Church to allow baptisms, blessings for children of LGBT parents

[Sunain]

I'm not concerned with whether or not children to two same-sex parents are able to be baptized or not. I'm concerned with this:
"remove the label of apostasy for homosexual behavior"

I may need the definition of "apostasy" cleared up for me. My understanding is that it is "willingly rebelling against, or willfully acting contrary to, the teachings of the church." Homosexual activity is apostate for the same reason all sexual perversion is. If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then why are polygamy, pornography, affairs, or non-marital sex? If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then what about a couple in a common law marriage?

Completely agree there. I think that is the biggest change yet, the definition of apostasy being changed. So now I guess that means homosexuals can't be excommunicated?

But then we get people like Sam Young who get excommunicated for trying to protect children and then have multiple instances right after his excommunication proving his point?

I'm confused...

[drtanner]

The previous policy/revelation (I don't even know anymore) of requiring children to wait till their adult was the fair and just method of a loving Heavenly Father. How many of these children will be baptized because their LGBT parents at least realize that baptism is required to enter gods kingdom but then fail to also realize that following his commandments is also necessary. I fear for these children under this new policy change as it will undoubtedly lead them to broken covenants as they are influenced directly by their parents and taught that homosexual behaviour is fine and normal.

This change literally comes as a result of pressure. I can see why people believe it's only a matter of time till the church reneges on the Family Proclamation and allows Gay Marriages. We're almost there. FamilySearch recognizes it the civil marriages now, we have a whole website dedicated to them, this change shows that change comes as a result of social pressures.

Sad times for the Lord's church when such changes are applied counter to the plan of salvation and His commandments.

It is actually not really that cut n dry. For example I have a faithful member friend whose wife left him for another women. They now have joint custody but per the old policy even though she was ok with all the children being raised in the church and he took them to church they were kept from these blessings. This same scenerio and others similar that have since surfaced. Sometimes there is no way to understand all the scenrios until a policy is rolled out and could be considered a line upon line understanding of a complex issues with social, legal, and economical reprocussions. Gods wisdom is greater than mans especially considering conspiring men who seek to destroy the church.

[ori]

I call it a “policy” because it’s going to be in the handbook, right? It could be a revelation, or not—in any case it’s still a policy. I could be wrong. Corrections welcome. “Revelation” or not, it doesn’t matter to me.

If I was caught explaining the reason for the change, that’s just my own bad behavior... I was just trying to guess what its effects would be. It is not advised to question the motives and methods of the Lord’s anointed.

Regardless, I have no issues with the change, I trust the Lord’s authorized servants.

[Sunain]

The previous policy/revelation (I don't even know anymore) of requiring children to wait till their adult was the fair and just method of a loving Heavenly Father. How many of these children will be baptized because their LGBT parents at least realize that baptism is required to enter gods kingdom but then fail to also realize that following his commandments is also necessary. I fear for these children under this new policy change as it will undoubtedly lead them to broken covenants as they are influenced directly by their parents and taught that homosexual behaviour is fine and normal.

This change literally comes as a result of pressure. I can see why people believe it's only a matter of time till the church reneges on the Family Proclamation and allows Gay Marriages. We're almost there. FamilySearch recognizes it the civil marriages now, we have a whole website dedicated to them, this change shows that change comes as a result of social pressures.

Sad times for the Lord's church when such changes are applied counter to the plan of salvation and His commandments.

It is actually not really that cut n dry. For example I have a faithful member friend whose wife left him for another women. They now have joint custody but per the old policy even though she was ok with all the children being raised in the church and he took them to church they were kept from these blessings. This same scenerio and others similar that have since surfaced. Sometimes there is no way to understand all the scenrios until a policy is rolled out and could be considered a line upon line understanding of a complex issues with social, legal, and economical reprocussions. Gods wisdom is greater than mans especially considering conspiring men who seek to destroy the church.

Indeed. Under the *old* policy though that was fine still. As long as the parents gave permission, as is the procedure with all children being baptized, the policy didn't affect them.

It was specific if the child's main residence was with LBGT parents that the policy required them to wait to adulthood to make the decision to be baptized. Baptism is just as an important covenant as sealing and endowment with similar consequences.

The fact that this discussion is even part of the church is very disturbing to me. There should be no gray areas with the Lord or His church, nor flip flopping so quickly, be it revelation or policy. When I feel as though this change comes as a direct result of social pressures and not revelation, because it can't be revelation as it contrary and in opposition to the Family Proclamation and His commandments, we're in for some VERY VERY rough times. Every opportunity like this that the church gives the LGBT community to attack the church or change policies, adds fuel to the fire. On the other hand, it just accelerates the Lord's return.

[mtm411]

I think it's interesting that this will now offend conservative members of the church, pushing them to join offshoots or just become inactive. When they made the policy, it caused many liberal members of the church to abandon ship.

If they had just left it all alone, they would have avoided people feeling jerked around by the changes. I think this is one reason the church doesn't make as many statements or policy changes. You are always going to make some people upset and some people happy. They managed to offend both groups in less than 4 years.

I, for one, am happy they are doing this. Most children of a homosexual parent have another parent that is still active in the church and trying to raise their child in the gospel. It has the potential for alienating the rest of the family for punishing them for the actions of one family member.

[mtm411]

I'm not concerned with whether or not children to two same-sex parents are able to be baptized or not. I'm concerned with this:
"remove the label of apostasy for homosexual behavior"

I may need the definition of "apostasy" cleared up for me. My understanding is that it is "willingly rebelling against, or willfully acting contrary to, the teachings of the church." Homosexual activity is apostate for the same reason all sexual perversion is. If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then why are polygamy, pornography, affairs, or non-marital sex? If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then what about a couple in a common law marriage?

It basically changes it to be equal. Before if someone was having sex with someone of the opposite sex, they could be disfellowshipped or excommunicated for that sin. However, the homosexual pair would be disfellowshipped or excommunicated for the sex and apostasy.

They weren't keeping children with one parent not living the law of chastity from being baptized, ever.

[Fiannan]

There are four ways a child could be with gay parents.

1) Two women marry and use donor sperm to get pregnant.

2) Two men could adopt, or two women for that matter.

3) A gay male couple could hire someone to have a baby for them.

4) A woman in a heterosexual marriage divorces, gets the kids, and then marries a woman.

I believe the 4th case is most common with children with an LDS background today. Bet the COB got lots of letters from devout fathers unable to let their kids fully participate in the Church.

[drtanner]

I'm not concerned with whether or not children to two same-sex parents are able to be baptized or not. I'm concerned with this:
"remove the label of apostasy for homosexual behavior"

I may need the definition of "apostasy" cleared up for me. My understanding is that it is "willingly rebelling against, or willfully acting contrary to, the teachings of the church." Homosexual activity is apostate for the same reason all sexual perversion is. If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then why are polygamy, pornography, affairs, or non-marital sex? If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then what about a couple in a common law marriage?

This may help from President Oaks:

We have the concept of apostasy. It is grounds for Church discipline…

Apostasy, being rare, has to be carefully defined. We have three definitions of apostasy: one is open, public and repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders. Open, public, repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders — A second one is to teach as doctrine something that is not Church doctrine after one has been advised by appropriate authority that that’s false doctrine. In other words, just teaching false doctrine is not apostasy, but it is teaching persistently after you’ve been warned. For example, if one were to teach that the Lord requires you to practice plural marriage in this day, it would be apostasy. And the third point would be to affiliate and belong to apostate sects, such as those that preach or practice polygamy.

So, we go back to the first cause of apostasy — open, public and repeated opposition to the Church and its leaders. That does not include searching for a middle ground. It doesn’t include worrying over a doctrine. It doesn’t include not believing a particular doctrine. None of those are apostasy. None of those are the basis of Church discipline. But when a person comes out publicly and opposes the Church, such as by saying, “I do not think anyone should follow the leaders of the Church in their missionary program, calling these young people to go out and preach the gospel,” or whatever the particular issue of the day. And when you go out and begin to “thump the tub” and try to gather opposition and organize opposition and pronounce and preach against the Church — that can be a basis for Church discipline.

[RocknRoll]

I'm not concerned with whether or not children to two same-sex parents are able to be baptized or not. I'm concerned with this:
"remove the label of apostasy for homosexual behavior"

I may need the definition of "apostasy" cleared up for me. My understanding is that it is "willingly rebelling against, or willfully acting contrary to, the teachings of the church." Homosexual activity is apostate for the same reason all sexual perversion is. If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then why are polygamy, pornography, affairs, or non-marital sex? If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then what about a couple in a common law marriage?

This may help from President Oaks:

We have the concept of apostasy. It is grounds for Church discipline…

Apostasy, being rare, has to be carefully defined. We have three definitions of apostasy: one is open, public and repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders. Open, public, repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders — A second one is to teach as doctrine something that is not Church doctrine after one has been advised by appropriate authority that that’s false doctrine. In other words, just teaching false doctrine is not apostasy, but it is teaching persistently after you’ve been warned. For example, if one were to teach that the Lord requires you to practice plural marriage in this day, it would be apostasy. And the third point would be to affiliate and belong to apostate sects, such as those that preach or practice polygamy.

So, we go back to the first cause of apostasy — open, public and repeated opposition to the Church and its leaders. That does not include searching for a middle ground. It doesn’t include worrying over a doctrine. It doesn’t include not believing a particular doctrine. None of those are apostasy. None of those are the basis of Church discipline. But when a person comes out publicly and opposes the Church, such as by saying, “I do not think anyone should follow the leaders of the Church in their missionary program, calling these young people to go out and preach the gospel,” or whatever the particular issue of the day. And when you go out and begin to “thump the tub” and try to gather opposition and organize opposition and pronounce and preach against the Church — that can be a basis for Church discipline.

Thanks, drtanner. It seems that some people were confused on what is and is not considered apostasy.

[Lizzy60]

President Oaks said, today in the Mormon newsroom article, and gay marriage is no longer apostate behavior, only a serious transgression (not a sin?), and that immoral activity in heterosexual and homosexual marriages will be treated equally.

This can only mean that if you are in a gay marriage, and you are faithful to your partner, you will not face church discipline.

Let me tell you, some people are seriously celebrating.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... HkKRv12Ht0

[Mark]

5 years ago Elder Holland said this in conference:

"Not often but over the years some sources have suggested that the Brethren are out of touch in their declarations, that they don’t know the issues, that some of their policies and practices are out-of-date, not relevant to our times.
As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth. I bear personal witness of how thoroughly good they are, of how hard they work, and how humbly they live. It is no trivial matter for this Church to declare to the world prophecy, seership, and revelation, but we do declare it. It is true light shining in a dark world, and it shines from these proceedings."

If some posters on LDSFF doubt the spiritual abilities of those called and set apart to guide the church they are free to find alternative options in their lives. No one is required to stay a part of the church. Just make a choice and Move forward with that choice. That's what mature people do. Pessimism and cynicism are some of the devils greatest tools. They never bring light.

[Kenco]

Look at the end of the day, you either believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Laterday Saints is the true church led by prophets and apostles or you don’t. The prophet will NEVER lead us astray. If you don’t believe that, then move along.
I have faith that Jesus Christ is at the head of this church and is in control. I’m not worried about the “nay sayers”
The separation of wheat and Tares is happening and will continue to happen. Hang on!

[Kenco]

I'm not concerned with whether or not children to two same-sex parents are able to be baptized or not. I'm concerned with this:
"remove the label of apostasy for homosexual behavior"

I may need the definition of "apostasy" cleared up for me. My understanding is that it is "willingly rebelling against, or willfully acting contrary to, the teachings of the church." Homosexual activity is apostate for the same reason all sexual perversion is. If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then why are polygamy, pornography, affairs, or non-marital sex? If homosexual behavior is not "apostate", then what about a couple in a common law marriage?

Completely agree there. I think that is the biggest change yet, the definition of apostasy being changed. So now I guess that means homosexuals can't be excommunicated?

But then we get people like Sam Young who get excommunicated for trying to protect children and then have multiple instances right after his excommunication proving his point?

I'm confused...

Stop defending Sam Young! I have personal knowledge that he is a pervert. He is a total fake. His excommunication was for good reason.

[RocknRoll]

Why can’t we accept that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ allow their leaders to make policy decisions that later turn out not to be not so great? It’s called being human. And church leaders are no less human than the rest of us. What surprises me about this discussion is how quickly we forget similar experiences from our own Church history such as:

• The Priesthood ban
• Indian placement program
• 18 month missions
• "Mormon Doctrine"
• The Miracle of Forgiveness
• Polygamy
• A policy against women praying in Sacrament Meetings or Conference.
• And many more if you study church history

I don’t understand why we so quickly forget the past and look at each new change as either evidence that the end is near, the leaders have fallen, the Church is no longer true or “I know something they don’t”

[drtanner]

President Oaks said, today in the Mormon newsroom article, and gay marriage is no longer apostate behavior, only a serious transgression (not a sin?), and that immoral activity in heterosexual and homosexual marriages will be treated equally.

This can only mean that if you are in a gay marriage, and you are faithful to your partner, you will not face church discipline.

Let me tell you, some people are seriously celebrating.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... HkKRv12Ht0

Just to be clear on what this means. If you are in a gay marriage and are participating in homosexual behaviors even if you are faithful to the partner, it is still a sin worthy of church discipline.

[Lizzy60]

President Oaks said, today in the Mormon newsroom article, and gay marriage is no longer apostate behavior, only a serious transgression (not a sin?), and that immoral activity in heterosexual and homosexual marriages will be treated equally.

This can only mean that if you are in a gay marriage, and you are faithful to your partner, you will not face church discipline.

Let me tell you, some people are seriously celebrating.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... HkKRv12Ht0

Just to be clear on what this means. If you are in a gay marriage and are participating in homosexual behaviors even if you are faithful to the partner, it is still a sin worthy of church discipline.

That is not what it means. If you are in a gay marriage it's obvious that you are having sexual relations. A gay marriage is no longer cause for church discipline.

[cab]

5 years ago Elder Holland said this in conference:

"Not often but over the years some sources have suggested that the Brethren are out of touch in their declarations, that they don’t know the issues, that some of their policies and practices are out-of-date, not relevant to our times.
As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth. I bear personal witness of how thoroughly good they are, of how hard they work, and how humbly they live. It is no trivial matter for this Church to declare to the world prophecy, seership, and revelation, but we do declare it. It is true light shining in a dark world, and it shines from these proceedings."

If some posters on LDSFF doubt the spiritual abilities of those called and set apart to guide the church they are free to find alternative options in their lives. No one is required to stay a part of the church. Just make a choice and Move forward with that choice. That's what mature people do. Pessimism and cynicism are some of the devils greatest tools. They never bring light.

I have both doubts and questions about those that lead the church. However, sorry, I'm not going anywhere. It's too important to me to continue to make others feel uncomfortable in hopes they'll stop feeling so at ease in Zion.

[Zathura]

I think God changes his mind a lot. Before you defenders of the faith say it was just a policy. Read this. https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php? ... type=cmsid

A short synopsis of the linked article. President Monson's regime announces the November policy. A couple of months later President Nelson, then the senior apostle, calls it a revelation. So which is it? A policy or a revelation.

Gaslighting at its finest.

Or that God is able to allow differing policy changes in differing times and seasons. Key word allow.

Maybe he doesn’t care about these policies, Bishop handbooks, mission handbooks etc.

[setyourselffree]

In our ward we work with another church to serve the homeless. Once a month this Church asks wards in our stake to take a night to serve the entire day including spending the night and keeping watch. I am in the Elders Quorum presidency and my wife is in the Relief society presidency. Unfortunately this time around I was very frustrated because no one would serve in our ward. I finally was out of options so I asked the Relief Society to get involved. I had several questions for the RS president and this made my wife uncomfortable. She kept asking why I was so stressed out about getting people to help. And she was very frustrated with me because I kept insisting the RS president let me know the names of those serving. Finally it came out that my wife was upset because she felt I had plenty of time to get those names as it wasn't until another 2 weeks away. I told her one of the high councilors had asked for the names by Sunday night, it was Sunday that we had this convo. That was all she needed to hear. Point is sometimes we get upset with policy or whatever the circumstance may be and don't have all the information. I would say with this we don't have all the information. So I am going to sustain the brethren and the Savior.

[drtanner]

President Oaks said, today in the Mormon newsroom article, and gay marriage is no longer apostate behavior, only a serious transgression (not a sin?), and that immoral activity in heterosexual and homosexual marriages will be treated equally.

This can only mean that if you are in a gay marriage, and you are faithful to your partner, you will not face church discipline.

Let me tell you, some people are seriously celebrating.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... HkKRv12Ht0

Just to be clear on what this means. If you are in a gay marriage and are participating in homosexual behaviors even if you are faithful to the partner, it is still a sin worthy of church discipline.

That is not what it means. If you are in a gay marriage it's obvious that you are having sexual relations. A gay marriage is no longer cause for church discipline.

The marriage is irrelevant. In fact per the church impossible because marriage currently is only defined one way as a union between a man and a woman.

I should have clarified in my earlier post to say “if you are in what the world classify’s as a gay marriage”

[Col. Flagg]

All I know is that we have a God who sure changes his mind a lot. Two serious questions are begged by the repeal of the decision to ban children of LGBT parents from being baptized... 1) if God and Jesus Christ guide and direct the church, why would the decision have been made to institute the ban in the first place if it was wrong and 2) if it wasn't a decision that was 'revelation', then that means it did not come from Jesus Christ or God, which is a huge problem. It's almost getting comical at this point. Two families in our ward left the church over the children of LGBT parents being forbidden from being baptized and now the church is doing a 180???

[Lizzy60]

President Oaks said, today in the Mormon newsroom article, and gay marriage is no longer apostate behavior, only a serious transgression (not a sin?), and that immoral activity in heterosexual and homosexual marriages will be treated equally.

This can only mean that if you are in a gay marriage, and you are faithful to your partner, you will not face church discipline.

Let me tell you, some people are seriously celebrating.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... HkKRv12Ht0

Just to be clear on what this means. If you are in a gay marriage and are participating in homosexual behaviors even if you are faithful to the partner, it is still a sin worthy of church discipline.

That is not what it means. If you are in a gay marriage it's obvious that you are having sexual relations. A gay marriage is no longer cause for church discipline.

The marriage is irrelevant. In fact per the church impossible because marriage currently is only defined one way as a union between a man and a woman.

Here is the quote from Mormon Newsroom: (Oaks)

"Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

Same-gender marriage will NOT be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline.

"Immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

What is immoral in a hetero relationship? Whatever that is, it's also immoral in a same-gender relationship. What is moral in a hetero relationship? That will also be moral for a same-gender relationship.

RELATIONSHIPS

Oaks had a distinguished law career. He knows what he is saying.

[captainfearnot]

Here is the quote from Mormon Newsroom: (Oaks)

"Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

Same-gender marriage will NOT be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline.

"Immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

What is immoral in a hetero relationship? Whatever that is, it's also immoral in a same-gender relationship. What is moral in a hetero relationship? That will also be moral for a same-gender relationship.

RELATIONSHIP

Oaks had a distinguished law career. He knows what he is saying.

Oaks does not draw a distinction between transgression and sin. He uses the terms interchangeably. See "Sins And Mistakes," 1996.

Hetero members are subject to discipline for things like fornication and adultery. These sins have never been defined as apostasy for the purpose of church discipline. I see Oaks saying that they are moving the sin of gay marriage out of the apostasy category and into the chastity category. It's still a sin, you can still get exed for it, etc. Only now leaders will use their "chastity" cheat sheets when figuring out how to levy punishment instead of their "apostate" cheat sheets. (I assume cheat sheets are involved, having never served in leadership myself.)

[cab]

...... But polygamy is still apostasy... I guess it's FAR too Holy of a principle to be lived at this point in time. Surely, God himself will tell us when it is again a Celestial principle and no longer apostasy. Well, he won't tell us of course... He'll tell our President who will then tell us. Then the wheat will follow and the tares will be left behind to be burned. What in exciting time to be alive!!!

[Sirius]

This may help from President Oaks:

We have the concept of apostasy. It is grounds for Church discipline…

Apostasy, being rare, has to be carefully defined. We have three definitions of apostasy: one is open, public and repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders. Open, public, repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders — A second one is to teach as doctrine something that is not Church doctrine after one has been advised by appropriate authority that that’s false doctrine. In other words, just teaching false doctrine is not apostasy, but it is teaching persistently after you’ve been warned. For example, if one were to teach that the Lord requires you to practice plural marriage in this day, it would be apostasy. And the third point would be to affiliate and belong to apostate sects, such as those that preach or practice polygamy.

So, we go back to the first cause of apostasy — open, public and repeated opposition to the Church and its leaders. That does not include searching for a middle ground. It doesn’t include worrying over a doctrine. It doesn’t include not believing a particular doctrine. None of those are apostasy. None of those are the basis of Church discipline. But when a person comes out publicly and opposes the Church, such as by saying, “I do not think anyone should follow the leaders of the Church in their missionary program, calling these young people to go out and preach the gospel,” or whatever the particular issue of the day. And when you go out and begin to “thump the tub” and try to gather opposition and organize opposition and pronounce and preach against the Church — that can be a basis for Church discipline.

So apostasy is defined by repeated opposition to the Church and it's leaders, unless it has to do with most anything lgbt. Oh and ANYTHING polygamy related. Got it.