Help Me Unravel this Gordian Knot

[CV75]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It is idiotic.  what if a child raised in SS family turns 18 and disavows their parents relationship in order to get baptized and then some time later goes back on that disavowal? 

No one is going to police anyone about going back on claims made in the baptismal interview until it becomes a problem for say, advancing in the priesthood, getting a recommend, serving a mission, becoming apostate, inactive, etc. Rather than a policing, there is a rescue effort. We all know that is how it works.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Back to the OP:  The question I'm trying to understand is the obvious conflict that exist between the policy and Renlund's statement...this thread has deteriorated into a discussion of the pluses and minus' of the policy...that was not the intended purpose of my OP

What do you see as the point of conflict between the policy and Elder Renlund;'s statement? I think understanding the differences between baptismal and temple recommend requirements shows that there isn't a conflict on those points.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No conflict is so facile, and all are free to support ssm anyway, so that’s not even a reasonable point of conflict. The only thing to get around is one’s personal conflict, whatever that might be for some, with the conditions for baptism, missionary service and temple recommends.

 

The Church definitely takes a strong stand against apostasy and setting one up for apostasy when his upbringing has so undermined and sabotaged his godly walk and conversation so as to risk the degradation of civil support into apostasy. To assert otherwise is to disrespect and ignore childhood innocence, dependency and vulnerability and the doctrines of accountability and children having claim upon their parents for their maintenance and spiritual education.

 

Note how the word "obvious" is thrown around on this page alone. Doesn't that betray a fairly closed paradigm, fertile ground for conflict?

That's my modus operandi: facile views of conflict and a closed paradigm. It's worked for me so far. 

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Back to the OP:  The question I'm trying to understand is the obvious conflict that exist between the policy and Renlund's statement...this thread has deteriorated into a discussion of the pluses and minus' of the policy...that was not the intended purpose of my OP

I think there have already been some pretty good answers on this; perhaps ones you don't agree with but nevertheless they are answers; good ones IMO.
Normally discussions don't start to derail until after everything that can be said has been said. In what way are you not satisfied by the answers?

[Vanguard]

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 11:27 AM, 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?

Can't I support another's desire to exercise what is now his Constitutional right to enter into a same-sex marital union without the need to also rally for his "right" to be sealed in the temple? I see a big difference there. Your OP does not specify whether the parents advocate for one or the other? To put another way, I can support another's right to drink alcoholic beverages without making a case for eliminating the WoW, right?

In your scenario, if the parents were to openly advocate against the Church's policy on SSM I believe they would eventually be called in for a meeting. If they're simply supporting their son's right to be legally married, how is that a problem? What are they supposed to do otherwise? Argue against a right their son has?

I see other issues with your position. One step at a time...

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

No conflict is so facile, and all are free to support ssm anyway, so that’s not even a reasonable point of conflict. The only thing to get around is one’s personal conflict, whatever that might be for some, with the conditions for baptism, missionary service and temple recommends.

 

The Church definitely takes a strong stand against apostasy and setting one up for apostasy when his upbringing has so undermined and sabotaged his godly walk and conversation so as to risk the degradation of civil support into apostasy. To assert otherwise is to disrespect and ignore childhood innocence, dependency and vulnerability and the doctrines of accountability and children having claim upon their parents for their maintenance and spiritual education.

 

Note how the word "obvious" is thrown around on this page alone. Doesn't that betray a fairly closed paradigm, fertile ground for conflict?

Apparently not too strong a stand if it's going to give temple recommends to members who support something the church views as apostate activity

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Wow... (never thought I'd ever say this regarding one of your posts but)  Excellent point...

Who are you and what have you done with Johnnie Cake?!?!?!

[CV75]

12 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That's my modus operandi: facile views of conflict and a closed paradigm. It's worked for me so far. 

Well, I’m not talking about you, just the observation you made. Is this supposed to be about you? If so, there’s a conflict for you: is that a social hall topic or a general discussion topic? LOL

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Apparently not too strong a stand if it's going to give temple recommends to members who support something the church views as apostate activity

I don’t think you understand what constitutes apostate activity. There are plenty of threads about that (and as it applies to ssm), and the Church policy definition of apostasy (which mentions ssm) can easily be Googled. One can certainly support civil ssm, qualify for a temple recommend and not meet the definition of apostasy. Would you like to understand more, or would that interfere too much with the paradigm of conflict?

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, I’m not talking about you, just the observation you made. Is this supposed to be about you? If so, there’s a conflict for you: is that a social hall topic or a general discussion topic? LOL

It's always about me. You should know that by now.

I was just thinking about what happens if there's an LDS child growing up in a family where, say, an uncle or aunt or grandparent is in a same-sex marriage. That child would apparently have no problems with the church in supporting the same-sex marriage in his or her family. What if the child ends up living with the same-sex-married relatives for whatever reason? 

I don't think my observation is facile. As others have pointed out, the policy treats adults quite differently based on the situation of their childhood. It doesn't make sense to me except as the church drawing a hard line and saying they really don't want gay couples or their children in the church. Maybe they believe keeping such folks out of the church protects the children, but I honestly don't see how.

[Gray]

Not to mention, that the actual text of the policy is totally different from the clarification. Several years down the road when the clarification is forgotten, are bishops going to start going by the actual text of the policy and start withholding baptism from children of parents who used to be in a gay relationship?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Gray said:

Not to mention, that the actual text of the policy is totally different from the clarification. Several years down the road when the clarification is forgotten, are bishops going to start going by the actual text of the policy and start withholding baptism from children of parents who used to be in a gay relationship?

Yep, this is one of the reasons I believe it wasn't well thought out. It seems clear to me that the church wasn't expecting the blow-back, and their "clarification"--and who presented it--signaled damage control to me. But you're right that the policy text hasn't changed, and, strictly speaking, it does apply to children whose parents used to be in a gay relationship/marriage. 

I'm really glad I don't have any need to justify this policy. It would twist me in knots if I did.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, this is one of the reasons I believe it wasn't well thought out. It seems clear to me that the church wasn't expecting the blow-back, and their "clarification"--and who presented it--signaled damage control to me. But you're right that the policy text hasn't changed, and, strictly speaking, it does apply to children whose parents used to be in a gay relationship/marriage. 

I'm really glad I don't have any need to justify this policy. It would twist me in knots if I did.

Hot mess is the best way to describe it. Very poorly thought out, even if you consider gay marriage to be sinful. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Hot mess is the best way to describe it. Very poorly thought out, even if you consider gay marriage to be sinful. 

A lot of people have gone to great lengths to say that this will affect only a tiny percentage of families, and with the clarification, that's probably true. I'm at a loss as to why they would have spent any time formulating a policy that has so little real-world application but is so clearly designed to exclude and deny blessings to children in direct opposition to Jesus' call to "suffer the children to come unto me." Given that church leaders have doubled down, so to speak, I don't expect the policy will change anytime soon, but from a practical standpoint, it buys the church almost nothing at the cost of appearing to single out and punish children because their parents are gay. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

A lot of people have gone to great lengths to say that this will affect only a tiny percentage of families, and with the clarification, that's probably true. I'm at a loss as to why they would have spent any time formulating a policy that has so little real-world application but is so clearly designed to exclude and deny blessings to children in direct opposition to Jesus' call to "suffer the children to come unto me." Given that church leaders have doubled down, so to speak, I don't expect the policy will change anytime soon, but from a practical standpoint, it buys the church almost nothing at the cost of appearing to single out and punish children because their parents are gay. 

That's been my contention too.  What a mess.  There is a positive to gain from this, though.  This whole episode proves as much as any has, that some members, perhaps most, will defend the Church no matter what.  It helps uncover one of the main problems found in the Church.  Hopefully one day that'll be acknowledged and we can move on, grow...build upon the little we have. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That's been my contention too.  What a mess.  There is a positive to gain from this, though.  This whole episode proves as much as any has, that some members, perhaps most, will defend the Church no matter what.  It helps uncover one of the main problems found in the Church.  Hopefully one day that'll be acknowledged and we can move on, grow...build upon the little we have. 

If I were still a believer, I probably would have found a way to justify the policy to my own satisfaction, but I find it sobering to know that I would do that. I know a lot of people who are not troubled in the least by the policy, and that's fine. I also know a lot of faithful church members who are really struggling with this because they can't square it with the fundamental teachings of the gospel. The only ones I worry about are the people who are like my formerly believing self, who will justify it in spite of their conscience telling them it's wrong. I don't believe most members "will defend the Church no matter what," but some will. It's the ones who defend at the expense of their conscience that I worry about. That may well have been me.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If I were still a believer, I probably would have found a way to justify the policy to my own satisfaction, but I find it sobering to know that I would do that. I know a lot of people who are not troubled in the least by the policy, and that's fine. I also know a lot of faithful church members who are really struggling with this because they can't square it with the fundamental teachings of the gospel. The only ones I worry about are the people who are like my formerly believing self, who will justify it in spite of their conscience telling them it's wrong. I don't believe most members "will defend the Church no matter what," but some will. It's the ones who defend at the expense of their conscience that I worry about. That may well have been me.

You need to brush up on your cynicism. 

[jkwilliams]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You need to brush up on your cynicism. 

My father says I'm an altruist. I am not making that up.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It's always about me. You should know that by now.

I was just thinking about what happens if there's an LDS child growing up in a family where, say, an uncle or aunt or grandparent is in a same-sex marriage. That child would apparently have no problems with the church in supporting the same-sex marriage in his or her family. What if the child ends up living with the same-sex-married relatives for whatever reason? 

I don't think my observation is facile. As others have pointed out, the policy treats adults quite differently based on the situation of their childhood. It doesn't make sense to me except as the church drawing a hard line and saying they really don't want gay couples or their children in the church. Maybe they believe keeping such folks out of the church protects the children, but I honestly don't see how.

The adult relationships and influences upon that child obviously changes, and the trauma of being separated from his parents (and/or the events leading to the separation) makes him particularly emotionally vulnerable for interpreting his new experience in a way that conflates ssm civil and social issues with spiritual covenants, uniquely setting him up for potential apostasy that others do not face. This is no different from the child raised in a ssm home under other adoptive, custodial or guardianship circumstances.

There are a number of policies that overlap. The policy for issuing temple recommends doesn’t address support for ssm (but an apostate is not eligible). The policy for discipline defines apostasy, and in context of ssm, very narrowly and specifically (apostates cannot get a recommend). The policy for baptism provides a means for a prospective member to manifest a godly walk and conversation with the intent to remain faithful under the circumstances under which he was raised by demonstrating a clear separation of ssm and spiritual covenants through disavowal of the practice, but says nothing about support for ssm.

Don’t you know that members can disavow the practice in connection with Church covenants (that is, not practice it or push -- to the point of apostasy -- for the Church to practice it) but support it in the laws and secular communities in which they associate?

That is where your observation is facile. It fails to recognize that every adult is free to support same-sex marriage in a non-apostate way, and it ignores that baptism is always open to all. It fails to recognize the sense of treating adults differently based on a unique situation in order to best serve them in keeping the covenants of Church membership, and that the Church’s position isn’t to keep gay couples or their children out of the Church but to invite them to make themselves eligible and join.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is where your observation is facile. It fails to recognize that every adult is free to support same-sex marriage in a non-apostate way, and it ignores that baptism is always open to all. It fails to recognize the sense of treating adults differently based on a unique situation in order to best serve them in keeping the covenants of Church membership, and that the Church’s position isn’t to keep gay couples or their children out of the Church but to invite them to make themselves eligible and join.

What does that mean, "support same-sex marriage in a non-apostate way"? As written, the policy says these adults must "disavow same-sex marriage," which literally means "deny any responsibility or support for." This is why I think it's poorly thought out because you're now saying that adults can support same-sex marriage at the same time the church says certain adults must "deny any responsibility or support for" same-sex marriage.

If it's facile of me to observe that your position is self-contradictory, so be it. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

What does that mean, "support same-sex marriage in a non-apostate way"? As written, the policy says these adults must "disavow same-sex marriage," which literally means "deny any responsibility or support for." This is why I think it's poorly thought out because you're now saying that adults can support same-sex marriage at the same time the church says certain adults must "deny any responsibility or support for" same-sex marriage.

If it's facile of me to observe that your position is self-contradictory, so be it. 

You know what it takes to be an apostate (the Church policy definition that includes members who are in a same-gender marriage; repeatedly act in clear, open, deliberate, public opposition to the Church or its leaders; repreatedly present information as church doctrine that which is not; etc.), and that is the sense in which the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage is to be disavowed by prospective members raised in ssm households. It is not, as you say, “literally… deny any responsibility or support for…” Apostasy is not the same thing at all.

As I mentioned above, you need to consider the policies as they relate to each other; that is how and why there is no self-contradiction in what I’ve said at all. (So if it isn't facile of you  to observe that my position is self-contradictory, it must just simply be stubborn! LOL).

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/24/2016 at 4:15 PM, jkwilliams said:

I am going to bow out. This issue hurts my heart too much to talk about. 

Hurt quite often results when individuals, to gratify their own appetites, undertake to violate the laws of God and the teachings of the Church.

[california boy]

On May 26, 2016 at 7:11 PM, CV75 said:

You know what it takes to be an apostate (the Church policy definition that includes members who are in a same-gender marriage; repeatedly act in clear, open, deliberate, public opposition to the Church or its leaders; repreatedly present information as church doctrine that which is not; etc.), and that is the sense in which the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage is to be disavowed by prospective members raised in ssm households. It is not, as you say, “literally… deny any responsibility or support for…” Apostasy is not the same thing at all.

 

As I mentioned above, you need to consider the policies as they relate to each other; that is how and why there is no self-contradiction in what I’ve said at all. (So if it isn't facile of you  to observe that my position is self-contradictory, it must just simply be stubborn! LOL).

 

Would a child beings raised by a gay couple that is not married be allowed to be baptized?

Would a child being raised by a married gay couple but not his legal guardian be allowed to be baptized?

Who is worthy to raise a child and who is not?  If my brother and his wife died in an auto wreck and my partner and I stepped forward to raise his children, could they be baptized?  Would it be better to put them in an orphanage so that they could receive the blessings of baptism?   Just how crazy is this insane policy? Or is this a revelation. I forget. 

How can a member think this policy comes from God is beyond my understanding

 

Edit:. Actually upon reflection, I do understand. As a young missionary, I defended the church doctrine banning blacks from the priesthood and temple marriage. It is something I deeply regret. I was supporting racism and bigotry in the church. How shameful is that . History repeats itself. 

Edited June 4, 2016 by california boy

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 

Quote

Would a child beings raised by a gay couple that is not married be allowed to be baptized?

Would a child being raised by a married gay couple but not his legal guardian be allowed to be baptized?

Who is worthy to raise a child and who is not?  If my brother and his wife died in an auto wreck and my partner and I stepped forward to raise his children, could they be baptized?  Would it be better to put them in an orphanage so that they could receive the blessings of baptism?

IIRC the church has stated that many situations may be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 

Quote

Just how crazy is this insane policy? Or is this a revelation. I forget. 

How can a member think this policy comes from God is beyond my understanding

Its both.  Church leaders probably seek divine guidance in most day-to-day operations in the church. 

 

Edited June 4, 2016 by Rivers

[CV75]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Would a child beings raised by a gay couple that is not married be allowed to be baptized?

Would a child being raised by a married gay couple but not his legal guardian be allowed to be baptized?

Who is worthy to raise a child and who is not?  If my brother and his wife died in an auto wreck and my partner and I stepped forward to raise his children, could they be baptized?  Would it be better to put them in an orphanage so that they could receive the blessings of baptism?   Just how crazy is this insane policy? Or is this a revelation. I forget. 

How can a member think this policy comes from God is beyond my understanding

 

Edit:. Actually upon reflection, I do understand. As a young missionary, I defended the church doctrine banning blacks from the priesthood and temple marriage. It is something I deeply regret. I was supporting racism and bigotry in the church. How shameful is that . History repeats itself. 

It’s been over a week since I’ve visited this thread, so I’m not very fresh on the flow of the conversation. But I saw the notification of your posting to me so I’ll reply out of courtesy.

From my understanding of the policy, I would say that the answer to your first two questions and the fourth, is “no, until she is of age and no longer living at home.”

Your third question doesn’t seem to be a policy question but an individual judgement call, so I would say “it depends,” and my opinion is as good as any others'. I do know that the Church has no policy about the worthiness of a couple’s being recommended or permitted to raise children; the Church clearly doesn’t take that on as her business (except to report abuse and neglect according to the laws of the applicable jurisdiction). That is why the children of so many sinners get baptized. As I noted in the post you replied to, apostasy is a different matter than mere sinfulness, but you don’t seem to understand or appreciate that, or understand or appreciate the emotional and spiritual development and needs of children.

Your other questions sound like cheap haranguing (are you done yet?—evidently not: you’re still recycling baggage from 5 or 6 decades ago LOL).

[HappyJackWagon]

weird formatting so deleting is only option for edit

Edited June 4, 2016 by HappyJackWagon