Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Jeff Lebowski]

Deseret News article about today's announcement:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...and-their.html

The First Presidency letter clarified that the restriction of priesthood ordinances for children of same-sex parents applies only to those whose primary residence is with a same-sex couple.

"Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment," stated the letter, signed by church President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors, President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf. "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions."

[SandYFan]

It's still withholding blessings from innocent kids. I don't like it.

[Commando]

So they clarified the policy but the wording in the handbook won't be changed?

In a year or two people are going to forget about the clarification and there will be wide spread diversity in applying he policy. Weird.

Nah. What I took from it is that the best interests of the child will be the primary objective when applying the policy. People will remember to do that.

[Northwestcoug]

That was quick.
We should be glad the policy was leaked to the public

[Joe Public]

wow, lots of divine revelation flying around this past week on some pretty big issues!

Cool. Which issues were those?

[Moliere]

Nah. What I took from it is that the best interests of the child will be the primary objective when applying the policy. People will remember to do that.

A strict reading of the policy, which wording didn't change, will still lead to confusion. Bishops tend to follow the handbook very closely in situations like this, meaning worthiness, ordinations and discipline. Bishops do take some liberty with other non-important policies (such as fund raising for camps) but they will have a harder time doing that with this policy. The policy still reads in a hard line fashion and the wording needs to be updated.

So is First Presidency approval still required for an 18 year old to go in a mission if he has a parent living in a SSM? The policy still says yes and the clarification doesn't hit on this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A strict reading of the policy, which wording didn't change, will still lead to confusion. Bishops tend to follow the handbook very closely in situations like this, meaning worthiness, ordinations and discipline. Bishops do take some liberty with other non-important policies (such as fund raising for camps) but they will have a harder time doing that with this policy. The policy still reads in a hard line fashion and the wording needs to be updated.

So is First Presidency approval still required for an 18 year old to go in a mission if he has a parent living in a SSM? The policy still says yes and the clarification doesn't hit on this.

I am sure a rewording/update is forthcoming.

[Sullyute]

Cool. Which issues were those?

I heard there was an issue with someone stealing President Monson diet sodas!

[TripletDaddy]

Cool. Which issues were those?

same sex marriage, children of same sex couples, etc.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Some clarification: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/

Good to see some back tracking on the initial policy. That is certainly an improvement.

[TripletDaddy]

I am sure a rewording/update is forthcoming.

this will not be a swish if it happens.

[Moliere]

I am sure a rewording/update is forthcoming.

Hopefully. In reading CB it seems that the current wording is not only unambiguous, but that a clarification was only needed to stop all the antis that were intentionally misreading it

[Jeff Lebowski]

this will not be a swish if it happens.

Dude, you are not the Arbiter of Swish.

[Levin]

When I heard this news, I pulled over in my car and wept.

lol -- you're killing it today.

I still don't like that we're withholding blessings from kids living with gay couples b/c it still sends the message: we don't want you here -- you or your kids.

Here's what I wish the Church would have said before any of this:

"We welcome all people to worship with us. To those who keep the commandments but feel same-sex attraction, know that you are not sinful because of it. We welcome you to partake in all the blessings and ordinances of the gospel. To those who feel same-sex attraction and who act on it, whether in committed relationships or not, we welcome you to join us -- your families, your children, and your friends -- in our worship services and Church family. As with any person who breaks the law of chastity, however, doing so could subject you to Church discipline. But as we are all sinners, we hope you join us as we strive to follow Christ's teachings. To gay couples who have children, we quote the Savior: 'Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.'"

[Sullyute]

Here's what I wish the Church would have said before any of this:

"We welcome all people to worship with us. To those who keep the commandments but feel same-sex attraction, know that you are not sinful because of it. We welcome you to partake in all the blessings and ordinances of the gospel. To those who feel same-sex attraction and who act on it, whether in committed relationships or not, we welcome you to join us -- your families, your children, and your friends -- in our worship services and Church family. As with any person who breaks the law of chastity, however, doing so could subject you to Church discipline. But as we are all sinners, we hope you join us as we strive to follow Christ's teachings. To gay couples who have children, we quote the Savior: 'Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.'"

Good write up Levin. I wonder if the church PR department is hiring?