning it for being open about where it stands on SSM. Go figure.Really? People are condemning the church for being open about it's stance on SSM.? I haven't seen this. Or are they condemning the stance?
Recommended Posts