I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[♪alt13]

In my case, my oldest two kids are 11 and 8.

I've had conversations like that with my cousin, his wife (staunch Catholic from Poland/Germany), their kids. It was more of a curiosity thing, me answering questions, etc. As long as I was honest in my feelings and beliefs with them, it wasn't tacky or awkward. But yes, having a conversation with a kid whose parents are gay about why they couldn't be baptized would be incredibly awkward.

Your first post left me with the impression that you would have that conversation with just the child.

My eldest is 10 and most of her cousins are around that age. I think they are still so very impressionable that I try to avoid all that altogether. I had one of them ask me and my wife if we believe in god and the bible. I tried my best to not answer her question. I knew the next question would be "WHY?". We told her that that was a conversation she needed to have with her mom and dad and that she needn't worry about it for now. She wasn't satisfied with that answer and was not ready to let it go. I told her that what she thought was important. I told her that different people believe different things and that that's ok. I reiterated that she should ask her parents about it. We told the girls to go back to playing.

I'm assuming she had that conversation with her parents because she has not pressed it any further. I'm sure she still has many questions for us but those questions are probably more useful to her than any answers we could possibly give her.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Sorry, I had one more thought.



Yes, exactly. The church teaches that homosexual marriages are invalid in the eyes of God. If someone wants to join the church, they must accept that doctrine. If the individual is not comfortable with that, they won't join the church.

What *should* the church do instead, in your opinion, short of changing the doctrine about homosexual marriages?

Where is this rule? I know many members that question this doctrine, yet they are good standing members.

 

[GVC]

Too bad you've forgotten the Golden Rule then, and have started living by "an eye for an eye".

A bit ironic that you've invoked the Golden Rule in this thread, no?

 

[cowhide]

This. 100% this.

This is what bothers me. I stayed up last night pouring through the bible looking at the scriptures on homosexuality. There are some and the Bible is very clear on the matter: Homosexuality is wrong.

BUT, in EVERY case, listed right next to homosexuality is adultery and fornication. So, why are we singling out gay people?

Why is it a couple can commit fornication, get married, and their kids can get baptized, receive the priesthood, and go on missions? According to this announcement, shouldn't the couple that fornicated be required to divorce, renounce their sins, and move on to other people before they can be cleaned of their sin? Shouldn't their kids not be allowed to get baptized, receive the priesthood, and go on missions before renouncing their parents' sin? Shouldn't the people who committed the sin not be allowed to be Bishops, young men leaders, Primary leaders, etc?

Same for adultery? Why is it a person can commit adultery, marry the person they committed it with, have a child and that child can be baptized?

There would be few people in the church if actual sin was used as the measuring stick to enforcing such a rule. This is flat out bigotry and it is wrong and it goes against the churches own Article of faith. It isn't a surprise because the black issue went against the 2nd article of faith. PR-wise it makes the leaders seem petty and hypocritical especially after their "religious" freedom bill.

 

[cowhide]

If the Church feels that 18 is an appropriate age for a child who lives in a sinful environment (homosexual couple) then why do they have any kids get baptized at 8? Is 8 not old enough? If it isn't old enough, then why don't we make every kid wait until 18? Why do we baptize children where one parent is not in the church and drinks and smokes?

If the reason is that we don't want kids to make a covenant that they can't keep because of their home environment, why do we baptize kids who have a parent who drinks or smokes? Isn't that kid just as likely to break their covenant? What about a kid who has parents who fornicated and their relationship is based on that fornication?

Why not wait until 18 to have EVERY kid baptized?

Because baptism numbers would decrease, no eight year old has any real understanding of the teachings, covenants or commitments they are agreeing to keep. Nor do they know of the history or the nonsense the church has supported. I agree with you GREEN, if sin is your enemy then all sin should be a concern not just homosexuality (I don't believe it is a sin).

 

[Stoked]

Because baptism numbers would decrease, no eight year old has any real understanding of the teachings, covenants or commitments they are agreeing to keep. Nor do they know of the history or the nonsense the church has supported. I agree with you GREEN, if sin is your enemy then all sin should be a concern not just homosexuality (I don't believe it is a sin).

In all fairness to the LDS church, all sin is a concern. It sees some as worse than others.

I truly believe this will be a net negative for the Church.

 

[bigb]

Your first post left me with the impression that you would have that conversation with just the child.

My eldest is 10 and most of her cousins are around that age. I think they are still so very impressionable that I try to avoid all that altogether. I had one of them ask me and my wife if we believe in god and the bible. I tried my best to not answer her question. I knew the next question would be "WHY?". We told her that that was a conversation she needed to have with her mom and dad and that she needn't worry about it for now. She wasn't satisfied with that answer and was not ready to let it go. I told her that what she thought was important. I told her that different people believe different things and that that's ok. I reiterated that she should ask her parents about it. We told the girls to go back to playing.

I'm assuming she had that conversation with her parents because she has not pressed it any further. I'm sure she still has many questions for us but those questions are probably more useful to her than any answers we could possibly give her.

I totally get what where you are coming from. But in that scenario you used, I personally would have answered the questions, with the caveat of "I'll tell you what I believe, but you get to have this conversation with your parents as well".

 

[DutchJazzer]

No, you are wrong. Civil marriages are not promised the same blessings as a temple sealing, but the church certainly does not teach that they are invalid in the eyes of God.

but origanlly marriage was a promise between a man and woman. later on in history 3rd parties(aka the church) got involved.

 

[cowhide]

I just wanted to comment on the bold statement that has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

This statement in my experience is not true, that children of a male and female living together are allowed to be baptized without thought of the family situation. This goes for many of the other family situations that exist, that of a child with both parents that are not members of the LDS church, one parent is a member while the other parent is not, or even both parents are members but do not attend regularly or often.

In all of these situations my understanding is that there would have to be special permission given at some level, possibly the Stake President or higher, in order to get approval for baptism.
The reasoning behind this has less to do with sins of parents as it does of having a stable and supportive environment for the child that wants to be baptized into the church. If there is not a supportive home environment to being a member of the church and living by the teachings, then it is most likely not the best time to be baptized. It’s very very hard for children to be active members of the church without parent and family support.

This gets to the portion of the issue where the parents are currently not living in a way to be in line with the LDS church teachings. I have seen parents be required to be married in order to join the church, but that is usually when the parents are joining as well. In my opinion this has more to do with keeping families strong whether in or out of the church and giving people the best opportunity to succeed at living the teachings than “meting out punishment”.

I have seen delays in children being baptized many times for parents to make changes before a child is allowed to be baptized. What is the point of baptizing a child if the odds are really high in favor of the child not having support to live the LDS doctrine? Baptism is a gateway to a way of life, it’s not the end of any road, but a beginning.

This is not bigotry, this is policy enacted to protect people.

It is better to not be baptized, than to be baptized knowing full well there is little chance that person will be able to live up to the covenants made at that baptism. When you are baptized, you promise certain things, and children need the support of parents and families in order to keep those covenants.

I hope my rambling ideas/post makes even half the points I intended to make even if not as well worded as I would like.

You just made a good argument for not baptizing children. I think it is pretty silly to baptize babies or eight years, neither have an understanding about what covenants they are making.

 

[colton]

Where is this rule? I know many members that question this doctrine, yet they are good standing members.

There's a standard set of questions that bishops and missionaries must ask people before they can be baptized and join the church. They include things like belief in God, belief in Jesus as your Savior, belief in the Book of Mormon as scripture, belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet, belief in Thomas Monson as a current prophet, maybe a couple of others such as willingness to sustain the church leaders. True, people aren't generally kicked out if they stop believing, but what I said is correct: in order to join the church a person must profess belief in the church's core doctrines. The church's teaching against homosexual behavior hasn't specifically been one of these core doctrines in the past, but it certainly could qualify under the sustain the church leaders one.

 

[colton]

A bit ironic that you've invoked the Golden Rule in this thread, no?

I don't know what you think you're seeing in my posts, but I haven't written a single hateful word. I've acknowledged there are some issues with this policy, and I've also said that many things about it make sense and respectfully explained why it seems that way to me. After the post of yours that contained information that I doubted, I explained what my issues were with it, and said that I believed your personal experience. And I didn't answer this post with a "**** you." So yes, I've got a clean conscience with regards to this thread because I've done unto others as I would have them do unto me. (The sole exception might be a neg rep I left in response to a rude post by someone who shall remain nameless.)

 

[GVC]

I don't know what you think you're seeing in my posts...

I was referring to the topic of the thread, not your behavior (although the sanctimonious BS is less than appreciated. The last thing I need is a lecture on appropriate behavior from someone who belongs to a ***-hating organization).