JAHS Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: 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. The policy only applies to children who are not yet baptized. Children who are already baptized and active members do not have any restrictions placed on them if their parent marries a same sex partner. Same for parents whose child enters a SSM. In the above situation the parents are already baptized active members of the church and otherwise worthy so it doesn't apply to them for the same reason it doesn't apply to an already baptized child. It also depends on what you mean by "publicly support".
CV75 Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 26 minutes ago, cinepro said: Why don't the adult children of homosexually married parents get the same consideration that other adult members of the Church get when it comes to accepting or not accepting the homosexual marriages of others? It's kind of like apples and oranges: I think the difference is the entry point of incorporating the practice into one’s sphere of influence, and how. A child raised in a ssm atmosphere has the practice more thoroughly incorporated into his psyche than adult members who come across it outside of their own homes where they are actively engaged in sanctioned marriage and temple worthiness standards and covenants. I think a person raised in a ssm household would be more likely subject to the inclination to expect the Church to sanction ssm, where adult members supporting it civilly and have not crossed into the realm of apostasy have demonstrated that they know the difference, however a fine line that may seem to some. The former attests to his faithfulness for baptism through disavowal (godly walk and conversation for baptism, D&C 20:69), and the latter to his membership through meeting temple recommend requirements and not advocating an apostate position.
bluebell Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 26 minutes ago, cinepro said: Why don't the adult children of homosexually married parents get the same consideration that other adult members of the Church get when it comes to accepting or not accepting the homosexual marriages of others? They do, as long as they have already been baptized. The difference is between baptized and unbaptized people. I agree it's a double standard, similar to other double standards that exist between behavior and belief that is required to become a member of the church but not required to stay a member.
CV75 Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: There may be a double standard given all the current members who accept SSM but are not subject to discipline versus the refusal to allow children of SSM to join until they are of legal majority and able to acknowledge that SSM is wrong. Adult (already-baptized) members who support ssm are not necessarily in apostasy and so can keep their temple recommends. Adults raised in a ssm home need to demonstrate their intent not to apostatize through disavowal, in order to be baptized. While the commandments and covenants are for everyone to keep, people who want to be baptized and make and keep the covenants have to demonstrate a particular set of intentional beliefs that is particular to baptism than those who are already baptized. 1
Guest Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 I don't want to include a quote here so that my words are to address the entire issue as I see it. I have wondered about this policy, and have at times been deeply troubled by it, but this much I know... 1. I don't know why those in a SSM would want to have their children baptized into the Church, knowing the child would be taught traditional marriage is the only marriage accepted. 2. If knowing this to be the case and they still wished their child to be baptized, I could only see one of two outcomes. The child would become ashamed of themselves or parents, or they would become hostile to the Church. Either of these two options would not serve the needs of the child and parents, nor would they serve the needs of the Church. 3. If indeed SSM proponents seek only to be accepted and true tolerance, then why not be accepting of Church policy and not what their children exposed to teachings that would lead to the conditions spelled out in comment #2?
CV75 Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: They do, as long as they have already been baptized. The difference is between baptized and unbaptized people. I agree it's a double standard, similar to other double standards that exist between behavior and belief that is required to become a member of the church but not required to stay a member. I think "double standard" implies unfairness and hypocrisy, which obviously is not the case here. Different requirements fit different circumstances for baptism and temple recommend; for children raised a certain way and adults that were not; etc. 1
James Tunney Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 This should be seen through a political lens. The church has for some time tried to become a part of the evangelical crowd and lead them where they can. A microcosm of this is their desire to join the big 12 which has a big part of the bible belt in its conference. Anyway, the church so badly wants to make a difference on the homosexual issue that I think they jumped the gun on the children of gays policy and didn't really think it through. I guess its the price of trying to play politics with a certain crowd and not play to your base which is a little more liberal on this issue than the typical southern baptist. Sending young people on foreign missions where the world population is much more liberal on sexual issues than those in the southern u.s. seems to have had its impact.
bluebell Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think "double standard" implies unfairness and hypocrisy, which obviously is not the case here. Different requirements fit different circumstances for baptism and temple recommend; for children raised a certain way and adults that were not; etc. I'm using it pretty straight forwardly-two different standards. It can have negative connotations though, I agree.
rpn Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 No, the 18 year old child of a SSM couple is NOT required to disavow his parents' marriage. This is a fallacy that has been perpetrated by those who don't like what is required. The 18 year old has to acknowledge that ssm is not recognized by God as marriage and not approved of by Him. Thus the offspring need merely understand and accept the basic gospel teaching of how eternal families are formed. In no way must he disavow his parents, or express upset that his parents have been married, or anything else like it. And I think at age 18, a young adult may absolutely be capable of distinguishing the gospel teaching and expectation, from what his parents have chosen. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Adult (already-baptized) members who support ssm are not necessarily in apostasy and so can keep their temple recommends. Adults raised in a ssm home need to demonstrate their intent not to apostatize through disavowal, in order to be baptized. While the commandments and covenants are for everyone to keep, people who want to be baptized and make and keep the covenants have to demonstrate a particular set of intentional beliefs that is particular to baptism than those who are already baptized. So let me see if I have this right....So different rules apply to members from those that apply to those who want to become members? Ahhhh....ok Edited May 25, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 45 minutes ago, rpn said: No, the 18 year old child of a SSM couple is NOT required to disavow his parents' marriage. This is a fallacy that has been perpetrated by those who don't like what is required. The 18 year old has to acknowledge that ssm is not recognized by God as marriage and not approved of by Him. Thus the offspring need merely understand and accept the basic gospel teaching of how eternal families are formed. In no way must he disavow his parents, or express upset that his parents have been married, or anything else like it. And I think at age 18, a young adult may absolutely be capable of distinguishing the gospel teaching and expectation, from what his parents have chosen. Ah.....according to the church they must disavow... Quote "A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived oris living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1.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. 2. 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." 1
JAHS Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. They must disavow the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage; not their parents. 56 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: So let me see if I have this right....So different rules apply to members from those that apply to those who want to become members? Ahhhh....ok The different rules apply to the underage children who want to be baptized, because if they were already living in a ssm home they most likely would have been indoctrinated by their parents that SSM is an acceptable practice and therefore less likely to accept the fact that it is not an acceptable thing to do as taught in the church.
The Nehor Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 I must admit I find the story in the op a little dubious. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I must admit I find the story in the op a little dubious. Why? What exactly do you find dubious? Edited May 25, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 1 hour ago, JAHS said: They must disavow the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage; not their parents. The different rules apply to the underage children who want to be baptized, because if they were already living in a ssm home they most likely would have been indoctrinated by their parents that SSM is an acceptable practice and therefore less likely to accept the fact that it is not an acceptable thing to do as taught in the church. How is disavowing SS marriage not disavowing their parents marriage?
The Nehor Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Why? What exactly do you find dubious? That you have friends. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: That you have friends. You're always so Christ like...
The Nehor Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: You're always so Christ like... Pretty much, I am trying to figure out why I haven't been translated too. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Pretty much, I am trying to figure out why I haven't been translated too. Well...lets hope it happens soon... 1
JAHS Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 35 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: How is disavowing SS marriage not disavowing their parents marriage? It is disavowing their parents marriage; but not their parents. They can still love and support their parents; the same way a parent loves and supports their child, but might not agree with some of the things they choose to do. 1
Meadowchik Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 9 hours ago, jkwilliams said: 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. Sorry jk, I saw that you'd bowed out. There's that malfunction where I cannot not quote you. Something to note is that the children of a same-sex couple are living under the authority of that relationship. Their grandparents are not. The church wants children to respect and honor their parents, especially while they are young, that they may experience the protection and support of the relationship. Thus the baptism is delayed. Yet once the children have their majority and independence and still want Church membership, they need to understand, accept, and support the fact that ssm is not congruent with Church membership. Their life has been built under an authority which the church cannot completely honor. They must know this and the Church must ensure that they know this, in all fairness and clarity. 2
california boy Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 6 hours ago, Pa Pa said: I don't want to include a quote here so that my words are to address the entire issue as I see it. I have wondered about this policy, and have at times been deeply troubled by it, but this much I know... 1. I don't know why those in a SSM would want to have their children baptized into the Church, knowing the child would be taught traditional marriage is the only marriage accepted. 2. If knowing this to be the case and they still wished their child to be baptized, I could only see one of two outcomes. The child would become ashamed of themselves or parents, or they would become hostile to the Church. Either of these two options would not serve the needs of the child and parents, nor would they serve the needs of the Church. 3. If indeed SSM proponents seek only to be accepted and true tolerance, then why not be accepting of Church policy and not what their children exposed to teachings that would lead to the conditions spelled out in comment #2? Well there is one more option. Like the parents who have a gay child, the children of gay parents may realize that their parents are gay (duh) and the path the church outlines for gays is not the best path for those parents to take to grow closer to Chirst. (another duh) But if you are straight, have a family, the church is a very good way to lead one to Christ. The child and gay parents might believe that the church offers a lot of good things in a persons life. Just not if you are gay.
california boy Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: Sorry jk, I saw that you'd bowed out. There's that malfunction where I cannot not quote you. Something to note is that the children of a same-sex couple are living under the authority of that relationship. Their grandparents are not. The church wants children to respect and honor their parents, especially while they are young, that they may experience the protection and support of the relationship. Thus the baptism is delayed. Yet once the children have their majority and independence and still want Church membership, they need to understand, accept, and support the fact that ssm is not congruent with Church membership. Their life has been built under an authority which the church cannot completely honor. They must know this and the Church must ensure that they know this, in all fairness and clarity. I think the problem that many have with this policy is that the church is not willing to honor the wishes of the parents who may be doing what they feel is in the best interest of their child. Well that and the feel denying baptism to a child because of the sins of their parents pretty much goes against everything Christ taught.
Guest Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 30 minutes ago, california boy said: Well there is one more option. Like the parents who have a gay child, the children of gay parents may realize that their parents are gay (duh) and the path the church outlines for gays is not the best path for those parents to take to grow closer to Chirst. (another duh) But if you are straight, have a family, the church is a very good way to lead one to Christ. The child and gay parents might believe that the church offers a lot of good things in a persons life. Just not if you are gay. And the Church does do these things, leading others to Christ...or better said teaches them of Christ. The Church as you point out does teach many positive things. But the central issue of this thread is the membership or lack thereof, of children and how or what is to be done. My problem with this policy is that we baptize all other children at eight and above, even if the parents are not members...with the parents concent. Or is there a new policy about this? However, if they were allowed, the parents would seek to put their own spin about the doctrines of the Church as it relates to marriage. In light of that, it would seem that they can teach the child of the Church and when he or she I'd 19 they can choose to be baptized. At least then he or she does not have bitter seeds planted within them about their parents, and out of anger, reject Christ in the same manor.
Meadowchik Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 1 hour ago, california boy said: I think the problem that many have with this policy is that the church is not willing to honor the wishes of the parents who may be doing what they feel is in the best interest of their child. Well that and the feel denying baptism to a child because of the sins of their parents pretty much goes against everything Christ taught. It's hard to understand things sometimes, but that does not mean they're inconsistent. I believe the church is correct in this policy. The Church cannot be there as an Approver of all choices parents make, even given its deep respect for the obligations of the relationship between parent and child. And again, a delay is not a denial.
Recommended Posts