Apparently new policy is no longer

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Good to know.  Policy makers will be held accountable.  I can't get over the fact that if I am to accept in my mind a policy and/or revelation I have to picture the Savior..turning his back on a child.  That I cannot do  And for all the reasons the church and it's leaders have for this policy...none can compensate for that picture in my mind.  It is wrong.  They are accountable.  If it isn't changed, I want to be a fly on the wall on judgement day. 

I am not trying to be mean or snarky at all, but just remember (when you get excited to see someone else receive justice for something you believe they did wrong) that you will be judged with the same level of mercy you judge them with.

Edit to add-it's hard not to want people to get what we believe they have them coming to them.  I certainly struggle with it.  It helps when i remember all the people that are out there probably hoping that I get what they believe is coming to me!

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by bluebell

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The case by case decisions only relate to the minors who have already been baptized prior to the implementation of this new policy (such as giving them the Priesthood, advancements, etc.).  Also each case will be looked at (by church leaders) after a child is no longer a minor and desires baptism.  So I agree those will be case by case decisions.

There is no case by case decision regarding an unbaptized minor determining whether or not they will be allowed to be baptized.  You are the one who seems confused about this, not I.

Or do you believe there can be "individual requests" granted for one of these minors to be baptized?  If so, I have not heard that this is possible.  Do you have a source for that?

Each request is a case and is assessed and handled individually. There are cases where the policy is followed, cases where exceptions are made, and cases where the policy does not apply. There is no way of telling what will be done until the case is made. I know from experience and observation there is a procedure for making an exception to any Church policy inherent in the delegating, reporting and counseling structures and processes, and I can think of cases where exceptions would be appropriate and approved. But in any case, each request is taken care of individually, or case-by-case.

Now instead of zeroing in on exceptions, I recommend gaining an understanding and appreciation for the general policy and of the principles and motivations underlying it. That way the exceptions are easy to see and accept. Constantly refuting it and brushing off the numerous good-faith explanations provided by the Church PR, leadership and scripture out of a visceral and uninformed personal sense of right and wrong closes the door on that.

Edited September 13, 2016 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

ALarson is exactly right in his explanation of the policy as written. Some handbook policies are open for exceptions at a local level. Others are not. I've seen nothing to suggest that this policy is open to local exceptions but of course the First Presidency and Q12 can make any exception they like.

CV75 seems convinced local leaders can make exceptions. What is the basis for this? Hope? Rationalization? Or is there some kind of evidence or statement that would suggest this? If you're suggesting that leaders are ignoring the policy, you may be right. I hope you are. But I haven't seen any evidence of that and "ignoring" is not exactly the same thing as "getting and exception".

 

I wish you wouldn't put a quote line from me at the top when you are responding to someone else.

I know it's probably a software glitch, but it sends a notification to me when it happens, and I click on it only to discover it is not directed to me.

If you hover over the quote line, there is a little square that appears. When you see that, you have the capability of deleting the quote line. At least that's how it works for me.

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Each request is a case and is assessed and handled individually. There are cases where the policy is followed, cases where exceptions are made, and cases where the policy does not apply.

Are you saying that you know of a child living with gay parents who have been allowed to be baptized?  If so, please give a source.

As far as I know, there are no exceptions (allowances for a case by case decision) regarding the baptism of a minor living with parents who are gay.

Again, give a source or give up on this argument as it's not accurate as far as I know.

.

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Are you saying that you know of a child living with gay parents who have been allowed to be baptized?  If so, please give a source.

As far as I know, there are no exceptions (allowances for a case by case decision) regarding the baptism of a minor living with parents who are gay.

Again, give a source or give up on this argument as it's not accurate as far as I know.

.

Do you know of any instance where a child desired baptism but was forbidden because of a domestic situation involving a gay partnership? In other words, do you know of any specific instance in which the new policy has been invoked?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

They become young adults and then adults.  I no longer refer to my 18 year old daughter as a "child".  Maybe you continue to do this when your kids become adults, but I don't know many who do.

 

Semantic quibbling. One's adult offspring are commonly referred to as children, as in "The couple have four children, 12 grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren. 

[ALarson]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you know of any instance where a child desired baptism but was forbidden because of a domestic situation involving a gay partnership? In other words, do you know of any specific instance in which the new policy has been invoked?

Well first of all, I'm not the one making this claim below (regarding baptizing minor children who live with their gay parents):

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Each request is a case and is assessed and handled individually. There are cases where the policy is followed, cases where exceptions are made, and cases where the policy does not apply

Second of all, I know the instruction my Bishop has specifically been given in response to his questions regarding this and this matter is not left up to a case by case basis where exceptions are to be made or where the policy is not to be followed.

And lastly, do you see any wiggle room in the addition to the handbook (if you've read it)?  

It states that a minor can be baptized "only" if they are 18 years of age and no longer living in the household with their parents who are in a same sex relationship (along with disavowing the practice).

So are you going on record of agreeing with CV75's statement above? 

.

 

Edited September 14, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wish you wouldn't put a quote line from me at the top when you are responding to someone else.

I know it's probably a software glitch, but it sends a notification to me when it happens, and I click on it only to discover it is not directed to me.

If you hover over the quote line, there is a little square that appears. When you see that, you have the capability of deleting the quote line. At least that's how it works for me.

I've had this problem several times in the past when using my ipad.  I'll start to respond to someone, think better of it, respond to someone else later in the thread but be unable to get rid of the first quote.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Good to know.  Policy makers will be held accountable.  I can't get over the fact that if I am to accept in my mind a policy and/or revelation I have to picture the Savior..turning his back on a child.  That I cannot do  And for all the reasons the church and it's leaders have for this policy...none can compensate for that picture in my mind.  It is wrong.  They are accountable.  If it isn't changed, I want to be a fly on the wall on judgement day. 

Jeanne, did you ever read the Bible about Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in Matt 15:21 - 28?

 ¶Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

I am curious Jeanne what you think of Jesus calling this woman a dog?  Is this the same judge you think will be more than firm with his prophets and apostles?  Was not this woman calling to Jesus with a real problem?  Her daughter, not herself, but her child was, at first, totally ignored by Jesus.  Would you say that Jesus turned his back on her?  I would; he clearly ignored her.

Who does the Church serve?  All those who seek after Jesus Christ; those who respond to his invitation to repent and enter the waters of baptism.  

I am curious to hear your response.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well first of all, I'm not the one making this claim below (regarding baptizing minor children who live with their gay parents):

Second of all, I know the instruction my Bishop has specifically been given in response to his questions regarding this and this matter is not left up to a case by case basis where exceptions are to be made or where the policy is not to be followed.

And lastly, do you see any wiggle room in the addition to the handbook (if you've read it)?  

It states that a minor can be baptized "only" if they are 18 years of age and no longer living in the household with their parents who are in a same sex relationship (along with disavowing the practice).

So are you going on record of agreeing with CV75's statement above? 

 

So I take it you don't know of any instances, then. I kind of suspected that. 

I guess the reason I asked was that we are still very much dealing with this matter in theory, and if occasions when it would be applied occur so rarely that you can't cite even one in nearly a year's time, CV75 could hardly be required to document occasions when exceptions have been made to it. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it you don't know of any instances, then. I kind of suspected that. 

I guess the reason I asked was that we are still very much dealing with this matter in theory, and if occasions when it would be applied occur so rarely that you can't cite even one in nearly a year's time, CV75 could hardly be required to document occasions when exceptions have been made to it. 

Completely irrelevant to the fact that CV75's statement is not accurate.  He stated that whether or not a child is allowed to be baptized (who is under the age of 18 years and living with gay parents) is taken on a case by case basis and that sometimes the policy does not apply.  And, if you agree with that, you are also wrong.  

Again this is what CV75 stated:

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Each request is a case and is assessed and handled individually. There are cases where the policy is followed, cases where exceptions are made, and cases where the policy does not apply

I've asked CV75 to provide a source for this and now I'm issuing an official CFR.  

Where have you seen instructions to handle baptisms for children under the age of 18 (who are living with their gay parents), in the manner you describe above when following the new policy guidelines?  You stated that there are "cases where exception are made, and cases where the policy does not apply".  Please give a source for those cases.

Edited September 14, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Completely irrelevant to the fact that CV75's statement is not accurate.  He stated that whether or not a child is allowed to be baptized (who is under the age of 18 years and living with gay parents) is taken on a case by case basis and that sometimes the policy does not apply.  And, if you agree with that, you are also wrong.  

Again this is what CV75 stated:

I've asked CV75 to provide a source for this and now I'm issuing an official CFR.  

Where have you seen instructions to handle baptisms for children under the age of 18 (who are living with their gay parents), in the manner you describe above when following the new policy guidelines?  You stated that there are "cases where exception are made, and cases where the policy does not apply".  Please give a source for those cases.

Maybe we could open this up to the board. Does anyone know of even one instance in which the policy initiated last November has been invoked? 

If no one can think of even one, maybe it's a moot point to be asking for instances of exceptions. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe we could open this up to the board. Does anyone know of even one instance in which the policy initiated last November has been invoked? 

If no one can think of even one, maybe it's a moot point to be asking for instances of exceptions. 

Are you trying to point out that this policy/revelation was completely unnecessary?  Because I think most everyone on this board would agree with you.  It was just an attack on gay couples and their families and really served no other practical purpose.  In the end, it made the church look small and petty in my opinion.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Jeanne, did you ever read the Bible about Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in Matt 15:21 - 28?

 ¶Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

I am curious Jeanne what you think of Jesus calling this woman a dog?  Is this the same judge you think will be more than firm with his prophets and apostles?  Was not this woman calling to Jesus with a real problem?  Her daughter, not herself, but her child was, at first, totally ignored by Jesus.  Would you say that Jesus turned his back on her?  I would; he clearly ignored her.

Who does the Church serve?  All those who seek after Jesus Christ; those who respond to his invitation to repent and enter the waters of baptism.  

I am curious to hear your response.  

 

lol.  We used to use those scriptures on my mission to justify banning the priesthood from blacks.  I guess it has found a second use.  To justify a policy this time directed against gay families.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you trying to point out that this policy/revelation was completely unnecessary?  Because I think most everyone on this board would agree with you.  It was just an attack on gay couples and their families and really served no other practical purpose.  In the end, it made the church look small and petty in my opinion.

No, I'm not trying to do that. I'm genuinely curious to know if it has been necessary to invoke the policy yet. I'm wondering if there has been a lot of hoopla about something that so far exists only in theory. 

I think it absurd to claim the Church did this as a public attack or political statement when the Church neither sought nor desired publicity about it, but rather, the publicity was thrust upon it. It never was intended as anything other than an internal, administrative matter. Otherwise, why the constant narrative of it having been "leaked"? Why would it be necessary for something intended as a public attack to be "leaked"?

I believe the Brethren felt it was necessary to head off problems that might emerge in the future. That's one thing that prophets do. They act with foresight. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I'm not trying to do that. I'm genuinely curious to know if it has been necessary to invoke the policy yet. I'm wondering if there has been a lot of hoopla about something that so far exists only in theory. 

I think it absurd to claim the Church did this as a political statement when the Church neither sought nor desired publicity about it, but rather, the publicity was thrust upon it. 

I believe the Brethren felt it was necessary to head off problems that might emerge in the future. That's one thing that prophets do. 

A blanket policy directed against gay couples to head off problems that might emerge in the future????  And these problems could not have been handled on an individual basis like all the other cases where a candidate for baptism might be living in a situation where the parents are not living the church beliefs????

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

A blanket policy directed against gay couples to head off problems that might emerge in the future????  And these problems could not have been handled on an individual basis like all the other cases where a candidate for baptism might be living in a situation where the parents are not living the church beliefs????

 

Why wait until a problem arises before developing a policy to deal with it??????? Does that make sense?????????

(I used more question marks than you did. Does that mean I win???????)

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

lol.  We used to use those scriptures on my mission to justify banning the priesthood from blacks.  I guess it has found a second use.  To justify a policy this time directed against gay families.

lol, I never did that.  Regardless of your past uses of scriptures, how about addressing her comment and my response?  Or maybe just address Jesus' response to this specific woman.

[rockpond]

Given the revelatory claim behind this policy and the statements being made here by those who support the policy, it would seem that most bishops would not make exceptions. 

For me, as a counselor, if my Bishop came and sought my counsel for a child who wanted to be baptized and had gay parents who gave permission, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the he grant the exception.  Any gay couple who is aware of all that has happened in the church since Nov 5 and still wants to be involved, is clearly committed. 

[CV75]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

Are you saying that you know of a child living with gay parents who have been allowed to be baptized?  If so, please give a source.

As far as I know, there are no exceptions (allowances for a case by case decision) regarding the baptism of a minor living with parents who are gay.

Again, give a source or give up on this argument as it's not accurate as far as I know.

I only said I can think of some circumstances where exceptions can be made, that is all. I’m not sure why you are badgering the point, as it makes no difference to the policy itself (which is what you are objecting to, since I gather you haven’t seen its application in practice). I am suggesting one of three possible applications. This is why I commented on your apparent conflation of policy and practice.

In other words, as far as you know, there are no exceptions, but as far as I know, there are!

That I can think of some circumstances where exceptions can be made is not an argument (and an argument for what? It doesn’t justify the policy one way or the other; the manifold other things that have been said do justify it). It is a consideration for those who tend to see this issue in black and white, so they might try to understand rather than fuel their upset.

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Given the revelatory claim behind this policy and the statements being made here by those who support the policy, it would seem that most bishops would not make exceptions. 

For me, as a counselor, if my Bishop came and sought my counsel for a child who wanted to be baptized and had gay parents who gave permission, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the he grant the exception.  Any gay couple who is aware of all that has happened in the church since Nov 5 and still wants to be involved, is clearly committed. 

I can think of other exceptions than that, so my counsel would entail an assessment additional factors. But that's merely a matter of experience and style; counsel is counsel.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Given the revelatory claim behind this policy and the statements being made here by those who support the policy, it would seem that most bishops would not make exceptions. 

For me, as a counselor, if my Bishop came and sought my counsel for a child who wanted to be baptized and had gay parents who gave permission, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the he grant the exception.  Any gay couple who is aware of all that has happened in the church since Nov 5 and still wants to be involved, is clearly committed. 

Oh, this is how I would handle it as well.  I've even discussed it with my Bishop and he feels the same way.  This is why he's asked questions and the answers have been "no exceptions, the policy must be followed as written regarding the baptism of a minor living in a home where the parents are in a gay relationship".

But, we know who the first person on here would be to object if we posted that we had baptized a child living in this situation and that we had not been obedient and followed the policy (ie. "Don't you believe Pres. Nelson when he said it was a revelation from God?").  That's why it's odd he's agreeing with posts stating that the policy doesn't always apply and doesn't always need to be followed  

[ALarson]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I only said I can think of some circumstances where exceptions can be made, that is all. I’m not sure why you are badgering the point, as it makes no difference to the policy itself (which is what you are objecting to, since I gather you haven’t seen its application in practice).

Because you stated it like you can't understand why people are opposed to this new policy and if we just understood it, we'd know there would be exceptions, that baptizing a child in a home with gay parents will be handled on a case by case basis and sometimes the policy won't apply or need to be followed.  That's not accurate if you have read the handbook and listened to how this policy is to be carried out.

I've asked you for cases where this has happened to back up your claims and so far you've given none, so I have to assume that this is just your opinion and not fact.  

I would hope that there would be exceptions given.   Do you know of a child baptized since the policy who lives full time in a household where their parents are in a gay relationship?  I would imagine this would not go unnoticed if it had happened and I also imagine the leaders would not be happy that the policy was not followed..  

.

Edited September 14, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you trying to point out that this policy/revelation was completely unnecessary?  Because I think most everyone on this board would agree with you. 

This is what it appears that Scott is doing by defending statements here that the policy doesn't always apply or need to be followed in cases regarding baptizing a minor who lives in a home where their parents are in a gay relationship.  But maybe this is really how he feels about this and actually believes exceptions should be made.

Edited September 14, 2016 by ALarson

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why wait until a problem arises before developing a policy to deal with it??????? Does that make sense?????????

(I used more question marks than you did. Does that mean I win???????)

Why wait until a problem arises?  Are you serious?  Have you not been paying attention to the grief, heartache and anger that this policy has caused both within and outside the church?  It is unfortunate that the foresight you speak of, the prophet had not foreseen THAT when the whole thing seems totally unnecessary.  Things could have been handled on a case by case basis.  It seems like a prophet would have had the foresight to see that.  Unless, of course, the whole intent of the policy was to stir up animosity and anger towards the church by member and nonmembers alike.  And that is what prophets do as you say.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

For me, as a counselor, if my Bishop came and sought my counsel for a child who wanted to be baptized and had gay parents who gave permission, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the he grant the exception.  Any gay couple who is aware of all that has happened in the church since Nov 5 and still wants to be involved, is clearly committed. 

Bad counsel.  As the policy does not originate with your bishop, or any bishop, it's not within a bishops perogative to ignore the policy.   I would hope that anyone giving counsel to priesthood leaders would give counsel consistent with the handbook and the known wishes of the President of the church, who is the earthly source of the priesthood keys that the bishop exercizes.  

Anything else would seem to be rebellion against proper priesthood authority.