Help Me Unravel this Gordian Knot

[Johnnie Cake]

I have lunch weekly with a small group of close business associates.  We eat, swap stories, talk sports and catch up on our family activities…just basic guy talk.

One of our group is a currently serving Bishop in the Layton, Utah area.  This past weekend, Elder Renlund of the quorum of the 12 spoke in the Layton region that this bishop is in.  

According to my Bishop friend, Renlund asked for questions to be submitted from the bishops in attendance.  Enough questions were submitted to fill 3 hours.  One question of particular interest to me was mentioned by my Bishop friend (he knows I’m a non-believer).  One bishop asked what Elder Renlund would advise him to do with a current faithful, tithe paying, calling holding couple from his ward who’s only fault is that they have a son who is legally married to his husband and who publically supports marriage equality.  This bishop asked if he can or should give this couple a temple recommend, particularly in light of the new ban on children of legally married same sex couples. Elder Renlund said that if worthy in all other areas he would give them a temple recommend. 

I asked my friend to help me understand how this answer to the question can be reconciled with the churches claimed revelation on excluding the children of same sex couples from membership in the church until 18 and then requiring them to disavow their parents’ marriage.  Why does the church allow a parent of someone involved in a same sex marriage to publically support their child’s marriage and still hold a temple recommend while at the same time requiring a child of that same marriage to disavow this same marriage in order to become a member of the church?  My bishop friend had no answer other than to repeat the churches trop that the church is protecting the child.

Personally I can’t reconcile this apparent conflict in policy but it appears that the church slowly making some realistic accommodations…but it’s one thing to state it in a small meeting and quite another to put it in writing in the leadership handbooks…something they’ve yet to do. So how am I to untie this Gordian Knot?  Why does the church treat a child of a same sex marriage differently than that child's own Grandparents? Why can the parents be supporters of marriage equality but not the child?

Edited May 24, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

Quote

Why does the church treat a child of a same sex marriage differently than that child's own Grandparents?

Because one is of age, the other is not.
It is an issue of family government.
It's the same reason the missionaries aren't supposed to teach without the permission of the head of family.

Nothing sinister here.

 

[mtomm]

I also think it is important to note that by child you mean the child of the SMM couple and not that the 18 year old is still a "child."  So in essence it really is no longer protecting a child when you ask them to disavow SSM.

[ERayR]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I have lunch weekly with a small group of close business associates.  We eat, swap stories, talk sports and catch up on our family activities…just basic guy talk.

One of our group is a currently serving Bishop in the Layton, Utah area.  This past weekend, Elder Renlund of the quorum of the 12 spoke in the Layton region that this bishop is in.  

According to my Bishop friend, Renlund asked for questions to be submitted from the bishops in attendance.  Enough questions were submitted to fill 3 hours.  One question of particular interest to me was mentioned by my Bishop friend (he knows I’m a non-believer).  One bishop asked what Elder Renlund would advise him to do with a current faithful, tithe paying, calling holding couple from his ward who’s only fault is that they have a son who is legally married to his husband and who publically supports marriage equality.  This bishop asked if he can or should give this couple a temple recommend, particularly in light of the new ban on children of legally married same sex couples. Elder Renlund said that if worthy in all other areas he would give them a temple recommend. 

I asked my friend to help me understand how this answer to the question can be reconciled with the churches claimed revelation on excluding the children of same sex couples from membership in the church until 18 and then requiring them to disavow their parents’ marriage.  Why does the church allow a parent of someone involved in a same sex marriage to publically support their child’s marriage and still hold a temple recommend while at the same time requiring a child of that same marriage to disavow this same marriage in order to become a member of the church?  My bishop friend had no answer other than to repeat the churches trop that the church is protecting the child.

Personally I can’t reconcile this apparent conflict in policy but it appears that the church slowly making some realistic accommodations…but it’s one thing to state it in a small meeting and quite another to put it in writing in the leadership handbooks…something they’ve yet to do. So how am I to untie this Gordian Knot?  Why does the church treat a child of a same sex marriage differently than that child's own Grandparents? Why can the parents be supporters of marriage equality but not the child?

Perhaps it is because you fail to see that the ban is for minor children until the reach the age of majority.

[Thinking]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because one is of age, the other is not.

It seems that it would be more important for the one of age to disavow the "apostate" behavior than the one not of age.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ERayR said:

Perhaps it is because you fail to see that the ban is for minor children until the reach the age of majority.

But the kids must disavow the parents' relationship when they become adults. These parents, who are already adults, are free to support the relationship. At that point, you have some adults that must disavow a same-sex marriage in their family, while others in the same family can support that marriage with no problem. 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I have lunch weekly with a small group of close business associates.  We eat, swap stories, talk sports and catch up on our family activities…just basic guy talk.

One of our group is a currently serving Bishop in the Layton, Utah area.  This past weekend, Elder Renlund of the quorum of the 12 spoke in the Layton region that this bishop is in.  

According to my Bishop friend, Renlund asked for questions to be submitted from the bishops in attendance.  Enough questions were submitted to fill 3 hours.  One question of particular interest to me was mentioned by my Bishop friend (he knows I’m a non-believer).  One bishop asked what Elder Renlund would advise him to do with a current faithful, tithe paying, calling holding couple from his ward who’s only fault is that they have a son who is legally married to his husband and who publically supports marriage equality.  This bishop asked if he can or should give this couple a temple recommend, particularly in light of the new ban on children of legally married same sex couples. Elder Renlund said that if worthy in all other areas he would give them a temple recommend. 

I asked my friend to help me understand how this answer to the question can be reconciled with the churches claimed revelation on excluding the children of same sex couples from membership in the church until 18 and then requiring them to disavow their parents’ marriage.  Why does the church allow a parent of someone involved in a same sex marriage to publically support their child’s marriage and still hold a temple recommend while at the same time requiring a child of that same marriage to disavow this same marriage in order to become a member of the church?  My bishop friend had no answer other than to repeat the churches trop that the church is protecting the child.

Personally I can’t reconcile this apparent conflict in policy but it appears that the church slowly making some realistic accommodations…but it’s one thing to state it in a small meeting and quite another to put it in writing in the leadership handbooks…something they’ve yet to do. So how am I to untie this Gordian Knot?  Why does the church treat a child of a same sex marriage differently than that child's own Grandparents? Why can the parents be supporters of marriage equality but not the child?

The only thing I can make out of it, is the church is worried that the person wanting to be baptized will think the gay life style is the way to go and eventually will live that lifestyle.  Because the church does the same thing to a person raised in polygamy and wants to join the church. To me, it seems they are trying to prevent that behavior from taking place once they are baptized.  But what do I know.    

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

The only thing I can make out of it, is the church is worried that the person wanting to be baptized will think the gay life style is the way to go and eventually will live that lifestyle.  Because the church does the same thing to a person raised in polygamy and wants to join the church. To me, it seems they are trying to prevent that behavior from taking place once they are baptized.  But what do I know.    

I think it's just that they don't want the children of gay couples to become normalized in the church such that other church members think gay marriage is acceptable. It doesn't really protect kids because the kids who would be baptized would probably still be attending (the likely situation would be a straight LDS parent without full custody still wanting their kids to attend church with them). What it does is draw a hard line of nonacceptance of gay marriage. I understand this, but I think it was a terrible decision, not least because it hurts children and families. But then I'm just an apostate, and I don't know any more than you do. 

I seriously thought it was a joke when I first heard of the new policy. Sadly, it wasn't.

[Gray]

I think this goes to show that not everyone in the general leadership of the church is on the same page here. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think it's just that they don't want the children of gay couples to become normalized in the church such that other church members think gay marriage is acceptable. It doesn't really protect kids because the kids who would be baptized would probably still be attending (the likely situation would be a straight LDS parent without full custody still wanting their kids to attend church with them). What it does is draw a hard line of nonacceptance of gay marriage. I understand this, but I think it was a terrible decision, not least because it hurts children and families. But then I'm just an apostate, and I don't know any more than you do. 

I seriously thought it was a joke when I first heard of the new policy. Sadly, it wasn't.

That's it!  The church is smart enough to know that gays are born that way, at least most are.  I think you nailed it.  Just like they don't want people thinking polygamy is normal in the church currently, they don't want SSM to be normal.

[stemelbow]

I don't think there's reconciling it.  When unreconcilable conflicts come, we can only hope in time those conflicts get noticed and good changes are made.  Some day down the road members will be looking back at our day and think how unfortunate it was we were so driven by tradition/culture and assumption when it comes to this issue. 

[ERMD]

So many people who are against this policy seem to not have even made an attempt to see what the Church has to say about it.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

It's not that complicated.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think this goes to show that not everyone in the general leadership of the church is on the same page here. 

For sure.  But I don't think it's a bad thing. 

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, ERMD said:

So many people who are against this policy seem to not have even made an attempt to see what the Church has to say about it.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

It's not that complicated.

I've read that. It just doesn't ring true to me. YMMV.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've read that. It just doesn't ring true to me. YMMV.

It is tough 

Quote

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.

But a child can freely believe the Church's teachings on the matter over their parents anyway.  I cant really see how this is any sort of an effort to protect children, per se.  It's an effort to take a stand against some, as the piece also indicates. 

Quote

It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt,

But this case mentioned in the OP brings in doubt.  When the policy came out and I challenged it in my ward I spoke with the Bishop who assured me my support of SSM is very within the realm of active faithful members.  My old bishop (released at end of 2015) might have been wrong, but it is what it is. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It is tough 

But a child can freely believe the Church's teachings on the matter over their parents anyway.  I cant really see how this is any sort of an effort to protect children, per se.  It's an effort to take a stand against some, as the piece also indicates. 

But this case mentioned in the OP brings in doubt.  When the policy came out and I challenged it in my ward I spoke with the Bishop who assured me my support of SSM is very within the realm of active faithful members.  My old bishop (released at end of 2015) might have been wrong, but it is what it is. 

I should clarify that I don't think Elder Christofferson was being dishonest, but I think the argument of "protection" falls apart pretty quickly, and I think the main reason was the one you cited: a clear definition of the church's position.

[ERMD]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've read that. It just doesn't ring true to me. YMMV.

So he's lying?

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ERMD said:

So he's lying?

See my post above. In short, no, I don't think he's lying. 

[ERMD]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

See my post above. In short, no, I don't think he's lying. 

There's a difference between "it doesn't ring true" and "the argument falls apart."

YMMV

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ERMD said:

There's a difference between "it doesn't ring true" and "the argument falls apart."

YMMV

Hence my clarification. 

[bluebell]

I live in Layton, and Elder Renlund was here last weekend, but he only spoke with the youth (no adults-as in parents-were invited, i'm assuming because space was limited and they knew every kid's parent would try to go).  My oldest son went, and he said that they spent the meeting doing a Q & A where the kids would text questions into Elder Renlund and he would answer.  It was a multi-stake thing that took place on Saturday night.

I'm guessing this meeting that your friend is talking about was a completely different meeting that happened some other time.  Still kind of cool that it's such a small world.

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Because one is of age, the other is not.
It is an issue of family government.
It's the same reason the missionaries aren't supposed to teach without the permission of the head of family.

Nothing sinister here.

 

But the issue is that the parents in this case are accepting the gay marriage of the son and SSM in general.

According to the Church policy, an adult child of married gay parents must disavow their parents' lifestyle before being accepted into the Church.  The question is whether or not that adult LDS parents of a homosexually-married child must similarly disavow their child's marriage in order to stay accepted in the Church.  Elder Renlund appeared to think they didn't.

I'm sure it was stated clearly at the fireside, but Elder Renlund was no doubt expressing his personal inspired opinions and wasn't there to dictate official Church policy or doctrines (nor could he if he wanted to).  So we can't take this as anything more than an indication that Elder Renlund appears to be more accepting towards LDS who are themselves accepting of SSM. 

Maybe he's the Chosen One who will become Prophet 39 years from now and will help usher in a new era of Mormon attitudes and policies on the subject, while the rest of the world says "Wait, Mormons still believed what...?"

 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I live in Layton, and Elder Renlund was here last weekend, but he only spoke with the youth (no adults-as in parents-were invited, i'm assuming because space was limited and they knew every kid's parent would try to go).  My oldest son went, and he said that they spent the meeting doing a Q & A where the kids would text questions into Elder Renlund and he would answer.  It was a multi-stake thing that took place on Saturday night.

I'm guessing this meeting that your friend is talking about was a completely different meeting that happened some other time.  Still kind of cool that it's such a small world.

 

The meeting I'm referring to was also a multi stake (regional) meeting held this past weekend in Layton (as I stated).  But restricted to Bishops & SP's only. This meeting was in addition to the youth meeting and reserved for bishops only

Edited May 24, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think this goes to show that not everyone in the general leadership of the church is on the same page here. 

Please demonstrate that individual members of the "general leadership" are not on the same page here.

[Johnnie Cake]

Elder Renlund's comments that the parents who publically support Same Sex Marriage and also support their son who is in a Same Sex Marriage qualify for a temple recommend is in conflict with Church policy which requires Child of SS Marriage disavow the same exact marriage.  Why is the burden being placed on the children to disavow their parents while the parents are not required to meet the same standard?  Keep in mind that we are talking about the same exact marriage...but different family members within the same family are being held to completely conflicting standards. One can publically support SSM while the other must disavow SSM.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Johnnie Cake