First presidency clarifies Handbook

[Guest]

I think this is brand new.

Otterrson - Understanding the Handbook

Edit: Never mind Otterson, here is the First Presidency:

Frist Presidency clarification

[_Res Ipsa]

Well, the FP letter clarifies everything. I guess there's nothing more to talk about.

[_fetchface]

If they meant 'primary residence' why didn't they just say that in the first place? I'm going to guess that it is because that is not what they originally meant.

I think they just walked this back a bit and are going to try to play it as if this is what they meant all along.

[_Sammy Jankins]

If they meant 'primary residence' why didn't they just say that in the first place? I'm going to guess that it is because that is not what they originally meant.

I think they just walked this back a bit and are going to try to play it as if this is what they meant all along.

Here is the original text for reference.

"Effective immediately, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a new policy related to the children of gay couples, married or unmarried:
"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:
1. 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.
2. 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."

It took them 8 days to clarify this is what they actually meant?

I don't believe that. This is clearly a reactionary change.

[_Res Ipsa]

Family law has, for quite a while, been moving away from the concept of primary residence as it emphasizes joint custody. This clarification just dumps everything back in the laps of the local leaders with no real guidance.

[_Runtu]

So, if a child wants to get baptized, the parent's significant other or spouse just needs to leave the house until after the baptism. Problem solved.

This actually makes me lean more towards the idea that they didn't know what the “F” they were doing or how it would be received.

[_RockSlider]

fixed! and before tomorrows mass resignation party

[Guest]

The episode demonstrates clearly the dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete news reports, tweets and Facebook posts without necessary context and accurate information.

Haha. That's rich. We had the complete amendment in front of us. News agencies reported it. It stunk. But sure, it's our fault for not understanding things that clearly weren't meant in the handbook changes.

[_Runtu]

Oh, and that Otterson letter is ridiculous. He tries to compare the policy to the requirement for parental permission before someone is baptized--except that isn't enough for the children of gay parents. He says missionaries don't proselytize in Muslim countries or Israel out of concern for families--except they know it's illegal to proselytize in those countries, so again, not an analogous situation. And last, he says that children of polygamists need "special permission" to be baptized in order to make sure they know and accept the church's doctrines on the issue--except no special permission is even available for children of gay parents.

He did say pretty clearly that this was about drawing boundaries ("a firm line") about who is and is not welcome in the church. All this stuff about it being to protect children is nonsense. If it were, the policy would be the same as that governing any children, or at worst, the children of polygamists. But it's not the same; these kids are singled out as different and undeserving of saving ordinances. This "clarification" doesn't change that.

[_sock puppet]

Family law has, for quite a while, been moving away from the concept of primary residence as it emphasizes joint custody. This clarification just dumps everything back in the laps of the local leaders with no real guidance.

Yep, now a bishop essentially has to let the parents present evidence of the child's primary residence and make a decision about that.

I thought they were trying to avoid litigation, not encourage it--which is essentially what has to take place before the bishop so that he can make the decision as to "primary" residence.

What if the child lives 6 months of the year with straight mom and the other 6 months of the year with gay dad and his partner?

It's now all so clear.