Matthew 19:13-14
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
History is repeating itself. The LDS Church surreptitiously released some changes to the Church Handbook of Instructions Book 1 in clear violation of scripture. I do think that church leaders, just as in the days of Jesus, are acting in good faith, just as in the days of Jesus, they have committed a grave error. “Suffer little children, and forbid them not” Jesus said. Yet Elder Christofferson, just as the unnamed disciples in scripture, are preventing children from being blessed by Jesus. This policy must change! It is unscriptural, and clearly rebuked by Jesus.
On November 5, 2015, the church made the following changes in the Handbook of Instructions, available only to bishops or higher in authority. The following changes were leaked to John Dehlin.
-
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.
Elder Todd Christofferson, an apostle, did clarify what “disavow” means. According to the LDS Newsroom
Michael Otterson: There is also provisional requirement for a person who has reached the age of maturity who maybe wants to serve a mission in the Church, but who has come from a same-sex marriage relationship, family. There is a requirement for them to disavow the idea of same-sex marriage. Not disavow their parents, but same-sex marriage. What was the thinking behind that?
Elder Christofferson: Well again, this is a parallel with polygamy. Anyone coming out of a polygamous setting who wants to serve a mission, it has to be clear that they understand that is wrong and is sin and cannot be followed. They disavow the practice of plural marriage. And that would be the same case here. They would disavow, or assent I guess would be a better way to say it, to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regards to same-sex marriage. So they would be saying, as you said, not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice.
I wasn’t aware of the policy about children of polygamists until a month ago when Kevin Barney at By Common Consent posted the case of Madison Brown, a polygamist child of Kody and his second wife Janelle. Maddie has publicly proclaimed “I will not be a polygamist” (this from July 2014) but apparently a recorded statement with witness affadivits wasn’t good enough for the First Presidency.
Watch the video. (Fast forward to the 2:10 mark to hear a very firm statement “I am not going to be a polygamist.”) Is she not assenting?
I haven’t watched the episode referenced by Barney, but she is also quoted on Hollywood Life. {I’ve tried to only pull our her quotes without their editorial remarks, though I couldn’t remove everything and maintain readability.}
“I got a phone call and they aren’t letting me get baptized — it’s too contradictory and they hope I reconsider [joining the Mormon church] when we’re not such a public family,” Maddie reveals to her stunned moms Janelle, Robyn and Meri. “Because I won’t publicly disown my family or publicly disassociate with them, it’s too controversial for the Mormon Church so they asked me not to get baptized…they said they hope ‘I’m not bitter’,” adds Maddie…
“This is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jesus Christ wouldn’t be doing this,” she insists. “I don’t know if I want to [join the Mormon Church] now, because if they want me to publicly denounce my family, why would I want to be a part of your church?”…..
“It shocks me. From day one I’ve said, I don’t want to be a polygamist, but I love my family. I love my parents, but it’s their choices. I will continue to love and support and endorse their choices if it makes them happy,” vows Madison. “[The Mormon Church elders] didn’t like that.”
In my mind, Madison has met Christofferson’s criteria, and I disagree with the First Presidency’s decision to reject her baptism. It may well have been policy of the Church to avoid having polygamists join, but I didn’t know about this policy until last month (although Ardis Parshall claims this has been around since the 1920s), still I don’t think this is a good policy either. Madison should not be punished and denied saving ordinances because of her parents sins.
As for “protecting the children”, I don’t buy what has been bandied about, and was surprised that Christofferson justified this.
Michael Otterson: Why are the children of these same-sex partners an issue here?
Elder Christofferson: Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don’t want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there’s time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that’s what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.
This reasoning boggles my mind. Jana Reiss at said,
First, Elder Christofferson said that no one, upon reaching the age of majority, will ever be denied the blessings of baptism and the gospel if they denounce same-sex marriage. “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go.”
This idea that “nothing is lost” is curious, since where I serve in Primary we spend an awful lot of time telling kids that being baptized and having the companionship of the Holy Ghost are crucial for them right now, in their childhoods. Church curriculum suggests there is a great deal at stake for them when they are still youth.
So, an honest question: Do we believe the presence of the Holy Ghost is a vital strength for kids to carry throughout their early lives, as we constantly say we do—perhaps especially during adolescence—or do we now profess a casual certainty that all of those lost years will be compensated for in adulthood?
I mean if nothing is lost, why not require all children to wait until age 18 to get baptized? Zelph on the Shelf noted
YOU TELL 8-YEAR OLDS TO MAKE ETERNAL COVENANTS. THEY STILL BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS.
Also, the church thought a 14-year-old (well, several) was old enough to get married to a 36-year-old man, which certainly caused her distress and conflict. Why can’t a 14-year-old be old enough to get baptized into a church most people join at 8?
Jana continues,
A second point. Do we imagine that children born in same-sex marriage are the only ones for whom church membership or baptism can be contested questions?
We suddenly are evincing all this pastoral concern for children who might be forced to choose between the gospel and the way their parents are living. Meanwhile, thousands of kids in other situations learn to negotiate such circumstances all the time, including children with one parent who is LDS and another who is not (as in my own family). Yet we baptize those kids if that’s their desire and if both parents give permission.
Zelph on the shelf agrees.
My parents let me drink alcohol from the age of like… 12. They were not religious at all. They regularly told me reasons the church was bad. They also encouraged “having sex with enough people to figure out who you’re compatible with”, and only one of them gave me permission to get baptized. That was good enough for the church, who are absolutely fine with kids leaving the majority of their parents’ religions, lifestyles, and beliefs in order to join the church. There are endless other scenarios where a child is taught differently at home than at church.
There is even a blog post from Mormon Women Stand (I can’t believe I am actually sending people to that website) titled I Am the Daughter of Lesbians, and I Am a Mormon. Isn’t this proof that lesbianism doesn’t rub off on children? I mean Brandi Walton was able to live in an unprotected lesbian family, and still chose the church. She joined the church despite the lack of this policy, and is living proof that she didn’t need this policy to protect her. (The article notes “She, and her wonderful husband Matt, have four children, with a fifth on the way, and an old, lazy dog.“)
Furthermore, lots of children get mixed messages between home and church. I mean we let inactive dads baptize their children if they quit smoking for a week. We let cohabiting couples remain in sin and don’t deny their children baptism. We don’t kick children of single parents out of the church. We don’t kick children of smokers or alcoholics out of the church. Why aren’t we protecting them with a similar policy? This is just bad reasoning, and the policy doesn’t hold up to Jesus’ actions in scripture.
A Thoughtful Faith has a podcast that talks about possible legal issues that may have led the lawyers Oaks and Christofferson to embrace this policy to avoid liability issues. There may be liability issues, but surely the First Presidency and Q12 could come up with a more pastoral policy rather than a legal one.
Not only does the policy violate ancient scripture, it violates modern scripture. Jana Reiss is hitting home runs. In another post, she writes
In the LDS Church, children born out of wedlock can be blessed, baptized, and approved to serve a mission.
Children born to rapists can be blessed, baptized, and approved to serve a mission.
Even children born to murderers can be blessed, baptized, and approved to serve a mission.
But children born to faithful, loving, monogamous couples in a same-sex marriage or other committed relationship will henceforth be excluded from all three of those things.
Last night it was revealed that the new LDS administrative handbook has revised some of its policies, including ones on same-sex marriages and relationships.
Same-sex couples who are married or cohabit together are now defined as living in “apostasy,” and same-sex marriage is listed as one of several conditions that mandate a church disciplinary council. Whereas in the past, bishops and stake presidents had some leeway about whether to impose church discipline, now they will be required to discipline any LGBT church member who is married to or living with a partner of the same sex.
Now let’s talk about church discipline. In case you can’t read the graphic, Gay Marriage is considered “Mandatory” Discipline, apparently worse than the following sins which “may” require church discipline:
- attempted murder
- forcible rape
- sexual abuse
- spousal abuse
- intentional serious physical injury of others
- adultery
- fornication,
- homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation)
- deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities
So Gay Marriage, something legal in the land is deemed worse than attempted murder and forcible rape? Come on! This is not a policy of inspiration, and to quote Matthew 18 “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” And Woe to those who created these policies!
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 ¶Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
So here’s a challenge for you. Please tell me where the scriptures support a policy restricting children of sinful parents to be denied baptism until age 18. Also tell me why gay marriage is worse than attempted murder or forcible rape. I expect crickets on these two challenges, but I’d love to hear someone attempt to defend these indefensible policies.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m glad your looking to the scriptures. May I ask a question of you regarding “indefensible” policies? Where do the scriptures support a policy of same-sex marriage? Where do the scriptures require the Church to give recognition or legitimacy to same-sex marriages?
The scripture that speaks to this is D&C 68:25 which reads, ‘And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.’. In this case the parents self-identify with and are committed to serious sinful behavior. And they likely have no intention of changing, and also likely deny even the ability to change. This is not consistent with the doctrine of repentance. And while this scripture does not specifically require delayed baptism, it does give parental requirements for preparing a child for baptism. Authorized church leaders have decided to create a policy to address such requirements.
As far as the differences in the mentioned sin in your challenge, the differences lie in this self-identification and commitment to the sin. Many who commit other sins will confess these sins and forsake them – thus we know they are repenting (some will not, but others will). Those in a same sex marriage are not confessing their sin nor forsaking it. The lack of the spirit of repentance is part of what makes it worse.
Mormon Heretic:
It would appear to me that you lack the testimony that the Lord Jesus Christ actually lives and runs His church, and in its place maintain an attitude that the General Authorities “run the church”…so I do not imagine that you are (rightfully) in possession of a temple recommend. Your treatise, although an interesting read, sows seats of apostasy and, in my opinion, is evidence of an apostate attitude on your part.
Ji – The question wasn’t on “supporting a policy of same sex marriage.” Nowhere was it said in the article that he was saying it was OK. He was saying that this is signaling that the church leaders were indirectly (or directly?) saying that two people of the same sex living together is worse than two unmarried heterosexual individuals cohabitating. The statement has been made that “the law of chastity is the same for everyone.” This policy change contradicts that statement.
I personally can’t see any coherency that tells the child that has dad that has raped and murdered and a mom that left the marriage and now cohabitates with another man that they can be blessed, baptized, and serve a mission. Then on the other hand if a gay man that followed his church leaders and married a woman and like 70% of the time the marriage didn’t work so he decided to live with another man, that child is not allowed to be baptized, attend the temple with other youth, and has to disavow (not clear what that means) their parent’s choice.
And Olivia, what if a cohabitating parent tells their child, “I am living without being married and it is a sin?” What if a gay parent tells the kid, “I know I am breaking a commandment, but it is this or commit suicide?” Should the church be OK with that given the parent themselves are not advocating for the child to follow in their footsteps?
In my mind it just makes no sense. It doesn’t feel to me mental gymnastics. Gymnastics are awe-inspiring feats. It feels like someone wanting to support this is performing mental contortions. I usually wince when seeing contortionist and think, “that isn’t natural and it hurts – even to watch!”
Great post MH! Thank you for having the courage to plainly state things as they are even though doing so opposes the church. This policy is indefensible and unjustifiable! By their fruits you shall know them! Clearly this is NOT of God so clearly the church is adrift!
Monson is slipping deeper and deeper into the daze of dementia. Three more Utah whitbread guys are added to guid and direct the
World ChurchCorporation as a a city is built in Flordia and Uchtdorf’s refreshing comments that echo Christ’s teaching are slowly fading into the past.Thanks Happy Hubby for noting that I never said the scriptures supported same sex marriage. My post deals with the moral and scriptural justifications of the policy denying children baptism.
But JI, but if you’re interested in a different interpretation on SSM, check out my post from nearly 3 years ago, Re-evaluating Gay Scriptures. You commented there, but didn’t provide any refuatation to the theologians referenced there. If you have comments about SSM, please state them there. I’d prefer to keep this on topic to the policy’s effect on children.
El Zorillo, I’m not sure how quoting Jesus several times in the post (including the post title) means I don’t have a testimony of Jesus. I think you meant I don’t have a testimony of this policy, and you’re darn right. I don’t. I bear testimony that this policy is wrong-headed and should be removed.
To quote someone on facebook,
Here are three possible headlines for today’s church members. Which headline describes your leanings?
I Love the Church. I Love the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But There Not the Same
Let’s Stone the Pretended Prophets!
Pray for Church Leaders. Heavenly Father will Lead Them by the Hand!
There are more headlines that could be written, but I think these provide a basic representation of the feelings expressed by “church members” as the apostles and prophets seek guidance to lead the church forward at a time when the gentiles are rejecting Christ.
Where exactly does a heteronormative Mormon theology come from? Jesus never mentioned homosexuality and it failed to make even honorable mention in the Ten Commandments which puts it somewhere behind honoring your father and mother! I don’t recall Joseph taking a position on it so how did this discriminatory issue become so defining that it requires exceptional handling and punishment of innocent offspring?
Olivia
As mentioned before, this post does not deal with the sins of the parents. You are welcome to believe gay marriage is a sin and against scripture and I’m not going to argue with you.
But I do find your scripture to be another condemnation of this policy. Of course the children affected by this policy and aren’t baptized will be answered on the heads of the people who implemented the policy. Let me modify D&C 68:25 to what we’re talking about.
I think it is horrible that Elder Christofferson has the audacity to say “Nothing is lost to them” if they are not baptized when eight years old. An apostle surely should know better that he is violating D&C 68:25! For truly Elder Christofferson was teaching “them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old“. It makes no sense to me that Elder Christofferson clearly violates scripture and modern day revelation.
This is a wicked policy that violates scripture and the policy needs to go. I don’t care what the justifications are, and I don’t care that the apostles are sinning with good intentions. This policy is wrong and should be condemned. The children are answering for the sins of the parents. THIS. IS. WRONG.
It is a wrong headed solution to the problem.
What problem?
I think many of us have been hopeful that slow progress was being made. That as far as homosexuality goes there is so much more that needs to be understood.
Where is the further light and knowledge to understand the why, and where everyone fits within God’s plan?
We get some from science/psychology/sociology. But we get nothing new from those who are supposedly better connected to the divine will. We get citations from problematic/ambiguous/filtered scriptural sources that are no parallel for the modern age. No new light equals darkness. Let’s not call darkness light.
Why? Why is it a *problem* for “their” children and “our” children to progress side by side together in the gospel? What justifies the need for this segergation? How can this be explained to a child who is a member of the out group? Her parents are bad? Really? Given the range of sin how bad can they possibly be?
Face it folks the church is homophobic and bigoted. Gay is the new black!
This is the only “scripture” I can think of to explain this policy:
“And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.” – President Uchtdorf, Oct 2013.
I agree that this policy is indefensible and is not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
Happy Hubby,
I think the message the church would give in the example you site would be the consistent message of the gospel – repent. Local bishops can help there. I would guess it would involve stopping the sinful behavior, and adopting the attitude of repentance.
MH,
If I were to restate the scripture I would put the phrase, ‘and teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance’ in bold. I would also not have to place the scripture in a different context and change the words to make the scripture say what I wanted it to say.
Elder Christofferson saying that nothing is lost is not audacity. I believe he is saying that in the end nothing is lost. Sort of like saying that in the end, the adult convert is able to have all the blessings that someone born into the church has. This is reasonable long term thinking, not audacity. Waiting to make sure someone knows what they are getting into before committing to the church is wise in some cases, this probably being one of them.
Anyway, your challenge has been easily met. There are scriptures that support being sure the candidate understands the gospel of repentance before being baptized which supports this policy. And there is an aspect of same sex marriage that involves a serious and permanent commitment to the sin, which places them in a position not consistent with future repentance, which makes this sin worse in an important way. These are reasonable explanations which meet your challenge – not crickets.
To understand the newly announced policy regarding same-sex households requires those who value the scriptures to search them for answers. But they need to understand that scripture is given here a little, and there a little. Scripture evolves. Searching the scripture requires harmonizing, and blending them to see the complete picture.
For example, if the scripture, “thou shalt not kill” is not harmonized with other scripture then God’s mind and will is not properly understood.
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. However, that doesn’t mean it is the last word.
No one is being denied baptism. All the ordinances are available to anyone who is willing to make the necessary commitment.
In unusual cases like being raised in a household where “parents” are the same-sex there may need to be different standards. I give church leaders credit for being more informed than I am.
#13 — Dieter FTW!! That is now going to be my go-to reference when this crap comes-up in discussion.
We had to have a sacrament meeting devoted entirely to “following the prophet, even if what Salt Lake says goes against your own sense of truth and justice” because of this leaked Church Handbook scandal — so I know I’ll need to be ready for discussions with other members about it because this issue isn’t going anywhere soon.
#15:
When have we ever seen the work of prophets being done as alterations to secret Handbooks being leaked on the Internet? Is that how Abinadi or Paul got their revelations out to the people?
Let’s assume for the moment that there was absolutely no legal motivation behind this policy change and that I couldn’t make a dozen scriptural arguments against it. Is it possible that the restriction is meant to protect other members or maint credibility of church teachings (in the eyes of church leaders)? In the interview, Elder Christofferson seemed to indicate that the name and blessing was problematic because it initiated a church membership record and would subsequently obligate local church leaders to assign home teachers or provide other pastoral care (scripturally mandated by Moroni 6:4). Home teachers are supposed to consistently enter the homes of members and establish relationships of trust with the families they teach.
Excommunication is justified by (1) saving soul of transgressor, (2) protecting innocents, and (3) safeguarding the church’s purity, integrity and good name. Is it possible that requiring wardmembers to visit members in the homes of married gay couples that the church may be seen as implicitly condoning the practice? Or requiring wardmembers to form relationships of trust with known apostates? This could explain the baptismal requirement of never residing in that home environment again.
Only certain types of sinners are allowed to have home teachers and churching with gay parents is a very important offence.
Olivia,
“and teach them not to understand” is the beginning of 3 bullet points, repentance being the first, faith is second, and finally “baptism …when eight years old.” I’ll grant you that you tried, but you’re wresting the scriptures.
Then you have people like Jared who pronounce “conflict resolved” as if somehow people like Madison Brown who at age 19 still can’t be baptized is an example of “conflict resolved.” Why shouldn’t she be offended by this unrighteous policy? I’m glad to see there are some attempts out there so it isn’t exactly crickets, but it certainly isn’t conflict resolved either. An adult at age 19 is refused baptism by this policy. She isn’t a child anymore. That is audacious.
Count me among those who are not buying the “protecting children” justification for the policy. That was the public justification made up after the fact in response to a disastrous PR moment. Who knows what the real reasons for the policy were. I suspect it had to do with maintaining doctrinal purity and a worry about not wanting to provide any church recognition to gay families, using the approach to plural marriage as a model.
But to me the justification or intentions don’t really matter. We should be accountable for the actual results of our actions, however well-intentioned they may be. In this case, the results of the policy are to stigmatize the children of gay parents, to encourage bigotry among the membership, to drive a wedge into the hearts of gay Mormons, to strain the familial bonds between homosexuals and their children, and to cement the status of homosexuals and their children as second class citizens in the Church. It is a hateful policy and a stain on the Mormon community that will take a long time to rub off. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you are saying.”
There is a scripture that can be reconciled with the policy, and I am sickened to mention it.
1 Samuel 15:2-3 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Howard
Why kind of responses r u fishing for?
Genhy,
An honest one or recognition that there isn’t an honest one.
I am not sure of the purpose of this thread. I’m not comfortable with the language in the OP that calls the policy “in clear violation of scripture” and accuses the church of making the changes “surreptitiously.” It seems to be one more venting and criticizing forum, in which despite any evidence that is presented, people will still come to the conclusion that THIS IS WRONG.
So why should anyone bother to play, just to be shot down and ridiculed? If this is just a gripefest (and there may be a place for that in a grieving process), please label it as such and stop pretending that you are open to hearing from other views.
The New Testament is full of examples where throughout his mission Christ does not change policy that restricts baptism to Jews. Even when a Canaanite woman approaches him in Matthew 15, he heals her daughter and yet continues to have a policy of preaching only to the Jews. Was Christ wrong?
I envy the certitude of those who are willing to declare that they know better than the church. I can see a lot of different sides to the issue, and I am not sure which is the best path, but since the church has been right so many tines, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
That said, I can only imagine how difficult this is going to be to implement, given the reality of the lives of such children in our midst.
I’ve known various families where the parents are divorced after one decides that they are gay. And the parents continue to raise the children together, some with joint custody, which means that the child IS living with the parent in a same-sex relationship for half of their lives.
As it happens, in all the cases I knew personally, the gay parent agreed to keep the child in the church (arrange schedules so that the church-going LDS parent could take them) and attended themselves for the Primary sacrament meeting program or whenever their child was speaking, in order to support their child. And contributed financially to the child’s mission. (And by the way, the gay parent was generally greeted in the church meeting with welcome and hugs, especially by those of us who knew them in their church-going days.)
So how does the new policy work on the ground? If the older kids in such a family have already been baptized prior to divorce, their membership is probably not revoked, but it would seem that the younger kids might not be able to be baptized? And does the sin rub off on the ex-spouse? in one ward that I lived in, our bishopric included a divorced man whose wife left him for a lesbian relationship. (He provided a model of Christlike love, never saying a bad thing about her, and thanking her for being a mother to his children.)
1 Nephi 16:2
And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.
I saw this on facebook, and had to share.
#17 I wrote:
The new policy regarding same-sex households is the work of prophets and came about in a similar manner as outlined above. However, that doesn’t mean it is the last word.
Justin-in your quote you dropped off the last sentence. That sentence answers your question.
First of all, the handbook isn’t scripture, it is subject to change. It isn’t secret, it is confidential.
#28:
So … since this “work of prophets” is really a new policy regarding same-gender families that’s been published in the Church Handbook [which your full quote from #17 seems to suggest], then that means that it isn’t scripture [which your last sentence in #28 seems to say].
Interesting. Confidential policy affecting the saving ordinances of children throughout the world … so are you saying that’s how prophets work?
“The New Testament is full of examples where throughout his mission Christ does not change policy that restricts baptism to Jews. Even when a Canaanite woman approaches him in Matthew 15, he heals her daughter and yet continues to have a policy of preaching only to the Jews. Was Christ wrong?”
Naismith, you’ve given me something to think about. I’ll have to ponder on that one a while. That’s a very interesting conundrum.
This “work of prophets” feels a lot more like the fruits of Pharisees who have hung themselves with their own law!
Stigmatizing innocent children? Nice work “prophets”! God isn’t any more creative than that? Then these “prophets” weakly attempt to justify it with Orwellian phrases like we had to stigmatizing innocent children in order to protect them!
While as a Community of Christ member I don’t have a dog in this fight, so to speak, these published words from the founder of our Restoration movement, which I recently encountered on another forum, are of interest:
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.” –Joseph Smith Jr., Millennial Star, vol. 14, no 38, pp. 593-595
MH,
Your first challenge appears to rest on the assumption that policy must be supported by scripture. Surely, you don’t believe that all policy must be supported by scripture. If that were the case, the church would probably have to throw out a lot of its policies. D&C 58:26, “For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant ….”
Your second challenge rests on the assumption that acts which mandate disciplinary action must be considered worse (more sinful?) than acts which, in some circumstances, do not always require disciplinary action. If the purpose of disciplinary action was to punish wrongdoing, then your assumption might be correct. However, disciplinary action is about membership, association, and participation in and with the church and not about punishment. You also failed to mention that the serious transgressions you included do require disciplinary action when the transgressor holds a prominent position, is a threat to others, has a pattern of transgressions, or when the transgression is widely known which would be almost all cases of serious transgression.
Rich, that’s awesome!
Jared, I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I hope that you don’t complain about lack of scriptures on the bloggernacle for a while. I’ve done my part about highlighting scriptures.
DB, I don’t think church policies should blatantly VIOLATE scripture. This policy clearly violates scripture.
If the church wants a policy of white shirts and ties, ok fine. It’s not scriptural, but so what. I have no problem with the church dictating things like that (well I’m not a fan of the policy, but I’m not going to fall on my sword over it.)
This policy prevents people from getting baptized. Surely you can understand there’s a huge difference in magnitude.
Can you please tell my why attempted murder and forcible rape are optional, rather than mandatory? I don’t want attempted murderers or rapists to be church members, and would happily excommunicate them. Those are disciplinary actions worthy of denying “membership, association, and participation in and with the church and not about punishment” especially if you think gay marriage is also worthy of denying “membership, association, and participation in and with the church and not about punishment.”
Why are they not mandatory? I really don’t know but I suspect it has to do with criminal convictions, witnesses, evidence, etc. In most of those cases, the actions are not committed publicly, but in secret so evidence that the transgression was committed is one part of it. I could imagine someone being convicted of a serious crime (transgression) but all the while claiming their innocence (and perhaps they are) so that his bishop must decide whether to initiate disciplinary procedures. If the bishop believes the decision of the court, he will likely go forward with the disciplinary actions; however, if the bishop believes that the member is truly innocent, he may decline to initiate any disciplinary action. However, if the conviction is widely known, the disciplinary counsel would be mandatory.
Actions that are considered apostasy are different in that they are inherently public and thus considered open defiance against the church. Because apostasy is based on the member’s public actions and words, church discipline becomes mandatory.
Also, there is no church policy requiring white shirts and ties (except for missionaries). If there were, I would be in serious violation.
Joel, I’m having a really difficult time buying the “protecting the innocence of children” argument as well. Aside from the obvious logical fallacies, those individuals I know who grew up in the church with gay parents vehemently disagree with that justification. Protecting the church legally from lawsuits is the most convincing to me (whether over the right of bishops to marry gay couples or using church facilities to host gay weddings). Having a policy in place where gay marriage is declared fundamentally opposed to the doctrine of the church gives the church credence when they argue that those situations are in violation of their religious freedom.
The restriction on the kids, though, can’t completely be explained in that legal justification, unless the church really is worried about been seen as implicitly condoning the practice by allowing church-sanctioned pastoral care required in homes headed by married gay couples. I still find it more convincing that the church is more concerned about the exposure of churchmembers to family situations with gay marriage. That would explain the comparison to polygamy. In which case, then, the baptism restrictions are actually based on the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.
The homosexual behavior isn’t enough to explain it. According to the policies, a kid can live with a gay parent and still be baptized. That parent can engage in homosexual behavior with one or multiple partners without jeopardizing that kid’s ability to be baptized. The baptism issue only comes into play when you’ve got a committed, co-habiting relationship. The church only gets involved in legal cases where gay marriage is concerned. This has to be about the legal implications in my mind.
I don’t see anything that prevents a child of unmarried heterosexual parents who live together from having any blessing or ordinance granted to them.
Is there a reason that is more acceptable than being the child of lawfully married homosexual parents?
#34 MH
You’re right. Lots of scripture being used to give insight to difficult questions. The scriptures are a gift from God.
Also, it is wonderful to have others bring their scriptural perspective to W&T.
We should also remember that this discipline policy only dictates when a disciplinary council is mandatory or optional and not when actual discipline (excommunication, disfellowship, etc.) is mandatory or optional. The decision of the council may be to take no disciplinary action even if the disciplinary council was mandatory. The only time actual discipline is mandatory is for murder which mandates excommunication.
MH – thoughtful post.
I have really enjoyed the discussion and passion expressed here.
I cannot support this policy. Whether it is unscriptural or not (and I believe it is), the fruits of this policy will be plain for all to see. Thousands leaving the church, kids in an unwinable position, bad PR, etc etc.
We had some really good friends (non members) of ours over this week who had heard about the policy change. I have never felt so embarrassed. I had no answers. Nothing that would or could seek to explain this position by the church. They had previously had the discussions with us and the missionaries. With all the respect in the world they told me that our church was just like all the others. Bigoted, narrow minded and scripturally tangential.
With a heavy heart, I agreed.
If I were in charge of the handbook, I would move attempted murder and forcible rape into Mandatory, and leave homosexual sex out of apostasy altogether. It is more aligned with “serious sin” along with adultery, fornication, rape and murder than apostasy. It’s simply not apostasy. I mean I guess the church can name it apostasy (they misuse the word all the time, as evidenced in the handbook anyway.) For that matter, “Not obeying church leaders” isn’t apostasy either, but rather insubordination. Apostasy in the handbook is really a catch-all term for “stuff leaders don’t like and think is really bad.”
The term apostasy should be used as it is in the dictionary: “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.” I mean I think John Dehlin was even guilty of apostasy, because he had abandoned most LDS beliefs, but they don’t usually excommunicate people for apostasy unless they get really popular or insubordinate. I would state that John, Kate Kelly, and Rock Waterman weren’t guilty of apostasy so much as insubordination. I’m not sure why they keep using the word apostasy as a catch-all term. Maybe apostasy is more scriptural than insubordination, but they aren’t really paying attention to scriptures in the handbook anyway.
I don’t agree with this policy but justification either way by use of the scriptures is fruitless.
Children were simply used by Christ as a metaphor of certain attributes that should be possessed by those who seek the kingdom. It was not the age of a human but the attributes of the human that were and are important. These attributes can be had by people of any age. So the idea that children of SS couples should naturally be accepted because they are children does not hold.
That’s the best defence of an indefencable policy that I’ve got!!
MH,
Can you please be honest? Homosexual sex is not listed under apostasy, as you assert. Homosexual marriage, however, is so listed.
Oh, that’s too funny.
So somebody on the down low sneaking around is optional church court.
But a monogamous, healthy loving, committed relationship,–oh the horror of it all,– that’s Apostate. Even if the committed couple choose celibacy.
Seems this policy, wants gay folk back in the closet and silent. Wow, that’s healthy.
So for your kids to be baptized, you need to stay straight married and on the Mormon down low. And then no one in Mormonland has to hear about happy homosexuals.
It’s beyond crazy that gay Mormons who followed church advice and got married in the temple, now their kids are being punished.
It seems to me many of these kids exist because of the church, and now the church wants them to vanish.
JI,
Sorry I wasn’t precise in my last comment. Why are you picking on such an insignificant point anyway? People who commit to Homosexual marriage have homosexual sex. What is dishonest about that? I didn’t call it apostate sex, but since gay marriage is listed under apostasy, I suppose that is an appropriate term as well. Don’t apostates have apostate sex?
But so long as they are not married, then we can leave it as an optional church court. The moment they get their marriage recognized by the government, here come charges of apostasy! Better that they fool around with random strangers, get AIDS, and die! That’s sound logic isn’t it? We’d hate for them to appear virtuous and acting like chaste, straight people who are monogamous!
“Seems this policy, wants gay folk back in the closet and silent.” Yup. That’s the real purpose of the policy. And we don’t want to feel empathy for their children either. Better that we shun them out of the church than feel empathy for them! Better we don’t send home teachers or missionaries over and get them interested in the church. God hates them anyway.
“And then no one in Mormonland has to hear about happy homosexuals.” Yup again!
Christianity Today just published a Pew Research study on changing attitudes about gay marriage between 2007 and 2014. Some interesting points:
*Of the 77 percent of religiously affiliated Americans, nearly all (97%) believe in God, the same percentage that believed in 2007. And a stable majority of approximately two-thirds in both 2007 and 2014 reported that religion was very important to them, they pray daily, and they attend religious services at least once or twice a month.
Yet most alarming to religious conservatives is the following trend.
*acceptance of homosexuality in every religious category, including evangelicals (26-36%) and Mormons (24-36%). Though both groups are still at the bottom of the barrel in support (non-Christians barely budged from 74-76%) I suspect that LDS and Evangelicals don’t like the trends. We just can’t have more LDS people accepting homosexuality so this policy is a way to hopefully kick the gays and their children out, without directly saying “we don’t want you”, and therefore hopefully stemming the tide of increasing support of the members left over.
See http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/november/pew-rich-in-faith-get-richer-2015-religious-landscape-study.html for more info. There’s some really interesting data there.
For those of you who don’t understand how this affects straight parents, please watch the following video and tell me your heart doesn’t weep with this poor mother and her 5 year old child.
Thanks for drawing all the threads together MH, and for the links. Interesting reading. I found the A Thoughtful Faith podcast interesting if disheartening.
If correct it would seem it definitely isn’t about the children, and all about liability ie. fear of being sued by members for ‘alienation’, or whatever it’s called, of children from parents. I’m puzzled as to why (given parents are required to give permission prior to baptism and indeed have to sign a form in conjunction with a naming and a blessing before a membership record can be created) mere membership moves the liability from the parents to the church. But yes, no-one is saying don’t bring your children to church, they’re only saying they can’t be named & blessed, or baptised (because that would make them legally members and shift liability to the church).
If it was *really* about the children they’d be taking a much harder look at the pastoral side, and the way in which teachings are presented.
There was a time from around 1968 to 1978, where women were not allowed to pray in Sacrament Meetings. There seemed to be the thinking that Sacrament Meeting was an ordinance. In 1978, Pres. Kimball found no scriptural basis for this, despite 1 Corinthians 14:34 talking about women keeping silent in Church.
So, which was the inspired policy? Ah, the problems of pushing policy too much.
That no women to pray at SM policy could have become a problem for other meetings, if that ban was kept around, since, for instance, Baptism services are also centered around an ordinance. Then, no women to pray at Baptism services?
There’s also problems brewing on several fronts on this policy. First, can children and YM/YW who have a parent in a SSM, and are already Baptized, continue to be advanced in their class/groups/Quorums? Do we tell those children to stop coming to church? Do we excommunicate those youth, & tell them to wait until they’re 18 to be rebaptized?
There’s also been some rumblings that some Bishops have asked members to cut all friendships & ties to any gays, since their teaching & conduct are contrary to the teachings of the Church, as mentioned in Temple recommend interviews. While this last Interview question was to stop groups like the FLDS, it now could become much broader in scope.
Heartbreaking Stories coming in already. Twelve year old boy won’t be ordained because of gay mom. Eight year old sister’s baptism canceled last week for same reason, with 6 and 2 year old siblings unable to become members like their oldest brother. See http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/11/10/mormon-boy-denied-priesthood-ordination-because-his-mom-is-living-with-a-woman/
In the comments is this gem: “I am in the exact same situation, sharing custody with an ex-spouse in a same-sex marriage, but my stake president called the Office of the First Presidency and was told the policy does not apply to shared custody like this.”
So glad the handbook makes these forever families happy!
Im with el zorillo. Just leave and form your own church and do whatever you want.
God does not want his children to participate in homosexual activity.
Genhy,
Do you realize this policy is causing people to contemplate suicide? I’m sure God is not pleased with your callousness.
See http://fox13now.com/2015/11/10/lgbtq-advocates-see-spike-in-suicide-calls-after-announcement-of-lds-policy-change-officials-say/
It appears this new policy is causing more confusion and causing more questions than it answers. Not good.
My thoughts on the case of the Brown girl wanting to be baptized : the producers of the show her parent’s are doing could have encouraged this action of wanting to be baptized. Found one of the children willing to go through the motions to set up the church for something. I….am…not….saying….that is what happened. The Brown girl really could be sincere.
But these reality show producers come up with all kinds of ridiculous things and angles for ratings. The church is possibly being cautious because of the reality show. Can’t blame the church.
Hopefully this is good news. Facebook rumor has it
“Brethren, the following short statement was sent out by the Presidency of the 70 today related to the recent changes to the Handbook of Instructions:
“There will be additional clarification on these changes from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the coming days. We are invited to help people with questions not jump to unwarranted conclusions or interpretations and remain calm while we wait for clarification.”
I doubt it can get worse, but let’s see how much better it is. My guess is it won’t be released secretly this time…..
The Upper Room
So 1Q70 is going to clarify what Q15 couldn’t? Isn’t that a bit upside down?
Mh
The the responsibility of committing suicide rests solely with that person. The world is a tough unforgiving place.
# 59
I hope you never have to face the cold judgment you’re dealing out. …but, of course, until you weed it out you will, won’t you?
You don’t have to be that way. Heavenly Father doesn’t want that. Aren’t you ready for a break from it?
Genhy,
“The world is a tough unforgiving place.” But Jesus said that we should forgive even 70 times 7. Obviously you can’t be a follower of Jesus with statements like that. I have no doubt that Jesus would say “Depart from me, ye that speak iniquity.” I have no doubt at all that you would walk by the injured man, condemning him, watching in horror as the Good Samaritan rescues him. Your most recent comment clearly condemns the Good Samaritan for trying to help these emotionally wounded souls, while you walk by without a drop of empathy.
You really are a hateful person that needs to go internalize Moroni 7:48. Please go read about charity, remove the hate you spew, and come back when you have developed some charity, the pure love of Christ. If you can’t have any compassion for people who are profoundly wounded by this policy, you are an evil, evil person where the love of Christ certainly does not dwell.
With the unrighteous judgment you’re spewing, I’d hate to be in your shoes come judgment day. I’m sure Jesus will say to you, “Hell, the world where you’re going, is a tough unforgiving place.” You will reap the unrighteous judgments you sow.
Please read this story. It is extremely poignant. https://invisiblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/its-different-this-time/
Hello MH,
This is a bit long so please bear with me. There have been so many responses, but I’m simply replying to your original blog post. I was very intrigued by your post and you have definitely caused me to think about certain aspects of this new policy. If I understand you correctly you feel that this new policy does more harm than good, and that it is unfair, especially to children of married gay couples. You further feel that it’s unfair because the children are put in a horrible position and if they want to get baptized, they had to disavow their parents.
I agree with you that this is shocking, and at first I was offended by this policy. I have some gay Mormon friends and I can’t imagine how difficult this must be for them. I have been praying about this policy, trying to ask God if this is truly from Him. I’ve had quite a few conversations with my husband, siblings and friends about this topic as well. Everyone I’ve talked to has a somewhat different opinion on the issue. I believe when the brethren came out with this policy, they knew the consequences would bring a lot of heartbreak to many members of the church, and they knew many would leave the church over it. I was caught off guard by this because it seemed to me that the church has this idea that everyone is welcome, we want homosexual people to come to church, we understand how hard it is for homosexual people, please continue to come to church even though we don’t support homosexual lifestyles. This new policy seems to contradict all of my previous assumptions about the church regarding homosexuals.
The invitation you gave us as readers was to tell you why gay marriage is worse than attempted murder or forcible rape. The way I see it is that the list of MANDATORY disciplinary council actions (which includes same sex marriage) is not worse than the list of MAY BE necessary disciplinary council actions (rape, attempted murder, fornication, homosexual relations, etc.).
I think the easy assumption to make is to say that because rape is described as perhaps requiring a disciplinary council, whereas gay marriage has it as mandatory, then gay marriage is obviously a more serious transgression in the eyes of the church. Again, this is an assumption. One is listed under the heading of “Serious Transgression” and the other is listed under “Apostasy”. The difference I see in the list of May be necessary and Mandatory is that someone (as odd as this seems) could be on the road to repentance with any of the mandatory sins. For example, if someone has had homosexual relations (fornication) with another person, but wants to repent and forsake that, then they MAY need a disciplinary council (on a case-by-case basis). On the other hand, if someone is in a same-sex marriage, then they are actively supporting living a gay lifestyle in opposition to the teachings of the church. This goes for the other points in the mandatory section. If someone joins another church and advocates its teachings, then they are actively rebelling against the LDS church, which teaches that ours is the only true church. Of course, murder, abuse, and adultery are very serious sins according to the church.
You also challenged us to tell you where the scriptures support a policy restricting children of sinful parents to be denied baptism until age 18. I searched that in the scriptures online and wouldn’t you know it, I couldn’t find anything about denying baptism to children of sinful parents until age 18. I love the scriptures and I definitely believe they are written by inspired men, however, the more I study the scriptures the more I am confused. I am coming to realize that we (Latter Day Saints) take our favorite scriptures completely out of context and preach them in our Sunday school classes. There is certainly a place for taking scriptures out of context in order to preach, but I think the scriptures are a very unstable thing to base any claim on, because they can be interpreted in any way. For example, “Suffer the little children and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (I prefer the NRSV which states “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.”) was a statement in Matthew by Jesus about Jesus praying for these children, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Well, what on earth does that mean? It could mean we need to be like children, or it could mean children are more righteous than us, or it could mean that Jesus loved children very much, or it could mean Jesus was trying to show his disciples that anybody was welcome to be blessed by Jesus. I certainly have no idea. In fact I think there is beauty in different interpretations, and people really resonate with different ideas about a certain scripture. But the fact is that anybody could debate interpret any scripture to mean anything they want.
I am sorry that this policy has been so offensive to so many, and to you also. I can’t apologize on behalf of the church of course, but I hope you know that I feel compassion towards all those who struggle with this. I still struggle with this in my own way. I also hope you can see my point of view a bit more clearly. The point I’m trying to make is that the church isn’t saying same-sex marriage is worse than attempted murder. Simply that they are under two different categories, and one of them requires disciplinary council due to its very nature. Also, that we as people should not interpret scripture to mean exactly one thing on behalf of others. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jaime
Jaime, welcome and thanks for your heartfelt and kind response.
Alma 39:5 tells us that sexual transgressions (adultery and fornication) are “next to murder” in seriousness. To me this implies that murder is more serious. I’ve heard justifications that the reason why adultery is so bad is because it creates life, while murder takes life. From that point of view, creating life is usually a wonderful thing, but even in the case of adultery, wonderful people are created: Solomon was the (2nd) product of David’s original sin of adultery with Bathsheba (and Uriah’s Murder), and by extension, so even if adultery is bad, it can result in good. Of course Christ runs through the line of Solomon. Murder has to be the worse sin.
Now with the case of gay sex, it is physically impossible for life to be created. So I would put it “next to” adultery/fornication in seriousness. If a person is married, we don’t call sex adultery or fornication, because it is the sign of a fidelity–fidelity is something we covenant to do when endowed/sealed in the temple.
I get what you’re saying that “May/Must” may not be a sign of seriousness of sin, but it seems a bit strange to make a sin that can’t create life requires Mandatory discipline while a sin that takes life (or in the case of rape creates life) as simply “optional discipline.” I realize that sure, someone could say “hey I was falsely accused of rape/murder” but isn’t that what the Disciplinary Court is supposed to find out? Instead, church leaders let the world decide if a person is guilty instead of finding out themselves. While there may be some wisdom in not rushing to judgment, it just seems hypocritical to have a mandatory court for gay marriage, while an optional one for murder/rape. (I also think many–but not all–church courts are kangaroo courts with a pre-determined outcome especially when the charge is apostasy, but that’s another subject altogether.) Clearly murder and rape are the worst sins a person can commit.
Furthermore, if a couple has sex out of wedlock, thereby being guilty of fornication/adultery, and a baby is clear evidence of this sin, why in the world is this not a mandatory disciplinary court? (Because if we did that we’d have to ex a lot of members and the 14 million members would dwindle to a whole lot less.) If creating life outside of marriage is a sin next to murder as Alma tells us, then clearly this also should be a Mandatory court.
So there is a bit of hypocrisy regarding homo vs hetero-sexual transgressions. And it frankly seems rather odd that marriage–a pledge of fidelity between 2 adults–is seen as more sinful than causal gay sex or casual fornication between unmarried adults.
So yes, the priorities concerning sexual sins are screwed up and unfair.
But to me that’s more of a side issue. Here’s where I get outraged. Children should not be used as collateral damage in the fight against acceptance of gay marriage (or any other issue.) It is unChristlike, evil, and wrong, and this policy about children should be immediately repealed as an uninspired, wrong-headed, unscriptural mistake.
I did not mean to be callous but how healthy can it be to threaten suicide if you dont like a situation?
Genhy – not sure if you are serious or tongue in cheek here…??? If you are serious that’s probably the most ill informed comment about suicide I’ve ever heard. If you aren’t being serious it’s not funny.
I have dealt with hundreds of suicidal people and many who go on to complete suicide. I have retrieved bodies and spoken to grieving families. I have cut down people who have hanged themselves and extricated people from cars after gassing themselves.
But I have had the fortunate and life changing experience to hear wonderful speakers including Kevin Hines who jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge and survived. He says that he has not met anyone who really wanted to kill themselves – to him they just want the pain to stop and suicide is seen as a way to stop the pain.
To answer your question I will ask you one. I will ask you to imagine what situations would have to happen in your life for you to get to the point of contemplating suicide. Really think. Take away your family. Your children die. You are repeatedly sexually assaulted as a child. You loose your job your home your money. Really try to put yourself in a space where your future is so bleak that it hurts to live. My experience tells me that what gets a person to the brink of suicide is different, but what is common is that the pain of living is greater than their hope for the future.
I hope that none of us make light of someone who expresses that they are at that point. As Kevin Hines says that’s where we can step in and say. Are you ok? I am here. Can I help you?
LDS AUssie
You are responsible for your own life and no one else. Yes, we are all in this together. SOme abusive spouses threaten the other one if they do not return to them they will commit suicide. This is attempting to put responsbility of suicide on someone elese’s shoulders. That person comtemplating suicide must work through their issues. The world is not going to change just because someone want to commit suicide. Suicide is tragic but I side with the church. The LGB lifestyle is not a healthy wany to live and this is proven over and over again.
Mh
So hostile to ones that support the church.
Genhy, as Jesus said, who is my brother?
I want to apologize because it sounds like I’m coming across the wrong way. We may not understand why the church is doing this but the church is not out to destroy souls but to save them.
I absolutely believe they’re destroying innocent souls in an attempt to eradicate the so-called sinners. It’s like bombing a wedding party to kill a terrorist. It may kill the terrorist, but was the cost worth it? I don’t think so. (Then again, our government does it all the time, so I guess the church thinks it is an effective solution. But I thought we were supposed to preach peace, not war. This war on gays is going to create more war, and less peace.)
Mh
Why torture yourself and be a part of this? Why be unhappy?
I can’t believe how utterly callous you are.
Moroni 9:20 “Behold, thou knowest the wickedness of this people; thou knowest that they are without principle, and past feeling;”
How can you be past feeling on this issue? Why are you happy? Why aren’t you tortured? Does the story of the Good Samaritan mean nothing to you?
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Don’t do nothing.
Saw this on Facebook.
“When we realize that the leadership has suggested that some people have no need for the gift of the Holy Ghost, we are all diminished. When discrimination is normalized by the institution, we are all diminished.”
So many called maddie a liar. That the LDS church baptizes people all the time and her parents don’t matter. It’s right there in the book. It and the gay parent special permission is wrong in a church that says 8 year olds really decide for themselves and seeks members outside of children being born into the faith. Stop knocking on doors. It was insulting before but now it’s just intolerable. The 19 year old who answers might have a parent who drinks coffee and be ineligible unless cut off. Is coffee next? As we saw with maddie clear as water about never wanting polygamy for years before going to a predominate LDS college the week after graduation not only did she need special permission and the only thing left was cutting herself off from parents. On camera on a visit she ditched their church service and specifically said LDS church asked her to. Clearly does not intend to practice polygamy. Since parents behavior even for adults interesting in membership is for some reason important? For a church that says specifically ones own sins matter and not Adam’s Nonmembers are chuckling at you right now. Also weird how blindly you follow leaders for a church started with a prophet so antipope. A prophet who didn’t want the congregation controlled in thought and allowed agency. Catholics have way more agency and can criticize without it being considered a crisis of faith. This matter is a procedure issue after all. Guilt by association does not sound Christian.