How does the policy protect children?

[_Sammy Jankins]

Elder Christofferson said:

So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority.

We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.

This point has been made multiple times by lots of people, but I wanted to address it point blank.

If a child is brought to church weekly and has heard lessons about how gay marriage is a grevious sin, how is said child protected by being denied baptism? They will obviously still be familiar with the expectations of the church.

What will the child be told when a parent or bishop explains why they aren't being baptized? And how will it keep them from dealing with these issues?

Do you want children of gay parents to stay away from the church?

I've seen this issue raised a least a dozen times and it has been dodged everytime I've seen. So to all believers who may read this: How do you answer?

[_Sammy Jankins]

Feel free to post the answer on your personal blogs or group blogs. I'm sure I'll find it.

[_SteelHead]

This is not protecting children, this is holding children hostage to control parents behavior, which in turn hurts children.

[_annie]

Do you want children of gay parents to stay away from the church?

Yes.

[_palerobber]

Do you want children of gay parents to stay away from the church?

for Christofferson's rationalization to work at all, the answer to this question has to be 'yes'.

and if so, then a lot of observers might concede that the policy does in fact protect children (though still punishing gay parents who want their children raised LDS). except there remains a catch: even when that child becomes an adult, they're still not allowed to join the church as a general rule.

or is Christofferson going to tell us that being required to "request approval from the Office of the First Presidency" is just a formality, a rubber stamp?

[_Ceeboo]

Hi SH!

This is not protecting children, this is holding children hostage to control parents behavior, which in turn hurts children.

While I agree with what you say, I believe it is much worse!

The leveraging of the children does not just place enormous pressure, stress, and turmoil on the parents (An obvious and designed and intentional control tactic - in my opinion) it does the very same to entire families and entire extended families.

It's like an awful contagious infection - once it impacts one single human being, it can (and will in my opinion) spread and infect countless other people that have any contact with the first one. And then this larger group of infected folks can/will spread it to countless more people. And so on.

The whole thing is simply awful.


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_I have a question]

Elder Christofferson said:

So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority.

We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.

This point has been made multiple times by lots of people, but I wanted to address it point blank.

If a child is brought to church weekly and has heard lessons about how gay marriage is a grevious sin, how is said child protected by being denied baptism? They will obviously still be familiar with the expectations of the church.

What will the child be told when a parent or bishop explains why they aren't being baptized? And how will it keep them from dealing with these issues?

Do you want children of gay parents to stay away from the church?

I've seen this issue raised a least a dozen times and it has been dodged everytime I've seen. So to all believers who may read this: How do you answer?

They are not protecting the child. They are protecting the Church from the children of gay parents.
This is designed to create real separation between same sex family situations and members.
They do not want members becoming comfortable around gay parents and their children as 'normalcy' and 'acceptance' will creep in and pressure on the Church to allow same sex marriages will increase from within. The children of gay parents are a threat to the Church because when members see that the reality of their upbringing is galaxies apart from the scaremongering stories put around about dysfunction etc they will be emboldened in challenging the picture the leadership wishes to portray.

This isn't about stopping the children of gay parents from being baptised, it's about driving them away from the Church period, so they cannot 'infect' the members with their normality.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Post "clarification" thoughts:

Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. 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

So in a shared custody situation, if the straight parent has primary custody, the children can get baptized, and be taught all the lessons about what a grevious sin the gay parent is committing. How is that child "protected?"
One the other hand if the gay parent has primary custody, and the straight parent is taking them to church, then the children will be "protected" by being denied baptism? But they will still hear all the same lessons.

Shouldn't be hard to answer this question. I mean the first presidency couldn't do it, but I'm sure an apologist can. That's what an apologist is for, to answer questions church leaders can't.

[_sock puppet]

So in a shared custody situation, if the straight parent has primary custody, the children can get baptized, and be taught all the lessons about what a grevious sin the gay parent is committing. How is that child "protected?"
One the other hand if the gay parent has primary custody, and the straight parent is taking them to church, then the children will be "protected" by being denied baptism? But they will still hear all the same lessons.

Shouldn't be hard to answer this question. I mean the first presidency couldn't do it, but I'm sure an apologist can. That's what an apologist is for, to answer questions church leaders can't.

And the apologists are flailing around right now, trying out a variety of excuses to see if any of them will stick. There is one, point blank one: Mormon God is a homophobe and turns his back on his cohabiting gay/lesbian children, so much so Mormon God cannot even abide his other children that live as mortal children with such gays/lesbians as parents.

It's that simple. It's that odious. But I look forward to more clarifications by which they just keep piling this crappy idea deeper, and more Q&A backfires. (Christofferson has so much crap dripping off his suit right now; it was disingenuous lies. He's a peach.) Let it be tens if not hundreds of thousands that resign.

[_consiglieri]

Dear Sammy,

I think your original (very good) question is brought into sharper focus by yesterday's clarification from the FP.

All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities.

If the reason for denying blessing and baptism is for the benefit of the child so that they won't be hearing things that put them in opposition to their gay parents, why are they "welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities"?

Wouldn't a child who had been blessed and baptized hear the same anti-gay rhetoric at Church meetings and activities as a child who has not been blessed and baptized?

And wouldn't the same type of rhetoric cause conflict in the family of a child not blessed and baptized?

You are right.

The more the Church seeks to "clarify" this policy, the more it becomes evident that the real purpose is to exclude gays and their children from membership in the Church.