Same sex marriage considered apostasy

[Anonymous]

Right now the Church is one of those relatives who keeps digging their grave by their words and you really wish would be quite and rethink what their saying. I don’t think the press conference with Elder Christopherson helped… at all… While I understand the theoretical reasoning behind the ban it is still stupid to me. Yes I know that children born to polygamists, and Muslims have dealt with these same restrictions for a long time but it still hurts and here’s why. The LGBT population is much larger than either of the previous two. It is possible to have a divorced couple with one being in a SSM and the other a TBM with joint custody of children. What happens to those children now? They live part time with a SSM couple so now they are not able to be baptized, ordained, ect? Do I understand that correctly or is it only children who live full time with SSM? Really it’s the fact that I know so many people who are or were LDS that are in the LGBT community that it hurts so deeply.

[Anonymous]

Roy – thanks for the reminder. I will point out that I feel they are saying “don’t TELL us what to do” (in fact when people do,they rarely comply and usually dig in their heals), but I think I can still say in a respectful way that a policy feels very inappropriate and I hope they change it.

Rational Faith’s has a podcast out where the interview elder christopherson’s brother.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

This also reminds me of the 1982 letter from the first presidency about oral sex being a sin in their opinion. Except the Internet was nowhere to be found at that point. Ok the Internet existed but only nerds were on it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I watched the video and the take home message I got was:

1-We don’t want to have to send home teachers and visiting teachers into that home.

2-We don’t want the child to feel they are expected to be in primary.

3-You are free to think what you want. But don’t publicly advocate it or we could excommunicate you.

Cut through the smooth talk and the tone of voice, and see if that’s what you got. Many of you will not get that, but I am betting many will.

I am not gay. I am as straight as it comes. My parents are straight Nazi mormons. Not just TBMs. My kids are all straight. (So far, I guess you never really know until they reach sexual maturity.) I only have gay acquaintances. But I have empathy for the under dogs, who suffer because they didn’t get to live the bubble life because the rules that we were told should apply just don’t seem to apply to us, no matter how hard we try.

If ever there was a time for home teachers, visiting teachers and primary teachers etc to come out of the woodwork and support a family, it should be when they are in a painful, hard or unusual situation. Keep in mind, these parents would have consented to their children receiving these blessings and ordinances. By all evidence they would be statistically open to help, support and socialization from church members. In fact this would be the time they needed it most. It isn’t easy being gay in most of the US neighborhoods at least, and definitely raising children against all the antagonism and social issues and ostracization… And the church is going to make it worse? Refer to Maslow and his tried and true hierarchy of needs. After physical needs are met, it is imperative that if you ever want to reach someone spiritually (at that top of the pyramid) you have to make them feel safe, loved and accepted first. Jesus knew this. This is why he fed the masses. So because these parents are gay we are going to treat them and their children as untouchables? We shouldn’t even try? Let them flounder out there in the world completely alone?

Imagine this: You have a little happy 7 year old kiddo happy to live in his little mormon neighborhood and go to church with all his/her sweet mormon friends. They are innocent and pure and perfect as God sent them. But your spouse decides to come out and go live with their partner. (Don’t think it can happen to you? Can’t relate? Well there are so many TBMs it happens to it would make your head spin. Don’t ever say never. Even if it never does you should count yourself lucky, but we all have a moral obligation to have empathy for those not as lucky.) How do you think that baby is going to feel watching all of his/her friends get baptized and he/she can’t? How to you explain he/she is really being protected? It’s a lie. It’s not protection and won’t be treated as protection. That baby will feel the ostracization no matter how you explain it. It will be a major hit to the self concept, and internalized in ways that are most likely lifelong implications… they won’t just get over that. And how do you think those other kids will treat that kid? It’s very ignorant to think they won’t change the way they treat that kid. Whether it is meant to be or not, this is a message. It will be treated by so many as a license to ostracize, judge, abandon and mistreat those who need the Savior’s love and acceptance more than ever.

And nice reminder he threw in at the end: Sure you can think what you want. But don’t forget we can hurt you if you don’t behave right and keep your mouth shut. This keeps the fence sitters quiet for sure.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

…I believe the church is trying to deter sympathy for same sex relationships from growng in the church. Make people who are raised in them, and find them OK, take hits for being sympathetic to their heritage. I”m sure this policy will also encourage people to leave the church who have gay children. Note the Pew survey says that 36% of Mormons are more sympathetic to gay marriage than in 2007, and 25% support gay marriage. I can see church leaders wanting to stem the tide of growing support for same sex marriage in the church. This will nip off those who have gay parents and children to some extent, with a policy that is hard to bear…I find it very hard to see the church as a loving force based on what they have done with this policy…

I think this is what the policy was really about; basically it looks like they didn’t like to see the increasing acceptance of homosexuality by Church members and were reacting to this general trend. Also, it’s not like they came out with an official announcement to say, “We’re making this change and here’s why” in an upfront way. Instead they simply changed the handbook and then some ordinary members with access to the handbook because they are clerks, in the bishopric, etc. reported it to media outlets and then word of it spread from there. They actually already had a similar policy in place for children of polygamists (that also doesn’t make much sense to me for the same reasons) so maybe they thought they could do the same thing in this case behind the scenes without it getting nearly as much attention as it already has.

The claim that this move is supposedly out of concern for the children and trying to protect them from conflict rings especially hollow and mostly sounds like a lame attempt to spin this as somehow making sense after the fact that this highly questionable policy was already widely exposed to the general public in a rather embarrassing way. This excuse doesn’t explain why they didn’t also make children of straight parents that are cohabiting or other supposed grievous sinners wait until they are 18 to be baptized much less specifically disagree with their parents’ “sins” and get special permission from the First Presidency in order to be baptized so it still feels like a case of singling out the children of homosexual parents in an especially conspicuous way. In fact, they have already shown that they have no qualms whatsoever about causing conflict in cases where one or more parent isn’t a faithful and obedient Church member because they already teach young children that their parents are sinners, deceived by Satan himself, etc. all the time in cases like this.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

The disavowal is for same-sex marriage of LDS members – or, in other words, an acceptance of non-LDS members being free to be in same-sex marriages but not LDS members. Members are free to advocate for civil rights but not to work to try to force the LDS Church to sanction same-sex marriage internally. The central issue is, unfortunately, the Church’s right to set its own standards for membership – and I support that right completely, even if I would want different boundaries than many members. In the case of children with same-sex parents who want to be baptized, they would disavow their parents’ relationship for themselves as LDS members but not have to oppose their parents’ relationship in any legal or active way.

While this certainly is a plausible interpretation, Ray, it’s not how I interpreted at first read or after a few reads. Judging by comments here, it’s not how the majority of us interpret it. While we generally do take a different bent on things than the general LDS population, in this case I’m not sure we’re all that far off from the general interpretation. Thus I think (like many things) the implementation of this policy is going to be uneven at best. The most zealous of local leaders are very likely to require a practical “disownment” of the child for his or her gay parents. The clarification by DTC is great – but in reality the new bishop who encounters this situation in two or three years isn’t going to even be aware that exists and if taken literally word-for-word this policy could be interpreted in a very hardline and hurtful way.

[Anonymous]

I agree, DJ, that the implementation will vary based on location. That is how the Church functions at the local level with regard to most things.

I believe Elder Christofferson’s explanation is true to their intent. I don’t believe he is a liar or scrambling to come up with a justification. I believe the announcement was planned and they badly misjudged their ability to make the change and have time to post an explanation. I believe they don’t accept homosexual sex as righteous in any form and that they don’t want children in same-sex marriages to hear their parents vilified in church and cause that kind of inter-family confrontation and conflict. I think they don’t want to put HT and VT in an incredibly difficult position (impossible, really). I believe they truly want this decision to be fully informed and made by legal adults.

The policy still hurts my heart and leaves me wishing it hadn’t been made, but I ascribe no malice, hatred, dishonesty, etc. to it. I believe they are trying to love in every way they can while upholding their deep beliefs – and I understand those beliefs

[Anonymous]

I agree, Ray. I don’t think they expected such a quick and resounding backlash. The story was carried in the New York Times. One could argue that in the modern age they should have expected something and perhaps have prepared something (and maybe they did). I also agree that DTC (or PR and GAs in general) aren’t lying about this, my feeling is that DTC is sharing some of what was discussed in the highest councils of the church.

For the record, as I have stated this does hurt my heart and a couple nights of sleeping on it have not improved things. I am also a supporter of civil/legal gay marriage but I also support the church’s – and other churches’ – right to not recognize or perform gay marriage (I don’t agree with the Muslim stoning doctrine).

[Anonymous]

First, it is important to me to reiterate that this policy hurts my heart and that I don’t like it, overall. Please keep that in mind as you read the rest of this comment.

Even though I wish this policy had not been made (and had been handled much better), I have been trying to find a way to explain better why (given the core stance against homosexual sex and marriage right now) I like the decision to postpone baptism for children of people in same-sex marriages until they are of legal adult age. I hope I finally found it.

I don’t want the LDS Church to be involved in what amounts to custody battles with parents over minor children. I also don’t want divorced parents where one is lesbian or gay to use the LDS Church as a pawn in their custody battles – and that is sure to happen when the straight spouse is LDS and, especially, living in a heavily Mormon-dominated area. If these children want to “divorce” their parents, I want that decision to be a mature, adult act – and I would rather the preponderance of influence lie with the parents and not the Church. I want the Church to walk the talk when it comes to the primacy of the family, and, ironically, in general, I think this does that. Of course, this decision is not pro-homosexual in any way, shape or form, but, ironically, I see this one aspect of it as pro-family.

The Church has said over and over again that the family is the central organization in God’s plan, before the Church itself. I don’t want that to change with regard to same-sex couples and their kids. I want same-sex parents to be the primary voices of influence in their families, and I don’t want anybody to tell their minor kids to reject their parents’ deeply held beliefs. If the parents want to take or send their kids to church, fine – but I don’t want anyone else to try to push for that to happen.

In theory, I would be okay with parental permission as a requirement, but, local leadership roulette and meddling members being what they are, I am okay with a universally applied age standard.

[Anonymous]

Also, although I have no belief it will happen any time soon, if this leads to a re-evaluation of all baptism at the age of 8, I won’t complain. I don’t mind the current practice, but I don’t see it as eternally critical – and neither does the Church’s stance on this issue.

[Anonymous]

Thanks to everyone on this thread expressing their feelings honestly and expressing the logic behind their position on this issue. I’m pretty much a heathen turned TBM and I was scratching my head a bit after passively hearing about it on the news with no explanation or background so I’ve been looking into it and have been trying to dive deeper into the nuance of it and he bigger picture and reading through this thread has helped me with it – to see it from many sides.

I have some relatives who grew up in polygamist households and they’ve been living by this doctrine for decades now and I didn’t realize that this was an extension of that same policy now that another kind of marriage that is considered by the church as sinful or rebellious is becoming more common.

I will continue to research this and hopefully will be able to find a nuanced truth somewhere between the extremes. Thanks again for all of your comments.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I don’t want the LDS Church to be involved in what amounts to custody battles with parents over minor children. I also don’t want divorced parents where one is lesbian or gay to use the LDS Church as a pawn in their custody battles – and that is sure to happen when the straight spouse is LDS and, especially, living in a heavily Mormon-dominated area.

Ray– love you… but I heard this one before in various levels about conflicting views between divorced parents and custodial interference etc. That would work except for that in no way one parent being gay doesn’t add or subtract from how volatile divorces can be, and or how the church and personal beliefs can be used as pawns. I have seen and experienced first hand what happens when divorced parents disagree over religion and belief systems raising their children. It is not an anomaly and bishops have been dealing with it for years. being gay or straight in no way changes how parental rights and beliefs are handled. Gay people divorcing are not more bitter or vengeful than non gays or vice versa. What contributes to the volatility of a divorce and the level of confliction is generally High Conflict Personality Disorders or tendencies. They are not more prevalent in the gay community.

I went through this with my ex and we are straight. I wanted one thing and he wanted something else. There is a church policy and on baptism and it applies perfectly and is right and fair and legally backed and even required. If parents disagree on religious items such as whether or not to be baptised, the only one who gets to make the decision is the one with legal custody. If there is joint custody, the church does nothing. There is no baptism. But the decision is never ever put on the kids. It is then it is due to the agency of the parents and not a ruling of the church excluding anyone. If the kid needs someone to be mad at, they can be mad at the parent with the opposite views. While this always comes with some damage points, it is a far far different level of damage than a policy that by it’s nature would make a child feel fundamentally flawed, broken, unaccepted and unlovable.

If the church will exclude children whose parents might disagree and use the church as a weapon of war, then the church must exclude all children of divorce. After all, one parent might be catholic or feel the mormon church is a cult, and claim that it’s cruelty to subject a child to the “mormon cult.” Does it happen? A LOT, HCPs (High Conflict Personalities) will generally say and do anything and abuse every institution they can in order to hurt, manipulate and control the other. This is not rare. Not by far. Definitely not related to sexuality. This policy is all about the double standard.

[Anonymous]

I understand all of that, Sally, and can’t argue against any of it – but when I said “what amounts to custody battles” I meant, primarily, fights over control of what children are taught. I didn’t mean actual custody battles as my main concern.

The actual custody battle issue is a much smaller issue for me, for the exact reasons you gave. Throwing it on there probably muddied my point about letting parents be the primary voice for their minor children.

[Anonymous]

And yet this pierces the hearts of grandparents of these kids who love their grandkids enough to take them to church and to attempt to oversee their religious education despite the parents’ circumstances. Likewise, there are many gay parents who will support their kids in joining the church, who won’t object, who have dealt with so much personal rejection in their lives that they are extraordinarily open-minded and supportive, far more than many parents from self-described ideal traditional families. Without stating who this is, allow me to share a note written by one such parent, a lesbian mother (with extended Mormon family) with two daughters who chose to be baptized with both their mothers’ approval and support:

Quote:

Well it’s time I said something on this new LDS policy. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED! My two daughters made their choice to be baptized, and YES I said CHOICE. We let them decide on their own. They worked hard with missionaries for months to achieve their baptism. NOW because you can no longer hurt adults you go after the kids. INNOCENT KIDS!! So now they can no longer be members. Does the church really think that these youth that are being alienated would want to go back at 18? YEAH RIGHT! LOVE ONE ANOTHER? YEAH RIGHT AGAIN! This is not the religion that anyone signed up for. I know that lots of truly faithful people are struggling with this. ..and they should. Do you really want to be part of a church that hurts CHILDREN! I’M IN SHOCK AND AWE ABOUT THE IGNORANCE!

Let’s all bear in mind that being gay is not a choice. This feels like the children are being used as pawns. It certainly doesn’t protect them. It’s similar to telling them “We hate your parents and are going to talk crap about them, so you might not want to stay for this.”

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I meant, primarily, fights over control of what children are taught. I didn’t mean actual custody battles as my main concern.

Oh I got that. And that’s what I was talking about too. In heterosexual divorces there are many times a difference of desires over what the kids are taught, and whether or not there should be baptisms or blessings, or who should be doing them etc. My point was that feelings are hot in every and all divorces, no matter the reason. Typically for example. the war is the same whether a woman was being left for another woman or a man. There is really not a higher level of conflict when one is gay. The high conflict divorces come from HCPs not over being gay. People don’t typically divorce because they have different favorite colors. In many many cases, especially in the church, divorce is happening because one of the people experienced a fundamental shift in beliefs in one way or the other. One wants to leave the church, one wants to have affairs, etc. This happens all the time. Heterosexual divorces can be very riddled with disagreements on what to teach the kids, and one parent is quite often being a bad example or teaching something contrary to the other. But the church doesn’t make the policy that if one of the parents decides to leave the marriage and live a life of sin of most other varieties that the children must be barred from ordinances. It’s a double standard. It is being exclusive.

It is an unfair prejudice statement to assume that because one parent has come out as being gay, they will fight against church teachings and/or what the child should be taught. There are some gay people who wanted to offer their children choices, or still wanted their children to glean good stuff from the church. Many are not anti-mormon at all. I just think it’s unfair to say, “Gay people will fight more against church teachings that [group A, B or C] therefore let’s make a policy on that. Are they setting an example contrary to church teachings? Sure. But so is every other group of divorced people who were responsible for the end of their marriage, one way or the other. The problem that I have is the exclusivity of the policy singling out only certain groups and treating them differently.

I disagree with what my kids should be taught all the time with my ex. We battled over the baptism of our older children.When my kids were baptized, he disagreed about how it was being handled, and even tried calling the Bishop in attempt to get his way. The Bishop simply said, “Who has legal custody?” And was legally bound to do what I wanted. Period. And if we had joint custody, he would not do the baptism. Does the church care to get involved when I disagree with him over what our children should be taught? Not at all. If he wanted to teach them Buddhism the church would still baptise them.

Anyway, I would be fine moving the age for everyone to 18. It just irks me when the church spent so much time grilling in a certain point and then says, “Oh you took me serious? Shame on you. That’s not what I said; that’s not what I meant; that’s not what happened; you are misinterpreting; over reacting; being a drama queen; how dare you think so bad of me?” That is very real process that certain people use almost verbatim. That’s called Gaslighting and it’s very wrong. So the church spent so many years grilling into our heads that if we didn’t baptize our kids the minute they turned 8 we would burn in hell (or at least the Mormon version of hell) and it would be spiritual death which is so much worse than physical… yada yada and they have to want it but it’s our job to make them want it or else… and now they say that it really isn’t imperative to baptize at 8 or anything… but only because it is convenient for them in this circumstance. Is it imperative or not? Yet they don’t retract the practice for everyone else. If it isn’t imperative then stop trying to fear monger the other parents about it. They can’t have it both ways and say A when it suits them and B when it suits them. Well that’s not really true is it? The church can and does have it both ways with many things, according to which point it wants to play. One reason for many a faith crisis.

[Author]

Posts