- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
First Presidency Clarifies Church Handbook Changes More than anything else, this has helped me feel less bad about the new policy. I still don’t like it, but it helps.
Help me here a bit. I don’t find much soothing here. When I read it all I get is that if someone has already been baptized, then they can keep moving forward in the ordinances (a “grandfather clause”) and some softening on the definition of “kids of practicing gay parents (only applies in the case where the “primary” residence of the child is with the gay parent.” In 10+ years that first item will be history as all 8 year olds will be 18 by then.
But if this is all the clarification we are going to get, then we still have another 2 weeks before we go back to hawkgrrrl and ask, “OK, it has been 3 weeks now?” (Not poking at you hawkgrrrl).
I can’t even begin to say how upset I have been over this policy change this last week. I cried for days. I made a statement that I wasn’t happy about it, attached hawkgirl’s post, and I got hammered because I wasn’t following the prophet. I have also gotten numerous emails from people bearing their testimony to me. It’s been extremely invalidating and lonely! This clarification doesn’t do it for me. What does “primary” residence mean? Does that exclude kids in shared custody situations?? I just see this as a custody nightmare for families. The grandfathered thing rings hallow to me. I’m just tired of hearing “I just don’t understand why people are even unhappy about this”. It’s been an emotionally draining week and has pushed me closer to the edge than I have ever been before. I was really praying for a reversal of at least anything pertaining to children, but instead just got a clear as mud clarification. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now that I read the FP letter again, I’m not so sure why I felt somewhat better the first time I read it. This part does seem to soften things a bit: Quote:The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors,
apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions. And the rumors I’ve heard of a missionary (child of SSM) who was sent home because of this policy, seems to be unfounded because of the “grandfathering” clarification that this does not prevent children of SSM who have already been baptized to progress:
Quote:When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church,
provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child. I do sense a softening of the interpretation of the policy a tiny bit, and giving some opportunity for local leaders to counsel with other higher authorities in making considerations for unique circumstances. This still has problems (leadership roulette), but I see a little bit of wiggle room with the policy interpretation, and that’s a positive. I still hope that something good can come from this policy. I think it is going to take time (probably more than 3 weeks), but I hope it will happen.
I still disagree with the policy, and I think that it has done and will do more harm than good.
Micheal Otterson has provided another PR spin on the policy, titled “Understanding the Handbook”, which some may be interested in reading. For me, this didn’t help, but here it is:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook FaithfulSkeptic wrote:Micheal Otterson has provided another PR spin on the policy, titled “Understanding the Handbook”, which some may be interested in reading. For me, this didn’t help, but here it is:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook Didn’t help me, either FS. Granted, it does appear to aimed more at the media in general (as opposed to church members). I like that he makes it clear that the handbook is a book of policy to be used in conjunction with the Holy Ghost in individual situations, but really what bishop is going to ignore a “must” because he feels the Holy Ghost is telling him different (which is highly unlikely if for no other reason than confirmation bias)? I also get the point that most gay parents aren’t going to bring their kids for blessings/baptism but I also live outside the Corridor and my kids’ friends at school are not Mormon (my son is the only member in his high school) and talking about baptism, the priesthood, etc.
I don’t think we’re done hearing about the issue from PR, but I also don;t think the policy is going to change in the immediate future – there’s more doubling down than anything else going on.
Just listened to the latest Mormon Stories podcast. I would have to agree that one possible (and maybe the strongest of the candidates) core motivations was to send the clear message “we do not want gays in our church in any way – even if that means a bit of collateral damage”. I fear that Kyle M in his post of “The stakes of zion” is painting what could be what is going to happen
http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/12/the-stakes-of-zion/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/12/the-stakes-of-zion/ Quote:
I fear that Kyle M in his post of “The stakes of zion” is painting what could be what is going to happenhttp://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/12/the-stakes-of-zion/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/12/the-stakes-of-zion/ Agreed. I also think that piece may be the most prophetic thing I’ve heard this week.
I just have to mention one thing that is important, even if it doesn’t change in any way the appearance of a strong difference: The Catholic Church’s theology regarding the importance of baptism relative to children essentially dictates that they baptize any child, since not doing so could condemn that child in a literal way. The LDS theology regarding child baptism (and even baptism generally) is radically different – even extremely liberal. There is no absolute need to baptize any children in our theology, so a delay doesn’t have the theological impact on eternal reward that a delay would have within Catholic theology.
Thanks Ray. For me it isn’t the details. Now that they have had time to reconsider with feedback the “clarification ” has been given I keep coming to why they felt they had to create this. I just “feel” it is the blacks and priesthood / temple all over again. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I understand and agree, LH. I just want to make sure the hyperbolic and/or unreasonable criticisms are addressed and rejected equally. The thing about Pope Francis’ statement that I liked was not the idea of baptizing children, since I love that part of Mormon theology. It was the loving tone he conveyed – even as he didn’t soften his stance about homosexuality in any way. I had seen that tone in numerous ways recently from the LDS leadership, which is why this policy hurt my heart – even though I understand the political issues that might have contributed to it.
Old-Timer wrote:I just have to mention one thing that is important, even if it doesn’t change in any way the appearance of a strong difference:
The Catholic Church’s theology regarding the importance of baptism relative to children essentially dictates that they baptize any child, since not doing so could condemn that child in a literal way. The LDS theology regarding child baptism (and even baptism generally) is radically different – even extremely liberal. There is no absolute need to baptize any children in our theology, so a delay doesn’t have the theological impact on eternal reward that a delay would have within Catholic theology.
What you say is correct, Ray. However, Catholicism also recognizes that not all infants are baptized and will baptize those older if they seek it. While they don’t currently actively proselyte in a manner similar to what we do, they have in the past very aggressively proselytized – hence much of Europe (because of the Roman Empire) and much of South America (because of the conquistadors) are at least nominally Catholic. Having no doctrine of baptism for the dead, the Catholic church will baptize all comers lest they be locked out of heaven forever.
My question is will they baptize those who are in a gay marriage? Will they baptize children of those in a gay marriage? Will they baptize openly gay individuals generally? I think the answer to all of those questions is yes because of the importance of being baptized. But I don’t know that for sure. It should also be pointed out that LDS theology associates repentance with baptism while Catholic theology does not necessarily directly connect repentance and baptism (at least in part because it is impossible for a baby to repent).
DarkJedi: By our own theology, it is impossible for an 8 year old to truly repent either. They are considered without sin .. Just like that Catholic baby. We have them practice repentance, and practice taking the sacrament, but it is considered without real meaning. But then they turn 8 and BOOM! Sin and accountability and repentance all kick in. Kinda sad really .. Seems like the innocence of childhood should last longer.
amateurparent wrote:DarkJedi: By our own theology, it is impossible for an 8 year old to truly repent either. They are considered without sin .. Just like that Catholic baby. We have them practice repentance, and practice taking the sacrament, but it is considered without real meaning.
But then they turn 8 and BOOM! Sin and accountability and repentance all kick in. Kinda sad really .. Seems like the innocence of childhood should last longer.
I see the age of 8 as a statistical average, the middle of the bell curve, for when humans begin to be accountable. I say begin because I believe that it is like a sunrise. We are generally, more accountable at 11 than we were at 8 the same at 17. If we are to progress, we must gain knowledge, not just information but things like. Oh, I can live at a new level of living. That is what God has designed us to become.
So I would posit that it is in the plan that we become more and more accountable throughout our lives, because we are willing and able to make higher and higher commitments to the revealed word of God in our lives.
Eight years old is generally old enough to make the commitment of baptism.
For me age at baptism isn’t as important in LDS theology as is the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost at confirmation. Telling same sex parents that their children will have to do without it during childhood and adolescence is the more important issue. It’s no longer just rumor. Elder Todd Christopherson explains the Q15’s thinking about the policy decision and how that is, in his view, an expression of divine principles and doctrine. Read’em and weep, or shout for joy if so inclined.,
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.