Children with gay parents

[Fether]

In 2015 the church started the policy to not baptize children of same sex couples.

I have heard a few times in context of this policy (particularly from those that are angry about it) that when children of same sex parents are baptized that they NEED to publicly denounce their parents homosexual relatinship. Is this true? I can’t find where it says that.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

In 2015 the church started the policy to not baptize children of same sex couples.

I have heard a few times in context of this policy (particularly from those that are angry about it) that when children of same sex parents are baptized that they NEED to publicly denounce their parents homosexual relatinship. Is this true? I can’t find where it says that.

Getting baptized is a public denunciation of sin which includes gay marriage.  So don't know how much more public you can get than that. 

[Fether]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Getting baptized is a public denunciation of sin which includes gay marriage.  So don't know how much more public you can get than that. 

And that is what I thought too. But the people I see getting frustrated about it make it sound like there is some sort of announcement stop a soap box in town square to the world that “my parents are sinning!”

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

And that is what I thought too. But the people I see getting frustrated about it make it sound like there is some sort of announcement stop a soap box in town square to the world that “my parents are sinning!”

Delusional, all of them.

Or maybe you misunderstood them.

Easy to just let them be and move on.

Edited October 22, 2018 by anatess2

[zil]

From the newsroom:

Quote

Michael Otterson: There is also provisional requirement for a person who has reached the age of maturity who maybe wants to serve a mission in the Church, but who has come from a same-sex marriage relationship, family. There is a requirement for them to disavow the idea of same-sex marriage. Not disavow their parents, but same-sex marriage. What was the thinking behind that? 

Elder Christofferson: Well again, this is a parallel with polygamy. Anyone coming out of a polygamous setting who wants to serve a mission, it has to be clear that they understand that is wrong and is sin and cannot be followed. They disavow the practice of plural marriage. And that would be the same case here. They would disavow, or assent I guess would be a better way to say it, to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regards to same-sex marriage. So they would be saying, as you said, not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice.

[NeuroTypical]

It's sort of important when we send missionaries out, to know what they'll be teaching people.

- "I have great same-sex parents and there's nothing wrong with that!  Can I share more with you?"
- "I love my parents to death, and I owe them a lot.  But the restored Church of Jesus Christ believes that God has weighed in consistently on what marriage is supposed to look like, and it's between one man and one woman."

No shunning or denouncing necessary.  But since they're the church's missionaries, they need to be doing the second one and not the first.  If they want to do the first, they need to go be someone else's missionaries.

Edited October 22, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Jane_Doe]

52 minutes ago, Fether said:

In 2015 the church started the policy to not baptize children of same sex couples.

I have heard a few times in context of this policy (particularly from those that are angry about it) that when children of same sex parents are baptized that they NEED to publicly denounce their parents homosexual relatinship. Is this true? I can’t find where it says that.

No giant statement or soapbox needed.  No shunning or disavowing people either.  Just acknowledgment that the Lord's eternal plan of marriage was/is between a man and a woman, and other arrangements are sinful.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

when children of same sex parents are baptized that they NEED to publicly denounce their parents disavow homosexual relatinships

Fixed it.

Edited October 22, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest MormonGator]

I wonder how many of these children are going to join the church when they turn 18. 

[Anddenex]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I wonder how many of these children are going to join the church when they turn 18. 

I would say probably close to or similar to those who were raised in a polygamous home. In these cases a scripture always comes to my mind referencing how the "elect" will always hear God's voice and hearken.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I would say probably close to or similar to those who were raised in a polygamous home. In these cases a scripture always comes to my mind referencing how the "elect" will always hear God's voice and hearken.

 

That's a very good comparison. 

I have no idea-I couldn't even give an estimate. 

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

That's a very good comparison. 

I have no idea-I couldn't even give an estimate. 

Me neither, but I would say it would be a small percentage within the already small percentage.

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm very glad the church doesn't ask children of homosexual couples to cut off all contact with their parents or anything like that. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

Me neither, but I would say it would be a small percentage within the already small percentage.

Agree. 

[Guest MormonGator]

I think the overwhelming majority of these children will not be interested in joining a church that teaches that their parents lifestyle is sinful. I'm guessing over 90% won't care. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by MormonGator

[NeuroTypical]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm very glad the church doesn't ask children of homosexual couples to cut off all contact with their parents or anything like that. 

When you look at things as "what helps keep families together most", you can see the church's decision to not baptize kids with same-sex parents in a pretty charitable light.  

In other words: "Hey, I know!  Let's go find all the same-sex families out there, and teach their children that their parents are doing it wrong!"  See, we're doing the opposite of that.

[The Folk Prophet]

43 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

When you look at things as "what helps keep families together most", you can see the church's decision to not baptize kids with same-sex parents in a pretty charitable light. 

Why does it seem to me that the church's objective was not to keep homosexual families together.

[Traveler]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why does it seem to me that the church's objective was not to keep homosexual families together.

Perhaps there is confusion over what constitutes an "eternal" family and what it means that G-d ordains marriage.  Perhaps some do not understand that being an agent to one's self is an oxymoron - which in reality is a misunderstanding of agency.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why does it seem to me that the church's objective was not to keep homosexual families together.

Good point. In an eternal sense, it is impossible for the church to keep something together that was never really together as a "family in the first place. 

Said another way, there is no such thing as "homosexual families," there are only imitations of families by same-sex couples.

This is a corollary to the biological reality that there is no such thing as "homosexual sex." There is only perverse imitation of sex by same-sex couples.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[NeuroTypical]

38 minutes ago, wenglund said:

In an eternal sense, it is impossible for the church to keep something together that was never really together as a "family in the first place. 

Said another way, there is no such thing as "homosexual families," there are only imitations of families by same-sex couples.

Heh.  I really don't wonder the church felt it necessary to make it explicitly clear that we should just keep the heck away from children of same-sex households with such talk.  "Your family isn't a real family"?  Serioiusly?  

If you ever find yourself talking to one of these folks, instead of about them, may I suggest the approach Elder Holland uses:  Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting February 2008 - General Patterns and Specific Lives

Quote

Furthermore, we know that others in our audience and in the Church are not now married, nor do some have an intact family fitting the ideal we regularly refer to in the Church. Please be assured we are fully aware of the many different circumstances that exist among our members. We love every one of you. We also realize that as more and more families are in disarray and as many cultural forces devalue marriage, children, and traditional family life, the General Authorities and general officers of the Church feel increased urgency to speak of ideals and gospel-centered principles. Otherwise, the moral drift which the world inevitably experiences could take us to a point where earnest people in and out of the Church are truly at sea when it comes to divine expectations in marriage and eternal family standards.
...
Now, I hope this helps you understand why we talk about the pattern, the ideal, of marriage and family when we know full well that not everyone now lives in that ideal circumstance. It is precisely because many don’t have, or perhaps have never even seen, that ideal and because some cultural forces steadily move us away from that ideal, that we speak about what our Father in Heaven wishes for us in His eternal plan for His children. Individual adaptations have to be made as marital status and family circumstances differ. But all of us can agree on the pattern as it comes from God, and we can strive for its realization the best way we can. We who are General Authorities and general officers are called to teach His general rules. You and we then lead specific lives and must seek the Lord’s guidance regarding specific circumstances. But there would be mass confusion and loss of gospel promises if no general ideal and no doctrinal standard were established and, in our case today, repeated. We take great strength in knowing the Lord has spoken on these matters, and we accept His counsel even when it might not be popular.

 

(I'd also like to suggest the very real possibility that by posting stuff online, you already are talking to some folks in this situation.)

 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  I really don't wonder the church felt it necessary to make it explicitly clear that we should just keep the heck away from children of same-sex households with such talk.  "Your family isn't a real family"?  Serioiusly?  

If you ever find yourself talking to one of these folks, instead of about them, may I suggest the approach Elder Holland uses:  Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting February 2008 - General Patterns and Specific Lives

 

(I'd also like to suggest the very real possibility that by posting stuff online, you already are talking to some folks in this situation.)

 

I'm not fully sure what you're getting at. But the reality is that the church has one over-reaching goal -- the eternal life of all mankind. The only way that a "homosexual family" can achieve that end is through disbandment of that "family" at the parent level. The church may not be about driving people away through callous wording (though it is clear, at times, the church is, indeed, about that), but they are most certainly not about keeping homosexual families together. The church cannot, realistically, be about keeping any families together where doing so leads to the loss of salvation. If it comes down to a choice between family and God, the choice must always be for God.

Obviously there are complexities. And the policy to not baptize children from homosexual households may in part be about maintaining relationships for other reasons -- financial support, the possibility of converting a loving parent through the maintained relationship, etc.,... but the goal is not to keep the homosexual part that renders the household a "homosexual" one in tact.

[anatess2]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

When you look at things as "what helps keep families together most", you can see the church's decision to not baptize kids with same-sex parents in a pretty charitable light.  

In other words: "Hey, I know!  Let's go find all the same-sex families out there, and teach their children that their parents are doing it wrong!"  See, we're doing the opposite of that.

I'm not sure I'm following this...

What's the opposite of that?  Teaching their children that their parents are doing it right?  That doesn't sound right.  Avoiding same-sex families?  That doesn't sound right either.  So, I'm confused.

[NeuroTypical]

The opposite of trying to baptize innocent children into a church that believes their parents are doing it wrong, is trying not to baptize innocent children into a church that believes their parents are doing it wrong.   

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  I really don't wonder the church felt it necessary to make it explicitly clear that we should just keep the heck away from children of same-sex households with such talk.  "Your family isn't a real family"?  Serioiusly?  

If you ever find yourself talking to one of these folks, instead of about them, may I suggest the approach Elder Holland uses:  Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting February 2008 - General Patterns and Specific Lives

(I'd also like to suggest the very real possibility that by posting stuff online, you already are talking to some folks in this situation.)

 

I suppose that, given our PC culture, it should come as no surprise that some people  would react hyper-sensitively to my qualified, matter-of-fact,  and relatively non-controversial comment  

Context is key in this case.  Were I speaking to the general public about the general notion of families, then I would be happy to use terms like "family" in the  general way it has recently been re-defined.

However, on a discussion board populated predominately with members of the Church, and in regards to q post specific to the Church and its ETERNAL perception of families....

I trust that Elder Holland would not object to what I said or how I said it given this context.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The opposite of trying to baptize innocent children into a church that believes their parents are doing it wrong, is trying not to baptize innocent children into a church that believes their parents are doing it wrong.   

Ok, I get this.

So... you think this is good right?