Calm Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 "It must be because Sister Wives is on TV"Or she misunderstood. 1
Tacenda Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 You may have missed it, but this sister's dad was well known. He was in the news (newspaper and TV) all over the place for awhile.Honestly, it just makes no sense to say the church wouldn't let her join because her family were on TV polygamists.I just saw that, sorry then, my post wouldn't jive with yours.
Rain2 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 "It must be because Sister Wives is on TV"Or she misunderstood.It'll be nice when we can all understand each other perfectly! There are times when I just want to crawl in someone else's head to figure out just where our misunderstandings are coming from.
Jeanne Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) https://2paragraphs.com/2015/10/sister-wives-madison-brown-rejected-from-mormon-lds-church/ Anybody buying this? I can't see the Church denying someone baptism/membership because of their family, even this one.Honestly, I'm calling BS on this one.I am. The fact that she said that she supports her parents if it make them happy...but not the lifestyle for her..sounds llike that would be a big stumbling block for baptism. Then again, it depends too on the bishop..stake president..and how they comprehend her situation. But doesn't surprise me a bit. Just watched this episode just now..and thought..where is Jesus in all of this..how sad. Jesus said "Come Unto Me"..not "Come Unto Me" unless you're on TV,,,,seriously..must not matter if you are Gladys Knight or Thurl Bailey??? Edited October 12, 2015 by Jeanne
bluebell Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) I would suspect if she still believes in some of the stuff she grew up with, it falls under belieiving too much in the wrong stuff...perhaps she thinks people should be allowed to marry plurally if they want? This is what i'm thinking. I know that Maddie has never been interested in polygamy. However, i seriously doubt that she believes her family is wrong for practicing it, or that her dad and moms are sinning. And if that is the case, then it makes sense that the church would not allow someone to be baptized who supported plural marriage as a valid and righteous choice in mortal life. Edited October 12, 2015 by bluebell
ERMD Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 There may well be some truth to this. Any close association with polygamist groups gets scrutinized when one is seeking baptism or a temple recommend.
bluebell Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I am. The fact that she said that she supports her parents if it make them happy...but not the lifestyle for her..sounds llike that would be a big stumbling block for baptism. Then again, it depends too on the bishop..stake president..and how they comprehend her situation. But doesn't surprise me a bit. Just watched this episode just now..and thought..where is Jesus in all of this..how sad. Jesus said "Come Unto Me"..not "Come Unto Me" unless you're on TV,,,,seriously..must not matter if you are Gladys Knight or Thurl Bailey??? Jesus never said, "Come unto Me, but keep supporting things that I have told you are sinful because I don't mind." Part of coming unto Jesus is leaving behind our sins. We don't know everything that happened, but if someone refuses to denounce sin then it's not unreasonable for the church to refuse to allow them to be baptized. It could be harmful for them to make covenants under those conditions. 3
Jeanne Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Jesus never said, "Come unto Me, but keep supporting things that I have told you are sinful because I don't mind." Part of coming unto Jesus is leaving behind our sins. We don't know everything that happened, but if someone refuses to denounce sin then it's not unreasonable for the church to refuse to allow them to be baptized. It could be harmful for them to make covenants under those conditions.I understand and thank you. But she is an individual..separate from her parents. She doesn't leave a sin that doesn't belong to her. Would Jesus really want her to just disown her family?
Okrahomer Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Is that what she reported--that the LDS Church leaders told her to "disown her family?" (Sorry, I didn't and don't watch the show.) Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.""For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.""And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.""He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.""And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-38 4
bluebell Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I understand and thank you. But she is an individual..separate from her parents. She doesn't leave a sin that doesn't belong to her. Would Jesus really want her to just disown her family? I don't think she would have to disown her family to believe that they were living a sinful lifestyle. I have family members who i love dearly who live together without being married. I believe they are living a sinful lifestyle but it does not change the way i feel about them or their presence in my life one little bit. However, if i tried to get baptized into the church but believed that living together without being married was just fine with God-that it wasn't a sin at all-then that would be a problem. It's the same for plural marriage. I think you can still love and claim your polygamous family and be a member of the church. However, i don't think you can tell you bishop that you believe plural marriage is perfectly fine with God and isn't a sin and get baptized. And i say this with the knowledge that we have no idea what really is going on. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I am friends with a fairly well known polygamist, if you pay attention to those circles. One of his daughters was just baptized into the LDS church without issue.
rpn Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 It was a longstanding practice of polygamist offshoots to have their children join the LDS church just prior to their marriage and then send them to the temple for marriage, with them then returning to the fundamentalist church. The question about associating with apostate groups arose out of that common occurrence through the 1970's and 80's. It is entirely possible that her answer to the question resulted in refusal to baptize her as it doesn't help someone to be baptized for the wrong reasons (or when her spouse wil not support her in her memership, which is another reason that married women were refused baptism --- and discouraged from temple ordinances --- pretty regularly for a while and maybe still are in patriarchal societies.) 1
Jeanne Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I am friends with a fairly well known polygamist, if you pay attention to those circles. One of his daughters was just baptized into the LDS church without issue.This is very interesting..and I will be first to stand corrected but wonder if this would be in the same Stake?
Rain2 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 It was a longstanding practice of polygamist offshoots to have their children join the LDS church just prior to their marriage and then send them to the temple for marriage, with them then returning to the fundamentalist church. The question about associating with apostate groups arose out of that common occurrence through the 1970's and 80's. It is entirely possible that her answer to the question resulted in refusal to baptize her as it doesn't help someone to be baptized for the wrong reasons (or when her spouse wil not support her in her memership, which is another reason that married women were refused baptism --- and discouraged from temple ordinances --- pretty regularly for a while and maybe still are in patriarchal societies.)I can kind of see that. It wouldn't be a problem of her marrying in temple for the wrong reasons if he isn't going to join as well, but if she can't answer the "support or affiliate" question well then it makes sense, especially if you don't understand the question well. I know I had to ask because of my association with my brother. Curious now. Is that also a baptism question.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 This is very interesting..and I will be first to stand corrected but wonder if this would be in the same Stake? No, the Brown's are over in Las Vegas, my friend lives in small-town Arizona.
ttribe Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 No, the Brown's are over in Las Vegas, my friend lives in small-town Arizona. "Small-town" Arizona as in Colorado City, Arizona?
BookofMormonLuvr Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 "Small-town" Arizona as in Colorado City, Arizona? No. The Concho area.
ttribe Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 No. The Concho area. Not too far from Show Low, St. John's and the Round Valley area..."far" being relative, of course. Not a lot out there.
JLHPROF Posted October 13, 2015 Author Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) No. The Concho area. A couple of the polygamists I'm personally acquainted with come from Concho. They are former AUB members I believe.(Mostly AUB members in my neck of the woods). Edited October 13, 2015 by JLHPROF 1
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I noticed she said on the show that they wouldn't let her get baptized because she wouldn't denounce her family's lifestyle. At first she used the word disown and then she changed it to denounce. She also said that the mission president said that he hoped she would consider getting baptized again when her family wasn't so public. She seemed very sad. She said she doubted that she would ever join a church because the only church she believes is true is the LDS church, but now she never wants to be a part of it.
Tacenda Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I'm sure most are aware, but read today that there is something in the church handbook that says that a member of a polygamist group must get clearance for baptism from the first presidency.
JLHPROF Posted October 13, 2015 Author Posted October 13, 2015 I'm sure most are aware, but read today that there is something in the church handbook that says that a member of a polygamist group must get clearance for baptism from the first presidency. That's my understanding, or at least an Apostle (I knew of one young woman who met with Elder Scott before being baptized).
Rain2 Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I'm sure most are aware, but read today that there is something in the church handbook that says that a member of a polygamist group must get clearance for baptism from the first presidency.No. I had no idea. Thanks for letting me know.
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I wonder what it is we gain by being so exclusive. I don't see this type of attitude at all in the new testament or even in the early church of the restoration. It seems we have become a church or rules. Too many rules.It would be really interesting to hear the mission president's reasoning.
Recommended Posts