An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Don't have a clue.

I would hope not if the couple considered themselves a family that intended to stay together.  That would be comparable imo to polygamous families as they are not legally married to one another, but only consider themselves married and thus a family.

Well then why can the children of straight couples that are not married be baptized?  

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well then why can the children of straight couples that are not married be baptized?  

Because the family doesn't have to be destroyed in order to stop being against commandments.  The parents can repent by being married both in the eyes of the law and God.  The child is not placed in the position where they must hope for two contradictory things...the survival of the family and their parents choosing to live the gospel covenants.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Calm

[Meerkat]

You are right Jeanne, I wouldn't have believed it at 18.

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

The reality though..(IMO) is that by the age of 18..they will no longer care and will be passive about learning more about a church that somewhat disowned them..and their parents as well.

That's an interesting point Jeanne.  A friend shared the Gospel with me in 8th grade.  I met with the missionaries, felt the Spirit and asked my parents if I could be baptized.  They reminded me I had just gone through 2 years of confirmation classes to become a Lutheran.  They suggested I wait until age 18 and then decide.  That seemed like a fair request.

By age 18, the LDS Church was the furthest thing from my mind, as was Christianity in general.  At age 18, fun was at the top of my list.  Faith of any kind at the bottom.   I found what many people find, maybe you also, that we can forget about God.  But He doesn't forget about us.  People continue to change and mature after age 18.

My wife and I found Christ while dating.  On our honeymoon, we saw the ruins in Mexico and learned about the legend of Quezocoatl.  We passed through Salt Lake City on the way home and visited Temple Square.  We heard about the Book of Mormon, and that they believed Quezocoatl was Jesus Christ who visited the Americas after his resurrection, as prophesied in John 10:16.  Shortly thereafter, we prayed to know if the Book of Mormon was true, received our answer and were baptized.  That was 44 years ago.  

To me, it's a fulfillment of the scripture "15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
            16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me."  Isaiah 49:15-16.

Children of polygamists, gays or unmarried parents, I believe the Lord loves them and will give them every opportunity.  I believe the same goes for the parents as well.  Jesus said "27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me..."

Edited April 30, 2018 by Meerkat

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Because the family doesn't have to be destroyed in order to stop being against commandments.  The parents can repent by being married both in the eyes of the law and God.  The child is not placed in the position where they must hope for two contradictory things...the survival of the family and their parents choosing to live the gospel covenants.

Perhaps.  That is always a possibility I suppose.  I like a lot about what the church teaches and I think that for straight families it enriches their lives and draws them into a community that supports them, gives good values and is lead by good people.  I don't think those same conditions apply to someone who is gay or gay families.  I personally can't see me ever coming back to the church. When I have attended, usually with other family members, I have heard disparaging remarks made about "those gays" wrecking scouting, "those gays not deserving the right to marry", corrupt justices on the supreme court for ruling in favor of gay marriage.  Who needs that kind of negativity in their lives simply because I am gay.  All of my children are older than 18, so this policy doesn't really matter.  Most are still involved in the church.  When I get together with them, we talk about what they are doing in the church, and what is going on. It is not a taboo subject.  I never say anything negative about the church to them.  Never have commented on this policy or some of the other actions of the church.  I want them to be happy.  I think the church adds to their happiness.

If I had a young child, I would not take them to the Mormon church.  The issues are just too great.  But I live in California.  All of my neighbors are not members.  The schools are not heavily Mormon.  There is always a possibility that they might find a friend that would introduce them into the church.  Of course I would let them attend if they wanted to.  But I think I would have a very long talk about how the church does not value their family.  They will probably hear a lot of derogatory remarks about their parents relationship being counterfeit.  Not of God.  Even apostate.  They can't be baptized.  Can't hold the priesthood. administer the sacrament like their friends.  They will aways be a bit on the outside.  They would have to grow a thick skin.  But it would be their choice.  

I think it is easy to glibly except the policy because of faith that these men speak for God.  The reality is much more stick, filled with imo unnecessary stress and complications for young children.  But then I have never really bought into the whole rationalization that somehow this policy protects the children.  From What?  They are still faced with the exact same issues of conflict whether they are baptized or whether they just attend.  Except not allowing baptism complicates things much more.  It makes them feel punished for a choice their parents have made.

I do thank you for you post.  It is an answer.  Maybe not a really solid believable answer for me, but for some people it will probably suffice.  In any event, this policy and the church's attitudes towards gays and their families is not going to change in the near future.  So how I or anyone else feels about it doesn't really matter.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, MormonMason said:

So, you prefer not to protect young children from emotional and family turmoil? Good to know what churches to avoid.  Thanks.  Or have you already abandoned the teachings of Christ regarding marriage and are performing gay marriages on request in your church?

If a child of gay parents is attending the Mormon church and is actively involved in the church, and the gay parents support them in that personal decision, how does not baptizing them protect the child from any emotional and family turmoil This is the question that I have never understood, and quite frankly why I don't believe this policy has any relationship to increase protection to children.  Maybe you can explain how baptism increased the emotional and family turmoil when the parents are supporting of the child's decision to be baptized.

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If a child of gay parents is attending the Mormon church and is actively involved in the church, and the gay parents support them in that personal decision, how does not baptizing them protect the child from any emotional and family turmoil This is the question that I have never understood, and quite frankly why I don't believe this policy has any relationship to increase protection to children.  Maybe you can explain how baptism increased the emotional and family turmoil when the parents are supporting of the child's decision to be baptized.

I appreciate getting to understand how you think better.  I find a reasonableness in your comments.

The problem I see in baptizing children of gays at a young age is making them accountable for doctrines probably most will not be able to embrace as they enter their teenage years.  Family life is a powerful influence.  You just made a well reasoned case against the Church.  How many gays do you believe would exercise the restraint you have with your own adult children who don't live in your home?  If you had young children who lived with you ask about the conflict between Church marriage doctrine and gay marriage, would you not give a strong and reasonable defense for your chosen lifestyle?  What about your gay peers?  Would they withhold their comments and disgust from your children who are members of the Church? 

Considering the family carries the primary influence, baptism has a great potential to do harm to member children of gay parents, in my opinion.  As they get older, out of the home and able to consider and express themselves without causing contention, they are in a better space to live LDS doctrine.

Here are two comments from a man who grew up with two moms (from the article " htpps://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/growing-up-with-two-moms-the-untold-story  )

"Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades."

and

"Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors."

If that is true, and the maladjustments cause self medicating, that would also have potential to cause future problems for them and their Church peers.  Perhaps the Church has already experienced some or many of them, and this contributed to their decision.  Or maybe not.  I have no way of knowing.  I don't believe the decision was taken lightly.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Quote

Because the family doesn't have to be destroyed in order to stop being against commandments.  The parents can repent by being married both in the eyes of the law and God.  The child is not placed in the position where they must hope for two contradictory things...the survival of the family and their parents choosing to live the gospel covenants.

Perhaps.  That is always a possibility I suppose.  

I appreciate that you acknowledge this.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I like a lot about what the church teaches and I think that for straight families it enriches their lives and draws them into a community that supports them, gives good values and is lead by good people.

I agree.  And again, I appreciate that you acknowledge this.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't think those same conditions apply to someone who is gay or gay families.  

To some extent, I agree.  Same-sex marriage seems intractably incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  People living within that institution will be perpetually at odds with a foundational element of the Restored Gospel.  

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I personally can't see me ever coming back to the church.

I can understand that.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

When I have attended, usually with other family members, I have heard disparaging remarks made about "those gays" wrecking scouting, "those gays not deserving the right to marry", corrupt justices on the supreme court for ruling in favor of gay marriage.  

Hmm.  I live in Utah County, and yet I hear none of these.  To be frank, "gays" are just not a huge topic of conversation.  I get "gay" issues loom very, very large in your life.  They are the prism through which you look at the world.  But LDS meetings very rarely focus on such issues.  Jesus Christ?  Yes.  The Restoration, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, priesthood authority, an open canon, continuing revelation, temples, geneology work, missionary work, service, ministering, agency, obedience, etc.?  Yes.  But gays "wrecking scouting?"  Nope.  Never heard it.  Gays "not deserving the right to marry?"  This is the first time in my life I have heard the issue framed in that way ("deserving?").  "Corrupt justices?"  Well, I have heard some complaints about the strangled logic and extra-constitutional elements of the Obergefell decision (I interact with a lot of attorneys, aster all), along with the perceived capitulation of the Supreme Court to social trends instead of allegiance to the Constitution.  So I'll concede that.  But in church?  Hardly at all.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Who needs that kind of negativity in their lives simply because I am gay. 

That "because" isn't warranted.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

All of my children are older than 18, so this policy doesn't really matter.  Most are still involved in the church.  When I get together with them, we talk about what they are doing in the church, and what is going on. It is not a taboo subject.  I never say anything negative about the church to them.  Never have commented on this policy or some of the other actions of the church.  I want them to be happy.  I think the church adds to their happiness.

I am glad of that.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If I had a young child, I would not take them to the Mormon church.  

I understand that.  But the odd thing is that it seems you "would not take them to the Mormon Church" for the same reasons that the LDS Church postpones baptism of such children until they turn 18.  There is too much conflict between your choices and the Church's teachings.  

It's odd, then, that you criticize the Church for reaching the same conclusion you have, and for - like you - acting in accordance with that conclusion.  You seek to avoid exposing your children to conflict by not taking them to LDS services.  The LDS Church seeks to avoid exposing your children to conflict by not putting them under covenants that conflict with your choices.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The issues are just too great.  But I live in California.  All of my neighbors are not members.  The schools are not heavily Mormon.  There is always a possibility that they might find a friend that would introduce them into the church.  Of course I would let them attend if they wanted to.  But I think I would have a very long talk about how the church does not value their family.  

That's an odd way to put it.  The Church values your family enough to not introduce conflict into the children's lives as between your family and the doctrines of the Church.

And even when children turn 18, they are not asked to disavow their parents, but rather than concept of same-sex marriage.  

1 hour ago, california boy said:

They will probably hear a lot of derogatory remarks about their parents relationship being counterfeit.  Not of God.  Even apostate. 

Frankly, I question that.  You seem to think that all Mormons do is get together on Sundays and complain about "gay" issues.  That's far from the truth.  Same-sex marriage is simply one of a constellation of issues that might be occasionally - though in my experience quite rarely - addressed.

I will concede that some few Latter-day Saints might choose to make "derogatory remarks" about same-sex marriage.  A lot of that, I think, has to do with the sociopolitical aspects of it.  It was, proverbially speaking, crammed down our throats by a bare majority of the Supreme Court.  And anything other than utter capitulation to it, together with effusive praise and adoration and endorsement and celebration of it, will get you branded as a bigot / homophobe / hater / etc.  

That said, I cannot defend such "derogatory remarks" made in Church.  We must treat our gay brothers and sisters with respect and love, and with tact and decorum.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

They can't be baptized.  Can't hold the priesthood. administer the sacrament like their friends.  They will aways be a bit on the outside.  

Indeed.  That could be difficult, particularly after the "very long talk" from you, their father.

Hence the wisdom of the Church's policy.  Everyone involved would be going into this with their eyes open.  No surprises.  The intractable conflict between your choices and the doctrines of the Church are clear.  And because of that clarity, I think most of the time children will be spared the dilemma of choosing between divided loyalties - at least until they turn 18 and have the legal means and intellectual/spiritual competency to cope navigate those divided loyalties.  Children may feel like they need to pick one side or the other, whereas adults can find ways to maintain both sets of loyalties.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think it is easy to glibly except the policy because of faith that these men speak for God.  

"Glib" = "(of words or the person speaking them) fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow."

Unfortunate and unnecessary cheap shots like this make conversing with you difficult.  

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The reality is much more stick, filled with imo unnecessary stress and complications for young children.  

Your entire post demonstrates that the "stress and complications" are manifestly in place, and intractably so.  Which is why the Church's policy makes so much sense.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

But then I have never really bought into the whole rationalization that somehow this policy protects the children.  From What?  

From divided loyalties.

Calm just addressed that.  So it's weird that you are pretending that this question hasn't been addressed.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

They are still faced with the exact same issues of conflict whether they are baptized or whether they just attend.  

No, they are not.  "Just attend[ing]" does not put them under covenant.

And there are many more reasons for the Church's policy.  From a post on mine from last Fall:

Quote

Children growing up in same-sex parent households feeling conflicted, that they have to choose one side or the other.  Loyalty to the Church and to God, or to their parents.

I don't think that choice is necessary, but I think minor children could easily think so.  And they would not be well-equipped to handle it.

This issue was explained by Elder Christofferson nearly two years ago:

Quote

Speaking not only as an Apostle, but also as a husband, father, and grandfather, Elder Christofferson said the new policy originates out of compassion. “It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … 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.”

For example, Elder Christofferson explained that a baby blessing in the Church places a child’s name on the records of the Church and triggers many things—including the assignment of home and visiting teachers and the expectation that the child will attend Primary and other Church-sponsored activities. “That is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting, where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple.”

After the child reaches maturity, he or she can make an informed and conscious decision about their own Church membership, said Elder Christofferson. “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.”

...

He said the changes were necessary because the Church regards “same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline.”

“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”

...

Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between “what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.”

“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt,” Elder Christofferson explained. “We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained.

“That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

...

Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, “but we know sin does not.”

“There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,” he said.

...

The new policy is “really two sides of the same coin,” Elder Christofferson said. “On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.”

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("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.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

You say: "But then I have never really bought into the whole rationalization that somehow this policy protects the children.  From What?"

We've been talking about these items for years.  We've been hashing them out for years.  It is strange that you continue to claim to be in the dark as to the reasoning of the Church's position.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Except not allowing baptism complicates things much more.

I disagree.  I think postponing baptism (not, as you continue to falsely state, "not allowing baptism") is part of an important effort by the Church to mitigate the conflict that necessarily exists between same-sex marriage and the Restored Gospel.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It makes them feel punished for a choice their parents have made.

Perhaps.  This would be particularly so where the parents perennially bad-mouth and disparage the Church, and who express their disagreement about the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity.

So the risk of introducing children into this intractable conflict seems quite significant.  Hence the wisdom of the Church's policy, which is difficult, but which mitigates that risk you point to here (and others).

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I do thank you for you post.  It is an answer.  Maybe not a really solid believable answer for me, but for some people it will probably suffice.  

I can accept that, and I appreciate your candor.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I appreciate getting to understand how you think better.  I find a reasonableness in your comments.

The problem I see in baptizing children of gays at a young age is making them accountable for doctrines probably most will not be able to embrace as they enter their teenage years.  

I would really appreciate if you could explain this concept to me.  What is God going to condemn them for that they would be accountable for at age 8 or 10 or 18?  If they believe that the church position on gay marriage is wrong?   As far as I can tell, this claim is the only difference between a child of a gay couple being baptized, and attending church and one that is not baptized but still attends church.  Either way, the church experience is the same.  The conflicts are the same.

54 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Family life is a powerful influence.  You just made a well reasoned case against the Church. 

I agree, Family life is a powerful influence.  I made a well reasoned case for the child to not attend the Mormon Church at all.  But I would still respect the choice my child made.  As a parent, I would never stand in the way of such a persona choice.  

54 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

How many gays do you believe would exercise the restraint you have with your own adult children who don't live in your home?  If you had young children who lived with you ask about the conflict between Church marriage doctrine and gay marriage, would you not give a strong and reasonable defense for your chosen lifestyle?  What about your gay peers?  Would they withhold their comments and disgust from your children who are members of the Church? 

Obviously neither one of us know how every gay parent would treat this issue.  But remember, we are only talking about parents who consent to the child's baptism in the first place.  I believe that if they are willing to consent to that baptism, they would allow the child their own beliefs.  Members of the church can reasonably believe that it is ok for gay couples to have the legal right to marry.  They aren't bared from baptism.  Nor should they be.

54 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Considering the family carries the primary influence, baptism has a great potential to do harm to member children of gay parents, in my opinion.  As they get older, out of the home and able to consider and express themselves without causing contention, they are in a better space to live LDS doctrine.

And if the child attends church when baptism is withheld?  What changes?  That is my question.  That is why I need you to explain the higher consequences God is going to hold against a child if they choose baptism and live with gay parents.  Will they be more strongly condemned because they believe gay couples have the legal right to marry?

 

54 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Here are two comments from a man who grew up with two moms (from the article " htpps://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/growing-up-with-two-moms-the-untold-story  )

"Earlier studies examined children still living with their gay parents, so the kids were not at liberty to speak, governed as all children are by filial piety, guilt, and fear of losing their allowances. For trying to speak honestly, I’ve been squelched, literally, for decades."

and

"Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors."

I couldn't get your link to work, so I couldn't read the parameters of your quotes.  But come on, are we really going to do this?  You want me to now post statements of children who had perfectly good and healthy childhoods growing up with gay parents?  The most quotes wins the argument?

54 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

If that is true, and the maladjustments cause self medicating, that would also have potential to cause future problems for them and their Church peers.  Perhaps the Church has already experienced some or many of them, and this contributed to their decision.  Or maybe not.  I have no way of knowing.  I don't believe the decision was taken lightly.

 If this is true is a big if.  Did this study say that allowing baptism exacerbates the problem?  That the crux of the question I am trying to understand?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate that you acknowledge this.

I agree.  And again, I appreciate that you acknowledge this.

To some extent, I agree.  Same-sex marriage seems intractably incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  People living within that institution will be perpetually at odds with a foundational element of the Restored Gospel.  

I can understand that.

Hmm.  I live in Utah County, and yet I hear none of these.  To be frank, "gays" are just not a huge topic of conversation.  I get "gay" issues loom very, very large in your life.  They are the prism through which you look at the world.  But LDS meetings very rarely focus on such issues.  Jesus Christ?  Yes.  The Restoration, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, priesthood authority, an open canon, continuing revelation, temples, geneology work, missionary work, service, ministering, agency, obedience, etc.?  Yes.  But gays "wrecking scouting?"  Nope.  Never heard it.  Gays "not deserving the right to marry?"  This is the first time in my life I have heard the issue framed in that way ("deserving?").  "Corrupt justices?"  Well, I have heard some complaints about the strangled logic and extra-constitutional elements of the Obergefell decision (I interact with a lot of attorneys, aster all), along with the perceived capitulation of the Supreme Court to social trends instead of allegiance to the Constitution.  So I'll concede that.  But in church?  Hardly at all.

That "because" isn't warranted.

I am glad of that.

I understand that.  But the odd thing is that it seems you "would not take them to the Mormon Church" for the same reasons that the LDS Church postpones baptism of such children until they turn 18.  There is too much conflict between your choices and the Church's teachings.  

It's odd, then, that you criticize the Church for reaching the same conclusion you have, and for - like you - acting in accordance with that conclusion.  You seek to avoid exposing your children to conflict by not taking them to LDS services.  The LDS Church seeks to avoid exposing your children to conflict by not putting them under covenants that conflict with your choices.

That's an odd way to put it.  The Church values your family enough to not introduce conflict into the children's lives as between your family and the doctrines of the Church.

And even when children turn 18, they are not asked to disavow their parents, but rather than concept of same-sex marriage.  

Frankly, I question that.  You seem to think that all Mormons do is get together on Sundays and complain about "gay" issues.  That's far from the truth.  Same-sex marriage is simply one of a constellation of issues that might be occasionally - though in my experience quite rarely - addressed.

I will concede that some few Latter-day Saints might choose to make "derogatory remarks" about same-sex marriage.  A lot of that, I think, has to do with the sociopolitical aspects of it.  It was, proverbially speaking, crammed down our throats by a bare majority of the Supreme Court.  And anything other than utter capitulation to it, together with effusive praise and adoration and endorsement and celebration of it, will get you branded as a bigot / homophobe / hater / etc.  

That said, I cannot defend such "derogatory remarks" made in Church.  We must treat our gay brothers and sisters with respect and love, and with tact and decorum.

Indeed.  That could be difficult, particularly after the "very long talk" from you, their father.

Hence the wisdom of the Church's policy.  Everyone involved would be going into this with their eyes open.  No surprises.  The intractable conflict between your choices and the doctrines of the Church are clear.  And because of that clarity, I think most of the time children will be spared the dilemma of choosing between divided loyalties - at least until they turn 18 and have the legal means and intellectual/spiritual competency to cope navigate those divided loyalties.  Children may feel like they need to pick one side or the other, whereas adults can find ways to maintain both sets of loyalties.

"Glib" = "(of words or the person speaking them) fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow."

Unfortunate and unnecessary cheap shots like this make conversing with you difficult.  

Your entire post demonstrates that the "stress and complications" are manifestly in place, and intractably so.  Which is why the Church's policy makes so much sense.

From divided loyalties.

Calm just addressed that.  So it's weird that you are pretending that this question hasn't been addressed.

No, they are not.  "Just attend[ing]" does not put them under covenant.

And there are many more reasons for the Church's policy.  From a post on mine from last Fall:

You say: "But then I have never really bought into the whole rationalization that somehow this policy protects the children.  From What?"

We've been talking about these items for years.  We've been hashing them out for years.  It is strange that you continue to claim to be in the dark as to the reasoning of the Church's position.

I disagree.  I think postponing baptism (not, as you continue to falsely state, "not allowing baptism") is part of an important effort by the Church to mitigate the conflict that necessarily exists between same-sex marriage and the Restored Gospel.

Perhaps.  This would be particularly so where the parents perennially bad-mouth and disparage the Church, and who express their disagreement about the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity.

So the risk of introducing children into this intractable conflict seems quite significant.  Hence the wisdom of the Church's policy, which is difficult, but which mitigates that risk you point to here (and others).

I can accept that, and I appreciate your candor.

Thanks,

-Smac

I honestly don't think either of us have any idea how much this issues is talked about on every ward in the church.  I only can tell you what I heard in a single meeting that I attended.  Do I think this occurred every week?  No.  Do I think it is an issue that gets attacked in church?  Obviously.  Because it happened the week I attended.  

I appreciate you point of view, but obviously I have a much different point of view.  My experience in the church has been much different than yours.  What actually happened to me is always going to have a stronger influence on me than someone who has never experienced what it is like being a gay member of the church.  This issue doesn't really affect you in the least.  Why would it?

Most of that is beside the point of what I was asking.  The question I raised is "Maybe you can explain how baptism increased the emotional and family turmoil when the parents are supporting of the child's decision to be baptized."  So let's look at what you gave for that question.

My response to your reasoning in red.

 

Quote

 

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("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.");

That would be the same whether the child was baptized or just attended without baptism.  Nonissue.

• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);

That would be the same whether the child was baptized or just attended without baptism.  A bishop could easily not assign home teachers if he felt it was in the best interest of the child.   Nonissue.

• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

 

Wow.  If using the baptism of children as a manipulative tool to clarify the church's position on gay marriage is the reason, I find that a pretty low blow.  You really think this fits in with the teachings of Christ?  Using children as a tool to make a point?   Because we are going to have real disagreements on this one.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by california boy

[MormonMason]

It's also the kind of thing that results from activism and pushing views onto the Church.  Push against the Church and try to find ways to push the Church to do something different, and try to influence the general membership to push against the official teachings of the Church, expect policies to be formulated to protect the Church, its teachings, and also its children and the emotional state of the children of others.  The leaders of the Church know what kind of turmoil and pressure on children can result in the homes of activist parents.  It's been documented in print by the children of gay households.  They sought to alleviate that the best way possible.  But make no mistake that they also sought to protect the Church from apostate views that argue against important tenets of the Church supported by both ancient and modern-day revelation and scripture.

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

It's also the kind of thing that results from activism and pushing views onto the Church. 

I think you have this backwards.  It was the church trying to push it's views on the population of California.  The Supreme Court decision that rectified this problem had nothing to do with the Mormon Church.  It had to do with guaranteeing the civil rights of gay couples.  

Quote

Push against the Church and try to find ways to push the Church to do something different, and try to influence the general membership to push against the official teachings of the Church, expect policies to be formulated to protect the Church, its teachings, and also its children and the emotional state of the children of others. 

Sadly that appears to be the motivation to use the baptism of children to make their point.

Quote

The leaders of the Church know what kind of turmoil and pressure on children can result in the homes of activist parents.  It's been documented in print by the children of gay households.  They sought to alleviate that the best way possible. 

Documented?  CFR where anyone has documented that allowing a child to be baptized and attend causes turmoil and pressure greater than just allowing them to attend church.

Quote

But make no mistake that they also sought to protect the Church from apostate views that argue against important tenets of the Church supported by both ancient and modern-day revelation and scripture.

I am beginning to get this point.  From what you and SMAC have been able to figure out, this was all about using the baptism of children to make a stronger point.  The baptism of children as pawns. Yikes.  

Edited April 30, 2018 by california boy

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

• Welfare of children ("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.");

That would be the same whether the child was baptized or just attended without baptism.  Nonissue.

Very much an issue.  A huge issue, in fact.  It is bizarre that the welfare of children is, in your view, a "nonissue."

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);

That would be the same whether the child was baptized or just attended without baptism.  

No, it wouldn't.  There is a very big difference between having the child baptized versus not being baptized.

You seem to be undercutting your position.  If there is not material distinction between a child getting baptized or not getting baptized, then you have no grounds to object to the Church's policies.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

A bishop could easily not assign home teachers if he felt it was in the best interest of the child.   Nonissue.

There are a lot more "triggering events" than the assignment of home/visiting teachers.  You are ignoring the plural of "events" and the subsequent "etc."

Very much an issue.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

Yes.  The same way the Church has restricted the baptism of children from polygamous families as a means of clarifying the boundaries that are breached by the "transgressive nature" of unauthorized polygamy.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

Yes.  

Indignance and postured incredulity is not an argument.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

Yes.  

Indignance and postured incredulity is not an argument.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

Yes.  

Indignance and postured incredulity is not an argument.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

So the church used the baptism of children to make its point stronger?  Really?

Yes.  

Indignance and postured incredulity is not an argument.

You aren't presenting anything substantive here.  "Really?" can only be answered with "Yes, really."

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wow.  If using the baptism of children as a manipulative tool to clarify the church's position on gay marriage is the reason, I find that a pretty low blow.  

It's not a manipulative tool.  That is a contrivance of your own making.  This is an emotional argument, not a rational or reasoned one.

It bears emphasis that the Church's policy was in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage.  It was you and yours that crossed the Rubicon.  It was you and yours that forced the issue, and continue to force it.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

You really think this fits in with the teachings of Christ?  

Yes.  I also think the Church's policy regarding restrictions on baptism for children from polygamous households "fits in with the teachings of Christ."

I also think that the presentation of the Gospel in antiquity to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles, "fits within the teachings of Christ" (see here).

I also think that the presentation of the Restored Gospel to the Gentiles first, and then to the Jews, "fits within the teachings of Christ" (see here).

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Using children as a tool to make a point? 

The children are the victims of you and yours radically re-defining marriage.  Collateral damage, as it were.

The children of polygamous households likewise suffer because of the decisions of their parents.  

I believe God will make these things right in the end.

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Because we are going to have real disagreements on this one.

No surprise there.  You are not a member of the Church, and deeply resent the Church's teachings regarding some aspects of the Law of Chastity.  And yet you also resent the Church's postponement of baptism for children of people like you, which ordinance would make them a member of the Church whose teachings you dislike and reject.  And you are neither a member of the Church nor do you have any minor children, so your complaints here are entirely theoretical anyway.

You seem to think of the Church as a country club, with arbitrary and capricious conditions for entry.  We don't.

The LDS Church well and truly believes that same-sex marriage is intractably incompatible with discipleship and the covenants associated therewith.  Children are generally given the opportunity to enter into those covenants.  However, some of them are constrained from doing so because of the choices of their parents. 

Some parents affirmatively and specifically deny permission for their minor children to enter into those covenants.  The Church honors and respects the parents' decision in such circumstances, and therefore withholds baptism for the child.

Other parents make choices which set them on a course that is intractably incompatible with discipleship.  So the parents are forbidden from receiving baptism.  And if they have minor children in their home, then the problem is compounded because those children, if baptized, may be forced into a dilemma involving divided loyalties.  The Church, rather than ask minor children to choose between those loyalties, respects the family of the child (yes, even same-sex relationships) enough to remove that dilemma and let the child choose . . . the family.  The child can then, upon reaching majority, make his or her own informed decision to join the Church, and can do so without facing the dilemma that they were likely not equipped to address in their younger years.

I think it's hard for you to conceptualize this, but I think it's true: The Church cares enough about the children of same-sex parents that it postpones their ability to enter into sacred covenants until such time that they (the children) can competently and advisedly resolve the dilemma that arose when same-sex marriage became legal.

It's not a country club issue.  It's a revelatory one.

The Church's policy changes were not arbitrary.  They were considered and discussed and prayed about.

And yes, the policy changes create some difficulties.  That's that natural consequence of people like you radically redefining the bedrock institution of society.  You and yours made this mess.  The Church is trying to mitigate the damage stemming from it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MormonMason]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you have this backwards.  It was the church trying to push it's views on the population of California.  The Supreme Court decision that rectified this problem had nothing to do with the Mormon Church.  It had to do with guaranteeing the civil rights of gay couples.  

Sadly that appears to be the motivation to use the baptism of children to make their point.

Documented?  CFR where anyone has documented that allowing a child to be baptized and attend causes turmoil and pressure greater than just allowing them to attend church.

I am beginning to get this point.  From what you and SMAC have been able to figure out, this was all about using the baptism of children to make a stronger point.  The baptism of children as pawns. Yikes.  

No, I don't have it backwards.  Prop 8 was a reaction to activism and actual lawsuits against Bible publishers to try to force them to remove the word homosexual from translations of the Bible.  People saw that as a warning of coming challenges to First Amendment protections on beliefs.

No point in calling for a CFR.  I didn't say anything about how it relates to baptism in the Church. I spoke in general terms.  But it has been documented about the pressures that occurred in gay households.  Some examples already have been posted above by others.  I have seen others like them.  And I have a gay household on one side of my own family.

The desire both to protect the Church and also children underlies the reasons for the policy.  It has been so stated.  The Church also wanted to make sure there was no further confusion as to the policy and teaching of the Church, or what is expected, and how serious they are about it.  You act like using children as pawns is the main reason for it.  It's not.  But the Church also is committed to the position that it is by both ancient and modern-day scripture and revelation.  There is no wiggle room there for the Church.  The Church cannot just sit back and let its members to think that there is.

Edited April 30, 2018 by MormonMason

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

No point in calling for a CFR.  I didn't say anything about how it relates to baptism in the Church. I spoke in general terms. .

No, you stated:

Quote

 The leaders of the Church know what kind of turmoil and pressure on children can result in the homes of activist parents. It's been documented in print by the children of gay households.

So california boy's CFR is legitimate.  Please provide a quote where we can read this documentation "in print".

[Jeanne]

10 hours ago, Meerkat said:

You are right Jeanne, I wouldn't have believed it at 18.

That's an interesting point Jeanne.  A friend shared the Gospel with me in 8th grade.  I met with the missionaries, felt the Spirit and asked my parents if I could be baptized.  They reminded me I had just gone through 2 years of confirmation classes to become a Lutheran.  They suggested I wait until age 18 and then decide.  That seemed like a fair request.

By age 18, the LDS Church was the furthest thing from my mind, as was Christianity in general.  At age 18, fun was at the top of my list.  Faith of any kind at the bottom.   I found what many people find, maybe you also, that we can forget about God.  But He doesn't forget about us.  People continue to change and mature after age 18.

My wife and I found Christ while dating.  On our honeymoon, we saw the ruins in Mexico and learned about the legend of Quezocoatl.  We passed through Salt Lake City on the way home and visited Temple Square.  We heard about the Book of Mormon, and that they believed Quezocoatl was Jesus Christ who visited the Americas after his resurrection, as prophesied in John 10:16.  Shortly thereafter, we prayed to know if the Book of Mormon was true, received our answer and were baptized.  That was 44 years ago.  

To me, it's a fulfillment of the scripture "15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
            16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me."  Isaiah 49:15-16.

Children of polygamists, gays or unmarried parents, I believe the Lord loves them and will give them every opportunity.  I believe the same goes for the parents as well.  Jesus said "27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me..."

I love this.  Thank you for sharing your experience.  Yes..18 is a toughy to get through in our struggle for spirituality.  It seems like it worked well for you and the wait may have been what you needed.  My hope is that there is a place for all people..and all kinds of people who seek Christ and His Father.

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

couldn't get your link to work, so I couldn't read the parameters of your quotes.  But come on, are we really going to do this?  You want me to now post statements of children who had perfectly good and healthy childhoods growing up with gay parents?  The most quotes wins the argument

Try this link: www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/growing-up-with-two-moms-the-untold-story  

Here is another link titled "The Kids Aren't Alright:  "New Family Structures and the "No Differences" Claim"  :   http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/

Both articles refer to some significant studies to make their points.  

The challenge we have in this discussion is that there are true believers on both sides of the table.  Those who are LDS are defending what we believe is God's will.  You are defending man's reason.  If we want to go beyond emotions and opinions, evidence and testimony would support either side.  We would need to give proper weight to the evidence, not just the volume of print.  The next step would be to prayerfully consider the evidence.  Otherwise, all we have is a debate.

[kllindley]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Perhaps.  That is always a possibility I suppose.  I like a lot about what the church teaches and I think that for straight families it enriches their lives and draws them into a community that supports them, gives good values and is lead by good people.  I don't think those same conditions apply to someone who is gay or gay families.  I personally can't see me ever coming back to the church. When I have attended, usually with other family members, I have heard disparaging remarks made about "those gays" wrecking scouting, "those gays not deserving the right to marry", corrupt justices on the supreme court for ruling in favor of gay marriage.  Who needs that kind of negativity in their lives simply because I am gay.  All of my children are older than 18, so this policy doesn't really matter.  Most are still involved in the church.  When I get together with them, we talk about what they are doing in the church, and what is going on. It is not a taboo subject.  I never say anything negative about the church to them.  Never have commented on this policy or some of the other actions of the church.  I want them to be happy.  I think the church adds to their happiness.

If I had a young child, I would not take them to the Mormon church.  The issues are just too great.  But I live in California.  All of my neighbors are not members.  The schools are not heavily Mormon.  There is always a possibility that they might find a friend that would introduce them into the church.  Of course I would let them attend if they wanted to.  But I think I would have a very long talk about how the church does not value their family.  They will probably hear a lot of derogatory remarks about their parents relationship being counterfeit.  Not of God.  Even apostate.  They can't be baptized.  Can't hold the priesthood. administer the sacrament like their friends.  They will aways be a bit on the outside.  They would have to grow a thick skin.  But it would be their choice.  

I think it is easy to glibly except the policy because of faith that these men speak for God.  The reality is much more stick, filled with imo unnecessary stress and complications for young children.  But then I have never really bought into the whole rationalization that somehow this policy protects the children.  From What?  They are still faced with the exact same issues of conflict whether they are baptized or whether they just attend.  Except not allowing baptism complicates things much more.  It makes them feel punished for a choice their parents have made.

I do thank you for you post.  It is an answer.  Maybe not a really solid believable answer for me, but for some people it will probably suffice.  In any event, this policy and the church's attitudes towards gays and their families is not going to change in the near future.  So how I or anyone else feels about it doesn't really matter.

 

6 hours ago, california boy said:

If a child of gay parents is attending the Mormon church and is actively involved in the church, and the gay parents support them in that personal decision, how does not baptizing them protect the child from any emotional and family turmoil This is the question that I have never understood, and quite frankly why I don't believe this policy has any relationship to increase protection to children.  Maybe you can explain how baptism increased the emotional and family turmoil when the parents are supporting of the child's decision to be baptized.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts so clearly and charitably in these posts. I deeply admire that vulnerability. 

A few thoughts:

One thing I wonder about is your comment that the current policy "makes them feel punished for a choice their parents have made." Is that a general assumption about what a child might feel, or is there some data to support this claim? Do you know any children who feel punished?

To the question of gay parents who are supportive: would those parents be able to ensure that their gay friends wouldn't make derogatory comments about the children's choice? 

Another major difference in my mind is that if the child attends, they are essentially an investigator. I'm my experience, members treat investigators differently (with more understanding and respect----which isn't a good thing in my mind). I think even youth would be more careful about their comments if the child of gay parents is "visiting" rather than just another kid on the role. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

One thing I wonder about is your comment that the current policy "makes them feel punished for a choice their parents have made." Is that a general assumption about what a child might feel, or is there some data to support this claim? Do you know any children who feel punished?

It seems like the only way this could happen would be 

• (A) A minor child growing up in a same-sex parent household begins attending LDS meetings or meeting with LDS missionaries; and
• (B) Neither the minor child's parents nor any family member nor the missionaries nor the members involved ever tell the child that he cannot be baptized until he turns 18; and
• (C) The minor child expresses a desire to be baptized; and
• (D) the minor child is finally told about the policy, such that
• (E) the minor child feels punished for his parents' choice.

The Church's policy allows for A to happen, but not B, and hence not C, nor D, nor E.

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

To the question of gay parents who are supportive: would those parents be able to ensure that their gay friends wouldn't make derogatory comments about the children's choice? 

I really, really doubt it.  Consider, for example, the vitriol that Dan Reynolds faced from his yet-to-be-wife's roommates treated her for daring to date a Mormon.  They boycotted the wedding (from notes taken of a radio interview of Dan Reynolds, not verbatim):

Quote

When I met my wife, she was living with two gay friends.  Then I come along, a Mormon boy.  I'm the enemy.  They were upset that she would date me, let alone marry me.  They refused to come to our wedding.  My wife felt like her punk rock community was accusing her when she married me of becoming a fraud and turning her back on her activism.  All her friends didn't call me by my name, they called me "Mormon Boy."  That hurt me, but now I understand it, because I represented everything that was holding them back from being married.

His wife appears to have traveled in circles which hate Mormons.  Her roommates treated him pretty horribly, and created an us-or-them dichotomy, and then carried through with it by boycotting their wedding.  Of course, Dan Reynolds is a big boy, and so chose to put up with this mistreatment.  But if a minor child were subjected to such stuff, it would be pretty hard for the kid to endure.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

On 4/19/2018 at 2:46 PM, california boy said:

An interesting new study that relates to this thread.  FYI

 

 

This is a map of the suicides rate by states of the USA https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm

This is a map of LDS by states in the USA http://www.slate.com/articles/life/map_of_the_week/2012/02/mormon_population_in_the_u_s_an_interactive_map.html

It's uncanny how much they correlate. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Very much an issue.  A huge issue, in fact.  It is bizarre that the welfare of children is, in your view, a "nonissue."

What I meant by nonissue is that there is no difference between a baptized child attending on a regular basis and a child attending on a regular basis.  No difference might have been a better work so that you wouldn't be confused.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, it wouldn't.  There is a very big difference between having the child baptized versus not being baptized.

What?  I am all ears.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be undercutting your position.  If there is not material distinction between a child getting baptized or not getting baptized, then you have no grounds to object to the Church's policies.

I personally don't care what the church does.  They can prohibit the baptism of children if they want.  What I am pointing out is the complete fallacy of their reasoning for doing so.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are a lot more "triggering events" than the assignment of home/visiting teachers.  You are ignoring the plural of "events" and the subsequent "etc."

What?  I am all ears.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Very much an issue.

Yes.  The same way the Church has restricted the baptism of children from polygamous families as a means of clarifying the boundaries that are breached by the "transgressive nature" of unauthorized polygamy.

Yeah they have instituted this policy amongst polygamous families as well.  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  

Indignance and postured incredulity is not an argument.

Yes.  

Indignance and postured incredulity is not an argument.

Yes.  

Indignance and postured incredulity is not an argument.

Yes.  

Indignance and postured incredulity is not an argument.

You aren't presenting anything substantive here.  "Really?" can only be answered with "Yes, really."

It's not a manipulative tool.  That is a contrivance of your own making.  This is an emotional argument, not a rational or reasoned one.

Yeah.  I totally think that to institute a policy to prevent any child to not be allowed baptism into a church that is suppose to be the church of Christ to have a better reason than to make some kind of point about the choice their parents who aren't members are doing is very sad.  I am not one for using children as a weapon to punish others.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It bears emphasis that the Church's policy was in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage.  It was you and yours that crossed the Rubicon.  It was you and yours that forced the issue, and continue to force it.

Really?  You fault gay couples for standing up for their constitutional rights?  Unbelievable.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  I also think the Church's policy regarding restrictions on baptism for children from polygamous households "fits in with the teachings of Christ."

I also think that the presentation of the Gospel in antiquity to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles, "fits within the teachings of Christ" (see here).

I also think that the presentation of the Restored Gospel to the Gentiles first, and then to the Jews, "fits within the teachings of Christ" (see here).

We definitely had different ideas on the concept of the gospel being available to all who wish to partake.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The children are the victims of you and yours radically re-defining marriage.  Collateral damage, as it were.

Again.  You are faulting gay couples for standing up for their civil rights?  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The children of polygamous households likewise suffer because of the decisions of their parents.  

Kind of sad isn't it.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I believe God will make these things right in the end.

Since I don't think any of this is Gods doing, I am sure you are right.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

No surprise there.  You are not a member of the Church, and deeply resent the Church's teachings regarding some aspects of the Law of Chastity.  And yet you also resent the Church's postponement of baptism for children of people like you, which ordinance would make them a member of the Church whose teachings you dislike and reject.  And you are neither a member of the Church nor do you have any minor children, so your complaints here are entirely theoretical anyway.

You are guilty of putting words in my mouth.  What I have done is point out the absolute fallacy of the reasons for instituting the policy.  We just went through them.  The only thing we were able to conclude is that the church used the denying children the ability to be baptized as some kind of tool to make clear their doctrine.  I get that you are ok with that.  I find it disturbing.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You seem to think of the Church as a country club, with arbitrary and capricious conditions for entry.  We don't.

Never said that.  As you well know, I have said over and over and over again, the church has every right to decide who it lets into its institution.  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The LDS Church well and truly believes that same-sex marriage is intractably incompatible with discipleship and the covenants associated therewith.  Children are generally given the opportunity to enter into those covenants.  However, some of them are constrained from doing so because of the choices of their parents. 

Yeah.  I knew that before they used the baptism of children to make that point.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some parents affirmatively and specifically deny permission for their minor children to enter into those covenants.  The Church honors and respects the parents' decision in such circumstances, and therefore withholds baptism for the child.

Different issue.  We aren't talking about parental permission

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Other parents make choices which set them on a course that is intractably incompatible with discipleship.  So the parents are forbidden from receiving baptism. 

Different issue.  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And if they have minor children in their home, then the problem is compounded because those children, if baptized, may be forced into a dilemma involving divided loyalties.  The Church, rather than ask minor children to choose between those loyalties, respects the family of the child (yes, even same-sex relationships) enough to remove that dilemma and let the child choose . . . the family. 

So remains my question that you can't answer.  What is the difference between a baptized child attending church and a child that is not baptized attending church when it comes to any conflict in what is taught at home and what is taught at church?

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The child can then, upon reaching majority, make his or her own informed decision to join the Church, and can do so without facing the dilemma that they were likely not equipped to address in their younger years.

I have never said otherwise 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it's hard for you to conceptualize this, but I think it's true: The Church cares enough about the children of same-sex parents that it postpones their ability to enter into sacred covenants until such time that they (the children) can competently and advisedly resolve the dilemma that arose when same-sex marriage became legal.

Once again you dodge my question:  

What is the difference between a baptized child attending church and a child that is not baptized attending church when it comes to any conflict in what is taught at home and what is taught at church?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not a country club issue.  It's a revelatory one.

The Church's policy changes were not arbitrary.  They were considered and discussed and prayed about.

And yes, the policy changes create some difficulties.  That's that natural consequence of people like you radically redefining the bedrock institution of society.  You and yours made this mess.  The Church is trying to mitigate the damage stemming from it.

Thanks,

-Smac

15 men agreed to this policy. Never had a problem with the church instituting the policy. While I think it is an absurd policy, I am not a member, so the impaction me is zero.  I only have a problem with their stated reasons for the policy.  Now that it is clear that this policy of denying minors baptism just to make a point seems to be the reason for the consensus. Perhaps that is a good enough reason.  But let's quit with the "wa are doing it for the good of the children story". That obviously is not true.  You have yet to explain difference between a baptized child attending church and a child that is not baptized attending church when it comes to any increased conflicts home?  .

[california boy]

5 hours ago, MormonMason said:

No, I don't have it backwards.  Prop 8 was a reaction to activism and actual lawsuits against Bible publishers to try to force them to remove the word homosexual from translations of the Bible.  People saw that as a warning of coming challenges to First Amendment protections on beliefs.

CFR that Prop 8  was a reaction to activism and actual lawsuits against Bible publishers to try to force them to remove the word homosexual from translations of the Bible.

This doesn't even make sense.  How would gay marriage force change in the Bible?

Prop 8 was a direct reaction to the California Supreme Court ruling that Gays have a right to legal protection under the laws of the State of California.  A ruling that the US Supreme Court and virtually every state that this issue was brought before the courts including the state of Utah was reaffirmed.

5 hours ago, MormonMason said:

No point in calling for a CFR.  I didn't say anything about how it relates to baptism in the Church. I spoke in general terms.  But it has been documented about the pressures that occurred in gay households.  Some examples already have been posted above by others.  I have seen others like them.  And I have a gay household on one side of my own family.

This is what you said.  

Quote

 The leaders of the Church know what kind of turmoil and pressure on children can result in the homes of activist parents. It's been documented in print by the children of gay households.

The CFR still stands.

5 hours ago, MormonMason said:

The desire both to protect the Church and also children underlies the reasons for the policy.  It has been so stated. 

Once again, I ask the question"

Quote

If a child of gay parents is attending the Mormon church and is actively involved in the church, and the gay parents support them in that personal decision, how does not baptizing them protect the child from any emotional and family turmoil

 

5 hours ago, MormonMason said:

 

The Church also wanted to make sure there was no further confusion as to the policy and teaching of the Church, or what is expected, and how serious they are about it.  You act like using children as pawns is the main reason for it.  It's not.  But the Church also is committed to the position that it is by both ancient and modern-day scripture and revelation.  There is no wiggle room there for the Church.  The Church cannot just sit back and let its members to think that there is.

As I stated previously

Quote

 I am beginning to get this point.  From what you and SMAC have been able to figure out, this was all about using the baptism of children to make a stronger point.  The baptism of children as pawns. Yikes. 

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts so clearly and charitably in these posts. I deeply admire that vulnerability. 

A few thoughts:

One thing I wonder about is your comment that the current policy "makes them feel punished for a choice their parents have made." Is that a general assumption about what a child might feel, or is there some data to support this claim? Do you know any children who feel punished?

I had a room mate my freshman year in college who wanted to be baptized, but his parents wouldn't give permission.  He felt like they denied him permission as a punishment for not wanting to attend the church that their parents were members.  A child who is not allowed to be baptized because their parents were gay could very well have the same kind of feelings even if the gay parents agreed to allow the baptism.  It would be the church punishing the child for something the parents choose to do.  Just like my children, they would have to find an answer for themselves to that question.

Quote

To the question of gay parents who are supportive: would those parents be able to ensure that their gay friends wouldn't make derogatory comments about the children's choice? 

I think it is a reality. especially here in Caifornia.  A lot of people haven't gotten over the church's role in Prop 8.  My kids have told me that sometimes they are treated badly  by even their straight friends and people they first meet for belonging to a church that treats gays the way the Mormon church does.  Having gay parents would not make those attitudes go away.  I am pretty sure they would get asked, just like my children, how could you attend the Mormon church knowing how it treats gays.  

Quote

Another major difference in my mind is that if the child attends, they are essentially an investigator. I'm my experience, members treat investigators differently (with more understanding and respect----which isn't a good thing in my mind). I think even youth would be more careful about their comments if the child of gay parents is "visiting" rather than just another kid on the role. 

Perhaps.  According to this Pew poll, 47% of younger Mormons support gay marriage. I don't think there would be issues amongst at least most of their church friends.

Edited April 30, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This is a map of the suicides rate by states of the USA https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm

This is a map of LDS by states in the USA http://www.slate.com/articles/life/map_of_the_week/2012/02/mormon_population_in_the_u_s_an_interactive_map.html

It's uncanny how much they correlate. 

From personal experience, it is very difficult to be gay and grow up in the church.  I wish I could talk to these kids.  It does get better.

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I had a room mate my freshman year in college who wanted to be baptized, but his parents wouldn't give permission.  He felt like they denied him permission as a punishment for not wanting to attend the church that their parents were members.  A child who is not allowed to be baptized because their parents were gay could very well have the same kind of feelings even if the gay parents agreed to allow the baptism.  It would be the church punishing the child for something the parents choose to do.  Just like my children, they would have to find an answer for themselves to that question.

I think it is a reality. especially here in Caifornia.  A lot of people haven't gotten over the church's role in Prop 8.  My kids have told me that sometimes they are treated badly  by even their straight friends and people they first meet for belonging to a church that treats gays the way the Mormon church does.  Having gay parents would not make those attitudes go away.  I am pretty sure they would get asked, just like my children, how could you attend the Mormon church knowing how it treats gays.  

Perhaps.  According to this Pew poll, 47% of younger Mormons support gay marriage. I don't think there would be issues amongst at least most of their church friends.

Alright. Sounds like you've got your mind made up. I mistakenly thought you wanted to understand. Have a good evening. 

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is a map of the suicides rate by states of the USA https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm

This is a map of LDS by states in the USA http://www.slate.com/articles/life/map_of_the_week/2012/02/mormon_population_in_the_u_s_an_interactive_map.html

It's uncanny how much they correlate. 

There is a band of mostly white states (low density LDS) to the east of the  mountain corridor/Mormon dense states indicating very few Mormon from North Dakota to down through Texas with a few counties here and there in darker colors.  Are the corresponding states in the suicide maps the lightest of yellows as your claim of correlation would indicate?

No they are not, two darkest colors, two second darkest, no medium orange, two second lightest, none lightest.

On the North east coast where one starts to run into higher LDS density, suicide rates should therefore be darker colors tending red.  But no, two moderate red states NH and VT even have some white spots, th most in the area,  the rest to the south and west is the lightest of yellows showing few suicides and to the Northwhere it seems the most Mormon dense area in the vicinity, it is medium orange, meaning less suicides than the less dense Mormon states next door.

Here is an LGBT map site that shows all sorts of measurements:

http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws

Have fun looking for correspondence with that with the suicide map as you did with Mormons.

Let me know if you would like any other maps to see if there are correlations.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm