LDS church redefines apostasy to include same sex marriage

[Lawana]

and prohibits children of same sex couples from participating in rites (naming/blessing and baptism). And will only allow baptism at 18 if they are no longer living in the household and disavow the parents' relationship.

 

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-issues-update-on-what-is-considered-apostasy

 

I am heartsick.

[Spryte]

:(

[Guest]

What?!?

[Melinda in VT]

There are several things about this that just don't make theological sense. One of them is that, if my sources are correct, living with a same-sex partner is only "possibly" apostasy, but marrying your same-sex partner is always apostasy.

 

Even if we assume that homosexual sex is a sin, wouldn't homosexual sex + sex outside of marriage (definitely a sin in Mormonism) be worse than homosexual sex by itself?

 

My heart breaks for my nieces and nephews who have one parent who is a devout Mormon and one who lives with her same-sex partner. The last thing these kids need is for their divorce and custody situation to get more contentious.

[Slache]

This is the polar opposite of how the Bible says to treat children.

[Guest]

Can any of our LDS boardies confirm this?? It is one thing to have a negative view of SSM but to punish the children makes zero sense.

[Joanne]

Where is the Jesus in that?

 

This is beyond regressive.

 

It is hate. It's also passive/aggressive hate - an action designed in part to motivate people to change based on an authority edict.

 

Twisted and not aligned with any spiritual principle I value.

[Melinda in VT]

Can any of our LDS boardies confirm this?? It is one thing to have a negative view of SSM but to punish the children makes zero sense.

 

Here is a link to an article about this change that appeared in the Deseret News, which is a newspaper owned by the LDS church.

[Amira]

Yes, it is apparently church policy now.

 

No, I don't understand it and I can't defend it, especially the part about not allowing a baby to be blessed, ever, for any reason. (Blessings of babies are done with children under age 8 and are not considered to be a necessary ordinance- usually they're done only with babies; baptisms are an entirely different ordinance for people who are at least 8.  For either ordinance you have to get parental permission.)

 

In most ways the policy is very similar to what children of polygamist parents have to do to get permission to be baptized.  But the two situations don't seem to have much to do with each other so I don't get why the policy would be the same.

[TranquilMind]

and prohibits children of same sex couples from participating in rites (naming/blessing and baptism). And will only allow baptism at 18 if they are no longer living in the household and disavow the parents' relationship.

 

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-issues-update-on-what-is-considered-apostasy

 

I am heartsick.

Why penalize the CHILDREN?  That makes no sense at all. 

[SKL]

The thing that surprises me is that you have to be 18 and disavow what your parents are doing in order to make a choice to be baptized into the faith.  I would think the age threshold would be much younger than that, and youths should be allowed their own beliefs without bringing their parents' beliefs into it if they choose.

 

Ultimately they have a right to their own rules.

[Xuzi]

Yes, it is apparently church policy now.

 

No, I don't understand it and I can't defend it, especially the part about not allowing a baby to be blessed, ever, for any reason. (Blessings of babies are done with children under age 8 and are not considered to be a necessary ordinance- usually they're done only with babies; baptisms are an entirely different ordinance for people who are at least 8. For either ordinance you have to get parental permission.)

 

In most ways the policy is very similar to what children of polygamist parents have to do to get permission to be baptized. But the two situations don't seem to have much to do with each other so I don't get why the policy would be the same.

I'm with you on this. I don't get it. I'm LDS and I am absolutely heartsick over this. This policy will get no defending from me.

[SKL]

If they are going to teach children that homosexual relationships are sin, then I do not understand why homosexual parents would want their kids participating in that anyway.  I don't think I'd send my kids someplace where they'd be taught our family is a big fat sin.

[SKL]

If the standard is to disavow your family and not be living with them I can see why the minimum age has to be 18.

 

Right, I edited to say that I don't see why they have to disavow their family either.  But I'm not LDS so I have no say in the matter of course.

[Xuzi]

If they are going to teach children that homosexual relationships are sin, then I do not understand why homosexual parents would want their kids participating in that anyway. I don't think I'd send my kids someplace where they'd be taught our family is a big fat sin.

But there are some that do. Just as I've met children of unmarried parents bringing their kids to church (mom and/or dad is a member and feels that, overall, the church would be a good place for their kid). Those kids weren't required to get approval from the First Presidency (top leading body of the church) to be blessed as an infant, or baptized at eight, or serve a mission after high school, even though their family also didn't fit the church-approved mold.

[albeto.]

Why penalize the CHILDREN?  That makes no sense at all. 

 

It's a powerful carrot and whip. Can you imagine many things more important to you than the welfare of your children? When one understands an eternal component to that welfare, a component that requires certain formalized rituals, that carrot and whip wield even more power. I don't think leaders are sitting around the boardroom table wringing their hands trying to come up with the most nefarious means of control they can find or anything, I suspect this new policy comes from sincere hearts that genuinely want what's best for all children. What I find interesting is that this seems to be in the opposite direction the LDS church had been moving in the last few years. 

[HomeAgain]

There was an article in the news this morning about how children growing up in religious homes tend to be more selfish and judgmental than those in non-religious homes.  With rules like this, I can see the connection very clearly.

[justasque]

But there are some that do. Just as I've met children of unmarried parents bringing their kids to church (mom and/or dad is a member and feels that, overall, the church would be a good place for their kid). Those kids weren't required to get approval from the First Presidency (top leading body of the church) to be blessed as an infant, or baptized at eight, or serve a mission after high school, even though their family also didn't fit the church-approved mold.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding why the children of married or cohabiting same-sex parents would be treated any differently than the children of unmarried, cohabiting opposite-sex  parents.  (Do I have that right?  Or are both cases treated the same?)

 

I'm having a hard time understanding why a child would have to leave the household of their parents in order to take their place in the church (especially in cases where the child has obligations to care for their parents).  (That seems to be what the articles are saying?)

 

And I really don't understand why these sanctions would apply to a child of legal age who lives with a parent who, in the past*, has lived in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.  I think an adult child's obligations to care for their parents are important, and sometimes, in cases of illness or other strife, sharing a household is a good solution for both parent and child.  (Are there other rules like this, that require adult children in the church to live apart from their parents because of a sin a parent committed in the past?)

 

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind all of this?  My impression of the LDS church was that it was very family-oriented?

 

*From the Deseret News article linked in a previous post: The handbook addition also states that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting," can only be baptized, confirmed, ordained to the priesthood or serve a full-time mission with approval from the Office of the First Presidency. A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "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"; and "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."

[Amira]

 

I'm having a hard time understanding why the children of married or cohabiting same-sex parents would be treated any differently than the children of unmarried, cohabiting opposite-sex  parents.  (Do I have that right?  Or are both cases treated the same?)

 

I'm having a hard time understanding why a child would have to leave the household of their parents in order to take their place in the church (especially in cases where the child has obligations to care for their parents).  (That seems to be what the articles are saying?)

 

And I really don't understand why these sanctions would apply to a child of legal age who lives with a parent who, in the past*, has lived in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.  I think an adult child's obligations to care for their parents are important, and sometimes, in cases of illness or other strife, sharing a household is a good solution for both parent and child.  (Are there other rules like this, that require adult children in the church to live apart from their parents because of a sin a parent committed in the past?)

 

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind all of this?  My impression of the LDS church was that it was very family-oriented?

 

*From the Deseret News article linked in a previous post: The handbook addition also states that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting," can only be baptized, confirmed, ordained to the priesthood or serve a full-time mission with approval from the Office of the First Presidency. A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "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"; and "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."

 

Here is one blog post that attempts to explain one person's thinking behind this.  Note that I disagree with this post (and with a lot of of what this blog posts in general).  It's just the way some people look at it.  In particular, I am annoyed that some people are comparing this to some Muslims not being allowed to get baptized because it is dangerous for some Muslims in some areas to change religions.  

[Btervet]

I grew up in the Mormon church and left on not great terms, so I'm a bit biased, but this doesn't surprise me.

 

The Mormon Church is very family focused. This can be good, but also very damaging to individuals. It is common to shun or punish the family members of someone who doesn't follow the rules of the church. I was often told I'd be eternally punished because I couldn't be sealed to my family. Through no fault of my own. Family focused can be a two-sided coin.

[Mom-ninja.]

Why penalize the CHILDREN?  That makes no sense at all. 

 

Children are a parents weak spot. Control the lives of the children and you control the parents. 

[Spy Car]

I thought the LDS Church was making a big push to re-think its ideas on homosexuality and to have dialogue and reconciliation. 

 

Was that a misimpression? Is this policy new, or  vestige of the past?

 

Bill

[Butter]

I am trying to understand this.  I kind of do and I kind of don't.  I would suspect that adding cohabitating in a same sex relationship to the definition of apostasy is at least partly fueled by same sex marriage being legal in every state.  Many people were contacting the leadership of the church wanting to know if a same sex couple was legally married if they were not sinning.  Some were requesting temple marriages for same sex couples.  The church has always maintained marriage is between a man and a woman regardless of legality.  This is not any different.  But given the questions I think they had to clarify some things at this point.

 

I do wonder how many gay couples are going to send their kids to a Mormon church especially given the stand that same sex marriage is not okay.  I wonder how often this is even going to be an issue.

 

I know that those who are children of polygamists also have the same rules for baptism.  I actually only recently learned it because of one of Kody Brown's kids.  She wanted to join the LDS church (she's an adult now and does not live at home so that stipulations were taken care of), but she needed to disavow the practice of polygamy and affirm she was committed to live the teaching and doctrines of the LDS church.  She chose not to.

 

Note that in the Brown daughter's case AND in the case of children of same sex couples it is NOT asking them to disavow OR disown their parents (some reports have state this is the case).  It is asking them to officially disavow the practice because it is not part of of the church's doctrines and practices.

 

Also, if any kid wants to be baptized, their parents must give permission if they are under 18.  We have a girl who comes to church sometimes who has expressed interest in being baptized.  She is 16.  Her parents said no.  She can choose to be baptized at 18, but for now she cannot.  This is to prevent contention in the home.  I wonder if it is similar for children of same sex couples.  It could be a contentious situation.  This is not saying a child of a same sex couple can't attend church.  They can just like the 16 year old who comes to our church.  They just cannot become members until 18.

[PIE!]

I'm LDS, and I don't understand everything my church does. I've seen a lot on the internet today, and I'll share my thoughts-in-progress.

 

I was about to share the blog post Amira shared. It is a good one.

 

The LDS church is very family oriented. The LDS church says that same-gender relations are wrong. The church does not want to cause contention in families.

 

If a child of same-gender parents were to be baptized they would always be in conflict. They live at home with parents they love. They go to church and find that their parents' relationship is sinful. Then they are asked if they want to be baptized. A young child should not make a choice like that. Requiring that they wait until they are adults protects them and the families they are in. At least, I think that's the reasoning behind this.

 

And when they are 18, to be baptized they do not have to disavow their FAMILIES. They have to disavow the PRACTICE of same-gender relations. They still get to keep their parents and love them. 

 

There are other groups this applies to also, such as children from polygamous families. I don't think it's to penalize the children. I think it is to protect them and their families from conflict. Let them grow up before they have to decide if their parents are right or of the church is right. 

 

These are just my thoughts-in-progress though. There are probably holes in my thinking. I'm going to wrap my mind around this for a while and pray about it too. There will probably be official press releases from the LDS church at some point too.

[DawnM]

There was talk that the LDS were still debating about pulling out of the BSA.  Is that still on the table?  If they are that opposed to homosexuality (penalizing children for the sins of the fathers), I would think they would be done with BSA.

 

 

[Xuzi]

I am trying to understand this. I kind of do and I kind of don't. I would suspect that adding cohabitating in a same sex relationship to the definition of apostasy is at least partly fueled by same sex marriage being legal in every state. Many people were contacting the leadership of the church wanting to know if a same sex couple was legally married if they were not sinning. Some were requesting temple marriages for same sex couples. The church has always maintained marriage is between a man and a woman regardless of legality. This is not any different. But given the questions I think they had to clarify some things at this point.

 

I do wonder how many gay couples are going to send their kids to a Mormon church especially given the stand that same sex marriage is not okay. I wonder how often this is even going to be an issue.

 

I know that those who are children of polygamists also have the same rules for baptism. I actually only recently learned it because of one of Kody Brown's kids. She wanted to join the LDS church (she's an adult now and does not live at home so that stipulations were taken care of), but she needed to disavow the practice of polygamy and affirm she was committed to live the teaching and doctrines of the LDS church. She chose not to.

 

Note that in the Brown daughter's case AND in the case of children of same sex couples it is NOT asking them to disavow OR disown their parents (some reports have state this is the case). It is asking them to officially disavow the practice because it is not part of of the church's doctrines and practices.

 

Also, if any kid wants to be baptized, their parents must give permission if they are under 18. We have a girl who comes to church sometimes who has expressed interest in being baptized. She is 16. Her parents said no. She can choose to be baptized at 18, but for now she cannot. This is to prevent contention in the home. I wonder if it is similar for children of same sex couples. It could be a contentious situation. This is not saying a child of a same sex couple can't attend church. They can just like the 16 year old who comes to our church. They just cannot become members until 18.

They also have to move out of their gay parent's home and get First Presidency approval, something the young girl you mentioned above will not be asked to do. All she'll need to do is turn 18.

[Butter]

They also have to move out of their gay parent's home and get First Presidency approval, something the young girl you mentioned above will not be asked to do. All she'll need to do us turn 18.

 

Correct, but children of polygamists do need to move out and get approval.

[Amira]

There was talk that the LDS were still debating about pulling out of the BSA.  Is that still on the table?  If they are that opposed to homosexuality (penalizing children for the sins of the fathers), I would think they would be done with BSA.

 

No, the LDS Church is staying with BSA for now.

[Xuzi]

And keep in mind, that blog post is from the same author as the "Frozen promotes the gay agenda" post that went viral a while back.

[PIE!]

I thought the LDS Church was making a big push to re-think its ideas on homosexuality and to have dialogue and reconciliation. 

 

Was that a misimpression? Is this policy new, or  vestige of the past?

 

Bill

 

Sort of. The LDS church has never changed it's stance that homosexual relationships are a sin. 

 

They have tried to be more open minded about why people have homosexual feelings. They've made it very clear that homosexual feelings are not a sin, and it's only when those feelings are acted upon that one needs to repent.

 

They've also been vocal about not discriminating against homosexual people in civil matters (housing, jobs, etc.)

 

They've been vocal about loving all people, regardless of anything (race, religion, or sexual orientation).

 

They do not want anyone to feel that God does not love them, and have tried to make amends for past policies that have made homosexuals feel hurt.

 

But they have never come close to changing the affirmation that marriage before God is between a man and a woman, and any other sexual relations outside of that are a sin.

[PIE!]

And keep in mind, that blog post is from the same author as the "Frozen promotes the gay agenda" post that went viral a while back.

ugh. I didn't know that. I've never heard of that blog before today.

 

Hopefully the church will come out with an official statement soon.

[justasque]

 

Note that in the Brown daughter's case AND in the case of children of same sex couples it is NOT asking them to disavow OR disown their parents (some reports have state this is the case).  It is asking them to officially disavow the practice because it is not part of of the church's doctrines and practices.

 

 

 

 

And when they are 18, to be baptized they do not have to disavow their FAMILIES. They have to disavow the PRACTICE of same-gender relations. They still get to keep their parents and love them. 

 

 

But they can't live with their parents?  Ever, it sounds like, even if the parents cease any same-sex relationships?  Which is problematic when their parents are elderly or ill or disabled.  (Or when the child is ill or disabled and relies on the parents as a caretaker.)  Most adults are capable of living with a person who has differing views on one thing or another, agreeing to disagree and focusing on their love for each other, warts and all.  That's what functional families do, and do very well.  They embrace, love, and take care of each other, in sickness and in health, parents and children, as long as they each shall live.  The "love the sinner, hate the sin" mantra speaks to this, yes?  

[Butter]

And keep in mind, that blog post is from the same author as the "Frozen promotes the gay agenda" post that went viral a while back.

 

I hadn't seen that viral blog post.  It was... weird.  BUT the post linked above is written by a guest poster, not the blog owner.  As far as I could tell the Frozen post was written by the blog owner.

[MeghanL]

I am taking serious issue with the rational behind this policy being to not cause contention in the family with how family-friendly Mormonism is. I'm sorry, but that is just NOT a consideration at all. If keeping peace in families was at all a concern of Mormonism, they would not forbid non-Mormon family members from attending temple wedding. They would not create policies like this that create nothing but spiritual abuse for parents and children of those who have LBQT family members, not to mention those who identify as LBQT themselves. 

For those that believe that the sole purpose of their lives is to be bound in a family forever (all for the glory of the Heavenly Father, of course) BUT you don't qualify because of something that is completely out of your power to change, that seems to be the very definition of spiritual abuse. 

As for that article, it seems VERY disingeous to suggest that if you wholeheartedly disagree with this policy, read the Book of Mormon and pray until you agree. Is that a cultural way of saying sit down and shut up? Because that sure is how it comes across.

[Xuzi]

This blog post more accurately describes my feelings yesterday and today. Also by an LDS author:

http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/2015/11/06/we-need-the-light-of-love-in-here/

[Amira]

I am taking serious issue with the rational behind this policy being to not cause contention in the family with how family-friendly Mormonism is. I'm sorry, but that is just NOT a consideration at all. If keeping peace in families was at all a concern of Mormonism, they would not forbid non-Mormon family members from attending temple wedding. They would not create policies like this that create nothing but spiritual abuse for parents and children of those who have LBQT family members, not to mention those who identify as LBQT themselves. 

For those that believe that the sole purpose of their lives is to be bound in a family forever (all for the glory of the Heavenly Father, of course) BUT you don't qualify because of something that is completely out of your power to change, that seems to be the very definition of spiritual abuse. 

As for that article, it seems VERY disingeous to suggest that if you wholeheartedly disagree with this policy, read the Book of Mormon and pray until you agree. Is that a cultural way of saying sit down and shut up? Because that sure is how it comes across.

 

That's exactly what it means.  It's a seriously irritating habit of some Mormons including this blog author.  If you don't agree with the church leadership (except on immigration and gun control, then the church is wrong, of course), you just didn't pray hard enough.

[PIE!]

But they can't live with their parents?  Ever, it sounds like, even if the parents cease any same-sex relationships?  Which is problematic when their parents are elderly or ill or disabled.  (Or when the child is ill or disabled and relies on the parents as a caretaker.)  Most adults are capable of living with a person who has differing views on one thing or another, agreeing to disagree and focusing on their love for each other, warts and all.  That's what functional families do, and do very well.  They embrace, love, and take care of each other, in sickness and in health, parents and children, as long as they each shall live.  The "love the sinner, hate the sin" mantra speaks to this, yes?  

 

I'm curious how this rule will play out. I have a hard time imagining the church telling someone that they can't care for their elderly parent. There could be extenuating circumstances where the rule is breakable.

 

I only pictured the rule from the young person's side. Trying to make a clean break from the lifestyle by moving out rather than living in their parents' basement for the next 5-10 years as many people do.

 

I don't know how it would work when the parents were the ones needing to be cared for. I'm curious to see. And hopeful that compassion wins. It might just be taken case by case as many things in the church are.

[PIE!]

That's exactly what it means.  It's a seriously irritating habit of some Mormons including this blog author.  If you don't agree with the church leadership (except on immigration and gun control, then the church is wrong, of course), you just didn't pray hard enough.

 

Agreed that it's an annoying habit of many LDS people (generally well-intentioned though). And just to clarify, earlier I said I've got some thinking and praying to do about this. I hadn't noticed that bit in the article. I really just figure that thinking and praying about stuff that's hard to understand is a good way to get understanding. I'm not saying I'm going to sit down and shut up. ;)

[Amira]

Agreed that it's an annoying habit of many LDS people (generally well-intentioned though). And just to clarify, earlier I said I've got some thinking and praying to do about this. I hadn't noticed that bit in the article. I really just figure that thinking and praying about stuff that's hard to understand is a good way to get understanding. I'm not saying I'm going to sit down and shut up. ;)

 

I wasn't referring to you at all with my comment because you obviously weren't assuming that anyone else was doing anything wrong.  I think it's good for people to think and pray about different topics. I'm sorry if it sounded that way.

 

I think it can be well-intentioned in some ways, but really, it comes across as an attack because the implied assumption is that you'll agree if you're righteous enough.  It doesn't work that way. 

[Melinda in VT]

 

I do wonder how many gay couples are going to send their kids to a Mormon church especially given the stand that same sex marriage is not okay.  I wonder how often this is even going to be an issue.

 

 

There are a fair number of kids who have one devout Mormon parent and one parent who cohabitates with a same-sex partner.

 

Mormon culture has a number of factors that increase the odds that someone won't come out as gay until after having had kids with a devout Mormon.

 

I have kids in my extended family who would have been affected by this policy, had it been in place on their 8th birthdays.

[Amira]

There are a fair number of kids who have one devout Mormon parent and one parent who cohabitates with a same-sex partner.

 

Mormon culture has a number of factors that increase the odds that someone won't come out as gay until after having had kids with a devout Mormon.

 

I have kids in my extended family who would have been affected by this policy, had it been in place on their 8th birthdays.

 

Are we sure that it applies to children in that case?  I know a lot of kids who would be affected by this and I'm not convinced that the policy applies to them, but to children whose legal and/or biological parents are same sex. 

[Melinda in VT]

Are we sure that it applies to children in that case?  I know a lot of kids who would be affected by this and I'm not convinced that the policy applies to them, but to children whose legal and/or biological parents are same sex. 

 

I don't see anything in the articles or quotes from the handbook that indicate it wouldn't apply to children in that case. And my devout Mormon relatives are assuming it would apply to their children.

 

I'd be happy to be wrong about this though.

[Amira]

I don't see anything in the articles or quotes from the handbook that indicate it wouldn't apply to children in that case. And my devout Mormon relatives are assuming it would apply to their children.

 

I'd be happy to be wrong about this though.

 

It seems like there are lots of things about this that could use some clarification.

[justasque]

(Not picking on you PIE!, just bouncing off your comment)

 

 

...

 

I only pictured the rule from the young person's side. ...

 

 

That's what stings here.  That the people who wrote the policy seem, from the outside at least, to have viewed it through a very narrow lens.  I wonder if they consulted any Mormons who have experience living in strong, functional families with LGBTQ members?  Did they listen to the voices of any adult Mormons with LGBTQ parents?  Any Mormon parents of LGBTQ kids (young 'uns or adults)?  Any LGBTQ folks who are living within the guidelines of the church, perhaps while raising children?  Did they consider the legal protections that marriage brings to children who are being raised by a same-sex couple (regardless of whether that couple is keeping their sex life within the teachings of the church)?  Did they talk to the people who are actually walking this path every day, respecting the teachings of the church on same-sex relationships while still loving, honoring, and caring for their LGBTQ parents or LGBTQ children?  Ouch.

[Mom-ninja.]

That's exactly what it means.  It's a seriously irritating habit of some Mormons including this blog author.  If you don't agree with the church leadership (except on immigration and gun control, then the church is wrong, of course), you just didn't pray hard enough.

 

Well, to be fair and not pick on Mormons, a good many religions and people take this claim. The phrase, "You just haven't prayed hard enough" or "You have not truly opened your heart" are things I've heard not just from Mormons but other Xtians as well. 

[Amira]

Well, to be fair and not pick on Mormons, a good many religions and people take this claim. The phrase, "You just haven't prayed hard enough" or "You have not truly opened your heart" are things I've heard not just from Mormons but other Xtians as well. 

 

Very true, and it's an offensive tactic no matter who's using it.

[Mom-ninja.]

OT Amira, you're in Mexico now? I'm jealous of your travels. 

[Amira]

OT Amira, you're in Mexico now? I'm jealous of your travels. 

 

 

No, they made me leave a few months ago.  I miss it every day. :(

[KarenC]

The thing that surprises me is that you have to be 18 and disavow what your parents are doing in order to make a choice to be baptized into the faith.  I would think the age threshold would be much younger than that, and youths should be allowed their own beliefs without bringing their parents' beliefs into it if they choose.

 

Ultimately they have a right to their own rules.

Kids younger than 18 should be allowed to disavow their family?  I don't think that's a good idea at all.

[Maus]

I commented on the Deseret News article.  This is what I said:

 

"Baptism is a covenant – a binding agreement. While it binds you to some blessings, it also binds you to a commitment to live a certain standard, and binds you to the consequences of not doing so. How would it be fair or loving to bind a young child to a standard (and its consequence) they will not be taught at home, nor be supported in living?"