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

[Vort]

 

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.

 

That a child may feel punished is entirely different from a child actually being punished.

 

And in any case, I think it unlikely that a child would come up with the "punishment" idea on his own. That sounds to me more like the kind of thing a parent or "friend" might plant in the child's mind.

 

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.

 

I cannot imagine a case of a practicing homosexual "doing their best to stay 'active'". It's a fundamental conflict of terms, like talking about a man who is actively committing adultery or embezzling funds from his workplace as "doing his best to stay 'active'". The activities they are engaged in are at odds with the stated goal to which they are supposedly "doing their best".

[Vort]

 

As members of the church this new policy reflects on all of us. I do not feel like this reflects well upon the members. This is the first time I have ever felt shame as a member of the church. I know and care greatly about many who will be hurt my this new policy. It also gives further ammunition to ex-Mormons and people who have guilt for not living the gospel as they should. What about those who question the church being Christian?

 

I think it reflects wonderfully on the members and on the leadership alike. I sincerely hope that this is not only the first, but more importantly the very last, time you ever feel shame as a member of the Lord's kingdom.

 

As for non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, and anti-Mormons: Those in the great and spacious building will mock and point their fingers. Nephi has showed us the appropriate response: We pay them no heed. We need not concern ourselves with trying to make people like us. Christ's sheep hear his voice; we need only concern ourselves with opening our mouths so they can hear that voice and come unto Christ.

 

The wheat and the tares? I don't believe in following blindly.

 

Did Adam follow "blindly" when he was commanded to sacrifice, and did so for many years without knowing why? When the angel asked him why he sacrificed, Adam's only response was, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me."

 

And what was the angel's response to Adam? To decry him for being a "sheeple"? To mock and criticize his "following blindly"?

 

No. His response was to give Adam further light and knowledge. That is the way we do things in the Lord's kingdom.

 

Currently this policy does not feel like it is rooted in the pure love of Christ.

 

It certainly does to me.

 

For those of you who don't know me, I have been a member of this site since 2003. I have not posted much for the last few years and the format has changed greatly. I have been richly blessed through my membership in the church and have written many posts in support. I'm am just shocked by the recent announcements, especially after our leaders have preached love and tolerance to those who do not live as we do.

Feeling Heartbroken, StrawberryFields

 

Then put aside your "heartbroken" feelings and take heart, SF. The Lord is faithful and the Church is true. Homosexuality is a grievous sin that will inevitably result in the destruction of the soul of those who practice it and do not repent; this policy is intended to help people reject that path. In the meantime, the homosexual is still loved of God, and is welcome to come to meetings and begin repenting with the rest of us.

 

 

It's about feeling compassion....

 

Compassion is not telling the girl who keeps cutting herself that there is nothing wrong with her, and by the way, those sure are pretty scars she has carved into her arms.

 

Although, I don't personally understand same sex attraction, I have compassion for those who do.

 

Of course you do. And I sincerely hope you also have compassion for those who are sexually attracted to children. But I bet you don't condone their behavior or wish the Church would receive a revelation on how they should be allowed to sate their carnal appetites.

 

In my 50 plus years I have seen many changes in policies in the church. I remember about 10 years ago when the changed the mission requirements with "raising the bar". That took the wind out of the sails of many people. Later, they lessened the height of the bar.

 

What are you talking about, SF? When and in what way as the "height of the bar" been "lessened"?

 

Yes, we will be greatly tested here on earth. Sometimes our faith might have cause to be shaken. I agree, I have a big decision to make. Can my faith withstand? Are my roots deep enough? Right now I feel shock and heartbreak. Some sins are just more obvious than others. Everyone sins. Jesus taught us that who is without sin, cast the first stone.

 

That is a misapplication of the history. Jesus was standing with a large group of hypocrites who themselves were guilty of the very sin they sought to destroy the woman for. They didn't care a whit about the woman; they were willing to kill her just to get at Jesus. Christ refused at that moment to condemn her, instead telling her what he tells us: Go and sin no more.

 

But this hardly means that Jesus didn't teach against fornication or adultery, or made sure his doctrine was "inclusive" enough so that adulterers and fornicators felt right at home. That is not and never has been the purpose of the gospel.

 

The way I see it is through the eyes of a father I've recently read about. He fell in love and married a wonderful woman. They had two sons whom they both love very much, darling boy's probably about four and six years of age. Later, for reasons unknown to me this father found another soul mate, a male soul mate. The divorce

 

See those last two words quote above?

This man left his wife to satisfy his carnal lust.

 

There is nothing honorable about that. If he loved her enough to marry her and to impregnate her twice, then he should have loved her enough to keep Little Charlie out of another man's bodily orifices.

How compassionate for his woeful situation would you have been if his new "soul mate" had been a beautiful 18-year-old girl with a 36DD bra? Is he to get a pass because his lusts took him to a man instead of another woman?

 

Now the new policy comes to further push this family apart. If you've read my posts in this thread, which I think you have you know that the church gave me great direction at the time I needed it the most, as a child. I don't think that this shows love or tolerance to the gay and lesbian community or their children. That's my take on this.

 

The Church does not exist to show love and tolerance to "communities", especially when those "communities" define themselves in opposition to God's commandments. How much "love" or "tolerance" do you think the Church should show toward the drug gang community, or the forced prostitution community, or the abortion-on-demand community?

 

The Church exists to show individuals how to feel the Spirit, come to know God, and return to their Father in heaven. In so doing, it provides the community for its members.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Vort

[Vort]

 

I'm curious what your definition of humility is?

 

Mine would be that humility is not only a modest opinion of your own importance, but also a quality of being courteously respectful of others.

 

That courteous respect of others, whether or not I agree with them, is something I've seen over and over in the lives of the Prophets. I think it's something we should look to emulate in our own lives.

 

It's not always easy, but a good goal.

 

Humility means the quality of being teachable. That is the fundamental meaning. Other meanings are just grafted on.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

What I see, for some reason, is that for some it seems to be acceptable to preach humility to those who are in outright, open, obvious rebellion against the church, but if someone's struggle is more subtle then preaching humility to them is suddenly offensive.

 

I think for the most part we agree.  It's this part that I highlighted where we differ.  I don't think the difference is of opinion but of understanding.  Or maybe it is just personality differences?   

 

Perhaps I'm a pessimist but I wouldn't bother trying to talk to John Dehlin or Kate Kelly...or anyone that set in rebellion.  I would (I have and I do) talk to others who are struggling. The difference that I see that you call "offensive", is not in the talking to them about humility but in the tone and manner of speaking.  I think a loving, patient tone is most likely to bring them back.  Others choose a more disciplinary type of tone.  

[lagarthaaz]

 

 

 

That a child may feel punished is entirely different from a child actually being punished.

 

And in any case, I think it unlikely that a child would come up with the "punishment" idea on his own. That sounds to me more like the kind of thing a parent or "friend" might plant in the child's mind.

 

 

I cannot imagine a case of a practicing homosexual "doing their best to stay 'active'". It's a fundamental conflict of terms, like talking about a man who is actively committing adultery or embezzling funds from his workplace as "doing his best to stay 'active'". The activities they are engaged in are at odds with the stated goal to which they are supposedly "doing their best".

 

 

Yes, of course a child feeling punished does not mean they actually are being punished. But in the mind of the child, it makes no difference. One example - as a child I liked to walk to the local Catholic church and sit at the back during Mass - I loved the ritual and most especially the images of the passion of Christ that adorned the walls. I had friends the same age who took their First Communion and when I asked if I could do that, I was told that because I wasn't born a Catholic, I couldn't take communion at all. Now whether this really was a true policy, I have no idea, but at the time I felt very much ostracised from participating in something I perceived to be very beautiful and comforting, and for many years the feeling of not being quite worthy enough stuck with me. That was my own thinking in reaction to the situation. I do believe that children of gay couples who are denied baptism may have similar feelings, if they are exposed to the teachings of the church through extended family members (active grandparents come to mind, who may take the children to church with parental permission).

 

I agree that it's unlikely a 'practicing homosexual' is doing their best to stay active. I was thinking more along the lines of a couple who have split, or someone who has been on their own and has been trying to repent and become active with children who were born while the relationship was intact. 

[lagarthaaz]

While we are on the topic, my husband who is not a member of the church, raised this issue with me this morning. The article he read was entitled 'Mormon church rejects children of gay couples' (or close to it). I haven't had a chance to read it, but he said that the article stated that people who marry outside the Mormon faith are considered apostate too. Of course then he became annoyed and said "that means that you are considered apostate in your own religion that you work your **s off for". I explained the definition of apostate, and also sent him the link to Elder Christoffersen's interview to show that the policy was rooted in compassion for children and was meant to minimise pain and conflict for families.

 

I haven't read anything about marrying a non-member being considered an act of apostasy... has anyone else? 

Edited November 10, 2015 by lagarthaaz

[estradling75]

While we are on the topic, my husband who is not a member of the church, raised this issue with me this morning. The article he read was entitled 'Mormon church rejects children of gay couples' (or close to it). I haven't had a chance to read it, but he said that the article stated that people who marry outside the Mormon faith are considered apostate too. Of course then he became annoyed and said "that means that you are considered apostate in your own religion that you work your **s off for". I explained the definition of apostate, and also sent him the link to Elder Christoffersen's interview to show that the policy was rooted in compassion for children and was meant to minimise pain and conflict for families.

 

I haven't read anything about marrying a non-member being considered an act of apostasy... has anyone else? 

 

 

Because its is not an act of apostasy...

 

Let me put it this way...  For all the talk about "think of the Child" and how they will feel...  It second problem a child will face seems to be starkly absent from their calculations.  The first problem has been hashed to death... The child might feel excluded has be repeated endlessly.  However as bad as exclusion is it is a rather common childhood trauma.  The missing question is how are they going to feel when they learn that momma or Dadda (as the case might be) is an unrepentant sinner and is going to end up in hell unless they repent and break up with lover/spouse?

 

No one really wants to talk about how much trauma will come when that happens, nor do they want to consider if they are the active parent figure how they will "answer" that question.  This is not a common childhood issue.  And given how much a young child might identify with their parent, it is really a question in which you hope the child will not ask until they are much more mature.

 

So for those saying "think of a child's pain and suffering?" of the two questions, which one do you think is more important to avoid in the younger years?  The church has made its choice.  A choice undoubtedly informed through its interactions with polygamist households. 

 

As for those married to non members...  A man and woman being married to each other is not a sin.  While everyone need to repent that repentance doesn't include the destruction of the marriage or even the relationship

Edited November 10, 2015 by estradling75

[Guest]

Just a reflection of what's been happening a little with one of our "news" stations here in Boise metro: 

 

("News" because I am so tired of the rotting corpse that used to be our media, and what kinds of things qualify as newsworthy to them; usually dragging some person or organization through the mud.)

 

Anyhoo. If I had decided to leave the church, the last thing I would want is to have it splashed on the internet, newspapers, and TV. If things were so bad and offensive and I were in that much pain, I wouldn't want public focus on myself. 

 

I question the intentions and previous faithfulness of those who are going to the media to announce their departure. Especially, for instance, the mother and son who called a certain "news" station here only hours after the media picked this policy up to announce to the world that they were leaving the church. 

 

I don't get it.

[The Folk Prophet]

Apostasy, by definition, means abandonment of a belief (religious, in this case). The church, however, has specifically defined certain acts that must be considered apostasy per the disciplinary process(es).

 

In a broad sense, any thing that any of us do that purposefully goes against a counsel of the church is apostasy of that particular belief -- like having too many earrings after being told not to, wearing immodest clothing, watching immoral movies, etc. The counsel, and "belief" of the church being abandoned constitutes apostasy as to that belief.

 

There are levels of apostasy that I would think all of us at some point in our lives are guilty of. There are levels of apostasy severe enough to be considered, per policy, "APOSTASY" per the handbook though.

[Backroads]

The immediate plans of leaving do cause me to raise an eyebrow. Really? You aren't going to mull this over with your faith, beliefs, and personal feelings? That would seem to be the normal response if you're that upset.

I'm suspicious of these deep trials of faith that last all of an hour and a half before they leave the church.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Backroads

[Guest]

 

I cannot imagine a case of a practicing homosexual "doing their best to stay 'active'". It's a fundamental conflict of terms, like talking about a man who is actively committing adultery or embezzling funds from his workplace as "doing his best to stay 'active'". The activities they are engaged in are at odds with the stated goal to which they are supposedly "doing their best".

 

 

 

The case is usually that a Mormon wants to remain in the social club without having to keep his covenants.  But since the social club conflicts with his lifestyle, he does his best to stay active by doing bare minimum to keep from getting voted off the island... that, or raise a stink so the social club will accept his lifestyle.

[Jane_Doe]

 

I haven't read anything about marrying a non-member being considered an act of apostasy... has anyone else? 

 

It is not.  But it does bar you from temple sealing, and make church logistics more complicated (like sitting in Sacrament meeting always solo parenting the kids).

[AnnieCarvalho]

 

 

Humility means the quality of being teachable. That is the fundamental meaning. Other meanings are just grafted on.

 

 

That might be one meaning which the Church has "grafted on," but the Oxford English and other dictionaries define "humility"  as the quality or state of being humble, the quality of not thinking that you are better than other people

 

(As in Jesus' humble birth)

[The Folk Prophet]

That might be one meaning which the Church has "grafted on," but the Oxford English and other dictionaries define "humility"  as the quality or state of being humble, the quality of not thinking that you are better than other people

 

(As in Jesus' humble birth)

 

Well since we're talking about gospel principles here, which definition do you think actually matters?

[Guest]

Yes, of course a child feeling punished does not mean they actually are being punished. But in the mind of the child, it makes no difference. One example - as a child I liked to walk to the local Catholic church and sit at the back during Mass - I loved the ritual and most especially the images of the passion of Christ that adorned the walls. I had friends the same age who took their First Communion and when I asked if I could do that, I was told that because I wasn't born a Catholic, I couldn't take communion at all. Now whether this really was a true policy, I have no idea, but at the time I felt very much ostracised from participating in something I perceived to be very beautiful and comforting, and for many years the feeling of not being quite worthy enough stuck with me. That was my own thinking in reaction to the situation. I do believe that children of gay couples who are denied baptism may have similar feelings, if they are exposed to the teachings of the church through extended family members (active grandparents come to mind, who may take the children to church with parental permission).

 

I agree that it's unlikely a 'practicing homosexual' is doing their best to stay active. I was thinking more along the lines of a couple who have split, or someone who has been on their own and has been trying to repent and become active with children who were born while the relationship was intact. 

 

Hi lagarthaaz,

 

I haven't read any of the previous pages of post so I may have missed the context of this particular one.

 

Catholics believe in Transubstantiation - that is, the white wafer that you put in your mouth is not just a plain wafer but is literally the body of Christ.  Therefore, only those who are in communion with the church body through and is baptized can partake of this sacrament.  Anybody else partaking of such a sacred sacrament is a mockery of it.  The LDS Church is not in communion with the body of Christ simply by the fact that they do not believe in the same substance of God.  So, they shouldn't partake of this deeply sacred Catholic sacrament.

 

But, because I haven't read the entire thread, I'm not sure what your point was about the child feeling punished.  Are you saying that the Church shouldn't make policies that make a child feel punished?  Like - Catholics should allow those not in communion with the body of Christ to take his body and drink his blood so they won't feel like they're punished?

[Traveler]

Having read some responses - I am beginning to wonder if there is a misunderstanding of Baptism and the covenants we make. It is not about belief - it is about covenant. Such a covenant makes it impossible to serve G-d and mammon.

There are many children that despite their desire cannot be baptized until they are 18. I taught several while on my mission - one was a foster child - that even though his foster parents (not LDS) approved of him attinding - we could not bapiize him until he was 18.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Traveler

[Guest]

You failed adequately to emphasize the mere tendency of this, e.g. by putting the word "tend" in boldface or italics (or preferably both) and/or making it a larger font size in addition to the underlining. So your point is not taken.

 

Well, I was concerned that if I took those additional measures, then my message would have been mistaken for YELLING.

[Vort]

That might be one meaning which the Church has "grafted on," but the Oxford English and other dictionaries define "humility"  as the quality or state of being humble, the quality of not thinking that you are better than other people

 

(As in Jesus' humble birth)

 

Yes, you're right, of course. "Humble" means "lowly". The word "humility" comes from the same root, so has the same idea of lowness. The word can be construed to mean any number of things, such as "mean", "nether", or "abased", all of which have the same root idea as "humble". Other ancillary shades of meaning can be understood, such as "unworthy" or "super-righteous".

 

My point was not that these other meanings don't exist, but that with respect to our religion, the important element of meaning in "humility" has to do with lowliness of heart and the subsequent willingness to be taught.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Well since we're talking about gospel principles here, which definition do you think actually matters?

 

I think both matter.

I think it's important to be humble, not to feel or act as though you are better than others, Christ-like, whenever we can be.

I also think it's important to be teachable and never think we know all the answers.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Yes, you're right, of course. "Humble" means "lowly". The word "humility" comes from the same root, so has the same idea of lowness. The word can be construed to mean any number of things, such as "mean", "nether", or "abased", all of which have the same root idea as "humble". Other ancillary shades of meaning can be understood, such as "unworthy" or "super-righteous".

 

My point was not that these other meanings don't exist, but that with respect to our religion, the important element of meaning in "humility" has to do with lowliness of heart and the subsequent willingness to be taught.

 

Yes, lowliness of heart... and the SUBSEQUENT willingness to be taught.

I agree.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think both matter.

I think it's important to be humble, not to feel or act as though you are better than others, Christ-like, whenever we can be.

I also think it's important to be teachable and never think we know all the answers.

 

Sure. Don't act as if you're better than others -- for the most part. I mean, if you're the teacher you tend to act like you know more than the student to some degree, and that is proper -- as when Christ said what manner of men ought we to be, even as He was. I mean, how not humble was that, by certain definitions, right? And then there was the whole whipping folk in the temple thing. And the calling people a generation of vipers. Except we know Christ was perfectly humble. But did the Pharisees see Him that way? Hardly. They probably figured He came across as about the least humble guy ever. I mean, who does this guy think he is?

 

And then there's the likes of Nephi. Did Laman and Lemuel consider Nephi humble? How dare our older brother think he can rule over us!? Did they consider their father humble? The old fool! Dreamer! Trying to take us away from our fortunes and lead us into misery. Doddering old fool!

 

Anyhow, as I brought up the point of being humble in the context of how one need to be in order to deal with either (relatively) minor emotional crises, or outright loss of testimony, my meaning, as you asked, was what the church teaches as a gospel principle.

 

Do I deny that John Dehlin needs to stop thinking he's better than other people...well...I won't answer that...but in theory....

 

But I do believe, quite firmly, that humility and meekness are different virtues for a reason -- because they're not the same thing. You, I believe (as many do) conflate them.

 

We do need to be meek (which is an aspect of humble, sure). We also need to be humble (which is an aspect of meek, sure).

 

As I see it, humble is about reliance and trust and faith in God. Meekness is about our interaction with others (including God). Humble folk will be meek. Meek folk will be humble. But they are different virtues.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Sure. Don't act as if you're better than others -- for the most part.

 

As I see it, humble is about reliance and trust and faith in God. Meekness is about our interaction with others (including God). Humble folk will be meek. Meek folk will be humble. But they are different virtues.

 

Thanks. 

I understand your definition and thoughts about it now.

[carlimac]

 

 

 

 

 

Having your child's naming blessing given at home strikes me as next to useless. Naming a child is not a saving ordinance; it is done almost purely as a way to introduce the child to the ward family. (It also functions as an easy excuse for creating a membership record for the child, but that is hardly the reason for the blessing.)

 

I have always made sure my children are blessed in a meeting of whatever ward we are attending -- with grandfathers and uncles (and home teachers, and leaders) participating as able. We are members of a larger "ward family", and this description is perfectly valid, even if not exactly scriptural. My children have depended greatly on their "ward family" for their teaching and upbringing, just as I did without realizing it.

 

 

 

Well aren't you just the cat's meow. I must always do things like Vort.   For your information, My son and his cousin were given a priesthood  name and blessing at my parent's home about 4 days before my mother passed away from cancer. She was too ill to attend church. 

Edited November 10, 2015 by carlimac

[Vort]

 

Wel aren't you just the cat's meow. I must always do things like Vort.

 

I am gratified that people are finally beginning to realize this.

 

My son and his cousin were given a priesthood  name and blessing at my parent's home about 4 days before my mother passed away from cancer. 

 

That's wonderul. Not sure why you feel so threatened by my opinion, but I am happy to see you're trying to conform.

[carlimac]

 

 

 

I am gratified that people are finally beginning to realize this.

 

 

That's wonderul. Not sure why you feel so threatened by my opinion, but I am happy to see you're trying to conform.

 

"Having your child's naming blessing given at home strikes me as next to useless"   

 

 This doesn't strike you as the tiniest bit judgmental and conceited?   I'm truly in awe of your high opinion of yourself.  " Beware of pride. It will be your downfall."