Apparently new policy is no longer

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

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.  

I think it really depends on the kid's experience in church, their personality, and the strength of their testimony.  We are all so different.  I can see how it could be more difficult for boys than for girls.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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.

I didn't see bsjkki's post, because I have her on "ignore" status, but I will respond here by saying that when parents enter into a same-gender sexual partnership, they behave in a way that has no desirable or appealing consequence for their children as pertaining to the Church. It thus becomes a question, unfortunately, of what course of action will have the least undesirable outcome: allowing the child to be baptized and thus incur the domestic conflicts, confusion and divided loyalties that will bring on for someone too young and ill-equipped to handle them, or requiring the child to delay baptism until age 18 and thereby risk incurring his resentment. And, as you point out here, it might well be that the child will understand the reason for the delay and abide it in patience until the day he/she can make his/her own decision.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

In what case do you believe it's in the child's best interest to deny them baptism. but still put forth efforts to make them feel welcome and help them attend primary, YW, seminary and so on?  (Sincere question as I'd like to know your thoughts.)

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it really depends on the kid's experience in church, their personality, and the strength of their testimony.  We are all so different.  I can see how it could be more difficult for boys than for girls.

I agree with this, except that I'm not at all persuaded it would be more difficult for boys than for girls. Peer group pressures affect children of either gender.

 

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Because she wasn't unaccepted by the church and I'm sure she knew that, she was just being obedient to her parents.  Why would she hold that against the church?  Your friend's scenario is entirely different than if the church leaders denied her baptism into the church, IMO.

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't see bsjkki's post, because I have her on "ingnore" status, but I will respond here by saying that when parents enter into a same-gender sexual partnership, they create a situation that has no desirable or appealing condition for their children as pertaining to the Church. It thus becomes a question, unfortunately, of what course of action will have the least undesirable outcome: allowing the child to be baptized and thus incur the domestic conflicts and confusion that will bring on for someone too young and ill-equipped to handle them, or requiring the child to delay baptism until age 18 and thereby risk incurring his resentment.

Then why encourage them to attend or tell them they are welcome to attend?  If a situation has been created "that has no desirable or appealing condition for their children pertaining to the church"?

Please tell me the difference between a child attending without baptism vs. with baptism regarding incurring "domestic conflicts and confusion" for "someone too young and ill-equipped to handle them"?  The conflicts and confusion would incur either way.

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

In what case do you believe it's in the child's best interest to deny them baptism. but still put forth efforts to make them feel welcome and help them attend primary, YW, seminary and so on?  (Sincere question as I'd like to know your thoughts.)

I think it would depend on why the parents wanted the child there and the child's interest/testimony/familiarity with the church as well as the personality and age of the child.  

A child that had grown up outside of the church and had always lived in a home with gay parents might really suffer in a church environment but a child who grew up in a home with hetero parents and had always been a part of church, where one parent left the family and later married someone of the same sex, might handle it better, emotionally speaking (though i think both situations would have their difficulties for the child).   A child with a strong personality and sense of self might handle it better than a shy child who was very sensitive.  Some children internalize the choices of their parents, feeling unworthy simply because of where they come from and how their family is organized or exists in the world. Others don't have that problem that all.  A sixteen year old might be able to manage the discord between what they are experiencing at home and what they are learning at church while an 12 year old (dealing with all the craziness of pre-teen hormones and friendship structures) might be devastated by it.

There are so many variables in my opinion that would affect whether or not it would be appropriate.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Because she wasn't unaccepted by the church and I'm sure she knew that, she was just being obedient to her parents.  Why would she hold that against the church?  Your friend's scenario is entirely different than if the church leaders denied her baptism into the church, IMO.

Not all that different. The Church would not have baptized her without her parents' permission, so, in effect, the Church required the delay.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

In what case do you believe it's in the child's best interest to deny them baptism. but still put forth efforts to make them feel welcome and help them attend primary, YW, seminary and so on?  (Sincere question as I'd like to know your thoughts.)

I know you didn't put the question to me, but I would say that if a child makes the effort to attend Church meetings, the child should be welcomed under any circumstance, baptized or not.

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Because she wasn't unaccepted by the church and I'm sure she knew that, she was just being obedient to her parents.  Why would she hold that against the church?  Your friend's scenario is entirely different than if the church leaders denied her baptism into the church, IMO.

The same could be said for a child of gay parents who was welcome and accepted at church but not allowed to be baptized though.  My friend was denied baptism by the church because of the choices of her parents.  The same is true for the child of gay married parents.

I realize it's not exactly the same but i think it serves to make a point, which is that kids are all different and anyone who implies that all kids will feel 'this' way or 'that' way when faced with this situation is using much to broad of a brush to paint with.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this, except that I'm not at all persuaded it would be more difficult for boys than for girls. Peer group pressures affect children of either gender.

 

Because boys pass and prepare and bless the sacrament, and girls don't, there is an added point of pressure for boys at church that doesn't exist for girls.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not all that different. The Church would not have baptized her without her parents' permission, so, in effect, the Church required the delay.

Yes, very different and I'm surprised you can't see that.

In the example bluebell gave,  the child is being obedient to their parents and the church is respecting the parents.  In the case of a child having gay parents, the church is excommunicating their parents and denying them baptism and the blessings that come with that. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it would depend on why the parents wanted the child there and the child's interest/testimony/familiarity with the church as well as the personality and age of the child.  

A child that had grown up outside of the church and had always lived in a home with gay parents might really suffer in a church environment but a child who grew up in a home with hetero parents and had always been a part of church, where one parent left the family and later married someone of the same sex, might handle it better, emotionally speaking (though i think both situations would have their difficulties for the child).   A child with a strong personality and sense of self might handle it better than a shy child who was very sensitive.  Some children internalize the choices of their parents, feeling unworthy simply because of where they come from and how their family is organized or exists in the world. Others don't have that problem that all.  A sixteen year old might be able to manage the discord between what they are experiencing at home and what they are learning at church while an 12 year old (dealing with all the craziness of pre-teen hormones and friendship structures) might be devastated by it.

There are so many variables in my opinion that would affect whether or not it would be appropriate.

So, in any of your examples do you believe it's in the child's best interest to allow baptism into the church?  Or do you truly believe that just a blanket "no baptism" response is best for all of them (even though there are so many different variables and you've stated it should be taken on a "case by case" basis)?  

.

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then why encourage them to attend or tell them they are welcome to attend?  If a situation has been created "that has no desirable or appealing condition for their children pertaining to the church"?

Please tell me the difference between a child attending without baptism vs. with baptism regarding incurring "domestic conflicts and confusion" for "someone too young and ill-equipped to handle them"?  The conflicts and confusion would incur either way.

Again, it's the difference between the expectation that the child be present by reason of covenants made at baptism vs. the mere option of attending. No one, young or old, should be refused admittance to Church meetings (unless they present a danger to those in attendance or are disruptive). But no one should be allowed to enter into sacred covenants without due consideration being given to the person's circumstances, ability and readiness to receive those covenants.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because boys pass and prepare and bless the sacrament, and girls don't, there is an added point of pressure for boys at church that doesn't exist for girls.

Got it.

But unless I'm mistaken in my assumption, girls who have not been baptized may not serve as members of Young Women class presidencies. Maybe not a comparable thing, but considerable.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, in any of your examples do you believe it's in the child's best interest to allow baptism into the church?  Or do you truly believe that just a blanket "no baptism" response is best for all of them (even though there are so many different variables and you've stated it should be taken on a "case by case" basis)?  

.

Sorry if I was unclear. I think that sometimes it could be in the best interest of the child to be baptized. 

I don't think it would be logical to claim--as I do--that it should be decided on a case-by-case basis if I thought the answer should always be no. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

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.

The Zoramites also set standards and expectations for membership and cast out those who didn't qualify. Would you support that? Of course not. They didn't exclude only the temporally poor, but also the poor in spirit.

Quote

Alma 32:3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.

In the case of the policy, SS couples and their children are still allowed to attend worship services but not as equal participants. In fact, the denial of ordinances to the innocent children denies them the opportunity to worship fully in the way that Christ directed. So in a way the church casts out the children of SSM like the Zoramites cast out the poor.

Quote

Bluebell- 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.

Yes, the Zoramite refusal to let the poor worship with them was sinful. But Alma used it as a positive teaching experience for how they could still worship God, and that it might even be good that they were cast out of the synagogue so that they wouldn't be corrupted by the Zoramite worship. Should we treat the outcast SS couples and their children as likewise fortunate so that they are not corrupted by improper traditions of worship?

Just because the outcasts were taught that they could also worship without the rameumptom, nice clothes, in the synagogue etc, doesn't mean that the Zoramite restrictions wasn't sinful. Would we be likely to view the Zoramite church as God's one true church when they were denying access to some of the people? I wouldn't.

From the Zoramite prayer-

Quote

Alma 31:18 And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.

I'm sure we'd never hear anything like that at church on Sunday. People at church would never suppose themselves to be more righteous than the outcasts.

Quote

Alma 30:25 Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.

Apparently the child is guilty and should be outcast for it's own good. That's an awfully wobbly foundation for the church to stand on.

[bsjkki]

My sisters and I joined the church when able.  I never wanted to join my fathers church that taught Mormons were going to Hell.  

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Got it.

But unless I'm mistaken in my assumption, girls who have not been baptized may not serve as members of Young Women class presidencies. Maybe not a comparable thing, but considerable.

I think you are right about that, but i still don't see it as comparable.  The same is true for boys for example, so the boys still have an added component of not belonging even taking that into account.  Besides that though, there are usually girls that never serve in any presidency and it doesn't really matter.  Presidencies are not very visible (when i served in young womens, it was not surprising for the girls not to know who their own class counselors were for example because they don't really pay much attention that kind of thing unless it's a friend or them personally) so it wouldn't be obvious to other people that they were being left out.  When you're the only 12 year old not passing the sacrament i think that would be harder to deal with.

But i'm sure there have been girls who have felt left out because they couldn't be baptized and couldn't serve in a presidency or go to the temple to do baptisms.  It would be normal to feel that way sometimes, even if you understood why it was happening.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sorry if I was unclear. I think that sometimes it could be in the best interest of the child to be baptized. 

I don't think it would be logical to claim--as I do--that it should be decided on a case-by-case basis if I thought the answer should always be no. 

Thanks for your honesty and reason.  I agree with you.

.

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, it's the difference between the expectation that the child be present by reason of covenants made at baptism vs. the mere option of attending. No one, young or old, should be refused admittance to Church meetings (unless they present a danger to those in attendance or are disruptive). But no one should be allowed to enter into sacred covenants without due consideration being given to the person's circumstances, ability and readiness to receive those covenants.

And how about we allow the person to make those decisions for themselves (at any age)?  That's what the right thing to do here is, IMO.  Children are allowed to decide at the age of accountability to be baptized, are they not?  All your reasons and logic fall apart when one really analyzes this new policy.  

As bluebell has shown, there are many, many different variables and situations involved here.  I like her thoughts on handling these on a case by case basis and I hope that's how this policy will eventually evolve (if it's not entirely done away with).

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And how about we allow the person to make those decisions for themselves (at any age)?  That's what the right thing to do here is, IMO.  Children are allowed to decide at the age of accountability to be baptized, are they not?  All your reasons and logic fall apart when one really analyzes this new policy.  

As bluebell has shown, there are many, many different variables and situations involved here.  I like her thoughts on handling these on a case by case basis and I hope that's how this policy will eventually evolve (if it's not entirely done away with).

Anyone may decide to be baptized at any age, but scriptures set the minimum age at eight; the scriptures also require that “All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age,” indicating some parental involvement there; the scriptures also require that those that “desire to be baptized …witness before the church [the Bishop] that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins [in order to be] be received by baptism into his church.” Consider this with the instructions on parental stewardship and the Church’s role in assisting parents, and voila, you have a policy that pulls all these principles together.

Baptism, and the baptism of minors, is already handled on a case by case basis. The policy is the course or principle of action to follow in the administration of this spiritual blessing to children in this situation.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Yes, very different and I'm surprised you can't see that.

In the example bluebell gave,  the child is being obedient to their parents and the church is respecting the parents.  In the case of a child having gay parents, the church is excommunicating their parents and denying them baptism and the blessings that come with that. 

I think Bluebell makes a solid point in saying that the situations are somewhat (though not altogether) comparable in that in either case the child is denied immediate baptism by the Church due to choices made by the parents. Conceivably, a child could resent the Church in either case: on the one hand for not disregarding the unrighteous behavior of the parent, and on the other hand for not overruling the decision of the parents.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

So, in any of your examples do you believe it's in the child's best interest to allow baptism into the church?  Or do you truly believe that just a blanket "no baptism" response is best for all of them (even though there are so many different variables and you've stated it should be taken on a "case by case" basis)? 

The policy does not apply to those children who were already baptized, ordained, etc. at the time of its issuance, and I believe exceptions can be made to the policy in certain extenuating circumstances that I can think of.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And how about we allow the person to make those decisions for themselves (at any age)?  That's what the right thing to do here is, IMO.  Children are allowed to decide at the age of accountability to be baptized, are they not?  All your reasons and logic fall apart when one really analyzes this new policy.  

As bluebell has shown, there are many, many different variables and situations involved here.  I like her thoughts on handling these on a case by case basis and I hope that's how this policy will eventually evolve (if it's not entirely done away with).

Being baptized is never a unilateral decision. Baptismal candidates, whoever they may be, are always subject to the decision of a priesthood holder empowered to determine their readiness and ability to enter into that sacred covenant.

As to the matter at hand, we have an instance of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, acting in their authority, determining, under revelation from God, that for children who are obliged to live under certain domestic circumstances, baptism should be delayed until those circumstances change.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd