From the newly changed Church Handbook, posted without comment.
Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship
- 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.
- A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:
A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:
-
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.
-
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.
Wheat & Tares 
I am absolutely shattered by this policy. It has undone any of the positive strides we have made in recent times.
It is discriminatory.
It is unscriptural.
It is sad.
I would love to ask what the similarities are between this and the children of polygamous relationships. The answers would reveal a lot, I think.
From a post by Kevin Barney on BCC: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/11/polygamy-and-baptism-policy/
“She has been very clear that she is not going to live polygamy. A recent tangential story arc in the show was that she had decided to be baptized LDS. That was the plan. (Good for her, I thought.) She just reported to her moms that she got two phone calls, including from the mission president, that they’re not going to let her get baptized. Apparently they had wanted her to publicly denounce her family, and of course she wouldn’t do that. She can keep attending church if she wants to but she can’t get baptized”
Its a defensive measure against the LGBT community to try to diminish and separate out the fringe Mormons
Keepapitchinin and Times & Seasons both have good posts up about. According to the one at Keepa, the policies are indeed identical to those for children in polygamy.
about *it.*
Being in a same-gender marriage is also now under the heading of “apostasy.”
Does that change the Church’s position on advocacy? Now that makes it advocating apostasy.
Any news on whether that was intended?
I would say similar. but not identical.
In the State of Utah, a monogamous adult single person may legally marry another monogamous single adult.The children of some legal unions are being treated different than the children of some legal unions.
The children of those who have multiple spouses at the same time, are similarity disadvantaged regarding church membership as with the children of gay parents.
While those men who legally marry one wife at a time on earth, can be sealed to multiple women in the ultimate celestial marriage. Not only are the children not punished, but their father may be an apostle. No disavowal necessary.
The children of gay parents are not similarly situated to these polygamous unions.
Nor is the history or theology the same.
I fail to see how they could be in the same boat, when the ship designs are different.
Mary Ann, Yeah, my thoughts were running along those same lines. My first question was: does this mean that that TR question is to be applied more broadly? That feels like a definite retrenchment, given earlier statements that a person could support SSM legislation and still qualify for a TR. Similar to Stephen’s question…
My second question was: had this been done because otherwise the same arguments could be brought to bear on polygamy, and the church absolutely want to keep the same distance (ehem) from polygamy as had previously been the case?
Off to read those other posts…
The Church has decided that it will become an institution run by and consisting of old people. The younger generations will not accept this. They will bail rather than put up with this. We are returning to the 1960s and 1970s when the LDS Church was known as the bigoted, anti-black organization. Going forward, it will be the organization that demands that children with gay parents leave their home. This is not of God. Nor was it smart. The backlash will be substantial and well deserved.
Guilt by association!
There are some pretty fundamental differences between children of polygamists and children of gays that distinguish the situations. This is much more analogous to children being raised by cohabiting non-married heterosexuals, which apparently the church could care less about.
Well then, shouldn’t the 2nd Article of Faith be changed to: ” We Believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression, except babies and children of same sex marriages, who will absolutely be punished for their parents’ transgressions?”
This is the only way to manufacture prejudice: reducing any positive experience with gay married people. Unfortunately, unless you home school your kids and throw your TV out and aren’t coincidentally related to anyone who is gay, it’s going to fail with a whole lot of collateral damage in the process. http://www.wheatandtares.org/14360/manufactured-prejudice/
Homophobic hostility!
guys, guys, this policy is really best for the children!
Warning: you may not like the reasoning in this blog post: http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2015/11/response-to-new-church-policy-gay-marriage-children-baptism.html
Damaged goods!
On a personal level, I am glad the church came out with this policy. While I feel for those that this policy directly affects, my wife had harsh things to say about the church.
She comes from a devout LDS family. She no longer believes, which stemmed from the church’s prop 8 fiasco. She still attends church to be with her friends and to play the organ. Now 62, she was always one of the extremely active people who helped carry the load in a ward. Even though she does not believe, she moderates my comments at home, chastising me when I am too harsh in my comments toward the church. Her activity in the church means the church is in my life more than I want it.
After reading this new policy, she volunteered, ” I guess it’s time to remove my name from the church’s records.” Unfortunately, I know she won’t follow through but this surely is the straw that broke the camel’s back in her life. She is the mother of a wonderful, caring gay son in his mid-twenties.
She said that the church will probably still insist that it doesn’t treat gays as second class people and how brutal and senseless this policy is to individuals. I can only thank the SL geriatrics for codifying their insensitivity for gays. Heaven knows (ha ha) that this announcement did more to help my family situation than anything I could have ever done.
“But Jesus said, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.'”
I know a number of people who are preparing their resignation letters today as a direct result of this news.
By these current rules, I would not have been baptized. I’m a child of gay parents, am living on my own, and am certainly over 18. But I won’t disavow my parents’ relationships. My parents who made me into the person I am today and taught me lessons of charity, faith, service, and family. Those parents that provided and raised me to love and be tolerant of others. Those parents that gave their own blessing and support in my baptism and temple marriage. How could my church ask me to do that?
As a temple sealed, baptized convert who has served in the YW presidency for the past 4 years… what? How can my church hold me responsible for my parents?
Doesn’t it want me there?
It’s only until we know they’ve become hetero and delightful!
No one is forbidding children nor does the 2nd Article of Faith have any bearing on this at all. Children who want to join just need permission from the 1st Pres. is all, no one banning kids or dumping parents or any of that. Read the update before you post
While at BYU I had a roommate who had gay parents. The wardmembers didn’t need an official policy to let her know she was damaged goods.
I’m in a Facebook group where some converts are testifying that this policy would have been beneficial in their circumstances, where the earlier baptism did cause difficulty in family relationships. None have this specific situation with gay parents, though. I’m still scratching my head over this. I know people are trying to find a logical way to explain the policy, but ultimately all the arguments just keep boiling down to “you wouldn’t continue to have a problem with this if you truly had a testimony of the church and it’s leaders.”
I hate that everything (gender, priesthood, legitimate qualms) always boils down to a loyalty issue. It stops discussion in it’s track and creates enemies where there are none.
Additional evidence of a church being led by living loving Prophets Seers and Revelators who get it!
This is shockingly punitive-perhaps these children are now defined in LDS law as ‘bastards’. Clearly some consider they should be prevented from breeding.
Unfortunately I can see that this is where their thinking leads them.
Whilst I accept the church’s right not to believe in gay marriage, it surely must be compliant with the law of the land. Since the majority of citizens believe otherwise, surely we are then inviting others to force the issue legally, and thereby threatening the church’s right to believe and practice otherwise? This is a red rag to a bull, as well as being hateful. The fact that the hatred is probably unconscious is no comfort at all.
This may be more appropriate at other sites discussing this issue, but I was just reviewing the reasons for many other recent policy changes. Many of them had to do with legal defense of the institutional church. The defense of the church policies regarding gay marriage and especially temple marriage will now have one more strong bulwark. There is now much less chance that any homosexual married couple could have standing to sue the church over anything. Their entire family will not be associated with the church in any official way. Bishops who rightly excommunicate members who are in gay marriages are now completely protected from outside legal concerns.
Of course, the doctrinal issue still seems paramount. Teaching, or practicing gay marriage (not legalization of gay marriage, but actually practice of it) is apostasy. Children of known apostates are not usually baptized as minors. This is a similar, but explicit policy.
“We believe men will be punished for their own sins, and not for [their parents] transgression.”
Whizzbang, not allowing children of gay parents is punishing them because of their parents transgression. Are you saying AoF 2 only relates to Adam’s transgression? If so, this is an extremely narrow interpretation of that Article of Faith.
I mean I guess that the bible is full of curses “unto the 7th generation”, but I always thought that future generations aren’t supposed to be guilty of the sins of the fathers, and Mormons disavow such curses (notwithstanding Bruce R. McConkie’s Caste system in Mormon Doctrine.)
We’ve always said men are free agents. Clearly children of gay parents aren’t free to choose eternal life (despite the fact that children of parents living together without marriage are apparently free agents.) How can you say this is not a clear violation of the idea that we will be punished for our own sins? Why is a child held responsible for the parents sins of a gay marriage? No child chooses their parents. How is the sin of the child so great that the child is prevented from baptism which washes away all sins but parents gay (and apparently polygamist parents) sins?
Oh that’s interesting el oso, so it isn’t homophobia al all rather it’s litigation-phobia! Well, instead of bulwarks that create innocent collateral damage (don’t forget millstone necklaces) maybe the church should consider extending full participation to gays as a means to reduce homosexual lawsuits!
How can I bring that cost and pain saving suggestion to the attention of the policy makers?
Putting my resignation in this weekend. This was the tipping point. It won’t go unpunished.
A couple of unrelated thoughts.
1. This is going to be a REALLY tough sell for my kids’ generation. If the Church was losing Millenials before, it’s going to get a whole lot worse.
2. If the children of SSM unions are required to swear sort of a heterosexual loyalty oath before serving a mission, why isn’t everyone? After all, most gay people are the product of heterosexual unions. So by being straight, my husband and I are creating the ideal conditions for one of our children to turn out gay. Yet MY kids are allowed to be baptized, serve missions, etc. without being required to disavow our union.
3. The Church is going to get a huge backlash from this – I mean HUGE – and they deserve every bit of bad publicity they get. And I do think that these horrible policies will be quickly changed to avoid embarrassment (I give it less than a year). But the Church won’t apologize. After all, the Church of Jesus Christ doesn’t apologize.
I reciently spoke with a woman from a SoCal Carasmatic Christian congergation that has gathered so many Millenials they have become roughly 75% of the membership! And they pray for God to “send them more mothers and fathers” meaning middle-aged members! She described them as being “On for for God, not bench warmers!” The point is the spirit sell and the spirit converts and the spirit is still in demand today but not the nearly indiscernible spirit of the contemporary church the carasmatic spirit that helped Joseph found the church. Would Joseph have banned the blessing of these kids? Would Jesus? The church has clearly lost it’s way!
Typos
“On fire for God…”
the spirit sells
I’m trying to understand the motivation for such a hardline stance.
Perhaps the church feels that allowing same-sex couples to be circumstantially involved with the church through their children, would create more tension and dissonance regarding the church’s stand on homosexuality. Children naturally don’t want to disavow their parents, they are supposed to “honour their father (and their father),” and this would create some uncomfortable primary discussions and members wouldn’t know how to handle it without making the church look bad.
Or perhaps the church wanted to set up another bulwark in the ongoing issue of homosexual acceptance in order to shield themselves from any sign of caving on the issue.
Or maybe they just didn’t think it through very carefully.
Or maybe its time to rethink our universalist stance. In the Old Testament, Jehovah cursed people “unto the seventh generation,” and Jesus refused to help Gentiles: “shall I give the food for the children to the dogs?” Homosexuality is incompatible with LDS theology, so rather than pretend that gay people can be members just as easily as strait people, that they are like all of us, “we all have weaknesses of one sort or other” as President Hinkley said, maybe the church is now saying: “They are NOT like us, they are not welcome, neither them nor their children. We leave you in God’s hands. The Mormon church is not for you.”
Maybe the Mormon church is only for strait people. Abraham threw Hagar out of the tent with the little Ishmael, and an angel came and ministered unto them. Maybe God has other plans for gay people that doesn’t include Mormondom. In any case, its a sad day for everyone.
I don’t like this policy. I wish church leaders could have avoided it.
But I have some understanding why they think it is necessary.
When I applied to go on a church mission I had to see a GA before I was called. The interview was useful for me too.
An individual’s background is an important consideration that needs to be evaluated before extending a mission call.
Their background can complicate their future.
Based on my experience, I can understand, at least in part, why this new policy is important for the church and the individuals involved.
Okay, sorry. Two more thoughts.
4. Labeling SSM members as apostate may simply be a ham-fisted approach at streamlining the disciplinary process. It’s my understanding that the bishop has the discretion whether or not to hold a disciplinary council in the cases of law of chastity violations, but MUST hold a dc in the case of apostasy. (I don’t have access to HB1, I’m only goiong by what I’ve gleaned elsewhere.) This eliminates the possibility of ‘leadership roulette’ and the fact that there are many bishops who are sympathetic to SSM.
5. Although similar prohibitions to baptism exist for children in polygamous families, I do think that there’s a big difference no one has mentioned: Children who grow up in polygamous homes are much more likely to become polygamists themselves, whereas children raised by gay parents aren’t more or less likely to be gay than children raised by heterosexuals. If the fear is that the younger generation is somehow going to infect the rest of the population, that’s not really a fear that has so far been borne out in reality.
I have read many people say that you can be a child of murderers and drug addicts etc and still be baptised. That is true. I baptised my children and I sin too. I get angry and upset. I use language that isn’t always good. I’m not always honest. In a purely spiritual sense I am no different than the drug dealer or someone in a same sex marriage. We are all sinners. All sin is as scarlet…hawk said it very well about prejudice. How else would a church get its otherwise intelligent members to join with them in demonising one particular (and probably very small) sub group??? It is wildly inconsistent to apply this to one group and not others. Unfortunately I know of enough members that hate gay people to make this policy stick.
Do Mormon leaders even believe in their own scriptures?
“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven“
Matthew 19:14
“And he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
2 Nephi 26:33
“…honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee.”
1 Nephi 17:55
“Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.”
Moroni 8:8
Hawk is right about the prejudice. It was my first thought on all this, and there are plenty of people I know who seem to be using this as an excuse to continue in bigoted thinking and behavior. But what I really can’t understand at all is the denial of a baby blessing: a non-saving ordinance. I just don’t get it. Are we going to deny the children of gay people other non-saving ordinances too?
It will be interesting to watch the LDS apologetic mental gymnastics used to try to rationalise this one!
“Are we going to deny the children of gay people other non-saving ordinances too?”
“Depart! Unclean!” they cried of themselves. “Depart, depart, do not touch!”
Howard,
Extending full participation for gay families, including temple ordinances, would be a very radical change. The whole theology of the church would be turned upside down.
This change is much smaller, and seems to put children of married homosexuals with ties to the LDS church at a disadvantage.
Our ward’s primary has visitors all the time. The kids are not singled out if they are not members. They are all welcomed and loved. I have a young man in the group I teach that is not a baptized member. No ostracism or shunning has been evident in class. I never even think about his lack of baptism while I am teaching. No, he does not go on a temple baptism trip, but neither do others due to schedule conflicts, or other issues.
el oso,
That is a red herring.
First, there is a difference between granting full membership to sexually active and/or married homosexuals and in treating them in a Christian manner.
Second, the main policy isn’t about the homosexuals, but their children. Children of prostitutes, drug addicts, abusive parents, Satan worshipers, Catholics, excommunicated Mormons, Mormons who had their names removed are all treated according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Children of homosexuals are not. It’s unclear whether parents of homosexuals are equally affected (if an active LDS couple lives in the same house as their adult homosexual child and that child’s partner, how are they affected?)
This policy runs entirely counter to scripture and Christianity.
Well said Joe W especially the last sentence! The church stepped outside of the spirit of Christianity with this one!
Temple ordinances wouldn’t work for gay couples. Seriously, which spouse would do the hearkening? Mass chaos.
Howard, the most common argument I’ve seen is that we’ve always treated polygamist families this way, so we might as well treat gay families poorly as well. Kind of a morally bankrupt argument, but it’s hard to contend with the logic.
So consistency is the hobgobblen of corrolations little minds?
My understanding of the Church’s policy on baptizing children of polygamists was that it was a response to the tendency of young men from those communities to convert, get married to an LDS woman, and return to the polygamous community with his wife. Can anyone confirm? If that’s the case, then treating children with a polygamous parent the same as children with a married gay parent makes little sense…
The situations of polygamy and same sex relationships are also not properly analogous because polygamy was something the church had practised, was part of the theology, and wanted to disavow, whereas same sex relationships have not been part of the religious practices or theological underpinnings. With the former I suppose it is understandable on some level that draconian measures were felt to be necessary to root it out. That can’t be said for this.
Hmmm… The policy makes sense to me, as a necessary protection for the Church and also a kindness to and protection for the child adopted by a same-sex couple. But calling the child untouchable? That’s hyperbole.
Ji, what definition of “kindness” applies to singling out children and publicly humiliating them? How is it “protection” to DENY saving ordinances and the companionship of the Holy Sprit, not because of anything the child has done, but because someone in Salt Lake disapproves of their parent’s relationship?
How is it “kindness” to tell a young adult that they have to leave their parent’s home before they can be eligible for missionary service? Fun fact: an 18 year old can live with a pedophile, murderer, or war lord and go on a mission. An 18 year-old living with (even part-time) his gay mother or father? Has to move out and publicly denounce his family. That is kindness? That’s protection? Have we lost our damn minds? In what universe is this even remotely justifiable?
Kindness means doing what is best for the child.
All candidates for missionary service have to submit to interviews, sometimes searching interviews. This applies to children of pedophiles, murderers, and warlords, too. I can easily imagine a bishop or stake president asking the adult child of an unrepentant _____ whether he or she has adopted or embraces the lifestyle of his or her parent, and not recommending the person for missionary service if the answer is yes. If the answer is no, and all else is in order, that person could easily be recommended. All of this makes sense to me as a reasonable and prudent approach.
Ji, perhaps I wasn’t clear. My questions were not rhetorical. You’ve said that “kindness is doing what’s best for the child”. In what way is this action “best for the child”? I can think of significant reasons why this policy is inherently damaging, can you provide a single example to support your claim that this is “best” for the children?
To your second point: it is explicitly stated that this new policy targeting children who have a gay parent (or parents) goes far, far beyond a searching interview. The child must 1. Leave their home. 2. Publicly renounce their parent or parents and 3. Receive permission from the First Presidency before being recommended for missionary service or priesthood advancement. The child of any other “apostate”, including the heinous examples I provided, is not subject to this level of scrutiny. In your eyes, this double standard is “wise and prudent”? Really?
We teach that we can know if something is of God,by the “fruits”. Well, the “fruits” of this policy are humilation, discord, fractured families and heartbreak. How can we continue to claim this is God’s will in the face of the evidence?
Can anyone point to the scriptural authority for this policy?
The best interest of the child is to be baptized for remission of sins. Period.
Jesus told Nicodemus, no man can enter heaven except by baptism. It is impossible to reconcile this policy with scripture.
Jesus went after the one, not the 99. The church needs to minister and quit using non scriptural justifucations to “protect the church”. They have a scriptural admonition to seek the one, and this policy is completely unscriptural.
This policy is not protecting children, it is damning the children to hell. It is wrong to punish children for a parent’s transgression.
I cannot condemn this unrighteous policy strongly enough, It is not godly,but wicked.
Elder Christofferson Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages 10.5 min. video
So, Elder Christofferson just said that children of age 8 are incapable of making the decision to be baptized and that waiting until 18 has no consequence.
He also stated that reducing conflict in the home was more important than baptism. Following this line of reasoning, in ANY family situation where both parents are not in complete agreement vis-a-vis the LDS church, the child should not be baptized, ordained, etc.
Another approach would be to encourage all couples who disagree about the role of the LDS church in their lives to divorce. (Of course, we’d then need to pass laws to ensure the active LDS ex-spouse gets full custody, but that’s a battle for another day.)
“Our approach in all of this, as [Mormon founder] Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can’t use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate. You can’t compel, you can’t coerce. It has to be persuasion, gentleness and love unfeigned, as the words in the scripture…
“There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support that if you want to support it, if that’s your belief and you think it’s right,…
“We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these [gay marriage] issues and other issues,… In our view, it doesn’t really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders…”
Elder D. Todd Christofferson in March 2015.
To summarize, the church allows members to publicly support same-sex marriage unless their parents are homosexual, in which case they must disavow it.
Seems to me that Elder Christofferson isn’t the best go to person for commentary on this issue.
We’re in charge, not you.
Gay is the new black!
And even worse because they’re contagious!
Closed minded bigoted members are much easier to lead and retain than those who think for themselves so don’t let the door hit you in the butt on your way out if yo don’t like it.
Only faithful husbands and wives will be exalted. Knowing just this, how can LDS members support gay marriage? i Imagine by doing so you jeopardize your own exaltation.
This seems like something that had to happen eventually.
The inhabitants of the terrestrial and telestial kingdom will be as numberless as the stars.
Something to ponder seriously.
I also seem to remember something about Celestial Angels Genhy.
Am I the only one disturbed that it always seems to be Elder Christofferson who is wheeled out to answer on these issues? Wouldn’t common decency suggest that the task be assigned to someone else?
He and Elder Oaks are lawyers. They are the most likely to *not* put their foot in their mouths when answering questions. That includes being particularly aware of how to phrase things so as to block possible misinterpretation. The fact that his brother is gay honestly gives him more credibility on the issue. It is more believable when he states that these policies are meant to help families when the relationship with his own sibling is in the picture. I don’t think it’s fair, but he really is the ideal guy for the job. Elder Oaks has too much bad blood with the Mormon gay community – he’d never be able to pull off making this palatable, no matter how sincere he might be.
If this handbook change truly was a legal move to help the church’s position in inevitable lawsuits, it is in the church’s best interest to let those who understand how to make legal arguments handle all public statements surrounding the gay marriage issue.
Christ said ” if he love me, keep my commandments ” So the question to answer is acting on homosexual desires a sin? If it is a sin, then those who preach and practice same sex marriage are preaching apostate doctrine. If it’s not a sin, then the the Church and its leaders are being bigots. So where on the line do you stand? Is President Monson a prophet? Do you support church leaders? This policy may serve to prune from the Church those whit weak commitments to following the prophet.
Lehi speaking to Lamen and Lemuel ‘s children said that if they where cursed that the curse would be taken from their heads and answered upon the heads of their parents. Surely the same will apply to the children of same sex marriage. God is merciful, but He will not be mocked.
Sparks, that is the most vile thing I have read in the past 3 days. Which is saying a lot, considering some of the nonsense being spewed by people daring to defend this policy. Congratulations!
Sarks,
Sin does not equal doctrine. But going with that philosophy, everyone sins, so are you suggesting that all Mormons are apostates?
Mary Ann,
Oaks’ history is far too tarnished by the 1970s BYU gay entrapment and aversion therapy embarsiment to be creditable on gay issues today.
Sarks/Sparks
Thanks for demonstrating a new low in the quality of LDS proof texting on this issue!
Sarks, what sin did the children commit that prevents baptism or a baby blessing?
It is dishearting to read comments that have the underlying assumption the apostles and prophets have malevolent inclinations towards same-gender households.
I think a reasonable approach to understanding the recently announced policy is to understand how church leaders came to their decision.
I think it can be explained by understanding how principles of the gospel operate when they are in conflict with one another.
For example:
A sixteen-year-old desires to be baptized, however, his parents do not approve.
Principle 1: repent and be baptized. Principle 2: honor and obey your parents.
Two principles in conflict, which one do you choose?
In this case, honor and obey your parents is the best choice.
Church leaders used reasoning like this put in place the new policy for same-gender households.
It is OK to disagree, but I think it is malevolent to label church leaders with a variety of insulting, wrongheaded, and mean-spirited slurs.
Jared, you usually start quoting scripture at this point in the conversation. It seems obvious that even you know this policy is against Scripture.
let me also add then I don’t necessarily believe the apostles are being malevolent. However the scriptoreans and theologians are NOT appealing the scriptures for the argument. why is that?
A sixteen-year-old with same-sex parent desires to be baptized, and his parents do not approve.
Principle 1: repent and be baptized.
Principle 2: honor and obey your parents.
Church says no. Why is that?
Oh, let’s go to scripture:
“Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.”
3 Nephi 27:20
I don’t know the motivation of the apostles, but I do know they don’t understand their own scripture and basic Christianity. One precept of the gospel is that the results of your actions show your character: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matt 7:20.
Correction:
A sixteen-year-old with same-sex parent desires to be baptized, and his parents DO approve.
Joe W., et al,
To understand the newly announced policy regarding same-sex households requires those who value the scriptures to search them for answers.
The scriptures teach principles that are intended to bless lives. However, it soon becomes apparent that principles can come into conflict.
For example, consider the basic principle of baptism.
Principle 1:
“Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.” 3 Nephi 27:20
This verse alone creates a huge problem. Principle 2 explains the problem.
Principle 2:
And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ. Moroni 8:20
How many children were baptized in error before more revelation was received?
Principle 1 and 2 are are in conflict. More revelation is needed.
Principle 3:
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept. 2 Nephi 28:30
Principle 4:
And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old. D&C 68:27
Conflict resolved.
How was it done?
Principle 5:
For his word [prophet] ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you. D&C 21:5-6
Prophets are essential in the Lord’s plan. We have prophets. We need more members to receive their word in all patience and faith. It isn’t always easy to follow prophets, but is required by the Lord.
The new policy regarding same-sex households is the work of prophets and came about in a similar manner as outlined above.
Jared,
If this is the correct policy, why did it take so long to implement? Did God not see this coming? Has God changed his mind? Homosexuality has been around as long as man, so why a sudden change now, especially when an apostle stated six months ago that a Mormon could support same-sex marriage without penalty?
Moreover, it fails to answer the logical question of why is it okay for the child of the most heinous couple to be baptized, but not those of a loving same-sex couple?
It also completely falls on its face vis-a-vis child blessings. While not a saving ordinance, in contradicts the teaching of Jesus:
13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
15 After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.
Is this NOT identical? Are you honestly saying that a modern prophet trumps the words of Jesus? If so, you aren’t Christian, plain and simple.
I beg to differ, Sparks. God (at least the christian god) is not particularly merciful, and I mock him regularly.