LDS church redefines apostasy to include same sex marriage

[Xuzi]

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?"

If a gay couple give the go-ahead for their child to be baptized I would assume their support of the child living the standards would be included.

[Mom-ninja.]

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

 

"they"? 

 

Mexico kicked you out? ;)

[BrookValley.]

Sounds to me like another policy to isolate young people from their families--can't live with your parents if they're in a same-sex relationship, can only have very limited contact with your family if you're on a mission, non-members can't attend your temple wedding...seems like a breeding ground for spiritual, emotional, and other kinds of abuse. Quite frankly, it's creepy.

[BrookValley.]

"they"?

 

Mexico kicked you out? ;)

Anyone else wondering what Amira got up to to get kicked out of Mexico? I bet it's a great story. Lol

[Amira]

"they"? 

 

Mexico kicked you out? ;)

 

Well, technically they did since my visa ended.  I suppose I could have stayed...

[Maus]

If a gay couple give the go-ahead for their child to be baptized I would assume their support of the child living the standards would be included.

 

Hopefully.  And that's assuming the child is seeking baptism, and not that the parents are asking for it.  I would assume that if the Bishop felt like the child really was going to be supported, that would be one of the instances where they could ask for an exception.

 

The child would also need to be mature enough to understand that the parents' lifestyle choice is in conflict with Church doctrine, and be able to understand that you can love your parents without accepting their choices.

 

As I recall from my childhood development class years ago, the very last developmental milestone is being able to see gray in your thinking, and not just black and white, or in other words, to deal with that kind of conflict.  It happens, on average, between ages 16 to 26.

 

I think the Church is very wise and loving to ask a child in that situation to wait until that age range.

[Butter]

In the LDS Church, sometimes things aren't actually done as strictly as the handbook might indicate depending on circumstances.  For example, my friend's husband did something that is absolutely ex-communicatable.  It was bad.  BUT he was very, very repentant and he was not caught, but instead confessed.  He was not ex-communicated.  Now, according to the handbook he could have been, but the local leaders had leeway.

 

I know a girl with a father who left the mother after the child was born because he is gay.  He is living with a partner.  She is living with her mother and step-father.  She has little to no contact with her father (his choice, sadly).  It is very likely that sort of situation would be grounds for the child to be baptized at 8.  Circumstances.

 

Now, I was at a loss by the blessing of a baby thing because it's not a saving ordinance.  There are cases, however, where parents of an inactive child will take that inactive child's baby and insist on it being blessed, or worse, baptized, whether the inactive child wants them to or not.  Now think of that situation where the inactive child (or even non-member) is married to someone of the same sex and the active LDS parents (grandparents) disapprove of same sex marriage.  It would be 100% wrong for the parents (grandparents) to take their grandchild and have the baby blessed or child baptized against the parents of the child's wishes.  This rules give leaders something they can point to and say, "No, you cannot do that."

[Spy Car]

Well, technically they did since my visa ended.  I suppose I could have stayed...

 

Would be kind of funny to be an illegal immigrant :D

 

Bill

[Amira]

Anyone else wondering what Amira got up to to get kicked out of Mexico? I bet it's a great story. Lol

 

I should make up a good one.  A better one than dh's job assignment ending. :)

[Mom-ninja.]

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?"

 

The same can be said for parents with many different beliefs and lifestyles. What if the parents are _____ and have a _____ household? 

 

Fill in the blanks with pretty much anything:

 

Catholic

Muslim

Jewish

Atheist

Buddhist

Hindu

7th Day Adventist

Unmarried parents

 

Are the children living in these households prohibited baptism until they are 18 regardless of parental support of them choosing to become Mormon? 

 

No. 

 

I am atheist and I am raising my kids as atheist. If one of my kids started going to LDS church, and decided to become baptized (being over the age of 8) and I gave my consent they would be allowed to be baptized. It doesn't matter that I am atheist and would continue to have an atheist household. 

[Lawana]

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.

And there are even believing Mormons who are gay and want to stay in the church, so a child could potentially have both same sex parents be believing, and the child themselves want to be in the church, and now be shut out.

[Amira]

And there are even believing Mormons who are gay and want to stay in the church, so a child could potentially have both same sex parents be believing, and the child themselves want to be in the church, and now be shut out.

 

Yes, there are.  Not a lot, of course, but there are.

[Maus]

The children can still attend church.  So can the same-sex couple, for that matter.  They can't be called on to teach or to give a sermon, but they are free to comment in class, participate in service projects, etc.  They can be very much part of the church community.

[SKL]

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

 

That's not what I said at all.  I don't see why anyone of any age needs to "disavow" anything about their family in order to make their own personal choices.

[redsquirrel]

Here is a news story about it

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us/mormons-gay-marriage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

"Children of same-sex couples will not be able to join the Mormon Church until they turn 18 — and only if they move out of their parents’ homes, disavow all same-sex relationships and receive approval from the church’s top leadership as part of a new policy adopted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

In addition, Mormons in same-sex marriages will be considered apostates and subject to excommunication, a more rigid approach than the church has taken in the past.

The new policies were contained in a handbook for lay leaders that was disseminated on Thursday to those who administer the church’s 30,000 congregations around the world. The church made no public announcement of the change, but it was leaked to the news media and confirmed by a church spokesman.

 

.

.

.

 

Before the handbook change, bishops and congregational leaders had more discretion in whether or how far to discipline Mormons in same-sex marriages. Now same-sex marriage has been added to a list of conditions considered apostasy, which means Mormons in same-sex marriages will be subject to disciplinary hearings that result in excommunication."

 

 

I only know ex-Mormons and they are all gay. They already see themselves as forced out of their faith, unwanted etc.  I think this is going to be a bigger deal for young people.  Can you imagine coming out to your parents and no only having to tell them YOU are now excommunicated, but your future children, their grandchildren, will be as well? 

 

Nice way to destroy families.

 

I wonder what they do if the 'children' are adults?  I know quite a few people who did not come out until later in life, when their kids had grown up.  Will the church require the adult children to renounce their parents to stay in the faith?

 

Oh well, one more reason to say 'no thank you' when the young Mormons show up at the door.  Maybe now I will just tell them I am a lesbian...they won't really  have anything left to say, will they? It might make them stop coming back.

[DesertBlossom]

Nice way to destroy families.

 

I wonder what they do if the 'children' are adults? I know quite a few people who did not come out until later in life, when their kids had grown up. Will the church require the adult children to renounce their parents to stay in the faith?

 

Oh well, one more reason to say 'no thank you' when the young Mormons show up at the door. Maybe now I will just tell them I am a lesbian...they won't really have anything left to say, will they? It might make them stop coming back.

I don't think you fully understand the policy. The children and grandchildren of gay parents will not be excommunicated. They are being told they can not be baptized until they are legal adults, at which point they can participate fully in the church. And that restriction is the same for a number of people, including children whose parents won't give permission.

 

Personally, I think it's wise. Same sex marriage is at odds with the very basic doctrines of the LDS church. So instead of putting a child between their family's values and the church's they are telling them they have to wait until they are older.

[HRAAB]

I don't think you fully understand the policy. The children and grandchildren of gay parents will not be excommunicated. They are being told they can not be baptized until they are legal adults, at which point they can participate fully in the church. And that restriction is the same for a number of people, including children whose parents won't give permission.

 

Personally, I think it's wise. Same sex marriage is at odds with the very basic doctrines of the LDS church. So instead of putting a child between their family's values and the church's they are telling them they have to wait until they are older.

I'm not LDS nor religious so I'm viewing this from an outside perspective but still with regard for LDS doctrine. I can see your point and perhaps understand it. What I can't understand is that the adult can no longer live with their parents. Would they be allowed extended visits of several weeks. Could they live in to care for a sick parent? What if in financial trouble would they be allowed to stay for an indefinite time period. I just can't wrap my mind around that, not that it matters in the last since I'm not a member. Also, what if the parent(s) are no longet living in a same sex relationship and choosing single life?

 

Lots of questions. I live in an area with a large percentage of LDS plus extended family. It will be interesting to see their reaction.

[busymama7]

I think another thing might be helpful to be pointed out.

 

According to lds doctrine, the blessing of babies is not a saving ordinance. It is a way to recognize that they are part of the church while not yet members as that happens at baptism. Any baby of a same sex marriage is not having any part of their salvation in jeopardy by not being blessed.

 

Baptism *is*required for salvation, however, we do not believe that those who are not baptized before they die are damned. We believe in proxy baptism and we also believe that all people will have the opportunity to be taught and given the choice to accept Jesus Christ at some point. Waiting until of legal age to make sacred covenants (two way promise, things are required of the new member as well as promised by God) does in no way jeopardize their eternal life. In other words, if a child wishes to be baptized at age 8 or 12 or 16 but can not be due to the family situation and tragically dies, that child will still have the opportunity to accept baptism and membership in Christs church. I know lots of young people who are active faithful participants in the lds church but are not official baptized members yet. They are welcomed and no long term harm or damnation will come to them.

 

Also my husband mentioned that this action may in part be due to the need to set legal precedence for not condoning same sex marriages even when legal. There have already been cases of same sex couples pushing for a temple wedding and the church may be laying down the foundation for a legal defense should such action be taken against the church.

[Xuzi]

But why only now? Gay marriage has been legal in various parts of the world where there are LDS members for over a decade now.

 

And the baby blessing not being a saving ordinance makes it even more bewildering to me that it wouldn't be allowed. Babies born to unmarried parents are blessed in Sacrament meeting all the time. What makes the gay couples' "sin" different enough from that that the consequence has to be extended to the child?

[Spy Car]

I'm sorry LDS friends. I realize church positions are not bound to the changing standards of the greater society, but this move will unfortunately have consequences in that regard.

 

Older members may remember the storm-clouds that were gathering in the late 70's over race. I remember it well. It was somewhat personal for me because one of the people I admired most was my long-time football coach, who was Mormon. I still remember the day and hour in June of 1978 when the news spread of Kimball's revelation. I'd just come out of a college religious studies class (where we were studying the LDS Church among other movements) and remember what great news it was to hear the position on priesthood had changed. The future of the LDS Church changed dramatically in that moment.

 

This news feels like the opposite sort of news. Sorry to say. 

 

My heart goes out to those who are hurt by this development. Sorry.

 

Bill

[poppy]

Hopefully.  And that's assuming the child is seeking baptism, and not that the parents are asking for it.  I would assume that if the Bishop felt like the child really was going to be supported, that would be one of the instances where they could ask for an exception.

 

The child would also need to be mature enough to understand that the parents' lifestyle choice is in conflict with Church doctrine, and be able to understand that you can love your parents without accepting their choices.

 

As I recall from my childhood development class years ago, the very last developmental milestone is being able to see gray in your thinking, and not just black and white, or in other words, to deal with that kind of conflict.  It happens, on average, between ages 16 to 26.

 

I think the Church is very wise and loving to ask a child in that situation to wait until that age range.

 

Don't members of the LDS church believe in (literal) damnation for those who aren't saved? You are going to you-know-where if you have gay parents, unless you make it to age 18 *and* reject them.

[busymama7]

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.

[busymama7]

Don't members of the LDS church believe in (literal) damnation for those who aren't saved? You are going to you-know-where if you have gay parents, unless you make it to age 18 *and* reject them.

No. Please see previous post of mine but this is not at all what we believe. Not even close

[Joker]

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.

[HRAAB]

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.

If another family member of very close friend promised to accept the responsibility of the religious formation of the child (like godparents on other churches), would it be allowed? Say the grandparents want their grandchild raised LDS and the parents are okay but don't attend themselves. Would that be allowed?

[HRAAB]

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.

Or the reverse, can you imagine your dd being denied the Eucharist if you were gay?

[MeghanL]

Hopefully.  And that's assuming the child is seeking baptism, and not that the parents are asking for it.  I would assume that if the Bishop felt like the child really was going to be supported, that would be one of the instances where they could ask for an exception.

 

The child would also need to be mature enough to understand that the parents' lifestyle choice is in conflict with Church doctrine, and be able to understand that you can love your parents without accepting their choices.

 

As I recall from my childhood development class years ago, the very last developmental milestone is being able to see gray in your thinking, and not just black and white, or in other words, to deal with that kind of conflict.  It happens, on average, between ages 16 to 26.

 

I think the Church is very wise and loving to ask a child in that situation to wait until that age range.

 

I disagree 100% that anything about this policy could be considered wise or loving. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Also my husband mentioned that this action may in part be due to the need to set legal precedence for not condoning same sex marriages even when legal. There have already been cases of same sex couples pushing for a temple wedding and the church may be laying down the foundation for a legal defense should such action be taken against the church.

 

Shenanigans.  They do not need a legal defense to perform only weddings endorsed by their religion.  If they are doing this to create a legal foundation they need to fire whatever charlatans they have as legal counsel.

[Xuzi]

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.

In the 2.5 years I've been in my current LDS congregation, two born-out-of-wedlock children have been given Blessings in Sacrament meeting. In one instance, the mother was a member, and was meeting with the Bishop to go through the repentance process for having sex outside of marriage. She was married a few months ago (to a different man) in the Temple.

 

The other baby had a father who was raised in the church, but very in-active. His parents were/are trying to get him involved with the Church again, and have been encouraging he and his non-LDS girlfriend to attend church meetings. They allowed their baby to be blessed, and in the year since then have come about once a month to church, but are nowhere nearer being full-fledged members of the faith. They're still "living in sin", as you say, but their child is being denied nothing by the Church.

 

I also grew up in a ward with a man who had four out-of-wedlock children who were Blessed, baptized, and allowed to participate in everything the Church had to offer it's members, even as their parents continued to have a "committed" relationship without marriage. The daughter was even my MiaMaid class president! (the class for 14/15 year old girls).

 

So... what is it about the children of gay couples that gives them this Special Snow Flake status that requires them to be treated with kid gloves when it comes to being allowed to participate fully within Christ's church? We in NO way treat the children of unmarried parents this way. Or the children of persons who are in prison. Or the children of alcoholics or porn-addicts or...

 

Why are these kids seen as too fragile for what we claim to be the Gospel of Christ?

[Dulce Domem]

I only read through about the 1/3 or the thread, but here are my thoughts - I am not LDS.  Never have been and never will be.  Therefore, I don't see why this is a concern of mine.  It is not my church.  They are a church, and they are entitled to hold their beliefs and function the way they see fit based off of what they consider to be their holy scriptures.  

 

Some may call it "hate" (I don't), but even if it is, individuals have a choice whether or not they want to engage with the hate.  

 

It gets sticky when you talk about situations like divorced parents, the one with custody is a practicing Mormon and the one without is in a same-sex marriage.  But again, not my church, not my faith, not my decision.  My heart goes out to them, but the LDS church gets to make the call for their group.

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

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.

 

Actually, didn't she say that they wouldn't allow her under any circumstances to be baptized because her family was too public? Their daughter had/has repeatedly said polygamy is not for her but that wasn't enough for the church.

[MinivanMom]

The children can still attend church.  So can the same-sex couple, for that matter.  They can't be called on to teach or to give a sermon, but they are free to comment in class, participate in service projects, etc.  They can be very much part of the church community.

 

Just to be clear, there is no prohibition on those who are gay teaching or giving sermons. The adult Sunday school teacher (gospel doctrine) in our ward is a single, gay man. Love his lessons.

 

What's peculiar to me about this new policy is that it's written as if there are no sticky, complicated family situations. You are either being raised by a married heterosexual couple or you're being raised by a married/co-habitating gay couple. Most family situations are not that straight forward.

 

-What happens to the child splitting time between heterosexual mom and dad/stepdad? 

-What if mom has primary custody and the child only visits the dads on alternating weekends? Does that change things? Are we going to have to start analyzing custodial agreements to make a determination?

-What if a boy is baptized at 8, then dad comes out and leaves mom to get married to stepdad? Is it okay that the little boy is already baptized? Will he no longer be allowed to be ordained and serve a mission? 

-What if the parent is gay and married, but the grandparents have legal custody and are raising the child? 

 

This policy isn't loving, and it sounds like it will cause a lot of confusion. I know many people who will see their children affected by this, and it hurts my heart.

[Lawana]

I reject all the spin that says this for the good of gay Mormons and their children.

 

There is a very high suicide rate amongst young LGBTQ LDS. I have a large extended family in Utah, most of whom are still LDS. None have been untouched by the loss of young person due to rejection by fellow LDS. And yet I have relatives posting in support of the hard, cruel line drawn by those in "authority".

[Butter]

Don't members of the LDS church believe in (literal) damnation for those who aren't saved? You are going to you-know-where if you have gay parents, unless you make it to age 18 *and* reject them.

 

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

 

I suppose shunning of children and adults who don't in turn shun their LBGT parents is marginally more polite than the actions of sects who throw LBGT people off buildings.

 

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.

[Butter]

Actually, didn't she say that they wouldn't allow her under any circumstances to be baptized because her family was too public? Their daughter had/has repeatedly said polygamy is not for her but that wasn't enough for the church.

 

Not according to the interview with her I read.  She said she had to disavow her parents' lifestyle and she couldn't do that.  She also said she *thinks* it's because her family is too public.

[Sneezyone]

Not according to the interview with her I read.  She said she had to disavow her parents' lifestyle and she couldn't do that.  She also said she *thinks* it's because her family is too public.

What does disavow mean then? She said it wasn't for her and has said that for years. How is that not a disavowal? And, by the same token, what would a child have to do to disavow their homosexual parent(s)? 

[MeghanL]

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.

 

Disavow means to deny any responsibility or support for. Synonyms are disown, repudiate and reject.

I'm also puzzled by your use of the word welcome. It would seem these policies are being enacted to create a very UNwelcome situation for LBQT people.

 

If that's the stance, please own it. Just say "those people" aren't wanted around you & yours. Don't try to sugar coat it that it's loving and you are welcome to come and hear your children disavow everything about you. 

[Lawana]

What does disavow mean then? She said it wasn't of her. How is that not a disavowal? And what would a child have to do to disavow their homosexual parent(s)?

I take it to mean that one must make a declaration that the actions are wrong. My mother has to disavow my sister's relationship every year in order to continue her status in the LDS church.

 

Edited for grammar, doh

[6packofun]

 

 

Totally OT fact ( thanks Wiki ) - Hinduism doesn't have a concept of apostasy. 

 

Apostasy is simply abandoning or renouncing a religious belief.  Hinduism is all over the place as far as God/gods/truth/Truh that it's not surprising that unbelief in any one specific thing isn't that big of a deal to that system.  (See your Wikipedia page: Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, pandeism, monism, and atheism among others; and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each individual and the tradition and philosophy followed.)  How aspects of any FEW of those could be concurrently true is mind-boggling.  LOL

[blondeviolin]

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.

[Amira]

There is a shunning issue here because apparently adults who want to be baptized cannot live with a parent who has ever been in a same-sex relationship and making rules about whether you can live with your own parents seems quite restrictive and harsh. 

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

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?

[Lawana]

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.

What is cruel is asking anyone to disavow an inherent, integral part of another human that is harming no one.

[Lawana]

And the cognitive dissonance thunders on.

[TammyS]

 

 

I am atheist and I am raising my kids as atheist. If one of my kids started going to LDS church, and decided to become baptized (being over the age of 8) and I gave my consent they would be allowed to be baptized. It doesn't matter that I am atheist and would continue to have an atheist household. 

 

Is that true?  I'm not LDS, but in my religion in order for a child to be baptized the parents 1. are giving consent for the baptism, on behalf of the child (because the child isn't old enough to consent for themselves) and 2. are promising to raise the child in the faith.

 

So, in my religion, you would not be able to have your children baptized, because you would be raising them in an "atheist household".  So, are you sure  that the LDS church would allow their baptism?

 

[HRAAB]

I take it to mean that one must make a declaration that the actions are wrong. My mother has to disavow my sister's relationship every year in order to continue her status in the LDS church.

 

Edited for grammar, doh

I assume your sister is an adult? what in the world could her relationship have to do with her mother? is this to obtain a temple recommend? If it's too private, I understand. This is just mind boggling to me.

[Lawana]

I assume your sister is an adult? what in the world could her relationship have to do with her mother? is this to obtain a temple recommend? If it's too private, I understand. This is just mind boggling to me.

Yes, my sister is an adult. And yes, it is for a temple recommend.

[Amira]

Is that true?  I'm not LDS, but in my religion in order for a child to be baptized the parents 1. are giving consent for the baptism, on behalf of the child (because the child isn't old enough to consent for themselves) and 2. are promising to raise the child in the faith.

 

So, in my religion, you would not be able to have your children baptized, because you would be raising them in an "atheist household".  So, are you sure  that the LDS church would allow their baptism?

 

 

Children can be baptized into the LDS church (at least, they could before yesterday) with the permission of their parents.  The parents don't have to promise to raise their child in the faith.  

[TammyS]

Children can be baptized into the LDS church (at least, they could before yesterday) with the permission of their parents.  The parents don't have to promise to raise their child in the faith.  

 

Does anyone have to make a promise regarding the child's religious education (a godparent or minister or something)?

[Xuzi]

Does anyone have to make a promise regarding the child's religious education (a godparent or minister or something)?

No. Other than the permission of the parents, it's considered between the Church and the Convert. There will be people in the congregation likely assigned to give the convert child special attention, help them navigate the church socially, give them rides to activities and church services, encourage them in their gospel learning etc. and the whole congregation is considered to be responsible to help ALL of the members grow in faith in some way, but there are no "god parents" in LDS practice.