Jump to content

sethpayne

Contributor
  • Posts

    1,696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sethpayne

  1. I see a disconnect in that, from my perspective.  I provided a couple examples all ready where local leaders did not follow the policy exactly, with first presidency approval.  Because of that reality and actuality, i'm not sure how we can honestly say 'local leaders must follow policy exactly.' 

     

    But i freely admit that this could be a difference of perspective.  We will agree to disagree.   :)

     

    I think different leaders/members see it in very different ways, as you suggest.  I don't recall if it was this thread but when HJW said he wouldn't enforce the policy were he a still a Bishop, someone suggested that it was a good thing he wasn't a Bishop because he would be disciplined for not following policy.

     

    Yet another reason to have sensible and really well-thought-out policy and to ensure that it is either 1) enforced uniformly or 2) made clear that local leaders do, in fact, have lots of leeway.  Otherwise, it's potentially a mess of chaos.

  2. But they won't make every mistake and some intentional actions will not come from good men, they may have been good once but being able to make certain choices will require a change of heart.  In bluebell's list, I see at least one action that a good man by my definition would not be able to engage in and that is ignoring the welfare of the innocent when that is a part of their calling, their reason to exist.  And not seeking Christ's will when they are apostles...that more or less invalidates their calling.  

     

    So if someone agrees this is what they've done in the way that bluebell states it, I have a hard time thinking that those who believe this can accept them as still good men...maybe not evil, but at best mediocre ones.  If someone says they do, I will accept it but then really wonder how different (not better or worse, just different) their standard of good must be from mine.

     

    Hey Cal -- but isn't this part of the calling of an Apostle according to Elder Oaks?  Remember how the Church treated the authors of "Mormon Enigma" for publishing what is essentially now all part of the essay on Joseph's polygamy.  They were completely marginalized and Elder Oaks made it clear that they had done nothing more than present a factual and historically accurate report.  They hadn't done anything wrong or said anything untruthful but that it was his job to protect the reputation of Joseph Smith first and foremost.  If the Newell's had to suffer social stigma etc... as a result .. oh well.  That's the price of maintaining the Joseph's reputation.

     

     

     

    “My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS Church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Saviour. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors” 

     

    Notice he says nothing about serving the needs of members and in fact, Elder Oaks actively worked against "innocent" members because -- in his mind -- they were threatening. 

     

    Reminds me of an incident recalled by Boyd Kirkland who, in the early 80's, wrote to Church HQ about the Adam-God doctrine.  His entire letter is worth the read but I'll quote a bit here:

     

    http://www.mormonstudies.com/lds-thinkers/boyd-kirkland/building-the-kingdom-with-total-honesty/

     

     

    My letter received no response, and in that fall’s general conference both brothers Petersen and McConkie again spoke out strongly against the Adam-God doctrine in their usual forceful manner (see Ensign, Nov. 1980, 16-18, 50-52). Dismayed, I phoned the First Presidency’s office and spoke with their secretary, Michael Watson, about my letter, asking why I hadn’t received a response. He indicated that the brethren had intended to write to me, with the recommendation that I read Mark E. Petersen’s book Adam: Who Is He?, but when it was pointed out that I had already read the book, and felt it to be part of the problem, they felt they had nothing else they could say to me. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I felt I had somehow failed to properly communicate the problem. At Michael Watson’s prompting, I met with an informal committee answering to Mark E. Petersen, which had been set up to help members confronted with issues raised by fundamentalist Mormons (the Adam-God doctrine being one of the chief of these). I’ll spare you the details here, but the net result of my meetings with these people began to make me realize that Brother Petersen wasn’t acting out of ignorance of the facts regarding the Adam-God problem, and neither was Bro. McConkie. I still wondered about the extent of President Kimball’s knowledge of the subject, however. I suspected that my letter had never reached him.

     

    In February 1981 I again phoned Michael Watson, and urged him to grant me a personal interview, which he did. He was surprisingly candid with me, revealing that my letter to President Kimball had been forwarded to Mark E. Petersen. Brother Watson showed me a memo written by Brother Petersen to the First Presidency with his recommendations as to how to respond to me. He informed them that the issues I had raised were real, that Brigham Young had indeed taught these things, but that they could not acknowledge this lest I would “trap them” into saying this therefore meant Brigham was a false prophet (which, of course, they did not believe). He therefore recommended that I be given a very circuitous response, evading the issue, which he volunteered to write. I asked Brother Watson, as well as members of the committee I had previously met with, how this approach would help people like myself who knew better? Wasn’t there concern that some might be dismayed and disillusioned by their church leaders’ lack of candor? Their response was very similar to President Hinckley’s statement mentioned earlier about losing a few through excommunication: they said, in essence, “If a few people lose their testimonies over this, so be it; it’s better than letting the true facts be known, and dealing with the probable wider negative consequences to the mission of the church.” I said, “What about Jesus’ parable where the shepherd leaves the ninety and nine of his flock to pursue the one who has gone astray?” Again the response was that the brethren had to be more concerned for the majority of the flock.

     

     
    So we can argue over whether or not Elder Oaks or BRM or Elder Petersen are "good men" or "bad men."  Clearly they have acted in ways that that they felt served the best interest of the Church.  Elder Packer was also very clear on this that the GAs serve the Church, not the member of the Church.  And as other's have stated on this thread -- this course of action is OK because it will all get sorted out in the eternities.
     
    I think this policy is a continuation of what has been done in the past.  
  3.  

     
    Second, the scriptures says that no man can serve two masters. By baptizing a child of gay parents we are placing him in that situation. They will go to church and hear one thing and then go home and see their parents behave differently. It’s not fair to do to the children or the parents. 
     

     

    Hey Jude (don't make it bad, take a sad song and make it better) -- can you cite a scriptures that says baptism should refused to a young person if baptism were to put him in this type of situation?

     

    The reason I ask is that I know several Church members (one a very very close friend) who was baptized as a youth coming out of a home very much opposed to the Church.  It was a challenge.  But she did it because of her faith.

     

    So any reference you have on this additional baptismal requirement would be awesome.  Thanks.

  4. No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not punishing anyone: it is preventing children from being placed in situations in which they make covenants it would be difficult for them to keep. I see that as an act of mercy, not as a punishment.

     

     

    Sometimes when I was young and had misbehaved, my parent would withhold my allowance.  Sure felt like punishment to me at the time.

  5.  

    The parents are the ones introducing the conflict, not the gospel

     

    I respectfully disagree, mfbukowski.  It is precisely the institutional Church that causes conflict when someone of sincere heart and a desire to be baptized is turned away -- not because of anything about them -- but simply because of their parents.

     

    How many staunch Church members today were baptized in their teens?  Sometimes at odds with their parents?  I know several.  And this policy will prevent any such teenagers who happen to be children of gay parents that blessing/opportunity. 

  6. Why can't you see that baptizing such a child will just result in family grief and conflict????    For what???  For nothing!!!

     

    What is wrong with you all? (You plural!)

     

    Hey mfbukowsi -- didn't Jesus have something to say about the impact his teachings would have on family relationships? Specifically when one family member becomes a disciple while other members of the family may not?

  7. He's running with the rampant social media distortion that because baptism of children in same-sex "marriage" households must be delayed, the children in effect are "excommunicated." Or some such nonsense.

     

    Hey Scott -- if we are to be logically consistent we would have to excommunicate the children of apostates, no?  Then allow them rebaptism at 18.  That would be a consistent policy.

  8. if you continue on in your profession in the adult entertainment industry because you feel the church's notions of sex, chastity, and marriage are are illogical or just something you don't believe in, then you are have effectively abandoned or renounced the beliefs you would ostensibly have had at one point.  this would be apostasy, in my mind.

     

    Ok.  So should your children be excommunicated too?

  9. They are not.  That isn't even an issue with this policy.

     

    What the policy does in effect is prevent a minor child making covenants in opposition to the teachings of their parent(s).  When they are grown and independent they can participate fully in all of the ordinances and blessings of the Gospel.

     

    Ok.  So we should stop baptizing all children who are raised in atheist homes as well?  What about Muslim or Buddhist homes?  Some of those teachings are VERY different from Church teachings/norms.

  10. No, that's apostates of a particularly difficult kind. In this case due to the juxtaposition of loving, nurturing parents who are instilling in the innocent an appreciation of a covenant that is completely antithetical to the doctrines of the Church. Someone brought up like that is going to need some special attention, and they get it (otherwise they would not want to be baptized in the first place).

     

    (You guess wrong!)

     

    So you are being inconsistent then.  Thats OK.  Cool for you to admit it.  :)

     

    Atheism is also antithetical to the teachings of the Church.  Should children of atheists also be denied baptism?

  11. Obviously you do not know the difference between "apostasy" and the other issues you mentioned.

     

    Oh I get it.  Perhaps I missed the article of faith that says "We believe children will be punished -- or denied the blessings of baptism and the HG -- for their own sins EXCEPT if their parents end up being filthy apostates."

     

    Are in favor of excommunicating children if their parent's are excommunicated for apostasy?  I'm guessing you must be if you are in favor of denying baptism to children of "apostates."

  12. Doesn't the Book of Mormon say that there are some curses, consequences, whatever the word, that will be on the heads of the children for many generations?

     

    I'll go see if I can find it.

     

    ETA:

     

    I think I found it, through the glories of google, but it looks like it is just a repeat of the 10 commandments:

     

    Mosiah 13:13

    And again: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me;

     

    He is quoting the Ten Commandments -- the old law.  So my question still remains.  How, under the new covenant of Jesus, can we possibly justify denying baptism and the Holy Ghost to someone for how their parents choose to live?  It violates our own 13 articles of faith!  The supposed foundation of Mormon belief.

  13. There is a huge difference between a parent excommunicated for moral reasons, or addiction, who is repentant, and supportive of the laws of the gospel; and a parent who is in open apostasy, teaching and acting in opposition to gospel law and practice.

     

    Hey Kevin -- explain to me how Children are accountable for the actions of their parents?

     

    This concept just completely upends the Articles of Faith.

  14. Since the policy of the last 100 years or so is effectively the same as the new clarification about the status of families practicing same sex marriage...

     

    I was wondering what distinguishes children of polygamist families from children of gay marriages in the eyes of those who are expressing their concern about the new handbook of instructions and how it will be implemented?

     

    Nothing.  It is just as unscriptural to deny baptism to these kids as well.

  15. I hope Brother Scott Lloyd has his iPhone handy because I have a prediction!

     

    Within 30 years I predict that this unscriptural policy will be the subject of an "essay" posted to the Church's website.  The Church will explain why it ignored its own teachings and doctrines and describe how past (our current) Church leadership sometimes made mistakes by ignoring:

     

    1.  Children are accountable at age 8

    2.  Men/women are only accountable for their own actions and not the actions of others 

     

    What's next?  Denying baptism to children of smokers, coffee drinkers, or alcoholics?  What about obese parents?  Or parents who don't pay a full tithe?  

  16. God seems to disagree because he said:

     

    D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

     

    Maybe God knows something about Isaac's marriages that we don't.

     

    Or the more likely scenario that Joseph Smith messed up.  Just like he did when he listed *both* Isaiah and Esias in the same paragraph as two distinct people.  Whoops!

  17. Ok.  Confession time.  I got along *really* well with most of my missionary companions but one in particular was tough.  He didn't like me and I certainly didn't like him.  We managed to go a whole week once without speaking directly to each other.  

     

    Anyway, being the classless jerk that I am, when I walked into the living room one morning to find my companion shining my shoes I walked right up, grabbed the shoes out of his hand and said: "Knock it off Elder!  This isn't some damned Church seminary video!"

     

    I think we were both glad when transfer time came.

  18. In which case, I have a solution for you, and it is this: You speak for your beliefs, and we'll speak for ours.

     

    It will save you the frustration, and us the annoyance.

     

    Um..... the problem is that in "speaking for ours" we have a plethora of interpretations and viewpoints.  You speak as if there is some monolithic LDS view on Catholicism.

  19. That's false doctrine.

    Heavenly Father created a paradisiacal world; sin is the result of the Fall. Thus, homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state, not of the world as God created it.

    This is non-controversial LDS doctrine.

     

    I have to disagree with you, Russell.

     

    Homosexuality is found among several species of animals at rates similar to that found in humans.  

     

    So, unless you want to argue that after the Fall animals magically turned gay, then ok.  But I'd be interested to see the scriptural basis for that.

×
×
  • Create New...