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

[The Folk Prophet]

yjacket - I'm not sure that thinking is accurate as to the potential reasons for this policy. There is no implication (in spite of (or perhaps other than) the sure realization that it will be a result) that there is a desire for those who are in homosexual relationships should not be warmly invited to attend church.

[MrShorty]

I'm going to agree with TFP, yjacket. We have not said anything about preventing homosexuals or their children from attending our meetings. It seems likely that there will be scenarios where we still have to explain why little Sarah did not get baptized when she was 8 because her dad is married to another man or why little John cannot pass the sacrament (or otherwise be ordained) because his mom is married to another woman. I expect there will still be plenty of opportunities across the Church for parents to try to explain "so and so's mom/dad/parents does/do not believe the way we do, even if they regularly attend church."

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I don't have any problem whatsoever with the decision, but I'd like to make a couple of personal observations regarding the controversy.

 

The first is regarding those who have been squealing about how unfair this is toward the children. While there may be a few who sincerely feel this way, I believe the vast majority of them aren't the least bit concerned about the kids. They are merely using them as sympathetic props for their political and cultural agenda. If they ARE truly concerned about the kids, maybe someone can explain to me why they haven't made a peep about the children of polygamous parents? The same policy has been in effect for a very long time regarding THOSE kids, and yet as far as I know there hasn't been one word of outrage on their behalf.

Those who are now feigning shock at the injustice perpetrated upon these innocent children are in reality just angry and frustrated that the Church has (as they see it) reverted to their past homophobic and bigoted policies, when (as they saw it) the Church was on the road to eventually accepting the LGBT agenda. Their ox has been gored and they aren't the least bit happy about it.

 

The second is in regards to those who've been claiming that this announcement has driven a wedge between the Church and many of its “faithful” members.

I propose if any member believes that the President of the Church and his two counselors along with the entire Quorum of the Twelve, after unanimously agreeing on this policy, are in direct conflict to what God Himself wants; that these men have made a major mistake and not a single one of them is sufficiently in tune with the Spirit to recognize that mistake---the individual who believes this, whether he/she attends every meeting and holds a temple recommend---is NOT a faithful member of the Church. 

[StrawberryFields]

Looking for the Christ-like reasoning for this new policy. It seems that the word from the leaders of the church, want us to keep our head down, following in faith. I grew up in a less active but very supportive home. I was blessed and baptized and given the gift of The Holy Ghost. I needed that gift and the teachings of the church in my young life. I later married my high school sweetheart after he served a two year mission. We have three children who were born under the covenant. The two who are married have been sealed to their spouses in the temple.

This new policy makes me wonder how different my life might have been if the church had a policy in place that said if you came from a less active home you could not be baptized until you turned 18.

[Backroads]

I've decided there must have been enough issues arising to make church leaders decide a policy was prudent. I'm assuming they weighed the pros and cons of the policy. So this certainly creates some problems, but just how many problems us it solving?

Yes, we should be loving and thoughtful in regards to those who struggle with the new policy.

I just hope all have the same attention and love to those who struggled before the policy and consider the gratitude they might feel upon a policy that fixed things for them.

[Just_A_Guy]

Did you notice my underlining of the word "tend" TWICE!!! I did that specifically for your nit picks.      and possibly Vort's.

 

But not mine?

 

Gee, here I thought we were friends . . .

 

If they ARE truly concerned about the kids, maybe someone can explain to me why they haven't made a peep about the children of polygamous parents? The same policy has been in effect for a very long time regarding THOSE kids, and yet as far as I know there hasn't been one word of outrage on their behalf.

 

To be fair, some of them did.  There was a post at one of the big 'nacle posts only 2 or 3 weeks ago bemoaning that policy.  In fact, one of the more delicious possible ironies to this (IMHO) is the notion that some low-level staffer at the Church Administration Building might have seen that post, thought "Eureka!", and walked upstairs and said "Hey, Elder ____, why don't we just take this policy and extend it to gays?"

 

But, they sure didn't express much outrage about all those children who had to go through the crucible of watching their parents divorce because their daddy decided that he'd rather spend the next few decades of his life having sex with another man.  They didn't express much outrage about all those motherless girls (or fatherless boys) being raised by gay couples who would not--could not--provide those kids with a parent of their own gender.

 

And, here's the other thing.  Spiritually speaking, what new spiritual consequences does this policy impose that didn't already exist because of the choice of the gay parents?  Did progressive Mormons really think that children raised in a gay household had a significant chance of staying true to baptismal covenants to which their parents are diametrically opposed?  Did these liberal Mormons, who get so hot-and-bothered over gay kids who commit suicide because of the intra-familial conflicts between religion and sexuality, really want children of gay parents to be subjected to hearing on any given Sunday that those parents must divorce in order to have any chance at repentance and redemption?  Did they really think that myriads of gays would actually come forward wanting their children to be baptized into what is probably the most notoriously "homophobic" church in the western hemisphere?

 

I don't think the Church's left wing really thought these issues through.  I think they had hoped that all these (theoretical) baptized kids of gay couples would someday arise, like a debauched latter-day Army of Helaman, and save us Mormon bigots from ourselves by teaching us tolerance (ironically, polygamous fundamentalists also harbor fantasies of someday taking control of the mainstream LDS Church, saving it from ruin, and purifying it in preparation for the Second Coming).  But, they didn't actually know where these increasingly-hypothetical children would come.  They still don't know, nor do they care.  All they know is that the Mormon fifth column they'd been hoping for is now a pipe dream, and it's all the Apostles' fault.

 

Sure, there's some genuine confusion and concern and people who are still working out all the implications of these new policies.  But 75% of what we're seeing online is simply the sorrowing of the damned, "because the Lord [will] not always suffer them [or their friends] to take happiness in sin". 

Edited November 8, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[David13]

This is really nothing new.  The policy has always been, that, if parents who are not members of the church have children who want to be baptized, they must have parental consent. 

Why?  Because otherwise there would be a possible wedge driven between the parents and child baptized.  And the church cares enough about children to respect the wishes of the parents.

This policy shows the same respect for the family by not driving a wedge between the parents and the child who would encounter teachings in the church that would directly contradict what the homosexual parents were doing.

dc

[The Folk Prophet]

But, they sure didn't express much outrage about all those children who had to go through the crucible of watching their parents divorce because their daddy decided that he'd rather spend the next few decades of his life having sex with another man.  They didn't express much outrage about all those motherless girls (or fatherless boys) being raised by gay couples who would not--could not--provide those kids with a parent of their own gender.

 

And, here's the other thing.  Spiritually speaking, what new spiritual consequences does this policy impose that didn't already exist because of the choice of the gay parents?  Did progressive Mormons really think that children raised in a gay household had a significant chance of staying true to baptismal covenants to which their parents are diametrically opposed?  Did these liberal Mormons, who get so hot-and-bothered over gay kids who commit suicide because of the intra-familial conflicts between religion and sexuality, really want children of gay parents to be subjected to hearing on any given Sunday that those parents must divorce in order to have any chance at repentance and redemption?  Did they really think that myriads of gays would actually come forward wanting their children to be baptized into what is probably the most notoriously "homophobic" church in the western hemisphere?

 

To be fair, if you compare and contrast these two paragraphs and consider, how many children are in a joint custody situation where one of their parents is a faithful member and the other is living with their new gay lover? The child is still, thereby, raised by a gay parent living in that relationship, and thereby disqualified from baptism. That has got to be a ridiculously hard thing for the faithful parent. Now my child can't be baptized because my spouse left me for their gay lover? Are you kidding me? <== sort of thing.

[Leah]

This new policy makes me wonder how different my life might have been if the church had a policy in place that said if you came from a less active home you could not be baptized until you turned 18.

That is not what this policy says.

[BeccaKirstyn]

To be fair, if you compare and contrast these two paragraphs and consider, how many children are in a joint custody situation where one of their parents is a faithful member and the other is living with their new gay lover? The child is still, thereby, raised by a gay parent living in that relationship, and thereby disqualified from baptism. That has got to be a ridiculously hard thing for the faithful parent. Now my child can't be baptized because my spouse left me for their gay lover? Are you kidding me? <== sort of thing.

I have a lot of friends speaking about this. Specifically in scenarios where the other parent (who is in a same-sex marriage now) does want their child reared in the gospel, but the child is at their mother's house every other weekend, and at the father's on the "off" weekends for the mother. So the child is being raised by a gay parent, and by an active parent. This is based off of a real example, not just some thought-up scenario (because I've gotten a lot of those as well). 

[Guest]

I think everyone needs to calm down about scenarios until 1.Training happens and everyone knows better how this is expecte to be employed, and 2. It comes up for real and true. If there's anything I've learned about local leadership when I've needed to go in for counsel or aid, it's how very concerned they are about each person, and how inspired they are. There was also a lack of rigidity where I expected it. I think part of the reason we need bishops is that there has to be someone close, with the mantel of the calling, to truly be a judge. That doesn't just mean judging where people stand, but judging individual situations to determine, with the help of that mantel, the most just AND merciful course of action. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

The first is regarding those who have been squealing about how unfair this is toward the children. While there may be a few who sincerely feel this way, I believe the vast majority of them aren't the least bit concerned about the kids. They are merely using them as sympathetic props for their political and cultural agenda. If they ARE truly concerned about the kids, maybe someone can explain to me why they haven't made a peep about the children of polygamous parents? The same policy has been in effect for a very long time regarding THOSE kids, and yet as far as I know there hasn't been one word of outrage on their behalf.

Those who are now feigning shock at the injustice perpetrated upon these innocent children are in reality just angry and frustrated that the Church has (as they see it) reverted to their past homophobic and bigoted policies, when (as they saw it) the Church was on the road to eventually accepting the LGBT agenda. Their ox has been gored and they aren't the least bit happy about it.

 

You are making some really huge assumptions here based on guesses and prejudice (your distaste for anyone who disagrees with you is clear from your "squealing" comment).  

I can't speak for random strangers that I don't know on the internet, but I do personally know several people who are struggling with this....and it is because it directly affects them or someone they love.  It is human nature for people to want to be with other people like them.  So when someone is gay, even if they are worthy temple-recommend holders, they likely know a lot of other gay people (perhaps from church-sponsored conferences dealing with same-sex attraction), and of those acquaintances and friends you are certainly going to find a variety of lifestyles i.e. some living the gospel, some not to varying degrees.  Further, there are likely people reading this thread who are gay, and we know for sure we have members here who have gay family members.  So there are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned because it does effect them or someone they love personally.

 

Why didn't anyone make a fuss about this policy for polygamist children?  Easy, because polygamists have their own church and have no desire to attend our "fallen" meetings anyway.  I base this idea on the polygamist family I knew (and their associates) in Utah.  They were absolutely convinced that they were living the higher way and if anything wanted to convert us to their ways not send let their kids attend our church to live a lesser law.

 

There are gay couples (I don't know them personally, but I have friends who do) who want their children to be raised in the church.  This will likely surprise you (I admit I was surprised), but it's really not so hard to understand.  For example, my mother,  always told me that she knew the church was true, and that if she ever returned to church it would be the LDS church....but for whatever her reasons, she never did.  All of us (to varying degrees) have done things against our better judgement. We've all eaten too much, or slept too little, or various and sundry sins . . . I know you will say that is far different than having a gay marriage.  I know that, and I agree.  All I am saying is that it is possible that someone could be in a gay marriage and still want their children to be raised in the gospel. 

 

Further we all know members of this forum who have children who are gay.  What if they have children?  The concern for these members is genuine and born of love not rebellion.  

 

I support the church's position.  I don't fully understand it, but I support it because I want to follow the Lord. I believe the Lord would want us to put a loving arm around (figuratively) around those who are struggling with this and try to help them.  

 

Returning to our Father in Heaven is not a competition with every man for himself.  We are a family and we need to try and help our brothers and sisters return to Him, even when, or especially when, we think they are making bad choices.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Looking for the Christ-like reasoning for this new policy. It seems that the word from the leaders of the church, want us to keep our head down, following in faith. I grew up in a less active but very supportive home. I was blessed and baptized and given the gift of The Holy Ghost. I needed that gift and the teachings of the church in my young life. I later married my high school sweetheart after he served a two year mission. We have three children who were born under the covenant. The two who are married have been sealed to their spouses in the temple.

This new policy makes me wonder how different my life might have been if the church had a policy in place that said if you came from a less active home you could not be baptized until you turned 18.

Just another perspective to consider (perhaps to help you see the Christ-like meaning here)....I grew up in a less active family too.  I worried constantly about my family not coming to church.  I so wanted them to enjoy those blessings!  You know what I mean right?

 

Now was there ever a time when you feared your parents would get divorced?  When I was 21, for a short time, I refused to return my mom's phone calls because I was afraid  she was going to tell me that her and my second step-dad were going to get divorced.  I didn't want that.  And I was 21!  It is usually* even harder for younger children.

Now consider if we had been children of homosexual marriages....not only could we not wish for our families to become active and be sealed, but we would know that divorce was the only way...breaking up the family....was the only way our parents could repent and live righteously.  On the other hand, a child who believes in the gospel, is going to have to deal wit this dilemma whether or not they are baptized....but perhaps this will help give you an idea where this policy might be coming from.

 

*usually....I say usually because in cases of abuse children might be HAPPY for divorce.  This was the case for me when my mom divorced my first step-father, who was abusive.  I was thrilled!

Edited November 8, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[estradling75]

For those worried about grandkids might be affected by this change...  Ask your self a very simple question...  How likely to you think that the Homosexual parent would give consent?  Because before this policy the church required parental consent.  Thus unless you can actually imagine a high likely hood of the homosexual parent of your grandchild to actually consent for their child to be a member of a church that is highly against the relationship and lifestyle they have chosen, this policy will never even have a chance to be an issue.

 

That lack of consent would limit your options just as much if not more then policy does.  Both basically mean that the best you can do is take your grandchild with you to church and church activities for fellow shipping, only when and if the custodial arrangements give you that option.  Thus their ability to attend church is still directly and solely tied to the parents wishes.

 

If however the situation is such that you got a incredibly rare case where the homosexual parent is not willing to give up their lifestyles but has no problem with their children being members... That is the only situation where this policy is going to have any kinds of impact.  Only you can judge how likely this is going, to be but I think over all it is going to be very unlikely. But if that is the case then you simply get the child to church.  If the situation of lack of opposition from the homosexual parent and the child has constant support in faithfully attending church, goes on long enough.  You might be able to convince your bishop in requesting a policy exception.  

 

After all its policy not doctrine and policies can be removed or exempted if the leaders of the church think it is in the best interest of all to do so.  But it is a moot hope unless all the parents are supportive of the action... And again only you can judge the likely-hood of that  for your personal situation.  

[yjacket]

Why didn't anyone make a fuss about this policy for polygamist children?  Easy, because polygamists have their own church and have no desire to attend our "fallen" meetings anyway.  I base this idea on the polygamist family I knew (and their associates) in Utah.  They were absolutely convinced that they were living the higher way and if anything wanted to convert us to their ways not send let their kids attend our church to live a lesser law.

 

This is an excellent point.  The question that I don't see asked here is how did this occur.  How and why did families who continued to practice polygamy decide that the Church was fallen and decided to have their own church-based on the BoM, etc.?

 

When were the FLDS established.  It wasn't after the Manifesto, it wasn't until 1929, after the Church as an organization decided to make a clear distinction that polygamy was 100% unacceptable-there wasn't going to be any wink-wink handshake.  This policy was put into place in the 1920s. The direct families of those who continued to practice polygamy were in effect cut-off from being members of the church.  This policy of not baptizing children of polygamous families until they had completely rejected their parents way of life was a certain distinct line.  It told those who continued to practice polygamy-you will not have an influence on the Church-you can't because you nor your children will be members.

 

Grandparents can moan and complain and come up with all sorts of what-ifs.  The question remains, how do you think the earlier members of the church who were affected by the polygamous policy felt? I'm sure they felt even more remorse.  Homosexuals can't have natural children-polygamous families can and therefore the raw amount of individuals affected and children were certainly more.

 

This policy puts a clear line in the sand.  Homosexual relationships is an abomination a perverse lifestyle-it is a symptom of our immoral sinful society that we are so accustomed to homosexuality that we do not revolt-yes revolt at it's perversion.

 

Just like polygamy-you can believe in it all you want (I think polygamy is an institution that is and was ordained of God to be practiced at certain times) but you can not practice it.  If you want to practice it that's fine-you just won't be a member of His Church.

 

Yes, this is a very hard thing for so many people that are affected.  It has been made hard, simply because as a culture we have become so blinded by the sophistries of men to not see what homosexual relations really are.

[lagarthaaz]

I don't understand why people think it is a "punishment" to withhold baptism until a certain age...  A homosexual couple still married is actively apostate and repentance requires that they stop engaging in the sin by separation - which then automatically qualifies the children for baptism.

 

What I mean by 'punishment' is that if a child of that age has a desire to be baptised, and his or her parents  allow their child to attend church, primary, etc, (with active relatives like grandparents, for example), then they will most likely feel punished by having baptism withheld.

 

Someone else in this thread mentioned gay parents who are doing their best to stay 'active' and who support their children actively participating in the church. I would  hope there are some exceptions to the new rule in the handbook, to cater for individual situations like this one.

Edited November 8, 2015 by lagarthaaz

[lagarthaaz]

Thanks Pam for posting the video of Elder Christofferson's response to the the handbook change. It did provide some different perspective, particularly when he said the policy "originates from compassion and a desire to protect children in their innocence"..so as not to place children in a position of conflict with their families while they are young.  

 

I've still got some thinking and praying to do though.

 

I imagine myself as a child with a desire to be baptised, but being told no because of the lifestyle of my parents. It would have compounded my feelings of rejection, of feeling 'different' and not considered good enough to be with the 'worthy'. 

[AnnieCarvalho]

 

I imagine myself as a child with a desire to be baptised, but being told no because of the lifestyle of my parents. It would have compounded my feelings of rejection, of feeling 'different' and not considered good enough to be with the 'worthy'. 

 

Right.

I think this is what bothers me most.

 

But realistically, this sword has two edges, both beneficial to the Church.

With this rule in place, it will be difficult for same-sex parents to even STAY in the Church,

and if they left, that would solve a big problem for the Church, really.

 

Then they wouldn't have to even deal with it at all.

It almost feels like a chess move.

 

Again, I do not believe the Church needs to change for anyone

Just not an easy one, this.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Something else I just gleaned in his talk Elder Christofferson said something about protecting children in their innocence.

But he didn't say which children. As a parent of small children it is not something that I want to deal with, explaining to my children why Billy has two daddies at church. At school it is easier, "they don't believe the way we do". At church, many conflicts will arise between children of peverse relationships vs the normal family structure.

Everyone thinks about their children, but what about my children being exposed to a peverse lifestyle in a setting that they should not be exposed to... No one thinks about that.

Church should not be the setting where my children are exposed to homosexually.

 

Right, and this problem has been nipped in the bud by the decision.

Rather than be treated as second-class citizens, same-sex couples will leave.

 

Now you and your kids can be comfortable and not have to deal with homosexuals, at least in church.

 

But in the REAL world, they'll see it, have questions, and you will have to deal with it.

And God forbid, one of your own children turns out gay - then you REALLY have to deal with it

[AnnieCarvalho]

I don't have any problem whatsoever with the decision, but I'd like to make a couple of personal observations regarding the controversy.

 

The first is regarding those who have been squealing about how unfair this is toward the children. While there may be a few who sincerely feel this way, I believe the vast majority of them aren't the least bit concerned about the kids. They are merely using them as sympathetic props for their political and cultural agenda. I

 

I agree with this 100%. MOST of the people who are doing the LDS-bashing are not members so why should they care? They didn't join BEFORE the announcement and the change was made, so why do they care now?

 

f they ARE truly concerned about the kids, maybe someone can explain to me why they haven't made a peep about the children of polygamous parents? The same policy has been in effect for a very long time regarding THOSE kids, and yet as far as I know there hasn't been one word of outrage on their behalf.

 

Well, that's pretty obvious. No one called out their own community until now. 

I'm sure some are hurting. When you're already in pain from rejection or physically, the least disturbance can cause more pain.

I understand it in a way, for some.

 

 

The second is in regards to those who've been claiming that this announcement has driven a wedge between the Church and many of its “faithful” members.

I propose if any member believes that the President of the Church and his two counselors along with the entire Quorum of the Twelve, after unanimously agreeing on this policy, are in direct conflict to what God Himself wants; that these men have made a major mistake and not a single one of them is sufficiently in tune with the Spirit to recognize that mistake---the individual who believes this, whether he/she attends every meeting and holds a temple recommend---is NOT a faithful member of the Church. 

 

I agree again. 

I can only think this decision is somehow similar to God letting Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery.

The shocking story must have a happy ending for those who are hurting ... I hope.

[Backroads]

LP, your post is beautiful.

But please don't make the mistake of brushing off the children of polygamists. Because despite what your experience has seen, I personally have seen the problem of these kids trying to join the church (I have relatives).

It is a problem and yes, I find those upset about the gay community when they spent literally years ignoring the same policy for others hypocrites to some extent.

[StrawberryFields]

That is not what this policy says.

[StrawberryFields]

That is not what this policy says.

[StrawberryFields]

That is not what this policy says.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

 

 

I imagine myself as a child with a desire to be baptised, but being told no because of the lifestyle of my parents. It would have compounded my feelings of rejection, of feeling 'different' and not considered good enough to be with the 'worthy'. 

 LadyGator and I were just thinking that