Can scout leaders at church be LGBT?

[h_p]

To clarify, here's the complete policy.

16.13 Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

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 policy applies to minor children "whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." So I guess if they're in a relationship, but not living in the same home together, baptism is OK.

[skmo]

I stand corrected.

[h_p]

And I, too, skmo. You made a good point about being in a relationship not necessarily meaning living together. And I'd read that policy probably a hundred times.

[Fiannan]

And I, too, skmo. You made a good point about being in a relationship not necessarily meaning living together. And I'd read that policy probably a hundred times.

Okay, so the defense that this is a way to protect the Church from legal ramifications that may arise in baptizing a child who could, at some point, feel alienated from a parent (due, perhaps, to a lesson about eternal families) is not really valid? So what is the point of the policy except, perhaps, to get some LDS girl thinking twice about pursuing a relationship with another woman?

[A Random Phrase]

Okay, so the defense that this is a way to protect the Church from legal ramifications that may arise in baptizing a child who could, at some point, feel alienated from a parent (due, perhaps, to a lesson about eternal families) is not really valid? So what is the point of the policy except, perhaps, to get some LDS girl thinking twice about pursuing a relationship with another woman?

If the Church allows gay families to participate in ordinances beginning at birth, there may be a greater chance (some think) of being legally forced to give gay families the ordinances of marriage and sealing.

[skmo]

So what is the point of the policy except, perhaps, to get some LDS girl thinking twice about pursuing a relationship with another woman?

The point is simple: The brethren were moved by the Spirit or by a revelation to make a change, so a change was made and submitted to the Lord. It was approved and enacted.

Like I said - The point is quite simple, yet everyone and their trained attack Chihuahua has to find the hidden meanings and why the church is misusing funds to make this change and it can't possibly be true because President Monson didn't stand before the whole church at once and proclaim "Verily, thus sayeth the Lord God unto me..." and hidden LDGs in church hierarchy want this to gain some hidden edge against the brethren, or...

Some questionably less-than-sensible notions get thrown around.

:eta:

Not that I'm complaining. It has occasional potential to be quite entertaining, and since my free trial of premium channels on Dish have expired, I won't be able to watch Game of Thrones for a while.