Nelson’s Version of PoX as Revelation in Seminary Manual

Strike one was this morning when I read that RMN felt prompted by the Lord for us to not be called Mormons anymore. This is strike two. When the third shoe drops (sorry about mixing metaphors), I’m going to start looking for the exit. I’m 73 and have been lucky enough to have known enough LGBTQ people over my life to say that if the POX was anything, it was not “revelation”.

The policy has also been worked into Preach My Gospel, the missionary bible. See bullet three below.

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/how-do-i-prepare-people-for-baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/how-do-i-prepare-people-for-baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng

Do I need permission to baptize a minor child?

The Church’s concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. For their protection, the following conditions must be met before you can baptize a minor child under legal age, as defined by local laws:

1 )You must obtain permission of both parent(s) or legal guardian(s). You may ask for this consent to be in writing if you feel it will help prevent misunderstandings.

2) You have discerned that there is clear evidence that the child understands the baptismal covenant and will make every effort to keep it through obeying the commandments, including faithfully attending Church meetings.

3) The child’s primary residence is not with parents who are polygamists or in a same-sex relationship. If one or both of the child’s parents are polygamists, you must contact the mission president for additional information. For additional information regarding children of parents in same-sex relationships, see First Presidency letter, Nov. 13, 2015 (“First Presidency Clarifies Church Handbook Changes,” LDS.org) and “Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages,” Nov. 6, 2015 (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org).

4) The baptism is not prohibited by local laws and culture.

From the perspective of people like us, who view the Church as “sometimes maybe mostly sort-of true”, but also “sometimes maybe sort of not”, I completely understand the resentment. But most members cannot “stayLDS”. It’s either all in or all out. The authority of the Church rests on the authority of the prophet, and the seminary manual is simply meant to emphasize and increase trust in the prophet’s divine inspiration among 14-18 year olds.

FWIW, while I don’t think the November policy was revelation, I do think it was done for very pragmatic reasons. Marriage is an essentialist characteristic, where most other “sins” are not. I.e. According to the Church, a person could say “I struggle with same-sex attraction” or “I made a mistake”. They are not defined by their homosexuality, because their homosexuality is not an inherent characteristic. I think that’s where many of us disagree with the Church, is how much of a person’s identity is coupled with their sexuality. However, when you’re SS married, the homosexuality suddenly becomes an essentialist characteristic. “I am married.” “I am a spouse.” What the Church declares a “sin” becomes an identity of the individual.

The official baby blessing is not a saving ordinance. It’s more or less an official way to make a baby a “child of record” without being baptized. In fact, you can do the EXACT same ordinace at home, no restrictions, without making the baby a “child of record”. Faithful members will almost always insist on their grandchildren and great-grandchildren recieving their “official baby blessing”, even when the child’s parents are inactive or non-members, in hopes the child will “come around”. Since LGBT couple’s lives are at odds with Church doctrine, this puts the parents in an uncomfortable situation, and their children even more so. I don’t have any data to back this up, but I think the number of married LGBT couples who believe in the Church and want their children to be blessed in church for their own sake is VERY low. Much lower than the number of married LGBT couples with member parents who are heavily pressured against their wishes.

TLDR; I don’t like it either. I especially don’t like seeing it in the seminary manual. But in their defense, it’s a delicate situation, and their response has been taken to be much more malicious than was intended.

If this scenario had happened – let’s say much more recently for the purposes of this argument – then I wouldn’t be allowed to have my child(ren) baptized. Not because I was gay but because the mother of my child(ren) was.

I could be wrong but I believe because of scenarios like the one you describe the church clarified the policy. It’s my understanding that a child can be baptized if they are living with the heterosexual parent.

That’s still bad enough.

Yup.

OH, CRAP!

I’m the seminary teacher (I am really struggling with this particular book of scripture this year).

How am I gonna approach this one? 😯

Over at WheatandTares.org… I posted this advice…

I hope the seminary teachers include stories from scriptures and church history that show that despite best efforts to access the Divine will…leaders may have to go back several trips to get brass plates before they get it right … Or that kirtland banks just flat out fail sometimes despite efforts for revelation.

Sometimes they just are wrong for years and years, but they have good hearts and will course correct when it can no longer be avoided to do so (as in polygamy and in 1978).

Revelation is a process, not an event.

I think the youth need this kind of angle to consider.

The policy doesn’t just stink because of homophobia, it also stinks because it potentially affects numerous heterosexuals – whether children or spouses.

From the TR interview: “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?” Unless you are gay in which case we hope you just lie to everyone and marry heterosexually anyway.