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

[ALarson]

I'm sure many people on the edge of leaving the church will use this as their final straw for leaving.

And the children who may have joined will most likely never join now.  How many will call their parents sinners, go to the trouble of moving out when they turn 18 and get approval from the First Presidency?  Not many if any at all.

Edited November 6, 2015 by ALarson

[MiserereNobis]

If this action helps speeds the process of cleaning house, its not all bad.

 

Ah, the apocalyptic mindset...

[The Nehor]

"not letting them make it"?  No free agency regarding joining the church for them until their 18?

 

You are seriously going to make that argument? By that logic the requirement to get permission from a minor's parents is a violation of agency. Do you want to stand and die on that hill?

 

If anything we are taking the option from the parents. We are saying that minors need permission from the parents and in some cases we will not even accept that consent because we consider it damaging to the child.

 

I'm sure many people on the edge of leaving the church will use this as their final straw for leaving.

 

Sad but after Jesus gave his instructions to the rich young man and he could not do what Jesus asked Jesus did not call him back and try to work out a compromise. Neither can we.

 

Rusell it has everything to do with the 2nd article of faith. These children at baptism age are being punished for the sins of another.

 

Nope.

[ALarson]

Don't know what the rule is.  If you are asking me if it is a good idea, I think it would be wise not to place a child knowingly in a position where they would likely come across views that tell them their parents are in open rebellion against the church they see themselves as committing to until they are older and see themselves and their parents more as individuals, are able to be independent themselves at least emotionally and where it is less likely their parent(s) or leaders will unintentionally create pressure situations that traumatize the kid.  

I agree with this.  Again, you are a voice of calm and reason here.  Thanks.

[carbon dioxide]

What ever happened to the Eleventh Article of faith?

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our [own]1 conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

The handbook is nothing more than "Chains that bind" Joseph Smith was always complaining about those.

The By laws in the D&C say nothing about X-ing people for Apostasy?

For committing sin yes.

Is it a sin to go against leaders DICTATES?

I think you confuse the idea of liberty of worshiping God as one sees fit (as protected by the First Amendment for example) and membership in the LDS Church.  They are not the same.  Apostasy or rebellion is a serious offense.  Remember a whole bunch of people were kicked out of heaven for rebellion.  Apostasy is a sin in and of itself.

[emeliza]

Disregard my question. Trying to read the thread on my phone and it appears it was already brought up.

[MiserereNobis]

No, though the Bishop or Elder's Quorum President may visit them or assign someone to visit them if they find it appropriate.

 

 

Both are severed from their covenants. The only difference in the records would be in regards to disciplinary councils. Both are still recorded in the Church records as people who left. The only difference may be in repenting of any sins that led them to that point. Each case is considered individually if they wish to return.

 

Thanks for answering.  Does the church try to keep track of them, where they live etc, like members still on the roles so that the bishop or EQ president can visit them?  I imagine that those who asked to be removed probably don't want visits but those who were removed from a disciplinary council are a little more ambiguous.

[The Nehor]

So what about a child that wants to be baptized, but lives with cohabitating, but not married hetrosexual parents? Same rules apply?

 

Nope, though if they are still a minor parents will have to give consent.

 

And the children who may have joined will most likely never join now.  How many will call their parents sinners, go to the trouble of moving out when they turn 18 and get approval from the First Presidency?  Not many if any at all.

 

I expect some will get a witness later in life and accept the gospel but I agree, it will probably not be many.

 

Here's the Salt Lake Tribune article:

 

"New Mormon policy makes apostates of children from same-sex unions"

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3144035-155/new-mormon-policy-makes-apostates-of

 

I did not know you could be an apostate from a church you never joined. Tribune teaches me something new every time I read it.

[Avatar4321]

Anyone know if there is a splinter-group out there that still believes in Joseph Smith's calling and the Book Of Mormon and uncreated material intelligences and divine anthropomorphism and Temples and the law of consecration, but doesn't have all this blatant homophobia and anti-feminism and tribalistic family-splitting nonsense? Because that's the Church I want to belong to. I mean, not like anyone would care if I was gone from this one (to say the least), but stuff like this just makes me want out. I know, I know, good riddance to all of us neo-orthodox heretics. I guess I should sleep on it before seeing myself to the door.

It's quite possible there is one like what you describe though your description of the Church is hardly fair or accurate. But it wont have the priesthood or the keys. And without those families will be split. Because only priesthood keys have the ability to seal families for eternity.

And you are wrong. No one wants to see you leave. Christ gave His life for you. He has a purpose for you. You are a member of the Church for a reason. And if you leave He will continually send us after you to invite you back. He left the 99 to find the 1. You mean something to Him.

[JLHPROF]

Ok, this thread is going to explode beyond any ability to follow the conversation-

 

So my two cents really quick:

 

1. I still believe SSM to be 100% sin and participants should be banned from the Church.

2. This policy is suprisingly harsh - to deny or delay membership/baptism and entrance into God's kingdom to someone with a testimony because of their parents is definitely harsh.  I don't recall God turning away those who repent of sins and trust in him.

3. There are many members currently in the Church who support same sex marriage (as many as 25%).  Is disavowing SSM going to be a condition of membership?

[Calm]

"not letting them make it"?  No free agency regarding joining the church for the kids until they're 18?

 

That is the way it is now.  If one parent refuses to give permission for a child to be baptized, they must wait until they are 18.

[Hamba Tuhan]

So what about a child that wants to be baptized, but lives with cohabitating, but not married hetrosexual parents? Same rules apply?

 

No, because this relationship is not an open repudiation of the Plan of Salvation.

[The Nehor]

No, because this relationship is not an open repudiation of the Plan of Salvation.

 

Actually, it kind of is. It is just more easily correctable.

[Avatar4321]

I'm sure many people on the edge of leaving the church will use this as their final straw for leaving.

Many left Christ when He announced that we had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. But like Peter said, where else can we go?

[Hamba Tuhan]

In our ward, keeping track isn't hard. They come to church with us most Sundays.

[filovirus]

Rusell it has everything to do with the 2nd article of faith. These children at baptism age are being punished for the sins of another.

Punished means eternal punishment, or rather Godly punishment. It will be meted out at the judgement bar. We're a long way from there and their parents sins will have no bearing on their decisions. I think many here have a misunderstanding of what the 2nd article of faith teaches.

[Teancum]

False. 

 

False.

They are repudiating actions, not parents.

And as a matter of fact, they are repudiating the actions of only one parent.

Given that no child has ever been born the biological offspring of a same sex couple.

Ok. They have to renounce or repudiate their parents lifestyle and the FP has to approve it.

Also do you assume that an adopted child's heterosexual adoptive parents are somehow not the adopted child's parents? Seems like you must based on your comments above.

[The Nehor]

Thanks for answering.  Does the church try to keep track of them, where they live etc, like members still on the roles so that the bishop or EQ president can visit them?  I imagine that those who asked to be removed probably don't want visits but those who were removed from a disciplinary council are a little more ambiguous.

 

I do not believe the church tries to keep track of them. In some cases they know where they are just because other family members are members and are on the rolls.

 

Visitation is, from my understanding, rare. The only case I know of involved the person asking for visits while trying to come back.

 

The name, DOB, and other information is recorded and will pop up if someone searches for them (in case they seek to reenter the church or try to pull a fast one and pretend to be a new convert).

[Hamba Tuhan]

Actually, it kind of is. It is just more easily correctable.

 

It is certainly correctable, but I also think we treat it more as a detour or misstep than a repudiation of the whole plan.

[Sky]

Yes, like it or not, we do rank sins.  Sexual sins are considered next to murder in seriousness.  It stems directly from Alma 39: 5.  President Kimball viewed the "crime against nature" as bad or worse than heterosexual fornication or adultery.     

[The Nehor]

It is certainly correctable, but I also think we treat it more as a detour or misstep than a repudiation of the whole plan.

 

Yeah, maybe.

[Bobbieaware]

Children should honor their parents over the church every time.

The Savior said the opposite:

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10)

[Danzo]

Rusell it has everything to do with the 2nd article of faith. These children at baptism age are being punished for the sins of another.

Not sure how long you have been a member, but In the LDS church we teach that no one will be denied any blessing if they would have joined the church (or go to the temple, or be baptized or sealef) but couldn't through no fault of there own.

[filovirus]

"not letting them make it"?  No free agency regarding joining the church for the kids until they're 18?

 

Again, if the reason is because their parents are apostates, what about other children whose parents have been excommunicated for apostasy?

Children still have their moral agency. They can live according to their morals and the teachings of the church at any age they wish.

[Teancum]

I don't see the LDS faith as hostile to gay, transgender, or polygamous marriage/parents. I like everybody, and so do the leaders of my Church. However, the church as an organized entity has rules and they require obedience to a holy lifestyle to maintain membership. The Church is in fact quite gracious and civil toward people from other lifestyles and even insists on equal access of those outside the pale to public accommodations, housing, and jobs. Tolerance is not hostility. Just because I do not want to adopt a gay or polygamous lifestyle does not mean that I am unkind or unfriendly to those who practice such lifestyles. However, I do not promote such behavior either. Get it, Teancum?!

No? The church just calls gay married people apostates and excommunicates them now and expects any adult child of such couples to renounce their parents lifestyle and seek FP permission to be baptized. That sure does not seem warm and fuzzy to me. Of course tolerance is not hostility. But intolerance may be perceived by the recipient as such.

Get it, Robert!?

Edited November 6, 2015 by Teancum