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

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

I don't think that's the way first presidency approval works.

Edit: This was long ago addressed. Should have read through the thread first.

Edited November 6, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

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. . 

 

Your kids who were blessed at home got permission to be Named and Blessed.  That permission made it a recordable church ordinance (Assuming of course that was the way you did it)

 

Per the handbook permission is not granted, the blessing is not recorded.  A priesthood holder can of course still bless a baby...  But calling that a Name and a Blessing is like calling a prayer over bread and water the Sacrament 

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

The church has been and will always be exceedingly exclusionary when it comes to membership and baptism. It had been, and always will be, inclusive when it comes to fellowshipping, who can attend, etc.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

A name and a blessing ordinance requires authority by one with the keys (the bishop). Otherwise it counts about as much as me calling that one time when I was a kid and dunked my younger sister in the pool a baptism.

[Just_A_Guy]

So, let's say my mother was gay (she was bi-sexual) and raised me in a lesbian relationship (she didn't, it was much worse than that). As a child I would have leaped at the chance to be baptised into the church if my mother gave permission. I would have been hungry to be around good, solid families and spiritual beliefs that were wholesome and pure. How on earth would it benefit anyone -  if a child like the one I was, is denied baptism and full fellowship in the gospel until they are an adult?

 

I do not want to argue, but I do need some clarity here.

 

Lagarthaaz, how would you have reacted as a pre-teen or teenager, if your church consistently told you--not only that your mother was sinning--but that your mother couldn't repent, and you could never be part of an eternal family with her, unless she ditched your stepmother?

 

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. 

 

Quite simply, the unwed parents' relationship is not calculated to preclude (or at least inhibit) future repentance.  A gay wedding, is--the gay couple cannot repent except through divorce, which is its own set of trauma for the children involved.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[MrShorty]

A name and a blessing ordinance requires authority by one with the keys (the bishop). Otherwise it counts about as much as me calling that one time when I was a kid and dunked my younger sister in the pool a baptism.

I think it would have more meaning than that, wouldn't it? Maybe it depends on the attitude:

 

a) "The Bishop can't give me permission to give my grandchild a name and a blessing, but I'll show him and the Church and do it anyway". The attitude is more about rebellion and showing the Church that you are bigger than it is.

 

b) "The Bishop can't give me permission to give my grandchild a name and a blessing. Even though it will not be recorded, I can give my grandchild a priesthood blessing (of the regular kind) that will have meaning for me, the parents, and the child (even if the child is barely even aware that something is happening)." The attitude is williing to accept the Church's authority to restrict certain ordinances, while still acknowledging the proper ways that priesthood can be used to serve in this situation.

[carlimac]

I think it would have more meaning than that, wouldn't it? Maybe it depends on the attitude:

 

a) "The Bishop can't give me permission to give my grandchild a name and a blessing, but I'll show him and the Church and do it anyway". The attitude is more about rebellion and showing the Church that you are bigger than it is.

 

b) "The Bishop can't give me permission to give my grandchild a name and a blessing. Even though it will not be recorded, I can give my grandchild a priesthood blessing (of the regular kind) that will have meaning for me, the parents, and the child (even if the child is barely even aware that something is happening)." The attitude is williing to accept the Church's authority to restrict certain ordinances, while still acknowledging the proper ways that priesthood can be used to serve in this situation.

 

Thank You Mr Shorty!! And the answer would be B. This is the kind of situation I'm trying to describe.

 

Some on the internet are calling this policy addition/clarification an outrage and a travesty and pure bigotry, etc,etc, etc and will have their memberships renounced over this. An over reaction?  Yeppers.  My plea to them is to calm down first of all. Same to those here on this forum who are leaning the other direction over my statements about blessing these children. Before reacting, take a little time to make sure you understand what is being said rather than assuming you do. If you don't understand, ask more questions. I'm NOT  rebel  - never have been.

 

So the knee-jerk reaction to the policy I've seen by gays lesbians and their pals is that the Church is denying all blessings to children, keeping them from being saved, and essentially damning them eternally because of the choices (Yay they are finally admitting they've made choices- lifestyle choices which is what we've meant all along) their parents made.   Within the church we're scratching our heads and thinking...how did you come up with that assumption?  It would be nice to see a little level-headedness.  I actually get the impression they revel in this kind of thing. Oh how they love to bash our leaders!  another Big Sigh from me. 

[Guest]

I hope no one minds a re-post of what I wrote elsewhere.

 

I really think that the time is gone, or soon will be, when we can be fence-sitters, or lean on anyone else's knowledge or testimony. 

I can read all of the blog posts and message boards I want, collecting all kinds of suppositions and opinions on the issue. I can talk to friends and even church leaders. But all that matters is what I get from my Heavenly Father. He's the one I need to be talking to. In fact I did so through much of the night last night. I've already gotten some impressions, but I don't even think it would do any good to share them. There are arguments for or against just about anything. I can't take oil from anyone or give them mine; I have to go to the Source. 

The media is certainly not to be trusted, nor really whoever "leaked" this. The "journalism" used to pass this information on is appalling. Their objective is to pull people in, and the name of the game is sensationalism. Anyone who buys into what they are being told by news outlets or opponents to the Church are doing exactly what we are often accused of: blind belief, and being controlled wherein they are being told what to believe and how to feel. 

Again, there is one Source of truth, and I really believe that, as well-meaning as anyone else is, we will need to turn to Him more and more as the world moves farther and farther from His teachings.

[Guest]

I do agree with some blogger somewhere (I've lost track) who expressed concern that people jumped on social media right away and freaked out, instead of taking some time with it to ponder and pray. 

[The Folk Prophet]

I think it would have more meaning than that, wouldn't it? Maybe it depends on the attitude:

 

a) "The Bishop can't give me permission to give my grandchild a name and a blessing, but I'll show him and the Church and do it anyway". The attitude is more about rebellion and showing the Church that you are bigger than it is.

 

b) "The Bishop can't give me permission to give my grandchild a name and a blessing. Even though it will not be recorded, I can give my grandchild a priesthood blessing (of the regular kind) that will have meaning for me, the parents, and the child (even if the child is barely even aware that something is happening)." The attitude is williing to accept the Church's authority to restrict certain ordinances, while still acknowledging the proper ways that priesthood can be used to serve in this situation.

 

No more meaning. Disobedience and flaunting the keys and authority of the priesthood to do something that hasn't been authorized has no validity whatsoever. None.

[Guest MormonGator]

I do agree with some blogger somewhere (I've lost track) who expressed concern that people jumped on social media right away and freaked out, instead of taking some time with it to ponder and pray. 

 I think we all needed that advice. I know I did. Thank you Eowyn. 

[carlimac]

No more meaning. Disobedience and flaunting the keys and authority of the priesthood to do something that hasn't been authorized has no validity whatsoever. None.

 

You think this policy means the child should not be given any priesthood blessings of any kind simply because of it's gay parents?  Attitude A as described by Mr Shorty= bad  Attitude B = good and proper use of priesthood.  

[AnnieCarvalho]

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.

 

Yes, I'm also allowed to attend "cultural events" in my non-LDS family.

 

 

However, I'd say the difference between that and today's change to the Handbook is that it doesn't specifically "call out" Catholics - it does call out same-gender couples.

 

I DO affiliate with and support my son and his partner - not financially, but I love them both, have them to dinner, etc.

They are specifically mentioned.

 

I honestly don't want to argue.. I just want to understand this and what it means in my own family.

[estradling75]

I honestly don't want to argue.. I just want to understand this and what it means in my own family.

 

 

Then talk to your bishop...  People on the internet can talk until we are blue in the face and that means nothing..  Your bishop/stake president are the ones that actually make the call.

[skippy740]

Well, I've finally determined that "Facebook" is the "court of public opinion".

 

I know that if everyone was sitting in a room, that we'd be more cordial and polite about each other's beliefs than what I'm seeing on Facebook lately.

 

So... I've decided to delete my account. 

I'm tired of debate without results. 

I'm tired of judgment being passed without an OUNCE of understanding our doctrines or of the legal consequences of such decisions. 

I'm tired of "pointless" defending of my faith when it doesn't matter.

And I'm tired of having to hear about little details about my faith or my church and somehow, it's up to everyone else to talk about how "wrong" or "evil" it is.

 

So, I'm simply abdicating my position from the debates.  There's nothing in the scriptures that says that you HAVE to debate with people in order to be a good example of the faith.

 

Yes, I can debate and teach the doctrinal points of our doctrines... but I don't have to.  And I choose not to be baited into these things anymore.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Then talk to your bishop...  People on the internet can talk until we are blue in the face and that means nothing..  Your bishop/stake president are the ones that actually make the call.

 

I will ask my Bishop.

Thanks for the suggestion - and it's good to know who makes the call. :)

 

I see by your little bear guy that you're already grouchy and blue in the face.

So you and I probably shouldn't discuss it anymore.

 

 

I am, however, interested in what other people think.

[Backroads]

I do agree with some blogger somewhere (I've lost track) who expressed concern that people jumped on social media right away and freaked out, instead of taking some time with it to ponder and pray.

I regret getting into a Facebook conversation on the topic. I felt I was focused and fair, just wanting to ask questions about different perspectives.

Won't make that mistake again.

Apparently I'm just one of those evil Mormons.

[Anddenex]

Another testament for me that we are guided by Heavenly Father through his servant, prophets and apostles.  When the Lord's servants make decision, since the beginning, there will always be some who kick against the pricks.  The Church's stance hasn't changed, won't change, and will continue to make decisions in light of truth, intelligence.  Upon reading comments these are the thoughts I have:

 

1) Article of Faith #2, is about children not being condemned for parent sins; however, we are full aware that parental decision will and do affect children.  I am not punished for Adam's (Eve's) transgression.  I will be punished for my own.  I am however, accepting the consequence of their decision.  Children are not kept back from the natural consequences of their parents decisions. When father and mother remove themselves from the Church, children will face the consequences of that decision. 

 

2) Divine approval.  Our leaders do not make decisions without much thought, and without much prayer.  Their decisions, especially that enter into the Church Handbook are done as specified by President Harold B. Lee, "You may be sure that your brethren who preside are praying most earnestly, and we do not move until we have the assurance, so far as lies within our power, that what we do has the seal of divine approval."

 

Despite this truth, there will be individuals who think, due to their learning, they are more wise than those the Lord has called to hold keys of authority.  They are more concerned with the Church agreeing with them, then they agreeing with the Lord.  They will be more concerned with the Church appearing in likeness after the manner of men, rather than the glory of God. Or as President Benson said, "The proud...pit their perceptions of truth against God's great knowledge...The proud wish God would agree with them.  They aren't interested in changing their opinions to agree with God's," as directed by his servants, the prophets.

 

3) As the world continues to ripe in iniquity, the Church will lay down, more specifically its boundaries.  They will become more specific and more direct with Church policies and practices to reflect the constant change of thought by the natural human.  One thing for sure, although the manner of flesh, the carnal mind, will always change -- the Church will remain constant.  

 

4) I am confused as to how some think that because they love a son or daughter who is actively gay that they will be punished, or apostate.  If you condone the sin, preach against the Lord's servants (Oath and Covenant of Priesthood), then yes, ridicule of the Lord's servants has always been, and will always be, a sign of apostasy.  I love my brother-in-law who is actively gay, but that doesn't mean I condone his behavior, and I know my Church membership will not be affected because I hang out, love, hug, and care for them.

 

This is another testament, witness, that we are lead by the heavens, and we have leaders who aren't concerned with the world and its opinions.  Thank goodness for inspired leadership, despite nay sayers.

[Backroads]

Where is this idea coming from that disavowing one's parents' beliefs and practices is the same as disavowing one's parents?

So all these ex-Mormon folk can disavow their LDS families' beliefs and still declare how they love and support their families (and I believe the sincerity)... but they're the only ones?

People are being asked to commit to church teachings and put themselves in a situation of independence from apostasy.

Not reject and shun their parents.

[pam]

[Guest]

Annie, at about 9:00 I think he answers your question. The only problem comes when there is advocacy. So I don't think attending a ceremony would be a problem (of course, that's my interpretation). 

[pam]

I regret getting into a Facebook conversation on the topic. I felt I was focused and fair, just wanting to ask questions about different perspectives.

Won't make that mistake again.

Apparently I'm just one of those evil Mormons.

 

I saw the conversation you are talking about on facebook.  You were being fair, but unfortunately all of the rest of those involved in the conversation already had their mind made up how the decision was a horrible one.

[Guest]

Yes, I'm also allowed to attend "cultural events" in my non-LDS family.

However, I'd say the difference between that and today's change to the Handbook is that it doesn't specifically "call out" Catholics - it does call out same-gender couples.

I DO affiliate with and support my son and his partner - not financially, but I love them both, have them to dinner, etc.

They are specifically mentioned.

I honestly don't want to argue.. I just want to understand this and what it means in my own family.

Actually, The Great Apostasy teaching in the missionary discussions specifically call out Catholics as apostate.

[Guest]

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

This happened in my ward. Hetero couple. Couldn't get baptized unless she moves out or gets married. Roommates was not enough. I don't see how it would be different for a homo couple.

[MrShorty]

I just saw this, and have not had a chance to watch it, but here is Elder Christofferson offering some thoughts: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson