I learned in church today

[TripletDaddy]

i remember teaching on my mission that one of the benefits of the Gift of the Holy Ghost was getting help remembering stuff on tests. In other words, if you had the GOTHG, you could pray before a test and the HG would help you remember and do well. In retrospect I dont know if that is actually true but if true that is actually a pretty nice fringe benefit.

[Paperback Writer]

Maybe it would be wise to not baptize any children (until they are 18) of a broken home for the same family law reasons given above.

And if the home was broken at any time in the past by either one of the parents. There's probably better support in Biblical scripture for an anti-divorce stand then about an anti-homosexuality stance. Where's the protection of children with respect to divorce?

[BlueK]

i remember teaching on my mission that one of the benefits of the Gift of the Holy Ghost was getting help remembering stuff on tests. In other words, if you had the GOTHG, you could pray before a test and the HG would help you remember and do well. In retrospect I dont know if that is actually true but if true that is actually a pretty nice fringe benefit.

A girl who had recently gotten baptized told us she felt different after getting the gift of the Holy Ghost. In her words, it was as if her "conscience" was made stronger. Now a bitter, cynical ex-mo might try to twist that into something ugly like now being in the church she's been turned into a guilt-wracked tortured soul, but that's not at all how she seemed to feel. She really felt like she was receiving some added enlightenment day to day to help her in her life.

[BlueK]

I think you are missing the point of this policy which has nothing to do with protecting the children...

See, for example: http://www.nearingkolob.com/hurt-new...s-kids-part-1/

but rather protects the a$$et$ of the church:

Listen to, for example (around minute 34): http://athoughtfulfaith.org/church-p...xts-james-ord/

I am not a lawyer (and don't play one on TV) but I would think some smart lawyers (maybe this is the problem) could come up with a hold-harmless agreement that protects the church's be$t intere$t$ that both parents could sign so that a child that gets caught in the middle of this can still be baptized. For some reason, however, it was determined that not baptizing the children until they are 18 would be the best course of action. Maybe it would be wise to not baptize any children (until they are 18) of a broken home for the same family law reasons given above.

It seems the lawyers always ruin the fun.

So the choices were social persecution or legal and they went for social?

[swampfrog]

Since I'm in the lower half of brains around here, perhaps someone could help me understand where I'm wrong in my thinking.

Regarding the recent Church policy of not baptizing children of SS domicile partners, I'm confused. I understand the Church's position, but it seems contrary to the bigger picture of bringing people to Christ and Eternal Life in the Celestial Kingdom.

It's long understood that Baptism is the minimum standard for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. It's also understood that not everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is going to participate at the highest levels, so the other two levels will need bodies to fill out the purpose of the lower two kingdoms. It would seem that the baptism of a child who subsequently falls away from the church would still qualify for CK status, and being encircled about by the glory of the sun sounds a lot better than the glory of the moon, so... why not baptize any kid at the age of 8 who's willing to go under the water. Being baptized and falling away is better than no baptism at all.

Another Point.

Baptism allows for the Gift of The Holy Ghost. Certainly a young person with a "diverse" home life could benefit from the Gift. The differential between the "Gift" of the Holy Ghost and a manifestation of the Holy Ghost is the ability for the Holy Ghost to manifest the truth on the same topic over and over. A spiritual manifestation of a truth is a "one time" event to a non "gift " holder. With this spiritual differential - taught right out of the priesthood manuals - it would seem to be a huge advantage for a person to be baptized who lives under difficult a SS roof to have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to continually remind them that there is a better way and a higher law available.

I'm not mad - I'm not dissapointed - I'm just puzzled. What am I missing. I see no downside to having a ticket punched to the CK and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost available to guide the young people who have a tougher road than most. Even if they stray the path through high school - at least they have a religious identification to fall back on, and they're better off in the long run for being baptized when they were 8 years old.

Am I missing something?

I'm in agreement that much of this might just be legal in nature, but the argument being publicly presented is not that one.

There are aspects of the change that don't bother me too much, and a certain parts that bother me a lot. If a child's primary residence is in a home where at least one of their legal parents/guardians is living in a same-sex relationship, there's going to be conflict. Even the best parent is going to have a difficult time reconciling current church doctrine (and I distinctly draw a line between the Lord's doctrine and church doctrine here) with their chosen lifestyle in the minds of their children. It's a difficult situation with a lot of variables and potential issues. In many cases it will likely be better to postpone baptism, though there will be exceptions which make me uncomfortable with a global policy.

It's the situation where the primary residence is not within the home of the parent living in a same-sex relationship that really bothers me. I hope they come out with a clarification. I'm going to posit the extreme fictional example here to make the point. Take a couple where the father is closet gay upon recommendation from church leaders in the past. The mother doesn't know. They have children. He comes out when the children are still young, one has been baptized the others have not. He divorces the wife and has multiple relationships with male partners, and eventually settles down in a legal marriage over the course of a couple years. He still is very conflicted over his relationship with his ex-wife, children, church, extended family, etc. He gets depressed, overdoses and dies. The mother during the same time has remarried to a fellow church attending male. They attend church, participate actively, etc. The time comes where the next child in line is attending primary class and is seven years old. Great to be Eight, lots of talks of upcoming baptism, lessons on the GofHG, etc.

By my reading, the bishop has the wonderful duty of informing the mom that the child cannot be baptized until the child is 18. I don't see how this results in anything but all families that are in a situation similar to this stopping church attendance. It's not possible to endure the countless lessons that the child will receive about remembering how they felt at their baptism and the importance of maintaining worthiness for the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Even worse if they are male and cannot participate is Aaronic Priesthood sacrament duties.

This has to change and be left to the discretion of the local leaders, my understanding is that currently there is no leeway. If a parent has at any time participated in a same-sex relationship, no baptism until legal age.

[BlueK]

I'm in agreement that much of this might just be legal in nature, but the argument being publicly presented is not that one.

There are aspects of the change that don't bother me too much, and a certain parts that bother me a lot. If a child's primary residence is in a home where at least one of their legal parents/guardians is living in a same-sex relationship, there's going to be conflict. Even the best parent is going to have a difficult time reconciling current church doctrine (and I distinctly draw a line between the Lord's doctrine and church doctrine here) with their chosen lifestyle in the minds of their children. It's a difficult situation with a lot of variables and potential issues. In many cases it will likely be better to postpone baptism, though there will be exceptions which make me uncomfortable with a global policy.

It's the situation where the primary residence is not within the home of the parent living in a same-sex relationship that really bothers me. I hope they come out with a clarification. I'm going to posit the extreme fictional example here to make the point. Take a couple where the father is closet gay upon recommendation from church leaders in the past. The mother doesn't know. They have children. He comes out when the children are still young, one has been baptized the others have not. He divorces the wife and has multiple relationships with male partners, and eventually settles down in a legal marriage over the course of a couple years. He still is very conflicted over his relationship with his ex-wife, children, church, extended family, etc. He gets depressed, overdoses and dies. The mother during the same time has remarried to a fellow church attending male. They attend church, participate actively, etc. The time comes where the next child in line is attending primary class and is seven years old. Great to be Eight, lots of talks of upcoming baptism, lessons on the GofHG, etc.

By my reading, the bishop has the wonderful duty of informing the mom that the child cannot be baptized until the child is 18. I don't see how this results in anything but all families that are in a situation similar to this stopping church attendance. It's not possible to endure the countless lessons that the child will receive about remembering how they felt at their baptism and the importance of maintaining worthiness for the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Even worse if they are male and cannot participate is Aaronic Priesthood sacrament duties.

This has to change and be left to the discretion of the local leaders, my understanding is that currently there is no leeway. If a parent has at any time participated in a same-sex relationship, no baptism until legal age.

So using your example, and by your reading of the policy, even if the gay parent is now deceased, his child living with the ex-wife and her new husband still couldn't get baptized?

[swampfrog]

So using your example, and by your reading of the policy, even if the gay parent is now deceased, his child living with the ex-wife and her new husband still couldn't get baptized?

Yes. I am not a lawyer however. Any other opinions here?

[Topper]

Yes. I am not a lawyer however. Any other opinions here?

Your opinion seems to jive with what I understand. Let's hope discretion and flexibility is afforded to bishops and other leaders.

[smokymountainrain]

say a kid is living with his mom who has sole custody, but his dad is in a gay marriage - we've learned that's a no go, but what if a bishop/SP decideds on his own that it's a go - kid can be baptized and they go through with the baptism. Not necessarily to go against policy intentionally, but perhaps due to ignorance. What then are the repurcussions, if any? I can't see a bishop being released over that.

[Sullyute]

say a kid is living with his mom who has sole custody, but his dad is in a gay marriage - we've learned that's a no go, but what if a bishop/SP decideds on his own that it's a go - kid can be baptized and they go through with the baptism. Not necessarily to go against policy intentionally, but perhaps due to ignorance. What then are the repurcussions, if any? I can't see a bishop being released over that.

The child would not receive the true holy ghost and his sins would not be forgiven. He would need to re-baptized down the road. Any priesthood used (blessing sacrament, gathering fast offerings, setting up chairs, etc) would bring further condemnation on his head. The butterfly effect would be inconceivable and might actually bring down the church it self.

[smokymountainrain]

The child would not receive the true holy ghost and his sins would not be forgiven. He would need to re-baptized down the road. Any priesthood used (blessing sacrament, gathering fast offerings, setting up chairs, etc) would bring further condemnation on his head. The butterfly effect would be inconceivable and might actually bring down the church it self.

okay. so I was mostly wondering about repurcussions for the bishop. I should have been more specific.

[Sullyute]

okay. so I was mostly wondering about repurcussions for the bishop. I should have been more specific.

Oh, probably nothing would happen unless someone complained.

[Moliere]

Oh, probably nothing would happen unless someone complained.

And like we all know, most members never complain when they see something that goes against policy.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

There's a 13 year old in my ward. His parents are divorced, dad remarried and active in the church, mom very antagonistic to the church. The kid has not been baptized but has been meeting with the missionaries on almost a weekly basis to try amend this. Given that I've taught the kid in Sunday School and soon to be in Young Men's when he turns 14 next month, I've been asked to participate in a few of these discussions.

The missionaries have used the commitment pattern for prayer to gain a testimony, to soften his mom's heart to allow him to be baptized and "a myriad of a few other things" to really twist this kid up. It's been hard to sit through at times. But with the dad there, he seems totally cool with the twisting, so who am I?

Seems like this new policy should be far more reaching than just children of a homosexual. Maybe not letting any child of a split family to get baptized until they're 18 is the policy where we end up down the road.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There's a 13 year old in my ward. His parents are divorced, dad remarried and active in the church, mom very antagonistic to the church. The kid has not been baptized but has been meeting with the missionaries on almost a weekly basis to try amend this. Given that I've taught the kid in Sunday School and soon to be in Young Men's when he turns 14 next month, I've been asked to participate in a few of these discussions.

The missionaries have used the commitment pattern for prayer to gain a testimony, to soften his mom's heart to allow him to be baptized and "a myriad of a few other things" to really twist this kid up. It's been hard to sit through at times. But with the dad there, he seems totally cool with the twisting, so who am I?

Seems like this new policy should be far more reaching than just children of a homosexual. Maybe not letting any child of a split family to get baptized until they're 18 is the policy where we end up down the road.

What is wrong with good old-fashioned "parental consent"?