Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Calm]

Rusell it has everything to do with the 2nd article of faith. These children at baptism age are being punished for the sins of another.

They are not being punished, they are being protected.  

 

If a person is baptized, if they don't live the standards that they have agreed to (such as the Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, etc) they are held accountable for that and they sin if they break them.  Part of living the standards is standing up for them both by living the example and teaching others when the opportunity arises.  

 

This would be a burden to children living with a parent who is essentially committing sin constantly (as defined by the Church).  While they should of course still love their parents, they would need to tell their parents if asked at the very least that they believed their parents were in the wrong, that their parents shouldn't be married to each other, etc.  And for a child of eight or even 12, they think differently than an adult and more than likely would be very confused by the situation, even traumatized.  Does accepting that their parents are sinning mean that they can't love them anymore (sheesh, look at how adults are reading what the Church states as children having to repudiate their parents as opposed to their parents' actions; if adults can mess up in understanding, think how easy it will be for a child to do so).

 

Do you really think a child should be placed in that situation?  It will be hard enough for an adult to walk that path, an adult who will be better at understanding that just because a person sins doesn't mean they are bad or evil, but human like the rest of us and that they can still love their parents even while understanding they are doing something spiritually wrong.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm

[Teancum]

Actually, not.

Tha is why I said sort of....

[The Nehor]

Yes, like it or not, we do rank sins.  Sexual sins are considered next to murder in seriousness.  It stems directly from Alma 39: 5.  President Kimball viewed the "crime against nature" as bad or worse than heterosexual fornication or adultery.     

 

The thing is we do not know what Corianton's sin was. Was it adultery? Fornication? Participation in some kind of fertility orgy like Nibley used to suggest?

 

While sexual sin is serious some is much more serious then others. I would consider a young confused teen boy experimenting with homosexuality in a moment of weakness less of a sin then a temple married man leaving his spouse to pursue a same sex marriage. Joseph Smith said something similar when he said a betrothed couple slipping up is not nearly as serious as someone committing adultery.

 

When I said we try not to rank sins I meant us mortals. God ranks them as He wishes and I assume he takes into account circumstances, weaknesses, and the degree of malice and selfishness involved. Sexual sin is serious but I personally think a teen who messed up sexually once in their youth is less of a sinner then a woman who is a gossip for decades and ruins many reputations or a man who betrays the trust of those in his ward for personal financial gain and I believe God sees it the same way.

 

Not to say sexual sin is not serious but there are sins of greater seriousness and I have no idea how God ranks homosexual versus heterosexual violations of the law of chastity. It is probably not important for me to know.

[The Nehor]

No? The church just calls gay married people apostates and excommunicates them now and expects any adult child of such couples to renounce their parents lifestyle and seek FP permission to be baptized. That sure does not seem warm and fuzzy to me. Of course tolerance is not hostility. But intolerance may be perceived by the recipient as such.

Get it, Robert!?

 

Where did you get the idea that the gospel is warm and fuzzy?

[Danzo]

No? The church just calls gay married people apostates and excommunicates them now and expects any adult child of such couples to renounce their parents lifestyle and seek FP permission to be baptized. That sure does not seem warm and fuzzy to me. Of course tolerance is not hostility. But intolerance may be perceived by the recipient as such.

Get it, Robert!?

Only members of the church can be apostates. Not the general public.

[carbon dioxide]

3. There are many members currently in the Church who support same sex marriage (as many as 25%).  Is disavowing SSM going to be a condition of membership?

Many things are legal and we can support them being legal while still disavowing it.  I may support adultery, prostitution, and other things being legal but I still think they are morally wrong.  If I believe they are morally correct, I am in a state of apostasy since I am departing from central teachings of the church.  I think for members it depends on what the reason for support of it.

[Teancum]

And I am sure that you can cite plenty of instances of each horrible circumstance to support your tirade.

Cynth is not on a tirade. Just because you don't like the point Cynth made does not make it a tirade.

[cynth]

Can you try to just be marginally less condescending to someone who has approximately 200 posts for every one of yours?

 

IOW, newbies shouldn't lecture.

 

And if you disagree with us referring to the Church of Jesus Christ simply as "the Church," then feel free to opine elsewhere. Because we habitually do so, and nobody is going to stop just to please you.

Oh stop it.  I was referring to his unrealistic statistical simplification which he use to snark my original post.  Being a 'newbie' in your post count does not mean I have to let mathematical principles be mangled by a snark attempt, notwithstanding the 200 posts to my 1.  Quantity is not a measure of quality.  

[carbon dioxide]

Not to say sexual sin is not serious but there are sins of greater seriousness and I have no idea how God ranks homosexual versus heterosexual violations of the law of chastity. It is probably not important for me to know.

Both are offense that can lead to Telestial inheritance.  I guess in the end it really does not matter which was a little worse since the unrepentant parties all land in the same kingdom.

[MiserereNobis]

Many left Christ when He announced that we had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. But like Peter said, where else can we go?

 

Yup.  Transubstantiation is a tough doctrine, eh?

 

[Teancum]

Yep.  

 

I assume this doesn't actually shock you.  Am I right?

Totally... ;-)

[The Nehor]

Oh stop it.  I was referring to his unrealistic statistical simplification which he use to snark my original post.  Being a 'newbie' in your post count does not mean I have to let mathematical principles be mangled by a snark attempt, notwithstanding the 200 posts to my 1.  Quantity is not a measure of quality.  

 

What unrealistic statistical simplification? Are you going to argue that when I said "most people" are not going to join the church in this life that you think most people are?

 

I also insist that you read all my posts before you make any judgment of their quality. One of two of them are sublime and insightful. It should only take a few weeks of dedicated research to find them.

[The Nehor]

Yup.  Transubstantiation is a tough doctrine, eh?

 

 

Thanks, I laughed.

[smac97]

Yea I know the verses, not one of Jesus's better teachings.

 

Wow!  How quickly this thread devolved to criticism of Jesus Christ Himself.

 

Is it possible, in your view, for the Savior to be right about this, and for knee-jerk, worldly responses to be in error?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

Here's the Salt Lake Tribune article:

 

"New Mormon policy makes apostates of children from same-sex unions"

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3144035-155/new-mormon-policy-makes-apostates-of

How can children be apostates when they aren't baptized?  Doesn't one have to be baptized first?  The headline doesn't make sense, imo.

[VideoGameJunkie]

What if a 13 year old had wanted to be baptized for a while but he dies. Then how will he enjoy baptism? His gay parents won't be able to do his temple work. Does he really have to wait all the way to the Millennium when he could've just been baptized at age 8?

[smac97]

The upside of this is no children of SS marriages will become Mormon in their childhoods.  They will be able to choose at an adult age whether to join a church that requires them to consider their parents as degenerate sinners. 

 

In the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we are all sinners.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Teancum]

Indeed.  It seems to me more like removing responsibility from a child than forcing responsibility on them for someone else's sin.  Responsibility would mean they would be required to make a decision.  The current policy removes the necessity of a decision until they are older and have options besides continuing to live in a situation where they would be accountable for judging as sinful if baptized (assuming church doctrine is correct).

As noted I agree. Make them wait till they are adults. But when they are adults don't make them renounce their parents choice and seek FP permission for baptism.

Also I think children of inactive parents and others who are living a way the church opposes should wait till adults to be baptized as well. I have seen to many get baptized and receive no support in church participation and they just grow into inactivity.

[Avatar4321]

The idea that we don't all need to repudiate our parents sins seems odd to me. If our parents drink dont we go on record disagreeing with that sin when we are baptized?

I don't see why this is any different.

[JLHPROF]

Many things are legal and we can support them being legal while still disavowing it.  I may support adultery, prostitution, and other things being legal but I still think they are morally wrong.  If I believe they are morally correct, I am in a state of apostasy since I am departing from central teachings of the church.  I think for members it depends on what the reason for support of it.

 

As surveys show, 25% of members believe SSM is acceptable, and therefore have no moral issue with it.  (This board has many members who think that way).  Yet they have their membership.  But a teenager who has a testimony of the Church and his parents give permission to be baptized is denied that blessing.

 

I'm an active member who believes in Adam-God, questions the changes made to the temple, and believes polygamy was and is a law of God that will be reinstated eventually.  And yet the children of polygamists also have restrictions on their membership if they convert.

 

I just HATE a double standard in applying God's blessings.

[Teancum]

Yes. FWIW, this is a slightly edited version of what I wrote on another thread:

 

As Elder Scott (and others) have clearly taught, 'The joyful news for anyone who desires to be rid of the consequences of poor choices is that the Lord sees weaknesses differently than He does rebellion. Whereas the Lord warns that unrepented rebellion will bring punishment, when the Lord speaks of weaknesses, it is always with mercy'.

 

Falling into adultery or an extramarital sexual relationship (regardless of gender) is a matter of weakness. Embracing and celebrating sinfulness by engaging in same-sex 'marriage' is an act of open rebellion against and public rejection of all that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches and holds dear.

And heterosexuals living together without being married is the same.

[MiserereNobis]

Where did you get the idea that the gospel is warm and fuzzy?

 

I was talking to my father (who is not a Catholic) the other day and we both agreed that one thing about Jesus is that he makes everyone uncomfortable.  If you're not at least slightly uncomfortable by Jesus and His teachings then you are probably disregarding something He said and rationalizing something you do.

 

So yeah, I agree with this.  While the Gospel is the "good news" and gives so much hope and peace, it shouldn't be misconstrued as being warm and fuzzy.

 

C.S. Lewis got it right (oh, man, if he had only listened to his friend Tolkien and become a Catholic! ) in the Narnia books when he said that Aslan wasn't tame and wasn't safe.

 

This is one reason why I dislike the WWJD movement.  Jesus would probably do something that would rattle the security of those around Him... kind of like the rich young man, and the pharisees, and even His own disciples sometimes (often!), so we shouldn't try to pretend to know what He would do.

 

(sorry for the tangent)

Edited November 6, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[smac97]

Pretty ironic that this applies to children of polygamist families as well. Still as bad in my opinion. Why make person repudiate their parents to be baptized? The child of such parents is making their own stand and should be judged the same as anyone else. Does a child of an adulterer need repudiate a parent? How about a child of a single mother who was never married?

 

It would be nice to see this discussion proceed in good faith.  A solid place to start would be to avoid significant distortions of what the Church is actually doing.  You are using loaded and inaccurate terminology ("Why make person repudiate their parents...") to describe the Church's requirement that 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".

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

No, it is repudiation of their parents as required by the church at age 18.  And yes, I think adult children should make their own decisions, and I predict they will choose family over this bizarre policy every time.

 

I do not think your statement ("repudiation of their parents") is a good faith characterization of what the Church is doing here.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[The Nehor]

I was talking to my father (who is not a Catholic) the other day and we both agreed that one thing about Jesus is that he makes everyone uncomfortable.  If you're not at least slightly uncomfortable by Jesus and His teachings then you are probably disregarding something He said and rationalizing something you do.

 

So yeah, I agree with this.  While the Gospel is the "good news" and gives so much hope and peace, it shouldn't be misconstrued as being warm and fuzzy.

 

C.S. Lewis got it right (oh, man, if he had only listened to his friend Tolkien and become a Catholic! ) in the Narnia books when he said that Aslan wasn't tame and wasn't safe.

 

This is one reason why I dislike the WWJD movement.  Jesus would probably do something that would rattle the security of those around Him... kind of like the rich young man, the pharisees, so we shouldn't try to pretend to know what He would do.

 

(sorry for the tangent)

 

No, it is a good one. C.S. Lewis was once accused of not caring for the Sermon on the Mount. His response:

 

“As to ‘caring for’ the Sermon on the Mount, if ‘caring for’ here means ‘liking’ or enjoying, I suppose no one ‘cares for’ it. Who can like being knocked flat on his face by a sledge-hammer? I can hardly imagine a more deadly spiritual condition than that of the man who can read that passage with tranquil pleasure. This is indeed to be ‘at ease in Zion’ (Amos 6:1).”