Former Mormon Becomes PM of New Zealand

[kiwi57]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't care what someone's religion is, what sex they are or what ethnic group they come from either.  But I do care a lot whether the candidate supports equality for all American's under the law.  If a Mormon ran for office, I would need them to renounce the church's position on how the church treats gays for me to consider voting for them.  Just as I would have needed for them to renounce the priesthood ban when that was in effect.  I also would need a Republican to renounce many of the Republican platform in order to consider voting for them.  Social justice is high on my list of important issues that a candidate believes in.

So you could bring yourself to vote for a cultural Mormon or a MINO, just not a believing Latter-day Saint.

You "don't care what someone's religion is" just as long as they don't actually believe it.

Got it.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Can you please not turn every single thread into a rehash of every other thread on how the-Church-is-mean-to-gays?

But since you've rung that gong: The Church's policies towards gays and their families are not in conflict with His teachings.

No. It is not.

It is exactly the same policy that the Church has towards minor children being raised in polygamous households.

That policy has been in place for years, and gays never complained about that. I wonder why?

The Church's support of the sanctity of authentic conjugal marriage was not an attempt "to take away the civil rights of gay couples." Homosexuals had equality before the law already, being free to marry a single person of the opposite sex just like everyone else did.

That's what "equality before the law" means. It applies to individuals, not couples.

I don't know when you served here, but we've never been a collection of SJW's.

As I wrote above, we've had LDS MP's before - on the conservative side of politics, that is - and no doubt we will again. But Ms Ardern is from the left wing of the Labour Party; which is to say, she's from the "progressive" chardonnay socialist set. Of course they would look at a practicing Mormon with suspicion.

 

You are right.  We have gone down this rabbit hole before.  But I am not the only person who feels this way about church policies.  I think I read that church policy towards gays was the THIRD reason why people leave the church.  That is a pretty big number.  And I have a feeling that very few people outside of the church would have the same rehearsed view on how wonderful the church policies towards gays that you hold is. Most people outside the church, for the life of them, can't figure out why the church would not baptize children of gay couples without assuming that the church has a huge problem with gays.  Have you had a different excpeirnce than that?  If you feel differently, I would love to hear you argue those same points from a non members point of view and see how they sound.

I am talking about individuals that become couples and want to marry.  not sure what you are thinking, but that is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled on.  Individuals right to marry the person they want.  Marriage by it's very nature means a couple.

Sorry, I don't know what SJW's means. I served in the early 70's. And while during that time, the church had a ban on blacks holding the priesthood, NZ wouldn't let them migrate into the country, so that was much less of an issue for them.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

So you could bring yourself to vote for a cultural Mormon or a MINO, just not a believing Latter-day Saint.

You "don't care what someone's religion is" just as long as they don't actually believe it.

Got it.

Well you managed to twist what I said slightly. I think you are well aware that not all Mormons support or believe in the church policies towards gays.  So just because someone is Mormon doesn't rule them out.  What rules them out would be a Mormon who believes that just because you are gay, you aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Edited October 22, 2017 by california boy

[kiwi57]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are right.  We have gone down this rabbit hole before.  But I am not the only person who feels this way about church policies.  I think I read that church policy towards gays was the THIRD reason why people leave the church.  That is a pretty big number.  And I have a feeling that very few people outside of the church would have the same rehearsed view on how wonderful the church policies towards gays that you hold is. Most people outside the church, for the life of them, can't figure out why the church would not baptize children of gay couples without assuming that the church has a huge problem with gays.  Have you had a different excpeirnce than that?  If you feel differently, I would love to hear you argue those same points from a non members point of view and see how they sound.

I am talking about individuals that become couples and want to marry.  not sure what you are thinking, but that is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled on.  Individuals right to marry the person they want.  Marriage by it's very nature means a couple.

Sorry, I don't know what SJW's means. I served in the early 70's. And while during that time, the church had a ban on blacks holding the priesthood, NZ wouldn't let them migrate into the country, so that was much less of an issue for them.

Of course non-members don't understand the reasons for our internal policies. That is why demagogues exploit that ignorance for their own advantage.

Over the years, I have seen lots of children baptised who did not have family support from parents or other same-household adult family members who were active in the Church. They almost always fell away, and I don't know of any who have returned (although some may have.) IOW, their Church membership was not a blessing to them.

The Church is not just a social club, after all.

I've also seen an increasing trend of the Church requiring active family support - not just lack of opposition - from parents or close adult relatives for child converts. And by requiring, I mean, if they haven't got it, we can't baptise them.

I think that is a good thing.

The policy regarding children who are being raised by same-sex couples is part and parcel of that whole trend. Those who imagine that we were just being "mean to gays" are either unaware of that fact, or maybe a little bit too obsessed with their own gayness.

Marriage by its very nature means a man and a woman. Kind of like how a pair of shoes by its very nature means a left shoe and a right shoe, and not two left shoes.

SJW's = "Social Justice Warriors." I don't know how many African migrants we had to NZ in the 70's, but I did see Black university students here then.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't care what someone's religion is, what sex they are or what ethnic group they come from either.  But I do care a lot whether the candidate supports equality for all American's under the law.  If a Mormon ran for office, I would need them to renounce the church's position on how the church treats gays for me to consider voting for them.  Just as I would have needed for them to renounce the priesthood ban when that was in effect.  I also would need a Republican to renounce many of the Republican platform in order to consider voting for them.  Social justice is high on my list of important issues that a candidate believes in.

Hello Cal, I understand your priorities and respect them. You don't vote for a Mormon because they are Mormon - you have a political philosophy that someone only on the Left will possess.  There certainly LDS on the Left, which I suspect you would have supported - Senator Reid comes to mind.  My comments are really limited to the ignorant that just took a position that they could not vote for a Mormon for President - not because of his politics or her positions, but because they are LDS. 

I find myself in the Middle of the political divide. I have positions that are firmly within the Left and I have others that are on the Right. Currently, I would wish for a pox on all branches of government - Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Each one of them plays games and not one of them are concerned with the Constitution or the welfare of our citizenry.

I have derailed the thread and will stop on this note. 

[kiwi57]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well you managed to twist what I said slightly. I think you are well aware that not all Mormons support or believe in the church policies towards gays.  So just because someone is Mormon doesn't rule them out.  What rules them out would be a Mormon who believes that just because you are gay, you aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

I don't want to go around and around on that last point, so this time I'm going to let it pass. But the point is that if a faithful, believing Latter-day Saint - namely, one who understands and accepts the Plan of Salvation, who sustains the leaders of the Church, and accepts The Family Proclamation - is ipso facto disqualified, in your mind, from public office, then you really do care what their religion is. So when you say you don't care about their religion, what you are really saying is that you don't care what they call themselves, as long as they don't actually hold any principles that you find objectionable.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

In particular, I wanted to comment on this statement 

Yes, I am implying that she left the Church in order to further her career.

I think your implication that she lacks complete integrity for choosing to leave the church in order to further a career is extremely offensive and without merit as even you pointed out.  So why would you even make such a statement?  Do you really not see why many have a difficult time continuing to believe the claims of Mormonism that it is the church of Jesus Christ when it's policies towards gays and their families are so in conflict with His teachings?  Forbidding children baptism is a really serious departure from the gospel that Christ taught.  And the church's very public actions to take away the civil rights of gay couples is a very serious problem for those that feel equality before the law is a fundamental part of democracy.  Her choice to leave the church is on very solid ground especially if she strongly believes in social justice.  

Your statement also implies that being a Mormon has now become such a tainted religion to so many people that someone who is Mormon is going to not be considered fit for public office.  That in and of itself is quite sad.  I served my mission in New Zealand.  When I served, the church was very well though of and very respected.  Being Mormon meant that you judged people fairly. with compassion  and you fought for social justice. 

I didn't say it was without merit, I said that I didn't know, being not omniscient, but that I suspected it might be the case, given what I thought were the circumstances.  As for it being offensive? If it were true, why would it be offensive?  

Occasionally, I find reasons to change my mind. This will be one of them.  Upon further investigation, it becomes clear that she resigned her membership over the Church's stance on homosexuality back in 2005, some years before she was elected to Parliament, and when she was only 25 years old. I think it is still possible that she regarded shedding her Church membership as a necessary step in ensuring that she not be questioned about it in the future (e.g. "How can you expect to represent your constituents, some of whom will be gay, and yet be a member of a homophobic church?"), especially when she didn't even believe in God for certain, let alone in the Church.  But that this was done so early militates against it being a cynical career-enhancing move.

There have been plenty of argumentation over things like "Forbidding children baptism is a really serious departure from the gospel that Christ taught."  This thread isn't about that, so I shall forbear answering it. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I disagree, and so there we are.

As for being a Mormon being a member of a tainted religion? Good heavens, man, didn't you hear all the fuss and fuming over Mitt Romney's Mormonism?  On both sides?  There are plenty of people in the US who consider a Mormon to be unfit for public office, and plenty opposed Romney especially for that reason.  That's not in dispute.  But perhaps New Zealand is a land of tolerance and equality, as you suggest.  I sure hope so -- it's the location of The Shire, after all. But one man's social justice is not another man's social justice.   

Edited to add:

Just for information, here's the relevant text of an article that appeared in the New Zealand Herald in January 2017:

She was in her 20s when she left the Mormon faith, mostly as a consequence of its anti-homosexual stance.

"For a lot of years, I put it to the back of my mind. I think it was too unsettling. If something like religion is part of your foundation, and then suddenly you start questioning that - it's quite a confronting thing to deal with.

"Even before the Civil Union Bill came up, I lived in a flat with three gay friends and I was still going to church every so often and I just remember thinking 'this is really inconsistent - I'm either doing a disservice to the church or my friends'. Because how could I subscribe to a religion that just didn't account for them?

"It was one of the issues that became a real flashpoint. You drift along a bit, there are always going to be things you can't reconcile, but I could never reconcile what I saw as discrimination in a religion that was otherwise very focused on tolerance and kindness."

I guess I'm OK with that, if that's what she truly felt and feels.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 10/20/2017 at 8:52 PM, kiwi57 said:

I don't know whether she left the Church to further her political career. I do know that she left the Church after she had entered Parliament, and that she made something of a public song and dance about it.

I don't get the sense that Kiwis care more about a candidate's religion than their leadership skills; I do get the sense that the left cares a lot about symbolism. Since she's the third woman PM we've had, there's not a whole lot of symbolism in that, but there could be in her having left the Church over her commitment to a "progressive" cause.

The reference to leaving the Church in Wikipedia says she did so in her 20s (abt 2005), which was four years before she entered parliament. Unless she had merely stopped attending and finally got around to formalizing it after she entered Parliament. Or did it in 2005 and only talked about it after she entered Parliament.

[kiwi57]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The reference to leaving the Church in Wikipedia says she did so in her 20s (abt 2005), which was four years before she entered parliament. Unless she had merely stopped attending and finally got around to formalizing it after she entered Parliament. Or did it in 2005 and only talked about it after she entered Parliament.

Yes, I corrected that.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, katherine the great said:

That doesn't make any sense. I know people who have left the church for diverse reasons, none of which have anything to do with furthering their careers.

Just because you know people who have left without a thought for furthering their careers doesn't mean it has never happened. Politics being seen as a particularly dirty field of endeavor, I don't doubt there have been and will be some people who would be willing to sell their souls, figuratively speaking, to advance what they see as their career or agenda.

 

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, I corrected that.

I saw that after I posted.  Sometimes it's rather hard to keep up with all the retractions, edits and posts that already say what one wants to say.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Of course non-members don't understand the reasons for our internal policies. That is why demagogues exploit that ignorance for their own advantage.

Over the years, I have seen lots of children baptised who did not have family support from parents or other same-household adult family members who were active in the Church. They almost always fell away, and I don't know of any who have returned (although some may have.) IOW, their Church membership was not a blessing to them.

The Church is not just a social club, after all.

I've also seen an increasing trend of the Church requiring active family support - not just lack of opposition - from parents or close adult relatives for child converts. And by requiring, I mean, if they haven't got it, we can't baptise them.

I think that is a good thing.

The policy regarding children who are being raised by same-sex couples is part and parcel of that whole trend. Those who imagine that we were just being "mean to gays" are either unaware of that fact, or maybe a little bit too obsessed with their own gayness.

Marriage by its very nature means a man and a woman. Kind of like how a pair of shoes by its very nature means a left shoe and a right shoe, and not two left shoes.

SJW's = "Social Justice Warriors." I don't know how many African migrants we had to NZ in the 70's, but I did see Black university students here then.

I want you to read your post again after reading my comment.  Because your post pinpoints why so many both inside and outside the church see the policy towards gay couples and their children as bigoted attacks against those that are attracted to the same sex, and as it relates to this thread; why the PM left the church along with many others over this issue and why those outside the church don't understand a church that would have such a bigoted policy towards gays.

In a way, the church is like a social club.  They can decide who they let in and who they keep out.  Churches have the right to do that.  Now the question is, "Is that moral" to exclude gay couples and their children from their social club?

Think about what you said here.

Quote

 

I've also seen an increasing trend of the Church requiring active family support - not just lack of opposition - from parents or close adult relatives for child converts. And by requiring, I mean, if they haven't got it, we can't baptise them.

I think that is a good thing.

 

Now, why were gay families targeted and not all the other families that you have seen where you consider baptism was wrong because of lack of family commitment.  What about those families where the parents are not married and raising children?  What about those single mothers who both had children and are raising them without any desire to marry the father of that child.  It is ok for the mother to have a string of boyfriends, but their children, unlike a gay couple in a committed relationship are permitted baptism.  As you are clearly pointing out, the policy is a bigoted policy that uses the excuse that you point out, but has no excuse when it is ignored in every other situation that you have seen.

So what makes this policy good policy?  That it only targets gay couples?

Note:  I rarely use the word bigot.  But in this case, we are talking about why many members left the church and most outside the church view church policies and why the view it that way.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Cal, I understand your priorities and respect them. You don't vote for a Mormon because they are Mormon - you have a political philosophy that someone only on the Left will possess.  There certainly LDS on the Left, which I suspect you would have supported - Senator Reid comes to mind.  My comments are really limited to the ignorant that just took a position that they could not vote for a Mormon for President - not because of his politics or her positions, but because they are LDS. 

I find myself in the Middle of the political divide. I have positions that are firmly within the Left and I have others that are on the Right. Currently, I would wish for a pox on all branches of government - Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Each one of them plays games and not one of them are concerned with the Constitution or the welfare of our citizenry.

I have derailed the thread and will stop on this note. 

Thanks for your comment.  And I have to say, I could have probably written the exact same post.  I too am not firmly on the left over a lot of issues.  I don't want to get too deep into politics, but I will say that most of us probably see both parties as very similar in areas that they claim there are significant differences.  For example fiscal conservative.  A claim the Republicans continue to make election after election yet never deliver, even when they have complete control of government.  So while that issue may be of more importance to me than how a party treats gays, if I don't see a difference between the two parties in terms of their actions, then yes I base my vote on social issues that i see a very real difference between the two parties.  Along with you and I think many Americans, a pox on all branches of government.  So we do the best we can on areas that we think our vote will actually make a difference.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I don't want to go around and around on that last point, so this time I'm going to let it pass. But the point is that if a faithful, believing Latter-day Saint - namely, one who understands and accepts the Plan of Salvation, who sustains the leaders of the Church, and accepts The Family Proclamation - is ipso facto disqualified, in your mind, from public office, then you really do care what their religion is. So when you say you don't care about their religion, what you are really saying is that you don't care what they call themselves, as long as they don't actually hold any principles that you find objectionable.

You are right.  But it is actions like how church leaders treat gay couples that causes those doubts in the claims of Mormonism and whether church leaders are really lead by Christ.  A lot of people believe that an apostle or prophet would try to bring people closer to Christ in any way they can, not ban them and push them out.  That is the litimus test that is causing decisions like the one the PM has made. Forbidding a child to be baptized does not bring them closer to Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

Say I form a Good Fred's Club. One has to be good and a Fred to join. If they aren't good and a Fred they can't join. It is not a knock on anyone if they're not good and/or a Fred.

[Avatar4321]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

Mitt Romney was elected governor before the church started to go after gay couples right to marry.  

I was on my mission in California when the Church began working to keep marriage between a man and a woman in 1999. Romney ran for governor several years later after the 2002 winter Olympics.

 

[kiwi57]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I want you to read your post again after reading my comment.  Because your post pinpoints why so many both inside and outside the church see the policy towards gay couples and their children as bigoted attacks against those that are attracted to the same sex, and as it relates to this thread; why the PM left the church along with many others over this issue and why those outside the church don't understand a church that would have such a bigoted policy towards gays.

Assuming that Ms Ardern's stated reason for leaving the Church is approximately the real one, it merely demonstrates that she wasn't trying especially hard to understand LDS doctrine. Furthermore, it had absolutely nothing to do with the policy that you are up in arms about. How do I know that? You mean - apart from the fact that that policy didn't even exist until ten years after she left?

If someone who claims to be "inside the Church" chooses to see the policy in question as "bigoted attacks against those that are attracted to the same sex," then they simply do not understand the policy.

If they claim to understand the policy, then either it is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, or they are not telling the truth.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

In a way, the church is like a social club.  They can decide who they let in and who they keep out.  Churches have the right to do that.  Now the question is, "Is that moral" to exclude gay couples and their children from their social club?

How skilfully you equivocated from "like a social club" to "their social club!" Demagoguery is something you are getting good at, isn't it?

No, it's not just a social club. It's a covenant community of Saints. Now the question is, "Is that moral" for someone who has no intention of making and keeping the covenants involved in living as one of the Saints to demand admission just so that they can feel "validated," or something?

Incidentally, there are no "gay couples and their children." Every child - without exception - is born to a heterosexual couple. And children are people with rights of their own, not the objects of the rights of self-centred adults. Every child being raised by a same-sex couple is being raised, at most, by one of their parents.

One of the rights that the Church claims for the children that some seem to see merely as fashion accessories is the right to be reared by a mother and father joined in holy matrimony.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Now, why were gay families targeted and not all the other families that you have seen where you consider baptism was wrong because of lack of family commitment.  What about those families where the parents are not married and raising children?  What about those single mothers who both had children and are raising them without any desire to marry the father of that child.

In both of those cases, the parents can repent and be baptized without breaking up the family. This is a very important distinction - so will I ever live long enough to see you acknowledge it? But if the parents are determined not to make any effort to reform their lives, then in the absence of a suitable closely related adult, their minor children should not be baptized either; and I fully expect that they would not be.

You won't hear about that on the evening news, or see it obsessed about on blogs and discussion boards; but it is true, nonetheless.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

As you are clearly pointing out, the policy is a bigoted policy that uses the excuse that you point out, but has no excuse when it is ignored in every other situation that you have seen.

Excuse me, CaliBoy: I am "pointing out" no such thing. If I claimed that I was, I would be a liar.

For future reference, I shall take the trouble to tell you what I am "pointing out," and not the other way around.

You're welcome.

I am, in fact, pointing out that the policy is a compassionate one, intended to minimise any conflict between a child's beliefs and her home life.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

So what makes this policy good policy?  That it only targets gay couples?

Actually it is the very same policy that the Church applies to children being raised in polygamous households. That you can see only the "gay" side of things is probably revealing about something.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Note:  I rarely use the word bigot.  But in this case, we are talking about why many members left the church and most outside the church view church policies and why the view it that way.

As I have "pointed out," if they "view it that way," it's because they are either uninformed or have been influenced by manipulative propaganda.

 

[kiwi57]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

You are right.  But it is actions like how church leaders treat gay couples that causes those doubts in the claims of Mormonism and whether church leaders are really lead by Christ.  A lot of people believe that an apostle or prophet would try to bring people closer to Christ in any way they can, not ban them and push them out.  That is the litimus test that is causing decisions like the one the PM has made. Forbidding a child to be baptized does not bring them closer to Christ.

Baptizing them when their home life is diametrically opposed to Gospel standards, and thus putting them in the middle of a conflict at home, is not going to bless their lives. It's going to put a burden on them that no child should have to carry.

An Apostle will extend the Lord's invitation to come unto Him and find rest by surrendering our burdens to Him. Those who are proud of their burdens and intend to keep them aren't ready to accept that invitation. When you are ready to lay your burdens down, His invitation remains open to you.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Assuming that Ms Ardern's stated reason for leaving the Church is approximately the real one, it merely demonstrates that she wasn't trying especially hard to understand LDS doctrine. Furthermore, it had absolutely nothing to do with the policy that you are up in arms about. How do I know that? You mean - apart from the fact that that policy didn't even exist until ten years after she left?

If someone who claims to be "inside the Church" chooses to see the policy in question as "bigoted attacks against those that are attracted to the same sex," then they simply do not understand the policy.

If they claim to understand the policy, then either it is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, or they are not telling the truth.

How skilfully you equivocated from "like a social club" to "their social club!" Demagoguery is something you are getting good at, isn't it?

No, it's not just a social club. It's a covenant community of Saints. Now the question is, "Is that moral" for someone who has no intention of making and keeping the covenants involved in living as one of the Saints to demand admission just so that they can feel "validated," or something?

Incidentally, there are no "gay couples and their children." Every child - without exception - is born to a heterosexual couple. And children are people with rights of their own, not the objects of the rights of self-centred adults. Every child being raised by a same-sex couple is being raised, at most, by one of their parents.

One of the rights that the Church claims for the children that some seem to see merely as fashion accessories is the right to be reared by a mother and father joined in holy matrimony.

In both of those cases, the parents can repent and be baptized without breaking up the family. This is a very important distinction - so will I ever live long enough to see you acknowledge it? But if the parents are determined not to make any effort to reform their lives, then in the absence of a suitable closely related adult, their minor children should not be baptized either; and I fully expect that they would not be.

You won't hear about that on the evening news, or see it obsessed about on blogs and discussion boards; but it is true, nonetheless.

Excuse me, CaliBoy: I am "pointing out" no such thing. If I claimed that I was, I would be a liar.

For future reference, I shall take the trouble to tell you what I am "pointing out," and not the other way around.

You're welcome.

I am, in fact, pointing out that the policy is a compassionate one, intended to minimise any conflict between a child's beliefs and her home life.

Actually it is the very same policy that the Church applies to children being raised in polygamous households. That you can see only the "gay" side of things is probably revealing about something.

As I have "pointed out," if they "view it that way," it's because they are either uninformed or have been influenced by manipulative propaganda.

 

You do realize that gay couples can adopt.  Do you not consider adopted children of couples that are unable to have their own children to be real children of the couple?

As for the rest, you can think what you want.  I am just telling you how other people view the church policies towards gay couples.  Many believe that you really have to twist things to come up with some of the conclusions you have come to.  You are right.  They don't understand the policy the way Mormons do.  And quite frankly, it is no wonder.  What they see is a church working to take away the civil rights of gay couples, denying baptism to their adopted children because the parents had the audacity to marry and form a solid family unit.  Yeah the policy is all full of compassion.  Too bad the church doesn't have so much compassion when other couples are not living the standards of the church.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Baptizing them when their home life is diametrically opposed to Gospel standards, and thus putting them in the middle of a conflict at home, is not going to bless their lives. It's going to put a burden on them that no child should have to carry.

An Apostle will extend the Lord's invitation to come unto Him and find rest by surrendering our burdens to Him. Those who are proud of their burdens and intend to keep them aren't ready to accept that invitation. When you are ready to lay your burdens down, His invitation remains open to you.

That is a bit presumptuous of you don't you think.  My relationship with Christ is just fine, thank you.  I don't need to be in a church that is toxic to gay couples.  

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You do realize that gay couples can adopt.  Do you not consider adopted children of couples that are unable to have their own children to be real children of the couple?

As I wrote earlier, and which you quoted:

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

One of the rights that the Church claims for the children that some seem to see merely as fashion accessories is the right to be reared by a mother and father joined in holy matrimony.

Does that answer your question?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

As for the rest, you can think what you want.  I am just telling you how other people view the church policies towards gay couples.  Many believe that you really have to twist things to come up with some of the conclusions you have come to.  You are right.  They don't understand the policy the way Mormons do.  And quite frankly, it is no wonder.  What they see is a church working to take away the civil rights of gay couples, denying baptism to their adopted children because the parents had the audacity to marry and form a solid family unit.  Yeah the policy is all full of compassion.  Too bad the church doesn't have so much compassion when other couples are not living the standards of the church.

Asked and answered.

So, Caliboy: Why do you consistently ignore, and never address, the fact that exactly the same policy applies to the children of polygamist families?

If you respond to anything, please respond to that.

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

That is a bit presumptuous of you don't you think. 

No, I don't think it's the least bit presumptuous of me to remind you of the Lord's invitation to you. If that's "presumptuous" then don't you think it's presumptuous of you to try to proselyte against the Church of Jesus Christ?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

My relationship with Christ is just fine, thank you.

And yet here you are, opposing His kingdom?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't need to be in a church that is toxic to gay couples.  

Maybe you don't need to be in a group that is toxic to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

 

[strappinglad]

I recall when SSM was legalized in Canada. Within 2 days of being married, a lesbian couple applied for a divorce. It became obvious that their marriage was done solely for the purpose of then making the government also change the divorce laws when it came to SS couples. They had an agenda.

I really need to understand the outrage at the policy of the church to not allow the baptism of a child living within a gay family. Why would a supposed loving couple, who want the best for their child, desire to have that child join a church that they say is toxic to homosexuals?  Well, unless there is an agenda outside of wanting salvation for the child, seeing that neither member of the couple likely accepts the truth claims of the church and that the baptism  would be a sham.

One point I do agree with is that no child should be baptized without the full approval of the parents and at least one of the parents being an active and believing member  willing to raise the child in faith and belief in the saving ordinances of the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I recall when SSM was legalized in Canada. Within 2 days of being married, a lesbian couple applied for a divorce. It became obvious that their marriage was done solely for the purpose of then making the government also change the divorce laws when it came to SS couples. They had an agenda.

You can be married in Las Vegas in the morning, drive to Reno, and by mid afternoon get a divorce.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No, I don't think it's the least bit presumptuous of me to remind you of the Lord's invitation to you. If that's "presumptuous" then don't you think it's presumptuous of you to try to proselyte against the Church of Jesus Christ?

And yet here you are, opposing His kingdom?

Maybe you don't need to be in a group that is toxic to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

 

You can keep your belief that you are in God's kingdom and all those that don't believe those claims of the Mormon Church oppose God.  I don't believe that concept for one minute.  i know for a fact that church leaders claim revelation from God when they are in fact just giving them their own opinions.  It is a big reason why I am no longer a member of the church.  

I believe that the church is a good place for many to help them come closer to God.  But I don't for one minute think that the church helps those that are gay to come to God.  And evidently either does the church since they specifically bar gay couples and their children from becoming members.