Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children

[MrShorty]

Children of same sex couples cannot be blessed or baptized

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-membership
 

Same sex marriage officially considered "apostasy".

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-issues-update-on-what-is-considered-apostasy

 

These are from local news and not from the Church itself. Can anyone confirm or refute these reports?

[Guest]

The second one is kind of a given. The first, I wouldn't believe unless and until it comes from the church newsroom.

[Crypto]

The first link makes no sense, or is twisting the information.

Actually it looks a lot like it's twisting information to me, things that are a natural extension of belief in the church, like what constitutes worthiness and if an unworthy person should give blessings etc.

[Backroads]

I'm still trying to find an original source on both. Just articles with no link. I'm curious to see the actual statements.

[The Folk Prophet]

Since they're supposedly updates to Handbook 1, there may not be any official statement from the church on the matter.

[Just_A_Guy]

Basically it sounds like they're applying the policy that already exists for children of polygamous families, to children in households headed by a gay couple--no baptism until you're 18 and out of the house, and you have to specifically renounce your "parents'" lifestyle. 

Edited November 6, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

Basically it sounds like they're applying the policy that already exists for children of polygamous families, to children in households headed by a gay couple--no baptism until you're 18 and out of the house, and you have to specifically renounce your "parents'" lifestyle.

Seems logical, especially as a same-sex couple might not have the best feelings on a child joining the Church. Not all, but I could see bad feelings and the wait-till - you're -18 policy might just be the most practical on all sides.

[Backroads]

Since they're supposedly updates to Handbook 1, there may not be any official statement from the church on the matter.

Still, I'd like to see the exact quote of information.

Only I see far too many news articles that wind up contradicting each other on different facts. I like seeing original quotes. Makes my brain happy.

The handbook update wording would be nice.

Edit: Saw what I'll assume to be the official handbook. Honestly, sounds like there's more emotion than necessary coming out of this.

Though I still gotta say my view so far is this seems almost unnecessary from my non-church-leadership perspective. I don't see most same-sex couples having their babies blessed and many allowing their minor kids to be baptized.

Ah, well. I see a few great theories on this thread.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Backroads

[MrShorty]

I have seen the text, some copies posted by people claiming to be in Bishoprics/Stake Presidencies. But nothing that I can confirm the validity of. As JAG notes, the text reads like they are simply extending the policies in place for polygamous marriages and children of polygamous marriages. The Provo Daily Herald's article drops the name of Eric Hawkins as a spokesman for Church confirming the change. If I assume that the Daily Herald did their due diligence and Eric Hawkins is really an official spokesman for the Church, then it would be true. It's a "breaking news" kind of thing. Maybe by morning, there will be something official from the Church either refuting or confirming.

 

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/lds/lds-church-handbook-update-shows-strong-stance-against-same-sex/article_891f7747-a995-58ba-8269-d2aac69af4ae.html

Edited November 6, 2015 by MrShorty

[Guest]

Hmmm... I think I can see the wisdom in having children of same sex couples wait until 18 for baptism, as there is potential to undermine the parent child relationship and thus the family in this most delicate of situations.

I do have questions about the requirement that the child must get first presidency approval before baptism, even after turning 18 and moving out of a same sex household. Any insights into this?

[Guest]

Perhaps the first presidency review is there just to root out extra difficult situations, like when someone from an Islamic country wants to be baptized?

Edited November 6, 2015 by DoctorLemon

[pam]

I have seen the text, some copies posted by people claiming to be in Bishoprics/Stake Presidencies. But nothing that I can confirm the validity of. As JAG notes, the text reads like they are simply extending the policies in place for polygamous marriages and children of polygamous marriages. The Provo Daily Herald's article drops the name of Eric Hawkins as a spokesman for Church confirming the change. If I assume that the Daily Herald did their due diligence and Eric Hawkins is really an official spokesman for the Church, then it would be true. It's a "breaking news" kind of thing. Maybe by morning, there will be something official from the Church either refuting or confirming.

 

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/lds/lds-church-handbook-update-shows-strong-stance-against-same-sex/article_891f7747-a995-58ba-8269-d2aac69af4ae.html

 

 

Eric Hawkins is one of the official church spokespeople.

[Guest]

Homosexual marriage/cohabitation just like polygamous marriages is considered apostate. The Church maintains that families are sacred therefore policies lean towards keeping the Church from putting a wedge between family members. It, therefore, favors maintaining unity in the household by honoring the wishes of the parents as it pertains to their children. Homosexual parents are teaching their children that homosexual sex is moral. The Church, therefore, waits until the child is an adult before asking them to disavow their parents' lifestyles.

[pam]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid=148&title=lds-church-children-of-same-sex-couples-not-eligible-for-membership&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory

 

It's now out on ksl.com which is owned by the church.  It does have the official statement from Eric Hawkins.

[Backroads]

Thank-you, pam, for making my brain happy!

[pam]

Here's also an interesting blog on it.

 

http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2015/11/response-to-new-church-policy-gay-marriage-children-baptism.html

[Guest]

Facebook is exploding. Friends with gay family members/friends are going nuts. Not even sure how to discuss this one. I can see the reasoning, but explaining it in a way that doesn't pour gas on the fire seems impossible.

[pam]

I don't have a problem with this policy and I have a grown son who is gay and living with his partner.  He has already asked me my thoughts on it.   I can very well understand the position it places on families and the reasoning the Church has made this policy.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Facebook is exploding. Friends with gay family members/friends are going nuts. Not even sure how to discuss this one. I can see the reasoning, but explaining it in a way that doesn't pour gas on the fire seems impossible.

I was thinking along the same lines Eowyn. I really like what Anatess said...that it would put a lot of pressure on a child to ask them to disavow their parents relationship. When you put it that way it's a kindness to both the children and the homosexual couple to have this policy in place.

That said, I'm also confused about the needing First Presidency approval...but even that has a potential good spin, I mean wouldn't you love to sit down in an interview with one of the First Presidency? I would love it.

[Just_A_Guy]

The ironic thing is that just a couple of weeks ago, a certain bloggernacle site had a post about some Sister Wives character who wanted to be baptized LDS but was being refused because she wouldn't renounce her parents' polygamous lifestyle; and the consensus amongst those enlightened thinkers was that the policy was antiquated, counterproductive, had to go, and surely would be relegated to the dustbin of history now that the dastardly Boyd Packer was cold in his grave.

 

And here we are, not even a month later and with three new apostles on the quorum and--woops!--the policy has been broadened.

 

Incidentally--just how many gay parents were about to let their kids get baptized into the Mormon church, anyways?  Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Edited November 6, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

That said, I'm also confused about the needing First Presidency approval...but even that has a potential good spin, I mean wouldn't you love to sit down in an interview with one of the First Presidency? I would love it.

 

Needing First Presidency approval doesn't mean you sit down with them.  The request is submitted to them for approval.

[BeccaKirstyn]

My heart is so heavy tonight. I have many Facebook friends who are really questioning the Church after all of this, and many non-LDS friends who are already making horrendous assumptions about members who agree with this policy. 

[Crypto]

Links to the sources are now more readily available around the web. That happened surprisingly fast.

I still view the headlines as twisting the information.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Needing First Presidency approval doesn't mean you sit down with them.  The request is submitted to them for approval.

 

Oh, like a sealing cancellation.  That makes sense.  But drats, I like my version better, LOL! 

Edited November 6, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[carlimac]

Here's a "What If"  scenario:   Child was born to a married man/woman couple.  Mother leaves marriage to live with/marry same sex partner. Child now lives part time with father and part time with lesbian "mothers".   Still no baptism before 18?