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

[california boy]

Sure there is.  I see a lot of pain and confusion among the most valiant and active in the church over this new policy.  

 

A brother in my ward is in agony over it because his ex-wife has his kids half the time and she lives with her gay partner.  He has kids under 8 years old and doesn't know if they can be baptized.  The kids love their Mother (and he does too, but they are no longer married).  He has a son who was to be ordained a deacon in a few weeks and the Bishop has told him that he doesn't know now if that can take place.

 

Some clarification needs to happen here and happen soon.  

 

Will this boy be punished and not allowed to get the Priesthood?   Will he have to sit by and watch all of his friends be ordained and pass the sacrament?  How long do you think he'll want to continue attending and be on the outside of his age group?  This man is one of the most stalwart members of the church I've known.

 

So it has been a few days since this policy was announced.  And there has been a lot of emotional upheaval about the ramifications of what this all means. Perhaps the real question that has not been asked is why is this policy is even needed.  

 

Clearly there are times where it is in the best interest of the child and the family where it is better for a child to not be baptized.  A gay couple raising an adopted child would in most cases be one of those situations.  Parents who are hostile to the church. And many other unforeseen situations.

 

But there are cases like you point out as well as Daniel2 and many others where it seems clearly in the best interest of the children to allow a child to be baptized and does not effect the gay parents relationship with the child.  Often there are parents who are gay who like me want to encourage their children to participate fully in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Just because a person is gay does not mean that they don't see the good that comes from raising children in the church.  It is these situations that this policy seems to rip apart the family and children more than it helps bind and increase love.

 

So why even have this policy.  For a church who strongly believes in personal revelation, why can't a bishop or stake president be the one who can carefully weigh the needs of the child and family involved?  Why can't the policy be one of exercising extreme caution when a gay parent is involved but counseling careful consideration and prayer in going forward with the baptism.  It seems like the policy could be more counsel against children of gay parents being baptized, but relying on the Spirit in making the decision.  

 

Do all you TBM have any problem with this more compassionate and spiritual approach to determining baptism worthiness?  Do you TBM see that at times, it may be in the best interest of the child to be baptized.  Or is it all or nothing

[Calm]

Your name suits you well. 

I need the reminder right now.  Lots of upheavals in my life, very few having to do with the Church thank goodness, that being stable for me is essential.  Future portends to be a bit more complex though we still have a few years probably.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Calm

[ALarson]

If you mean the leak...didn't say it was.

I keep hearing that there was a "leak".  The only name I've seen associated with it is John Dehlin.  Does anyone have information regarding what actually happened or is it still unknown?

[ERayR]

So it has been a few days since this policy was announced.  And there has been a lot of emotional upheaval about the ramifications of what this all means. Perhaps the real question that has not been asked is why is this policy is even needed.  

 

Clearly there are times where it is in the best interest of the child and the family where it is better for a child to not be baptized.  A gay couple raising an adopted child would in most cases be one of those situations.  Parents who are hostile to the church. And many other unforeseen situations.

 

But there are cases like you point out as well as Daniel2 and many others where it seems clearly in the best interest of the children to allow a child to be baptized and does not effect the gay parents relationship with the child.  Often there are parents who are gay who like me want to encourage their children to participate fully in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Just because a person is gay does not mean that they don't see the good that comes from raising children in the church.  It is these situations that this policy seems to rip apart the family and children more than it helps bind and increase love.

 

So why even have this policy.  For a church who strongly believes in personal revelation, why can't a bishop or stake president be the one who can carefully weigh the needs of the child and family involved?  Why can't the policy be one of exercising extreme caution when a gay parent is involved but counseling careful consideration and prayer in going forward with the baptism.  It seems like the policy could be more counsel against children of gay parents being baptized, but relying on the Spirit in making the decision.  

 

Do all you TBM have any problem with this more compassionate and spiritual approach to determining baptism worthiness?  Do you TBM see that at times, it may be in the best interest of the child to be baptized.  Or is it all or nothing

 

I agree with your reasoning and in a perfect world that would be the way it would work.  Unfortunately it is not perfect even in the confines of the Church.  I fear that were your suggestions adopted there would still be an uproar and a cacophony of voices raised in opposition.  I fear that whatever the policy adopted the brethren would be excoriated. 

[Calm]

I keep hearing that there was a "leak".  The only name I've seen associated with it is John Dehlin.  Does anyone have information regarding what actually happened or is it still unknown?

All I know is that stuff was sent to bishops and SPs and then Dehlin posted info online with his usual slant.

 

I don't know if he said who he got it from, I didn't read everything he posted.

[Tacenda]

The age that one can be allowed to be baptized in the church is 8 years old. Getting baptized at that age assumes that there will be a supportive and active family ready to help the child grow in the gospel. Parents are there to guide and direct the child in that growth.

When that support is not there, the child is going to find it very difficult to continue in church activity on their own.

Beyond that, when there are situations - such as SSM - where what the child is experiencing is fully inconsistent with the restored gospel, it makes most sense to have the child make such decisions about baptism when they have the experience and maturity to make difficult decisions and live up to commitments without any outside support.

Very plausible, on the other hand, as my gay nephew on my husband's side said, the emotional turmoil the children & straight TBM parents will experience.  For instance an ex-wife of an LGBT, who has a son who won't be able to pass the sacrament but have to sit in the pews, or the thought that the she won't get to plan a baptism for her daughter or pick out a dress.  Or if the 18 yr old children have to denounce their father or mother's actions in order to be baptized, this might put a wedge in the families. Anyway, my nephew saw both sides. But had these very good points to make.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Tacenda

[california boy]

Sucks doesn't it? I have a lot of experience waiting on the Lord for blessings. If I had it my way, I would get all the blessings right now and give them as well. But the Lord knows better than I do.

The question we all have to ask is Do you trust the Lord?

If you trust Him then trust that He directs His Church in certain ways for certain reasons.

 

Maybe the questions that should also be asked is "Do the church leaders trust that bishops and stake presidents seek the Lord in the decisions they make?"  

 

Why have they taken this decision out of the hands of the local leaders?

[Calm]

 

 

Why have they taken this decision out of the hands of the local leaders?

Lot of people are wary of leadership roulette.  This will lead to consistency and being able to have reference to many more other cases to draw on for comparison.

[ERayR]

Very plausible. On the other foot is, as my gay nephew on my husband's side said, the reaction the children recieve if not baptised, such as for instance an ex-wife of an LGBT, who has a son who won't be able to pass the sacrament but have to sit in the pews, or the thought that the exwife won't get to plan a baptism for her daughter or pick out a dress (actually reactions from this policy coming from children as well, those children not getting baptised but who want to, it can cause all kinds of priblems). Or if the 18 yr old children have to denounce their father or mother's actions. There will be a wedge in the family. Anyway, my nephew saw both sides. But had some very good points.

 

I could be wrong but my understanding is that the ordinances are not denied but must be cleared with the First Presidency.  Am I Wrong?

[california boy]

I agree with your reasoning and in a perfect world that would be the way it would work.  Unfortunately it is not perfect even in the confines of the Church.  I fear that were your suggestions adopted there would still be an uproar and a cacophony of voices raised in opposition.  I fear that whatever the policy adopted the brethren would be excoriated. 

 

That may be true.  But isn't the over riding importance being listening to the spirit in determining what is best for the child and the family?  Do local leaders not have any access to that spirit?  Are there never situations where it would be in the best interest of the child and family to allow baptism and priesthood ordination?

[Calm]

Like everything that I am aware of in the handbook, appeals for exceptions can be made to the FP.  There are a few polices that look like there are no exceptions from how it is written in the book but I have heard of a number of exceptions being made, including knowing one of the bishops in one case of a living woman being sealed to two husbands.

[ALarson]

I could be wrong but my understanding is that the ordinances are not denied but must be cleared with the First Presidency.  Am I Wrong?

My Bishop understood it to state that no Priesthood ordination or advancement.  My example in this thread is already one from my ward where a boy turning 12 may not be ordained in a few weeks.

 

I think my Bishop is waiting for further clarification.

[ERayR]

That may be true.  But isn't the over riding importance being listening to the spirit in determining what is best for the child and the family?  Do local leaders not have any access to that spirit?  Are there never situations where it would be in the best interest of the child and family to allow baptism and priesthood ordination?

 

I said I agree with you.  I do believe that the policy does not deny the performing of the ordinances but to do so requires First Presidency approval.

[ERayR]

My Bishop understood it to state that no Priesthood ordination or advancement.  My example in this thread is already one from my ward where a boy turning 12 may not be ordained in a few weeks.

 

I think my Bishop is waiting for further clarification.

 

Quote

 

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."

 

 

I am only going by what it says.  Note bold part.

[volgadon]

Quote

 

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."

 

 

I am only going by what it says.  Note bold part.

Only upon reaching the age of eighteen.

[ALarson]

 

Quote

 

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."

 

 

I am only going by what it says.  Note bold part.

 

Exactly.  My Bishop has told this brother (who has a son turning 12 soon but now the ordination is cancelled) that he does not know if his son will need to stop living part time with his Mother (who is living with a gay partner) and disavow how she lives.  This young boy loves his Mother and there are also other children involved (who are under 8 years of age).  Will he have to choose between being with his Mother or being left out of his age group at church?   Will he have to wait until he's "of legal age" to be ordained a deacon?

 

He will if the policy is followed as it's written above (notice the word "and", not "or" after your bolded part above).  

 

I guess we'll see what further direction comes. 

Edited November 8, 2015 by ALarson

[volgadon]

Was there any possibility that the orthodox Jews that were in opposition weren't particularly serious about that opposition??

The negotiations were with the government, which consisted of more than just Ultra-Orthodox Jews, so the seriousness of the opposition is not the biggest factor.

[california boy]

Lot of people are wary of leadership roulette.  This will lead to consistency and being able to have reference to many more other cases to draw on for comparison.

 

So you think it is a bad idea having local leaders be able to evaluate individual cases and rely on the Spirit on making such important decisions.

[Bernard Gui]

While I agree with you in general; I do believe history has shown us that there are some religious convictions that should be outmoded. Religious racial convictions being one of them.

Of course, but that is not the current issue.

[Ahab]

... it is my opinion that those who anonymously defend the Church on the internet will have more to account to the Lord in the end than nameless apostates.

You're entitled to your opinion but just so you know: God will hold all of us accountable for what we do regardless of what our name is, and regardless of whether or not anyone on the internet knows our name.

2. The purpose is to show that religions should be free to define conditions of membership, and people who are outsiders, apostates or anonymous posters simply lack standing to complain.

EVERYONE is entitled to share their opinion, though, Bob, even if they go by a different name than their parents or an earthly government gave them. And God still knows what our true name is.

3. No shunning is going on.. Paul says that the churches are required to excommunicate those who trouble the church, as does the D&C. It is a divine mandate.

I agree that no shunning is going on, and I am totally okay with what the leaders of our Lord's church are doing. You should know that there are always going to be people who are opposed to anything that goes against what they want to see happen, though, and you should still encourage them to share their opinions. It's the best way to know what they really think and how they feel about things.

[volgadon]

That's from Volgodon's perspective. He doesn't have all the facts, as he admitted.

 

I'm not sure that there's anything a well-connected solicitor would have been able to do anyway. The opposition to the church in Israel was based primarily (from what I understand) on the proselytizing issue, and if that wasn't resolved, it didn't matter if the church demanded protection under the religious freedom laws in Israel. It might have won the battle, but lost the war, so to speak.

 

With the agreement, they found a compromise that worked for what the current needs were. The members of the church there may not have liked it, or may have felt "left out", but there probably wasn't much real choice in the matter. So that's what's in place until the Lord sees fit to change it.

I may not have all the facts, but I am probably somewhat better informed here as I know a great many of the parties involved, and have been impacted personally by this decision in ways that you have not. A native Israeli solicitor would have understood the legal contours of the negotiations, and been able to suggest where the church could push and succeed, and where it couldn't. Being well-connects not only gives one better access to information, it also allows you to accomplish a great deal in a country like Israel. The point is that the church did not take advantage of high-calibre resources amongst the local members. They didn't even try, and they did not give full consideration to the consequences for local members. Never mind that we were required to abide by an agreement whose contents we were not allowed to see, but students were.

[volgadon]

Was the Jerusalem Center necessary for the wellbeing of the Church in general? Was it a benefit or a hardship for local members given the limitations that it imposed?  I can imagine they might feel somewhat alienated from and frustrated with the less local Church leadership if the benefit derived helped members outside of Israel in great ways by providing them with the experience of living in Jerusalem for a time while removing the rights and privileges of members living there permanently and making it more difficult to raise an active family there without giving them a chance to express their concerns.

Exactly it.

[volgadon]

Perhaps. But since all of this is based on conjecture anyway, I'm not sure we can make that judgment. Also, I'm not sure what rights and privileges where actually removed from the members living there by the agreement.

In any case, my original point was that the church does have a policy in Israel that concerns baptizing others, and it's worthwhile considering it in the context of the new policy revision concerning children of SSM couples.

The church's policy goes beyond merely baptising others. It is unnecessarily restrictive, and it is far from clear that it needed to be implemented at all, let alone in its present form, and it has had a destructive impact on local church membership. Perhaps you are right, and this is an important parallel to the policy regarding children of SSM marriages and unions. As for rights and privileges, as an Israeli citizen I have the right to proselytize. My government did not take that from me, the church did, and imposed a further restriction which meant that even if someone asked me anything about the church, I could not answer. Not even if the information was such as could be found in an encyclopedia entry. No growth unless by some luck a family moves in, and even in those cases because the church makes I very difficult to find information about attending church, there have been cases where a family could have been living in Israel for nearly a decade before discovering a church unit. Because of these restrictions and furtive behaviour, my generation found an irresolvable conflict between church attendance and maintaing close friendships and relationships in our communities. Edited November 8, 2015 by volgadon

[Vanguard]

I am interested in understanding how the newly-announced policy will be applied to LDS children currently being raised, at least partially, in SS households (of which there are 1000s). This is not a thread for discussing the pros/cons of the policy itself. Please just put yourself in the shoes of a bishop faced with these scenarios and tell me your understanding of what the new  policy requires.

 

As background, here is the policy:

 

 

Under my reading, it appears that the church's role with respect to a child changes the instant that her parent begins cohabitating or gets married (or at least the instant that the bishop becomes aware of that fact). It seems clear that a child cannot engage in any new ordinances, ordinations, or missionary service until they (i) reach adulthood, (ii) disavow their parent's behavior, and (iii) obtain FP approval. (Man, the office of the FP is going to be pretty busy)

 

But I still am unclear of what happens in the following scenarios:

• 13 year old boy. Deacon. Can he be ordained a Teacher? Notice the wording in the policy: "ordained to the priesthood." That's not a correct phrase. Under traditional LDS teachings, a person is "conferred" the priesthood and "ordained" to an office. So if a boy has already been conferred the Aaronic Priesthood and ordained to the office of a deacon prior to his parent's cohabitation/marriage, can he be ordained to another office within that priesthood under this policy?

• 17 year old boy. Priest. Can he continue to administer the sacrament and perform baptisms (just not for his younger siblings)? I think the answer is yes. The policy is not retroactive. 

• 12-17 year old youth. Can they continue to attend temple trips and perform ordinances for the dead? Again, I think so. But it seems odd that such a child could not be baptized herself because of the policy, but could be baptized for the deceased.

• 11 year old boy comes in for interview to be ordained. Does the bishop have an obligation to investigate whether the boy has a parent in a SSM? Does the mother have an obligation to disclose her ex-husband's situation? And what action does the bishop take against the mother if she conceals the situation and the boy is ordained in violation of the policy? 

Again, thanks in advance for not discussing the merits of the policy itself in this thread.

 

I'm hung up on the statement - "the child ... does not live with a parent". How are we defining "live with". If the straight parent has primary physical custody but the child "visits" the other parent 1-2 days/week does that have to constitute "live with"? I suspect it will not. IMO, it doesn't make sense if the hetero-parent continues active in the church and retains primary custody that the child will not be allowed to be baptized. For me, this is the scenario of most concern. If the policy does not allow for this distinction then I struggle considerably with it.

[Stargazer]

And how do you incorporate the requirement for the child to not be living in the same house at the age of 18 in order to be baptized?

The child is being asked to reject his parents marriage while living under the same roof with them. I requie that my adult children live according to my rules while under my roof: no smoking, no drinking, no bringing home unmarried sex partner to sleep in their room with them. The requirement you mention is a logical extension of the base policy.