Twitter reacts to church policy on children LGBT parents, 'apostasy'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • joewillie12 Corpus Christi, TX
    April 8, 2019 9:16 a.m.

    @Flashback:

    "People that went inactive over the 2015 directive didn't have their testimonies on the sure foundation.

    I find that the standard response for anyone who leaves the church regardless of the reason.

    Don't you?

  • loweye salt lake, UT
    April 6, 2019 5:17 p.m.

    mominthetrenches,

    I am curious what one means when they use the word "droves" to describe the number of people who have done something as a group.

    I seriously want to know how many there are in a drove.

    A few years ago there was a big demonstration in Salt Lake where people got together to give their letters of resignation to the Church. It was reported by those participating that droves of people had turned in letters, but the news media said that less than 300 actually turned in letters. That was when I started to question it when people used that word to show what a huge crowd there was.

    I would really like to know how many people comprise a drove.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    April 5, 2019 10:06 p.m.

    "And the caravan moves on..."

    ... in some seemingly random, varying direction, maybe.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 5, 2019 10:25 a.m.

    People that went inactive over the 2015 directive didn't have their testimonies on the sure foundation. Sorry but in my experience with some that went inactive, that was the case. They were cultural Mormons and some had served missions, held high positions, etc. But when the stuff hit the fan, their testimonies couldn't take it.

    Remember Gayle Sayers book I am Third? 1-was God/Christ, 2-Family/Friends, 3-was himself.

    That is good advise to remember and if we do it right #1 and #2 can walk hand in hand. But #1 is still the most important. We follow God and Christ, our families follow right along.

  • Orson Woods Cross, UT
    April 5, 2019 9:00 a.m.

    The writer of this piece really needs to rethink whether to give publicity to the so-called Truth and Transparency Foundation, which is Mormonleaks. Their very publicly proclaimed goal is to embarrass the church whenever and however possible.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    April 5, 2019 7:54 a.m.

    For those who chose to look at Nov. 2015 policy as punishment due to parents lifestyle that is too bad.

    In reality the Brethren have hearts full of love for all(especially children). Those children impacted by Nov. 2015 would be blessed by NOT YET being held accountable to covenants until a bit older and more aware of the meaning and beauty of the Baptismal covenant. Meanwhile, every Primary leader/worker I know of would be instrumental in showing an outpouring of love towards those very children. An outpouring of Christlike love and Gospel teaching maybe not present in the life of the child. How profoundly compassionate for The Brethren to understand the sad reality that many took the negative approach and to take steps to greatly enhance the lives of those children impacted.

  • windsor Logan, UT
    April 5, 2019 7:22 a.m.

    I know several LGBT couples who are inactive members of the Church who wanted nothing to do with having their kids baptized, even before the 2015 policy.

    And certainly don't now, even with this change.

    ARE there LGBT parents who even want baptism for their children??

    I know of none and have never heard of any, anywhere.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 5, 2019 6:58 a.m.

    @Anton;

    Let's not forget, that polygamist parents weren't already MEMBERS of the LDS church.

    Let's not forget that smokers, drinkers, adulterers aren't living the "gospel" according to LDS beliefs eitherl

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    April 4, 2019 11:41 p.m.

    Everyone must make important decisions in this world. Decisions to follow the Prophet or to follow worldly/political philosophies.
    Folks in the Lord's church go out of their way to love those who might not quite fit in.

  • mominthetrenches South Jordan, UT
    April 4, 2019 5:59 p.m.

    @Samson
    I am also from South Jordan, but was born and raised in Northern California Bay Area. South Jordan (very homogeneous in religion, ethnicity & level of economics), which is the very opposite of the Bay Area, which is loaded with diversity in all forms. MANY solid, faithful Saints left the Church, in droves, in areas like this. Your comments are snarky and naive. Over half of my extended family (in Cali) felt they had to choose between friends and loved ones who are dear to them, who live same sex lifestyles, or the beliefs they were raised with. I, too, have loved ones on both sides of our families, who are LGBT, who are dear to me. There is a very high suicide rate among LGBT teens, who are LDS, because of the feelings of hopelessness and shame, leading to ultimate despair. Many active, faithful members began to see the situation for what it was, so 3 years ago and chose their loved ones over policy. Good for you, that your Ward is busting at the seams. Hopefully, they will continue to openly welcome those who are LGBT, now, too. This IS an answer to prayer for many who love their Savior, the same way, but who have felt no hope.

  • Anton St. George, UT
    April 4, 2019 3:50 p.m.

    Let's not forget that the 2015 policy change brought children of same sex parents in line with the policy regarding children of polygamist parents regarding baptism and blessings. To my knowledge this new 2019 policy leaves in place the ban on baptism for children under 18 in a polygamist household unless given First Presidency approval.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    April 4, 2019 12:54 p.m.

    @samson

    I was a stake clerk in 2015 in an East bench stake - I can confirm a dramatic uptick in people going inactive and leaving the Church after the announcement.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 4, 2019 12:12 p.m.

    @Samson01;

    There were 1000's of MEMBERS who had their names removed from the church's roles due to the 2015 policy. There were news stories about it - with photos of lines around the block as people were mailing in their resignation letters.

    I have several family members who stopped going to church as a result of this policy (they decided that their brother, cousins, nieces and nephews (there are at least 10 of us in my family) who were LGBT were more important).

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2019 11:48 a.m.

    @Utefan60,

    I am sure that your anecdotes have some truth (just as I am sure that Samson01's anecdotes have tome truth).

    I am sure some active members of the church fell away because of the policy; and I am sure many (if any) will not come back even after the reversal change. Although one twitter listed here suggests one person may just come back.

    First, I should clarify my own position: an inactive disfellowshipped (on the grounds of sexual transgression) member.

    Second, I found it very ironic that quite often I was blocked even posting on this church owned website for supporting the church and detailing the rationale for the policy in the first place. It was well grounded and very sensible. Sad that so many members couldn't understand something that seems so obvious (even to me given my position). Such a policy wasn't needed before same sex marriage was legal; but as soon as it was legal; the church needed to adjust policy to handle new scenarios that didn't exist before.

    The policy clearly deferred to parental rights. It didn't punish children, it only allowed for maturity in understanding before asking them to commit to the law of chastity that their parents didn't follow.

  • Reasonable Mormon Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2019 11:35 a.m.

    Utefan 60, the case in my area, too.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    April 4, 2019 11:22 a.m.

    Re: Utefan60

    Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. I will make sure to pay closer attention to your posts as you clearly have insights and knowledge that the rest of us just don't have.

    I know that in my ward, despite my close relationships with most of the members, I just didn't hear what you have assured me they were thinking and feeling. I also missed the fact that many of the active members have stopped coming to church. I guess it was their familiar presence every Sunday that caused me to miss that. Now that I have your insights to guide my observations, I am sure that I will see this mass migration to other churches you speak of.

    Oddly enough, they have started opening up the overflow in my church meetings to accommodate our increased attendance.

    All sarcasm aside, why is it so hard for folks to accept the original premise of the 2015 policy of the church's desire to not create conflict and dissonance in same-sex parent households? I support the continued evolution of the church as it delivers the eternal gospel truths and necessary ordinances of the gospel. I suspect we will see policy changes in the future as the needs of the membership evolve.

  • Utefan60 , 00
    April 4, 2019 10:42 a.m.

    "The updates are to 2015 church policies “intended at the time to maintain family harmony but perceived as painful among some supporters of the LGBT community,” according to the Deseret News."

    What the Church did not expect was the backlash from active members who thought that the policy was not right. It had nothing to do with LBGTQ supporters. It had to do with many members who saw the policy as discrimination against children.

    Innocent Children who had no choice in the matter.

    It was a policy that didn't sit well with not only the LBGTQ Community, but thousands of active members of the Church.

    The Church lost many active members. Most members have family who are LBGTQ, and were affected by this policy. Many stood by their families, as they should.

    If you think it was the LBGTQ Community that was upset, you are wrong. They just moved on, placed thier children in Churches that were tolerant and let it go. Many Churches accept "All unto the Body of Christ".

    The vast majority of critism came from was active members who could not reconcile this policy with the teachings they had been taught.

    That was the case in my area.

  • Orson Woods Cross, UT
    April 4, 2019 10:41 a.m.

    These twitter comments impress me that folks are not reading the policy change announcement closely. While the label "apostate" has been removed, homosexual behavior remains serious sin subject to the same disciplinary actions as before, with or without the label "apostate" attached. Elder Oaks was very clear that serious sin is still serious sin.

    As for how many LGBT couples will allow their children to be blessed and baptized, when church teachings contradict their sinful lifestyle, that remains to be seen, but I am guessing is not a large number.

    Please read closely and carefully--doctrine didn't change; the consequences of sinful behavior haven't changed. Effort to lessen contention is behind this semantic change, and that is good.