Last week, we talked generally about having difficult conversations at church with Kurt Francom. This week, we’ll actually have specific conversations. Kurt recently interviewed David Ostler on his podcast about faith crisis research Ostler has done regarding reasons why people quit coming to church. Is there a disconnect between what leaders believe and what these people say?
Kurt: Another question he asked, “The percentage who strongly agree about the contribution of issues in individuals’ faith crisis in regards to questions about church history and then went the other way, right? A lot of a faith crisis members, that was a biggie: more than 85 percent. Gender roles within the church, that was another biggie.
GT: How about the leaders? Did the leaders see that as a problem?
Kurt: The leaders were around 40 percent, but it wasn’t the 80 percent. Right? There’s still a discrepancy.
GT: Yeah, 40 and 80, there’s a big difference.
Kurt: The Church’s LGBT policy, same thing. I mean they almost look identical. Transparency with decision making, same thing, right? And so with this information, I feel like a leader can better approach some of these situations when they have the right statistics, right? The right the right data. So does that make sense?
GT: Yeah. So, the big issues or the real issues I guess we should say are our church history was, was 85 percent, you said?
Kurt: [Yes]
GT: LGBT was probably second?
Kurt: Yeah, that was just under 80 percent.
GT: Under 80 percent. So Church history….
Kurt: Gender roles was the other one which was about 70 percent.
GT: Seventy percent.
Kurt: Yeah. And to me that doesn’t mean, in my opinion, no doctrine, absolutely zero doctrine has to change. It’s not about getting doctrine to change, it’s about the culture. If we can change the culture and start talking, and having a dialogue about these things, then then I think that’s where we’ll see those pews start to fill up with those that maybe have separated themselves from the church.
He thinks that if more leaders were armed with correct information, they can come up with other ways to make our congregations more friendly to people who are experiencing issues of faith. Do you agree?
This American Life, an NPR podcast, recently discussed LDS bishops asking young teens what some call sexually explicit interviews. Should the LDS Church modify the interviews or ban questions about sex? Kurt Francom of the Leading Saints podcast weighs in and we discuss the pros and cons of bishop’s interviews.
Kurt: The vast majority of bishop interviews or having a total net positive in the lives of youth.
GT: Yeah. I mean we could look at is 87 percent are good, 13 percent are bad.
Kurt: Right. Right. We can’t shut down all the beaches because shark attacks happen every once in a while. There’s so much good that happens in these wards because of bishops interviews, even alone with youth, right? Now, obviously the bishop has to protect themselves and handle this correct, but I guess that’s my main point. Sure, more policy would be good. But there’s so much more we can do without a new policy.
GT: Let me throw this out there because I know this has always been a thing that has bothered me over the years. We have two-deep in scouts although we’re getting rid of scouts, but we have two-deep in Primary. Why do we not have two-deep in bishop’s interviews? Why is it? I mean even if you don’t allow the parent to be there, why not have the Relief Society president there if it’s a girl, or a young men’s president, if it’s a boy, I mean, a lot of people have made these suggestions and you know, it’s not like I’m coming up with something original here. Why isn’t the church, and I know it’s not your pay grade, but some people are saying this is common sense, you know? If you have one percent of the problem, I mean the Boy Scouts was a problem. So we have two-deep leadership. The Primary apparently was some sort of an issue. So we have two-deep. So why is the bishop different?
Find out Kurt’s response! What are your thoughts on sexually explicit Bishop’s interviews? Should the Church modify them?
In November 2015, the Church issued the PoX, or Policy of Exclusion. The Exclusion Policy prevents children of gay parents from being baptized or further ordination in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In our last interview with Kurt Francom, we’ll get his opinions, and my opinions, and you’ll find out they are in disagreement quite a bit. It’s also a wonderful way in which we model that people can disagree but still maintain good friendships, even in Sunday School. So, this is an important conversation, and I hope you check it out.
GT: But at any rate, I mean we make such a big deal about a child being baptized at the age of eight. It’s in the Doctrine and Covenants. I mean it’s scripture. And Jesus said it’s better than a millstone be hanged around the neck than to offend these little ones. Okay. Now the church leaders are, number one, they’re ignoring this apparent Doctrine and Covenants scripture when it comes to children of gay parents. Number two, they seem to be ignoring the second article of faith: we are punished for our own sins, and [not for] Adam’s transgression and some people try to say, “Well, it’s just Adam.” No, I should not be punished for your sins. You should not be punished for my sins. My children should not be punished for my sins. I mean, we all have free agency, right?
GT: If my child can’t get baptized at age 8, because I’m gay or whatever, that’s not right. That just feels wrong to me. And I know that a lot of people say, “Well, when they’re 18, they can do it.” Then why doesn’t everybody get baptized at age 18? If it’s so important that we’ve got a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that they’re supposed to be baptized at age eight, it’s a big deal. It’s a big deal.
Kurt: Right.
GT: And there are people between the age of 8 and 18, even that get baptized and fall away from the church, so why would we think that a kid who doesn’t get baptized at eight is suddenly going to get baptized at 18? Especially given that they have to repudiate their parent’s relationship. That logic doesn’t make any sense to me.
…
Kurt: Yeah. And, wrestle with it. It breaks my heart when people wrestle with it to the point where they just completely separate themselves. Am I in favor for the policy or against it? I see both sides and I’m just trying to maintain in patience as we figure that out.
GT: I’m trying to be patient too, but it’s hard.
Kurt: Yeah, I know. But we need you there on Sunday. We need you to have influence and keep battling there. And I’m not trying to dodge it. I just, I see the struggle in that question. But at the same time, we just have to step back. And part of the greatest thing about being a leader, being a bishop is you have so much empathy for bishops after that. You have so much empathy for apostles after that, for leaders. These are difficult decisions and is the policy the best answer? Maybe, maybe not. But, they have the keys to direct, and they are directing, doing the best that they can. Whether it is exactly right or exactly wrong, or their lack of action in the bishop interview issue is exactly right, or exactly wrong, they’re doing their best to direct. And I think all things considered. We’re moving in the right way and nobody will ever regret having patience, more and more patience with their leaders, and holding on and in the wrestle.
Kurt: And I love that scripture about Jacob wrestling with the angel or with God. And he got to a point that he refused to let go until God blessed him. And so you must refuse to let go until God blesses us and brings greater light and knowledge and then while doing that realize that these leaders are doing the best they can and they deserve some patience.
What are your thoughts regarding the Policy of Exclusion?
Wheat & Tares 
“Absolutely zero doctrine has to change.” This strikes me as exactly the wrong shibboleth to spring on Mormons looking for some indication that the person they’re speaking with shares their familiarity with Mormonism’s history of disposable doctrines.
And Kurt’s assertion that leaders deserve patience seems to rely on a foregone conclusion that our wrestling with these issues will never bless us with a sense of urgency.
It’s the old stubborn insistence that members privately adopt a sotto voce acceptance of fallible leaders while continuing to publicly buttress a myth of infallibility with talk of unchanging doctrine.
Culture springs from doctrine, and doctrine from the “prophetic interpretation of scripture”. Think “patriarchy”, “the role of women”, “meritocracy”, ” the prosperity gospel”, “large families”, and the exclusivity of “heterosexual marriage” to name a few. Until the scriptures change, are reinterpreted or cast aside as irrelevant, we’ll be stuck with the vexing cultural problems that drive so many members away from full activity in (and this is one of those “doctrine leads to culture” examples) “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole Earth with which (the Lord)( is) well pleased.”
Without disagreeing with LJB, I point out that it is also true at times that doctrine springs from culture. “Doctrine” meaning, of course, what is taught — whether or not claimed to be revealed, “pure”, or never changing..
The Fifth Commandment (revised unstandard version) is “Honor your legal guardians because they feed and shelter you until you are 18 years old” and tend not to get much in return.
It is difficult to honor a legal guardian (or anyone for that matter) that you believe is living in sin. It is difficult for an idealistic teenager (that was me at one time) to pretend to honor that which he does not actually honor. In my youth, I was the only priesthood in my home and it caused some difficulty for me to think that I was superior to my father in any way.
My sense of righteousness extended to the fact that I did not drink liquor or smoke; he did both, although sparingly. My language was clean and my morals (almost) spotless. My stepmother could really string together curses such that I wondered if I could extract any intelligence from that stream of invection.
Life was simpler when at the moment of birth a doctor, nurse or midwife takes a look between tiny legs and announces “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl”. Now of course it is no longer necessary or useful; gender is assigned by a committee, perhaps by rolling dice. I’m not really sure what is the procedure nowadays.
Against that backdrop of social affairs comes an eternal (or nearly so) Creator of Heaven and Earth and all living things thereon (more or less), whose vision of populating the universe with life includes him not having to create every single instance of every single animal, bird, fish and came up with the clever idea of life replicating itself. All he has to do is sit back and every few thousand years announce “God saw that it was good.” The parts that aren’t so good go extinct. That is why no scripture says “God saw that it was bad”. Nothing to see. Self-correcting.
I attended four years of seminary and to this day remain friends (more or less) with my seminary teacher. There was a bit of a falling-out when he went to living with his boyfriend.
That illustrates the problem quite well.
There’s this “thing” hanging over our heads where I simply do not accept that a man can marry a man; that’s not what the word means. There can be no children, no eternal increase or mortal increase for that matter. So in his mind, and he wrote approximately, that what he had with his boyfriend was more sacred than he had with his wife which whom he had 7 children. I don’t see it that way so while I still like him and admire the good that he did in his life, particularly with me, we really do not have, nor can we have, much in the way of sociality. Shall I attend one of his sacred orgies? Probably not. Nothing there for me. Shall he come to church with me? Probably not. Shall we go to Bryce Canyon? That we could do while agreeing to NOT discuss some things; but that’s not what friends DO.
“Number two, they seem to be ignoring the second article of faith: we are punished for our own sins, and [not for] Adam’s transgression”
Consider carefully what is “punishment” and whether withholding a blessing you haven’t earned is “punishment”.
The answer depends on your binary world view or trinary world view. A binary world view has only two states; “good” or “bad”. If a thing is “not good” it must be “bad”.
But a trinary view allows for an intermediate state; “good”, “neutral” and “bad”. A thing can be not-good AND not-bad because it is neutral or inconsequential to the eternal outcome.
I believe God punishes no one. Ever. On the other hand he is rather specific about how to earn blessings; and has even declared that each blessing has a corresponding commandment that must be obeyed in order to obtain that blessing upon which it is predicated.
Thus, in my trinary world view, a child is not punished by being made to wait until her adulthood to make a decision that really ought to be made only by adults anyway (as with the Amish). She is also not blessed by whatever blessings accrue solely from baptism. She is in the same situation as are most humans on Earth; going to have to wait, perhaps until the next life.
An 8 year old child is not exercising free agency to choose to be baptized. How ready is she to make a lifetime covenant? What an absurd idea. This blessing is for parents of that child to set her on a course from which she is very likely to deviate as her free agency starts to bear fruit; but if not, and she stays the course, has a bit of advantage.
Michael2, your bit about determining a baby’s gender by committee may or may not be a joke, but either way it is factually incorrect and also very harmful. Most of the time sex is easily determined, but there are defects that make it more difficult, and it isn’t something treated lightly. Rolling dice, indeed.
Years ago I told a sexist joke to someone which I thought was funny, but they thought it was offensive and rightfully called me out on it. I am thankful they did.
With that in mind, I suggest that before you speak on such things you do some research and know what the fork you are talking about.
Michael2: I suspect you did not intend your comments this way, but when I hear people talk about gay marriages as “less sacred” or “unholy” because they cannot produce children it cuts deeply. I am an infertile wife; am I to believe that my marriage is a counterfeit shadow? Oftentimes I honestly believe that’s how the church and it’s leadership view me.
Whoa, I’m kind of shocked by a couple of these answers. If sharks are eating 13% of swimmers, you clear that beach! That’s why they have helicopters patrolling the beaches in Florida. If they even see a shark off shore, that beach is getting cleared immediately with bullhorns and sirens blasting. Also, saying “Am I in favor for the policy or against it? I see both sides and I’m just trying to maintain in patience as we figure that out.” sounds almost exactly like Trump claiming that there are “fine people on both sides of the debate,” referring to neo-Nazis when Heather Heyer was mowed down by one of them with a car. For some folks, staying seems to require the ambivalence of a dulled conscience.
Michael 2, I’m wondering if you would comment on this. D&C 68:25 says
If the gay parents are teaching the child “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,” then I think the sin of the child not being baptized can no longer be on the heads of those parents, but upon the originators of this policy. I’ll disagree with you as to whether this is a punishment or not, but the policy so clearly violates D&C 68:25, does it not? Why does this policy clearly violate scripture?
(I’ve yet to have anyone explain why this policy does not violate that scripture.)
To Angela C.
So there is only one way to view this and if we don’t see things your way, we are Nazi’s?
Lily- Mind pointing out where anyone was accused of being a Nazi or deconstructing how you arrived at that conclusion?
Angela is infinitely patient, reasonable and judicious about how she expresses herself and approaches others regardless of whether or not she agrees with what they’ve had to say.
Why not make your point and demonstrate its moral and/or intellectual integrity before you come in with guns blazing?
Mormon heretic, hell itself will freeze over before you find somebody who can tell you why the policy does not violate scripture. I sat with my bishop some time ago and told him exactly how this policy violates scripture. He had no answer for me. I sent a letter to SLC telling the 1st presidency exactly why their policy violates scripture. Whether or not it was read, who knows? I certainly didn’t receive a response.
But here’s the simple truth. There is no justification for this policy that accounts for those scriptures. None whatsoever. This is the number 1 reason why I am disaffected by the church and can no longer accept that the church is led by a prophet. Prophets don’t ignore the written revealed word of God.
Ditto Troy. The POX makes utterly zero sense to me and strengthens my testimony that our highest church leaders are not being led literally by God. I appreciate the good things they do and say, but they are waaaay off on this one.
I see this policy/doctrine as a result of the culture (homophobia) of Pres Oaks and perhaps a couple of others. The problem with children is secondary to making gay marriage apostasy. If no problem with gay marriage then no problem with children.
As racism became unacceptable the church changed its position, so as homophobia, and sexism become unaceptable they will change. There were more scriptural justifications for racism and slavery than there are for homophobia, though sexism was pretty general throughout history.
Only culture has to be overcome but it is the culture of some of those in power. I wonder if it would be possible for the younger, more enlightened Apostles to overrule the older more conservative ones, or weather we have to wait for them to die?
In most of the first world it is close to that point, which is part of the reason the church is no longer growing.
Geoff-Aus, I suspect more than “perhaps” and that it is not only a leadership age issue. I have personally heard Elder Bednar echo GBH’s exaggeration that the US was worse than Sodom and Gomorrah (meaning same-gender relationships rather than merely the violation of the law of hospitality that the OT says was S&G’s problem). I have read of others’ inside sources attributing the Policy largely to RMN and his position as President of the Q12 while TSM was at least weakened in his leadership abilities. But I’m not sure the Policy made gay marriage apostacy; perhaps it already was — as “apostacy” is used in Handbook 1. The early November 2015 addition to Handbook 1, number 6.7.3 regarding same-gender marriage can readily be understood as a clarification/special case of “[r]epeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.” In any event, the definition of “apostacy” in that Handbook section on when a disciplinary council is mandatory is only “as used” there. Maybe this is another example of Mormon-speak rather than common English. It would seem to me that it is not only the addition of item 4 that would need to be addressed to make this section conform to common English. Maybe a substitute for the word “apostacy” needs to be found, or item 1 needs to be changed. After all, repeatedly smoking or drinking coffee in public can be understood as clear, open, and deliberate opposition to the Church or its leaders and no one seems to be holding disciplinary councils on such matters. The”apostacy”- relevant part of the Handbook update is:
“Handbook 1, number 6.7.3 is also to be updated immediately as follows …:
When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory
Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders….
4. Are in a same-gender marriage….”
In any event, protecting the children from anticipated home conflicts on the issue of same-gender marriage could have been perfectly adequately accomplished while keeping the proscription of same-gender marriage, if only the already existing policy requiring parental consent to the baptism of minors had been revised to require that consent be informed consent — specifying what exactly needed to be communicated to parent (in writing and counter-signed by the parent, if there is concern about alienation of affection or other liability). Then the issue would in the hands of the parents and not arbitrary interpreters of an incompetently or ambiguously drafted policy.
I’ve come to think of the Mormon Church as kinda/sorta like going to Disneyland. Meaning, once you walk through the gate you suspend your belief in reality and pretend that the perfectly clean streets and buildings, along with the fake smiles and over the top happiness is all real. But at the end of the day, you walk out of the park – and suddenly you’re back in the real world. When I walk into a Mormon Church, I feel the same way – pretend environment,fake smiles, un-realistic self importance, beautiful facades on everyone’s life and it’s all make believe. One pretends that “all is well” for a couple of hours and then out the we go….out into the real (sometimes dirty & mean – real world).
Oh, how I wish neighbors and friends (within my Ward boundaries) would simply be willing to talk about the realities of how they are making their way through life, dealing with tragedy, managing hardship…and we all simply stop “reading off of the age old LDS script”! It has not only become odious and boring – but somewhat soul crushing.
Lefthandloafer,
I don’t find any phoniness in my LDS ward — rather, I find honest people in lots of different circumstances living authentically Christian lives. It is refreshing and invigorating to meet with with them.
ji: I’m happy for you. Enjoy.
“along with the fake smiles and over the top happiness is all real. But at the end of the day, you walk out of the park – and suddenly you’re back in the real world.”
I visited a friend of mine who lived in Provo. We went to church together and I felt a disturbance in the Force; the elegance of the chapel and yet it was veneer. Some of the plating was waring off the push-bars on the doors, revealing corroded metal underneath.
So what should people do?
There is no “should”. If those who are going to use it want a shiny veneered church to go with their shiny veneered lives, so be it. I had come from Alaaska, where a wooden church that seemed to be just about to fall down (amazingly, it’s still there, much worse for the wear) is what I attended. What it lacked for shine and veneer it made up in character and ability to withstand frequent storms.
Reply to Mormon Heretic question “Michael 2, I’m wondering if you would comment on this. D&C 68:25 says”
“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.”
I read it as saying parents have a duty to teach their children their values. No actions are specified other than understand the doctrine. The context is that of Latter-day Saints expected or required to teach their children Latter-day Saint values. Parents also have a duty to teach their children to read, write and do arithmetic.
Nothing is said about what the child does WITH this information; he or she has free agency and like most children will probably rebel.
“If the gay parents are teaching [principles] then I think the sin of the child not being baptized can no longer be on the heads of those parents, but upon the originators of this policy.”
It may be subtle, but the citation does not require actual baptism, but only that Latter-day Saints have taught these four basic principles to a child by that child’s age of eight.
As such, there may well be a sin upon the person that refuses to baptise and otherwise worthy child who had been taught these four principles, or the leaders of the church who established the policy.
A Latter-day saint that refuses to teach these four basic principles is committing a sin according to this verse.
“I’ve yet to have anyone explain why this policy does not violate that scripture.”
That I can believe. Too many people, IMO, do not think long and hard on scripture and church. I am glad there here people do think on it.
I left the church largely because I realized people like this guy represent the future of leadership in the LDS faith.
In his sincere effort to be open he only exacerbates the issues caused by dogmatic orthodoxy because he is unable to know and describe his own unwillingness to be anything other than doctrinal rigid and morally inflexibility. His facade of pseudo-progressiveness is made even more unhelpful because he doesn’t realize its a facade. He actually thinks he is helping the disenfranchised and jaded by “hearing” and “validating” our concerns while all he is doing is talking out of both sides of his mouth offering trite platitudes and canned excuses which only serve to invalidate the exhausted cries of the religiously injured
With all due respect to other posters in this thread, there does happen to be scriptural precedent where someone’s sins causes them to be in a state where “they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house” and “They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.” (D&C 121:19-20). Now, I am not equating the context of what is in these scriptures necessarily to be precisely the same as the issue of LGBTQ+ people and their children. Yet no one can deny rationally in my opinion, with as much respect as I can give to the other posters here, without trying to start a fight here, that here is a clear precedent where certain works of individuals put themselves *and their children* in a state where those children are affected with regard to access to ordinances and priesthood offices and ordinations. A key to this is the declaration by the brethren in the year 2015 that individuals that are LGBTQ+ who act according to their attractions, and who enter into a gay marriage situation are declared to be in a state of “apostasy.” The context of the scriptures in D&C 121 do indeed have to do with individuals in a state of apostasy.
The remedy for these situations has always been repentance, which according to the LDS authorities would mean to leave a marriage of this sort, getting a divorce and stop acting upon same sex attractions. As bitter of a pill that that is to swallow, they claim basically that this is a revelation, and that the Lord had to basically put up a wall between these people and the Church with regard to access to ordinances and priesthood. This is not surprising given the context of the scriptures in D&C 121. Therefore, what we have here is essentially a prohibition on access to priesthood ordinances, a new priesthood ban, as it were, against those who apparently do not qualify for priesthood as a result of actions and beliefs that go against the requirements and qualifications for priesthood. Those throughout history that have not qualified for priesthood have always seemed to be affected this way as a result of some sort of apostate behavior or beliefs as defined by the authorities at the time. In the case of Ham and Pharaoh, it was not because of a mythological curse on the seed of Cain, but rather the apostasy of Ham, where he was making sport of Noah, and finding fault and speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed. And Pharaoh, being out of the Church, probably as a result of some in his family, including his parents, did not qualify for priesthood at the time.
The children, being subject to the authority of the parents, logically and rationally cannot qualify until they themselves are of age to be able to not only qualify for baptism, but to renounce the beliefs and lifestyle of their parents, while somehow walking the tightrope of remaining loyal and respectful to the family bond they have with their parents.
Therefore, while some have quoted that this policy prevents children from being “brought up in light and truth” and that the “sin would be upon the heads” of the people preventing them, to me this is a misreading of scripture, because this assumes that the children in a state of being taught the philosophies subscribed to by LBGTQ+ individuals who are their parents qualify as “light and truth” in the mind of the Lord. If one believes that the Brethren are in touch with heaven, apparently, those philosophies do not qualify as “light and truth,” which means that the philosophies and works of the parents disqualify the children from the ordinances, because they themselves are bringing up the children to believe in these philosophies, which according to the policy, qualify as “apostate.” Therefore, it is rational that should a child come to believe differently when he or her is out from under the roof of the parents, and renounces those philosophies, that child then qualifies himself for priesthood and ordinances.
Those that read this, I ask you to not react in an accusatory and contentious fashion, because I am trying to be as respectful and as sympathetic to your feelings at possible, yet you must understand that for those that believe in these philosophies, as respectfully as I can say this to you, I too believe that if you believe these philosophies and you act accordingly, I personally believe those philosophies are apostate, and I personally believe that it is justice to withdraw the ability for persons that believe in such things to not qualify for priesthood and for ordinances. How do I say such a thing as respectfully as I can, yet still say it? I have no idea, but I have tried to do just that here, and please know that I am not trying to pick a fight with any of you.
Ed Goble: Your comment focuses on “priesthood disqualification” despite the fact that all women are still barred from priesthood, regardless our sexual orientation, that some gay people are women (and therefore under the gender prohibition). The rest of it feels like well-trodden ground, so I don’t wish to engage with that, but I did think your focus on priesthood restriction to be odd given that this applies to all LGBT people & their children, not just men.
Ed, the only family I know who was impacted by the policy were two women who had been married for 8 years. Both women had served missions and attended BYU. They had a 5 year old who came to church with them every Sunday for about two years. After the POX they stopped coming. Maybe they were ex-communicated; I don’t know. I do know that it bothers me. I am also bothered that my gay neighbors and their adopted kids wouldn’t be welcomed in our fellowship. They are very good people. I have talked to my local church leaders about my nagging conscience and they have asked me to have patience and to pray for our general leadership. I can understand why that might not work for some.
Again, with all due respect to those of you, some have rated my comment down, you may not like it, but it is a point of view perhaps that ought to have representation and tolerated despite its lack of popularity. Now, I say it is a priesthood restriction, because ordinances are priesthood, just as ordination are priesthood. One is on the end where one officiates, and the other end is when someone is the receiver of the ordinance. Both are priesthood, because both are under the priesthood umbrella. We have been told now that female persons have access to the blessings of the priesthood when they are in full fellowship, and they also have priesthood authority to fulfill their callings. All of these things are various aspects of priesthood. Therefore, not having access to (1) ordinances by priesthood, (2) blessings by priesthood or (3) in the case of males, ordination by priesthood, all falls under a priesthood restriction. Therefore, what you are witnessing is the latest incarnation of a priesthood restriction on certain individuals until such time as they get themselves in harmony with the order of the priesthood. Put in these terms, it is understandable why it is in place, because those that are not in harmony with order can only expect to receive anything related to priesthood when they decide to take actions that put themselves in harmony with it. Therefore the gender has nothing to do with it, and the age has nothing to do with it. And until such time that the children themselves have the ability to lift themselves up to put themselves in harmony, once they are out from under the authority and domain of the parents, it is logical that only then they are able to take action of themselves and make their own choices. Therefore, again with all due respect and with all the strength I can muster to be as sympathetic to the feelings of you guys as possible, I say, this is fully logical and fully rational and fully understandable and fully necessary.
As to DC 68:25-
Teaching is a two way process. It requires both teacher and student to cooperate, It is not a 50%/50% division. More like a 90%/90% proposition. Some students fail to learn even under the best conditions. It might be their own fault or it might be something bigger than them.
The items mentioned in the scripture sound simple. But in fact they are exceeding complex and have been the subject of centuries of dispute. My wife has a 3000 page book on the topic of baptism she used on a paper in seminary (real reform seminary,not fake Mormon seminary). It seems like a tall order for most 8 year olds.
I’m sorry but the sin is not on the head of the parents automatically because of a verse of scripture. Reality is much more complex. I’m not even sure this verse is descriptive or prescriptive or proscriptive. And so I am having difficulty understanding all the further ideas above that lean so heavily on this verse. Some of it is a house of cards.
No excuse for treating children of gay people differently than children of murderers, mafia members, savages, bigots or democrats. All these hollow excuses apply to yourself as much as to any other variety of sinners. None of us are totally fit to be parents..The worst parenting mistake a gay parent will ever make will have little to nothing to do with their gayness. Good thing children are resilient.