Apparently new policy is no longer

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So if children of gay parents are still encouraged to attend, why put the policy in place?

It has to do with parental stewardship and the Church's limited role in the temporal and spiritual assistance of individuals and families in carrying that out.

Gay couples are not a part of Zion. They are exempt from the stewardship of D&C 68:25-28, having replaced it with a law of their own. The Church does not get involved in an apostate stewardship that by temporal covenant prevents eternal blessings. Each unit -- the ssm family and the ward/stake -- abides in the law (or lack thereof) it commits to keep. This keeps the door open for friendship and attendance, but not the covenants. Once the child is independent, he proceeds to order his life to become a part of Zion and carry on a stewardship called for in D&C 68:25-28. Hence the disavowal of the non-Zion covenants and practices his home life obligated him to live in.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by CV75

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That sums it up (and makes little sense since baptized or not, they will still be taught these things if they attend).  

Why do the defenders of this policy say on one hand that children of gay couples are still welcome to attend, but then on the other hand, that the policy protects the children from being taught damaging teachings because they cannot be baptized?  You can't really have it both ways, IMO.

Yes, from what I can tell, most members who support the policy do so on the grounds that it protects children from our teachings that could cause discord in their homes and families.  But many of those same members don't like the thought of someone not being welcome at church.  So there's a disconnect there.

That disconnect is also reflected from the apostles via the conflicting statements made by Elder Christofferson on Nov 6 and in the FP letter a week later. 

For this reason, and others, I continue to believe that the policy was put in place to protect the church from tort lawsuits. 

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It has to do with parental stewardship and the Church's limited role in the temporal and spiritual assistance of individuals and families in carrying that out.

Gay couples are not a part of Zion. They are exempt from the stewardship of D&C 68:25-28, having replaced it with a law of their own. The Church does not get involved in an apostate stewardship that by temporal covenant prevents eternal blessings. Each unit -- the ssm family and the ward/stake -- abides in the law (or lack thereof) it commits to keep. This keeps the door open for friendship and attendance, but not the covenants. Once the child is independent, he proceeds to order his life to become a part of Zion and carry on a stewardship called for in D&C 68:25-28. Hence the disavowal of the non-Zion covenants and practices his home life obligated him to live in.

 

 

Now there's a fascinating explanation.  Two follow up questions:

1.  So the age of accountability is different for a child being raised by gay parents?

2.  Only those gay couples who have legally married are deemed apostates.  Should I assume that unmarried gay couples are also not a part of Zion?  What about other couples who are living in sin, why do we not apply this same policy to their children?

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, from what I can tell, most members who support the policy do so on the grounds that it protects children from our teachings that could cause discord in their homes and families.  But many of those same members don't like the thought of someone not being welcome at church.  So there's a disconnect there.

That disconnect is also reflected from the apostles via the conflicting statements made by Elder Christofferson on Nov 6 and in the FP letter a week later. 

For this reason, and others, I continue to believe that the policy was put in place to protect the church from tort lawsuits. 

Both these sources tie back to the Church’s role in supporting members’ parental stewardship as described in D&C 68. From the FP letter:

“Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment.”

For those for whom the provisions of D&C 68 have already been activated, the Handbook provisions “do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld.” In the exceptional circumstances, the child may relate to the Church independently of his parents.

From Elder Christofferson:

The aim of the policy is to “protect children in their innocence and in their minority years” from the standpoint of the Church’s proper relationship with parents without Zion.

“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.” In such a case, the Church cannot assist the parents in their apostatized stewardship, where the Church regards “same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline.”

“In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development [including spiritual] in very tender years.” The Church will neither support nor counter the stewardship that is being carried out in the apostate home.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Now there's a fascinating explanation.  Two follow up questions:

1.  So the age of accountability is different for a child being raised by gay parents?

2.  Only those gay couples who have legally married are deemed apostates.  Should I assume that unmarried gay couples are also not a part of Zion?  What about other couples who are living in sin, why do we not apply this same policy to their children?

See my post above. The age of accountability is the same for all people, but the Lord gauges everyone's accountability differently, according to their circumstances and opportunities. All sorts of assumptions can be made about unmarried gay couples; I'd say they are also covered by the policy by virtue of their stewardship for the child being like unto that which is entailed in the "particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin." Other couples living in sin are not committing the "particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin" that the ssm couples and unmarried gay couples are, and the terms of the Church's role in assisting with their stewardship is not so "particularly" or "significantly" removed.

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment.”

From Elder Christofferson:

The aim of the policy is to “protect children in their innocence and in their minority years” from the standpoint of the Church’s proper relationship with parents without Zion.

So you believe it's also better for these children not to attend?  How does the fact that they're not baptized make any difference with the above reasoning?

It's amazing to me that anyone can read your quotes above and still claim that the church welcomes children of gay members (who are in a relationship).

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If a child's attendance at Churrch services is going to cause domestic discord, the parents have the option of forbidding the child to attend. But that event, though unfortunate, would not interfere with the child's fulfillment of a sacred covenant as it would if the child had been baptized. 

If there is going to be discord in the home occasioned by the child's membership in the Church, it is best to delay that membership until the child has reached the age of majority and is no longer subject to parents whose chosen lifestyle is so starkly at odds with the professed teachings of the Church. 

One of the problems with this policy, beyond the basic nature of its exclusion, is it's based on so many assumptions as if all SSM couples will believe and act with uniformity.

The policy assumes...

-children who attend church and have SS parents will experience greater discord

-SS couples will not want their children being taught the gospel at church because the children may learn that their parents are sinning

-SS Couples will not want to support their children going to primary and youth programs

-SS couples will not want home and visiting teachers

-There will be more discord in households with SS couples regarding a child's church activity than in any other part member/mixed faith home

-A child of SS parents is less likely to keep baptismal covenants so they shouldn't be put at risk of being a covenant breaker

-Only children of SS parents should wait to make important life decisions until they're 18 where as others are capable of making those decisions at age 8

These are just some of the assumptions. I'm sure there are more, but you get the point.

Why not allow parents the freedom to let their children participate fully in church, in primary, youth, with home teachers etc? Because the church knows better than the counterfeit parents do, right? So the church inflicts the consequences of their assumptions on innocent children and remove religious liberty of families to participate in LDS church.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, kllindley said:

"In the home setting, in the family setting," Not in the church setting.  I think it's fundamentally dishonest to make the claim you are. This has everything to do with some members' decisions to enter a gay relationship and raise children, despite clear and abundant teaching that this behavior is contrary to God's plan.  They have every right to reject that teaching. But I cannot understand where this mindset comes from that I should be free to defy and mock a core tenet of an organization but still demand full acceptance and inclusion. It would be like Ted Cruz keeping his same positions and then demanding that the democrats accept him as a candidate.  

 

Regardless, it seems to that the policy was intended to discourage these children from attending church. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of "mocking". These are families. Many gay families are also believing Mormons. If your distaste for them is so strong that you would prefer to exclude them, then I feel for you. 

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Both these sources tie back to the Church’s role in supporting members’ parental stewardship as described in D&C 68. From the FP letter:

 

“Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment.”

 

For those for whom the provisions of D&C 68 have already been activated, the Handbook provisions “do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld.” In the exceptional circumstances, the child may relate to the Church independently of his parents.

 

From Elder Christofferson:

 

The aim of the policy is to “protect children in their innocence and in their minority years” from the standpoint of the Church’s proper relationship with parents without Zion.

 

“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.” In such a case, the Church cannot assist the parents in their apostatized stewardship, where the Church regards “same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline.”

 

“In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development [including spiritual] in very tender years.” The Church will neither support nor counter the stewardship that is being carried out in the apostate home.

 

But achieving these objectives requires that the child NOT attend church.  If you have the child attending church but being denied ordinances and ministrations you aren't "protect[ing] children in their innocence" or preventing "difficulties, challenges, conflicts".  Attending while being denied these things actually just makes matters worse (no covenants, no Gift of the Holy Ghost, no home teachers to assist, etc).

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

See my post above. The age of accountability is the same for all people, but the Lord gauges everyone's accountability differently, according to their circumstances and opportunities. All sorts of assumptions can be made about unmarried gay couples; I'd say they are also covered by the policy by virtue of their stewardship for the child being like unto that which is entailed in the "particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin." Other couples living in sin are not committing the "particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin" that the ssm couples and unmarried gay couples are, and the terms of the Church's role in assisting with their stewardship is not so "particularly" or "significantly" removed.

So it's okay to baptize the 9 year old boy who has an inactive mom and who lives with his inactive dad who is cohabiting with his girlfiend because his parents' sins are less grievous?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So it's okay to baptize the 9 year old boy who has an inactive mom and who lives with his inactive dad who is cohabiting with his girlfiend because his parents' sins are less grievous?

 

There is NO logic to this policy. It's sad seeing the contortions people make to try to make it make sense. But it doesn't. At all. The policy is sad and represents the worst of what religion has to offer.

[Sleeper Cell]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why not allow parents the freedom to let their children participate fully in church, in primary, youth, with home teachers etc? Because the church knows better than the counterfeit parents do, right? So the church inflicts the consequences of their assumptions on innocent children and remove religious liberty of families to participate in LDS church.

So, if a church refuses to accept you as a member it has violated your religious liberty?  Are you serious?  
 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

So, if a church refuses to accept you as a member it has violated your religious liberty?  Are you serious?  
 

That's an interesting question because there can be competing religious liberties; mine and the institution's. I need to think about it.

My first inclination is to think that yes, it is a violation of my religious liberty if the church will not permit me to worship. I'm thinking of the Zoramites and the rameumptom. They cast out people and wouldn't allow the poor to worship with them. In the BoM this restriction is treated as evil. Yet the same argument could easily be made for what the church is doing now to the outcast SS couples and their families.

If a black family was denied entrance to a "white church" should I privilege the religious liberty of the white church or of the black family?

Edited September 13, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

So you believe it's also better for these children not to attend?  How does the fact that they're not baptized make any difference with the above reasoning?

It's amazing to me that anyone can read your quotes above and still claim that the church welcomes children of gay members (who are in a relationship).

For some children it would be better to attend, and for some it would not be. In either case, the children are welcome to attend, and in either case it is better that they not make covenants that contradict their parents’ covenants* until they are independent of the parenting stewardship in which the Church cannot participate.

Gay couples are not a part of Zion. They are exempt from the stewardship of D&C 68:25-28, having replaced it with a law of their own. The Church does not get involved in an apostate stewardship that by temporal covenant* prevents eternal blessings. Each unit -- the ssm family and the ward/stake -- abides in the law (or lack thereof) it commits to keep. This keeps the door open for friendship and attendance, but not the covenants. Once the child is independent, he proceeds to order his life to become a part of Zion and carry on a stewardship called for in D&C 68:25-28. Hence the disavowal of the non-Zion covenants and practices his home life obligated him to live in.

* The Church views ssm “as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin” which si why the policy singles out the Church’s support role vis-à-vis parental stewardship in this setting.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

But achieving these objectives requires that the child NOT attend church.  If you have the child attending church but being denied ordinances and ministrations you aren't "protect[ing] children in their innocence" or preventing "difficulties, challenges, conflicts".  Attending while being denied these things actually just makes matters worse (no covenants, no Gift of the Holy Ghost, no home teachers to assist, etc).

Not at all. Anyone can attend Church without joining. The protection afforded children by attending but not joining is in setting up the expectation that there is no partnership between the Church and home life, that the parent’s duty toward the child is their business and prerogative, not the Church’s because no covenants have been made. Proper boundaries are maintained and the child’s home life comes first, as well it should. The parent’s roles for him are also respected and put first, for the sake of the child. Given that, attendance takes on the proper balance of parental guidance and Church accommodation.

As I said, there is the age of accountability and actual accountability. The policy recognizes that minor children are not accountable for any circumstances that prevent their entering the covenants at the customary ages for children in Zion. As any adult convert can attest, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost after the age of majority makes no one worse for the wear. God’s Spirit is with all His children, all their lives, and watches over them in their various circumstances. The benefits of covenant only work if one is part of a Zion community and has integrated Zion into his home, and dependent children have no control over the latter.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So it's okay to baptize the 9 year old boy who has an inactive mom and who lives with his inactive dad who is cohabiting with his girlfiend because his parents' sins are less grievous?

It may not be okay, and the bishop may or may not approve it, but under the policy it is permissible! At least there is no ssm or polygamy in the home, which are "more" diametrically opposed to the marriage covenant (the culminating covenant in exaltation) than cohabitation is.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is NO logic to this policy. It's sad seeing the contortions people make to try to make it make sense. But it doesn't. At all. The policy is sad and represents the worst of what religion has to offer.

LOL and this is posted with NO supporting logic, and portraying simple scripture as a contortion LOL ...

Edited September 13, 2016 by CV75

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

But achieving these objectives requires that the child NOT attend church.  If you have the child attending church but being denied ordinances and ministrations you aren't "protect[ing] children in their innocence" or preventing "difficulties, challenges, conflicts".  Attending while being denied these things actually just makes matters worse (no covenants, no Gift of the Holy Ghost, no home teachers to assist, etc).

Bingo...and how sad if they want to be there and left out by their peers.  Kids are kids...what a put down for a child that wants to attend and is denied the same said blessings that their friends do....is that not make things so much worse?   

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's an interesting question because there can be competing religious liberties; mine and the institution's. I need to think about it.

My first inclination is to think that yes, it is a violation of my religious liberty if the church will not permit me to worship. I'm thinking of the Zoramites and the rameumptom. They cast out people and wouldn't allow the poor to worship with them. In the BoM this restriction is treated as evil. Yet the same argument could easily be made for what the church is doing now to the outcast SS couples and their families.

If a black family was denied entrance to a "white church" should I privilege the religious liberty of the white church or of the black family?

I'm sure you agree that all private organizations have the right the set standards or expectations for membership.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the same right.  If a person does not live up to those standards or expectations the Book of Mormon teaches that their names should be " blotted out, that their names were not numbered among those of the righteous." (Alma 6:3)

The Zoramites were excluding people, seemingly, based upon their economic status.  Major difference between disobedience to the Lord's commandments and how much money you have in your pocket.

Also, unless a person has proven themselves to be a physical danger to the congregation, LDS worship services are open to all.

Edited September 13, 2016 by ksfisher

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

So you believe it's also better for these children not to attend?  How does the fact that they're not baptized make any difference with the above reasoning?

It's amazing to me that anyone can read your quotes above and still claim that the church welcomes children of gay members (who are in a relationship).

It affects family harmony.  The child will hide a resentment to his/her parents for depriving him the very things his ward friends are allowed to do.  It works both ways.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's an interesting question because there can be competing religious liberties; mine and the institution's. I need to think about it.

My first inclination is to think that yes, it is a violation of my religious liberty if the church will not permit me to worship. I'm thinking of the Zoramites and the rameumptom. They cast out people and wouldn't allow the poor to worship with them. In the BoM this restriction is treated as evil. 

 

Is it treated as evil?  If i'm remembering right, Alma uses it to teach the poor zoramites that the way they had been worshipping wasn't correct and they didn't need to be invited into the synagogues anyway.

[bsjkki]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It affects family harmony.  The child will hide a resentment to his/her parents for depriving him the very things his ward friends are allowed to do.  It works both ways.

No.  They will resent the church for depriving them of the opportunity to be baptized with their peers and making them feel different and unaccepted.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So it's okay to baptize the 9 year old boy who has an inactive mom and who lives with his inactive dad who is cohabiting with his girlfiend because his parents' sins are less grievous?

 

I agree with this but not for the same reasons.  We had some missionaries who were trying to teach  a 9 year old who's less-active parents weren't interested in attending and my husband (who was given his calling in the Elder's quorum because he's a 'non-conformist who's not afraid to speak his mind') piped up and said that that wasn't a good idea. Then the primary president backed him up on it.  But it wasn't because the child would been experiencing conflicting realties in church and at home, but because the child would have no way to get to church and no one supporting them in their church activity.

I think the obvious (and especially harmful) difference between the 9 year old boy's experience and a child of SSMarried parents isn't the different types of sins but is that the boy's family could repent and remain intact.  The 9 year old boy could hold out hope of an even better family if they accepted the gospel.  

The other child would be faced with the idea of a destroyed family if he hoped they accepted the gospel.  There could never be the hope of a temple marriage for his or her parents, for example, no matter how much they repented of their sins.  That would be a horrible position, emotionally, for most young children to be put in.  Much harder than the 9 year old boy's position (even though that would be difficult as well).

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with this but not for the same reasons.  We had some missionaries who were trying to teach  a 9 year old who's less-active parents weren't interested in attending and my husband (who was given his calling in the Elder's quorum because he's a 'non-conformist who's not afraid to speak his mind') piped up and said that that wasn't a good idea. Then the primary president backed him up on it.  But it wasn't because the child would been experiencing conflicting realties in church and at home, but because the child would have no way to get to church and no one supporting them in their church activity.

I think the obvious (and especially harmful) difference between the 9 year old boy's experience and a child of SSMarried parents isn't the different types of sins but is that the boy's family could repent and remain intact.  The 9 year old boy could hold out hope of an even better family if they accepted the gospel.  

The other child would be faced with the idea of a destroyed family if he hoped they accepted the gospel.  There could never be the hope of a temple marriage for his or her parents, for example, no matter how much they repented of their sins.  That would be a horrible position, emotionally, for most young children to be put in.  Much harder than the 9 year old boy's position (even though that would be difficult as well).

So what's your position on attendance and participation?  Should the child of SSM parents attend and participate in church?  If he/she does, wouldn't they be exposed to the same issues you are describing here?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

No.  They will resent the church for depriving them of the opportunity to be baptized with their peers and making them feel different and unaccepted.  

That could definitely happen, but i don't think it's a given.  One of my best friends was denied the opportunity to get baptized because her parents wouldn't give her permission.  She didn't hold it against the church or her parents.  She just waiting until she was 18.  She never felt unaccepted.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

So what's your position on attendance and participation?  Should the child of SSM parents attend and participate in church?  If he/she does, wouldn't they be exposed to the same issues you are describing here?

I think it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Bingo...and how sad if they want to be there and left out by their peers.  Kids are kids...what a put down for a child that wants to attend and is denied the same said blessings that their friends do....is that not make things so much worse?   

“Bingo” if that’s the name of a dog, which this straw-man is! LOL Kids are welcome as kids, all are accommodated regardless of Church membership. Of course, if the parent wants to protect them from baptismal envy or any other harm (real or imagined), they simply make sure they tag along, or limit attendance, or not permit attendance at all, and teach what they think best at home.

Anyone can attend Church without joining. The protection afforded children by attending but not joining is in setting up the expectation that there is no partnership between the Church and home life, that the parent’s duty toward the child is their business and prerogative, not the Church’s because no covenants have been made. Proper boundaries are maintained and the child’s home life comes first, as well it should. The parent’s roles for him are also respected and put first, for the sake of the child. Given that, attendance takes on the proper balance of parental guidance and Church accommodation.

As I said, there is the age of accountability and actual accountability. The policy recognizes that minor children are not accountable for any circumstances that prevent their entering the covenants at the customary ages for children in Zion. As any adult convert can attest, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost after the age of majority makes no one worse for the wear. God’s Spirit is with all His children, all their lives, and watches over them in their various circumstances. The benefits of covenant only work if one is part of a Zion community and has integrated Zion into his home, and dependent children have no control over the latter.

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That could definitely happen, but i don't think it's a given.  One of my best friends was denied the opportunity to get baptized because her parents wouldn't give her permission.  She didn't hold it against the church or her parents.  She just waiting until she was 18.  She never felt unaccepted.

In my family, we didn't resent the church because we knew it was my parent that didn't allow it.  My brother did not feel included once he could not pass the sacrament like the other kids.  He never joined.