LDS church redefines apostasy to include same sex marriage

[8circles]

Because a member who has sinned and had a baby out of wedlock is not always excommunicated. Yes it is/was a sin to have sex outside of marriage but if they are repentant and making the best of their choices they are supported. A same sex couple who marry and choose to have children together in some way are living currently (not past sin) in direct opposition to the churches teachings. It really is not the same thing. They wouldn't even still be members so I'm not even sure where the baby would be assigned. In order to be blessed and become on the records there has to be a family to attach the record to. The same sex family is not part of the church so blessing any children doesn't make any sense. It would be he same as a non member coming to the bishop and asking for their baby to get a name and blessing. That doesn't happen either that I am aware.

Ummmmmm, what?

 

I understand the eternal family thing in lds rheology, but is there REALLY no standard way for them to handle baptized children without baptized parents? Come. On. I'm not buying it.

[justasque]

My first inclination was to say this would punish children for their parents' sin. But, the more I've thought about it, the more I can see how the church actually is looking out for child, family, and church. Asking a child to disavow everything they've known and grown up with at a young age and while still living at home is almost cruel. It certainly would put a lot of stress and strain on that person and his/her family. What sort of long-term consequences would happen? Is a child or youth capable of understanding family relationships, mental health, spiritual health years down the road? Are all of our bishops, stake presidents, and mission presidents well enough versed in mental health and family relationships to make that decision? Especially since we are a lay ministry? I think there are long-term and complicated ramifications we are possibly not seeing or are incapable of understanding.

Of course it's messy to be in a situation where your church's teachings are in conflict with the structure of your family. But this LDS ruling only applies to situations where the parents have a positive enough relationship with the church that they give permission for their child to be baptized - that is, the parents are OK with their child's participation in the church, despite the potential conflicts. They have presumably weighed the pros and cons on behalf of their child, and decided that baptism within the church is a net "pro".

 

Lots of families of various faiths walk this path of family vs. church teachings on a daily basis, and over time the trend has been more and more towards keeping GLBTQ kids (and by extension their offspring) in the heart of the family, even if it's messy at times because of religious teachings. This is similar to the trend of accepting unmarried mothers, and treating their children born out of wedlock as full-fledged family members. Accepting gay kids or unmarried mothers was rare and shocking fifty years ago. But looking back, we've learned that there are significant benefits to the family as whole when we embrace these "imperfect" (?!) children (and their children), rather than shunning them (or in this case asking the grandchildren to shun their parents by moving out of their parents' home, never to return.

[Lawana]

Ummmmmm, what?

 

I understand the eternal family thing in lds rheology, but is there REALLY no standard way for them to handle baptized children without baptized parents? Come. On. I'm not buying it.

Whether you buy it or not is up to you. But it is in fact true. It happens all the time in the mission field.

[Lawana]

Of course it's messy to be in a situation where your church's teachings are in conflict with the structure of your family. But this LDS ruling only applies to situations where the parents have a positive enough relationship with the church that they give permission for their child to be baptized - that is, the parents are OK with their child's participation in the church, despite the potential conflicts. They have presumably weighed the pros and cons on behalf of their child, and decided that baptism within the church is a net "pro".

 

Lots of families of various faiths walk this path of family vs. church teachings on a daily basis, and over time the trend has been more and more towards keeping GLBTQ kids (and by extension their offspring) in the heart of the family, even if it's messy at times because of religious teachings. This is similar to the trend of accepting unmarried mothers, and treating their children born out of wedlock as full-fledged family members. Accepting gay kids or unmarried mothers was rare and shocking fifty years ago. But looking back, we've learned that there are significant benefits to the family as whole when we embrace these imperfect children (and their children), rather than shunning them (or in this case asking the grandchildren to shun their parents by moving out of their parents' home, never to return).

I agree with much of this, but can't like it because of the reference to imperfect children.

[8circles]

Whether you buy it or not is up to you. But it is in fact true. It happens all the time in the mission field.

What about orphans? What about new converts with no family ties to the Mormon Church?

 

Eta: it sounds like "you can't be baptized, because paperwork"

[Amira]

Ummmmmm, what?

 

I understand the eternal family thing in lds rheology, but is there REALLY no standard way for them to handle baptized children without baptized parents? Come. On. I'm not buying it.

 

Children can be both blessed and baptized without parents who are baptized.  It's not common, but it certainly isn't unheard of.

[justasque]

I agree with much of this, but can't like it because of the reference to imperfect children.

Ack!!! I should have put that in scare quotes. I will fix it. Because children are perfect just the way God made them. IMHO anyway.

[Lawana]

What about orphans? Why about new converts with no family ties to the Mormon Church?

 

Eta: it sounds like "you can't be baptized, because paperwork"

I'm sorry, I am not understanding your meaning here. Please explain further.

[8circles]

I'm sorry, I am not understanding your meaning here. Please explain further.

I don't understand how not having a family to be connected to means one cannot be baptized. The poster I originally quoted said that was a reason for this new policy. That sounds like a paperwork/administration issue.

 

Maybe since my question is confusing I am grossly misunderstanding the explanation.

 

I'm happy to be corrected, honestly.

[Butter]

I don't understand how not having a family to be connected to means one cannot be baptized. The poster I originally quoted said that was a reason for this new policy. That sounds like a paperwork/administration issue.

 

Maybe since my question is confusing I am grossly misunderstanding the explanation.

 

I'm happy to be corrected, honestly.

 

I went back and looked and I think I figured out where the confusion started.  busymama was talking about blessing infants and you responded talking about baptism.  Those are two different things.  When a baby is given a name and a blessing a membership record is created for them.  That must be attached to another (generally parental, sometimes grandparent) record.  A child of record is a child who has not been baptized yet (since we don't do that until age 8).  Baptism is done at 8 or later and then a child/adult is a member of the church.  You do not have to be attached to any other record regardless of age, though of course generally those who are baptized without any other family members in the church are adults and sometimes older teens.  I don't understand Lawana's response to you because a convert baptism does not need a family to assign them to even though she seemed to indicate they do.  It's very, very uncommon for a child under 14ish (really 16 or 17) to be baptized without a family being in the church, though.  But a membership record can of course be generated for anyone who is baptized.  My parents are converts.  My husband is a convert.  Until we got married and my record was joined with his, he was listed as just himself in his household.

[8circles]

I went back and looked and I think I figured out where the confusion started. busymama was talking about blessing infants and you responded talking about baptism. Those are two different things. When a baby is given a name and a blessing a membership record is created for them. That must be attached to another (generally parental, sometimes grandparent) record. A child of record is a child who has not been baptized yet (since we don't do that until age 8). Baptism is done at 8 or later and then a child/adult is a member of the church. You do not have to be attached to any other record regardless of age, though of course generally those who are baptized without any other family members in the church are adults and sometimes older teens. I don't understand Lawana's response to you because a convert baptism does not need a family to assign them to even though she seemed to indicate they do. It's very, very uncommon for a child under 14ish (really 16 or 17) to be baptized without a family being in the church, though. But a membership record can of course be generated for anyone who is baptized. My parents are converts. My husband is a convert. Until we got married and my record was joined with his, he was listed as just himself in his household.

OK, yes, that seems clearer to me. Thank you for straightening out my misunderstanding. I think I get it now. Carry on!

[Mom-ninja.]

My first inclination was to say this would punish children for their parents' sin. But, the more I've thought about it, the more I can see how the church actually is looking out for child, family, and church. Asking a child to disavow everything they've known and grown up with at a young age and while still living at home is almost cruel. It certainly would put a lot of stress and strain on that person and his/her family. What sort of long-term consequences would happen? Is a child or youth capable of understanding family relationships, mental health, spiritual health years down the road? Are all of our bishops, stake presidents, and mission presidents well enough versed in mental health and family relationships to make that decision? Especially since we are a lay ministry? I think there are long-term and complicated ramifications we are possibly not seeing or are incapable of understanding.

 

Asking a person to disavow a loved one at *any* age is cruel. Just because one turns 18 does not make mental health, family relationship issues, and spiritual health risks magically go away. 

[blondeviolin]

Asking a person to disavow a loved one at *any* age is cruel. Just because one turns 18 does not make mental health, family relationship issues, and spiritual health risks magically go away.

.

 

Nobody is asking anyone to disavow loved ones. The change does ask for certain people to disavow the PRACTICE of same gender cohabitation.

[Mom-ninja.]

.

 

Nobody is asking anyone to disavow loved ones. The change does ask for certain people to disavow the PRACTICE of same gender cohabitation.

 

Sure, ok. 

[Amira]

.

 

Nobody is asking anyone to disavow loved ones. The change does ask for certain people to disavow the PRACTICE of same gender cohabitation.

 

The not living with your parents part does sound to me like disavowing a person rather than a practice.

[Amira]

The Church has been saying all afternoon that they'll be releasing a statement about this today.  Maybe it'll be out in the next hour.

[DesertBlossom]

Asking a person to disavow a loved one at *any* age is cruel. Just because one turns 18 does not make mental health, family relationship issues, and spiritual health risks magically go away. 

 

No, but a grown adult is much more capable of navigating the consequences of choosing a religion that teaches doctrine contrary to what they were taught in their families growing up.  

 

I think this new rule protects gay families.  The church has always declared that the family is central to God's plan and the church exists to support the family.  I can see why the church would not want to be in a position where they were teaching a child that his/her family unit was contrary to God's laws. I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but the same rule exists for children of polygamist parents. They can't be baptized until they are 18 either, but there's no uproar over that.  

[HRAAB]

The not living with your parents part does sound to me like disavowing a person rather than a practice.

Is there any other situation where an adult Mormon could not live with a parent (or other person) without jeopardizing their relationship with the church. Are there other sinful lifestyles (living together) that fall under the same rules?

[Amira]

Is there any other situation where an adult Mormon could not live with a parent (or other person) without jeopardizing their relationship with the church. Are there other sinful lifestyles (living together) that fall under the same rules?

 

I'm not sure what the exact rules are regarding children of polygamous couples living with their parents, but that's the only circumstance I'm aware of where there might be a specific rule like that.  That is a major reason why this new policy is so surprising to me.  To me, it doesn't match past practice even though I've participated in many discussions today where people claim that it does.

[DesertBlossom]

I guess I'm thoroughly confuzzled. I don't understand how rejecting anyone with a heart for God leads to blessings of any kind, ever. This isn't my faith tradition but that's one of the major threads that binds Christians of all kinds together, no?

 

I don't think the term "rejecting" is accurate.  All are invited to church. However, full participation and being able to take part in certain ordinances requires a commitment to live up to certain standards. That includes not having any sexual contact outside of marriage. It means abstaining from alcohol and drugs. It means paying a 10 percent tithe on all income. And much more.  But everyone who is interested in joining the church is invited to make any necessary changes to their lives so they can be baptized.  And it's not uncommon for a person to make mistakes that put their membership in jeopardy, but they are still invited to return to full fellowship in the church when they have made the necessary changes.  

 

With regard to the children of gay parents, they would be allowed to attend church and it's other activities, just not be formally baptized until they are legal adults.  But they aren't being rejected. I know several young men and women who attend church faithfully but aren't able to be baptized because their parents will not give permission. They are still lovingly welcomed to activities and church meetings. 

[Amira]

Here's a specific example of a child who couldn't help feeling rejected by this policy.  I know the people described personally.  

 

An LDS mixed-orientation couple was married for about 10 years and then divorced. They share joint custody of their children.  They are both amazing parents and do a good job of parenting together even though they are no longer married.  He married his husband a few years later and is no longer a member of the church, but he has agreed to having his children baptized which his ex-wife has taken care of.  Two of their three children have been baptized, but the third isn't eight yet. 

 

According to the current wording of this policy, and without some clarification, their third child cannot be baptized until she is 18.  She will go to church every week the year she turns 8 and hear about baptism.  She will go to the baptisms of her friends.  Her parents want her to get baptized.  Her brother and sister have been baptized. Her cousins have been baptized.  How will she not feel rejected by what seems to be an arbitrary rule that bans her from getting baptized?  How is her situation any different from her siblings?

[Heidi]

I don't know. I wish something official from the church will be published quickly to answer our questions and hopefully make sense of it all.

[poppy]

.

 

Nobody is asking anyone to disavow loved ones. The change does ask for certain people to disavow the PRACTICE of same gender cohabitation.

 

I don't reject you, I just reject your marriage and your spouse.  Sure.

[Scarlett]

As I see it......churches get to make their own rules.  So there is that. If you don't like it don't join.  I can't imagine the circumstances where I would not want to be part of a church/religious organization but I want my child to be.   My XH is probably in that category....but yeah he is weird and all.  

 

Kids grow up and make their own way.  

 

 

[poppy]

Absolutely not.  Not even sort of.  We don't even use the word "saved."

 

 

No one is asking anyone to shun their LGBT parents (or children).  Non-members, no matter who they are, are always welcome at church.  Often people don't even know they aren't members.

 

Ok thanks for the answer. 

But I thought "saved" and "salvation" were the same, in essence. No? Genuine question.

[Btervet]

Someone of the responses (in this thread and elsewhere) are infuriating. I'm trying not to get angry about it (I still care greatly about the LDS community and love many Mormon relatives/friends). Ex-Mormon and LGBTIQ advocate here, so, biased, but I'm trying to see the logic here.

 

Did people forget what it's like to be a Mormon kid? It's not easy when your family isn't perfect. When you can't enter the temple but all your friends are, you feel shunned. When everyone else in the Church is baptized, but you can't be, you feel shunned. The Mormon culture, especially teenagers, has a problem being judgmental about being a 'perfect' Mormon. What the church Elder's need to be doing is showing their kids how to be loving towards others,  not giving them more reasons to shun them. This seriously makes me so sad. 

 

The logic that the church is trying to protect the integrity of gay families is just baffling. If you want to respect their family, then only baptize their kids if they have parental permission. Why require the kid to disavow the parents? Why require them to be 18? Why require that they cannot live with their parents? 

 

And what about the parents of gay kids? Can they not be baptized, or get a temple recommend, if their kid lives with them? If they attend their kids marriage? If they love their kid, no matter the choices said kid makes?

 

Blah. There is nothing, nothing, loving about this. 

 

I sure am glad my parents' place in the church wasn't jeopardized when I failed at being a good Mormon girl. 

[Amira]

Ok thanks for the answer. 

But I thought "saved" and "salvation" were the same, in essence. No? Genuine question.

 

It's really, really hard to be damned in the LDS Church.  

 

We do use the word salvation, but it means something different than the way many other Christians use the word saved.  If you think of saved as being resurrected and living in glory after death, then everyone (except those few who are damned) is saved.  And I mean everyone who ever lived on the earth.

[Heidi]

http://lds.net/blog/buzz/lds-news/myths-on-new-mormons-and-gays-policy/

 

So this is the best explanation that I've found out there. Makes a little more sense to me, but... I'm going to have to think about this one for a while.

[blondeviolin]

http://lds.net/blog/buzz/lds-news/myths-on-new-mormons-and-gays-policy/

 

So this is the best explanation that I've found out there. Makes a little more sense to me, but... I'm going to have to think about this one for a while.

This is another good one. If you can even slightly, minusculely entertain the idea that this policy is NOT out there to be descriminatory or to shun or to shame the parents, continue to consider those things. If you can open your mind to the idea that the First Presidency is not doing this to be hurtful or vindictive, then maybe it is out of love and protection.

 

I know that idea is repulsive and offensive to some who cannot fathom how that is possible.

 

ETA: I forgot the link: http://www.dannyras.com/blog/why-the-recent-lds-policy-change-is-actually-pro-gay-family

[Sneezyone]

This is another good one. If you can even slightly, minusculely entertain the idea that this policy is NOT out there to be descriminatory or to shun or to shame the parents, continue to consider those things. If you can open your mind to the idea that the First Presidency is not doing this to be hurtful or vindictive, then maybe it is out of love and protection.

 

I know that idea is repulsive and offensive to some who cannot fathom how that is possible.

 

ETA: I forgot the link: http://www.dannyras.com/blog/why-the-recent-lds-policy-change-is-actually-pro-gay-family

I don't really have a quibble with what any particular sect chooses to do with respect to recognizing SSM but there is something fundamentally wrong with not allowing children to serve God openly, and fully, through baptism and other rites, with or without parental involvement. It goes against everything I know to be true about Christianity. We do not import the sins of the parents onto the children. That is hateful and punitive toward innocents. Requiring them to abandon their families is hateful and punitive too. We do not choose our families. I actually have/had been swayed by some of my LDS acquaintances that all was not as it once was (as a black kid I was warned away from roving missionaries many times growing up) but, man, this is not a good look.

[blondeviolin]

I don't really have a quibble with what any particular sect chooses to do with respect to recognizing SSM but there is something fundamentally wrong with not allowing children to serve God openly, and fully, through baptism and other rights, with or without parental involvement. It goes against everything I know to be true about Christianity. We do not import the sins of the parents onto the children. That is hateful and punitive toward innocents. Requiring them to abandon their families is hateful and punitive too. We do not choose our families. I actually have/had been swayed by some of my LDS acquaintances that all was not as it once was (as a black kid I was warned away from roving missionaries many times growing up) but, man, this is not a good look.

Many sects DO import the sins of parents onto children. Original sin?

 

I maintain that this protects children from making choices when they can't fully comprehend the consequences. This same policy is in place for children of FLDS families. It is not foreign that a child may want to be baptized and one or both parents don't allow it.

 

I don't feel that these children have to abandon families, but they do have to live on their own and be of age.

[Lawana]

As I see it......churches get to make their own rules. So there is that. If you don't like it don't join. I can't imagine the circumstances where I would not want to be part of a church/religious organization but I want my child to be. My XH is probably in that category....but yeah he is weird and all.

 

Kids grow up and make their own way.

Yes, churches do get to make their own rules. Great numbers of Mormons are not converts, but are from families that have been in the church for generations. For many, and I am speaking from personal experience here, the LDS church defines and consumes our lives. I was born a 5th and 6th generation Mormon in Utah. My forbears crossed the plains pulling handcarts and in wagon trains, arriving in the Salt Lake valley soon after Brigham Young. My maternal grandmother, good Mormon that she was, had 6 children, 34 grandchildren and 99 great-grandchildren. Virtually every event in my family life was centered around the church. And even for those that were strictly family, the conversation often revolved around religious topics. It was the whole of our culture. All my school friends were LDS. In high school, we walked across the street every day for release time seminary that was noted on our school schedule.

 

Prior to my generation, no one left the church, so we are talking lots of extended family that shared a highly structured, pervasive culture. Now imagine that one of these family members is gay. Just deciding that since the LDS church is not gay friendly, you might just go check out the church down the street is not going to happen, because you, and all your family members, know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the church is the only true church on Earth. And turning your back on the church and its teachings leaves you eternally separated from the whole of your family.

 

So no, kids don't typically grow up and make their own way in this culture. Yes, some leave, and more are leaving than ever before. But it creates a rift that often is not spanned.

 

Being gay, and knowing that one must deny that very part of themselves in order to continue to be accepted and follow the straight and narrow way, or deciding to accept the gay aspect, knowing the inevitable conflict with church, leaves one in a completely untenable situation. There is no good solution. Which is why I am hurting for all those in my family and out, who will have no good outcome. This latest pronouncement just widens the gulf.

 

I am not trying to pick on you, Scarlett, but am using your comment as a springboard.

[Sneezyone]

Many sects DO import the sins of parents onto children. Original sin?

 

I maintain that this protects children from making choices when they can't fully comprehend the consequences. This same policy is in place for children of FLDS families. It is not foreign that a child may want to be baptized and one or both parents don't allow it.

 

I don't feel that these children have to abandon families, but they do have to live on their own and be of age.

Why shouldn't all children have to wait until age 18? Adopting any faith is a monumental decision. Shouldn't they all need to fully comprehend the consequences of belonging and be on their own? Either there is a an easier path for a preferred child or there's not.

[KungFuPanda]

If history has taught us anything it's that, with the right amount of political pressure, the LDS church will redefine marriage.

[gardenmom5]

Many sects DO import the sins of parents onto children. Original sin?

 

I maintain that this protects children from making choices when they can't fully comprehend the consequences. This same policy is in place for children of FLDS families. It is not foreign that a child may want to be baptized and one or both parents don't allow it.

 

I don't feel that these children have to abandon families, but they do have to live on their own and be of age.

 

all minors must have their parents permission to be baptized - especially if the parents are not church members. (this is also true for families where one parent is a church member, and the other parent is not.)  that is for the protection of the children, because some parents are very very hard on children who choose differently than they do. 

 

 when you have children growing up with such profoundly different standards of conduct - it can take real commitment to go against what they have been taught by their parents their entire lives.  believe me i know - I'm going to be blunt (and share some facts of my life I don't' think I've mentioned here before.) starting when I was 14, my mother would bring her married lover into our house so they could "get it on". at times, this was almost daily.  just thinking about him makes me feel gross. for years she attempted to trick me into making comments supportive of her behavior.  long after I moved out, was married, and had my own children;  she was still attempting to trick me to get my approbation.  (she is always the one who brought it up.  I never did.  there was no point.)

 

I didn't say anything until I was ready to stand against her example (and especially my grandmother's anger.) - knowing that I was going to get a lot of flack for it.  (and I did.)  I was eventually able to love my mother (I realized my grandmother was NPD) - but what she was doing during that time was flat out wrong. (even my siblings thought it was wrong.  and they slept around and used drugs!)  it should be noted - of her children, I was the only one with the standard.  I was ALSO the child she trusted the most.  when I said I loved her, she *knew* I meant it. 

 

 

eta: I want to add I do know a woman who was thrown out of her house when she joined the church.  she was 18, but lived at home.  it is very traumatic.  (I strongly suspect had it been up to my grandmother - I'd have been thrown out.)  the point is to protect young people until they are in a position to stand on their own.

[Joker]

Many sects DO import the sins of parents onto children. Original sin?

 

I maintain that this protects children from making choices when they can't fully comprehend the consequences. This same policy is in place for children of FLDS families. It is not foreign that a child may want to be baptized and one or both parents don't allow it.

 

I don't feel that these children have to abandon families, but they do have to live on their own and be of age.

 

If this is truly the case, then no minor should be allowed to be baptized. If this is the stance they are taking, then maybe no child in LDS should be allowed to be baptized until they are legally an adult. 

[blondeviolin]

If this is truly the case, then no minor should be allowed to be baptized. If this is the stance they are taking, then maybe no child in LDS should be allowed to be baptized until they are legally an adult.

Except, in other circumstances, parents are observing, evaluating, and teaching the consequences for and with the child. In the case of a child of SSM parents, the church and the parents are in direct opposition.

[Xuzi]

Except, in other circumstances, parents are observing, evaluating, and teaching the consequences for and with the child. In the case of a child of SSM parents, the church and the parents are in direct opposition.

But, again, there are many many children with one or more parents who live in "opposition" to church teachings who don't have to go through these hoops.

[Heidi]

.

[Joker]

Except, in other circumstances, parents are observing, evaluating, and teaching the consequences for and with the child. In the case of a child of SSM parents, the church and the parents are in direct opposition.

 

 

We're Catholic. My dd is gay. The only opposition she has with the church is in regards to same sex relationships. She agrees with them on pretty much everything else. She loves the church. 

 

You don't honestly think you know what every family believes or teaches do you? How are offenses handled that aren't related to marriage? Are those children also not allowed to be baptized or are they given a pass because...?

[blondeviolin]

You don't honestly think you know what every family believes or teaches do you? How are offenses handled that aren't related to marriage? Are those children also not allowed to be baptized or are they given a pass because...?

 

No I don't think I know what every family believes. BUT, each child who is to be baptized is interviewed and deemed worthy and/or capable of baptism for it to be approved. And it's none of my business if/why someone has been approved or denied baptism.

 

There are pieces here that not everyone has. There are surely matters and concerns the First Presidency deals wih regularly enough to make this guideline. Is it really bigoted of me to want to believe that this is a measure of protection to families and children? That, if this is God's church, then, as unpopular it seems, God is directing His church with a perfect perspective? The policy for these under-aged kids is not Never; it is Not Right Now.

[Lawana]

But, again, there are many many children with one or more parents who live in "opposition" to church teachings who don't have to go through these hoops.

Exactly. Let's make an apples to apples comparison. Take a child of parents who are either divorced or never married. One of the parents is living with a person of the opposite sex without being married, and gives permission for the child to be baptized. There is no policy that prohibits a baptism under these circumstances, even though the purported sin is exactly the same: sex outside of marriage.

 

Is there something in the LDS church that makes gay sex in a legal marriage more wrong than straight sex outside of a legal marriage? And if so, why? Perhaps they should reword the question about the law of chastity. Make it two parts- gay chastity and straight chastity.

[sewingmama]

I'm LDS and this is the first I heard of it.. I can get on board with declaring same sex marriage as apostasy as it is contrary to the churches teachings...but to punish the children...I won't ever accept that...it's not right.

 

And disavowing your parents to get baptised...no way..no matter what my parents did/do I would never disavow them to become LDS. My parents make their own choices that have nothing to do with me..I won't stop loving them.

 

I can see it coming...parents will soon be asked to disown thier children for being gay. I WOULD NEVER reject my children for the church...it isnt in me...I couldn't do it. I am temple married and endowed and if that day comes where I was asked to reject my kids for something they did I would happliy leave.

[blondeviolin]

Here is Elder Christofferson's response: http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-new-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com

[Joker]

I'm LDS and this is the first I heard of it.. I can get on board with declaring same sex marriage as apostasy as it is contrary to the churches teachings...but to punish the children...I won't ever accept that...it's not right.

 

And disavowing your parents to get baptised...no way..no matter what my parents did/do I would never disavow them to become LDS. My parents make their own choices that have nothing to do with me..I won't stop loving them.

 

I can see it coming...parents will soon be asked to disown thier children for being gay. I WOULD NEVER reject my children for the church...it isnt in me...I couldn't do it. I am temple married and endowed and if that day comes where I was asked to reject my kids for something they did I would happliy leave.

 

 

Yes, and this is why I'm having such a reaction to it and I'm not even LDS. It's absolutely hideous to think some are moving in a direction which says they must kick out and reject their own children. I don't get how the LDS leaders say once you hit 18 you must disavow and move out of your parent's home if they are homosexual and not take it a step further to affect parents of homosexual children. Why is there only talk so far of one and not the other. What happens to parents who allow their homosexual children to continue living in their homes? 

[sewingmama]

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 they decided to stay in the BSA because they were allowed to choose leaders in accordance with their standards ie. not gay.

 

I was actually disaapointed as the church was saying they were going to introduce their own program for boys. Here in Australia there are no church run scout groups and was I hoping my boys would finally get a program to participate in...nope. I enrolled them in the local non-church Scout group the next day..If they get a gay Scout leader..I am fine with it. I just get tired of the USA being the only ones considered in this supposed world wide church.

[Lawana]

Here is Elder Christofferson's response: http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-new-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com

So it really isn't about the law of chastity at all. It's about being gay.

[sewingmama]

We're Catholic and dd is gay. I'm not expected to shun her and kick her out at 18.

 

I don't get this at all.

I have to agree with this. What happens on the other end...if your child is gay do you have to kick them out of home at 18 and never let them come back...I could never do that.

 

I know plenty of LDS parents with gay children...I wouldn't want to be them right now.

 

And it doesn't matter what kind of compassionate spin the church puts as an explanation...there are plenty of fundamentalist LDS people who will use this as an excuse to shun thier kids or parents in public ...to give support that it is ok to treat your family members this way.

 

It isn't.

[blondeviolin]

Just FYI, Elder Christofferson has a brother who is homosexual (http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-leader-uses-family-as-example-of-harmony-between-church-gays). This obviously a subject that he is very close to.

[sewingmama]

Someone of the responses (in this thread and elsewhere) are infuriating. I'm trying not to get angry about it (I still care greatly about the LDS community and love many Mormon relatives/friends). Ex-Mormon and LGBTIQ advocate here, so, biased, but I'm trying to see the logic here.

 

Did people forget what it's like to be a Mormon kid? It's not easy when your family isn't perfect. When you can't enter the temple but all your friends are, you feel shunned. When everyone else in the Church is baptized, but you can't be, you feel shunned. The Mormon culture, especially teenagers, has a problem being judgmental about being a 'perfect' Mormon. What the church Elder's need to be doing is showing their kids how to be loving towards others, not giving them more reasons to shun them. This seriously makes me so sad.

 

 

As a born out of wedlock child ( before my mum joined the church) and then growing up in the LDS church with a single parent I was always accutely aware of being different. We were never able to be sealed but had to sit through countless lessons on how being sealed is the only way to make it to heaven with your family.

 

We were never invited to peoples places for dinner unless the other person was also a single parent because Oh my gosh what if my mum steals the husband and we were never allowed the missionaries over for dinner in case Oh my gosh what if my mum has inappropriate relations with them.

 

We had no Dad so my brothers missed out on the father and son camps because no one would take them ...same as Scouts.. same as everything really.

 

If you aren't the right type of LDS family then you don't ever really fit in.