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


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

I fully support the concept of religious freedom.  As such I fully support the brethren's right to make this policy change.  I also believe in personal agency and accountability.  After a lot of thought and prayer, I cannot in good conscience personally lend my support to this policy.  I am comfortable standing in front of the judgment bar and accounting for my own thoughts and actions.  I also respect those whose thoughts are different.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to me how often when individuals deal with life choices between that which is good and that which is evil – It seems that those with poor choices want to blame those making right choices and choosing the good as being mean, self righteous and controlling. We see as a major theme in the Book of Mormon between Nephi and his older brothers Laman and Lemual. The covenants of the LDS church are for the singular reason of preparing families for eternal life with G-d in the “Kingdom” of heaven (Celestial Kingdom). There will be no same sex marriages or families or even children bound in the Celestial kingdom.

The truth may sound harsh, mean and controlling. Shakespeare wrote, “Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems, only that thinking makes it so.” If truth is harsh, mean or controlling to you – it is likely (very much likely) that you will find lies to be the more enjoyable but it is only because you are thinking it to be so.

The reality is – anyone is welcome to come and participate in our worship services. However, to become a member one must be willing to take upon them the name of Christ and denounce the world. Until a child is able to denounce same sex marriages – they are not ready for baptism. The sad truth is that being bound by law to apostasy until the child is 18 – is not a problem of the Church or its covenants – It is a problem of the world and apostasy in the land in changing the definition of marriage contrary to the covenants of G-d and his church. Sad as it may seem – the mistake is not in the covenant of baptism and any harm done to children that cannot be baptized is not because of the LDS church but those that have changed the laws of the land.

One last very important point – any injustice that befalls anyone in this life is overcome through the atonement of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

I think this would hypothetically be a good idea, too. Except when I tried to do this I was accused of being patronizing and disrespectful. These were much younger family members ( Millenials) and it was a slap in the face to me.  I'mma staying outta their way now. They obviously don't want my help. They don't want to "get through it"!  They just want to continue complaining and gasping in righteous (or un) indignation at how the church is targeting gays only to cover their fanny. They are getting such a rise out of this whole thing.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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

 

I want to ask this respectfully. I've heard this over and over in the last couple of days. "The church takes one step forward and 5 back."   So I'm wondering what you see to be unloving and intolerant in these policies? Especially, after watching Elder Christofferson's interview I don't see them as either.   

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those members who get their noses out of joint over this are simply deceived by the world.  This is nothing more than the ongoing process of separating the wheat from the tares.

I've heard this. If this is true we might want to be very, very, scared. I believe that we as Americans have become used to be ruled over that past 7 years. I believe that many of our freedoms have been taken away from us in the name of government. The gay and lesbian people are not our greatest threat. You might have heard the ISIS continue to cross our boarders. Yes, there will be wars, but as a church, this very thing has the great possibility of dividing us, not making us stronger.

This new policy, could pose a financial disaster for the church if a great exodus takes place. A thought just occurred to me, maybe that is when the law of consecration will go into full effect.

To those who believe it's the world vs the church, I respectfully disagree. The greatest thing I have learned about the teachings of the Lord is LOVE.

I haven't decided where I will fall on that line yet, but flippant statements don't help. I have to wonder why this didn't come up in conference. I know one thing for sure. Being a member of this church isn't easy, it's not meant to be. It's a choice and one that I will not follow blindly.

post-188-0-97133400-1447021416_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to ask this respectfully. I've heard this over and over in the last couple of days. "The church takes one step forward and 5 back."   So I'm wondering what you see to be unloving and intolerant in these policies? Especially, after watching Elder Christofferson's interview I don't see them as either.

Thank you for respectfully asking me this question.

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 was agreeable and together with his ex wife they decided to raise their children in the church. The father gets his children on weekends and throughout much of the summer. The father and his partner take the children to church every weekend. His children are being raised by two families. There is peace and love. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for respectfully asking me this question.

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 was agreeable and together with his ex wife they decided to raise their children in the church. The father gets his children on weekends and throughout much of the summer. The father and his partner take the children to church every weekend. His children are being raised by two families. There is peace and love. 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.

I've read a few stories like that, too. But from what I can gather 1) these policies are guidelines for bishops. There will most likely be exceptions depending on a host of factors such as how much time the children spend with their gay parents and if they have a strong enough support system of active, believing LDS relatives - ( a hetero mother or father) who can guide them through this. I have a friend with a gay ex who is married. She says she has primary custody and that her youngest child will be baptized even though the child spends every other weekend with her gay father.   And 2)  Shoot, I forgot what I was going to say. Too many distractions. If I remember I'll edit it in.  :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are standard policies for bishops and other ecclesiastical leaders. He is a judge in Israel and will take each families' scenario subjectively and with every detail taken into account. As I said to another friend who was asking a similar question, these will not be an easy "yes or no" answer. Much thought, prayer, and guidance will be put into scenarios such as the one being questioned by StrawberryFields and is out of our hands to be worried about. It is between that family, their bishop or other ecclesiastical leader, and The Lord. The best thing we can do is be loving, supportive, and helpful in any way that we can to them through that time. The Lord is especially aware of their circumstances and will not leave them in their time of need. 

Edited by BeccaKirstyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it interesting to note this verse in our Doctrine and Covenants 1: 16, "They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall."

 

Elder M. Russell Ballard confirmed in our past regional stake conference that the brethren, all 15 of them, are united with regards to what policies are given in the Handbook of Instruction.

 

Verse 14 of Doctrine and Covenants section 1 further declares, "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."  We are also given truth that whether by God's voice, or by the voice of his servants it is the same.

 

The united efforts of the prophet and apostles are the Lord's words; this is the Lord's voice to his people.  When serving a mission, and after, I have heard many times, "I can not in good conscience accept the Word of Wisdom for it is man's doctrine."  In other words, they are unwilling to accept the Lord's counsel and commandments as given by his servants.  The irony is when members say the same thing when the prophets and apostles declare something new, or provide additional guidance.  We aren't rejecting the prophets and apostles, we are rejecting the Lord's words.  This is the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood.  We accept the Lord's servants, which is as sign we accept the Lord, and by accepting the Lord we give a sign we accept the Father, who then in turn gives all the hath.

 

Laman and Lemuel couldn't accept their father was inspired, when their will was pitted against Lehi's.  The people in Jerusalem were good people (our father isn't loving), he is a simpleton a visionary man who thinks he is following God.  What is heart breaking is members of the Church who reject our Lord's will as given by his servants the prophets.

 

However, the only scenario that I have heard that offers compassion (Christ like compassion) is the active father or mother whose spouse decides to become openly gay.  That father, that mother have my compassion, and I assume as this continues other policies in light of this will be given, in the Lord's due time.  At this moment, this is the Lord's will. I have no problem accepting in good conscience, and love, and charity that the Lord speaks through his prophets and I know they are inspired and lead by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happened to speak with my stake president about this policy and he expressed a great amount of grace on how and why the policy was implemented. The news headlines did no justice to what he communicated, nor the guidance he said he had been given.

If you are struggling with this, I plead with you to pray with an open mind, and if needed ask those you trust within the church for better understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Lehi's vision of the tree of life he saw many who had grasped the iron rod and partaken of the fruit...  Then they look around and see the great and spacious building.  They see the people of that building laughing, at them mocking them, scorning them, and they feel ashamed that they grasped the rod and partook of the fruit... and they fall away and are lost.

 

Predictions of a mass exodus from the church over this action might turn out to be true or they might not be.  But wither people leave or not has no standing on if the Church is being lead by God or not.  At some point the church will be sifted.  The wheat and the tares will be separated that could very well take the shape of a mass exodus..  It is my opinion that what we end up being (wheat or tare) is directly related to how firm we are in holding on to the rod (aka the word of God)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for respectfully asking me this question.

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 was agreeable and together with his ex wife they decided to raise their children in the church. The father gets his children on weekends and throughout much of the summer. The father and his partner take the children to church every weekend. His children are being raised by two families. There is peace and love. 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.

 

With all due respect, StrawberryFields--isn't this precisely the kind of selective outrage I was describing? 

 

This man--this father--had a good (maybe not perfect, but good) relationship with his children's mother, who he did indeed "love" at one point.  But he dissolved his family for the most execrable of reasons--to go (literally) whoring off after a relationship that he thought would be more sexually satisfying to him.  There are reams of academic research papers about how, even under the best of circumstances, divorce is intensely traumatic for children; and that where adultery/abuse/addiction/inordinately high conflict are not issues, it's better for the children if the parents stay together.  On that point, the science (to coin a phrase) is settled.

 

This "father" you learned about has damaged his children in a way that will come back to haunt them for their entire lives, and he gets a pass.  But, the church steps in and says "you know what?  We're not going to put that guy's kid in a covenant relationship that will necessarily damage the parent-child relationship further", and it's the church--not this lecherous lout or his home-wrecking boytoy--that we condemn for not knowing what love is, for destroying harmony, and for being dismissive of a child's best interests. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've heard this. If this is true we might want to be very, very, scared. I believe that we as Americans have become used to be ruled over that past 7 years. I believe that many of our freedoms have been taken away from us in the name of government. The gay and lesbian people are not our greatest threat.

The greatest threat to liberty, peace and prosperity is the morality of the people. Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1800s wrote something along the lines of "America is great because America is good and when she ceases to be good she will cease to be great".

 

The whole entire underlying fabric of society is being ripped to shreds before our very eyes. The underlying fabric, where-in culture is propagated down through generations, where individuals learn right from wrong, good vs. bad, how to treat each other, what to do, when to do it is in the family.

 

"Honor thy father and they mother, that thy days may be long in the land the Lord God has given thee" It's not just talking about being obedient as a child-it is talking about honoring and reproducing the same (or similar) attitudes and culture.  Honor how they lived, replicate it for the next generation and your days-the days of your culture, your attitudes will be long. Don't honor their lifestyle and it will be gone.

 

You mentioned a father who had children and then found a male soul mate. This isn't directed at you, but which is it? Is it something you are "born with"-and if that is the case why would he have even married and had kids? Or is it a lifestyle choice? This man's family was destroyed by a conscience decision to sin-drape it in whatever you want to call it (finding himself, being happy, etc.). Why would a father do that? He would do that because the actual social moors that in general keep behavior like that in check are completely gone. 65 years ago, no one would accept it-he would be an outcast and shamed for disregarding his solemn responsibility as a father to provide for his family.  65 years ago-no one gave a rip about your "feelings".  He feels alone, so what-he has a responsibility to provide for a family and no amount of "feelings" can take away those obligations. The height of being a man was to be in control of your feelings-not to let them rule you.

 

Today, his actions are celebrated, he has "found himself", he is "being true to himself", to heck with his responsibilities-it doesn't matter, it is all about him, him, him and more about him.

 

America used to be the one country that had absolute rock-solid morals-today it is a cesspool. Other cultures have better morals than we do.  Shoot take music, I love listening to some good rock music-I find better rock music out of Europe without all the F-bombs, sexual references, etc. Lyrics that actually tell a story and are poetic in English no less. I can't find anything like that in the States.

 

Our freedoms that were won came about because or hard morals, because individuals took responsibility for their actions. They owned up to their choices.

 

And morals start at the root-the family, it underpins everything.  Acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as just a different way to live is a grave, grave danger. Not for the actual numbers of people who embrace it, but for what acceptance of it as normal means.  Because what it means, is that by and large this country no longer has any moral fiber or backbone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband was in a meeting with our stake president this morning and he said he isn't aware of even one case in this stake where he would need to use these policies. Seems strange that there isn't even one gay marriage situation but it could be that if there are, they have already taken their names off the records. No need for excommunication.   So out here in burbs of DC, it looks like these situations are extremely rare.  Perhaps there is a lot more of it in the west.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  So out here in burbs of DC, it looks like these situations are extremely rare.  Perhaps there is a lot more of it in the west.

I doubt it; carlimac-it is called social conditioning. The actual instances I mean real instances of situations are very rare. Just like actual homosexuality is fairly rare (1-2% of the population).  I'm telling you, people don't realize it and have fallen into the trap-but it is an agenda by some very skillful people-read After The Ball.

 

You see, if you can make claims that tuck at the heartstrings-no matter how ridiculous it ends up being. Get enough people (and it doesn't take many in today's society of knee-jerk social media mob-mentality), to make up a few scenarios-spread it like wildfire, people get indignant about it and then amplify their voices using social media. One can even astroturf it-spread fake twitter accounts-bots, have paid people write up stories (not saying it is done in this particular case) then one or two voices become 10-15 or 20.  Then even though people start out thinking-hey this type of behavior is morally wrong, well I know Billy and he comes out in support of it. People know that well if I speak up I might be labeled a bigot, or racist or whatever favorite "uncompassionate" name they want to call you and I believe I'm a good person, I'm not hateful. I don't like this and it's morally wrong, but I'm just not going to say anything. And then when the voices get loud enough, people think, well maybe I really am wrong, maybe I am being bigoted, hateful, etc. by having this viewpoint-I don't want to be hateful so since everyone else thinks its hateful it must be.

 

Social conditioning to the destruction of society. 

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that yjacket speaks for himself in saying that he refuses to associate at all with gay people. For me, like with any group, it depends on the person. 

Yes Eowyn, you are correct. I speak only for myself. I just simply choose not to associate. Let me clarify with actively associate. Simply because someone is homosexual doesn't mean I won't say say hi, make small talk, smile be friendly etc. If it's a business function, or social gathering, sure I'll associate. I'm not going to be a jerk.

 

But from a practical standpoint-why would I actively associate with someone who's lifestyle is so drastically different than mine.  I have kids-raising a family, wife, etc. People become friends and associate with other people when they share common interest. That lifestyle is so different, what common interest do we have? Family-nope, church-probably not, kids-nope, maybe politics (but I doubt it). It would consist of purely superficial-sports, weather . ..I don't think I could come to a common ground on anything. It would be a pointless active association. It's not done out of hate or malice-it's just simply out of practicality.

 

At my stage of life I wouldn't actively associate with college students, why very similar reasons.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it; carlimac-it is called social conditioning. The actual instances I mean real instances of situations are very rare. Just like actual homosexuality is fairly rare (1-2% of the population).  I'm telling you, people don't realize it and have fallen into the trap-but it is an agenda by some very skillful people-read After The Ball.

 

 

 

I've read about that book and a few excerpts.  It's interesting to hear gays say there is no agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people who are screaming about this issue have no association with the Church whatsoever. Those people need to sit down and mind their own business, in my opinion. They've never been members, have never had a desire to be members, and so this has no affect on them at all. They need to look for another church if they are seeking.

 

But there are some I know of who will be affected by this because they have been active members. I honestly haven't seen much posted by those people. I imagine they're prayerfully considering what this means to them, rather than holding picket signs.

 

Many of those people, I believe, don't have an 'agenda' except perhaps they're afraid for their children and feeling pressed to find answers.

 

One of my questions, for instance, about a couple I know of who have adopted children, and who have been active in the Church, would be what it would mean if the only parents the children have ever known were forced to "divorce" or split up in order to stay active. Seems to me a loving gay family might be better than no family at all. But maybe that's not true. These are the things that bother me about the decision.

 

I'm not saying the Church is wrong.

I support the decision so please don't assume I do not.

I am not sure I LIKE the decision, but I support it. 

I just am wondering what those who ARE affected by this are thinking . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people who are screaming about this issue have no association with the Church whatsoever. Those people need to sit down and mind their own business, in my opinion. They've never been members, have never had a desire to be members, and so this has no affect on them at all. They need to look for another church if they are seeking. 

Amen. +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen. +1

 

Not that my opinion matters so much, but I am inwardly cheering this decision on the part of the LDS church. It's about time someone(in this case, an influential institution that does much good in its own way) publicly stood up to a vast immoral but condemnatory trend. I was going to use another more incisive phrase, but... Anyway. There it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my questions, for instance, about a couple I know of who have adopted children, and who have been active in the Church, would be what it would mean if the only parents the children have ever known were forced to "divorce" or split up in order to stay active. Seems to me a loving gay family might be better than no family at all. But maybe that's not true. These are the things that bother me about the decision.

 

Sure...sociologically it might be a better idea to be in a "loving" "family". Spiritually, being raised in a world of blatant corruption and sin though? Nothing is worse than the destruction of souls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share