Baptism for same sex couples?

[askandanswer]

Can anyone tell me what the church will do (has done?) when approached by a same sex couple who have been legally and lawfully wedded who want to be baptised? Will the church disregard the lawful nature of the marriage and insist that the marriage end and the family breakup as a precondition for baptism?  Or will the church obey, honour and sustain the law (12th Article of Faith) and accept the marriage and allow the baptism to happen?

I suspect that the situation might be somewhat analogous to what happens when people in a polygamous marriage, in countries where such marriages are legal, seek to be baptized. 

[Just_A_Guy]

This has *nothing* to do with honoring and sustaining the law.  Adultery and fornication are legal, too.

[Guest]

They must be divorced legally prior to baptism.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Can anyone tell me what the church will do (has done?) when approached by a same sex couple who have been legally and lawfully wedded who want to be baptised? Will the church disregard the lawful nature of the marriage and insist that the marriage end and the family breakup as a precondition for baptism?  Or will the church obey, honour and sustain the law (12th Article of Faith) and accept the marriage and allow the baptism to happen?

The 12th Article of Faith doesn't really come into play here, as no one is currently breaking the law or being encouraged to do so in the future.  All is well with the kingdom of man.

Now, if a person wishes to enter into the kingdom of God via baptism, part of that is promising to obey the Law of Chasity.  God will not be mocked, so don't get baptized when you're actively in a LoC shattering situation.  If someone is fornicating with a opposite sex person, they should quit fornicating (either by getting married or ceasing sexual activities).  If someone is having an affair with someone else, they must terminate the relationship.  If someone is involved in a SSR, they must terminate the relationship.  God will not be mocked.

In the meantime, all persons are welcomed to attend church and learn and grow as much as they want, before and after baptism.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Can anyone tell me what the church will do (has done?) when approached by a same sex couple who have been legally and lawfully wedded who want to be baptised? Will the church disregard the lawful nature of the marriage and insist that the marriage end and the family breakup as a precondition for baptism?  Or will the church obey, honour and sustain the law (12th Article of Faith) and accept the marriage and allow the baptism to happen?

A&A, this is a ridiculously loaded question. I don't know if you intended it as such, but it is.

People openly engaged in sinful behavior (including a homosexual "marriage") are not baptized. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet, and calling a skunk "flower" doesn't make it smell like a rose. Homosexual "marriage" is an oxymoron, despite legal recognition of this fiction. Homosexual relations don't suddenly become acceptable and holy just because the state grants a license for them.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

A&A, this is a ridiculously loaded question.

Understatement of the year pal. 

[JoCa]

I agree a loaded question.  Unfortunately, unless and until the Church comes down hard on either side of this issue people will waffle on it.

"If the Church is for loving everyone and that everyone should be accepted and they are for families . . .how evvvvvillllll of them to break up such a loving family"

If/when the Church is ready to take a stand like it did prior to the current waffling politically correct culture (prior to 2005ish) and it is willing to take the full brunt of the hits in public relations, and tell everyone in no uncertain terms with the Power of God that this stuff is not of God, like the bold prophets of old, then these asinine scenarios will cease.  Until then, just be prepared for more and more political/social pressure for the Church to cave on homosexual relations.

Edited August 30, 2017 by JoCa

[NeuroTypical]

Here you go, askedandanswer.  I suggest watching this would be a good 17 minute investment in everyone's time.

 

[Grunt]

I'm not sure what the issue is, and as one of the unwashed is there something more complicated that I'm missing?   It seems blatantly obvious to me as a heathen.  

Committing sin and unrepentant and/or willfully disobeying God equals no baptism.  

Follwing the will of God and obeying the church rules equals baptism should you choose it. 

Anyone can attend and even participate to a decent degree, but baptism requires a covenant with God.  

What am I missing?

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

What am I missing?

Nothing . .. except that there are forces arrayed to change the definition of sin. No need to stop sinning if the act is no longer a sin.

Last days, Grunt, last days.  Good will be called evil and evil will be called good.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Can anyone tell me what the church will do (has done?) when approached by a same sex couple who have been legally and lawfully wedded who want to be baptised? Will the church disregard the lawful nature of the marriage and insist that the marriage end and the family breakup as a precondition for baptism?  Or will the church obey, honour and sustain the law (12th Article of Faith) and accept the marriage and allow the baptism to happen?

I suspect that the situation might be somewhat analogous to what happens when people in a polygamous marriage, in countries where such marriages are legal, seek to be baptized. 

The couple is not eligible for baptism, but the Church will not insist on anything. She will invite them to repent and keep the commandments, and if they opt not to, to enjoy as much of their association with the Church and her members as they can.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, JoCa said:

Unfortunately, unless and until the Church comes down hard on either side of this issue people will waffle on it.

"If the Church is for loving everyone and that everyone should be accepted and they are for families . . .how evvvvvillllll of them to break up such a loving family"

If/when the Church is ready to take a stand like it did prior to the current waffling politically correct culture (prior to 2005ish) and it is willing to take the full brunt of the hits in public relations, and tell everyone in no uncertain terms with the Power of God that this stuff is not of God, like the bold prophets of old, then these asinine scenarios will cease.  Until then, just be prepared for more and more political/social pressure for the Church to cave on homosexual relations.

What on earth are you talking about?  Waffling?  When has the Church waffled on the gay marriage issue?  We fought with all peaceful and legislative means available to prevent it from being an accepted practice both legally and culturally.  Where was the waffling?

Only AFTER gay marriage became law in many states (and then upheld in the SCOTUS) that the Church said,"Ok, since TPTB have made a declaration, we'll do our best at damage control."

Yes, things will get worse before it gets better.  When working with earthly governments, we've always tried to work within the system instead of against it.  Only when we were left with no other recourse did we take up arms in revolt against them.  

At present we are not at that stage.  Do you really think we are?  Do you believe that we have had so many of our rights infringed that you're ready to take up arms against this sea of troubles?  Are you willing to stake you life, your fortune, and your sacred honor on it?  If so, why have you not done so?  If not, then sit back and wait for the Lord to tell us it is time.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

What on earth are you talking about?  Waffling?  When has the Church waffled on the gay marriage issue?  We fought with all peaceful and legislative means available to prevent it from being an accepted practice both legally and culturally.  Where was the waffling?

Only AFTER gay marriage became law in many states (and then upheld in the SCOTUS) that the Church said,"Ok, since TPTB have made a declaration, we'll do our best at damage control."

Yes, things will get worse before it gets better.  When working with earthly governments, we've always tried to work within the system instead of against it.  Only when we were left with no other recourse did we take up arms in revolt against them.  

At present we are not at that stage.  Do you really think we are?  Do you believe that we have had so many of our rights infringed that you're ready to take up arms against this sea of troubles?  Are you willing to stake you life, your fortune, and your sacred honor on it?  If so, why have you not done so?  If not, then sit back and wait for the Lord to tell us it is time.

This is truth post level - MOAB.  Wish I could like it 100 times.

[pam]

16 hours ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure what the issue is, and as one of the unwashed is there something more complicated that I'm missing?   It seems blatantly obvious to me as a heathen.  

Committing sin and unrepentant and/or willfully disobeying God equals no baptism.  

Follwing the will of God and obeying the church rules equals baptism should you choose it. 

Anyone can attend and even participate to a decent degree, but baptism requires a covenant with God.  

What am I missing?

You aren't missing a thing.  You nailed it.

[Jojo Bags]

18 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Can anyone tell me what the church will do (has done?) when approached by a same sex couple who have been legally and lawfully wedded who want to be baptised? Will the church disregard the lawful nature of the marriage and insist that the marriage end and the family breakup as a precondition for baptism?  Or will the church obey, honour and sustain the law (12th Article of Faith) and accept the marriage and allow the baptism to happen?

I suspect that the situation might be somewhat analogous to what happens when people in a polygamous marriage, in countries where such marriages are legal, seek to be baptized. 

The Church already came out about this.  If you are LDS and get "married" in a same sex relationship, you are to excommunicated.  So, no, the Church will tell them to divorce and then renounce the practice of same sex marriage before thinking about letting them be baptised.

[JoCa]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What on earth are you talking about?  Waffling?  When has the Church waffled on the gay marriage issue?  We fought with all peaceful and legislative means available to prevent it from being an accepted practice both legally and culturally.  Where was the waffling?

Only AFTER gay marriage became law in many states (and then upheld in the SCOTUS) that the Church said,"Ok, since TPTB have made a declaration, we'll do our best at damage control."

Yes, things will get worse before it gets better.  When working with earthly governments, we've always tried to work within the system instead of against it.  Only when we were left with no other recourse did we take up arms in revolt against them.  

At present we are not at that stage.  Do you really think we are?  Do you believe that we have had so many of our rights infringed that you're ready to take up arms against this sea of troubles?  Are you willing to stake you life, your fortune, and your sacred honor on it?  If so, why have you not done so?  If not, then sit back and wait for the Lord to tell us it is time.

My apologies; I did not say homosexual marriage (you inferred that is what I meant, but that is not what I meant), I should have been more explicit in my words.

Waffling on the issues of homosexuality. If you do not see the Church waffling on homosexuality then you ain't looking close enough.  Read GC talks about this issues 20 years ago, read books written 20 years ago (go back even 10 years ago).  The Church's stance then was different than it is today.  Look at mormonandgays vs. what was written just a few years ago in my lifetime, look at the videos the Church produces today.  Yes the Church has softened it's stance on homosexuality. Unless and until it hardens it's stance back up, these questions will arise.

It's a very, very logical thing.  I don't agree with those who advocate for homosexual marriage in the Church-but their arguments have some reasoning behind it.

It goes like this: Since simply having SSA is not a sin and it is something you are born with, why would God ever deny the ultimate blessings in this life to someone who is supposedly otherwise a healthy, happy, righteous individual.  How could a loving God deny those blessings to a child and therefore the Church must be in error and it's current "policy" is wrong and will one day go away like blacks not having the Priesthood.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, but unless one fervently believes that homosexual acts are sinful then it does hold some logic.  Now couple this with the endorsement of a homosexual concert, add in openly celibate homosexual members serving in callings, add in YW making pride bracelets (as was described in another thread), add all of those things together, add in temple recommend holders going to, participating in and celebrating homosexual weddings, etc, etc, etc. and is it any wonder that people ask questions like, "why can't married homosexuals get baptized".

Currently, the policy is SSA isn't a sin but "acting on it" is . . .well what exactly does "acting on it" mean?  The eye is in the beholder. Does it mean I can be a faithful member as long as I don't commit sodomy? Does it mean I can openly advocate that I'm homosexual? Does it include holding hands, what about dwelling on it?

My opinion is acting on it is anything that gives it expression-thinking sexual thoughts about another member of the same sex is acting on it.  This used to be common place knowledge and when counseling or disciplining those involved in homosexuality these things were brought up.  Now, it's immutable, it's fixed, your homosexual and that's it and how dare!!! anyone say to you this is something to be overcome.

But today, the Church leaves "acting on it" up to the individual.  I can be homosexual, indulge sexual feelings to a member of the same sex and I'm still good.

I'll get blasted for this as hate . . . whatever.

I'll give a quick example, If I'm an alcoholic, I don't go to Church tell everyone hey guys "I'm an alcoholic!!!" but I can still hold callings b/c I don't drink. I might say (in a private setting or at special moments) "at times in past I've had problems with alcohol, but through Christ, I've been able to overcome them".

But today in the Church openly homosexual members say "I'm homosexual!!!" but I can still hold callings b/c I don't break the LoC.

It's a difference in attitude and the attitude of the Church and members of the Church is shifting to become more accepting of the sin-that is a fact.

It will continue sliding until at some point the hammer is dropped and when that happens I think you will see plenty of people in the Church leave.

Edited August 30, 2017 by JoCa

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Waffling on the issues of homosexuality. If you do not see the Church waffling on homosexuality then you ain't looking close enough.  Read GC talks about this issues 20 years ago, read books written 20 years ago (go back even 10 years ago).  The Church's stance then was different than it is today.  Look at mormonandgays vs. what was written just a few years ago in my lifetime, look at the videos the Church produces today.  Yes the Church has softened it's stance on homosexuality. Unless and until it hardens it's stance back up, these questions will arise.

Ok, enlighten me.  What are some quotes from 20 years ago vs. today?  I've read a bunch as well as arguments similar to yours here.  And as I read it, I'm certainly not getting the same thing out of it that they get.  I do hear a softening in "tone" not the overall message.  The principles have been the same.  But there was a time to cry out repentance from the roof tops.  Today is a time for gentle persuasion.

No change in principle.  Just a change in method.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ok, enlighten me.  What are some quotes from 20 years ago vs. today?  I've read a bunch as well as arguments similar to yours here.  And as I read it, I'm certainly not getting the same thing out of it that they get.  I do hear a softening in "tone" not the overall message.  The principles have been the same.  But there was a time to cry out repentance from the roof tops.  Today is a time for gentle persuasion.

No change in principle.  Just a change in method.

I agree. But there is, in my opinion, a great confusion between what is "gentle persuasion" and what is denying truth so no one gets their feelings hurt. That, I think, is where the consternation comes into play.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree. But there is, in my opinion, a great confusion between what is "gentle persuasion" and what is denying truth so no one gets their feelings hurt. That, I think, is where the consternation comes into play.

I agree with this. But openly criticizing the Church's leadership is never the appropriate way to address such concerns. Ours is not to steady the ark. And honestly, if it bothers us that much, maybe we need to do some true introspection and see if there really is some unChristlike feelings toward, not just homosexuality, but homosexuals.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

 And honestly, if it bothers us that much, maybe we need to do some true introspection and see if there really is some unChristlike feelings toward, not just homosexuality, but homosexuals.

It's fairly obvious/widely accepted that those with the strongest revulsion towards homosexuality are often times in the closet and can't deal with their own feelings. 

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's fairly obvious/widely accepted that those with the strongest revulsion towards homosexuality are often times in the closet and can't deal with their own feelings. 

Obvious to who?

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's fairly obvious/widely accepted that those with the strongest revulsion towards homosexuality are often times in the closet and can't deal with their own feelings. 

Hmmm. I frankly doubt this. It may be widely accepted in certain quarters, but I suspect it's mostly false.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree with this. But openly criticizing the Church's leadership is never the appropriate way to address such concerns. Ours is not to steady the ark. And honestly, if it bothers us that much, maybe we need to do some true introspection and see if there really is some unChristlike feelings toward, not just homosexuality, but homosexuals.

I'm not sure this is entirely fair (though there is, certainly, nothing problematic with the idea of introspection). This is a problem of comprehension, not of complaint.

Edited August 30, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Grunt said:

Obvious to who?

Mental health practitioners/common sense.

Just now, Vort said:

Hmmm. I frankly doubt this. It may be widely accepted in certain quarters, but I suspect it's mostly false.

You can think whatever you'd like of course. 

When I scream "I hate gays! I hate gays!" it's because I am trying to convince myself, not everyone us. It's in the same way of thinking as the dude at the bar who talks nonstop about how tough he is and how many bar fights he's won. And along with the leftist who screams in your face about how tolerant they are. 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

You can think whatever you'd like of course. 

When I scream "I hate gays! I hate gays!" it's because I am trying to convince myself, not everyone us. It's in the same way of thinking as the dude at the bar who talks nonstop about how tough he is and how many bar fights he's won. And along with the leftist who screams in your face about how tolerant they are. 

How about the guy who pleads with his children not to use drugs? Is he necessarily, or even often, someone who secretly really wants to use drugs? How about the woman who finds nudism repulsive? Does she secretly want to take it all off in public?

In general, I prefer to take people's expressions of belief at face value unless there is good reason not to do so. I understand the revulsion at the very idea of homosexual relations, so I see no reason to assume that all, or most, or even a large minority of those who voice such revulsion are secretly harboring illicit desires, any more than people who scream about how awful Mormonism is secretly just want to be baptized.