Children with gay parents

[The Folk Prophet]

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.   

How, exactly, are they supposed to accept the teachings of the church while still maintaining that their parents' "marriage" is valid in God's eyes?

The only counter for lies is truth.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The only counter for lies is truth.

I was just watching a show with a transgender woman and a woman activist arguing.  The woman activist was trying to convince people that transgender women should not be legally recognized as the same to women.  Her point was about that cycling competition where a trans woman won over women and the transgender woman who got put in woman jail who ended up raping the women because she was much stronger than the other women.  She was calmly and professor-style stating her case and the transgender woman keeps on asking her, "Why do you hate me?  Why are you so transphobic?  Why do you want to hurt me?".

This is the problem I think.  We tend to avoid truth because we don't want to hurt people's feelings.  Or we don't want to be accused of hating people or even as rude and offensive. 

[zil]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How, exactly, are they supposed to accept the teachings of the church while still maintaining that their parents' "marriage" is valid in God's eyes?

I don't think NT is suggesting anything like this.  (I don't think the Church's policy is suggesting anything like this.)

Legal children (as opposed to legal adults) cannot leave their parents' home.  They cannot leave their parents' influence.  It does not serve the children to put them in the situation that baptism would put them in.  It does not serve the mission of the Church to baptize them - the problems it would create all around ought to be easily identified.  IMO, by declining to baptize them while they are still children, the sin rests (is placed, even) squarely on the heads of their parents, just as the sins of the Lamanites rest squarely on the heads of their parents.

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The only counter for lies is truth.

Baptism of minors in this situation is not required to counter lies and teach truth.  (Not saying you're suggesting otherwise, not even sure I'm comprehending whether you're countering NT's comments or what.)

[NeuroTypical]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So... you think this is good right?

I assume the church's policy on not-baptizing children from same-sex marriage is good, because it's a church policy, crafted by seers/prophets/revelators led by Christ.  I mean, why would they implement a bad policy?

I suppose I may have assumed some things about why the policy is what it is.  I'm content to let our leaders speak for themselves and this policy.  Both links are excellent resources for understanding why this policy is in place:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

[Rob Osborn]

The reality is that a gay couple doesn't equate to "family". And in my book, a gay couple joined together by a judge does not define them as "married". Marriage is defined only as the lawful union between man and woman.

[The Folk Prophet]

32 minutes ago, zil said:

I don't think NT is suggesting anything like this.  (I don't think the Church's policy is suggesting anything like this.)

Suggesting anything like what? This conversation has become very cryptic.

33 minutes ago, zil said:

not even sure I'm comprehending whether you're countering NT's comments or what.)

I'm certainly not suggesting the policy on not baptizing minors with gay parents is a bad policy. I'm not sure what NT is getting at either so I'm not sure. I'm not sure what anyone is actually trying to say. Where am I? What's going on?

[NeuroTypical]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The reality is that a gay couple doesn't equate to "family". And in my book, a gay couple joined together by a judge does not define them as "married". Marriage is defined only as the lawful union between man and woman.

From the Elder Christopherson link above:

Quote

“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.” Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between “what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.” 
...
Elder Christofferson explained that a baby blessing in the Church places a child’s name on the records of the Church and triggers many things—including the assignment of home and visiting teachers and the expectation that the child will attend Primary and other Church-sponsored activities. “That is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting, where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple.”

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I assume the church's policy on not-baptizing children from same-sex marriage is good, because it's a church policy, crafted by seers/prophets/revelators led by Christ.  I mean, why would they implement a bad policy?

I suppose I may have assumed some things about why the policy is what it is.  I'm content to let our leaders speak for themselves and this policy.  Both links are excellent resources for understanding why this policy is in place:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

I understand why the policy is in place and I agree with it completely.  I am just confused as to your side of the conversation with wenglund/TFP on it.  I was not sure what you were objecting to.  Or if even you were objecting to something (it seemed like you were disagreeing with wenglund/TFP).

[NeuroTypical]

I was thinking specifically about what is effective, and how to show love while testifying.  Going up to a minor child and telling them their family isn't a real family, is one of the better ways to make sure they never want anything to do with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  About as effective as an atheist at a restaurant, overhearing the table next to him is coming back from their mom's funeral, and he decides it's important to talk loudly about how corpses decompose.  Does the grieving table walk away happier that they know factually true things, or do they just figure atheists can be real jerks sometimes?

And again, I'm also thinking about how this is a publicly accessible page, easily found by any child who goes to google and types in some keywords like "LDS children with gay parents".  Wade figures his brusque factual bluntness is appropriate because it's an LDS board "populated predominately with members of the Church".  I disagree.  We're not an exclusive club that get together and talk amongst ourselves.  We're seated at tables in a stadium, complete with lights and microphones, and anyone who wants can sit in the seats and watch us on the big screen.  Including 16 yr old kids with gay parents and an LDS friend who invited him to church and seems nice.  You just hope that kid encounters the Elder Christopherson link, and maybe doesn't overhear Wade.

Edited October 23, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I was thinking specifically about what is effective, and how to show love while testifying.  Going up to a minor child and telling them their family isn't a real family, is one of the better ways to make sure they never want anything to do with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  About as effective as an atheist at a restaurant, overhearing the table next to him is coming back from their mom's funeral, and he decides it's important to talk loudly about how corpses decompose.  Does the grieving table walk away happier that they know factually true things, or do they just figure atheists can be real jerks sometimes?

And again, I'm also thinking about how this is a publicly accessible page, easily found by any child who goes to google and types in some keywords like "LDS children with gay parents".  Wade figures his brusque factual bluntness is appropriate because it's an LDS board "populated predominately with members of the Church".  I disagree.  We're not an exclusive club that get together and talk amongst ourselves.  We're seated at tables in a stadium, complete with lights and microphones, and anyone who wants can sit in the seats and watch us on the big screen.  Including 16 yr old kids with gay parents and an LDS friend who invited him to church and seems nice.  You just hope that kid encounters the Elder Christopherson link, and maybe doesn't overhear Wade.

One extreme is exemplified by those who say, in effect, "Regarding Matter X, we are right. If you believe other than we believe on Matter X, you are wrong. Period. There really isn't any room for discussion. Deal with it." This extreme has the advantage of showing integrity to revealed truth, but seems unfeeling and even intolerant -- after all, being right doesn't mean putting others down.

The other extreme is exemplified by those who say, in effect, "Hey, whatever you believe is A-OK with us. Doesn't matter! We're all God's children! Everything is awesome! Kumbayaaaaaa..." This extreme has the advantage of seeming empathetic and kind, but seems spineless and even dishonest -- after all, being loving doesn't mean ignoring revealed truths.

If I have to choose between the two, I will choose the former. But I do think there is a middle path, one that stands stalwart with the revealed truth but also recognizes that not everyone will (or maybe can) see the distinction between truth and falsehood, and honors their underlying humanity and efforts for good even while they stumble.

You know, there are those who portray "Mormons" as thinly disguised haters. They savor the moments when they can "pull off the mask", as they see it, and expose "Mormonism" for the hateful intolerance they they believe it is. "You talk a good game, but in the end YOU HATE GAYS!" "You pretend to be Christian, but you worship A DIFFERENT JESUS!" And so on. When I hear such nonsense, I feel that I would rather just stick with being blunt. Obviously, we should not let our actions be determined primarily by the reactions of others. It is less obvious exactly how much others' reactions should influence our behavior.

In my opinion, both Wade's "bluntness" and NT's "openness" are (or can be) acceptable, appropriate behaviors. It's pretty situational. And if many people other than stalwart Latter-day Saints frequent this site, that doesn't change the fact that most who actually participate here are active Latter-day Saints. Seems to me that's the primary audience here, regardless of how many lurkers of various backgrounds we may (or may not) have.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I was thinking specifically about what is effective, and how to show love while testifying.  Going up to a minor child and telling them their family isn't a real family, is one of the better ways to make sure they never want anything to do with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  About as effective as an atheist at a restaurant, overhearing the table next to him is coming back from their mom's funeral, and he decides it's important to talk loudly about how corpses decompose.  Does the grieving table walk away happier that they know factually true things, or do they just figure atheists can be real jerks sometimes?

And again, I'm also thinking about how this is a publicly accessible page, easily found by any child who goes to google and types in some keywords like "LDS children with gay parents".  Wade figures his brusque factual bluntness is appropriate because it's an LDS board "populated predominately with members of the Church".  I disagree.  We're not an exclusive club that get together and talk amongst ourselves.  We're seated at tables in a stadium, complete with lights and microphones, and anyone who wants can sit in the seats and watch us on the big screen.  Including 16 yr old kids with gay parents and an LDS friend who invited him to church and seems nice.  You just hope that kid encounters the Elder Christopherson link, and maybe doesn't overhear Wade.

Ok, I get you now.  Feelz vs Realz.  Wade went for the Realz, you're going for the Feelz.  My opinion, you're both going too far.

The atheist example would be like the Westboro Baptist Church.  We're not like that here.  Not even close.  Children who go reading on lds.net wouldn't just read one paragraph.  They'd read what the discussion is about.  If out of the entire discussion they pick on "not a family" to gripe about, then they're not here to learn, they're here to be offended and there's nothing much we can do about that.

But, to your point, when saying "not a family" we probably should qualify that as "not an eternal family".

Well, in any case, at least I'm not reading this thing now scratching my head.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ok, I get you now.  Feelz vs Realz.  Wade went for the Realz, you're going for the Feelz.  My opinion, you're both going too far.

The atheist example would be like the Westboro Baptist Church.  We're not like that here.  Not even close.  Children who go reading on lds.net wouldn't just read one paragraph.  They'd read what the discussion is about.  If out of the entire discussion they pick on "not a family" to gripe about, then they're not here to learn, they're here to be offended and there's nothing much we can do about that.

But, to your point, when saying "not a family" we probably should qualify that as "not an eternal family".

Well, in any case, at least I'm not reading this thing now scratching my head.

 

People will choose to cherry-pick their offenses, regardless. Look at the responses from when Elder Perry implied homosexual marriage was counterfeit.

"We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. We must continue to project that voice throughout the world in declaring why marriage and family are so important, why marriage and family really do matter, and why they always will.

"My brothers and sisters, the restored gospel centers on marriage and family. It is also on marriage and family where we can unite most with other faiths. It is around marriage and family where we will find our greatest commonality with the rest of the world. It is around marriage and family that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the greatest opportunity to be a light on the hill."

The response wasn't exactly, "that's reasonable."

[Rob Osborn]

I feel it counterproductive to declare a gay couple as a "family". They clearly are not, nor will be in eternity. If the church teaches that families can be together forever it's a disservice to acknowledge a gay couple as a "family" as it may send the wrong message that they have an eternal status and divine protection.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I feel it counterproductive to declare a gay couple as a "family". They clearly are not, nor will be in eternity. If the church teaches that families can be together forever it's a disservice to acknowledge a gay couple as a "family" as it may send the wrong message that they have an eternal status and divine protection.

This is exactly my point when I'm suggesting the church's objective is not "families" when you include homosexuality. It's a misdirect when people talk about the church policy and then say, "well the church wants to keep families together." Yes, the church does want to keep "families" together. But if you start calling your pet dog part of your family -- and even if you got a law passed that legally includes the dog as part of the family -- that doesn't automatically include the dog into the church's meaning when they state their objective is to keep "families" together.

[NeuroTypical]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

It's a misdirect when people talk about the church policy and then say, "well the church wants to keep families together." 

Ok, that's fair.  And the word "family" is very sparsely used in those two links.

[Rob Osborn]

The church never refers to gay couples as a "family". Not only from the top in SLC but also at the local levels. Gay couples are sometimes discussed in ward council, presidency mtgs., etc, and they are always discussed in the context of couple, partners, etc, and never as a "family". I feel it important to not acknowledge them as something we feel is so important. They are the opposite of family.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

The church never refers to gay couples as a "family". Not only from the top in SLC but also at the local levels. Gay couples are sometimes discussed in ward council, presidency mtgs., etc, and they are always discussed in the context of couple, partners, etc, and never as a "family". I feel it important to not acknowledge them as something we feel is so important. They are the opposite of family.

It's a bit more complicated than that, however, from the child's perspective. A legally birthed or adopted dependent does constitute a family regardless of marriage. For example, a single mother, whatever the cause of that situation, is still "family" with her child -- particularly from the child's p.o.v. If a child is legally adopted by two gay people their parents are, indeed, their family. How else could it possibly be seen, even in the eyes of the church. And yet, such a situation, is not an eternal family. So, yes...it's complicated.

I think what we call such things is less important than what we do about it. The church policy is partially about home stability. The church is also firmly behind the long-term goal of each individuals eternal welfare. Our concern should be similar. We don't want children cast out on the street, starving, abused, etc., etc. We also have an over-arching goal to bring souls to Christ and to His ordinances.

"Family" is just a word. And, yes, words matter -- but if different people understand words differently, digging in and refusing to use the word in the way others use it isn't exactly productive. Of course capitulation and just using words in ways they have been hijacked is also unproductive. So it behooves us to clarify and preface each instance of said words with proper modifiers. I agree with the idea presented by @anatess2 that using the term "eternal" as a modifier when speaking of eternal families is useful.

I'm not debating the idea with you really. It galls me to refer to a gay "family" as a "family". But they are, legally, just that now. So... ????

Hijacking words is clearly one of Satan's tools in these latter days. It's quite difficult to find balance in communication.

[CV75]

On 10/22/2018 at 12:24 PM, 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.

This would be done as part of the baptismal interview, and then later as the situation arises as with teaching, "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."

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I feel it counterproductive to declare a gay couple as a "family". They clearly are not, nor will be in eternity. If the church teaches that families can be together forever it's a disservice to acknowledge a gay couple as a "family" as it may send the wrong message that they have an eternal status and divine protection.

I think the Family: A Proclamation gives enough context to prevent confusion about the eternal construct and nature of families.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's a bit more complicated than that, however, from the child's perspective. A legally birthed or adopted dependent does constitute a family regardless of marriage. For example, a single mother, whatever the cause of that situation, is still "family" with her child -- particularly from the child's p.o.v. If a child is legally adopted by two gay people their parents are, indeed, their family. How else could it possibly be seen, even in the eyes of the church. And yet, such a situation, is not an eternal family. So, yes...it's complicated.

I think what we call such things is less important than what we do about it. The church policy is partially about home stability. The church is also firmly behind the long-term goal of each individuals eternal welfare. Our concern should be similar. We don't want children cast out on the street, starving, abused, etc., etc. We also have an over-arching goal to bring souls to Christ and to His ordinances.

"Family" is just a word. And, yes, words matter -- but if different people understand words differently, digging in and refusing to use the word in the way others use it isn't exactly productive. Of course capitulation and just using words in ways they have been hijacked is also unproductive. So it behooves us to clarify and preface each instance of said words with proper modifiers. I agree with the idea presented by @anatess2 that using the term "eternal" as a modifier when speaking of eternal families is useful.

I'm not debating the idea with you really. It galls me to refer to a gay "family" as a "family". But they are, legally, just that now. So... ????

Hijacking words is clearly one of Satan's tools in these latter days. It's quite difficult to find balance in communication.

We shouldn't be swayed into the world's use of the world. So far, the church hasn't been swayed into the worldly definition of family. And, it needn't be either. I agree that a child or children in a single parent home is still a family. Where I strongly disagree is with stating a gay couple and their afoptive children is a family. They are not a family. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

We shouldn't be swayed into the world's use of the world. So far, the church hasn't been swayed into the worldly definition of family. And, it needn't be either. I agree that a child or children in a single parent home is still a family. Where I strongly disagree is with stating a gay couple and their afoptive children is a family. They are not a family. 

Way to find balance in communication. 

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We shouldn't be swayed into the world's use of the world. So far, the church hasn't been swayed into the worldly definition of family. And, it needn't be either. I agree that a child or children in a single parent home is still a family. Where I strongly disagree is with stating a gay couple and their afoptive children is a family. They are not a family. 

Same situation with Trinitarians refusing to call you Christian.  Doesn't meet their definition of the word.  Nothing good comes out of parsing words to divide instead of using words to bring people to Christ.   I understand we have a different idea of family than the rest of the world.  But the rest of the world has been using the word family for millenia.  We can't just wrest the word away from them and insist on our own reading.  That's the weapon of the divisive PC culture and you can see how it just does harm rather than good.

Edited October 23, 2018 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

https://www.lds.org/topics/families?lang=eng

Quote

The Lord has designated the family to be the basic unit of the Church and of society. As used in the scriptures, a family consists of a husband and wife, children, and sometimes other relatives living in the same house or under one family head. A family can also be a single person living alone, a single parent with children, or a husband and wife without children.

Well ok then.

Edited October 23, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But the rest of the world has been using the word family for millenia.  We can't just wrest the word away from them and insist on our own reading.

Actually, this argument works against you. The word "family" has never been used historically to refer to a homosexual couple, much less their "adopted children" (which would not have been allowed). "Homosexual marriage" has, as far as I know, never been defined in human history until a generation ago in western Europe, even in those ancient societies that enthusiastically embraced homosexuality and pederasty.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Vort

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Actually, this argument works against you. The word "family" has never been used historically to refer to a homosexual couple, much less their "adopted children" (which would not have been allowed). "Homosexual marriage" has, as far as I know, never been defined in human history until a generation ago in western Europe, even in those ancient societies that enthusiastically embraced homosexuality and pederasty.

The family for a millenia is what is LEGALLY accepted.  A child of a monarch, for example, born out of wedlock don't get to claim his dad family and have claim on the throne unless he is made legal.  Homosexual families were illegal.  Now they're not.  Nor are children out of wedlock.  Illegitimate children now has claim to family including child support.  Same for children of homosexual parents.

Edited October 24, 2018 by anatess2