@Red Corvette.. He wept for a completely different reason! Assigning
Christ's emotion of crying to this situation is disingenuous.
@Redwhatever --"you have not read the handbook."I'm QUOTING the handbook DIRECTLY, Red.Yet again --
"16.13 will be added as follows: Children of a Parent Living in a
Same-Gender RelationshipA 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. "It clearly says that ANY
children of a gay parent in a relationship will be banned."They
don't have to disavow their parents either. They only have to disavow
SSM."Of course they do. They have to disavow their own
parents' marriage, AND they have to move out if they have been living with
the gay parent. How is that NOT a disavowal?"Having ordinances
delayed is not a punishment."Seriously? You think denying
blessings to a kid isn't a punishment? That kid can't enter the
priesthood, can't train for a mission, and you think it isn't a
punishment? Then why not delay all baptisms til 18?"A mixed
faith household can be fixed with a 15 minute interview."Exactly
what "fix" do you have in mind, Red? You think that Jewish mother is
going to convert?
To "Contrariwhatever" you have not read the handbook. It doesn't
say that the children of same sex parents can't be baptized. It says the
children LIVING WITH parents that are living as a same sex couple must wait to
be baptized. As I stated before, if the child no longer lives with the same sex
couple, they can get baptized. Plus, even if they are living in a situation
with same sex parents there still is an allowance for getting baptized. Read
"LDS Church: Underage children of same-sex couples not eligible for
membership" on KSL. It states quite clearly that it only applies to kids
living with SS parents.They don't have to disavow their parents
either. They only have to disavow SSM.Again, where is the
punishment? Having ordinances delayed is not a punishment.A mixed
faith household can be fixed with a 15 minute interview. A Same Sex couple
requires more than a 15 minute interview to bring them into compliance.
@Redshirt1701 --"the children of same-sex parents can still be
baptized."Not according to the LDS handbook, they can't."The only thing stopping that is the parents."Yet
again -- the sins of the parents should not be visited on the children,
remember?"it only applies to children "living in a same-sex
household""No it doesn't.Yet again -- it
applies to any "natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender
relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting" -- whether the
child is living there or not."Once they are 18, they can move
out on their own"Right. They are banned until they are 18 and
disavow their own parents.In direct contradiction to Christ's
own words, and the second article of faith."For example, you
cannot show that the LDS church is punishing anybody"If you
seriously believe that banning a child from blessings, priesthood training, and
so on until they're 18 is no punishment, then why not set the baptism age
at 18 for ALL kids?"That is the key issue"Yet
again -- if that were the key issue, then the church would have the same policy
for all mixed-faith households.
To "Contrariwhatever" the children of same-sex parents can still be
baptized. The only thing stopping that is the parents. If you want to be mad
at anybody preventing a child from being baptized, confirmed, or ordained be mad
at the parents. The policy states that it only applies to children "living
in a same-sex household" Once they are 18, they can move out on their own,
be baptized, confirmed, ordained, and go on missions. Again, nothing is
withheld, unless the gay parents insist on having the child live with them. So
it is the gay parents that are forcing the delay.No, you do attack
people that don't agree with you. For example, you cannot show that the
LDS church is punishing anybody yet you continue to argue.You think
that it is irrelevant about teaching one thing at church only to have the
opposite taught at home???!! That is the key issue, and much of the reason
behind the policy.Again, if a Jewish parent wanted to have their
entire family become part of the LDS church it would take little more than a 15
minute interview. It doesn't matter if you think they will.
@bj-hp --"This is a great protection for the child..."Yet again -- if that were the motivation for this policy, then the same
policy would be applied to all mixed-faith households."...polygamous relationship."Historically, the very
existence of the church depended on the strength and clarity of its rejection of
polygamy. The same is not at all true for same-sex marriages.And also, polygamy is **illegal**. Same-sex marriage isn't."and you like many others want to use the children as a
pawn."I guess Jesus was using children as a pawn, then."Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such
is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14 ; Mark 10:14 ; Luke 18:16)"They are not punishing the child"How is denying
multiple blessings to an innocent child NOT a punishment?"there
are consequences for that action."But according to the second
article of faith, the CHILDREN should not be made to suffer that consequence."Sealing of the Family"Sealing of the family
can't take place in mixed-faith households either. Or in households where
the wife has previously been sealed to another husband. Yet those children are
Contr or whatever moniker you decide to use: This is a great protection for the
child and the parents in a same-sex relationship. It has been done for years
with those in a polygamous relationship. The problem is that if it was a
SAME-SEX relationship you could care less. As Redshirt stated your
only concern is selfish and you like many others want to use the children as a
pawn. The Church of Jesus Christ with this procedure has taken the child out of
the equation and puts the entire problem on the parents, where it should be.
They are not punishing the child they are stating that when certain
circumstances are taking place there are consequences for that action. Sealing
of the Family for all eternity can't take place because of the fault of the
parents not the children. Again the parents themselves are punishing the
children, not the Lord's Church or the Lord. There are consequences for
every action. The Lord doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and he is not
going to allow the Church that bears his name to do so either.
@RedShirt --" according to you the LDS Church is not punishing
the children."Nonsense. Of **course** it is. The children of
same-sex parents are not allowed to be baptized, confirmed, ordained, OR serve
in missions. How is that NOT a punishment? If denying multiple blessings is not
a punishment in your church, what is?"yet you continue to attack
people who do not agree with you. Is that your idea of treating people
fairly?"I do not attack **people**, Red. Remember, the DN
doesn't allow personal attacks. There is nothing at all unfair about
attacking bad **ideas** and pointing out their failings."Tell us
what how you think what happens when a person is taught one thing at church and
the complete opposite at home?"It's irrelevant. If this
were the true concern of the church, then they would apply the same policy to
all mixed-faith households. But they don't. Guess why."Too
get a mixed faith household compliant with LDS teachings it takes 15 minutes in
the Bishop's office."Ummm, no. A Jewish parent, for
instance, is never going to believe in many of LDS's core tenets.
I am an active member of the church, but as it stands this policy raises more
questions than answers. This is not comparable to polygamy, but a lot more
complicated. I know two families in my ward for whom this will have a very
negative impact on the children's spiritual progress and developement. In
both cases the childen live with their mothers, who are in lesbian
relationships, but want their children to be raised in the church (their fathers
and grandparents take them to church). Fortunately they are all above 8 and
already baptised. But the boys now cannot progess through the priesthood and
don't get the preparation they need to serve and prepare for missions. If
their mothers' cohabited with a boyfriend rather than girlfriend, then
would that be OK for the children? Why single out homesexual lifestyle above
adultery and heterosexual fornication?
To "Contrariwhatever" so, according to you the LDS Church is not
punishing the children. Other people may, but that doesn't really happen
since only 60% of Utah is LDS. But you still have yet to show that it is the
LDS church that is even punishing anybody.You say you are out to
help people who you think are being treated unfairly, yet you continue to attack
people who do not agree with you. Is that your idea of treating people fairly?
You say one thing and do the opposite.Again, how are the children
being prevented from being blessed and coming to Christ? They will be allowed
to go to church and all activities. If they need blessings, they can get those
freely also.Tell us what how you think what happens when a person is
taught one thing at church and the complete opposite at home? Does that make
home life easier or harder for the family?Too get a mixed faith
household compliant with LDS teachings it takes 15 minutes in the Bishop's
office. For a family headed by a gay couple you have a lot more to do to bring
them into compliance.
@ bj-hp -- "this is The Church of Jesus Christ."The CJC LDS second article of faith says "We believe that men will be
punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."And JC himself says "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to
come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14 ; Mark
10:14 ; Luke 18:16)And apostle Cannon says "[....]All little
children, no matter what their parentage may be, are innocent in the sight of
heaven, and they should be received as such and blessed as such."This new policy contradicts all of those. And remember, this new policy is
merely POLICY -- it has not been declared a doctrinal revelation."This new policy protects the children and the parents in same-sex
marriages."Nonsense. If the motivation of the church were to
protect children from family discord, then it would have applied the same policy
to all mixed-faith households. But it didn't.Guess why."If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had done
nothing..."This sentence doesn't make much sense, but it
appears to ignore the fact that parental consent is required for baptisms.
When someone says "Why does the LDS Church feel it is smarter that
Christ?" fails to understand that this is The Church of Jesus Christ. He is
the head of the Church not a group of old men. It is his Church and he leads
and directs the church.Open Minded Mormon: You actually know the
answer to your question but prefer to cause contention. The answer is of course
that all will be fixed and completed during the millennium which is much closer
than anyone actually knows.This new policy protects the children and
the parents in same-sex marriages. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints had done nothing and when a couple complained about their parents doing a
name and blessing for their child and complained about it would have jumped on
the Church for that. So in all actuality it would have made no difference if no
policy was in place the policy that was put in place, the same critics would
have complained and tried to embarrass the Church. What will happen in the end
will leave the Church and go else where saying the Church left me.
(cont'd from previous)"that is speaking of sins in the
eternal perspective, not just the here and now."Seriously? You
think it's hunky-dory to punish children for sins they haven't
committed, so long as that punishment is only in the living world??"Can you tell us why YOU care..."I already told you, Red.
I care for the same reason that anyone should care -- treating people unfairly
is wrong. And treating innocent children unfairly is especially offensive. And
contradicting your own bedrock principles (in this case, both the second article
of faith and Christ's own words) just because you happen to dislike a
certain group of people is reprehensible.@A Thompson --You haven't answered the question, Thompson. Why does the LDS church
appear to think it knows better than Christ himself?"Christ
rejects their rebellion"You seem to be trying to speak for
Christ again. Are you sure you really want to do that?"those who
speak against Christ's authority"Speaking of Christ's
authority --"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to
come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14 ; Mark
10:14 ; Luke 18:16)
@RedShirt --"...Cannon has nothing to do with this
issue."Of course it does."In some minds there
seems to be an idea that there should be a different form of blessing for
children born of non-members and for those who are identified with the
Church.... This is all wrong. If we take the example of our Lord and Redeemer,
who is our pattern and whose example we cannot too closely follow, we find that
He blessed all who were brought to Him. We have no hint that He asked whose
children they were, or the standing or faith of their parents. His remark was,
'Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such
is the Kingdom of Heaven;' and He laid His hands upon them and blessed
them. All little children, no matter what their parentage may be, are innocent
in the sight of heaven, and they should be received as such and blessed as
such.""First, the children are not being punished."Of course they are. Can you just imagine all the taunting and bullying
in the schoolyards after these children are told they don't deserve
So -- Ir one of these children [aged 8-18] dies after the age of
accountability, but BERFORE they are 18 and are allowed baptism...WHO'S SIN is their heads upon, and Who's
responsible for their Salvation?
Some people would have us think that they care about little children when they
advocate abortion. Some people would have us think that they care for little
children when they advocate open defiance of Christ's appointed spokesmen.
Just exactly who do those people represent? Christ rejects their rebellion, so
they cannot and do not represent Christ. Christ doesn't need their help.
He is perfectly capable of selecting His own prophets and apostles, which again
makes us ask those who speak against Christ's authority to speak to the
world through prophets and apostles whom He has appointed, who gave you
permission to change Christ's doctrine about marriage and the family?Pretending to care for children when you support the destruction of life
in the womb shows us how far your ideology has strayed from Christ's
doctrine about marriage and the family.
To "Coontrariusester" I understand LDS doctrine better than you. Your
quote from Geroge Q Cannon has nothing to do with this issue.It
doesn't contradict the 2nd article of faith for multiple reasons. First,
the children are not being punished. Second, that is speaking of sins in the
eternal perspective, not just the here and now. This is covered in the LDS
scriptures. I would give you the reference, but I think it is better for you to
search and ponder the scriptures.Those are nice reasons why other
people would care, but I didn't ask if other people cared. I asked
"What I want to know is why do YOU even care? You are not LDS, nor do you
have any intention of joining the LDS church, so how does this policy even have
any bearing in YOUR life?Can you tell us why YOU care, or are you
going to try to divert things again?
@RedShirtCalTech --"If you understood LDS doctrine...."Do you think you understand LDS doctrine better than an apostle?"LDS Apostle George Cannon: "[....]All little children, no
matter what their parentage may be, are innocent in the sight of heaven, and
they should be received as such and blessed as such.""why do
you even care?"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for
people of good will to do nothing. One relevant example from the NYT
this weekend:A married Mormon mom with a gay son --"It feels like they are extending an olive branch and hitting you with
it.... It's like this emotional whiplash."[....]...
news of the new rules left her son sobbing and forced her and her husband to
consider leaving a religion they have been desperately trying to stay in.... she
can't comprehend singling out gay couples' children. "We just put
a scarlet letter on these kids," she said. "This isn't my church. I
don't see God in it. I don't see divinity it. It just feels
evil."These are **real people** -- children who have committed
no sins at all.How does this policy NOT violate the second article
To "Coontrariusester" who is preventing the children from coming to
Christ? They can still learn the Gospel, attend LDS meetings, and enjoy all the
benefits of membership. If they die before they are baptized, they have already
met one condition, and that is accept baptism.If you understood LDS
doctrine, and the LDS church, you would realize that your statement is nothing
more than an attempt to make something out of nothing.What I want to
know is why do you even care? You are not LDS, nor do you have any intention of
joining the LDS church, so how does this policy even have any bearing in your
@Thompson --"After reading and re-reading the comments, it is
very clear that too many people have the attitude that Christ is failing in His
stated mission to stand as the cornerstone of what is good and proper and
acceptable to Him and to our Father in Heaven."You might remind
yourself of a few of Christ's actual words: "Suffer little children,
and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 19:14 ; Mark 10:14 ; Luke 18:16)Why does the LDS church
apparently feel that it is wiser than Christ himself?
@Light and Liberty --" 98 percent believe in gay marriage?
That's news to me."I never said any such thing, so your
surprise at a straw man is immaterial."The church will flourish
throughout the world"The church is already losing members faster
than it has in 175 years. In 2012, in what can only be described as
a rare candid moment, LDS Historian Marlin K. Jensen admitted that, "more
members are falling away today than any time in the past 175 years."
(reported on ABC 4 News Utah) From a 2012 Reuters story -- "In
the U.S., only about half of Mormons are active members of the church, said
Washington State University emeritus sociologist Armand Mauss.... Sociologists
estimate there are as few as 5 million active members worldwide. [....] Not
since a famous troublespot in Mormon history, the 1837 failure of a church bank
in Kirtland, Ohio, have so many left the church, Jensen said."
After reading and re-reading the comments, it is very clear that too many people
have the attitude that Christ is failing in His stated mission to stand as the
cornerstone of what is good and proper and acceptable to Him and to our Father
in Heaven.When has Christ ever failed? Yet, many believe that if He
just wasn't so old-fashioned, that He would understand that the world is
changing and that if He wants to be the leader of their parade, He'd better
get with the times and change His doctrine.Is it possible that
anyone feels so smug to give instructions to our Savior, our Redeemer, our
Advocate? Is it just possible that they can't even see that they are
rejecting Him, the only pure and perfect person to have ever lived?Thank goodness that Christ's prophets and apostles are not timid about
representing our Lord and are not at all ashamed of Him, of His love for
children, of His rules, and of His desire to bless us IF we are willing to
follow Him without trying to substitute His doctrine with the philosophies of
I think this is a wise decision on the part of the church. They see
how the issue of pseudo-marriage has completely torn apart every religion where
it has reared its ugly head and they have wisely chosen to avoid it.Critics of this policy have to remember that it is the believer, who must
change to conform to the religion - not the other way around.
contrariuss,You are welcome to your opinion. Christ really
doesn't care about opinions. He knows the value of family. He knows the
place of family. He knows the responsibilities of family. He does not pit a
child against the parents. He cares very much for the 55,000,000 children who
were killed in the womb. He cares very much for the millions who have died or
have been maimed as "collateral damage" in wars. He weeps for those who
are hungry, who are cold, who are mistreated. But, you seem to forget that we
are all His children and that His message for proper conduct is for all, not
just those who think that because they consider themselves "adults" that
Christ's doctrine of marriage no longer applies to them.No
child is forced by Christ's Church to choose between Christ and the
child's parents. When that child is able to support himself without aid
from an adult, that child can then choose to serve Christ without being forced
by a parent to renounce Christ's doctrine.
Another PR disaster. Excellent sound policy from a "church". Blame the
children! This is exactly the teaching of Christ and what "he would do".
The Church doctrine on marriage nicely fits 'traditional' opposite sex
couples. But the fact is families can take different forms and be just as
successful and create a wholesome and loving environment. Gay people did not
have any choice in their sexual orientation. Whether you accept that fact or
not, it is true. For the Church to suggest that the creator of heaven and earth
would command gay people to live out mortality single, celebit, and alone in
order to gain exaltation in the next life is a pill very few sane people would
swallow. In my opinion it would be cruel and unusual punishment.
As I read this enhanced church policy, I feel that this is in preparation for
future moral devastation. Today we think of polygamous and SSM families as a
small minority, where the Church can easily work through the complications. In
a future day, when the family structure has been corrupted throughout the world,
we might see the day when a vast number of people will seek baptism without
accepting the Lord's moral code for families.I'm sure that
the Lord is directing His church, seeing the future with a perfect eye.
A chief obstacle that those weak in the faith have with this clarified policy is
that these children must wait until they are adults to receive the ordinances of
the gospel. My nonmember parents resisted my conversion as a teen, and in those
days I would have had to wait until I was 21 years old to be baptized. As it occurred, they relented when I was 18, and I gladly renounced
every false doctrine that had surrounded me previously for the privilege of
holding tight to the Pearl of Great Price spoken of in the scriptures.Most of the inhabitants of the earth have had or will have to wait centuries
or longer to receive the saving ordinances of the true gospel administered by
the Lord's priesthood. Let's not get so hung up on the passing of
some years. Waiting is a unavoidable element of the Plan of Happiness.
Contraries. I don't know where you get your statistics, but they make it
difficult just from that standpoint to trust anything you say. 98 percent
believe in gay marriage? That's news to me. Here is the truth. Most of
the world's population has never heard of Mormonism and far fewer will
never even register that Mormons consider those who live in same gender
relationships as apostates. The criticism that many here on these blogs say
will hurt the church are deluded. The Lord's church will stand out as
clear as the stars above in the years ahead, however, just because their stands
are the Lord's, not what is Politically Correct. The church will flourish
throughout the world because it is a place of safety for all who want to be safe
and find peace. In the meantime, for those who don't care, which
represents a majority of the world's population, this so called tragedy of
policy will not even register. It is an exciting time to stand up for truth,
for God's standard of marriage,, and for the innocent children and pure
hearts that want to do what is right.
It took me a while to really wrap my head around this. It didn't seem fair
at all at first; totally contrary to what Jesus said about "suffer the
children to come unto me." Then I realized that there is no reason to put
children (or teenagers) in the position of feeling that there is a disconnect
between what is taught at church and modeled at home. Kids are growing up too
fast nowadays anyway, so no need to pile much more confusion onto their plates
at this moment. Let them grow up, consider things from their perspective, and
THEN welcome them into the waters of baptism. After all, as any convert will
tell you, and even President Hinckley said as much in the "60 Minutes"
interview with Mike Wallace, it is HARD to be Mormon. But we all should know
that it is the hard stuff that makes it real!
Hearts have been broken over and over and over again. This policy is just one
more bludgeoning blow to the hearts of those who love their gay children,
parents, siblings, and friends. I'm starting to see how it is. I'm
almost numb to it now...
@Mike Richards --"You, and many others, are upset because Christ
will not be bound by your ideas."A swing and a miss, Mike.Remember -- less than 2% of the population believes in your version of
Christ. That doesn't mean the other 98% have rejected Christ at all -- just
that their ideas of Christ and yours don't agree.Personally, I
favor the Christ who said: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to
come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14 ; Mark
10:14 ; Luke 18:16)"He loves children and he protects
them"You don't protect kids by punishing them for their
parents' sins, Mike.And you don't protect kids by forcing
them to renounce their own parents.
How silly to equate denouncing the errant doctrine of same sex marriage with
denouncing parents. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Church never
said that we should denounce parents who are under Church discipline..quite the
opposite actually...love them, encourage them to come back and live the gospel.
The Church stated that 18 year olds living in such a situation must denounce the
doctrine and agree to follow the teachings of the Church in order to be
baptized. The Church is attempting to keep discord out of the home by not
pitting children against parents. I seriously doubt many excommunicated
same-sex parents will want to have their children taught at Church that same-sex
marriage is a sin and wrong in the eyes of the Lord. People are making too much
of this. Those who disagree with the Church have not listened to Elder
Christopherson's explanation, or if they did, they missed the whole point
Wow, I hope they "disavow" this policy asap, otherwise there may need to
be a new version of the LDS Scriptures that says: "Suffer the little
children to come unto me and forbid them not -- unless they are related to our
gay brothers and sisters."
Mancun. The first presidency refused Madison Brown's baptism. She has
publicly said she will never live polygamy and is not a fan. Because she did not
publicly disavow her parents she was denied. We even saw her publicly refuse to
their church when home one weekend because the church asked her not to attend
such services. So yes adult kids of SS families will have to do more than just
say they are straight and it's a sin. Stop sending missionaries
out if not only their status but the status of their parents matter. Stop
letting members in who grew up in other faiths or without faith cause that too
will split the family. Be consistent.
Rdahl. Love the sinner, hate the sin. The Church is God's church, not
man's. It is His'S rules that we must follow, not man's. True,
"Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to
their own species, and put them on a national equalization." HofC, V.5,
Contrariuses,You, and many others, are upset because Christ will not
be bound by your ideas. He is sovereign, meaning that He reigns without any
person's permission. His Church is a theocracy, not a democracy. He
speaks and we can choose to listen or we can fight against Him. Those are the
two choices. He loves children and he protects them from adults who
would hurt them because of their belief in Him and in His doctrine of marriage.
He will not allow children to be used as pawns by adults who stumble over His
doctrine of marriage. As many have stated, Christ is not concerned
with public opinion. He will not change His doctrine of marriage just because
some people are being led away by those who have replaced His doctrine with the
philosophies of man.The LDS Church is protecting children from
adults who care more for what they, themselves, want and little or nothing about
what Christ would have them do.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. The Church is God's church, not man's.
It is His'S rules that we must follow, not man's. The Church has not
and does not follow the whims of societies changing views but follows God's
commandments. The Church is preparing us for the return of Christ by making us
more pure as no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God. I believe we are
very close to Christ's return and we need put away all things that would
hold us back. Same-sex marriages, unions and relationships have always been
against the Church's teachings and while the world has accepted them, the
Church should not bow down the the world. Remember, we are to be "In the
world but not of the world". People have their free agency. If they do not
want to believe what the Church teaches they are free to leave and join another
church. The Church must be taken as a whole, you cannot pick and choose which of
God's commandments you want to follow. The time is close people. Time to
choose to follow Christ or not.
The sifting process through word and deed proceeds as predicted both in and out
of the church as the wagon train moves along. It is both sad and interesting to
watch as the separation between the will of the Lord and the will of the people
grows. So grateful for the revelation known as The Family: A Proclamation to the
World. Either the Lord has restored his church and placed his Prophets and
Apostles to direct and guide, or he has not. We all have been given agency to
decide who we will listen to and follow. Isaiah wrote," For my thoughts are
not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."
@Mike Richards --"You said that children of same-sex
"couples" cannot be baptized unless they renounce their save-sex
parents. That is a false and misleading interpretation."Nope,
that's exactly what the policy says, Mike."If that means
that the parents have to learn from their children that Christ means exactly
what He said, when Christ told us "one of a family, two of a city", then
those parents have proven Christ right."You're
contradicting yourself, Mike. In your previous post you said "Christ would
never put a child in a predicament where the child had to instruct the
parent". Well, which is it?The LDS Church claims that families
are paramount -- yet this policy drives a huge wedge between parents and
children. The church's Second Article of Faith declares that children shall
not be blamed for the sins of their parents -- yet this policy does exactly
Most of the comments here appear insular in nature and of a "we showed
you" type of attitude. While those making the comments feel comfortable in
their little "happy valley" comments on the world stage are almost all
of a universal condemnation especially the policy concerning the children. I
don't think the church has yet realized the magnitude of negativity that
will result. They have the right to conduct their services in any legal manor
they deem proper. They also should expect to be criticized when doing things not
seen as appropriate by the general populous.
On the Tribune website -- several stories, with about 10 times the comments
posted here.Almost NONE of the comments approve - go read them, do
not just blindly follow
By the way - the headline on the Ten O'Clock News:"Why the
mormon church is excluding some children"____________________VanceoneProvo, UT"Interesting how many people are letting
their love of one of the worst sins, that of homosexuality, blind them to God.
Even many in the church are being led astray."--- Interesting
how some rank "sins" in this way. --- A Gay person, made
that was by God (as your church now agrees), might have a loving sexual
relationship with one person, yet be condemned as far worse than a married
person who cheats, causing illigimate children, broken homes, etc, How bad are
folks who are on their 3rd marriage who cheat or abuse children? How bad are
public officials who do what donors want, against their oaths?".... it has become abundantly clear that homosexuality is a main cause of
hatred of God: they cannot leave God alone. Just as in Sodom, the homosexual
community has pretty well made it clear that you will be forced to choose: God
or them."--- ReallY? Keep looking out the window for the Gay
folks with pitchforks, then.
This policy wil cause no end of heartbreak to powerless young kids and their
I cannot figure out which is worse, that the church discriminates in this manner
or that members attempt to justify this type of action. Very damaging for the
church and its precious image.
Just finished reading every single comment. Thanks to the Deseret News for
allowing Pro and Con ideas
Re: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for
Adam and Steve's transgressions."Disingenuous sophistry.
Nothing more.The Church's position is not punishment. Rather,
it's thoughtfully intended to foster peaceful relations within families.
The Church has a long history of trying not to encourage or enable unnecessary
familial strife. We don't allow proselyting or baptizing new members in
societies in which doing so would create serious enmity between a new member and
his/her family.Imagine the untenable situation these poor kids would
be placed in if they become active members of a church that is required to teach
them that their parents are engaged in serious apostasy.If LGBT
activists were actually interested in peaceful relationships within families
headed by same-sex partners, they would welcome the Church's position.
It seems that a lot of commenters are misunderstanding the policy on baptizing
children of gay couples. The policy does not prohibit baptism, it just says that
permission must be given by the 1st Presidency. I don't foresee this
preventing anyone from getting baptized, ordained, or going on a mission as long
as they sustain the teachings of the Church. The Church is not trying to keep
kids from joining the Church and being fully participating members, just trying
to make sure that there is no question about if same sex relations are a sin.
I am a child of God. I don't need the approval of any person, even the
prophet, to love him. To pray to him. To be loved by him. Or to receive his
blessings. My faith isn't shaken, because my faith and love is to him. not
to any religion. I am and will always be his child, no approval by anyone
needed. Let them keep their churches and temples. I will still love the church
because I belong to God, not the church. We are all sinners. We are all his
The Lord made this decision for His Church. Don't like it - take it up with
Him.Besides, this only applies to members in the Church via
it's by-laws. These don't apply to the general populace unless they
wish to join the Church. These rules are already canonized in scriptures and are
still valid unless undone by revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.The only reason this is controversial is some folks who want to co-op
the Church into their sphere of political influence; this clarification makes it
difficult for such uncivilized politicking. The Church does not exist for such
purposes.So, I really don't see what the problem is here.
They were baptized by Joseph Smith...they left New York and followed the Prophet
to Ohio and suffered persecution and left for Missouri and followed the Prophet.
They were forced from their home in Missouri and settled in Nauvoo...following
the Prophet. And when their Prophet wasassassinated...they followed yet
another Prophet to the Salt Lake Valley.It has always proved hard to
follow a Prophet...Read the Old and New Testament...the Book of Mormon has a
similar history. And when the society around the faithful fell into wickedness,
they had to suffer for their beliefs, even unto death. A simple soul in
Norway observed, "You have to wonder if there isn't something to the
Mormons, they are persecuted so."Like my ancestors before me, I
choose to follow the Prophet in this toppling world of "PC".
Quite the opposite of being harsh, I think the policy is compassionate regarding
children. It prevents them from being put in the middle of a tug of war between
church teaching and what they are taught at home. It also respects the
authority and choices of the parents regarding their life style and the home
environment they choose for the children.
This policy is actually thoughtful towards SSM families. Can you imagine this
kind of conversation after Church?Gay Parent: So what did you learn
at Church today?Son: That homosexuality is sinful.The Church
isn't interested in putting Children of LGBT people at odds with their
parents. The Church takes precaution with other minors as well before allowing
them to get baptized.If a person is under 18 and their parents are
not members of the LDS faith then permission has to be given by the parents for
them to get baptized otherwise they wait until they are 18.If a
person was Muslim precaution is taken before they join the Church. There are
plenty of rational logical arguments behind not allowing people to get baptized.
I am an active member of the church. My wife decided to leave the church 8
years ago and no longer lives the teachings of the church. We remain married
and are raising children, some of whom have chosen to attend church. Under the
reasoning of this new statement, I would think my son would be required to get
permission from the First Presidency to go on a mission in a few years (the son
of someone who openly opposes the church and its teachings). I'm not sure
I understand how my situation is that much different than the child raised by a
I appreciate this policy and the fact that the Church is not providing an
explanation. According to the scriptures and my conscience this forbidden
behavior is a very serious sin with eternal consequences. Our youth should be
protected from the wave of propaganda that teaches otherwise. Unfortunately
Western Europe and the Americas have not taken the steps to protect our greatest
resource, our children, from the propaganda that Russia has (by prohibiting
propagandizing this fallacious information to the youth and by mandating schools
have classes in religion).
@Vanceone "for it has become abundantly clear that homosexuality is a main
cause of hatred of God: they cannot leave God alone. Just as in Sodom, the
homosexual community has pretty well made it clear that you will be forced to
choose: God or them. "Wow - over the top you think? I have
known a number of gay men, and your statement in no way describes them. Your
statement is incredibly hateful.
Contrariuser,I reject your rebuttal to my post. You said that
children of same-sex "couples" cannot be baptized unless they renounce
their save-sex parents. That is a false and misleading interpretation. He has
clearly told us that baptism is for those who believe in Him, on His terms, who
reject the world, on His terms, who covenant with Him to keep all of His
commandments. No one can be baptized into Christ's Church until they are
able to put Christ first in their lives. If that means that the parents have to
learn from their children that Christ means exactly what He said, when Christ
told us "one of a family, two of a city", then those parents have proven
Christ right. Christ invites everyone to be part of His eternal family IF they
reject the philosophies of men and put Him first. You've stated the
opposite; that men must reject Christ's doctrine and put the philosophies
of men first.
This policy seems to say that the age of accountability depends upon whether
your parents are gay or straight.If an 8-year-old's parents are
married and straight, unmarried and straight, divorced and straight or in prison
and straight, he can be baptized.However, if his parents are gay, his age
of accountability rises to 18.This 10-year gap seems excessive. Maybe a
good compromise would be to make 13 the new age of baptism and accountability.
Just trying to be helpful.
@patriotPeople don't oppose the LDS churches position because those
that oppose it are "hateful" the oppose these policies because the
policies are hateful. You cannot take the effect and make it the cause.
@Mike --"the world is now telling us that if parents are
teaching something other than what Christ has told His people to teach, that a
wedge needs to be driven between the child and the parent. Christ would never
put a child in a predicament where the child had to instruct the parent."But that's **exactly** what the LDS church is now doing. Even once
these children are 18 years old, they STILL won't be allowed to receive
baptism unless they renounce their parents. That's one huge wedge!
I know unmarried heterosexual parents who have had their infants blessed and
their 8-year-olds baptized. These are parents who could have legally and
religiously gotten married had they wanted to. Why the double standard? Why
are the children of same-sex marriages punished for their parents' sins,
but the children of shacking-up heterosexuals not? No children should be
punished for the "sins" of their parents. The Kingdom of Heaven is
composed of such as they.
TracyAG don't despair read the handbook, their are exemptions, it is not an
all or nothing, it just requires review and approval case by case.
People who think what the prophets say is "harsh" are saying that what
God says is harsh because the prophets are his mouthpiece here on the earth. We
don't always understand all the commandments, but do we keep them? Or do we
choose which ones to obey and then call the others "harsh". the wicked
have always taken the truth to be hard. God is in charge and He knows what he
is doing. it doesn't matter what people say when they don't
understand all the ramifications. Today too many place importance on their own
opinions but in the end this won't matter one bit! Listen to God's
Holy Prophets and they will lead you right! Don't try to find fault with
their decisions because you are in essence finding fault with God.
Some children come from a broken home caused by drug abuse, infidelity, even
felonious activity. Why do THOSE children get to be baptized?
We have two opposing points of view. One point, which I support, tells us that
Christ is the head of the LDS Church, that His prophet and apostles serve us by
serving Him and that all doctrine given to us requires our complete attention.
The other point, which I oppose, is that Christ's Church is some kind of
democracy where each person chooses for himself which doctrines Christ is
obligated to support.Christ has told us that children are to be
obedient to their parents, but the world is now telling us that if parents are
teaching something other than what Christ has told His people to teach, that a
wedge needs to be driven between the child and the parent. Christ would never
put a child in a predicament where the child had to instruct the parent.
That's simply not how Christ runs His kingdom.Christ's
Church represents Christ's doctrine, not the philosophies of man. Same sex
marriage is not Christ's doctrine. Children are not pawns to be used and
abused by those who openly reject Christ's doctrine of marriage between a
man and a woman only.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I would offer the following
observations.The LDS ought to be able to perform its rituals to
whomsoever it choses. It's doctrine in completely within its own control,
and I would not want it otherwise. Of course, there is a difference between
what is legal and what is religiously acceptable in any religion, but the LDS
has it rights to do its own thing.The bad part of all of this is the
families affected. How many LDS grandparents are going to be anguished because
their gay son or daughter has children or adopts them, and these precious
grandchildren will be denied the benefits of their faith? What about aunts,
uncles, neighbors and all the others involved in a child's life?I know that gay parents and their kids can still go to services, but there
will be many exclusions for the parents and the kids. Some of these exclusions
are very important to the excluded parties and their extended family and support
system. I don't know how this will play out, but it seems awfully extreme.
And just how does one explain this to a child?
This is all getting to be kind of predictable and routine and even a little
boring.1. The Church makes some kind of policy announcement2. Those
who don't like the church go ape wild and comment like crazy3. Those
who do like the church defend it4. The comments and clicks go through the
roof at a dizzying pace5. Three or four days later the comments and clicks
slow down to a trickle and then stop6. Everything goes back to normal for
a few weeks, and then...7. Repeat starting at #1
I support the updated policy by the Church. My question is why are
we still involved with the Boy Scouts? Makes no sense.
How incredibly sad. You may not agree with the parents but to deny a child
acceptance into your church is a most terrible of crimes. And to call them an
apostate? This is not the GOD I know.
A 9 year old whose parents polygamists or gay is not living in sin. If they want
to join and the parents are fine let them join. If they are 18 hold them to the
same requirements for baptism any other 18 year old would have to surpass. The
public is mad at a church that would deny based in parents actions and not the
potential members actions. Is this the caste system of India? They should be
able to disavow the practice without having to publicly disavow their parents.
Shame on them.
@Castlepath: "It's hypocritical to say this policy is unfair to
children, when same-sex marriage is all about denying the rights of children to
be raised by a mother and a father."Same-sex marriage allows
same-sex couples to have that legal protections and benefits as opposite-sex
couples. As a benefit, children being raised by those couples get
the legal protections and benefits as children being raised by married
opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriages do not remove any child
being raised by a mother and father from their mother and father. Same-sex
marriage does allow a greater degree of security to children being raised by two
fathers or two mothers. As a side benefit, changes to adoption laws
are making it easier for same-sex married couples to adopt kids in the system.
Most often these couples adopt children with health issues or who are older or
sibling groups. Those kids are classed as "harder to adopt" and very,
very frequently grow up shuttling from one foster home to another - married gay
couples are willing to give security, love, and be a forever family.
There are many churches out there to choose from. Peter and Paul were very
kind and very bold and they held church courts; the first three chapters of
Revelation spell out the problems in the Church because of chaos and lack of
unity. The members were to blame in those chapters, not the world. The Lord
doesn't love us so much that he allows any behavior. He does not allow nor
accept any behavior. Alma 6:3 There was wickedness inside the church (lack
of humility and rebellion) and therefore, there was excommunication.
I am also seriously considering resigning my membership. I wonder if there is
any way to get a refund of all the tithes and offerings I`ve contributed over
the many years.
@patriot"Why do all the haters even care about this announcement? They
aren't even members. "Because last night I saw several
people I care about be seriously depressed about this announcement, a couple
people consider leaving the church, and another post suicide prevention hotline
information... just in case someone might need it. I'm not a member, and
while I don't care whether or not people are members, non-members, leave
the church, or join the church... I care about people who are having a difficult
time with things. Maybe not as often as I should (definitely not as often as I
should), but people are hurting over this, so why shouldn't I care?
@Patriot from Cedar HillsYou just assume that the "haters"
aren't members. Sad. I am a member. And not a hater, just confused.I GREW UP IN A GAY HOME. Yes, that can bring confusion. Thank goodness
I found the church as a teenager, it was a huge support to me during that time.
How grateful I am that I was allowed to be baptized. It's devastating for
me to know that children in the same situation as I was when I was a kid
won't be able to join the church. Very, very sad. People are falsely
assuming that by not allowing children of gay parents to get baptized they are
somehow protecting them and their families. As someone who grew up in a gay
home and found the church as a teenager, I must tell you all that you are wrong.
Children have always had to ask their parents for permission to be baptized;
this respects the family---sometimes family comes first. Truth is not
desperate for converts. Patience and time will bring the truth to the surface.
Other times, when people leave on missions, and then family comes second.
Abraham put God before his own son Isaac, and it ended up blessing them both.
But often, family comes first, and the Church respects that.
As always, when I comment on articles in the Deseret News about the LDS Church,
I just look at where I am currently reading in the Book of Mormon to find
answers ..........many "are consigned to a state of endless
wo."while others "are raised to dwell at the right hand of God, in
a state of never-ending happiness.""And thus we see how
great the inequality of man is because of sin and transgression.."This insight into the plan of happiness was brought to you by Alma Chaper 28
verses 11,12&13 in the Book of Mormon.
If memory serves me correctly, this policy is similar to the policy that is
currently in Handbook 1 regarding children who come polygamous families, so this
recent policy statement should come as no surprise to anyone.Plus,
membership in any church is a deeply personal and completely voluntary decision.
Clearly the Church's doctrine on this subject is a deal breaker for people
who might consider membership in this church. Thus they will embrace a church
that more closely aligns with their personal beliefs. That's the beauty of
Until 1978, the descendants of Cain were punished for his supposed sin. This is
nothing new to the theology. Sad, but nothing new.
The LDS church has confirmed a sharp increase in its condemnation toward
same-sex relationships, legal or otherwise. The rebuke is aimed not only at
adults whose lifestyle, for whatever reason, gravitated to same-gender
relationships but also to the CHILDREN of these relationships.After
reading articles on the subject I am left to understand that same-sex adherents
are now placed in a lineup alongside murderers, rapists, and thieves and that
their CHILDREN are to be placed into 18 years of isolation from church
involvement as though they had somehow become tainted with some threatening
virus. Can this possibly be the case?Those who live in an LDS
community know by experience that many LDS parents discourage or prohibit their
children from playing with non-member children. Now, think for a moment about
what institutionalized segregation is going to do to that already shameful
dynamic. It doesn't take a genius to see that this policy change places
KIDS smack into the middle of the schism between the LDS church and same-gender
members and potentially makes collateral damage out of them!If true,
many of these kids will be shamed, marginalized and bullied and ultimately
scarred for life...
The SCOTUS should have just outlawed the definition of a marriage relationship
in the Bible. We have lots of mountains they could ascend and then come down
with new commandments - by a 5-4 majority.
Observation - most of the people decrying this and saying the church is awful
are the same who have been saying such for months every time anything about the
church comes up. My guess is they are either not members of the church or are
not fully invested in said membership. If anyone fits into either of those
camps, I would encourage you to study the doctrine, and pray with real intent to
know the truth. I have done so and it has changed my life for the better. Every
day is brighter because of it. To any within the church who have some misgivings
about this - that is fine. Do the same I counseled above. God will bring peace
to you. The church will handle this correctly.
Interesting how many people are letting their love of one of the worst sins,
that of homosexuality, blind them to God. Even many in the church are being led
astray. I have no doubt that the church will be persecuted by our
"tolerant" neighbors, the LGBT and their enablers. Any who stand for
God will be so persecuted; for it has become abundantly clear that homosexuality
is a main cause of hatred of God: they cannot leave God alone. Just as in
Sodom, the homosexual community has pretty well made it clear that you will be
forced to choose: God or them. Many will leave the church and
support sin; for them I sorrow. But make no mistake: Wickedness never was
happiness, nor is it godliness. Those who think that God would never draw hard
lines in the sand need to reread their scriptures. Jesus was never a person to
condone sin, and same sex marriages are indeed apostate; for they guarantee
damnation in the sense that the people involved will never be exalted--of their
own free will and choice.
Baring the kids from gay families from joining the church is just
ridiculous..... I am sorry.... I am a fathful member but this harkens back to
some really old stupid policies against blacks. Why would you want to keep
kids from being part of the church? Are kids of adulteress bared from church
membership? What sins of the parents bares kids from participation in church
activity.I don't get it.
It's hypocritical to say this policy is unfair to children, when same-sex
marriage is all about denying the rights of children to be raised by a mother
and a father.
I applaud the Church for enforcing a principal of doctrine. Popularity does not
make things right, example, pornography. Just because pornography rampant and
is widely accepted as a victimless behavior does not make it right. Laws of God
are left to God to change, not popularity.
@Laura Bilington: Your comments are inaccurate. The LDS Church has never taught
that simply FEELING attracted to the same sex is sinful--it's the acting on
it part that is the problem. I know people who struggle with same-sex
attraction who are very active members of the Church and are able to take the
sacrament, hold callings, etc because they do not ACT on their feelings of
attraction.Additionally, as more children of gay parents reach
adulthood, more have been speaking out recently in opposition to same-sex
marriage. Those I've heard have specifically mentioned the confusion
they've struggled with over gender-identity and roles. Being raised in such
a situation affected them negatively and the resulting problems have continued
to plague them on into adulthood.
This new policy is another wedge to split families apart. My
children were victims of the wedge policies of the LDS church when I no longer
believed because of historical issues. The bishop told my now ex-wife to
divorce me. My children are now wondering why the church is driving another
wedge between families. I will formally resign now as I can't
be part of such lack of Christian love.
I spent a large portion of my mission preaching against original sin, now it
appears as part of LDS doctrine too, anyone else confused?
I'm just grateful we have the truth so we can stand up to these kids who
have no blame in any of this.
What the most churches forget, as institutions, they are a means to the end and
are not the end itself. Its job is to help each of us work through whatever
issues we have in life in order to return to the Father. If they exclude the
sinner, those who are different, and so forth, then the church has failed in its
purpose. As noted above, nature has dealt a hand to some, and is that not the
hand of God? So how should the institution address this? Exclusion? Then it has
forgotten that it is the means to the end and nothing more.As for
some who think the Church will backtrack, to do so would be an admission that
this policy was not divinely inspired. I don't believe it was.
Why do all the haters even care about this announcement? They aren't even
members. Belonging to the Church is a privilege that is granted upon complete
complicance to the Lord's commandments. No one is forcing a person to keep
the commandments but it is a requirement for membership. Go ahead and live in
the secular world if that is your choice -- choices do have consequences.
First, "Gay" does not necessarily equal "gay-acting." The policy
specifically refers to "Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender
Relationship," not "gay parents."The family is the
foundation of our society. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
honors the special relationship between parents and their children. They have
long refrained from teaching minor children against the wishes of their parents,
nor do we teach people without permission of their governments (See D&C
134). I don't think minor children are prepared to be taught
the Ten Commandments ("Honor thy father and thy mother") and the rest of
our moral code without causing confusion.
Jesus loves children. He blesses and protects children. Apparently, He has
directed His servants, those we sustain as Prophets/Seers/Revelators, to
implement a CHURCH POLICY that protects children. Can you imagine how conflicted
eight-year-old children who are being raised in a Same-Sex-Parented home would
be if they had to condemn the practices of their Same-Sex parents in order to
qualify for baptism into the church they attend? How heartless would that be?"And thus we see how merciful and just are all the dealings of the Lord,
to the fulfilling of all his words unto the children of men;" (Alma
50:19)Rather than criticize, we should all thank God for such a benevolent
and merciful directive. Now these blameless and precious children can remain
children, and wait to deal with heartbreaking adult issues until they are
Why are people still trying to guess why the church made these amendments to the
handbook? Is anybody making comments here authorized by the church to explain
why these amendments were made? If not, quit guessing and making the water more
murky. Ask your bishop if you have questions about this.
Last year, my unmarried daughter wanted me to perform a blessing on her recently
born child. She and her boyfriend were living together but not married. We were
told that I could perform this blessing but not formally in church, and that it
would not be recorded in church records. I was fine with that, and understand
the reasoning behind it. The bishop was also invited and came to this blessing
at our home. It was still a special blessing and I spoke as I would in church,
trying to follow the promptings of the Spirit in this blessing. This policy
statement is just a reiteration of the standard that official church blessings
for babies can only be done in cases where the parents are in a heterosexual
marriage relationship, clarifying that same-sex marriage is no different than
any other relationship that doesn't fit the traditional marriage category.
Mark 10:14 - "But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased , and said unto
them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of
such is the kingdom of God.""much displeased.'
The children are not being punished for the sins of their parents. There is just
an extra level of approval to go through before baptism can happen. This
isn't some kind of social club, it is Christ's Church. The children
will be fine. The parents will have to pay for their sins. Parents are to teach
their children the gospel and if they don't the sin is on the parents. This
does nothing to change the church's position as to accepting those who are
true seekers of the truth to come to worship God. All are welcome, including
homosexuals. They cannot receive certain blessings just as someone living in
adultery or any other number of sins cannot. The children who will be affected
by this are a tiny percentage and they can petition the church for approval and
each will be treated with much prayer and the proper decision will be reached.
This, more than anything, stands as a clarion call to all that believe the
church will bend to the LGBT crowd on doctrine that it will not do such.
@InMyOpinionAlso - re "Children are harmed by same-sex marriage not the
church." All the more reason for the Church not to treat the
little critters as somehow different. How does one explain to an 8 year old
neighbor that, no, I'm sorry, you cannot be baptized?
The reason people such as myself (never been Mormon, never want to be) are upset
by this is because of the message the policy sends. Do what you want in your
religion, but know that the message sent is one that supports bigotry and
exclusion and actively encourages the shunning of children. The idea conveyed
is that same sex relationships are so egregious that children in the care of
people in such unions are "Untouchable": unworthy of whatever your
baptisms, namings, blessings, and memberships mean to you. It is
disturbing, and heartbreaking frankly, to learn that these are the principles
taught in your churches.
re:Kwall You're absolutely correct. We are punished for our own sins and
not the sins of others. Would say the children who perished during the flood
were being punished for the sins of others or being saved from having little
chance of learning the principles of obedience handed down by God? While this
may seem a stretch to you, think about the conflicts being taught by those who
raise children in a constant environment not sanctioned by the Lord.
@annewandering;Of course she knows that I have issues with the LDS
church. She didn't know I want to have my name removed from the rolls and
was going to wait until she'd passed on (she's quite elderly). @RedShirtCalTech;You're wrong. It is not "sin"
for an LGBT person to be in as SS relationship. Your church is also wrong. If
my mother feels pain every time she sees me, she will know that it was the
church that caused it.@ConservativeUtahisBest;What you
just posted was about r ape, not sex.
I have a question for the ecclesiastical Scholars.If a woman has
children in a opposite sex marriage. She decides to divorce and as is usually
the case she is granted custody of the minor children. If that same woman
enters in to a relationship with another woman, what are the status of the
children? What if the natural parents have joint custody. What is the status
of the children ? It seems to me the church is blaming the children
for the sins of one or both parents
First adult children of polygamists and now children of gay parents require a
special process for baptism, something an 8 year can do or a dead person. I had
no idea the "sins" of the parents applied to the child's
"sin" in the LDS church? Explain how there can be sin of familly
association and not original sin? Interesting for a church less than 1% of the
world's population in more than a centuries existence. You are going to
have to stop knocking on doors and stopping people in the streets since you are
limiting who can join the club. Guess you are used to people disavowing family
with the marriage/sealing policy of the US that isn't a problem in most
@mtf1953:"I don't know why this is surprising to anyone. Or why
non-LDS should care."Thank you for this attitude. This is how I wish
everyone who is not a member of the church felt--leave the church alone and
watch it die a slow death.Unfortunately, there is a growing segment that
is getting more angry and hostile at the church. It has always been this way for
followers of Jesus Christ and unfortunately always will be.You believe the
church will wither and die. I believe it will continue to flood the earth in
spite of the growing opposition, persecution and eventual outright war against
the saints.Going back to your "why should the non-LDS care?"--the
answer for us is that Satan is real and he stirs up the wicked to fight against
God and all his followers.
Advise to those that have a hard time with this:If you are not LDS do what
you do and worry about yourselves.If you are LDS choose to follow or
choose to leave. Trying to direct the church without the calling to do so
isn't your responsibility. There are a lot of pent up anger towards LDS
from those that don't follow the teachings of the church or believe it to
be true. Question, why do YOU care?
My son, since early infancy, was declared feminine by his first pediatrition,
blamed on the possible cause of so much estrogen in the meats at that time. I
withheld this information from him for as long as I could, I didn't want
that to sway him in deciding his orientation. He has chosen to live a gay
lifestyle. He had been considered to be the most spiritual boy in primary. He
has struggled with this identity for many years. He was finally going back to
church recently, although a gay branch in Berkeley, he traveled for 1 1/2 hours
to get there. He and his partner are talking about having a surrogate mother to
have a child for them. Now, I am faced with the idea that I may have a
grandchild, that will not be allowed to be blessed or baptized into the church,
until they are legally adults? They would never feel accepted in the church!
What about the scripture in Luke 18:16 that says: "But Jesus called them
unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not:
for of such is the kingdom of God?"
Jimbo LowI intend to do just as you stated. I was going to leave my
name on the church rolls to respect my mother but this has pushed me over the
edge. Out goes my family of five.
"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for
Adam’s transgression." - 2nd Article of FaithApparently
the 2nd Article of Faith doesn't apply to these children who are denied the
blessings and saving ordinances of baptism because of their parents' sins?
If this were a movie, I'd be shouting "Plot hole! Plot
@ConservativeUtahisBest --"The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was
homosexuality."Nope. It didn't actually matter whether
those angels were male or female -- the issue was that they were "other"
("going after strange flesh"), strangers."Behold, this
was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance,
abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus
they were haughty and committed abominations before Me." (Ezekiel
16:49-50)"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as
you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say
to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day
of judgment than for that city." (Matthew 10:14-15)"And
punishments came upon the sinners... for they suffered justly according to their
own wickedness, insomuch as they used a more hard and hateful behavior toward
strangers. For the Sodomites did not receive those, whom they knew not when they
came: but these brought friends into bondage, that had well deserved of
them." (Wisdom 19:13-14, KJV) Sodom wasn't about
homosexuality -- it was about rejecting and abusing outsiders and the poor and
I don't know why this is surprising to anyone. Or why non-LDS should care.
It is consistent with everything we know about the Mormon (LDS) church. Mormons
live in their own bubble and are allowed to establish whatever rules they want
about membership, blessings, missionary requirements, etc. The good thing about
the internet and a long established free press is that the CJCLDS can no longer
hide its rules and practices from the broader population of potential converts.
This is a church that will die a slow death if it sticks to its 19 century
beliefs. It will be fun to watch. PS - please don't respond with
smoke-and-mirror church statistics about how the CJCLDS is growing.
This is really quite simple--if you are not a member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints you have no say in this matter.If you are a
member (as I am) you can accept the policy, wring your hands...or leave the
church.To me it is a good and necessary policy. We want the family as
instructed by God and those who were not raised with a righteous concept of
family need to demonstrate to the highest authority that they do not believe
that the way they were raised is the way they will carry on with their family
life as a member of the church.There are many groups and churches that
embrace Gay marriage and the Gay lifestyle. If that is what you want--there are
many opportunities to live as you choose without harassing churches, individuals
and groups who don't believe as you do.
@ContrariusGenesis 4 ¶But before they lay down, the
men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and
young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto
Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night?
bring them out unto us, that we may know them.In this instance
"know" has a sexual meaning. So the men of Sodom wanted to
"know" the 2 angels that were guests with Lot. The sins of Sodom and
Gomorrah was homosexuality.
"The handbook also clarifies that the ordinance of naming and blessing a
child may not be performed for children living with a parent in a same-gender
relationship."So, what does the church have against innocent
children? To condemn adults who can defend themselves and choose their own
lifestyles is one thing, defenseless children who can't choose where to
live or the lifestyle of their parents, is another. Time to rewrite the
handbook? This does NOT look good to outsiders.
The children will be fine. They can be baptized with approval - this just puts
another layer of protection. Also, God knows and will judge perfectly. This is a
non-issue. It is a clarification of what has already been stated many times
before. I trust the prophet to know the will of God. Relax. And to those
that believe that the church should change positions based on popular sentiment
so they don't lose members - that would mean the church isn't led by
God, so what would be the point. The church taking stands like this actually
strengthens the faith of most because it shows the church will not be blown
about by every wind of popular opinion. Separation of the wheat and tares,
the sheep and the goats, the good fruit from the bad.Christ is at the
head, hold true to the faith.
RanchHere, UTAre you saying all this time she did not know? I
suspect by this time she has dealt with the pain as best she can.
That same-sex marriage is incompatible with the church should be no surprise.
This has always been the stance of the church. Furthermore, it's biblical.
So this was to be expected.The policy change having to do with
children of those in a same-sex relationship is what seems to have set so many
people off. Even I was a touch shocked by it.I do lean toward
treating this on a case-by-case basis and having room for exceptions. But I do
understand what is likely the motive behind this policy.Children of
parents in a same-sex relationship would be required to denounce the practice.
As such, it would likely result in great contention between parents and
child.This policy helps to provide protections for the church, the
prospective member, and the family. Everyone, regardless of sexual attraction,
is absolutely welcome to attend and participate in the church. These children
are no exception. They are not loved any less. All are welcome.Perhaps exceptions or revisions will come to allow greater flexibility. I know
not. What I do know is that the church is true and I will respect the Brethren,
rather than openly attacking them.
I have a difficult time with the latest LDS church policy for children of same
sex relationships where ordinances, and missionary service is sought. It states
that: 1.The child ……. 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.In other words in the case of an
adopted child who wished ordinances or to go on a mission and who has no other
place to live other than with one or both of his same sex parents –
he’s out of luck. Isn’t that’s real Christian like!
Here’s how Fr. Peter Daly of a parish of the Catholic Archdiocese in
Washington D.C. looks at the situation.. “Our parish motto is "All
Are Welcome." We really mean it. That includes LGBT people, too. We welcome
them to the Eucharist if they are Catholics. We baptize their children. We
register the children in our activities and programs, just like any child.
Welcome means welcome.” Maybe the LDS Church can learn something
I am a gay man, born and raised in the LDS church. I served a mission and lived
the church's principles until I was in my 30's. I prayed about it and
it was confirmed to me that being gay was not a sin and finding happiness in
this life was not a sin. While I haven't considered myself
Mormon for many years, up until now, I have refrained from having my name
removed from the church's membership records out of respect for my mother,
who is an active LDS member who works in the temple. I did not want to cause
her any pain.This is the last straw. This evening, I will be
submitting a letter of resignation to the LDS church and I will be on the phone
with my mother to explain to her why. It may cause her some pain, but I can no
longer allow my name to be associated with such bigotry that would tell children
they must treat their parents in such a hateful manner as to reject them simply
for being who they are. I know my mother will understand - she loves both me
and my partner.
re:bcoraymay I suggest a better path --- talk to your bishop and
follow his counsel.
The justifications made here and elsewhere that this policy is a loving
protection for the children is utterly ridiculous, offensive, and indefensible.
So the argument goes that this policy is to protect kids who should not be made
to deal with living in a same-sex household whilst learning at church that their
parents' choice of a partner is abhorrent. Okay, then what about the kids
who grow up in a part member family, being taught that they will be separated in
eternity from one of their parents? Or separated from both parents for eternity
for kids who have neither parent in the church? Do we deny them baptism in
order to protect them from the psychological turmoil of those teachings? Of
course not. We baptize these kids, and in some places in the world we baptize
these kids in droves whether they have ever been to Church or not. On my
mission when I grew uncomfortable with the kiddie baptisms and asked my mission
president about it, he told me that "baptism is for everyone, the Celestial
Kingdom is for the elite." Apparently baptism isn't really for
everyone anymore. This is a dark, dark day for Mormonism.
@james d. morrison;LDS apostle, Elder D. Todd Christopherson's
brother is a married gay man. He attends the LDS church with his husband (who
isn't a member). Do you think they would have their children attend with
them or not? What would you have their children do?@ulvegaard;Voter majorities have never had the right to violate the constitutional
rights of voter minority citizens. The judges did their jobs - correctly.@kamelkisser;You don't think we LGBT would give
permission if our children wanted to be baptized? Neanderthal
says:"Then, all that can be said to them is...
'sayonara.' "--- So typically Christian of you.
How sad that we have become a church of exclusion. This seems to be in conflict
with the 2nd Article of Faith. We are told to stay in the boat...but we keep
kicking people out of the boat. Very sad indeed!
re:HeirophanteyeApostacy is your choice my friend not God's.
Apostacy has terrible consequneces too remember that. Try this instead -- open
your mind and heart and stop listening to the false translations of the world
but instead listen to God and reach out to Jesus Christ. He is the Savior for
all of us.
There's still "pressure" on our gay/lesbian young adults to
"marry straight" in hopes that will "fix" them. There are still
many marriages/families where one spouse is gay/lesbian. 75% of those marriages
fail, often because the gay/lesbian spouse can't live a lie any more.So. John and Jane are married with a few kids. John is gay, but he was
told "Go marry a nice girl and everything will be fine." But after a few
years, John feels like a failure and a hypocrite, and decides he must divorce
Jane and stop "living a lie". Both John and Jane agree on shared custody
and on having the kids keep attending church and being baptized. John finds a
partner he wants to marry when the divorce is final. Divorce comes before a
judge, the judge (a Mormon) says "John, if they live part-time with you and
your new spouse, the Church won't baptise them or ordain the boys.
That's not fair to them. So despite what you two agreed, I'm awarding
sole custody to Jane." Tell me that won't happen. Tell me that's
"the best outcome" for such a family.
I think some perspective, at least from my understanding of Mormon theology,
would address many of the negative comments regarding this policy and
Christ's love for the children:Our Heavenly Father loves all
his children. He loves us so much that he sent his Son to save us. That
sacrifice, whether we accept it or not, saves us all from physical death.
Through Christ, we all (save a very few) are saved and receive some degree of
glory (eg. Telestial). One of the missions of the Church is to
"Perfect the Saints" and prepare them, or "prove" them, to live
the higher, Celestial law. So, perhaps the Church's motivation behind this
policy is to help members live their life with this higher goal in mind. Those
who choose not to accept this policy aren't hated by God or being cast off,
especially the children. But it helps to remind those who seek blanket
acceptance of their personal feelings and beliefs, that are not congruent with
church teachings, that their "path" is not compatible with the core
principles and ordinances of the church.Live the "higher"
law or not; all are loved and are saved.
Any remaining respect I had for the LDS church is now gone. There is nothing
Christian, divine, or noble about the LDS church or those who defend it. This is
a really despicable and mean-spirited move. You have your freedom of religion, I
have freedom of expression to tell you what I think about it.This is
a very dark day for Utah.Please, my many intelligent and kind Mormon
friends - kick this corrupt and bigoted institution to the gutter where it
I think there are legitimate issues with having children of same-sex couples in
the church, and while I don't agree with the one size fits all approach
taken, I can see the reasoning behind it. It's just the "disavows the
practice of same-sex marriage" part of this that I think is unnecessary and
overreaching. If they aren't doing that themselves, then why have them turn
against their parents?
So, I grew up with my Dad out of the picture and my Stepmother being Gay, even
when I served my mission I always wondered why my stepmother had not been
excommunicated, do not get me wrong I love my stepmother very much, her and her
partner are great I love them both, my stepmother went on to have a daughter and
they adopted a son and raised them in the church, my sister who is pro same sex
is totally inactive in the church and my brother who went on a mission is in a
same sex relationship, it does affect your life. I was older and was better
able to make my decisions, I love my family, do not condone their actions or
choices, but I love them.
I am deeply disturbed by this Church change of policy as it relates to children
of SS couples. How is this consistent with the commandment to love thy neighbor
(SS couple children). Discouraged!
One silver lining in all of this is that children won't be singing
"Follow the Prophet" or "I love to see the Temple" from 18
months on and therefore will have their own testimony to lean on and not their
(child refers to an 18+ year old child of same-sex parents)'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.'Consider someone who is say... 22 years old and at
college or whatever, they've moved out of their parents house. If they want
to join the church, why is not being in a same-sex marriage, same-sex
cohabitation, or having same-sex sex not enough? Why do they have to
specifically disavow it? All the children of straight parents can support
same-sex marriage in their ballot initiative votes and whatever (Mormons
Building Bridges etc), and that's not an issue, so why do adult children of
same-sex couples have to go a step further than everyone else, when that's
the more personal connection? How is this not requiring them to denounce their
own family if they want to join?
Divorce and remarriage is adultery according to the bible. I want to see the
LDS Church demand that children in these households now have to despise and
renounce their families in order to remain qualified. Won't happen,
because, well, hypocrisy. But that's never stopped them before.
@wazzup"When you are baptized, you make certain commitments, which in
this case, aren't being kept by the parents. Causes a lot of confusion and
conflict within that household."An 8 yr old--or any child cannot
be baptized without the permission of the parents. Now wouldn't you think
the parents of the child would consider and be able to decide if baptism of
their child would "cause of lot of confusion and conflict?"I
don't agree that same-sex marriage should be lumped in with murder, incest
or apostasy as necessary grounds for excommunication.
The LDS Church is being pilloried in the national press (New York Times, Time,
UPI, etc...). I won't be surprised to see a more conciliatory
"clarification" statement come out of Church Headquarters very soon.
To "Kwall" the kids are not being punished. If you look at it from a
family perspective this policy actually protects the kids. It helps to keep
them in their home until they area at least 18 years old. Imagine the confusion
and hatred that would develop if you have a child going to church on Sunday and
hearing that marriage is between a man and woman only, then that child goes home
to their gay parents. This will help to keep more harmony in the home as the
child grows up and can legally care for themselves.If you take an
eternal perspective the child will not be punished. According to LDS doctrine
those that would have accepted baptism in life will be blessed in heaven.
@Neanderthal --"Tell us where you can find gay marriage in the
Bible. Wait a minute... it was likely performed in Sodom and Gomorrah."Yet again -- Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't actually about
homosexuality."Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom:
she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she
did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed
abominations before Me." (Ezekiel 16:49-50 NASB)Me: "How do
you reconcile adulterous second marriages with the Lord's
commandments?"You: "What you do is denounce sin and
repent."But the LDS church performs adulterous second marriages
with NO repentance. How do you explain that?And again: A man and a
woman get married. The woman has been married in the temple previously.
Therefore, she can not be sealed to her new husband, right? So will
the church deny baptism to their children?If not, the
rationalization about "gay parents can't be sealed, so the children
can't be baptized" completely falls apart.
I am going to pray about this, because it hurts my heart so. I am hoping that
this was an administrative add that was badly written. Pray.
I'm grateful for a prophet and church leaders who teach God's
commandments, and do not seek "to become popular in the eyes of the
world" (1 Nephi 22:23).I wish the church would post an official
announcement on lds.org (not there, that I can find it). And also
explain about the kids; but it makes sense - any other course would lead to
chaos in the church and inside these families, I imagine. And God often does not
explain his commandments anyway. The important thing is that the kids can be
@snickerdoodle wrote, "Frankly, I feel so sorry for the children put in
these same-sex situations through no fault of their own. The confusion they
experience over gender roles must be overwhelming."No, it
isn't. Families with gay parents have family and friends who
are straight. The gay parents have no problems relating to their straight
neighbors and colleagues. The children are simply taught that some people are
straight and some are gay and straight ones marry opposite sex partners and gay
ones marry same sex partners. It's not confusing or
overwhelming to a child of gay parents any more than to a Mormon child in
Michigan who sees friends and neighbors drinking coffee when his parents
don't. If you want to see confusion and overwhelming anxiety,
think of what it is like to be a gay teenager living with parents who belong to
a religion that teaches that how they feel is sinful and that the only
acceptable role in life is to be married to an opposite sex person.
May November 5th live in infamy forever. All one needs to do is ask: "would
Jesus treat people like this?"
@Clay. Who is being punished and by whom? If you read the policy, the baptism
has to be approved by the First Presidency. Just like a polygamist situation.
When you are baptized, you make certain commitments, which in this case,
aren't being kept by the parents. Causes a lot of confusion and conflict
within that household. You think that not being baptized is worse than that
confusion and conflict? God also said that marriage is between a man and a
woman. What say you? Since you want to bring up scripture.@Red
Corvette. Yes he did. Like the prostitute he encountered, 'sin no
more'. Is gay marriage a sin? Most theologians think it is because it was
stated early on that marriage is between a man and woman. Or are you saying
Jesus would condone gay marriage? And please don't confuse this with the
love he has for everyone, even those who sin and fight against God's laws.
I would love to hear you answer that question: would Jesus condone or support
I am saddened how people can think that I would choose to be gay. I would never
seek the kind of sorrow this has brought me. The loss of my parents' love
and being shunned by my siblings was never a desirable choice. This isn't a
phase, a means of rebelling, or a choice in any fashion. I learned who I am
attracted to the same way you did: one day it just happened. There was no choice
involved. If I am an apostate, then God made me this way. If he makes my adopted
child gay, he did so, not me. Besides, my Chinese daughter was otherwise going
to be discarded so I am pretty sure I saved her life. If that makes me an
apostate or her some type of freak that cannot be blessed, the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints is not led by Jesus Christ and the President is not
@QuantCommenter:"A stance like this is likely to increase the exodus
of members Marlin Jensen acknowledged a few years ago."Then, all
that can be said to them is... 'sayonara.' The scriptures teach that
not all will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.@Contrariusiest:"Yet again -- there is no commandment saying "thou shalt not have a
gay marriage." And Jesus never said a single word against
homosexuality."Tell us where you can find gay marriage in the
Bible. Wait a minute... it was likely performed in Sodom and Gomorrah."How do you reconcile adulterous second marriages with the Lord's
commandments?"What you do is denounce sin and repent.
That's the accepted way to heaven. You may not be able to denounce being
gay but you certainly can denounce, and desist from, gay conduct.@65TossPowerTrap:Okay, let's say that I'm the 14-year-old son
of Adam and Steve. ... Tell me why I shouldn't be baptized?"You can be... just wait a few years. Actually, age 25 or more is a better age
for baptism anyway. Gives a chance to clear the slate once and for all.
@Esto Perpetuayou said:"There are churches that have
learned to be more loving and inclusive of LGBTs such as the U.S. Presbyterian
and Episcopalian that now perform same-gender marriages. It is unfortunate that
the Mormon Church leaders are refusing to learn and evolve, realizing that their
opposition to marriage equality is discrimination against LGBTs."And the 1st Amendment allows you to find a Church which fits your world
view.You've named two churches founded by Henry VII and John
Calvin.If they float your boat then set sail.The Lord's
commandments are not up for a vote or evolution.To disagree is not to hate
or discriminate, so dispense with that bully tactic. I'm
grateful the LDS Church is defending principles over politics.
ContrariusSo? This isn't a popularity contest. One must ask why
do you care? You believe or don't. Frankly I don't try to tell other
churches what their policies should be. Why do you feel it is your calling to
tell the LDS church what to do?You might work on your own beliefs.
Glad to see this needed clarification by the church. Sin is still sin in the
eyes of God even if man tries to make sin legal. To those who choose to bring up
the tired old political nonsense about "equality" I would refer you to a
couple of talks given by LDS general authorities. The first by Elder Bruce
Haffen of the Quorum of the Seventy titled "The Proclamation on the Family:
Transcending the Cultural Confusion" and the second by By Elder D. Todd
Christofferson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles titled "Why Marriage,
Why Family". These two excellent articles make clear the Church's view
of the God centered family unit vs the worlds wrongful political correctness.
Finally, the Church has made clear in the past that those who struggle with same
sex attraction are welcome in the Church and can obtain a temple recommend but
what they can't do is violate the law of chastity which incldues adutery,
fornication and homosexual relations between two people. God has given moral
commandents to free us from the tragic consequences of sin and allow us each to
reach a full measure of happiness.
Though the text of the 1995 "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"
seemed crystal clear, I applaud the leaders of the LDS church today as they add
emphasis to that proclamation.Given the many people who appear to
believe and proclaim that homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage is
equivalent, some of whom attempt to justify their belief through reasoning they
claim to be based in doctrine or scripture, it became apparent that such
emphasis was necessary to clarify just how discordant such beliefs actually are
with the church's **actual** doctrine.I wish all people were as
interested in such clarity and integrity of purpose and principle.I
also hope that drawing such a distinct and clear boundary between the truth of
the church's doctrine and the myths that have risen in last couple decades
since the proclamation will disabuse all those who might have become confused on
the issue. Cognitive resonance is a very good thing.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
My comment is VERY general in nature.Churches MUST, if they are to
survive with any relevance whatsoever, work towards accentuating the POSITIVE
aspects of Christianity.Accentuating the NEGATIVE, (GUILT)isn't
a viable long-term strategy.AND - IMHO, it is what Christ would have
wanted, were he here today.How about if we simply accept people as
they are, but act as EXAMPLES to others of the joys of being close to Christ;
WITHOUT making others feel guilty if they're "not as righteous" as
us?"Righteousness" does NOT have a continuum scale, - i.e.
"righteous on a scale of 1-10"
"If any of you went on a mission then you know that when a minor child is
taught but their family is not LDS, that child can not be baptized without the
parents permission.One of the strongest beliefs in the LDS church is
the importance of family, if a child is baptized and the family doesn't
support the same teachings, that child is in a no win situation and set up for
failure. A child that wants to be baptized but whose family are not of the LDS
faith they must wait until they are 18 years old if the parents don't give
permission.If the non-believing parents give permission then you
hope that they will be at least a little supportive of that child's
decision but often they are not, they aren't always out right anti or mean
or denying or anything like that, but they will say things like, we don't
want you to go to church we want to do stuff as a family, etc etc.
@DC Surfsyou said:"A baby blessing is not a life
saving ordinance. It's no different than giving a family member a
priesthood blessing in a hospital room. If that family member is LGBT, there
isn't any requirement for approval prior to giving that blessing in that
instance. I'm not sure why it's so different for a baby blessing
then."A baby blessing is not a "Saving Ordinance",
however, a baby's blessing makes an official declaration regarding their
name on the "records of the church". As does a baptism. Both
also list the parents of each individual. And therein lies the issue.
Well this will be a relief to members of the Seventy who have had to tell Stake
Presidents to hold disciplinary courts and what to decide and then lie to
members about it being a "local decision." Now it is PR to does the
dirty work with blanket statements like these: If [The Church]
"does not perform or accept same-sex marriage within its membership" and
"the handbook now includes being in a same-sex marriage under the definition
of apostasy and as a circumstance that requires the convening of a disciplinary
council" then the outcome of disciplinary courts on this topic is not really
the decision of local leadership anymore. Let's all watch for
the repeal of AofF2 and canonization of the Proclamation come April.It's the new honesty folks!
Quite the opposite. It's not a punishment to allow a child to reach legal
age before deciding to live the way of a church or to live in the same household
that is in direct opposition to said church. It's called being
responsible by using sound judgement to help overcome a broken home setting. If
so many adults can't understand this, then how can we expect children to be
old enough to make an informed decision (let alone have the means to leave the
opposing condition infringed upon them, so that they may even be able to live
In one aspect, it is sad that such a policy would need to be put in to place.
As I see it, the church must address such issues in order to counter a few who
might be intent on establishing themselves as a legitimate LDS family while
living contrary to church doctrine. Granted, if any such exist, they would be
the smallest of minorities I'm sure. However, we have seen repeatedly in
our country how it is these small minorities who are altering law and policy in
major ways.Proposition 8 in California was approved by the majority
of voters and overturned by one judge. I'm not arguing as to whether that
was a good thing or not, I'm pointing how that there have been several
instances recently where voter majority has been repressed by a handful of
judges. The church isn't trying to deny access to Christ, they
are trying to maintain doctrine which, more and more, is unique to our faith.
And as a side note, baby blessings are not ordinances - baptism is the first
ordinance performed in the church.
Here is how to find the truth of this. Sincerely pray about it and ask for
confirmation by the Holy Ghost. If you have issue with your answer see your
This is absolutely absurd and I expect that there will be an about-face very
very soon. Even if you believe that Homosexuality is wrong, it is completely
wrong to punish children for something that they have no say in. I expect that
there will be extreme backlash from many many members who see the absurdity of
the Mormon church in this decision
Not really much of an issue since nobody in a same sex relationship was going to
let his kid join the church anyway.
I read about this in my local paper and came here to verify. The local story has
been validated. I suspect this will turn into a huge PR nightmare for the
Church...especially in places outside of the Utah "bubble."
Breaking news, LGQTB community: Church that has continually placed enmity
between you and it continues to do so. It is probably time to stop worrying
To me, this all boils down to protecting the children. It's no different
than if the child is in a part-member family, where the decision to baptize is
often postponed because conflicting beliefs would create problems and strife in
the home. It also makes it very difficult to live the teachings when one's
home life is contradictory to those teachings.People need to
understand that baptism in the LDS Church involves making serious and binding
covenants with the Lord. Breaking covenants is serious business with serious
consequences. So it's better that these kids wait for membership in the
Church until they're in a position to not only decide for themselves, but
to better keep the binding covenants they will make. Frankly, I feel so sorry
for the children put in these same-sex situations through no fault of their own.
The confusion they experience over gender roles must be overwhelming.
Jesus blessed the little children, but no one was baptized who would not disavow
the idolatry rampant in the culture they grew up in.Any child can
receive a priesthood blessing for whatever the Spirit directs. Giving a child a
Name and a Blessing is something unique. In this case, the child's name is
added to Church records, and the Church has a responsibility to help the parents
nurture that child in the true faith. If the parents are apostate, then that
help is not welcome. We have to wait until they child can choose for
Baptism is a covenant – a binding agreement. While it binds you to some
blessings, it also binds you to a commitment to live a certain standard, and
binds you to the consequences of not doing so. How would it be fair or loving
to bind a young child to a standard (and its consequence) they will not be
taught at home, nor be supported in living?
@boneheaded, but not a smidgen --"if you are more comfortable in
another church, please, please attend there."In 2012, in what
can only be described as a rare candid moment, LDS Historian Marlin K. Jensen
admitted that, "more members are falling away today than any time in the
past 175 years." (reported on ABC 4 News Utah) From a 2012
Reuters story -- "The LDS church claims 14 million members worldwide.... But
census data from some foreign countries targeted by clean-cut young missionaries
show that the retention rate for their converts is as low as 25 percent. In the
U.S., only about half of Mormons are active members of the church, said
Washington State University emeritus sociologist Armand Mauss.... Sociologists
estimate there are as few as 5 million active members worldwide. [....] Not
since a famous troublespot in Mormon history, the 1837 failure of a church bank
in Kirtland, Ohio, have so many left the church, Jensen said."According to the Public Religion Research Institute, about 1/3 of the young
people who are already leaving their childhood religions do so because of the
hostile attitude of those churches towards LGBT rights.This is only
going to make the church's losses worse.
Yanquetino makes a good attempt for emotional rules in the church. I have a
nephew the youngest of three children. The older two had been baptized and all
attended church regularly. The parents were divorced prior to the youngest
reaching baptismal age. The father was excommunicated. The youngest continued
to attend church with his mother and siblings, but was not allowed to be
baptized until a written permission was obtained from the father. Should the
church have proceeded against the wishes of the father?
@ annewandering, you say "In the end it all comes down to whether you
believe the church is guided by God or man. If you believe it is guided by man
then none of this matters in your life. If by God then trust Him. Have faith
that He knows what He is doing." I used to accept that. But I look at
history and see that it isn't so in most things. I demurred on the blacks
and the priesthood, not questioning but deferring to the leaders. It turns out
that it was racism and not inspired by God at all, plus the fact that it
violated the core beliefs and teachings of the church. I am of the view that in
the church, doctrine applies when it is convenient, and does not apply when
inconvenient. This policy violates doctrine, plain and simple. It is a
decision of men. It is not inspired. Despite all, I believe in Christ, the
mission of Joseph Smith, and the core mission of the Church. But I do not
believe in the infallibility of the Church, and this is one perfect example of
why I don't.
Some so-called experts are now saying that gay parents are better for children
than straight parents. I don't think these "experts" opinions will
ever be the basis on which the LDS Church adjusts its policies.
John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no
more with him.
Follow the prophet, he will not lead you astray. In ancient Israel for some
reason that was a difficult task even after repeated miracle after miracle; it
appears to be a difficult task for some today too, even after repeated miracles.
Those who don’t study and learn from history are destined to repeat it.
- As for me and my house, we shall follow the Lord.
If the "parents" are not adhering to the Lord's council, why would
they care if their child be given a name and blessing in a church they no longer
These are guidelines. There are bound to be special situations that will need
clearance from higher church authority. The church is not arbitrary or mean or
vindictive. The it is orderly.
@Kwall:"How is a child living in a home with two non-member parents
who are gay any different than a child living in a home where the parents
routinely commit other sins? In both cases the parents are committing a sin but
only one of them is grounds to deny children ordinances they need for
salvation?"It has to do with the seriousness of the sin being
committed. Sex sin tops them all... except murder... according to Church
doctrine.@noinipo:"... I'm fine with the apostasy
change, I just really really don't want children to be punished for their
parent's decisions."Children are almost always punished for
the aberrant behavior of their parents. The difference is... it's the
parents doing the punishing.@Albemar:"Telling a child that
they must denounce their parent?"They are not denouncing their
parents. They're denouncing their parents' conduct. They still love
their parents... even as Christ loves the sinner while denouncing the sin.@Nanook of the North:"But with this new policy? Nope, not
gonna happen."Your daughter could fix it... by adhering to the
teachings of the Church. Everyone has to give up some vices.
First, this is about lawsuits. Couple get divorced. Mom gets
custody. Mom moves in with girlfriend, with or without marriage. Dad, on a
visitation weekend, has the child(ren) blessed (name on the records) or
baptized, without permission of the custodial parent. Lawsuit. This
happens with straight couples, I've read the reports. Adding the SSM twist
just adds a layer. Second, this is about exposure. When gays started
coming out en mass people who swore they didn't know anyone gay suddenly
found they had gay family, gay friends, gay neighbors, gay coworkers *and* none
of them were strange or creepy or perverts. They were regular people who
happened to be same-sex attracted. If you let the children of
same-sex couples get active, then their loving, committed, competent, same-sex
parents might also be involved and then "regular" people in
"real" marriages will start to see that same-sex marriages are also
"regular" marriages and their families are "regular" families
and another right-wing boogeyman is exposed. Xenophobia only works
if the "other" stays very firmly other.
@From Ted's Head --"Your comments about adulterous second
marriages may be important to you but not to most LDS people as you are choosing
your own interpretation and not one accepted by the LDS Church."Right. Because the LDS church is evidently happy to disregard a very specific
commandment when it suits them to do so. "Gay parents cannot be
sealed together nor their children to them."A man and a woman
get married. The woman has been married in the temple previously. Therefore, she
can not be sealed to her new husband, right? So will the church deny
baptism to their children?
estoi believe you should go where you are happy. no one makes you go to
ANY church. if you are more comfortable in another church, please, please attend
The only reason we are having this discussion is because the world says
Homosexual behavior should be accepted and does not look at it as sin. The
Church considers it a sin to act upon those same gender attractions. Its A
CHOICE TO ACT, whether it be same sex attraction or what ever God considers sin.
I know these things are inspired and come from God not man, meaning what the
church handbook says about children of gay parents. Yet we should still love
them and help them.
the Lord promised he would separate the tares from the wheat.If you
read the handbook it js a guideline with some exceptions in exceptional cases
which must be reviewed. The anti-church crowd simply brushes the
whole with a broad stroke of what ifs, to find fault and discredit those they
don't agree with at all. They would no more join the church if the church
converted to their beliefs. And the anti-lds trolls abound and mock
those that believe just because they do believe. Notice the
handbook does not say the children of a person with same sex attraction can not
be baptized. Only issue is when the parent acts on that attraction in
relationships with another in violation of the Churches moral codes.It also does not limit the child's church activity if the parent repents
and returns to living according to the Church's moral code.
All of the scenarios where children are raised in less than ideal family
situations have one thing in common. All those situations can be fixed by
repentance and making things right. You can not fix a same sex marriage to align
with eternal marriage and family without breaking up that family structure.
While same sex families are not anywhere near ideal they do provide stability
and shelter for the children. If they are broken apart the children will suffer
emotionally and often physically. Why would the church want to have a part in
that? There are many instances where baptism has been denied to children until
they are of age because of home situations so this is nothing new. In the
end it all comes down to whether you believe the church is guided by God or man.
If you believe it is guided by man then none of this matters in your life. If
by God then trust Him. Have faith that He knows what He is doing.
There are churches that have learned to be more loving and inclusive of LGBTs
such as the U.S. Presbyterian and Episcopalian that now perform same-gender
marriages. It is unfortunate that the Mormon Church leaders are refusing to
learn and evolve, realizing that their opposition to marriage equality is
discrimination against LGBTs.
This policy seems to assume that the only way a child winds up with parents in a
same-sex relationship is by being born or adopted by a baby into that household.
And yet...I have a cousin who married and had children before
revealing to his wife that he had always been attracted to men. He married
hoping it would change him; it didn't. They divorced. But in the eyes of
the law, he remains his children's father. Because he has not lost his
parental rights, he is still their father.How strange that this
policy would bar his children from baptism, ordination, and missionary service.
And what becomes of those who were already baptized? Are we going to
excommunicate a child because the parents divorced and the father entered a same
My dad did not live the teachings of the LDS church but not once did he ever
tell my sister not to go to church or prevent her from go to church with her
friends. He was there for her when she got baptized. He even took her to Lagoon
to celebrate her baptism. Not once did he ever put her down or
ridicule her for being LDS. When she got engaged and decided on a temple
marriage he wasn't upset that he couldn't attend the ceremony but he
was simply happy that she found happiness and found someone that she loved.When my sister had kids. He was there for the kids blessings and he was
there for his grandsons baptism.He raised a daughter without the
"teachings" of the church and she turned out fine.
Question. Let’s imagine that there are two boys raised in a Mormon family,
Hyrum (age 12) and Joseph (age 6), and their father dies or gets a divorce. A
year later, their Mom falls in love and gets remarried to a woman, and they have
legal custody of those children. Will the church excommunicate Hyrum, even
though up to that point he has been an active deacon and boy scout? Or will they
ignore their new policy and allow Hyrum to remain a Mormon? Either way,
it’s certainly clear that they will now refuse to let Joseph be baptized
at age 8, despite having been active in primary for many years, just like his
older brother. This is a completely realistic scenario. When they ponder it,
surely even staunch members must feel uncomfortable with this official policy
Re: humbug"Children should not be making covenants at a young
age which are contrary to the life styles of the parents. It's normal for a
child to grow up and follow in the parents footsteps."We baptize
kids all the time from families where the parents' lifestyles are polar
opposite of Church doctrine. Did Abraham follow in his father's footsteps?
No. Did Laman and Lemuel follow in their father's footsteps? No. Some
of the rationalizations I'm reading are absurd.
@Contrarius Yes, one or both of the fathers can repent and be accepted into
the LDS Church, but they cannot be sealed together nor their children sealed to
them. Your comments about adulterous second marriages may be important to you
but not to most LDS people as you are choosing your own interpretation and not
one accepted by the LDS Church.@65TossPowerTrap To disagree is your
right, yet you said nothing to invalidate my statement about the gay parents
being unable to be sealed together. In fact you supported my point by suggesting
that some non-members "may" or your in-laws "probably never",
each leaving open the possibility of repenting and embracing the Gospel as
taught by the LDS Church. Gay parents cannot be sealed together nor their
children to them. Most LDS Church members believe their ordinances to have
eternal importance and none is more important than being sealed as it
encompasses the other ordinances and is one of the prime reasons for a mortal
Seems to me these policy changes are being made in anticipation of future
problems that will arise with respect to churches and gay marriage. The churches
that do not act now will get to experience the next wave of trouble.
"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."Church or family. Heck of a choice.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto
me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.Verily I
say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
shall in no wise enter therein.So....how do we reconcile Jesus words
with the new doctrine?Are we to deliberately go AGAINST what Jesus
said? We are wiser than Jesus now?
Matthew 10 being played out right before our eyes. It seems the LDS Church might
just be the last organization that TRULY understands who Jesus was and is:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance
against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they
of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than
me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not
worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth
after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall
lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Cause we all know gay parents make gay kids, and straight parents make straight
Very good to have the policies clarified. And the policies are good. Sound
doctrine. Children should not be making covenants at a young age which are
contrary to the life styles of the parents. It's normal for a child to
grow up and follow in the parents footsteps. Better to not be making covenants
at a young age which will likely be discarded later, because of family loyalty
and affections. These current church policies are good.
@From Ted's Head --"can all be rectified through repentance
and proper steps to accept and live the Gospel in this life or the next. The
children can theoretically be sealed to their parents. This sealing cannot take
place when the child's parents are of the same sex."Your
attempted analogy falls flat, because the LDS church itself says that same-sex
attraction is not a sin in and of itself. They only believe that the BEHAVIOR is
a sin.So -- a same-sex couple can just as easily repent their
behavior as an adulterous couple can. The LDS church will welcome the gay
fathers with open arms as long as they are single and celibate.Yet
the LDS couple is happy to baptise the children of adulterous second marriages,
and not the children of the same-sex marriages.It still doesn't
make any sense.
Someone I know grew up in a home where the parents were essentially apostates
and engaged in, shall we say, bad and illegal behavior. However, the mother
insisted that the child engage in the church. With the support of a good ward,
this child grew up and is now active and a strong contributor of the church.
Despite the rationalizations we will see, my view is that this position is in
direct opposition to the 2nd Article of Faith. It flies in the fact of the
teachings of Christ. And as the blessing and naming of babies is not an
ordinance of salvation, there is no reason not to allow if for any and all
innocent children. The good that can come far outweighs the imagined harm. Gay
parents have to wrestle with how to deal with their circumstances and their role
with the church. But if they are positive towards the church, punishing
children is absolutely the wrong thing to do. There is, in my view, no divine
inspiration behind this policy. All the rationalizations and talking points
won't change this view.
Re: From Ted's Head:"@65TossPowerTrap In your scenario you cannot
be sealed to your parents (or either of them unless they divorce and one or both
repents and marries a woman and the couple are eligible to be sealed to each
other.)"Big deal. We baptize 14-year-old kids with nonmember
parents every day who may never be sealed to their parents. My wife's
parents will probably never join the Church. I guess she should have never been
baptized in high school, huh? Your rationalization is weak at best.
@Gregg Fish wrote, "Blacks [in 1977] believed everything the church taught,
hence the reason they wanted to join the church in the first place. With same
gender couples, they directly disagree with one of the main core values and
principles the church teaches. So why they would want their children to be
taught the complete opposite of what they are practicing doesn't make much
sense." As far as acceptance of blacks as equals, society had
advanced substantially in the 20 years before 1978. And I suspect that blacks
who joined the Church before that year believed that it was only a matter of
time until the Church would come around conclude that they were worthy of the
priesthood. They were right. "The faith early black members must
have had is unfathomable to me, and I have the utmost respects for those
members." I feel the same way about gays (and the women seeking
the priesthood) who maintain their LDS beliefs in the face of the
"apostate" label that the Church has put on them.
@Laura Bilington --"Tek, I'm not sure what your source is,
but I wouldn't be surprised if men raised by gay men are more likely to
describe themselves as gay. "It isn't true. It's just
more FRC nonsense.Just a couple of rebutting examples --
there's more out there:"Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of
Gay Fathers," published in the Jan. 1995 issue of Developmental Psychology:
"More than 90% of sons whose sexual orientations could be rated were
heterosexual.""Outcomes for Children with Lesbian or Gay
Parents. A Review of Studies from 1978 to 2000," published 2002 in the
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology: "Twenty-three empirical studies
published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian
mothers or gay fathers were reviewed ....The studies encompassed a total of 615
offspring (age range 1.5-44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387
controls....Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not
systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes."
To see doubt confuse and captivate people so easily over even our most basic
truths, is deeply saddening. Don't listen to the naysayers. If you want
truth look to the sky, not the gutter. Kneel down and ask! Obedience guides us
to truth, not doubt and murmuring.This is a blessing for these
children, not a hindrance.God gives a ship captain a map. If there
is any map to trust, it's obviously this one. But he sets his tools aside
and ignores the map. He goes his own path. Then God tells two crewmen, "I
won't help you get promoted on this ship. I don't want you to learn
after these patterns." One crewman ignores God and follows the
captain's instructions. The second crewman started to doubt also, but
turned to God and said "can you still help me another way?" He is
pointed to a life-raft. An hour later the ship hits a rock and sinks.A father ignores God's instructions, then complains when God gives his
child different instructions. Who are we to criticize the church here? Who are
we? A crowd without the full picture.
The children of unrepentant murderers, child molesters, adulterers and rapists
can be baptized, but not the kids of practicing gays? Sure, homosexual behavior
is a sin and those engaged therein should face Church discipline, but it
isn’t apostasy unless they claim that it isn’t a sin. If the couple
admits that their behavior is contrary to Church doctrine, how is their behavior
apostate rather that simply a sin? Doesn't apostasy apply ONLY to those
who are members of the Church who then denounced sound doctrine? Also, how can
those who were never members of the Church be considered apostates?If an 18y/o wants to be baptized, is the Church going to conduct in-home
visits to make sure that they aren't living with gay parents? The kid can
just move out and contact the missionaries and be baptized w/o having to condemn
their parents' choices. Will all converts be asked in their baptismal
interview if they have gay parents and demand that the convert denounce their
parents' lifestyle?This seems overly harsh.
I love how the media twisted this around to make it sound that children can
[never] be members. A name and a blessing is not a saving ordinance. It creates
a membership record, this is not the same as baptism and confirmation. Children
can [still] get baptized if their parents are in a same-sex relationship, but
would have to get approval until 18, this has been done for many years. Children
also have to get approval to for baptism(if under 18) if parents are divorced or
polygamist. Technically, nothing really new. So, the church is not
holding children accountable for their parents. A membership record is simply a
'record', its not membership in the church until they are baptized,
which they can do. Lastly, I find it interesting how so many people
are angry about this. mostly because, if they don't believe in the
teachings of the church; then why are they concerned about membership? If they
don't have a testimony of the Book of Mormon or revelation, then why get
upset if blessings you don't believe in get passed onto you?
@65TossPowerTrap In your scenario you cannot be sealed to your parents (or
either of them unless they divorce and one or both repents and marries a woman
and the couple are eligible to be sealed to each other.) I believe the LDS
Church's policy is in place to delay that very important decision until you
are of legal age.
This clarification helps protect children from taking on covenants that they
cannot possibly be expected to keep based on their family situation as children
of apostates. It also protects children of faithful families who will not be
taught that have gay parents is natural and normal at church. When Jesus said
that we must become like a child to inherit the kingdom of heaven, he was saying
that we must humbly be taught and accept what the Lord requires, like a child
who submits to his parents. Mormons who will not accept this policy change are
not becoming like little children.
@Tekakaromatagi wrote, "In fact men raised by two gay men are three times
more likely to describe themselves as homosexual which is evidence that being
gay is a result of nurture and not nature."Tek, I'm not
sure what your source is, but I wouldn't be surprised if men raised by gay
men are more likely to describe themselves as gay. For the same reason that 18
year old males raised in the Church of Christ, Unitarian-Universalist, or
Reformed Jew religions are more likely to describe themselves as gay than 18
year olds raised in families who attended the Assembly of God, Christian, or
Jehovah's Witness churches. This has nothing to do with whether they are
gay but rather whether they feel comfortable in being open about their gender
orientation.Plenty of preachers who denounced homosexuality have
been arrested and convicted of soliciting sex from other men. Ditto with
members of Congress who, for years, diligently voted against equal rights for
gays. And no, these weren't "mistaken identity" cases. But prior
to their arrests, none of these men would have admitted that they were gay.
@Hiyo The scenarios you list, -Children who are living with atheist
parents (this happened in my own ward)-Children living with apostate
parents-Children living in homes with a non member parent-Children
living with parents involved with substance abuse-Children living with
parents that are not marriedcan all be rectified through repentance
and proper steps to accept and live the Gospel in this life or the next. The
children can theoretically be sealed to their parents. This sealing cannot take
place when the child's parents are of the same sex.
Okay, let's say that I'm the 14-year-old son of Adam and Steve.
Let's say that I have two LDS friends who have fellowshipped me and taught
me the Gospel. I'm attending church and Seminary and have developed a
testimony of the Savior and the restoration of the Gospel. I want to be
baptized. My fathers support my decision and are happy for me. Tell me why I
shouldn't be baptized?
In my opinion the new Church policy of excommunicating gay couples who enter
into legal unions as 'apostates' will at the end of the day do more
harm than good for both the Church and the excommunicated members and their
families. Especially in the state of Utah.
I grew up in a gay home and found the church when I was a teenager. I knew there
would be people commenting on this, like Kav, who say the whole point of this is
to avoid conflict. "This policy protects homosexual relationships as much as
it does anything else." I assume our church leaders will try to take that
approach as well. I'm sorry, but it's so wrong. To take away a
child's right to be baptized because of the lifestyle of the parent is
wrong. If a parent feels that it will cause conflict in the home, then they
don't have to sign the papers allowing their child to be baptized. It
should be a personal decision of each family. You are assuming that there
aren't any gay parents out there who would be supportive of their child
joining the church. The right of a worthy child to baptized should never be
taken away because of something the parent did. End of Story. Period. I've
been that child living in a gay home and found the gospel. This makes me stop
and think though.
There's not really anything that ought to be surprising to anyone here. Of
course parents in a same-sex relationship can't give their children a
blessing, because doing that requires being a worthy priesthood holder, which is
impossible in that situation. Likewise, it makes sense that a child would have
to be of age before being baptized because it would be impossible for someone
who is still a minor to fully grasp that the way that they were raised is wrong
and be able to rationally divorce themselves from that situation. It protects
the Church from legal liability as well as prevents a situation where someone
joins the Church without being able to do what is expected of a new member. They
have to be on their own and out of that situation before that could even begin
to be possible. Some people of course want to have their cake and
eat it too but in this church that will never, ever happen.
re JusticiaparatodosIt is "strange" to have children at some
point turn on their parents.
@misty mountainNOT even close to the same thing. Blacks believed
everything the church taught, hence the reason they wanted to join the church in
the first place. With same gender couples, they directly disagree with one of
the main core values and principles the church teaches. So why they would want
their children to be taught the complete opposite of what they are practicing
doesn't make much sense. The faith early black members must
have had is unfathomable to me, and I have the utmost respects for those
No one here should be guessing at what the church's policy behind this is.
Please stop guessing why the church decided to do this. The church has the
burden to explain it's decisions. Let the leadership explain. Everything
else is just a guess and it's causing problems. I am so hoping
this is not real. If it is real, the the First Presidency should own it, not
some church spokesman. It seems like the first Presidency is always distancing
themselves from actions like this. If it's right and heavenly Father wants
this, then they should own it. If I as a member of the church need to explain
this to my nonmember friends, the first Presidency needs to help me out here
with some guidance or an explanation.
Children growing up in a home like that are being taught to violate the law of
chastity. You can't expect a young child to reject the lifestyle of their
parents and take a different path but an adult child can do that. It is better
for them to not take on the covenants and obligations of membership until they
are old enough to do that rather than make covenants they won't be in a
position to keep. This is about protecting the children from being accountable
for more than what they are able to control.
@Tekakaromatagi --"refer to the Regnerus study"As you know perfectly well, that study wasn't worth the paper it was
printed on.The journal that published it, Social Science Research,
did an internal audit and concluded that its review process was faulty in
failing to find "significant, disqualifying faults" before they
published it. The auditor said the paper "should never have been
published." Regnerus's own university, University of Texas,
disavowed it, saying his conclusions "do not reflect the views of the
Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect
the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position
that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally
flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr.
Regnerus' work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the
civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families."The American Sociological Association published their own thorough debunking
of it.It's trash, Tekaka. Get over it."In fact
men raised by two gay men are three times more likely to describe themselves as
homosexual "Nonsense. Don't believe everything the FRC
While the church's policy seems harsh and punishing it is actually the
opposite. Baptism is a covenant, not only a blessing, but a
responsibility. I think we forget that part. You are not just joining a club or
social group, or participating in a particular heratige, you are promising to
live by certain standards and will be held accountable. This is the bottom line.
Children should not be held accountable who come from families who
are not living according to the teachings of the church. By not being baptized
they will not be held accountable. It is merciful. What about
children who have parents who are drunks or druggies or unfaithful? The
distinction I believe is that society does not condone these parents actions or
decisions. It's pretty clear to all that these are wrong. Society does
accept gay couples and a small segment of society accepts polygamy. Children are
actively taught these family situations are correct. This places them in a very
conflicting position. It is wise to wait until they are older and can really
decide for themselves.
"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."Why?
God has never in the history of the world done anything but condone
homosexuality as a sinful practice that separates us from his guidance and
protection. Thank goodness in the shifting moral sands, there is one source we
can count on for stability. It's His world, His game, He makes the rules.
We are here to learn to live as He does and the sins of mortality apparently do
not prepare us to become as He is.
@Hiyo --"The church accepts membership for children in the
following households:"And don't forget: children who are
living with parents engaged in adulterous second marriages. Remember, by the
Bible's own words, anyone who divorces for any reason except for infidelity
and then remarries is committing adultery. How many of these
adulterous second marriages does the church recognize every year?
The church accepts membership for children in the following households:-Children who are living with atheist parents (this happened in my own
ward)-Children living with apostate parents-Children living in homes
with a non member parent-Children living with parents involved with
substance abuse-Children living with parents that are not marriedAll
of these situations are against the values taught in the Family Proclamation and
yet they still have access to the blessings of membership in the church. To
single out children who are raised with homosexual parents can only cause harm
to the children. This is not an act of a loving Heavenly Father, this is a
policy made out of fear.
I don't even recognize the church of my youth anymore. It is a sad day when
youth are denied membership because of the perceived"sins" of the
parents and how can the LDS church claim to care about families then demand that
young adults renounce Thier families to become members?
@hockeymom asks, "Under what circumstance would a parent who is living in a
same gender relationship want their child to go to a church that preaches
Mother, Father, Priesthood, Temple, Traditional Family and then come home to a
house that is contrary to what was just taught?"hockeymom, just
replace "same gender relationship" with "black family in
1977".Although the Church permitted blacks to join, they refused
to let them have temple marriages. There was no "at this time" or
"but that may change" offered to blacks--just a firm statement of how
things were. Period.
For those who are saying that children are not harmed by being raised by a same
gender couple (I won't say same gender parents, because only one is a
parent), refer to the Regnerus study which found that children raised by same
gender couples do suffer a great proportion of negative outcomes. In fact men
raised by two gay men are three times more likely to describe themselves as
homosexual which is evidence that being gay is a result of nurture and not
nature.In addition, many children who have been raised by same
gender couples lament the fact that a parent was missing from their lives. They
say that their parent's relationship with someone of the same gender denied
them of the other parent.I think that denying the validity of the
Regnerus study is like denying the evidence of global warming. People only
accept science when it agrees with their views.
My objection is that Children over the age of 18 may only be baptized or serve a
mission if they leave the house of the parents that raised them..... give me a
break ... we baptize 18 year old kids all the time who's parents are not
members and don't ask them to move out of their parent's house. How is
this good for the child or the family? Where do we expect these kids to go?
Three doors down from me lived a (nominally) LDS woman with (at the time) Six
kids. She was still married to the father of #2 through #5, but was living with
the father of #6, and pregnant by him with #7. And although she didn't
attended services, the people in the ward were diligent about picking up her
school-age children and taking them to church each Sunday.When she
finally divorced her (legal) husband, she married the man she was living with--
in the local LDS ward. When the first of her children by this man was killed,
the child's funeral was held at this same LDS ward. I'm
reasonably sure that none of the ordinances were being denied to her kids. And
I suspect that if her oldest child had wanted to serve a mission (he was old
enough), he would have been welcomed, and not forced to denounce his mother and
the adulterous relationship. Can somebody explain why Church policy
treats the children of same sex couples differently?
@DC Surfs - The difference between naming and blessing a child and administering
a Priesthood blessing is that Naming and Blessing children is an Ordinance
recorded with the Church where a Priesthood blessing is not. So they are not
the same things and should thus not be treated in the same manner. The
Priesthood can and should administer to anyone who requests it, LDS or not,
saint or sinner, whoever wants a blessing should get one. But Ordinances are
very different.@Nanook - divorced parents with split custody would
be a different matter all together. I'd imagine that as long as one parent
is living the tenets of the Church and is in harmony with its teachings there
would be little issue of ordinances for the child. The custody would most
likely determine whether or not the child would be allowed to participate via
What about children of divorced parents? Or children of a parent that had an
affair, or broke the law in some way? If you believe that homosexuality is a
sin, that is fine. But what about the sin of pride or hubris. We all sinners and
if you only bless children of unions free of sin, we will have no members of our
@kwall & @1aggie - This policy applies to those involved in Same Sex
Marriage but who want an affiliation with the Church, very similar to the
policies regarding Polygamous marriage. The Church is defining what constitutes
a marriage and what the Church will deem as a 'married' couple.
Children in those relationships are governed by what the parents are doing and
will remain so until the child is at an age that he/she can decide the direction
to take. @kwall, it would be a VERY unlikely case that someone in a same sex
relationship and who had zero affiliation with the LDS Church would walk into a
Bishop and ask to have a child named and blessed. This policy does include that
scenario but is aimed at those who want their children on the records of the
Church yet don't want to live the standards of the Church themselves.The line we ourselves are drawing is certainly interesting, it is
becoming clear that those who disagree are 'weeding' themselves out of
So cohabiting with someone of the same sex constitutes apostasy requiring a
disciplinary council, while cohabiting with someone of the opposite sex does
not? I thought both were violations of the law of chastity. Why the
difference? If sex outside of marriage is an apostate practice requiring a
disciplinary council, bishoprics and stake presidencies will be spending a lot
more time conducting disciplinary councils, which will diminish the time they
could spend in otherwise ministering to the flock.
While this new policy may seem harsh and mean to some, we must never waiver from
support of our church leaders. They are seers and revelators and we will never
be led astray.
My first reaction while reading this article was one of sympathy for those
children of same gender households. Then I remembered God is in charge. Our
hearts ache especially for the children who's parents have made decisions
that take them from the truth of eternal families. Children of high profile and
other apostates also come to mind. How can the church allow blessings and
baptisms of children who are living lives where their most significant role
models are living contrary to those teachings? Often one active parent might
take the children to church, but they have at least one parent trying to live
the Gospel. In same gender households, both parents are living contrary to the
Gospel. There is no model for living or teaching correct principles in those
households!Should blessings and baptisms of young children of same
gender parents be practiced in the church, it would set up a scenario similar to
anchor babies and citizenship. "If you allow my child to be blessed and
baptized, why not allow my same gender "spouse" and I to be sealed in
your temple?" God is protecting His church is all.
I've read hundreds of comments about this new policy over a dozen or so
sites and one of the most common misconceptions is that somehow the LDS Church
is forever denying membership to children of someone who is in or has been in a
same-sex relationship, invoking Christ's admonition to "suffer little
children" to come unto Him. Firstly, the invitation is for all to come unto
Christ. Yet not all can immediately be accepted into his restored church as some
must wait until they have forsaken their sins and made a full repentance. Others
must wait until they reach a legal age as their parent(s) forbid them from
joining the LDS Church. This policy puts children of a gay parent into the
latter category of needing to wait until they are of legal age and then they can
join the LDS Church upon meeting additional requirements. There is wisdom in
A few not-fully thought out thoughts1) This does seem like a strange
decision, especially considering it directly affects a very very small number of
people (I can't imagine that many same-sex couples wanting to have their
children blessed in an LDS church) but will indirectly affect a great deal more.
2) I wonder if this is more administrative that spiritual. Once a
membership record is created it places an expectation for members of the church
to minister to the person of that record. The child would have no way to
transfer records if the parents move or remove themselves from activity in the
church. I can't imagine we have lots of data of these situations but I
assume these babies vanish from the church and are hard to track down. 3) When someone commits to the Church they disavow all types of sin. Having
these children specific disavow same-sex marriage seems a little excessive.4) Hopefully nearly all requests to the 1st presidency are approved and
this is simply a way to provide greater support to people in these situations.
@KwallI See your perspective, I really do. However, I think this
needs to be looked at with a deeper perspective. First off, a child blessing is
not necessary for salvation. It is simply a practice that has several purposes,
the main one being simply to officially name your child and put your child on
the records of the church.Secondly, I think the church has it right
on this policy. If the church allowed children who's parents are either
non-members/former members or "members" that are no longer practicing,
to get baptized, confirmed, ordained, etc, that would be irresponsible of the
church. By doing so you would create a very hard environment for that child to
be successful since neither parent is a member. Members, especially young and
new members, need support to be able to continue in the gospel. By making it so
that children can't do the things listed in the article because their
parents are practicing members is actually protecting them until they are older
and can stand on their own more.God is a perfect judge and will not
hold children accountable because of the wrong choices their parents have made.
I was raised by a pedophile who also was a respected priesthood holder. After he
was discovered, my mom began to drink a lot. It was hard to stay in the church
and I often felt unwelcome. Being gay isn't the same as being a pedophile
(though, to be fair, the heart wants what the heart wants), but teaching young
people to not follow the prophet does corrupt them. Let children make a
commitment to follow the Lord when they are in a position and a mindset to honor
that commitment. Otherwise what does the commitment mean? If I had ever said
that there was nothing wrong with what my father did, church leaders should have
questioned my faith in the Lord and his apostles.
A friend's comment really helped me understand. I quote excerpts: "I
understand the struggle many are having with the news articles regarding the LDS
Church's policy.Ask a child psychologist about the cognitive
dissonance inflicted on a child that goes to church hearing about eternal
families and seeing pictures of heterosexual families in their church classes
and then going home to parents that can't fit that mold. This has NOTHING
to do with children not being worthy of God's love and everything to do
with not placing vulnerable children in a position to judge their parents or
feel that their families are less valuable. Children don't develop the
neurological ability to manage ambiguity until their late teenage years. This is not bigotry, but a simple recognition of the emotional need of a
child to be aligned with their parents until they are old enough to manage the
ambiguity of conflicting belief systems.Take a deep breath. It is about
doing the right thing for the child.
This is not just a SSM issue. We had an issue in our ward where two non member
married parents wanted their children to be baptized because they wanted them to
learn and live the church teachings. The parents themselves wanted nothing to
do with the church. They were denied baptism by the mission president, however
were invited to continue to participate in primary and church activities.Baptism is a covenant, not just a membership ticket. If you don't
live in a home where your parents are not able to help or teach then they become
covenant breakers. Parents are primarily responsible for teaching their
children, not the church. And when the actions of the parents cannot support
church teachings, it would be detrimental to the child to make that covenant.
Though I have been inactive many years, the church has never done anything I
considered offensive enough for me to want to sever my ties with them officially
and completely. They now have. My formal resignation can be expected in the
church offices any day now.
1962-U.S. Supreme Court declares prayer illegal in public schools; 1963-U.S.
Supreme Court declares Bibles banned from public schools; 1973-U.S.Supreme Court
declares abortion to be legal; June 30, 2015, U.S. Supreme Court declares same
sex marriage legal in all States. 1967-Prophecy fulfilled in Luke 21:24 and
Isaiah. 11:11-14; 31:4-7.
@InMyOpinionAlso--" Homosexual marriage and relationships that
are contrary to Gods commandments are."Yet again -- there is no
commandment saying "thou shalt not have a gay marriage." And Jesus never
said a single word against homosexuality.On the other hand, there IS
a commandment saying "thou shalt not commit adultery". And the Bible
explicitly tells us that anyone who divorces for any reason except infidelity,
and then remarries, is committing adultery. Yet the LDS church performs
marriages for divorcees all the time, doesn't it?How do you
reconcile adulterous second marriages with the Lord's commandments?
A first principle is that God loves his children perfectly, and will always act
in a way that will best lead to their eternal joy. Given that indisputable first
principle, it behooves we less enlightened, often arrogant, mortals, to
acknowledge that God knows more than us, sees things we do not see, and so we
must ponder more deeply, and seek His wisdom. Thus looking past the knee jerk,
typical humanist responses, one can begin to see the tender mercies of a loving
God even within these policies.
If critics would pause and reflect, they would see that this is an honest
policy. People sometimes gloss over awkward inconsistencies. Less-active
parents, living with a partner, may wish to have their child taken to church, to
give them certain values. But it is an unkindness to subject a child to such a
conundrum. This clear policy provides the guidance parents need to make
informed choices."But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and
how am I straitened till it be accomplished!Suppose ye that I am come to
give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:For from
henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two
against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against
the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the
mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law."(Luke 12:40-45)
Under what circumstance would a parent who is living in a same gender
relationship want their child to go to a church that preaches Mother, Father,
Priesthood, Temple, Traditional Family and then come home to a house that is
contrary to what was just taught? Why would a parent want to confuse and
subject that child to the doctrine when Dad & Dad or Mom & Mom are doing
the opposite? I hope there are no same gender parents who would do that to
their child anyway.The church has to protect children and themselves
from any potential issues that arise. In this day and age, there is no use
believing or dis-believing in select pieces of doctrine. Either you're all
in or all out. Just dividing the sheep from the goats.
Wow. There appears to be a lot of people that believe themselves to be more in
tuned than the first presidency and quorum of the twelve. I wish I was that
enlightened. But because I'm not I question the questioners, do you believe
or not? If you don't then why should you care. If you say you believe you
may want to rethink your question. I am glad the church has position of truth
and knowledge. The easiest position is no position or whatever appears to be PC.
Blessing of babies is not an Ordinance. Not allowing this to be done in an LDS
Church does not withhold blessings as these are not binding in any event. It is
a prayer offered by the father upon the baby asking the Lord's blessing. If
the Church doesn't recognize unwed fathers, same sex fathers, polygamous
fathers, etc., then that father is precluded from giving a blessing in an LDS
church. They can of course offer the blessing in another venue e.g. at home.I think it helps to understand that the Church is merely being
consistent with all practices outside marriage between one man and one woman. It
doesn't sanction any ordinance or ceremony for anyone who is outside this
parameter. We just happen to be focusing (a lot) on LGBT issues at the moment.
A baby blessing is not a life saving ordinance. It's no different than
giving a family member a priesthood blessing in a hospital room. If that family
member is LGBT, there isn't any requirement for approval prior to giving
that blessing in that instance. I'm not sure why it's so different
for a baby blessing then. This seems like one of those issues where
less is more meaning there is no good that comes from publishing something like
this. Sometimes it's better for the Church to remain quiet about things
and let it's lay clergy figure these unique situations out for ourselves.
I really can't imagine a circumstance where this could become problematic.
In addition, although it is not an ordinance, there is no reason why any such
blessing should be deprived of anyone.
This is The Church of Jesus Christ or it is not. No grey area. Hold to what
you know to be true. If there are questions, answers will eventually come.
Please, stay in the boat.
With only a few exceptions, the LDS church has a very low standard for baptism.
In most cases, anyone that wants to can be baptized in short order. However
these children are being required to wait until they are 18 and then, for all
intents and purposes, renounce their family relationships to be members in good
standing. This is the first time I have ever seen the LDS church promote a
policy that approaches the Scientology practice of "Disconnection".
While full disconnection is not expressly stated (or even likely intended) it
seems to be the inevitable end to the policy for anyone that desires to be a
full member.I have no problem with the LDS church choosing not to
perform certain marriages in their buildings but from my perspective this policy
takes dead aim at family units. A stance like this is likely to increase the
exodus of members Marlin Jensen acknowledged a few years ago.
@kwallyou said:"I just don't get it. I was
under the impression that we are punished for our own sins, not for the sins of
others. And then to require kids to denounce their parents in order to be
baptized when they are 18? Yikes".How is choosing to be baptized
as an adult (18)...denouncing their gay parents?By that reasoning, would
it not also be denouncing the parents if they were baptized after the age of 8
and before they were 18?This policy in reality does not tread on the
parents rights to raise their children as thy see fit. This policy also makes it
perfectly clear to a child that according to LDS doctrine, this lifestyle is not
in accordance with LDS doctrine. One can disagree and many do,
however this is the LDS Church's position and when one turns 18 they can
choose for themselves.
The LDS Church does not baptize people just to increase church membership. It
is an ordinance which starts a promise to live a certain way. If someone CANNOT
live the gospel, by choice or circumstance, it is better for them to NOT make
To tolerate is one thing...To embrace is another...The LDS
Church recently has led the way in "tolerance" for the Gay lifestyle,
i.e. marriage, non-discrimination etc. as it pertains to current established
law. However, as a Church, they maintain their 1st Amendment rights
to establish and practice their own religion as they see fit.And
right on queue, the LGBT movers and shakers are demonstrating that they will not
be content until they can force every religion to comply and embrace their own
world view.The Church will not and cannot ever "Embrace" Gay
Marriage, it goes against everything the Church teaches (Proclamation on the
Family), sorry, Steve and Barbara Young. Nor can it send mixed
messages to the children of such unions by implicitly condoning such
behavior.In a way, this policy actually demonstrates respect for
parents by not intruding on the Gay Parent's household and their
teachings.Sorry folks, the LDS Church is not a-la-carte with
it's doctrine and policies. And nobody is twisting anyone's arm to
subscribe.However, one is always free to establish their own
religion by picking and choosing what they like and don't like.
@MyOpinionAlso re: "Children are harmed by same-sex marriage..."While that is a lovely claim, do you have any evidence from any
mainstream medical, psychological or sociological organization where one go to
determine if your claim is based on fact or unsupported opinion?Moreover, taking any optimal parenting rationale to a logical conclusion,
empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated,
suburban-dwelling, married Asians can marry while excluding all other
heterosexual couples. The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident.
Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health
and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for
children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the
data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not
disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households.
Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by
lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical
Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic
Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of
America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption
Institute. It’s not the gender of the parent that’s the key.
It’s the quality of parenting that’s being offered by whoever is
there, husband or wife, two women, two men, a single parent, as long as these
factors are present: good mental health, good parent-child relationships, what
we call an authoritative parenting style, which is warmth, stimulation,
structure, and the availability of resources. Then we’re going to have a
child who is much more likely to be healthy.
Another well-deserved PR disaster, in my opinion.The Gay parents
must be former members who have not lost their belief, or they would just join a
church that accepted them and bring the kidsThus, parents who are
really into lds beliefs try to instill them in their kids, but the church does
not want the kids because of the parents.And, the 18 year old kid,
who was never accepted, is supposed to be so hot to join that he/she is willing
to denounce his parents and their marriage.--- I believe Jesus would
tell us to think of the effect on the children, and be less rigid and harsh
The Church is right, here. The laws of God must be upheld. The
characterization that this new policy would punish children, is false.
Actually, the Church would be doing those children a terrible disservice if not
for this new policy. Otherwise, the Church effectively would be condoning a
lifestyle that is forbidden by God. Instead, the Church does these children a
valuable favor by sending them, in this fashion, a message that this lifestyle
is not approved of God.
The LDS Church is punishing children for the decisions of their parents. That
doesn't make sense to me.
To Hope & Faith: not too crafty . . . at least the children of the porn
addict can be blessed and baptized. Apparently the innocent children of
honorable men or women in a same-sex marriage are to be treated as a lower
spiritual class than are the children of a porn addict in a hetrosexual
marriage. You can slice the construct in a number of ways and most of the
outcomes will be unfair and even cruel. Treating adults arbitrarily is one
thing, but please, spare the children!
Why does this apply to same sex married couples' children and not couples
that are living together without getting married? seems like an unreasonable
Let's say one is a active LDS parent whose child is LGBT and wants to get
married. Is that parent now considered an apostate because they support their
LGBT's happiness by supporting the child's marriage?
How can you deny baptism to somebody because of their parents? Wouldn't
those children need the gift of the Holy Ghost as much as any other children?
Would it not benefit them? Does Heavenly Father not love these children and
want them to be able to partake of all the blessings of his Church? How can you
punish these children because of choices their parents are making? This goes
against everything I know and love about the gospel of Jesus Christ.Can a child whose parents are living together and not married get baptized?
How is that any different?This strikes me as horrifically
We have an adult lesbian daughter who has been inactive for years. She may end
up marrying another woman. They may have a child. My daughter might want her
child to have the benefit of "growing up in the church", and might ask
me to bless the child, or to baptise them when they're 8 years old, or to
ordain him if he's a boy when he's 12. It might be a way to keep my
daughter "connected" to us and to our belief in some way. But with this
new policy? Nope, not gonna happen.How many families are there
where mom and dad divorced because one of them was gay/lesbian and "came
out"? And the kids spend half their time with each parent. And the
gay/lesbian one gets a partner or a legally married spouse. And both parents
want their kids to continue with the church. But now, the kids can't be
baptised, the boys can't be ordained. What part of this makes any sense?
All the claims of the LDS Church not being anti-gay... I never believed it and
this just confirms it. Telling a child that they must denounce their parent?
Really! How bizarre. And the comments found here of support for such treatment
of these children is truly frightening. This also gives justification for
family members to denounce and alienate their own children. Best
wishes with following this path. I hope that those effected will swiftly move
on and never look back.
To anyone saying that children are harmed by gay marriage instead of the church,
please tell those gay children, from good Mormon families that statement. Tell
those kids that, kids who will take their lives over this, because they feel so
rejected and unloved by their spiritual home. Please tell them that before
they're gone. I am heartbroken for them.
For those commenting that this new policy makes perfect sense, and particularly
in light of a similar policy for children of polygamists, I would ask what is
the distinguishing principle for withholding rites from children of same-sex
couples, and not from children of heterosexual couples whose parents engage in
adultery, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, and any other number of
"sins"? Further, what is the rationale for classifying same sex couples
as "apostates" and not couples who, for example, commit other sexual
sins like adultery, fornication, and sex abuse? To my view, there is no
distinction other than the opportunity to paint our LGBTQ brothers and sisters
with a brush of "otherness". It seems so incredibly hurtful.
I don't know. I can't really accept this right now. I should change my
screenname. I don't go to BYU (I've graduated) and I don't want
to seem like some representative of the church. The devil's advocate part
of me sees this rule and can make some sense of it, but it runs so counter to
what I believe. Denying children the benefits and blessings of covenants because
they are in a situation that they cannot change or control makes no sense to me.
I don't like this and I'm deeply uncomfortable with it.
I see this policy as a necessary protection for children to keep them from
entering into the serious covenant of baptism, when such a covenant would have
little meaning to their same-sex parents who openly challenge the commandments
of God. This is no different than me, at age 17, needing my parents'
permission to be baptized after having been taught the Gospel; which was a
protection for me to not enter into something that could not be supported in my
The whole point is to avoid conflict in the home. You cannot very well expect
to send your children to church, where they will be taught that marriage is only
between a man and a woman, and expect that not to cause problems when they
return to their home. However, when you are taught that over-eating is a sin
going home to tell dad that he shouldn't over-eat; if he listens, it's
not going to end his relationship. But that's exactly what would happen
when the child speaks up about this topic at home. This policy protects
homosexual relationships as much as it does anything else.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam and
To anticipate and respond to misunderstanding on this policy change, I really
think we need to go back to fundamentals to understand what's going on.Ordinances in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are important,
even essential to salvation.No one will be withheld blessings in the long
run simply because of the actions of another, even if it be their parent(s). For
instance, in the case that a spouse is unfaithful to his/her spouse after a
temple marriage, the faithful spouse will not be denied any of the benefits and
blessings associated with the sealing because of it, even though it be that they
must be sealed to someone else later on. Ordinances are very serious
matters, and they should only be made by those who are ready at that time to
keep the associated covenants, and have every intention of doing so. Hence, we
can begin to see that one of the motivations for this policy is making sure that
the children involved are truly ready and able to keep those covenants. The
policy requiring these children to wait does not imply unworthiness or that they
are of less value.
Tiago's comment at 10:50 is spot on. All the news coverage I've seen
has characterized this policy as applying to children living with a same-sex
married parent, but the wording of the handbook says no such thing. Any church
leader giving this a strict reading could decide to apply this to any children
with a parent in a same-sex relationship, regardless of whether they live in the
same household. Unless the church intends this meaning, someone needs to clarify
the new wording in the handbook.
@KwallAll the more reason for adults to consider the effects of
their actions (choosing to obey God, or reject His commandments) upon their
children. As others have said, we all have weaknesses and struggle
in our effort to endure to the end. But enduring is not the same as giving up or
giving in. And there are many in the world who choose to openly rebel against
God's laws.Because of that, the Church has the right to decide
who can and who cannot be a member, and who is worthy to enter their temples.
You'll be very much welcomed if you choose to attend our Sunday meetings.
Very interesting.Right now, a baby of non-active members can be
given a blessing by an active family member (such as a grandfather). But not
if your parents are gay?Sad.If I were in charge, I would
want gay couples coming and bringing their children to church.
I think the church is wanting to make sure parents and children are not placed
in a position to be at odds with deeply held beliefs while still living and
being raised together. It seems respectful of the parents to not ask children to
hold to teachings the parents obviously do not adhere to. There's clearly
a recognition that a parent's wishes and beliefs come first. Children
should be of a certain maturity to understand the difference between loving
& respecting the person without agreeing with their actions before making
Has this been confirmed by the Church's PR department? I'm just
wondering because I've seen pictures of the apparent apostasy policy
change, and while it is in Handbook 1, the font in the picture is different from
the font used in Handbook 2 which is available to download as a PDF from the
Church's website. Also, where is the info about the baptism/blessing policy
for the children coming from? I haven't found it anywhere and haven't
been able to confirm it with a bishop yet. I also haven't found anything
official about either policy changes from the Mormon Newsroom.I'm holding on to the hope that this was started as a hoax and got
reported before it could be confirmed. (Just an FYI, I'm fine
with the apostasy change, I just really really don't want children to be
punished for their parent's decisions.)
@ Kwall, The Church is not suggesting that children are inherently guilty for
the sins of their parents, nor are they telling children to denounce or turn
their backs on those who raised them. Any religious denomination is within its
rights to establish moral standards concerning what constitutes the definition
of marriage. Marriage, ultimately, is either a moral construct with a moral
definition or, for all practical purposes, it becomes a non-construct with no
definition -- just a matter of opinion. The Church leaders are simply stating
that children in same-sex relationships may join the church when they come of
age, and affirm that they accept and follow the moral teachings and standards
of the Church.
The article talks about withholding ordinances from "children living with a
parent in a same-gender relationship," but the new guidance is under the
topic "Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship." See
the difference?I think this needs clarified in the article. Do the
rules apply only to kids who live with SS parents? Does shared or partial
custody matter? Or, is this policy applicable to all children with at least one
legal parent living in a SS relationship, whether or not the child lives with
How is a child living in a home with two non-member parents who are gay any
different than a child living in a home where the parents routinely commit other
sins? In both cases the parents are committing a sin but only one of them is
grounds to deny children ordinances they need for salvation?I just
don't get it. I was under the impression that we are punished for our own
sins, not for the sins of others. And then to require kids to denounce their
parents in order to be baptized when they are 18? Yikes.This just
seems unnecessarily harsh.
I have long supported the church and its leaders even when I couldn't
understand what appeared to almost be a tacit acceptance of this trend in the
world. Real love to me always meant telling the truth to those who are confused
about it. Granted, this must be done with care, patience, and long suffering,
but this is a policy and line that was much needed. The world is too much with
us and those who are seeking after the truth will come back to the fold or
reject it altogether. The line has been drawn in the sand. As word gets out,
more will be drawn to the church for the safety provided to children and the
strength that comes from living in a family structured the way the Lord has
decreed. No cheering here, just a sobering acceptance of the Lord's voice.
Since the LDS Church has chosen to publicly announce this new policy, it would
seem to make sense to explain the rationale behind it. I'm not LDS but I
can see where people would wonder why children are being denied certain
blessings important to the LDS based on what their parents do.
Suburbs of SLC,Crafty... really crafty.You want to know
who's denying the children from coming unto the Savior? It's not the
church. Look at the father who refuses to live right. A porn addict who
isn't worthy to attend the temple is responsible for the harm he does to
his family. That's not the church's fault. We all know who takes the
truth to be hard, it's the people who refuse to live it.The
Lord's church does what's best for children, and that is avoiding
confusion. You are welcome to plug your ears if you don't want to hear what
the church leaders have to say. But I welcome it. I've found their counsel
to be ahead of its time and wise in every case. It's geared us to safety
time and time again and it will continue to.Children will learn more
from knowing what their father denied them than they would by living in a home
that is full of confusion and conflicting practices. The Lord loves children.
This, along with the rest of the gospel, only proves that even more.
I believe this is the same policy as children who grew up in polygamous
families. It would make sense that the same policy would apply to other family
configurations not accepted by the LDS church.
The article does not mention but I wonder if the temple recommend interview
question will specify heterosexual marriage vs simply legally and lawfully
I knew a polygamist family once that attended LDS services. They openly lived
against the practices of the church. Because of that they weren't really
members of the church. We still welcome them, treat them with respect, and
befriend them. But we do not acknowledge what they chose to participate in. The
children grew to go on missions and get married. They were not polygamists after
their parents.What's interesting about it to me is the word
"allegiance". If your father taught you every day that the sun Earth is
flat, then God revealed to you otherwise... would you accept it?I
believe that is the real challenge with children in homes where the parents are
openly living against the teachings of the church. Being attracted isn't a
sin. Everyone faces their attractions, appetites, addictions, substances and
desires. It's not the attraction. It's what you do about it. One
can't say "I refuse to keep God's commandments, but I'll
raise my kid to" without raising an eyebrow. I think that's why it
takes special permission.
It's worth noting that those in same-gender relationships still are always
invited and welcome in all regular church services and activities. In fact,
most members sincerely hope they will participate in the peace it brings, as
they do for anyone. This is simply a clarification of how "membership"
should be managed by lay leaders based on the doctrine of the church.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto
me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.Verily I
say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
shall in no wise enter therein.The policy against the children of
polygamists is also unfair, but at least in that instance, the fear seems to be
that those children could potentially choose to join the church before changing
their minds and deciding to pursue a polygamous relationship. By contrast,
being raised by gay parents has no impact on whether you personally would later
choose to pursue a same-sex relationship. It's not like there
are that many same-sex couples lining up to join or stay in the church; yet the
fact that the church insists on making it that much more difficult to feel even
marginally welcome--or to suggest that, at the very least, your children are
welcome--is a needless aggression.
The church is not to blame for this. Homosexual marriage and relationships that
are contrary to Gods commandments are. Children are harmed by same-sex marriage
not the church.