- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I shouldn’t have thrown in the sentence about divorce. It was tangential to my point and only of minor concern to me. My main concern is excommunicating parents and baptizing their young children, then actively teaching those children that their parents are apostates and their marital relationship will need to be disavowed to remain fully active. I have no problem with adults making that decision; I have no problem with parental consent being required for all baptisms; I have a huge problem teaching it to young children as what they promise to believe as part of being baptized – or not teaching it clearly and then springing it on them after years attending church.
Again, I don’t like this policy. I especially am sensitive to people like the woman Hawk quoted. However, her daughters didn’t have to accept that she was an apostate and disavow her relationship, since they were baptized prior to this policy. The policy changes that situation in critical, fundamental ways. As I said earlier, given the reality of how the policy now categorizes parents, I like the delay in baptism age. Without the policy, I would not support a delay.
Also, as much as I understand and appreciate the emotion, I don’t see anyone focusing on hurting children because they can’t hurt adults. I understand the anger and its validity, but that sort of hyperbole is no different than the other kind when it comes to discussing this issue dispassionately. I know dispassion is impossible in most cases, because it is such an important, personal issue – but I think it is important to try.
I have tried to analyze this dispassionately, and it hasn’t made me like the policy any more than at first – but it has helped in other ways.
Also, just so everyone knows, this is not an impersonal topic for me. My heart hurts for my own extended family and not just for others.
(I also would not say much of this in other forums, since I focus there right now strictly on mourning and comforting. If that is what everyone here needs right now, let me know. I will stop.)
Old-Timer wrote:…
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 I don’t believe this explanation for a second; to me it really does sound like a justification they thought would sound as good as they could come up with after the fact that the policy already resulted in more bad publicity and widespread disapproval than they anticipated and the real primary intended reason for this policy was simply to try to contain and prevent the spread of increasing acceptance of homosexuality as if this “permissiveness” is some kind of contagious disease similar to the way they didn’t want polygamy to spread among Church members. Regardless of what they say publicly about it the fact is that they have basically tried to make it impossible for children of homosexuals to be baptized before they are 18 and more difficult than almost everyone else even after they are adults by having to jump through these extra hoops of getting special permission from the First Presidency and directly condemning their parents’ “sins”.
If they really cared that much about protecting children from possible conflicts due to their parents’ non-LDS lifestyles and honestly thought this is how they should do that then it seems like they would have applied the same policy to many other family situations that do not consist of both parents being faithful and obedient LDS Church members such as cohabitation, mixed-faith marriages, non-member parents, etc. But instead they haven’t shown much concern whatsoever about already teaching children under 18 that their parents are sinners, deceived by Satan, etc. over the WoW, different religious beliefs, etc. So I still don’t see why it should be such a different policy for the children of homosexuals than other supposed sinners or why they should be singled out this way and it just looks like shameless discrimination.
Well, I’m not exactly thrilled with the new policy either. I wonder if starting an online petition would still keep me in good standing in the church about this or not. I heard back from my bishop, which surprised me. He defended the policy, which didn’t surprise me at all. I don’t expect that he will pass my objections up the food chain, which is frustrating because there really is no means of giving effective feedback to Church leadership. Totally not the Bishop’s fault. He did say that all people are welcome to attend our church meetings and ward activities, which I appreciate. I don’t think you can really expect a bishop to buck the trend – they don’t call heterodox members like me to be bishops (I mean I would never be a bishop anyway obviously because I’m a lady but you know what I mean. 😆 ) I read on one of the 957 blog posts that around 25% of LDS members support gay marriage, which I’m sure is a HUGE increase compared to even 10 years ago, and I fully expect to see that number to keep trending upward. So it could be that someday we will see bishops and SP’s who are openly supportive of SSM families.I’m still struggling to make peace with this, but something else has occurred to me. I see a lot of my TBM friends posting on FB that they have absolute trust that this policy must be inspired by the Lord, etc. I realized that
I am extremely fortunate in that I’ve never based my testimony on the Handbook of Instructions. Church policy can and does change all the time – we’ve seen it happen on everything from interracial marriage to women praying in General Conference. Assuming that handbook policies must come directly from God and can’t be in error seems to me like trying to build a house on a foundation of sand. That’s foolish. 🙂 I build my foundation on the Savior – not on Thomas S. Monson or the Church Newsroom or the anonymous authors of essays and handbooks. Jesus Christ is the rock of our salvation.Two other things that popped into my head – President U said the restoration is still ongoing. And Elder Holland said that sometimes the Lord lets us go down the wrong road for a while.
Very true, Joni. It still irritates, though, when too many members will say in order to follow Christ you must follow your leaders in every teaching, even if the Spirit confirmed to you a certain teaching is wrong. 
Ray – that is an interesting thought about 8 year old baptisms. I tend to agree. How many 8-year olds really “choose” to be baptized? After reading this again and thinking about it I can only think the deep down reason is to set some clear boarders. You have to think that gay marriage/cohabitation is one of the most terrible things in the word or you are not in line with church teaching – period. As in, “Let nobody be confused with that stuff where we started talking a little bit nicer about gays and housing, we do not like gayness and we are trying to be clear that we don’t want any gay sympathizers within our ranks.”
Old-Timer wrote:Just for accuracy:
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.
I don’t see this as a central issue. So far, the government has not taken away the Church’s right to self-determination. I acknowledge they have this right, and no government body is challenging the church’s policy. Therefore, it is not the central issue. It is a central right, but not one that is challenged so far by the lawmakers.
The central issue is the church’s relationship with gay people and their children.
Quote: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.
At first, this sounds like a good way out of a conundrum. but I don’t see a conundrum here — the church is very careful to indicate to the members they are not out to tell people how to vote, and the Church only seems to get involved in political action on moral issues. Even then, you don’t have to participate in their own moral crusades if you don’t want. In fact, the church even allows you to disagree with the church’s stance on these kinds of issues. So, this right is not at risk for children of gay couples.
It’s great that they aren’t requiring children of gays to take any kind of political stance. But this freedom to act civilly in any way a person chooses does not alter the bite of this policy for the children of gay couples. And also for their relationship with their gay parents who will likely find the church put a wedge between the parents and their child.
If the church feels it MUST discriminate against children of gay couples this way, I would rather see the children of gay people allowed to have full access to priviledges in the church at 18, when they are old enough to answer TR questions acceptably. Don’t drag the family into it and put another layer (disavowal) in it.
Quote:I also believe they are sincere about not wanting to pit minor children against their parents but allow them to reach the age of legal maturity (18) in order for their decisions to be fully informed.
This logic doesn’t make sense to me Ray. The policy does avoid pitting children against their parents until their 18, but it does so by essentially ostracizing them. It does so by denying them access to a) The Gift of the Holy Ghost to guide them through their childlike years, potentially when they need it to help them understand the morality of gay marriage relationships!
b) blessings of priesthood service, c) being a member of the church and therefore access to certain resources like home teachers — even if their gay parents are fully supportive of the child’s involvement in the church (such as taking the child to meetings).
It relieves the children of pitting themselves of their parents by ostracizing them, and simply delaying the problem until their are 18, at which point, the church pits them against their parents by making them disavow the marriage of the family who raised them.
Quote:That is the part of this that I appreciate the most, as a father. It also is a statement that being baptized at 8 is not critical, in the grand scheme of things, and is not about fully informed decision-making but only about theoretical accountability. That has fascinating implications.
Yes – one implication is for the D&C statement about need to baptize children at the age of 8, and the massive accountability the D&C puts on parents to teach their children. It is no longer required to teach and baptize your children when it is no longer serving the interests of the church to have a child of gay parents on church records. To me it is a double standard – a lot like how we teach that self-reliance is a heavenly principle, and then discard it when the person doesn’t have enough money to pay tithing. It serves the interests of the church to have no loopholes for tithing, so the principle of self-reliance takes a backseat to tithing — with church interests driving the decision.
Quote:I think cohabitation is the best analogy to oppose this decision, since it is legal, but it is so widespread that missionary work might grind to a halt if this policy existed for those children.
See – this is the example of churchcentric thinking that bothers me so much. You imply that cohabitation, a sin, but legal is an analogy for same sex marriages. Yet, the church allows children of cohabitating parents to have all the blessings of membership and ordinances because it would “grind missionary work to a halt”. So, children of cohabitating couples are not disadvantaged because such policy would hurt the church. But, given the smallness of the gay couples, we are able to impose harsh policies because the impact on the church is more minimal than the impact if the policy were applied to same sex couples. ”
I hope you don’t mind me challenging your comments Ray. I always read your comments and seriously consider them. But challenging and processing and hearing different sides of issues is how we (I) process information and arrive at conclusions. My own are forming as I listen to both sides of this issue — many from my wife and TBM facebook posts, and then from people here. My ideas are not fully formed, but these are my initial impressions after reading your comments.
Joni wrote:I heard back from my bishop, which surprised me. He defended the policy, which didn’t surprise me at all. I don’t expect that he will pass my objections up the food chain, which is frustrating because there really is no means of giving effective feedback to Church leadership. Totally not the Bishop’s fault. He did say that all people are welcome to attend our church meetings and ward activities, which I appreciate. I don’t think you can really expect a bishop to buck the trend – they don’t call heterodox members like me to be bishops (I mean I would never be a bishop anyway obviously because I’m a lady but you know what I mean.
😆 ) I read on one of the 957 blog posts that around 25% of LDS members support gay marriage, which I’m sure is a HUGE increase compared to even 10 years ago, and I fully expect to see that number to keep trending upward. So it could be that someday we will see bishops and SP’s who are openly supportive of SSM families.I suspect there’s some percentage of bishops that support same sex marriage. Maybe it’s lower than the 25% figure but I’m sure it isn’t 0% either. Maybe you (and I) have a 75% bishop and are just unlucky. I’m guessing we’ll see the percentage of members that support same sex marriage go up as time goes by. That means more future bishops, more future stake presidents, more GAs that also support SSM. That said, it’s frustrating being tethered to the slow kid in a three legged race.
Joni wrote:I’m still struggling to make peace with this, but something else has occurred to me. I see a lot of my TBM friends posting on FB that they have absolute trust that this policy must be inspired by the Lord, etc. I realized that
I am extremely fortunate in that I’ve never based my testimony on the Handbook of Instructions. Church policy can and does change all the time – we’ve seen it happen on everything from interracial marriage to women praying in General Conference. Assuming that handbook policies must come directly from God and can’t be in error seems to me like trying to build a house on a foundation of sand. That’s foolish. 🙂 I build my foundation on the Savior – not on Thomas S. Monson or the Church Newsroom or the anonymous authors of essays and handbooks. Jesus Christ is the rock of our salvation.Two other things that popped into my head – President U said the restoration is still ongoing. And Elder Holland said that sometimes the Lord lets us go down the wrong road for a while.
Thanks for those thoughts. They bring hope.
An LDS.net response http://lds.net/blog/buzz/lds-news/myths-on-new-mormons-and-gays-policy/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://lds.net/blog/buzz/lds-news/myths-on-new-mormons-and-gays-policy/ It classic “it is a myth” as in “you can’t have this as an opinion.” To even say a position is an opinion gives it too much credence. It is so very passive/aggressive defensiveness.
They do at least push that this is not doctrine.
And then there is this one that says this policy is pro-family
http://www.dannyras.com/blog/why-the-recent-lds-policy-change-is-actually-pro-gay-family ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.dannyras.com/blog/why-the-recent-lds-policy-change-is-actually-pro-gay-family Quote:This is precisely why this policy change is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It puts families—specifically the parent-child relationship—above the earthly administrative body of the Kingdom of God.
Wow. I mean wow.
Here comes a new round of simultaneous retrenchment and alienation/disaffection. So sad.
Quote:Nibbler wrote “it’s frustrating being tethered to the slow kid in a three legged race.”
But the slow kid is so grateful to be tethered to you. Thanks for being on the team and willing to participate. Your efforts make the slow kid a little faster.
Quote:This is precisely why this policy change is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It puts families—specifically the parent-child relationship—above the earthly administrative body of the Kingdom of God.
So the Church is going to stop punishing members with part- or non-member families by allowing civil marriages without the 1-year wait on sealings? Sweet! 15 years too late for me, as I was forced to choose between my loving mother and the earthly administration of the Church, but won’t that be wonderful for future generations?
😮 Like many here I am still trying to wrap my head around this policy and try to figure out if there is a way this works for me. I would like to emphasize it’s policy and not doctrine, although some of it may be in support of doctrine. I get the relationship to heterosexual cohabitation and to polygamy – but this policy is also unlike both of them.
Cohabitation: It is not mandatory that a disciplinary council be held for those cohabiting in a heterosexual relationship, although one may be held for continued unrepentance and we don’t baptize those cohabiting. However, we would baptize children in those families without requiring them to declare they don’t believe in or support cohabiting. In my own ward we have a cohabiting couple (one is a member) and the children are fully active and participating, including holding the priesthood and going to the temple. I cannot reconcile this difference – sexual sin is sexual sin.
Polygamy: I think polygamy is closer, but still not the same. People choose to be polygamists, and ostensibly teach their children it is “true.” It is my understanding the temple recommend question about affiliating with groups opposed to the church was put in place to prevent polygamists from entering the temple and solemnizing plural marriages. Polygamy is a chosen way of life. Homosexuality is not a choice, although living with a gay partner is. However, children of gay parents are not gay and don’t make the choice to live in a homosexual relationship just because that’s their culture or upbringing. I understand trying to protect the church from polygamy or the proliferation of polygamy. I do not understand how children of gay parents proliferate gay marriage.
My head (& heart) hurts. This sounds like a policy written by lawyers. I wouldn’t want to be a Bishop or Mission President trying to interpret how to apply this policy.
For example, what does an active husband & wife that hold TR’s do if they have a son (or daughter) who lives at home & is
inactive in the church & gay. Are they expected to disavow their son (or daughter)? And kick them out?
This has the potential of being a major nightmare.
I think cohabitation is the best example to use in opposing this policy precisely because of what you said. SD. I don’t disagree with anything in your comment – and, again, I am not trying to defend the policy. The central issue for me is the excommunication of the parents. Everything else stems from that.
My husband went to PEC and tells me that my ward is considering having a 5th Sunday lesson on this. I did not hesitate to say that I think that’s a terrible idea.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.