A Church spokesman confirmed changes in the Church handbook regarding apostasy and same-sex marriage and the children the grow up on same-sex households.
I am going to quote from a KSL story that is respectful and appears accurate.
SALT LAKE CITY — The LDS Church confirmed Thursday that children living with same-sex parents or guardians will not be allowed membership in the church until reaching “legal age” and the individual “disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.”
The new instructions are included in a revision to the Church Handbook of Instructions for leaders.
The criteria for membership also requires an individual to no longer be living with a parent “who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.” A mission president or a stake president must now request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for an individual in these circumstances.
Church spokesman Erik Hawkins released the following statement:
“Church handbooks are policy and procedural guides for lay leaders who must administer the Church in many varied circumstances throughout the world. The Church has long been on record as opposing same-sex marriages. While it respects the law of the land, and acknowledges the right of others to think and act differently, it does not perform or accept same-sex marriage within its membership.”
Handbook 1, number 6.7.2 has been updated as follows (addition is highlighted):
When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary
Serious Transgression
. . . It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, . . .
Handbook 1, number 6.7.3 has been updated as follows (addition is highlighted):
When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory
Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:
Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
Are in a same-gender marriage.
Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.A new section in Handbook 1, 16.13 has been added as follows:
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:
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.
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.
New Post: New Church policies on same-sex marriage: A Church spokesman confirmed changes in the C… https://t.co/U8C9m7BfgP #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: New Church policies on same-sex marriage https://t.co/rU0QAC0O23 #lds #mormon
RT @ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: New Church policies on same-sex marriage https://t.co/rU0QAC0O23 #lds #mormon
This is the same policy that’s in place for children of polygamous relationships. Sad to see so many of my LDS friends getting upset over this when they never expressed the same outrage over how polygamous children were treated. I have no problem with the policy.
There just might be a guest post related to this subject tomorrow.
Here’s my take on it:
The newspaper story was just posted—prior to the Church making their announcement about it. So, I’d like to hear the Church’s explanation first, but here’s what makes sense to me.
(By the way, this article states the issues a little more clearly than the article you read: http://www.heraldextra.com/…/article_891f7747-a995-58ba… )
The Church has long been on record as opposing same-sex marriages. While it respects the law of the land, and acknowledges the right of others to think and act differently, it does not perform or accept same-sex marriage within its membership.
Over the past several months, the Church has issued statements reminding bishops that they are not to marry same-sex couples, or have such marriages or receptions in LDS churches.
This update to Church policy clarifies that any member of the Church who enters into a same-sex marriage is openly going against the doctrine of the Church, and therefore is considered an apostate, just like someone who is in open public opposition to the Church or its leaders, or someone who follows the teachings of apostate groups, or who believes in plural marriage. So they have added same-sex marriage to that same list, because it’s contrary to Church doctrine, just like polygamy is.
Any member who practices polygamy today is subject to Church discipline—and so it someone who practices same-sex marriage.
Now, regarding the children. Children who are living in polygamist families can’t be baptized into the Church until they reach age 18 and make a conscious choice for themselves that polygamy is wrong, and they choose to be baptized into the Church. Now it’s the same with same-sex marriage. Children who are living in same-sex families can’t be baptized into the Church until they reach age 18 and make a conscious choice for themselves that same-sex marriage is wrong, and they choose to be baptized into the Church.
This isn’t a punishment to the children. Can you imagine if such children were baptized, and on Sunday taught that same-sex marriage, or polygamy, or whatever was wrong, and then those children go home to families that practice it, how confusing and disconcerting would that be to those children? Better to wait until they are adults themselves so they can make up their own mind and decide what they believe. Then, if they decide to be baptized, they can live according to the Church standards in their own homes.
Members of the Church do love others.
We hold no ill will toward anyone. However, within the Church, we don’t believe in same-sex marriage and we don’t practice it. Anyone who does practice it can’t be a member in good standing.
It’s a sad situation. Same-sex sexual relationships are fundamentally incompatible with LDS church teachings, and same-sex couples must separate if they wish to progress. Yet, there are children in these homes and how are they supposed to be handled? As in all church policies, I defer to church leadership. I understand why they made the policy and I support them in it, yet I was fine with the lack of this policy yesterday as well. Ultimately they hold the keys and the responsibility, and I sustain them in it.
Unfortunately, we can expect to see more of these conflicts as time goes on, and every time we will be bombarded with negative reactions. The LDS church views this as a matter of behavior (same-sex sexuality is wrong), yet the world views it as a matter of identity (people are their attractions). I hope the world’s viewpoint will change some day, but in the meantime all we can do is stand our ground as anger is blasted in our direction.
James Stone,
didn’t the case of Maddie Brown show that many members think that the rules for the children of polygamous parents are not fair? So, it doesn’t surprise that these changes are found to be upsetting too.
In any case where a child does not have the support of its parents to join the Church, that individual must wait until they are legally of age to make such a decision in opposition to their parents.
When I was Relief Society President at the age of 17, my obviously avant garde Bishop released me after winter break and called a brand new convert to replace me. Except it was just a technicality that she was merely baptized at age 18, since she had been a “dry Mormon” for years before her age allowed her to accept the covenant in opposition to her parents’ wishes.
There is nothing excluding children and their parents from participating in Church activities. While it is true that boys would not be able to perform priesthood actions such as administering the sacrament, there are a vast number of activities from which they would not be excluded. As girls don’t have the priesthood, I am not aware of anything an unbaptized girl would be unable to do, save actually attending the temple to perform baptisms on behalf of deceased parties.
This policy shift does two good things. It clarifies the Church position on same gender marriage. Second, it reminds us how swiftly policy can be altered.
For those who presume that Church policy is altered in response to media pressure, this shift also provides an example demonstrating that alterations are not necessarily as those exerting pressure might have wished the “shift” to go.
This policy mostly makes sense to me. One caveat I need to reconcile is the need for a potential member raised by gay parents to disavow same sex marriage and an already baptized member who is allowed “support” same sex marriage as personal opinion as long as they don’t speak out against the church. I suppose Alma 30:7 is a factor.
Strange days indeed.
As has been stated the policy is consistent with the Church’s policy on polygamy, yet it is inconsistent with the Church’s policy on parents who are not married yet who live together and engage in sexual relations. In both cases (same sex marriage and fornication) the parents are engaging in sex outside of a Church recognized marriage, yet in one the children could be baptized while in the other they cannot.
Apparently homosexual and polygamous sexual relations outside of marriage are viewed by the Church leaders as being “worse” than heterosexual relations outside of marriage. I guess it depends on whether the sin is perceived to be having sex outside of a church recognized marriage or something else. The perceived sin is not just ignoring Church council, because both sets of people are breaking the commandments (as revealed through Church leaders) – so apparently there is a strong “ick” factor that pushes the activity closer to polygamy than to fornication in the minds of the decision maker(s).
I do agree with Meg’s point of cognitive dissonance, but that is true to some extent with any convert at any age – there will always be family members, friends, or associates who don’t convert.
In any event the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve have the responsibility/stewardship to make these calls. It’s up to them, they are the ones with the final responsibility for the policy. Regardless of whether I personally like, or dislike, the policy all I can do is chose how I respond to their direction.
John, it’s not that one sin is worse than another, it’s that the remedy is worse. In the case of both polygamous unions as well as same-sex unions, in order for a person to progress within the church, the union has to end. In contrast, a boyfriend and girlfriend who are having premarital sex can remedy the moral error by getting married. To put it another way, premarital sex within a committed relationship is wrong, but the relationship is at least compatible with church teachings: It has a potential moral future should they choose to repent and get married. Same-sex unions do not have that option, not if the two individuals want to follow the teachings of the church.
This requirement for the adults within a household to break up is a huge emotional challenge, so it’s not surprising that church leaders don’t want to be in a position where they are encouraging minors to tackle it.
Again, it’s not that one sin is worse than the other, it’s that the situation surrounding the sin is worse.
CSC that’s a very good explanation.
Niklas,
Good point. But the anger I saw was nothing compared to what I saw last night. Most of them weren’t even aware that the same policy applies to children of polygamous families.
All the flailing and phony consternation neglect to consider that Church Handbook instructions are intended to direct the decisions and counsel that as the “common judge”, local Church leaders may be called on to determine. Bishops and other local leaders don’t need to guess about such current issues. I am sure the Handbook instructions were augmented in response to calls from local units for guidance.
The clear and consistent Church policy regarding application of the Law of Chastity has not changed, and I am confident that it will not change.
What has obviously changed is the ephemeral “law of the land”.
“for a potential member raised by gay parents to disavow same sex marriage and an already baptized member who is allowed “support” same sex marriage as personal opinion as long as they don’t speak out against the church.”
Five or ten years* from now it’s not impossible to imagine the temple recommend questions being altered to ask if you are supportive of same sex marriages.
Based on the absolute missionary-like zeal that some confused members approach the issue with, I would not be surprised to see such a change. It’s tragic when you think that some of our covenant brother and sisters in the church spend more time trying to convince the faithful of the rightfulness of their dissension on various “liberal” issues than they do in performing missionary work among non-members.
*as Meg pointed out, policies change over night, so the questions could be updated tomorrow in theory.
From the administrative standpoint, I think this statement of policy rather neatly solves a lot of potential headaches a priori. Gay marriages are in apostasy by definition, and participants no longer have any standing to make any claims as Church members.
I think the language of Doctrine and Covenants 50 is very appropriate here. When confronted with a spirit of confusion, “you shall proclaim against that spirit with a loud voice that it is not of God–” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:32). I am particularly struck by the word “loud” — it isn’t enough to not participate or speak in hushed tones. We must be bold in standing for the truth.
By that same token, though, the next verse gives us warning. “Not with railing accusation, that ye be not overcome, neither with boasting nor rejoicing, lest you be seized therewith.” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:33 — indeed, the whole section is pretty much on point).
I have been happy to see that those supportive of the Church have, for the most part, not fallen into railing or accusations with those who are struggling with this latest policy change. I have also been happy that there hasn’t, to my knowledge, been any effort to ‘spike the football’ by anyone in the debate.
It is a tricky situation the Church had to deal with — under obligations to speak with a loud voice while avoiding accusation, boasting, or rejoicing. I think the Church accomplished what it needed to, which is a credit to their inspired leadership (I certainly wouldn’t want their jobs).
By the way, lest someone misunderstand, I don’t think that this policy will disappear suddenly. Just that policies can change quickly and not in a predictable manner. Though the faithful, in hindsight, will often say “Oh. Obviously.”
I see this as further separation of the wheat from the tares. We have been told that in the last days many trials and tribulations will come. They are coming.
In the Brown girl case, we have only her side.
This new policy was needed. On many sites dealing with Mormonism, pro and con, I have read many stories about openly homosexual members who live with their partner and admit it is a sexual relationship, have church callings. Mitch Mayne is one such person who flaunts his relationship with his partner and has a calling. And many ward Bishops ignore the church stance on homosexuality and allow practicing homosexuals to have callings.
The policy makes sense also as to not cause problems in the home. People, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, ignore negative evidence about the damage homosexual parents cause their children, ignore scientific facts about diseases and bodily damage from homosexual sex.
Elder Christofferson gave an interview with Brother Otterson that is available on mormonnewsroom.org.
e.g.g.,
I think you’re right. A change in policy of this kind comes because people were looking for loopholes. I have to believe there were local leaders who were simply unwilling to support the Church’s position on homosexuality, and were looking for loopholes. One of them sent the new Handbook instructions to John Dehlin.
The policy parallels that for polygamy, as we’ve noted, but I see another parallel: A lot of Church members had a hard time accepting the end of polygamy, and the Brethren were aware that sympathy for it would linger for a long time. I think that’s true of gay marriage as well. A lot of our members, including some local leaders, have a hard time accepting that the Church has taken a definite position against gay marriage, and it seems clear that sympathy for it is going to linger.
Hi Pat,
Thank you for the mention of the interview. It was good to watch.
I know that the context of this verse does not justify it’s use as a prooftext, but I am sure looking at this verse in a new light now:
Moroni 8:15
“For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.”