I wonder as well.churchistrue wrote:I'm sure this is pretty rare, because polygamy doesn't usually work this way. But what would happen in a situation that's analogous to the most common scenario with the new same sex parent policy?
Wife1 and Husband1 are married. Normal, active LDS, non-polygamous marriage and family.
Wife1 and Husband1 have a couple kids early in their marriage. Get divorced. Standard Utah custody arrangement. Husband1 gets kids every other weekend plus one night a week. Husband1 gets involved with FLDS church, converts, and takes on a couple wives.
Now child is baptism age. He's gone to church his whole life. This polygamy thing with his dad is kind of new and weird, but they figure it all out. Husband1 is excommunicated from LDS church but is a good dad, gets along with his ex, Wife1 is really big into Mormonism and Husband1 doesn't want to mess with that, so he sends the kids to LDS church when he has custody either by themselves or he attends with them.
Would the church really not allow these kids to get baptized? It's probably rare, but it has to have happened at least a couple times. I wonder how it's handled.
This is my biggest problem with this new policy. And this is what I feel will tear families apart the most.
I have word from a reliable source of a young woman being sent home from her mission because one of her parents is gay and "cohabitating" with the same-sex partner. I've also read similar accounts from gay parents about their child's baptism now being called off even though it was scheduled for the upcoming weeks---even though they were supportive, even though the other parent is who is taking the child to church every week. These kids have gone to church their whole life and probably will continue to with their straight parent (or will they? Will they stop coming because they feel so cut off from everything?). But now they're cut off from all those rights of passage in the church because the church is trying to "protect" them? Bogus.
Seems like a lot of people, especially when defending this policy, are imagining a scenarios where there is a same-sex couple and adopted children. The policy seems to fit a lot nicely into the box they've created in that situation. However, the policy is not written in a way that is limited to that scenario. People forget that. Additionally, people are forgetting that even if a parent is no longer living in a same-sex cohabitation scenario, even if they "repented" years ago, that child cannot have access to any of the official rights of passage: no baptism--no Priesthood--no nothing until they turn 18 and get approval from the First Presidency (I'm a little iffy about needing to move out in that scenario, I'd have to read it again). So much for repentance.
I really feel the Church leadership has overlooked so much with this policy and it's a testament to the fact that despite their insistence that they are, they're really not listening to gay members and the families of gay members. Truly, the haven't listened. "Being gay" is not a religious community. Believe it or not, even the First President in the Bishopric might decide to come out and live with a partner in a few years. There are gay members dispersed all throughout our congregations, we just don't see them. And this policy will have horrible implications for a child of parents going through a divorce because of this.
If they have considered these implications and moved forward with this policy, they are being cruel.
This policy straight-up is about protecting straight church members who buy into the "gay marriage is an abomination" rhetoric. Church Leadership may even believe that it is primarily about protecting children of gay families, but it's not. This policy is going to hurt so many people. It's creating artificial consequences for entering into same-sex relationships that punish entire families for the "sins" of the gay members.