Mormon Church refuses to bless children of Same-Sex Couples.

[Robert.Evans]

You can't disown your parents until you are 18. You can't be a Mormon until you have done that, regardless of your age.

Mormons as a group are extremely family oriented. This anti-family policy won't last long. Some Bishop will get a revelation from God and the homophobic policies will go the way of the policies about polygamy and racism.
Tom

I don't think it will be from God.

 

[leibowde84]

If they are trying to keep the commandments, they can neither sanction gay marriage or the above. And if that is what they are doing, I applaud them.

In what way would baptizing children be "sanctioning gay marriage"?! Are you really claiming that blessing/baptizing children who have gay parents would be giving official permission or approval for same-sex marriage? If so, please explain, as that seems counter-intuitive to me.

 

[Katzpur]

I think it makes sense that they don't want juveniles as being part of a church that condemns and shuts out their parents... Which wouldn't make sense at all, only adding a conflict between church and home/family.

So with their stance on homosexuality...it just isn't surprising.

I appreciate your comments, Sees. Even though I think that the policy is flawed and not in the best interest of innocent children, I can understand why, with the Church's stance on same-sex marriages, it would have felt the need to institute a policy in the first place. I can't speak for my Church's leadership, but I don't think the decision was motivated out of hatred. I just think it was misguided. Just so that people who would like to be able to understand why the Church would have instituted such a policy, here are some thoughts from my liberal Mormon perspective...

Churches have every right to set standards of conduct for their own members. I personally have no issues with same-sex marriage, and even though I wish that the Church would welcome same-sex couples into their midst, I support their right not to do so. This goes along with the basic terms of separation of church and state, which I fully support.

So, regarding blessings: When a baby is about a month old, he or she is typically "given a name and a blessing" during an LDS Sunday worship service. This is just another word for "christening." This assures that the child's name is added to the records of the LDS Church -- not as a baptized members, because that comes later -- but as an as yet unbaptized child. As a part of this blessing there, is an inherent acknowledgement by the parents that they will raise their child by LDS standards, which would include the belief in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. A same-sex couple are hardly going to do this, so to perform this blessing would be a complete farce.

And, with respect to baptisms: Mormons typically baptize their children at the age of eight. It's seriously pretty hard for me to imagine a same-sex couple even wanting to raise their child LDS and permitting him to be baptized at the age of eight. But let's say it was allowed. The Church has the right, as a Church, to teach its members what they believe God expects of us. Mormons believe that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Children and teens are going to be taught this principle and the Church has every right to teach moral principles within its walls. I can't imagine how difficult it would be for the child of a same-sex couple to be told that God is displeased with his parents' moral choices. It's one thing to be told that you're not living the way you should be, but quite another thing to be told that the two people you love more than anything else are sinning -- particularly when you can't do a thing about it. Better that the child not be put in this position at all. If he decides after he is of age that he wants to become a Mormon, nobody's going to stop him.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

This seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to show their refusal to accept same-sex marriage by targeting children. Can anyone explain how this is morally acceptable according to the teachings of Christ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/05/mormon-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-getting-blessed-and-baptized-until-they-are-18/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name:homepage/story

The really incredible thing ive heard about the mormons, where they were not the perpetrators but the victims, is that in a talk one mormon mentioned that their entire religion was heavily persecuted during all of its years after foundation. only recently in the 20th century did the persecution stop. they were seen as sects which were immoral and thus were persecuted to such a degree that there were massacres commited against them (and this in the "secular" west! in the USA!). one of the reasons was that polygamy was considered a great sin by the orthodox christian evagelicals. this went on until mormoms had to stop their practice and endorsement of polygamy in favor of monogamy. and until this day the mormons are viewed as weirdos and idiots for believing the stuff they believe.

 

[Robert.Evans]

In what way would baptizing children be "sanctioning gay marriage"?! Are you really claiming that blessing/baptizing children who have gay parents would be giving official permission or approval for same-sex marriage? If so, please explain, as that seems counter-intuitive to me.

Explain their stance on gay marriage first.

 

[Katzpur]

How did the Mormons change the old policies about polygamy and racism?

Let's just say that it's a lot more involved than "some bishop getting a revelation." If that's all that had to happen, every congregation within the Church would be operating autonomously under their own set of rules. Of course if what you're saying is that the entire concept of God communicating with human beings is for the birds, that's another subject entirely.

 

[Katzpur]

I rather think they have made the wrong decision and that children who wish to be baptised should be so, even if the parents can not be involved in the process. Any theological problems should be put on hold and sorted in due time.

Agreed -- provided the parents are okay with the child being baptized. If the child of a non-LDS hetersexual couple wanted to be baptized, his parents permission would be required. It should be the same, in my opinion, with respect to the children of homosexual couples.

 

[columbus]

If he decides after he is of age that he wants to become a Mormon, nobody's going to stop him.

Except perhaps his parents and friends and all the decent people who ask, "How can you disown your own family?".
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

The really incredible thing ive heard about the mormons, where they were not the perpetrators but the victims, is that in a talk one mormon mentioned that their entire religion was heavily persecuted during all of its years after foundation. only recently in the 20th century did the persecution stop. they were seen as sects which were immoral and thus were persecuted to such a degree that there were massacres commited against them (and this in the "secular" west! in the USA!). one of the reasons was that polygamy was considered a great sin by the orthodox christian evagelicals. this went on until mormoms had to stop their practice and endorsement of polygamy in favor of monogamy. and until this day the mormons are viewed as weirdos and idiots for believing the stuff they believe.

I don't have too much of an issue with polygamy, assuming consent is not at issue. But, beliefs are fair game for scrutiny/ridicule.

 

[Katzpur]

Except perhaps his parents and friends and all the decent people who ask, "How can you disown your own family?".

Nobody is expected to disown his family when he gets baptized. It is entirely possible to disavow a lifestyle without disowning the person who practices it.

 

[columbus]

Let's just say that it's a lot more involved than "some bishop getting a revelation."

So what is it?
Mormons used to be polygamous and racist. Some still are, Warren Jeffs ilk still exist. You may not think that they are "true" Mormons, but they think the same of you.
Tom

 

[Katzpur]

So what is it?
Mormons used to be polygamous and racist. Some still are, Warren Jeffs ilk still exist. You may not think that they are "true" Mormons, but they think the same of you.
Tom

What exactly would you like from me, Tom? Are we just playing games here? Are you just trying to out-debate me, or would you really like to get at the truth of the matter?

 

[columbus]

What exactly would you like from me, Tom? Are we just playing games here? Are you just trying to out-debate me, or would you really like to get at the truth of the matter?

I would have less interest in Mormon affairs and hypocrisy if they stayed out of my life. But they insist on getting into it. They spend millions of tax exempt donations on advertising campaigns trying to prevent me from having basic civil rights. They petition the SCOTUS to rule against my basic civil rights.
And now they are saying that the fight has just begun.
Tom

 

[zomg]

This decision baffles me. It's like the LDS church enjoys shooting themselves in the foot. While the normal members might have no problem with this, it pushes liberal members of the LDS church to further distance themselves to the point of resignation.

 

[Katzpur]

I would have less interest in Mormon affairs and hypocrisy if they stayed out of my life.

Well, I'd be happy to stay out of your life, Tom. Consider it a done deal.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The really incredible thing ive heard about the mormons, where they were not the perpetrators but the victims, is that in a talk one mormon mentioned that their entire religion was heavily persecuted during all of its years after foundation. only recently in the 20th century did the persecution stop. they were seen as sects which were immoral and thus were persecuted to such a degree that there were massacres commited against them (and this in the "secular" west! in the USA!). one of the reasons was that polygamy was considered a great sin by the orthodox christian evagelicals. this went on until mormoms had to stop their practice and endorsement of polygamy in favor of monogamy. and until this day the mormons are viewed as weirdos and idiots for believing the stuff they believe.

Yeah, that's not the reason why they were "persecuted". They weren't innocent victims.

 

[columbus]

Well, I'd be happy to stay out of your life, Tom. Consider it a done deal.

It's not you. I like you, you know I do.
It's your church and churches like it that are the problem.
Tom

 

[Katzpur]

Yeah, that's not the reason why they were "persecuted". They weren't innocent victims.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about here, Frank? Nobody's ever completely "innocent," but why exactly do you believe they were persecuted -- or do you not believe they were persecuted in the first place? Are you saying there are legitimate reasons why people should be driven out of their homes in the dead of winter and forced out of the country of which they are citizens?

 

[zomg]

Yeah, that's not the reason why they were "persecuted". They weren't innocent victims.

While the Mormons weren't completely innocent - looting non Mormons, Danites, etc - I don't think they deserved to be forced to move.

I was raised to believe Mormons were completely innocent and the only reason people didn't like them was because Mormonism was the true religion.

 

[Katzpur]

It's not you. I like you, you know I do.

And you know I was opposed to their involvement.

It's your church and churches like it that are the problem.

I understand that, but your post #31 didn't exactly strike me as an invitation to a respectful dialogue.