S/O LDS Policy Change - 1st Presidency gives some clarification.

[Dancer_Mom]

Some... not a  lot.

 

https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?cid=HP_WE_11-11-2015_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-A_&lang=eng

 

In particular:

 

The policy should only be applied to children whose "primary residence" is a home with same gender parents. 

 

States that children living with same gender parents who are already baptized and are active, are not to have their ordinances curtailed, however seems to give leeway to local leaders to ultimately decide in the very next sentence.  I think I am reading that right.

 

Does not address at all the directive that they can't be living in the same home as their same gender parents after age 18.  Does not give clarification on 50/50 custody situations... I guess that's a no??  Does not address a family where half of the children may be currently baptized and the other half not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StephanieZ]

Ah, this makes sense. The new policy will add justification to ex-spouses and family court judges to make sure that a child does not have a primary residence with gay parents. 

 

Lovely. Just lovely. 

[Veritaserum]

The "clarification" still leaves a lot of confusion and a lot of God's children left out in the cold.

[albeto.]

. 

 

[Slache]

.

You were probably right anyway.

[MinivanMom]

Ah, this makes sense. The new policy will add justification to ex-spouses and family court judges to make sure that a child does not have a primary residence with gay parents. 

 

Lovely. Just lovely. 

 

Really? I would imagine it would have the opposite affect. Nowadays, most couples are automatically awarded joint custody, and judges take accusations of "parental alienation" very, very seriously. Parents are not allowed to speak ill of their ex-spouses or do anything that could harm their child's relationship with the other parent. I would imagine that the gay parent would have a very good case to gain primary custody if he/she can argue that the other household is a hostile environment.

 

Of course, I'm imagining the family court system I'm familiar with in California. Perhaps there's a very different atmosphere in Utah or other highly-LDS areas.

[StephanieZ]

Really? I would imagine it would have the opposite affect. Nowadays, most couples are automatically awarded joint custody, and judges take accusations of "parental alienation" very, very seriously. Parents are not allowed to speak ill of their ex-spouses or do anything that could harm their child's relationship with the other parent. I would imagine that the gay parent would have a very good case to gain primary custody if he/she can argue that the other household is a hostile environment.

 

Of course, I'm imagining the family court system I'm familiar with in California. Perhaps there's a very different atmosphere in Utah or other highly-LDS areas.

 

Oh, yes, very different . . . Remember that Utah is largely controlled/led by LDS members. 

 

I see the argument, "The LDS church is true and vitally important to the child and family . . . And if the child lives primarily with Mom and her partner . . . then poor child won't be able to participate fully in this vitally important church which we'd always agreed the child would be raised in . . . It's not me, Dad or my New Wife, who have any problem with Mom's sexuality, but . . . this church . . .

[umsami]

I don't think this clarification helps in any way, shape, or form.  I still think it is punishing innocent children (although I hesitate to use that term because I don't think that their parents are any less innocent).

 

I cannot imagine how painful it will be for some eight year old Mormon kids to watch their friends be baptized, and then see that they can't be because the two parents who love them to pieces (and may very well love their church as well) happen to be of the same sex.

 

[Melinda in VT]

The "clarification" reduces the number of children who will be barred from ordinances, but I think it makes the situation much, much worse for others. Because really, what every custody situation needs is for the kids' eternal salvation to be on the line, right?

 

I have family members whose likes on Facebook are making me ill. Even members who have been loving and supportive of my (non-Mormon) trans kid.

 

I'm visiting my sister for a week next month. Usually, I attend church with family members when I stay with them, but I just don't know if I can stomach it this time.

[Dancer_Mom]

Something that has been said directly is that the policy was written to give clarification to local leaders who had lots of questions on how to handle same gender families and in particular their children.

 

Can I just say that I feel disgusted that any leader paused before baptizing a child/teen from a same gender family when all were on board??

 

I feel like this clarification gives virtually all power to local leaders to use their own prejudice in making decisions about the current families caught in the middle of this.  Seems like it also gives all power to them to decide how much time is "too much time" for a child to spend with a gay parent before they become "unworthy" for ordinances.

[busymama7]

The "clarification" reduces the number of children who will be barred from ordinances, but I think it makes the situation much, much worse for others. Because really, what every custody situation needs is for the kids' eternal salvation to be on the line, right?

.

This shows a significant lack of understanding of Mormon doctrine. These kids are being instructed to wait but it will not jeopardize their eternal salvation in any way shape or form.

[Melinda in VT]

This shows a significant lack of understanding of Mormon doctrine. These kids are being instructed to wait but it will not jeopardize their eternal salvation in any way shape or form.

Nope. I know the doctrine. I've been through the temple.

 

But many Mormon parents are going to feel that having to wait to be baptized is going to put their kids' eventual activity in the Mormon church at risk and since Mormon ordinances are needed for salvation . . .

[albeto.]

This shows a significant lack of understanding of Mormon doctrine. These kids are being instructed to wait but it will not jeopardize their eternal salvation in any way shape or form.

 

Is there a difference expected of the eternal fate of an individual who dies before baptism vs one who dies after?

 

What about the soul of a child who is not sealed to their family as opposed to one who is?

[Amira]

This shows a significant lack of understanding of Mormon doctrine. These kids are being instructed to wait but it will not jeopardize their eternal salvation in any way shape or form.

 

Melinda understands Mormon doctrine quite well.

 

Even though no one is banned from saving ordinances in the long run, I am very concerned when people are not able to participate in saving ordinances now or in non-saving ordinances at any time through no fault of their own and without any way to change their situation.  This new policy (and the older polygamy policy) are not the only examples of this happening and I will never be comfortable with that.

[busymama7]

Is there a difference expected of the eternal fate of an individual who dies before baptism vs one who dies after?

 

What about the soul of a child who is not sealed to their family as opposed to one who is?

No.

 

And that is the whole purpose of temple work. To seal together couples and children and parents etc who did not have the opportunity in this life. In the end (eternally) it is the same.

[albeto.]

No.

 

And that is the whole purpose of temple work. To seal together couples and children and parents etc who did not have the opportunity in this life. In the end (eternally) it is the same.

 

So, let's say a child dies at 14, never having been sealed to his family because he lived with his dads. That won't have eternal ramifications on him in LDS theology? 

[busymama7]

So, let's say a child dies at 14, never having been sealed to his family because he lived with his dads. That won't have eternal ramifications on him in LDS theology?

No. He would still have the opportunity to accept the gospel in the afterlife and have all of his ordinances done by proxy for him. He is still free to make his own choices and make his own covenants. As far as not having parents to be sealed to,(since only heterosexual sealings are done) that does not affect his eternal life either. Temple sealing to spouse is required for exhalation. To parents is something we do to link families together but it doesn't affect any of the individuals' exaltation. We do not believe God could be a just God to punish those born to less than ideal circumstances whether this one or being born somewher where they would never have the chance to hear of Jesus in this life. I know this policy looks like a punishment but I do not believe it is since all the really matters is what happens in the eternity. I can't see how asking a child to make convents to follow Jesus (including understanding and keeping all commandments including the law of chastity which precludes homosexual sex/unions) would be kind or just either. They would be attempting to live in two different worlds as a young child or teen. Maybe they couldn't really understand what they are making covenants about and yet would be held accountable for those covenants. That is actually a more risky proposition for their future salvation then waiting is.

[Amira]

But those ordinances, saving or non-saving, aren't just to help us after we die.  We believe there are actual blessings we can access now by having those ordinances performed.  If I think it's worth having the gift of the Holy Ghost in my life now, why wouldn't I want a child whose parents have given consent to be baptized to also have that gift?  Why wouldn't I want to find a way for LDS women living in isolated settings with no priesthood holders around to be able to take the sacrament weekly?  I feel that I am blessed when I take the sacrament and I want everyone to be able to choose whether they want to, not be kept from it simply because they live in the wrong place. We wouldn't bother sending out tens of thousands of missionaries if it didn't matter if people didn't have those ordinances in life.

 

One of my very favorite things about LDS doctrine is that saving ordinances are available to everyone if they want them- their circumstances in life cannot keep them from them.  I've mentioned that often here and it's something that is important to me.  That hasn't changed.  But it still hurts that now more people aren't able to access the blessings we believe those ordinances can bring into our lives through circumstances entirely beyond their control.  This is why it doesn't feel like protection to me; it feels like we are withholding something that can bless them.

 

(There are times when I believe it is right to not baptize people who want to be.  No child should ever be baptized without full parental permission.  No one should be baptized if it would be physically dangerous for them to do so. Those are the only two blanket bans I can think of.)

[Aelwydd]

I'm sure that the president's statement provided some comfort for some individuals out there trying to reconcile this bombshell.

 

For myself, I thought the most important message regarding how the LDS church views queer individuals, which the new policy represents, was and is quite clear.

 

As an outsider, I had considered the LDS to be one of the friendlier and more welcoming churches, and I liked their "no damnation" theology. As a result, I have always been friendly and welcoming to the occasional LDS missionary to my door. Now, while my response will still be polite, the conversation is over on my end. The LDS' church and its message of love and family have soured.

 

Targeting children as a strategy to hold back the gay hordes? Ok, keep your unsullied family type. Not that the LDS church particularly cares about this agnostic person, but they have lost my respect.

[Veritaserum]

Julie (a boardie here) posted this updated list of consequences of the policy in light of the "clarification" letter:

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise-in-light-of-the-update/

 

I would like to know if the wording in the actual handbook has been altered at all.

[justasque]

Julie (a boardie here) posted this updated lists of consequences of the policy in light of the "clarification" letter:

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise-in-light-of-the-update/

 

Thank you for the link - that was a very thoughtful piece and well worth the read.

 

I would like to know if the wording in the actual handbook has been altered at all.

 

Yes, this. I am confused. The handbook, as per a link provided in the previous thread, reads:

 

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

 

1.  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.

 

2.  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.

 

The clarification letter says:

The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. ...

 

The letter leaves out any reference to a "parent who has lived in" a same-gender relationship.   And yet, it is quite clearly part of the wording in the Handbook - it's mentioned in not one, but two places.  If the provisions only apply to a child of a couple who are currently living in a same-gender relationship, as the clarification letter seems to say, then why does the handbook clearly say that the provisions apply to a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship?  Has the handbook been changed (again) to reflect the clarification letter?  What was the thinking behind the "has lived" language in the handbook, and why the clarification/change?  

 

And another thing - 

 

The original changes to the handbook reference "a parent" (singular), not "parents" (plural).  The clarification letter refers to "children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship".  It does not use the word "parent" or "parents" anywhere in the letter.  The focus of the Handbook language is the child's parentage, regardless of who the child lives with.  The focus of the letter's language is the presence of a same-sex couple in the household, not the relationship of the child to the couple.  What, then, of a child of heterosexual parents who, for whatever reason, is living with a same-sex couple - perhaps being raised by an Auntie or Grandma or older sibling or foster parents?

 

This may all seem nitpicky, but the details matter.  This policy affects real children, being raised by loving families, some of which have complicated family relationships/arrangements.  In fact, I'm guessing that people in same-sex relationships who are raising children have, for obvious reasons, a higher-than-average rate of complicated family situations.   Which should have become clear if the leadership researched the ramifications of this policy by talking/listening to potentially affected families before implementing it.

 

And the more I ponder this issue, the more it bothers me that entering a same-sex marriage - which is basically a standardized civil contract outlining rights and responsibilities, most of which are designed to protect the children, a spouse who does not work outside the home, a sick or dying spouse, and the surviving spouse of a deceased partner - is being discouraged.  Despite the use of the word "marriage", civil marriage is not a religious thing at all.  Why is a same-sex relationship more in need of a Disciplinary Council if the participants take the step of providing legal protection for their families through civil marriage?  

 

We've been focusing on the children of gay and lesbian parents, but what of the gay and lesbian people themselves, and their relationship with the church?  Why has there been no clarification letter explaining why the changes that affect them were necessary?  If homosexual relations were always a serious transgression, why the need to add "especially sexual cohabitation"?  What is it about sexual cohabitation that makes it worse than homosexual relations without cohabitation?  Why is a commitment to one sexual partner worse than more promiscuous relations?   And if "homosexual relations, especially sexual cohabitation" do not rise to the level of apostasy, but are only a "serious transgression", why does a civil contract between the parties make a difference?  Again, did leadership not consider that these changes would have a serious impact on real people, in real families?  Did they consult with - listen to - people/families who were potentially affected, before making these changes, so they could be sure they did not have any blind spots in their thinking or in the wording of the policies?

 

My heart goes out the the LDS community as they struggle with this issue, especially to those families who have members directly affected by these changes, and most especially to the young, closeted queer folks whose families don't yet know that this will hit closer to home than they realized.

 

It gets better.  But, too often, not without struggle.

[felicity]

I have hesitated to post about the policy change since it came out but reading the clarification and Julie's post made me think some more and while I can't relate to everything the change deals with, I do have something of a unique idea of what it does to kids when they can't be baptized or have other ordinances performed. My dh left the church about 11 years ago and in that time we've have two of our 4 kids and his views on church participation have evolved. At this point my oldest two are baptized but not ordained (they are boys and over 12) and my younger two haven't been or won't be (my youngest will be 8 right around Christmas).

 

It's hard. Really hard. It's hard for them to be a part of things at church or to care about going to activities or seminary. My youngest has been in tears multiple times this year because this is the year she should be baptized and despite my talking to the Primary Presidency and her teachers things have been said that make her feel "less than." I have to be careful of which Activity Days activities my 10yo goes to. If it's about temples or baptismal memories, she doesn't go. There are even repercussions in Boy Scouts because my boys can't be chosen for certain leadership positions because they don't have the Priesthood. My 10yo was assigned a Primary talk in May; the theme? "Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel lead me to Jesus Christ." That was fun. Despite everyone's best efforts there are two levels and my kids are on the bottom; it's just how things are. No one is being mean or cruel, but we have a path and if you aren't on it even if it's not your fault, things just aren't smooth.

 

I guess what I'm saying and how it relates to the policy change is that I'm an adult and it's hard. I am in a temple marriage and so far my dh hasn't canceled his membership so I have the "protection" and promises that come with that. We are still sealed as a family and I can trust that things will work out in the eternities. I'm fairly certain that if I called the bishop at 3 am and said they can be baptized, he's be out of bed and filling up the font within about 30 seconds. How much harder are we making it for these kids? And for what? They are already in families that people actively hate, including some of the same compassionate people that are so willing to help my kids. What does anyone gain? It hurts and it makes staying in the church harder when we should be making it easier. It makes it easier for people like my dh to say, "see I'm right, it is a hateful organization." It makes it harder for those already on the fringes to feel like they can stay. It hurts kids, the same ones we're supposed to protect.

 

And that's my completely emotional opinion that may not make a lot of sense but I hope it gets the point across anyway.

[Xuzi]

I have hesitated to post about the policy change since it came out but reading the clarification and Julie's post made me think some more and while I can't relate to everything the change deals with, I do have something of a unique idea of what it does to kids when they can't be baptized or have other ordinances performed. My dh left the church about 11 years ago and in that time we've have two of our 4 kids and his views on church participation have evolved. At this point my oldest two are baptized but not ordained (they are boys and over 12) and my younger two haven't been or won't be (my youngest will be 8 right around Christmas).

 

It's hard. Really hard. It's hard for them to be a part of things at church or to care about going to activities or seminary. My youngest has been in tears multiple times this year because this is the year she should be baptized and despite my talking to the Primary Presidency and her teachers things have been said that make her feel "less than." I have to be careful of which Activity Days activities my 10yo goes to. If it's about temples or baptismal memories, she doesn't go. There are even repercussions in Boy Scouts because my boys can't be chosen for certain leadership positions because they don't have the Priesthood. My 10yo was assigned a Primary talk in May; the theme? "Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel lead me to Jesus Christ." That was fun. Despite everyone's best efforts there are two levels and my kids are on the bottom; it's just how things are. No one is being mean or cruel, but we have a path and if you aren't on it even if it's not your fault, things just aren't smooth.

 

I guess what I'm saying and how it relates to the policy change is that I'm an adult and it's hard. I am in a temple marriage and so far my dh hasn't canceled his membership so I have the "protection" and promises that come with that. We are still sealed as a family and I can trust that things will work out in the eternities. I'm fairly certain that if I called the bishop at 3 am and said they can be baptized, he's be out of bed and filling up the font within about 30 seconds. How much harder are we making it for these kids? And for what? They are already in families that people actively hate, including some of the same compassionate people that are so willing to help my kids. What does anyone gain? It hurts and it makes staying in the church harder when we should be making it easier. It makes it easier for people like my dh to say, "see I'm right, it is a hateful organization." It makes it harder for those already on the fringes to feel like they can stay. It hurts kids, the same ones we're supposed to protect.

 

And that's my completely emotional opinion that may not make a lot of sense but I hope it gets the point across anyway.

I didn't want to "like" your post, but just acknowledge it and express my appreciation for it. (((((hugs)))))

[Veritaserum]

I have hesitated to post about the policy change since it came out but reading the clarification and Julie's post made me think some more and while I can't relate to everything the change deals with, I do have something of a unique idea of what it does to kids when they can't be baptized or have other ordinances performed. My dh left the church about 11 years ago and in that time we've have two of our 4 kids and his views on church participation have evolved. At this point my oldest two are baptized but not ordained (they are boys and over 12) and my younger two haven't been or won't be (my youngest will be 8 right around Christmas).

 

It's hard. Really hard. It's hard for them to be a part of things at church or to care about going to activities or seminary. My youngest has been in tears multiple times this year because this is the year she should be baptized and despite my talking to the Primary Presidency and her teachers things have been said that make her feel "less than." I have to be careful of which Activity Days activities my 10yo goes to. If it's about temples or baptismal memories, she doesn't go. There are even repercussions in Boy Scouts because my boys can't be chosen for certain leadership positions because they don't have the Priesthood. My 10yo was assigned a Primary talk in May; the theme? "Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel lead me to Jesus Christ." That was fun. Despite everyone's best efforts there are two levels and my kids are on the bottom; it's just how things are. No one is being mean or cruel, but we have a path and if you aren't on it even if it's not your fault, things just aren't smooth.

 

I guess what I'm saying and how it relates to the policy change is that I'm an adult and it's hard. I am in a temple marriage and so far my dh hasn't canceled his membership so I have the "protection" and promises that come with that. We are still sealed as a family and I can trust that things will work out in the eternities. I'm fairly certain that if I called the bishop at 3 am and said they can be baptized, he's be out of bed and filling up the font within about 30 seconds. How much harder are we making it for these kids? And for what? They are already in families that people actively hate, including some of the same compassionate people that are so willing to help my kids. What does anyone gain? It hurts and it makes staying in the church harder when we should be making it easier. It makes it easier for people like my dh to say, "see I'm right, it is a hateful organization." It makes it harder for those already on the fringes to feel like they can stay. It hurts kids, the same ones we're supposed to protect.

 

And that's my completely emotional opinion that may not make a lot of sense but I hope it gets the point across anyway.

(((hugs))) I think most people who fit the mold (two active, believing, sealed heterosexual parents with kids) are unaware of what church is like for those of us who don't.

[felicity]

Thanks to both of you. It's obviously an emotional topic and it's been at the forefront of my mind the last week, trying to figure out what I think and why. It's also been 11 years that I've been doing this alone. If he came back I'd be thrilled but I'd probably also be a little freaked out.

 

People don't understand and since we teach to the ideal it's not seen super important to understand. I did things right--went to BYU, married a RM, and still look at what happened. There are no handbooks for this and a lot of the time no room for us. Thankfully my ward is great but I kind of feel like we can never move or change leadership. :-)

 

Thanks for the hugs. They're much appreciated.

[Amira]

And the further you get from the norm (in so many ways), the harder it is. Financial troubles, physical health problems, death of a loved one, you'll be supported through those a lot of the time. We need to do better at loving people whose family lives don't fit the ideal, at changing racist attitudes, at truly supporting people with mental illness, at accepting and supporting people who don't speak our language or fit our cultural expectations, at helping people in different socioeconomic situations, at not disparaging people with different political opinions, and so much more. We can be so much more of all of that than we are now. I think that we do get it right a lot of the time, but when it get it wrong, it hurts a lot.

 

And that, my friends, is my takeaway from this week. This policy does not define me so I must be even more sure that I find ways to love and support people who don't fit the mold.

[felicity]

Amira, I love your post. It does hurt because we are called to be Zion people. We are told to mourn with those that mourn, etc.

 

And I think we can do that but it takes effort. Much more effort that speaking up in Gospel Doctrine and saying things like "it's your own fault that you get offended. You can choose not to be offended." I think that has it backwards. We should choose our words and deeds not to offend. My parents always told us that if we want to spend time with friends we need to treat our family as well as we treat our guests and friends. I think that's true in the church as well. We feel free to say whatever we want to other members and then tell them it's their own fault if they are offended.

 

My only thing. I'm not a project or a situation. (Not that anyone here has even remotely said anything like that, but oh my goodness, it grates. And it's really easy to see through.)

[KungFuPanda]

" . . . And I believe that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people . . . "

 

Sorry. I saw the musical yesterday. These threads are triggering songs now.