- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Joni wrote:
Temple-married, heterosexual men who beat their wives are not apostates. Men who marry other men are. Okay.
Joni, just for the record… I am just as opposed to the new policy as anyone… but just for the record, a temple-married heterosexual man who beats his wife (or children) will experience a mandatory disciplinary council and the CHI specifically requires bishops to safeguard victims of physical or sexual abuse. The Church isn’t looking the other way on that.
For a non orthodox/literal believer (but faithful) who wants to stay in church, this makes things a little bit tougher to stay. Eck. I’m still processing this. I can see both sides but emotionally its so hard to process. Quote: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 and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.
So if my son decides he wants to join the church, he has to move out of his mom’s house and live with me, has to say that his mom is an evil person and disavow her relationship with her current partner? Like that is going to happen!!
This is a crazy policy and will drive people from the church. Maybe not in droves, but people will leave. I will probably be one of them.
On Own Now wrote:Joni wrote:Temple-married, heterosexual men who beat their wives are not apostates. Men who marry other men are. Okay.
Joni, just for the record… I am just as opposed to the new policy as anyone… but just for the record, a temple-married heterosexual man who beats his wife (or children) will experience a mandatory disciplinary council and the CHI specifically requires bishops to safeguard victims of physical or sexual abuse. The Church isn’t looking the other way on that.
If he gets caught, yes, he may have a disciplinary council, and may even be excommunicated. But he is not labeled an apostate. That’s a big difference IMHO. And his children aren’t required to move out of the house and disavow abusive marriage before serving a mission.This policy is literally making me sick to my stomach. The Church has disappointed and frustrated me before, but this is the first time it’s ever sickened me.
Since I live in Mormon Corridor, you can imagine my Facebook feed has blown up over this, as well has general conversation. Most people are upset over the announcement and think it unnecessary/unfair. Even the commentors on the KSL article are very upset. (You have the usual follow the prophet comments but they are very minimal). I also had a few friends post this article Which isn’t a bad explanation into the decision but it’s still a ridiculous decision. The church has made such progress in the LGBT community and now they’re taking a giant step back. When I heard the announcement it hit me hard. One more thing that’s difficult for me to ignore to StayLDS. I’ve been doing ok ignoring the other things that bother me and paying attention to the things that I like but this one is HUGE. I have my first Sunday off in ages and I was going to go to church but now… I don’t know if I will. It’s fast sunday and I’m sure they’ll be testimonies about this.
OH ouch my heart hurts today. I had my issues with the church before but I was trying to hang on to the good stuff. But this is just too much. This is so not inspired. Besides the article of faith….
Ezekiel 18:20
…The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Imagine you are a missionary and a 14 year old kid just discovered the gospel. Imagine you have to stand to his face and say, “I am sorry, you cannot be a member of our church because of your parents.” The irreparable mental number that kid would be devastated with.
Imagine when the kids in an 8 year old class are all getting baptized, and there is one who suddenly is feeling like he is so fundamentally broken that not even God wants him. Imagine the culture that breeds of how the other kids will now likely treat that one for the rest of his/her childhood.
What message does this send all of the church in their social interactions with gays? And what message it sends the gays and their children?
If kids can choose right from wrong and choose to join a church when they are 8, being the child of gay parents doesn’t change that. I think this is a cold and calculated manipulation. I think the geriatric dream team who have all lived in bubbles their whole lives are being petty, punitive and literally making a “business move” on purpose, but it’s a very uninspired cruel one. I think they are waiting to the age of SEXUAL maturity, thinking gay runs in families or some other such nonsense and they can weed out future gay members that way. Step one. Every mental health professional, educator and well just about everyone, knows that if you want to make real changes in someone, the earlier the intervention the better. Younger are more teachable. Once people reach adulthood change certainly can and does happen, but the odds go way down. If you won’t take them when they are young, you might not ever get them. Especially if they were rejected as children. Gay weed wacker from the get go.
Then there is another factor. Children of gays will be more likely to be sympathetic to gay rights, even if they are straight. Now they just can’t have that can they? A whole bunch of future members and potential leaders pushing for any sort of gay rights or sympathy (empathy)… oh no that has to be shut down before it starts! So let’s make it improbable that the most likely to push for change won’t even join the church to begin with.
There are few 18 year olds who are able to be fully financially independent right away in this day and economy. Moving out too early can many times be financial suicide and can bring a life of poverty. I am not saying it can’t be done, certainly some do. But that extra burden on a child to have to choose their family and their survival and future and play it against faith is just wrong.
The message is wrong, the policy is NOT inspired, and is wrong. I feel betrayed and devastated by the church I once loved so very much. I am so angry and sad I don’t even know what to do with it.
Ardis’ post is the most positive I’ve seen. http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/11/05/the-children-of-marriedcohabiting-gay-parents/ Also, Christian Harrison:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/06/yet-i-have-hope/ I wish I could muster the level of hope that either of them has. Right now, I can’t.
I am really confused by this one. It really does show the depth of the church’s position on Same Sex Marriage. I have a question.
Why can a child in a same sex marriage be baptized etcetera but not blessed and put on the records of the church?
Why hold the children accountable for the actions of parents? Most children never chose their circumstances.
Making the children disavow — YIKES!
I don’t think even Ray can get us out of this one …Ray? Any thoughts?
I also had noticed that Ray had not commented. but then I thought, “Ray is a moderator.” He happens to be a moderator that oft times keeps us from going off the rails in one direction (which I like about this site). But I figured he had no duty to defend this one way or the other. To officially say, “we think it is a grievous sin, legally married or not, to be in a gay sexual relationship” is one thing. It is another to say any child related to any such parent essentially has to nearly disown his/her parent before they can participate in the ordinances of the gospel seems just insane to say. Then again it is about the same for someone with polygamist parents, but I can’t defend that policy either.
I just can’t see how anyone thought this was a good idea and would be good for anybody. It seems so callous and so clueless. This hurts my heart, deeply – but I also understand the rationale, I think. There even are a few elements with which I agree, in theory – again, as much as this hurts emotionally. I haven’t commented simply because I have not had time to do so – and I don’t have time now, either. I just want to say one thing, very clearly:
Finally, as hard as this is to bear right now, we have a responsibility to try to avoid hyperbole on the other side of the spectrum and try not to perpetuate emotional reactions that aren’t accurate. I have read some of those on Facebook and in this thread, and we just can’t make charges about this that aren’t accurate. It doesn’t help one bit, and it actually hinders any chance of reasonable discussion.
Old-Timer wrote:we have a responsibility to try to avoid hyperbole on the other side of the spectrum and try not to perpetuate emotional reactions that aren’t accurate. I have read some of those on Facebook and in this thread, and we just can’t make charges about this that aren’t accurate. It doesn’t help one bit, and it actually hinders any chance of reasonable discussion.
I had recently come out of my faith crisis and just come to terms with spending more time with my tbm family. Now reading this makes it that much harder. I will for sure be talking to my bishop about this. He is a good man and i understand he cant change anything i just would like to keep open dialogue about the ossue. I really hope this can be changed, and not decades from now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.