First Presidency Clarifies Policy

[gkearney]

See:https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbo ... s?lang=eng

First Presidency Clarifies Church Handbook Changes

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY
47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200

November 13, 2015

To: General Authorities; Area Seventies; General Auxiliary Presidencies; Stake, District, Mission, and Temple Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:

Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.

Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. 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. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.

When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.

All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.

May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry.

[Fiannan]

It's a start. Now they need to make provisions for children conceived in heterosexual homes whose parents have divorced and the one who has custody is gay or lesbian. If the gay or lesbian parent is okay with baptism then why should a heterosexual parent have to explain to their child (children) why tehy are not allowed to be baptized?

[Stacy Oliver]

It's a start. Now they need to make provisions for children conceived in heterosexual homes whose parents have divorced and the one who has custody is gay or lesbian. If the gay or lesbian parent is okay with baptism then why should a heterosexual parent have to explain to their child (children) why tehy are not allowed to be baptized?

It states that it goes by primary residence. In most states, that's who gets to make religious decisions anyway.

The Church stated that it wants to respect families. If someone primarily residence with a gay couple, then that interest is the same whether or not there was a divorce.

[rewcox]

BOO, does this help?

[Fiannan]

It's a start. Now they need to make provisions for children conceived in heterosexual homes whose parents have divorced and the one who has custody is gay or lesbian. If the gay or lesbian parent is okay with baptism then why should a heterosexual parent have to explain to their child (children) why tehy are not allowed to be baptized?

It states that it goes by primary residence. In most states, that's who gets to make religious decisions anyway.

The Church stated that it wants to respect families. If someone primarily residence with a gay couple, then that interest is the same whether or not there was a divorce.

How many lawyers and PR people did it take to come up with that rational that is being used? I have said it about a dozen times now, what about the most common way children wind up in lesbian households; at least Mormon lesbian households? One of the reasons it has been difficult to assess the dynamics of lesbian parenting on children is due to the fact that it has only been recently that young women have paired off initially with each other and formed unions in which they wanted to have babies. My own suspicions is that many of these women are more into the category of bi-sexual and in the past such women would have married men, but whatever, it is a recent trend. In the past a woman gets married, makes some babies and then gets divorced. For one reason or another divorced mom with kids (the USA is as backward on that aspect of family law as Islam is in going the opposite extreme) meets a woman and forms a relationship. Those kids were produced by a heterosexual union, but then they are thrown into a homosexual one.

So give me a break, in reference to the damage control effort by the Church. If a mother is still a believer, or still admires her heritage or the LDS Church or whatever and agrees that her kids should be baptized by their active LDS father then it is not in any way respecting families, in fact it is opposite! It tells dad he no longer is a spiritual influence in his kids lives, it tells mom that she is responsible for denying her children the opportunity to be baptized and it is telling the kids that they have to suffer for what their parent (s) did.

Maybe I am missing something?

[sandman45]

How many lawyers and PR people did it take to come up with that rational that is being used?

Pretty sad we are getting these policy changes and not revelation...

remember.. Policy != revelation.. (!= means not equal if u didnt get it)

[iWriteStuff]

*sigh*

Some folks will never be happy, no matter what statement or policy comes out. :-w

I appreciate the clarification/explanation and I support the policy.

[rewcox]

Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.

How many lawyers and PR people did it take to come up with that rational that is being used?

Pretty sad we are getting these policy changes and not revelation...

remember.. Policy != revelation.. (!= means not equal if u didnt get it)

[rewcox]

Have you gone to the FP and presented your case?

It's a start. Now they need to make provisions for children conceived in heterosexual homes whose parents have divorced and the one who has custody is gay or lesbian. If the gay or lesbian parent is okay with baptism then why should a heterosexual parent have to explain to their child (children) why tehy are not allowed to be baptized?

It states that it goes by primary residence. In most states, that's who gets to make religious decisions anyway.

The Church stated that it wants to respect families. If someone primarily residence with a gay couple, then that interest is the same whether or not there was a divorce.

How many lawyers and PR people did it take to come up with that rational that is being used? I have said it about a dozen times now, what about the most common way children wind up in lesbian households; at least Mormon lesbian households? One of the reasons it has been difficult to assess the dynamics of lesbian parenting on children is due to the fact that it has only been recently that young women have paired off initially with each other and formed unions in which they wanted to have babies. My own suspicions is that many of these women are more into the category of bi-sexual and in the past such women would have married men, but whatever, it is a recent trend. In the past a woman gets married, makes some babies and then gets divorced. For one reason or another divorced mom with kids (the USA is as backward on that aspect of family law as Islam is in going the opposite extreme) meets a woman and forms a relationship. Those kids were produced by a heterosexual union, but then they are thrown into a homosexual one.

So give me a break, in reference to the damage control effort by the Church. If a mother is still a believer, or still admires her heritage or the LDS Church or whatever and agrees that her kids should be baptized by their active LDS father then it is not in any way respecting families, in fact it is opposite! It tells dad he no longer is a spiritual influence in his kids lives, it tells mom that she is responsible for denying her children the opportunity to be baptized and it is telling the kids that they have to suffer for what their parent (s) did.

Maybe I am missing something?

[Fiannan]

Have you gone to the FP and presented your case?

No but maybe Harry Reid will since he appears to be on a first name basis.

[Stacy Oliver]

How many lawyers and PR people did it take to come up with that rational that is being used?

Pretty sad we are getting these policy changes and not revelation...

remember.. Policy != revelation.. (!= means not equal if u didnt get it)

So you probably don't read the Pauline epistles then. Letters != revelation.

[sandman45]

Paul's are more legit.. he didn't have Lawyers and PR peeps correcting what he wrote.. ;)

[Stacy Oliver]

Paul's are more legit.. he didn't have Lawyers and PR peeps correcting what he wrote.. ;)

.... So you're rejecting the words of a prophet because you assume (but don't know) that PR peeps were involved? That's a pretty thin reed.

[sandman45]

I never said I reject the words of the prophet. I just said that 'Policy != revelation'

If it was a 'Revelation' then how would it read?

If its just a letter or policy change they always start with 'From the office of the First Presidency'
or in this case

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:

compare with

D&C 76: 1 Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the Lord is God, and beside him there is no Savior.

2 Great is his wisdom, marvelous are his ways, and the extent of his doings none can find out.

3 His purposes fail not, neither are there any who can stay his hand.

4 From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail.

5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.

now that sounds like a revelation.. ;)

/endTrolling

[Stacy Oliver]

I never said I reject the words of the prophet. I just said that 'Policy != revelation'

If it was a 'Revelation' then how would it read?

If its just a letter or policy change they always start with 'From the office of the First Presidency'
or in this case

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:

compare with

D&C 76: 1 Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the Lord is God, and beside him there is no Savior.

2 Great is his wisdom, marvelous are his ways, and the extent of his doings none can find out.

3 His purposes fail not, neither are there any who can stay his hand.

4 From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail.

5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.

now that sounds like a revelation.. ;)

/endTrolling

OK, so now we're ba k where we started. Should I give the Pauline epistles less weight? They started very much like First Presidency letters :

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, [From the First Presidency]

To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: [to be read in sacrament meeting to the members of the church]

Should I turn up my nose at these epistles?