Fether

Church policy change on same sex marriage

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IIRC, the Church backpedaled off that absolutist application almost immediately.    I’d have to look it up, though.  

As far as gay marriage no longer being “apostasy” per se—the thing is, we’re now going to have situations where a) married gay couples are trying to say, with a straight face, that they aren’t having sex (honest!); and b) married gay folks are being specifically asked whether they are having sex during the course of their disciplinary councils.  This is only going to get more interesting . . . 

I'm not sure what backpedaling they did or didn't do.  But if they did, it didn't make it into the Handbooks.  The language in the Handbooks, interpreted strictly, says that a child of a parent in a same sex marriage or cohabitating relationship may not receive a name and a blessing (and makes no allowance for who has custody of the child). Baptism is only permitted for these same children when they are legal adults, are willing to renounce same sex relationships, and require First Presidency Approval.

Regarding disciplinary councils, I think my point is that, under this new policy, we are not required to have them at all (though most of the people I associate with in those leadership positions were refusing to conduct those anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

Agreed.  I’m sure getting tired of defending Church policies as inspired, only to have the Church leadership kinda sorta suggest that the policy maybe wasn’t inspired after all.  

To clarify:  I’m not questioning their inspiration per se; I’m just expressing frustration at the apparently poor ways that some of those inspirations are being articulated and communicated.  

I've been seeing this with multiple members, so it's not just a selected few on this board.  Defining it as revelation and then changing their minds makes it seems that the Lord changes as per the whims of society and cultural pressures.

However, and this is the weird thing, even in this announcement they do not seem to say it is actually directly revelation.  They infer, but I could not see where it says it actually was the Lord giving specific revelation on this.

The same goes for many of the policies that have been changed recently.

This would actually make sense if these policy changes are coming from Nelson's personal bedtime revelations rather than the way that was instructed via other prophets in the past.  This was that they needed to be in a Holy Place (which was a grove of trees or on a mountain top for many, but the most important could not be given anywhere but the temple itself) to actually receive revelation that was accounted as revelation for the whole church.

Many of the policy and other changes have avoided directly saying "thus sayeth the Lord" type ideas, even while many infer that they were received via revelation.  It can be a very legalese type way of inferring without actually stating something so that later, they can go back and point out that they never actually said it was a direct revelation given to them from the Lord.

Thus, while it may appear that something is revelation, if they do not say it directly, and it changes later on, even quickly, later on, it does not necessarily mean it was actually a major revelation in the way we see it for the church (though it may have been based on personal revelation on the matter for an individual or leader).

On the change in policy itself, I am trepidatious..

This change though will allow the church to be dragged into more lawsuits in regards to this matter.  The wording also brings up questions in regards to Gay Marriage.  If a couple in Gay Marriage ONLY have intimate relations with the one they are married to, is that considered as something to be disciplined in the church or not?  We do not punish spouses who have intimate relations with each other.  On the otherhand, homosexual activities are still against the law of Chastity.  The wording seems to create a gray area where it doesn't seem clear.

Children also, who are baptized by one parent while the other, who may be in the LGBTQ spectrum, may not approve might be able to bring lawsuits directly against the church.  It depends on whether further clarification comes out.  This type of thinking has hit the Boy Scouts of America HARD and forced them to either change policies or go bankrupt (and with the policy changes they've lost a LOT of membership and money, which means they may still go bankrupt).  We'll see how ugly it gets if the wording isn't just perfect.  If it isn't perfect, it opens the grounds for multiple lawsuits and difficulties which the LBTQ have used to sink many organizations.

Too early to tell with this thus far, but we'll see how it progresses.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets walk through the effective differences...

For baptisms the bishop's always had to give approval.  For kids this always included an assessment of the support at home.

Three years ago the church also added the need for First Presidency approval in this particular rare case...  

The only difference I really see is that three years ago the church gave the bishops an out...  "I can't approve this the first presidency has to"  Now it is back to being the Bishop's call.

How many Bishop's do you really think are going to allow a child to be put in the situation @Jane_Doe is describing?

Notice how this change is also empathizing people (aka bishop's) to consider the ramifications of the action.

The real difference I see some members have "a baptize everyone and let God sort it out" attitude.  Blocking it for three years hopefully cooled that mindset, to where reasonable understanding and assessments can happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From all that I have read from our prophets and here on this forum - I see no reason to change my behavior or thinking concerning principles to be applied in my personal life.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Children also, who are baptized by one parent while the other, who may be in the LGBTQ spectrum, may not approve might be able to bring lawsuits directly against the church.  It depends on whether further clarification comes out.  This type of thinking has hit the Boy Scouts of America HARD and forced them to either change policies or go bankrupt (and with the policy changes they've lost a LOT of membership and money, which means they may still go bankrupt).  We'll see how ugly it gets if the wording isn't just perfect.  If it isn't perfect, it opens the grounds for multiple lawsuits and difficulties which the LBTQ have used to sink many organizations.

The Church already has established policies for dealing with baptism of children in split-custody situtations. The LGBTQ component adds no more complexity to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm not sure what backpedaling they did or didn't do.  But if they did, it didn't make it into the Handbooks.  The language in the Handbooks, interpreted strictly, says that a child of a parent in a same sex marriage or cohabitating relationship may not receive a name and a blessing (and makes no allowance for who has custody of the child). Baptism is only permitted for these same children when they are legal adults, are willing to renounce same sex relationships, and require First Presidency Approval.

Here ya go:

https://www.ksl.com/article/37345295/lds-church-provides-additional-information-on-handbook-policies-about-same-sex-couples-and-their-children?print=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Lets walk through the effective differences...

For baptisms the bishop's always had to give approval.  For kids this always included an assessment of the support at home.

Three years ago the church also added the need for First Presidency approval in this particular rare case...  

The only difference I really see is that three years ago the church gave the bishops an out...  "I can't approve this the first presidency has to"  Now it is back to being the Bishop's call.

How many Bishop's do you really think are going to allow a child to be put in the situation @Jane_Doe is describing?

Notice how this change is also empathizing people (aka bishop's) to consider the ramifications of the action.

The real difference I see some members have "a baptize everyone and let God sort it out" attitude.  Blocking it for three years hopefully cooled that mindset, to where reasonable understanding and assessments can happen.

 

It made it a very black and white policy.

There still is not enough guidance on this new one to determine what is going to be done.

I can see MULTIPLE problems that could arise already just from what they've written.  A Bishop could have a no win situation where if they refuse to have the child baptized now, they can be sued and held personally liable by parents who point to this policy and say the Bishop was acting without the support of church policy.  On the otherhand, if the Bishop does have the child baptized, an individual could sue both the Church AND the Bishop (for personal injury or other) for baptizing a child they did not want baptized, even if one parent wanted that child baptized and the child also wanted to be baptized.

It's going to put some Bishops in a BAD situation.

HOWEVER...and this is where it gets VERY weird...this is the first step that the LGBTQ have been pushing for and predicting is the first step to SSM being sealed in the temple in a few decades.  Whether it is or isn't...I do not know. 

On the otherhand, I DO agree that we should love all children and those children that are willing to live the commandments of the Lord should be allowed to be baptized.  Men are not punished for Adam's transgression, and children should not be forced to remain outside of the church because they had parents that did not conform to the commandments.

I suspect part of the reason for the change was the amount of requests of this type that were coming up to the First Presidency.  In that, the Presidency prayed about it and a way to deal with how many requests were coming up to them, and this was the answer they received.  That does not mean it is revelation on the scale of Blacks receiving the priesthood, but it could be that it is revelation on how to handle this small matter of policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

The Church already has established policies for dealing with baptism of children in split-custody situtations. The LGBTQ component adds no more complexity to this.

These policies will need to be clarified in these instances or it will most likely lead to multiple and costly lawsuits, especially in light of what they just announced.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

These policies will need to be clarified in these instances or it will most likely lead to multiple and costly lawsuits.

They really won't. As it is now, a child whose parents are divorced may be baptized only when the parent with legal custody has given permission.  If both parents have legal custody, then both parents must give permission.  This has been the policy my entire adult life, and the Church doesn't get sued by non-custodial parents for baptizing the child with the permission of the custodial parent.  The non-custodial parent being LGBTQ won't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

You answered your own question.

I cannot answer it.  The posting we have is vague as it states

Quote

In addition, the Church will no longer characterize same-gender marriage by a Church member as “apostasy” for purposes of Church discipline, although it is still considered “a serious transgression.”

This can change quite a BIT depending on the individual circumstances.  It could be that it means mere probation for some or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

They really won't. As it is now, a child whose parents are divorced may be baptized only when the parent with legal custody has given permission.  If both parents have legal custody, then both parents must give permission.  This has been the policy my entire adult life, and the Church doesn't get sued by non-custodial parents for baptizing the child with the permission of the custodial parent.  The non-custodial parent being LGBTQ won't change that.

In the case of LGBTQ that doesn't effect the lawsuit.  EVEN if a parent has legal custody and gives their permission, the parent without the legal custody can still sue for injury to their child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnsonJones said:

In the case of LGBTQ that doesn't effect the lawsuit.  EVEN if a parent has legal custody and gives their permission, the parent without the legal custody can still sue for injury to their child.

They could try, I suppose.  But they'd have to sue the custodial parent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

They could try, I suppose.  But they'd have to sue the custodial parent.

Think it can't happen...look at the Boy Scouts and tell them that they didn't have this happen to them, or multiple other organizations that had a parent with custody approve something for a child and have the LGBTQ come right back at them and sue the pants off of them.

The reason I saw the policy applied in the first place is due to the judicial activism the LGBT groups have been taking.  They are FAR more active in this arena and aggressive than just about any other group out there.  They also win quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnsonJones said:

Think it can't happen...look at the Boy Scouts and tell them that they didn't have this happen to them, or multiple other organizations that had a parent with custody approve something for a child and have the LGBTQ come right back at them and sue the pants off of them.

sources please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

They could try, I suppose.  But they'd have to sue the custodial parent.

The problem isn’t the baptism per se.  The problem is when Little Jenny comes over for her midweek visit and says “Daddy John, the prophet says you and Daddy Tyler are sinning, and the only way to fix it is if you and Daddy Tyler get divorced”.  

But, that’t was a potential problem even under the old policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

sources please.

Well, just to get a more broad look at it...let's say the entire state of Tennessee if a parent feels this was injurious to a child.

noncustodial parents may have right to sue on children's behalf

Of interest and the precedence...

Quote

But what happens if the parents are divorced and they disagree on whether to bring a lawsuit for injuries sustained by their child? The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue. The minor in this case was injured while attending a shop class sponsored by a local Boys & Girls Club. According to the father, an instructor told the child to unplug an electric saw; the child then cut his finger while attempting to maintain his balance. The father argued the Boys & Girls Club was negligent in failing to properly supervise his son, thereby causing his injuries.

The father sued both on his own behalf and as next friend. The defense moved to dismiss, arguing the father was not the child’s custodial parent, and therefore had no standing to sue under Tennessee law. In fact, the father and mother did not live together, and under a court-approved “parenting plan,” the mother was designated the child’s “primary residential parent” for purposes of Tennessee and federal law. While the parenting plan maintains a significant role for the father—he has custody of the child about one-third of the time—the mother remains legal custodian.

For that reason, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals held the father could not sue to recover medical expenses or “loss of service” on his own behalf. That right belonged exclusively to the mother, who did not wish to proceed with a lawsuit. But the Court of Appeals, overruling the trial court, said the father could still bring a case as “next friend” on his child’s behalf, even though the mother chose not to do so. The appeals court said it could not find any law or rule in Tennessee that would prevent the father from doing so.

Does this mean noncustodial parents now have the right to sue on behalf of their children when the custodial parent objects? It is not entirely clear. The appeals court only said it could not identify any rule that would automatically bar such lawsuits. It certainly is not ideal for parents to pursue differing litigation strategies with respect to their children.

Even with one parent who did not feel the same way, the non-custodial parent still could bring a lawsuit.

This is the approach I would take on it if trying to lay a case out for a Non-custodial parent, especially if they had the child with them for visitation or any other rights part of the time.  Just because they do not have custody does NOT suddenly stop them from having rights as a parent.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

If I'm understanding their intent, living in a homosexual marriage may no longer be listed under situations in which a disciplinary council is mandatory. 

But "mandatory" is just a word.

It doesn't change the reality of what serious transgression is. Breaking the law of chastity is breaking the law of chastity whether it's labelled "apostasy" or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

The sin is still serious, it's just going to be treated the same as any other sexual sin.

Somehow, it doesn't seem the same as any other sexual sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Unmarried heterosexual relationships.

 

45 minutes ago, wenglund said:

The Church doesn't recognize as married the homosexual relationships. The world can label things as they may, but the Church must view things as God wishes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand this. I'm merely pointing out that the wording isn't as clear as I wish it was.

I cannot seem to take this any other way -- it strikes me that there is intentional obfuscation here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

I understand this. I'm merely pointing out that the wording isn't as clear as I wish it was.

I cannot seem to take this any other way -- it strikes me that there is intentional obfuscation here.

Right now I'm having the same difficulty.

I am HOPING wording comes out (perhaps another update in the handbook? very soon?) that clarifies it far more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, just to get a more broad look at it...let's say the entire state of Tennessee if a parent feels this was injurious to a child.

noncustodial parents may have right to sue on children's behalf

Of interest and the precedence...

Even with one parent who did not feel the same way, the non-custodial parent still could bring a lawsuit.

This is the approach I would take on it if trying to lay a case out for a Non-custodial parent, especially if they had the child with them for visitation or any other rights part of the time.  Just because they do not have custody does NOT suddenly stop them from having rights as a parent.

It seems like an incredibly tough sell to extend that onto issues involving freedom of speech and religion. I'm really not that concerned about it.

And as JAG points out, this isn't a new problem.  If it were to go that route, what's to stop parents for suing the church for teaching children that drinking alcohol is sinful?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But "mandatory" is just a word.

It doesn't change the reality of what serious transgression is. Breaking the law of chastity is breaking the law of chastity whether it's labelled "apostasy" or not.

I won't argue against this.  In fact, I full-heartedly agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Somehow, it doesn't seem the same as any other sexual sin.

It's mistaken wording, and unclear, I believe, to say it's going to be treated "the same". What I read is that the law of chastity will be the issue at hand, rather than "apostasy". All instances of breaking the law of chastity from dirty thoughts through bestiality are not treated "the same". That should be obvious, though to some, I suspect, it will not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Right now I'm having the same difficulty.

I am HOPING wording comes out (perhaps another update in the handbook? very soon?) that clarifies it far more.

Like I said, I believe the obfuscation is intentional -- in that if the Lord wanted things clear, He would make things clear. He has not made things clear for many years now. Therefore I read purpose into it. The Lord wants this to be a confusing issue. I cannot see how else we can take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now