- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-issues-update-on-what-is-considered-apostasy This one is causing me some serious angst, more than probably anything in the past. However I can’t find this in the handbook on the church website which maybe hasn’t been updated or maybe is user error on my part. Children of gay couples can’t be blessed or baptized?
I’m really hoping that this is a hoax. I haven’t found anything on KSL (the church’s news site) or LDS.com so really really hoping. Otherwise… I have no words Is there a way we can merge this with Mom3’s post? Hi, all. Obviously I came back to check-in on this forum after a long absence…and it’s not coincidence that I came back on the night that this happened:
Quote:A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship,whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidencyto baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and
specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parentwho has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage. I got this from Feminist Mormon Housewives, but its all over local news sources.
I found out from a facebook friend…Mormon and Gay. She’s in shock.
From a business perspective, this move makes sense.
But my Church shouldn’t be operating like a business.
My prayers are with all of those who are considering suicide tonight and for all those who will be driven to it because of this (rumored) policy, not to mention the heartache this will cause and is already causing.
I have no other words right now.
university wrote:Quote:…A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship,[/b] whether the couple is married or cohabiting,
may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidencyto baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and
specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parentwho has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage. I got this from Feminist Mormon Housewives, but its all over local news sources.
I found out from a facebook friend…Mormon and Gay. She’s in shock.
From a business perspective, this move makes sense…But my Church shouldn’t be operating like a business.My prayers are with all of those who are considering suicide tonight and for all those who will be driven to it because of this (rumored) policy, not to mention the heartache this will cause and is already causing.
I have no other words right now.
How does this make sense from a business perspective? I don’t get it, is this their idea of taking some bizarre differentiation strategy to extremes? If this report is true my guess is that it will mostly result in bad publicity and many Church members losing faith and/or leaving that would have given Church leaders the benefit of the doubt if they hadn’t done this. To me it doesn’t make much sense from any perspective other than a hardliner religious zealot perspective. Even then what does it accomplish that wouldn’t already be accomplished by the regular hardline chastity policy? And why are only the children of gays and lesbians singled out this way and not straight people cohabiting, convicted felons, etc.?
If this is true – I guess the Church isn’t worried about retaining Millennials. My kids are likely to be going to school with at least 1 or 2 kids of same sex married couples, and it’s bound to be a tough sell convincing my kids that those classmates are somehow so fundamentally broken that they can’t even be baptized. I’m holding out hope that this is a hoax.
I am sick to my stomach upon hearing this on my local news today. An earlier poster says it makes sense from a “business perspective” (obviously not from a Christian perspective) how so? Please can anyone post any faithful explanation in which I can view this from? Ray or Heber or others? The first thing I thought of was “punishing children for the ‘sins’ of their fathers/mother’s is explicitly denounced in LDS doctrine. I need intellectual support on this procedural announcement, please, even if it’s the smallest of faithful kernsls to hold onto. Joni wrote:If this is true – I guess the Church isn’t worried about retaining Millennials. My kids are likely to be going to school with at least 1 or 2 kids of same sex married couples, and it’s bound to be a tough sell convincing my kids that those classmates are somehow so fundamentally broken that they can’t even be baptized.
I’m holding out hope that this is a hoax.
I’m thinking about my kids, too. They just don’t have it in them.DevilsAdvocate wrote:university wrote:Quote:…A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship,[/b] whether the couple is married or cohabiting,
may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidencyto baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and
specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parentwho has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage. I got this from Feminist Mormon Housewives, but its all over local news sources.
I found out from a facebook friend…Mormon and Gay. She’s in shock.
From a business perspective, this move makes sense…But my Church shouldn’t be operating like a business.My prayers are with all of those who are considering suicide tonight and for all those who will be driven to it because of this (rumored) policy, not to mention the heartache this will cause and is already causing.
I have no other words right now.
How does this make sense from a business perspective? I don’t get it, is this their idea of taking some bizarre differentiation strategy to extremes? If this report is true my guess is that it will mostly result in bad publicity and many Church members losing faith and/or leaving that would have given Church leaders the benefit of the doubt if they hadn’t done this. To me it doesn’t make much sense from any perspective other than a hardliner religious zealot perspective. Even then what does it accomplish that wouldn’t already be accomplished by the regular hardline chastity policy? And why are only the children of gays and lesbians singled out this way and not straight people cohabiting, convicted felons, etc.?
You make some good points and I should have worded it differently. I shouldn’t have said “business” I should have said something else. Never-the-less, I see this horrible reality:
The Church doesn’t want to change its doctrine and doesn’t want members that will challenge it working from the inside.
Cutting out youth that have gay parents = cutting out dissenting voices on the issue of gay marriage.
This would be “strengthening” its membership by weeding out “problematic” members, and the Church apparently doesn’t care about attracting the kind of members that would disagree with this policy. Basically…so what about the bad publicity, they don’t want those people, anyway.
I’ve also seen the faithful perspective that allowing children in the Church while still a minor would be cruel because they’d have to grow up being in a church that teaches they aren’t in a valid family, Thus, “make them wait until they’re 18” to make that choice, so to speak (I don’t agree with this).
Additionally it kind of cuts the Church out of dealing with some of these issues and puts it on the members to sort out. Let the lesbian mother wrestle with the horror of whether or not to come out and live with her girlfriend, for fear that now her whole family will suffer. Her kids can’t get baptized, her son can’t serve a mission until he moves out and renounces her (she wouldn’t want to put him in that position), among other horrible, awful things. There are now clear guidelines about this kind of stuff
:sick: I’m cutting myself off here before I go on a rant about how awful this policy is.
It’s horrible.
I’m one of those millennials.
I don’t understand how this policy makes any sense from a business perspective, and it contradicts scripture about the sins of the parents not being on the children. It is so extremely punitive toward gay people that it renders their offspring illegitimate to God. How is that even moral? Kevin Barney posted about the hurdles faced by children of polygamy who are committed to monogamy but don’t vociferously denounce the families that raised them:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/11/polygamy-and-baptism-policy/ This is not-one-drop thinking.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.* *Some restrictions may apply, see quote.
Quote:A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:
1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.
2. The child is of legal age [NO LONGER A LITTLE CHILD] and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.
I also keep hoping it’s some elaborate hoax but it doesn’t feel like a hoax. I almost can’t bear the internal conflict going on inside my brain. This doesn’t make sense unless the church is trying to force people to make a stand.
I came on here tonight to see what you guys were saying about this. I am literally sick to my stomach. I’ve been able to come to terms with a lot of things I disagree with, but this… this isn’t okay. I don’t understand. Is this for real?????? So… what about kids who are already members and are living with a gay parent and their partner? Are they allowed to stay in the church? Do they get ex’d? Very odd policy. Some very hard boundary keeping going on. I have heard several people say that the church is as worried about liberals leaving as they are on with conservatives leaving. Given how long it takes for some policies to go from “made” to “communicated” I wonder if this is BKP’s final push on a policy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.