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

[mfbukowski]

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

You have no problem that your children are taught that your lifestyle goes against God's law?

 

Why would you not have a problem with that?

 

The problem is that an 8 year old cannot possibly make an intelligent decision about SSM and the conflict with being told that Daddy is wrong.  How can you not see that?  Why would you put your child through that conflict?

[rockpond]

I don't know about that you can't come, my son isn't baptized and he's welcome and he's 12!

 

Are either you or your son's mom in a same-sex marriage or cohabitation?  Or have either of you been in one in the past?

[maxrep12]

Didn't see this until now, but I just gave a countdown reading on his 40-year prediction.

Scott, you don't really want to be bringing up predictions now do you?

[mfbukowski]

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.

One mistake by a local leader could subject the church to huge lawsuits because of decisions which were seen as unfair, inconsistent, and discriminatory. 

[Freedom]

I don't mean to be rude or to be flippant, but I am really struggling to see the Lord's hand in any of the recent church decisions.  From the backtracking of the essays to the Prop 8 disaster, to the public excommunications, and now to the meansprited changes of policy.  If all of this is being directed by the Lord's hand, then I wonder what the differences would be if these issues would have been handled without the Lord's help.  You know, with just very conservative businessmen calling all of the shots.

Apparently you have never read the scriptures to see how God works. Perhaps you should review how God dealt with cheating tithe payers in the New Testament or sexually free spirited cities in the old testament. I see no back tracking, no disasters and no public excommunications. I see God's leaders taking a stand and not wavering. I see consistency and remarkable tolerance compared to how God lead his church in ancient times. 

[Duncan]

Are either you or your son's mom in a same-sex marriage or cohabitation?  Or have either of you been in one in the past?

 

 

me personally? no! I am happy but not homosexual

[rockpond]

me personally? no! I am happy but not homosexual

 

Well, if the same is true of your son's mother, than he is welcome.  It is if a child has a parent who is or has been in a marital or cohabiting relationship with someone of the same gender that Elder Christofferson said it would be inappropriate to participate at our Church.

[maxrep12]

The leaders are fallible and the policy is not perfect.  The policy affects very few people.  How many non-LDS gay parents would have their under 18 year old kids ask to be baptized in the LDS Church?  I would be shocked if it happened even 5 times in a year.  If anything is wrong with the policy is that it probably was not needed for the handbook.  These instances would be so rare that the handbook could just say for those rare instance of a gay couple having a child being baptized, call church headquarters on how to proceed.

These are my thoughts as well.

 

If this is the case, then why was an unneeded policy put into place? It is my opinion that the intent is to prevent members and teens in the church from interacting with same sex married couples and their children. Perhaps the leaders fear that members and our young people could find out first hand that a same sex couple can raise a beautiful family.  

[Stargazer]

You were the one who first made the analogy of new policy relating to SSM and baptism to abortion.  I agreed that it was an apt analogy, and thus the reason for so much confusion relating to the new policy--it appears to be so inconsistant with previously revealed doctrines and policies.

 

 

I also supposed I should have made it clear that I was talking about elective abortions where rape/incest/health were not issues--I assume that's the case you were reffering to when you first brought it up.

 

That last sentence of yours made little sense, semantically, that's all.  It appeared to be mixing things up -- that's happened to me, with a stray sentence that I never completed getting into the final version of the post.  It sounded like that, but I couldn't be sure.

[Stargazer]

I don't mean to be rude or to be flippant, but I am really struggling to see the Lord's hand in any of the recent church decisions.  From the backtracking of the essays to the Prop 8 disaster, to the public excommunications, and now to the meansprited changes of policy.  If all of this is being directed by the Lord's hand, then I wonder what the differences would be if these issues would have been handled without the Lord's help.  You know, with just very conservative businessmen calling all of the shots.

 

Prop 8 disaster?  What disaster?  Oh, you're saying that because a bunch of people opposed to Prop 8 got into a huge hissy fit over the Church urging its members to actively support the proposition, that that constituted a disaster?  Oh, please.  If I do something that is right, and people castigate me for it, I do not count that as a disaster.  I count doing something right (even if I ultimately lose the contest) as a good thing, not a disaster.

[Lemuel]

The law of Moses was revelation from God. The handbook is more like Oral Torah, the traditions of men.

[volgadon]

The law of Moses was revelation from God. The handbook is more like Oral Torah, the traditions of men.

The handbook is more like a simplified and unified set of responsa.

[Meadowchik]

You are misunderstanding... the church's new POLICY makes custody irrelevant.  Just having a gay parent who is, or has been, in a same-sex married/cohabiting relationship denies baptism/ordination to the child.  It doesn't matter if the child never lives with the gay parent.

 

That's the rub, rockpond: if the Church policy decision were to hinge on the impact of the child's custodial parents, and if them being a same-sex couple would trigger the policy, then it makes sense to consider the NON-custodial parents. Why?  Because they can become the custodial parents overnight for a number of reasons.  Thus, it's possible that with this policy, they are obliged to consider the parents as the baseline because the custody of the child could easily transition between them.

 

Furthermore, for the adult children, I do believe there is wisdom in requiring the child to be independent of parental help, by way of them not living in a parental home, as a condition of baptism.  That way, there won't be the risk of the child's opposing religious commitments getting them kicked out.

[Meadowchik]

These are my thoughts as well.

 

If this is the case, then why was an unneeded policy put into place? It is my opinion that the intent is to prevent members and teens in the church from interacting with same sex married couples and their children. Perhaps the leaders fear that members and our young people could find out first hand that a same sex couple can raise a beautiful family.  

 

I can see the logic in that, but I also think I see the error.  Such a conclusion must assume that the Church shuns apostates and non-member participants, and also minimizes the effects of baptismal covenants. 

 

Do any of those hold up? 

 

My ward is an example: 

 

A husband was recently re-baptised after being excommunicated.  Was he ever excluded from the Church or treated badly?  Not that I could tell.  The only way I knew was because the question came up when he was preparing for baptism.  And I was told discreetly.  Their son was in Primary the whole time and was not treated any differently because of his dad's standing. 

 

A non-member family was coming to our ward for atleast 4 years before the parents got baptised this year.  I took care of their daughter in nursury and would not have known they were not members had I not been told.

 

What about kids? Do they know that baptism is more than just going through the motions?  In my family, we certainly don't treat it as such. And of course, in policy, the Church does not either. Children are interviewed to ensure they understand they are making promises to the Lord.  In my experience, previously as a child and now as a mother, a child deliberately promising is different than participating in events at Church.

 

I don't think the evidence of how the Church operates now supports the idea that apostates or their children are shunned at Church.  Thus, the the claim that the intent of the policy is to scare them away from participation does not hold water. 

[Meadowchik]

In these cases, the child has already been through one divorce with his parents. If she accepts that a remarriage of his parent with a gay parent is a sin, that means she needs to hope that her gay parent gets to go through again what probably was the most difficult experience in their life. I find it hard to see a child will ever be okay with wanting that.

I've seen one child in that situation state that he was fine with his dad's gay marriage and that he was planning on his mission to avoid the subject and focus on other things. And he is now resigning the Church though he was just about to go on a mission. I expect this is likely the most common position eventually held by children who have a good relationship with their married gay parent and if the parent is happy with the marriage. Some may be able to look at their parent and believe that suffering a divorce and being alone is spiritually better for them, but it is hard enough for nonrelated adults to accept that....so few and far between when it comes to loving children imo and it shouldn't be held against them. I would find it extremely hard to tell a gay couple that I could never see again they need to divorce and remain alone until death if they had found happiness in each other even though I believe it won't be an eternal relationship and may cause long term harm to their spiritual relationship with God. And I don't know what I may say if it happens with a family member. A child playing that role...it just seems wrong to me to put them in that situation. Especially since as they age they will understand the implications of separation better.

If both parents believe the child can handle it and they willchoose to counsel against the position the young man I refer to above held...believing SSM is okay and one just keeps one's silence about it at church, then I would suggest they work with their bishops to appeal when they feel it is right and not wait until 18. I am reading quite a number of current and former bishops say they are reading the language to allow for earlier exceptions so I am taking their experienced word for it unless the Church comes out with different instructions denying those possibilities.

 

Personally, I believe that D&C 130: 20-21 applies here,

 

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

Goodness reaps blessings, kindness, selflessness, consideration, understanding, gentleness, patience,...they all likewise have the potential to reap blessings in any relationship, even a same-sex relationship.  By the same token, an eternal increase is predicated upon marriage between a man and woman.  Thus, the barrier for those in same-sex relationships.  As a woman married to a man and in the temple, I can easily see that having our own relationship extend into the eternities will take much sacrifice and work.  I think many of us on this side of the veil will be surprised to know how things are going to shake out on the other side: there will doubtless be some who move on by virtue of their keeping the temple covenants while the earthly spouse stays behind. Yet, we are still taught now to shoot high, to aim for the Celestial Kingdom.  That, imo, would be the mission of the Church, in part.  Thus, the labeling of apostasy on those in same-sex marriages.

 

I think I understand this, but I'm 37 years old and I've been thinking about these things for a long time.  I believe such an understanding only comes after many other things are clear in the mind to prepare the way.  So, I agree, I cannot imagine a small child being able to digest it. I do think that even a young adult will have to work hard to obtain it, that is, to understand the stumbling block inherent in same-sex marriage while still holding out hope in all things and while being confident in loving that parent in a same-sex relationship wholeheartedly.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Scott Lloyd]

And don't forget "bigots" as you have also termed us.

Yeah. Russell got thread banned for allegedly saying someone was apostate. Does referring to people on the board as bigots get a pass?

[Thinking]

So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.

Emphasis mine.

 

It's easy for the one who doesn't have to wait to act like it's not a big deal for those who are told to wait. Is nothing really lost? The child who is told to wait can't

• participate in youth temple trips.
• pass, prepare or bless the sacrament.
• hold leadership positions.

[Meadowchik]

Exactly, you're highlighting the contradiction of how these two moral principles are being addressed:

If this policy were applied to abortion it would be as if the recipient of an abortion would be disciplined (makes sense).

But a doctor at a state hopsital that performs an abortion wouldn't be disciplined--to use your words:

If SSM is as wrong as we claim, I don't see how it being your job makes it any more acceptable to be performing it than being a recipient.

And the fact that the parent had an abortion, no longer how long ago, their subsequent children would still have to wait til 18 for baptism and also recieve 1st Presidency approval.

A flaw in this reasoning is that same-sex marriage and abortion are not the same thing. Abortion involves killing, while ssm does not. Already that should give pause to any comparison trying to reason the two in the eyes of the Lord and His servants. Edited November 9, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

<p>

Emphasis mine.

It's easy for the one who doesn't have to wait to act like it's not a big deal for those who are told to wait. Is nothing really lost? The child who is told to wait can't

• participate in youth temple trips.
• pass, prepare or bless the sacrament.
• hold leadership positions.

Nothing is lost in the eternal scheme of things, but yes, the fact that it could be hard is unavoidable. But, the Lord asks us to do and bear hard things, and He will be there for those who seek Him. Edited November 9, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Bobbieaware]

He said it exactly like that, "just a little bit more".

Perhaps you are

I don't know quite where to place this. Today I attended Stake Conference, the area 70 was a Bro. & Sis. Golden, from So. Africa. Both had good things to say, I was open to them. But there was a point where he mentioned the church handbook changes. And then mentioned hearing of someone who said they prayed about it and felt it was wrong, the changes. Bro. Golden proceeded to tell us that whenever we are inspired about something that conflicts with the church or scripture then it is wrong, or of Satan. Then he also said that God loves those who follow his commandments more than those that don't. I should just stop attending these meetings I guess. So everything in scripture and the church is never wrong?

Unfamiliarity with the teachings of the scriptures causes so many unnecessary misunderstandings and hurt feelings, and your experience at yesterday's stake conference provides a perfect example of what I mean: You summarily rejected Elder Golden's teaching concerning God's greater outpouring of love upon the faithful (and a lesser outpouring of love upon the unfaithful) because in your ignorance of the scriptures you -- and the others on this thread who have joined you in your negative attitude toward Elder Golden's remarks -- don't realize this is exactly the same doctrine of divine love taught by the Savior in the scriptures. Yes, I know you're shocked I would make the claim that Christ taught God pours out greater love upon the faithful than he does the unfaithful, but it is a true principle nonetheless. Here are the Lord's words:

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, HE IT IS THAT LOBETH ME; and he that loveth me SHALL BE LOVED of my Father, and I WILL LOVE HIM, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14)

It must be remembered that the word love is not only a noun that can be defined as feelings of affection and devotion toward someone or something, but it can also serve as a verb that denotes kind and deliberate ACTIONS of blessing directed toward others as a consequence of the reciprocation of emotional love. Therefore, God is able to love (I.e. pour out greater spiritual and temporal blessings upon) the deligent and faithful more than upon the faithless and rebellious who place themselves outside of the active outpouring of God's love by their own negative thoughts and actions. God is better able to pour out the blessings of his love when people acknowledge that he is and that "he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him."

Many years ago I made a conscious decision to give the General Authorities the benefit of the doubt when they say something that at first blush seems to be in error, and over and over again when I got home and appealed to the scriptures for clarification I came to realize they spoke the truth after all. Jumping to conclusions because of a pre-existing bias is never a good idea.

P.S. If you want more verses of scripture that teach God loves (used as a verb) the faithful more than the wicked, just let me know and I'll provide them.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Russell C McGregor]

Yeah. Russell got thread banned for allegedly saying someone was apostate. Does referring to people on the board as bigots get a pass?

 

Probably.

 

Either that, or those throwing the b-bomb don't have an un-fan club, obsessively following them around and reporting every naughty word they write.

 

And let's just ignore the fact that the Church itself has just declared same sex "marriage" an apostate act, shall we?

 

We wouldn't want the vertebrae- and viscera-free decision makers to realise that they've just made it a thread-bannable offence to simply agree with the Church.

[sjdawg]

 

We wouldn't want the vertebrae- and viscera-free decision makers to realise that they've just made it a thread-bannable offence to simply agree with the Church.

wow 

[Jude2]

Even with all of it’s complications the Church’s move here did not surprise me at all, I have a feeling it will all be sorted out on an individual bases. 

 

I have three points;

First, it takes the pressure off the gay couple to baptize their children. You all know how much pressure we grandparents can apply and I’m speaking as a guilty one. 

 

Second, the scriptures says that no man can serve two masters. By baptizing a child of gay parents we are placing him in that situation. They will go to church and hear one thing and then go home and see their parents behave differently. It’s not fair to do to the children or the parents. 

 

And most importantly it is the parents responsibility to teach the child right from wrong and “the doctrine of repentance” and then prepare them for baptism. The gay couple is not doing this, they are examples of disobedience and certainly not an attitude of repentance. (see D&C 68) 

 

Baptism isn’t just a fun thing we do it’s a solemn covenant which we make to follow God’s laws.  Being baptized places the child in the situation of being responsible to keep that covenant. Jacob told the Nephites as they descended it to their wickedness;   

 

“Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.…remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers….remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day” Jacob 2& 3 

 

I believe this is what is happening here. 

[Senator]

Yeah. Russell got thread banned for allegedly saying someone was apostate. Does referring to people on the board as bigots get a pass?

deleted

Edited November 9, 2015 by Senator

[Senator]

Probably.

 

Either that, or those throwing the b-bomb don't have an un-fan club, obsessively following them around and reporting every naughty word they write.

 

And let's just ignore the fact that the Church itself has just declared same sex "marriage" an apostate act, shall we?

 

We wouldn't want the vertebrae- and viscera-free decision makers to realise that they've just made it a thread-bannable offence to simply agree with the Church.

Well, this thread is going to h***

Edited November 9, 2015 by Senator