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

[skippy740]

D&C 68:25
And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

 

Matthew 10:34-37

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[Guest MormonGator]

ah ok sorry . probably becasue they don't understand that and view it as an attack against a certain type of people.. and that they put how people are treated more important than a testimony of Christ., or that their testimony of christ is weaker than that belief.

 Very true. I feel sorry for them. 

[skippy740]

Just in case anyone is getting hung up on the word 'apostate':
 

a·pos·tate
NOUN
a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.
synonyms: dissenter · defector · deserter · traitor · backslider 
ADJECTIVE
abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.

 

It is the correct term to use, just like the term 'alien' is the correct term for those who are not citizens of a country, no matter what Gov. Jerry Brown thinks.

 

a·li·en
ADJECTIVE
belonging to a foreign country or nation.
NOUN
a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living:
"an illegal alien"

[omegaseamaster75]

I checked this morning for the update online via LDS.org, it's true here it is:

 

16.13 Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

 

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

 

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

 

1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

 

2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Since when has the church ever "punished" parents for the actions of adult children?  As for having to choose between them...The Church does not force that choice.  Its been my experience that if such force is applied it is from the excommunicated person.  Not the church

 

I don't know. 

I was asking.

If the parent (me for instance) attends the wedding of gay child, what does this mean in terms of the questions asked for the Temple Recommend?

 

Specifically:

 

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Edited November 6, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[omegaseamaster75]

I have a problem with this policy change most specifically 16.13.

 

We are becoming more exclusionary, 

 

The flip side of it is that it is not doctrine only policy.

[Blackmarch]

I have a problem with this policy change most specifically 16.13.

 

We are becoming more exclusionary, 

 

The flip side of it is that it is not doctrine only policy.

unfortunately that is sometimes necessary. there are times when the poeple are commanded to seperate and there are times when they are commanded ot integrate.

[Guest]

I don't know. 

I was asking.

If the parent (me for instance) attends the wedding of gay child, what does this mean in terms of the questions asked for the Temple Recommend?

 

Specifically:

 

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

I can speak from first hand experience on this one.

 

My family is Roman Catholic.  I attend weddings, baptisms, First Communions, Confirmations, Masses given for my father, etc. etc. at the Catholic Church.  I tell my Bishop this and he gives me a temple recommend.

[NeuroTypical]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/288685756/Changes-to-LDS-Handbook-1-Document-2-Revised-11-3-15-28003-29

 

Changes to LDS Handbook 1 Document 2 Revised 11-3-15 Edited November 6, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

I can speak from first hand experience on this one.

 

My family is Roman Catholic.  I attend weddings, baptisms, First Communions, Confirmations, Masses given for my father, etc. etc. at the Catholic Church.  I tell my Bishop this and he gives me a temple recommend.

 Yikes! I have too. Thank you Anatess. I had no IDEA this would be a problem! 

 

Seriously, could this be against teaching? I do NOT accept communion there. I find that insulting to my faith and theirs! 

[Guest]

I have a problem with this policy change most specifically 16.13.

 

We are becoming more exclusionary, 

 

The flip side of it is that it is not doctrine only policy.

 

I don't understand the "exclusionary" observation.  Delaying a baptism until conditions are better to preserve family unity is simply not exclusionary.  Saying that a person who is related to an active homosexual lifestyle cannot be baptized ever, even baptism for the dead  - that's exclusionary...

[Guest]

I trust that the church leadership knows more than I do, but I'm not wild about this one. I'm setting aside my personal feelings. I think Alma 30:25 states that child isn't guilty for the sins of the parents. Yes, I do think homosexual actions are sinful, but so is a heterosexual couple who lives together out of wedlock. 

Even if I personally disagree, I have to admit it doesn't effect my testimony in the veracity of the Book of Mormon/or Joseph Smith Jr. My heart breaks for people who have left the church over this, but I can not relate with them. I can't imagine leaving the church for this. 

 

Here's the difference Gator:

 

Cohabiting heterosexual couple has an avenue for repentance that keeps the family unit intact.  Therefore, a Church teaching a child to not have sex without marriage does not necessitate the child calling for repentance to call for the break up of his family.  The couple getting married is an avenue for repentance that works to make the family conform to Christ's commandments.

 

Homosexual couple and Polygamous couple do not have an avenue for repentance that keeps the family unit intact.  A child calling for repentance surely then calls for the break up of his family separating the child from a parent.

[omegaseamaster75]

The argument was made previously that we have no problem baptizing people whose parents are unmarried and live together (not same sex). No exclusion there, we also bless babies of unrepentant cohabitants. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Here's the difference Gator:

 

Cohabiting heterosexual couple has an avenue for repentance that keeps the family unit intact.  Therefore, a Church teaching a child to not have sex without marriage does not necessitate the child calling for repentance to call for the break up of his family.  The couple getting married is an avenue for repentance that works to make the family conform to Christ's commandments.

 

Homosexual couple and Polygamous couple do not have an avenue for repentance that keeps the family unit intact.  A child calling for repentance surely then calls for the break up of his family separating the child from a parent.

 That is a perfect description. Thank you Anatess! 

[mdfxdb]

I have a problem with this policy change most specifically 16.13.

 

We are becoming more exclusionary, 

 

The flip side of it is that it is not doctrine only policy.

I don't have a problem with the policy.  It is not any more exclusionary than restricting someone from joining based on any of the other disqualifiers we have.  In many ways it is in the best interest of the child to have them wait until they are out of the house to make those kinds of decisions.  Families break apart over religion all the time, and they aren't even gay.  Why put more wedges into a potentially otherwise stable household?  When the child is an adult they can choose their path with out the 24/7 influence of their "parents".  

 

Not only that but we wouldn't consciously baptize someone with a predisposed agenda would we?  Or baptize someone whose parents would try to influence/butt in now that their child is a member, and they feel like they have a say in things.  This policy probably avoids more legal problems than anything.....

[omegaseamaster75]

Here's the difference Gator:

 

Cohabiting heterosexual couple has an avenue for repentance that keeps the family unit intact.  Therefore, a Church teaching a child to not have sex without marriage does not necessitate the child calling for repentance to call for the break up of his family.  The couple getting married is an avenue for repentance that works to make the family conform to Christ's commandments.

 

Homosexual couple and Polygamous couple do not have an avenue for repentance that keeps the family unit intact.  A child calling for repentance surely then calls for the break up of his family separating the child from a parent.

While this is true, it is not fair to say that the family must be broken up. What if the parents bridle their passions and decide that they will raise their children in accordance with church policies (abstain from intercourse and live as roommates)? 

 

Will we exclude truly repentant parents who want to come into the fold? This makes for an interesting home dynamic but not an impossible one.

 

This policy is exclusionary sorry, I guess they aren't saying never but they are saying disavow your family unit or you can't be a member of the club. Sorry I have a hard time breaking up a family unit gay or straight.

[Guest]

 Yikes! I have too. Thank you Anatess. I had no IDEA this would be a problem! 

 

Seriously, could this be against teaching? I do NOT accept communion there. I find that insulting to my faith and theirs! 

 

No it is not against teaching.  Our missionaries got permission to attend Catholic mass with me.  But yeah, it is always a good idea to keep the bishop in the loop of these things (although not necessary).

 

About communion - you can't partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist if you are not in communion with the Catholic church.  Your LDS baptism is an act of schism putting into effect latae sententiae (commonly referred to as self excommunication - although that term is really misleading since you can't make yourself un-Catholic).

Edited November 6, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

While this is true, it is not fair to say that the family must be broken up. What if the parents bridle their passions and decide that they will raise their children in accordance with church policies (abstain from intercourse and live as roommates)? 

 

Will we exclude truly repentant parents who want to come into the fold? This makes for an interesting home dynamic but not an impossible one.

 

This policy is exclusionary sorry, I guess they aren't saying never but they are saying disavow your family unit or you can't be a member of the club. Sorry I have a hard time breaking up a family unit gay or straight.

 

Omega, a cohabiting couple (of any orientation) cannot get baptized even if they insist to the Mission President that they have repented and are simply living as roommates.  They have to live separately or get married (if hetero) before they can be baptized.

 

And that's really the thing - that's why delaying the baptism is wise - then there's no pressure on the child to desire to break up his own family.

Edited November 6, 2015 by anatess

[omegaseamaster75]

Omega, a cohabiting couple (of any orientation) cannot get baptized even if they insist to the Mission President that they have repented and are simply living as roommates.  They have to live separately or get married (if hetero) before they can be baptized.

 

.

Well this is not true at all. Let's pretend that I am living a gay lifestyle with my partner, missionaries knock on the door, My partner and I accept the gospel in its entirety. We stop our homosexual practices, sleep in separate rooms, repent and disavow our past lives. Am I excluded from baptism because of my address and who I live with? No I am not. I am baptized and accepted into full fellowship

[carlimac]

I can't imagine that church authority would object to a priesthood holder giving the child a name and blessing if the parents desired it. It just won't go on the official records of the church. The child won't have a membership number.  Really who is going to stop a righteous grandfather from giving his newborn grandchild a blessing? 

[omegaseamaster75]

I can't imagine that church authority would object to a priesthood holder giving the child a name and blessing if the parents desired it. It just won't go on the official records of the church. The child won't have a membership number.  Really who is going to stop a righteous grandfather from giving his newborn grandchild a blessing? 

We are/ the church is.

[carlimac]

We are/ the church is.

I don't believe the church is. No church authority has the power to interfere with a righteous priesthood holder blessing his family in any circumstance he desires. Don't mischaracterize this policy. 

[estradling75]

I don't believe the church is. No church authority has the power to interfere with a righteous priesthood holder blessing his family in any circumstance he desires. Don't mischaracterize this policy. 

 

 

Then Don't call it Naming and Blessing of a Child... Which is a church controlled ordinance..  Instead recognize what it is... simply a priesthood blessing

[omegaseamaster75]

I don't believe the church is. No church authority has the power to interfere with a righteous priesthood holder blessing his family in any circumstance he desires. Don't mischaracterize this policy. 

16.13 Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

 

If your grandchild is the child of a same sex couple you cannot give your child a name and a blessing in church. This does not exclude other priesthood blessings as desired by the parents it just can't happen in church.

[carlimac]

 

16.13 Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

 

If your grandchild is the child of a same sex couple you cannot give your child a name and a blessing in church. This does not exclude other priesthood blessings as desired by the parents it just can't happen in church.

 

 

Half my kids were named and blessed at home. there is more than one venue to perform this ordinance.  I never said blessing of homosexuals child could be done at church. I wouldn't recommend it even if it weren't now in the handbook. .