ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I just saw this question asked on another forum: What about a divorced parent who shares joint custody with their ex who is now in a same sex marriage? Can their child not be baptized?
Teancum Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) One view from an LDS therapist that likely won't be popular here. She is more of a liberal type member. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2015/11/homosexuality-tied-to-apostasy.html Edited November 6, 2015 by Teancum
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) The Community of Christ....sort of. Nah -- no apotheosis, too Trinitarian, and I still like the Book of Abraham (historicity-issues and all) and the Joseph Smith History too much. Just think of what you would have had to deal with if you lived back in the days of actual tribes. I actually think about that quite a bit - part of why I was a history major. It kinda terrifies me, honestly - I would have been dead in a ditch long ago if I'd had to face some of that craziness. I'm so grateful to live here and now; I've been lucky in ways that so many people throughout history, even to this day, haven't been. 'Will ye also go away?' I'm touched by the emoji. Thanks. Going away from this particular Church doesn't necessary imply leaving 'religion' in general altogether, or Christianity in particular, though the Nicene-based permutations are not appealing at all. As I've said on the board many times, I have never bought into the common 'one true church' misreading of D&C 1, and I have a diffusionist view of religious history in the first place. Wicca continues to appeal, lack of firm historical grounding and all. I guess we'll see. I'm sure many people on the edge of leaving the church will use this as their final straw for leaving. Yup. If this action helps speeds the process of cleaning house, its not all bad. Classy. It's quite possible there is one like what you describe though your description of the Church is hardly fair or accurate. But it wont have the priesthood or the keys. And without those families will be split. Because only priesthood keys have the ability to seal families for eternity. If God is going to split families up just because they didn't perform a particular ritual, that's not a God I will worship or respect. I think our current understanding of sealing and keys is deeply flawed when we make these sorts of freewill-denying claims. I think our rituals are just that: rituals. The actions form a welding link between people by ritualizing the commitment, but they're not magic. I think it is the conscious choice of the participants that seals them together. And you are wrong. No one wants to see you leave. Christ gave His life for you. He has a purpose for you. You are a member of the Church for a reason. And if you leave He will continually send us after you to invite you back. He left the 99 to find the 1. You mean something to Him. Thank you for the kind words. As I said, I'll sleep on it. It's all just very frustrating. Edited November 6, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
The Nehor Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 One view from that likely won't be popular here.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2015/11/homosexuality-tied-to-apostasy.html No, I do not consider it well-thought out or coherent but I understand the rush to get the post up quickly. It will be the first of many and gotta get those search engine results quickly before it gets saturated. 1
JLHPROF Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 It is not really a moral issue. It is a practical one designed to prevent harm. Oh...boy is that a path we don't want to go down and reasoning we don't want to use. How many immoral decisions have been made to "prevent harm"? Internment camps? Abortion? A certain Missouri governor's extermination order? 1
Gray Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Guess you need to discuss that with Jesus. Or with the community that transmitted that oral teaching before it was finally written down by the anonymous author of that gospel. Or something... 1
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 An alcoholic often acknowledges their problem but do not usually consider it to be part of their core identity. Nor does a gossip, an adulterer, or a serial "taking the sacrament with their left hand" type. It would be even better to not label them an "alcoholic" but rather an individual who deals with alcoholism, a person who gossips, a person who commits adultery, etc. When my daughter was diagnosed with diabetes, they underlined several times we were not to call her a diabetic, but rather talk about her as a person who is coping with diabetes. Words have a way of crafting reality. Better not to encourage a reality we don't want. It is too easy for one aspect of a person's life to assume too much importance if we identify that person as that aspect, whether a behaviour, a belief or a personality trait. Not really a problem if it is a good thing we want to encourage, but better to avoid placing the negative labels on individuals where able when we want to encourage change. We probably will never get past the habit as shortcuts tend to stick around, but it will be helpful imo if we at least recognize that we are doing it and how it would be better in many cases if we didn't.
The Nehor Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Oh...boy is that a path we don't want to go down and reasoning we don't want to use. How many immoral decisions have been made to "prevent harm"? Internment camps? Abortion? A certain Missouri governor's extermination order? It is also amazing how many correct decisions have been made to prevent harm. You are comparing denying baptism for a few years to internment camps? I use hyperbole a lot and even I think you may need to do a hyperbole check here. When I said I do not think the decision is primarily a "moral" one I did not mean to imply that I think the decision is immoral. I see it as more practical then moral. It is designed to protect certain people from harm which is a moral good. It is not, however, a moral indictment against the child nor does it attempt to fit the sins of the parent onto some kind of Evil-O-Meter and say that they are just wicked enough that their children must be punished. It is designed to prevent conflict between parent and church over the loyalty of a minor and to ensure that someone raised in such an environment has resolved those loyalties and rejected same sex marriage and relations.
Gray Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Apostasy is about beliefs, not lifestyle. So this new rule doesn't seem to make much sense. Edited November 6, 2015 by Gray
carbon dioxide Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 A very unfortunate policy. But on the bright side I think a harsh policy like this will actually hasten the day that gay couples and their families are accepted by the church. I think the backlash (internally and externally) on this will be enormous, IMO.The question then is do more people leave the Church by accepting gay relationships or by the present course. People are going to leave but if the most important thing is simply numbers, which causes more to leave? For myself, I can't attend a church that supports it. I would retain my testimony in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, ect but I would probably join a break off sect that retains the values I believe in.
The Nehor Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I just saw this question asked on another forum: What about a divorced parent who shares joint custody with their ex who is now in a same sex marriage? Can their child not be baptized? A strict reading suggests that the child must be living in the home with the same sex relationship (which I assume includes joint custody) to apply. If they live exclusively in the home of a parent not involved in same sex marriage or a relationship they could be baptized though if they are a minor the need for the approval of both parents would still apply.
Teancum Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 The question then is do more people leave the Church by accepting gay relationships or by the present course. People are going to leave but if the most important thing is simply numbers, which causes more to leave? For myself, I can't attend a church that supports it. I would retain my testimony in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, ect but I would probably join a break off sect that retains the values I believe in.Even if the prophet proclaimed a revelation sanctioning SSM?
Gray Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 The Savior said the opposite:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.35 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.36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.37 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. (Matthew 10) This is the danger in focusing on the particular rather than fundamental teachings. You can find a passage to justify anything you like. 1
JLHPROF Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 It is also amazing how many correct decisions have been made to prevent harm. You are comparing denying baptism for a few years to internment camps? I use hyperbole a lot and even I think you may need to do a hyperbole check here. When I said I do not think the decision is primarily a "moral" one I did not mean to imply that I think the decision is immoral. I see it as more practical then moral. It is designed to protect certain people from harm which is a moral good. It is not, however, a moral indictment against the child nor does it attempt to fit the sins of the parent onto some kind of Evil-O-Meter and say that they are just wicked enough that their children must be punished. It is designed to prevent conflict between parent and church over the loyalty of a minor and to ensure that someone raised in such an environment has resolved those loyalties and rejected same sex marriage and relations. Agreed. I used hyperbole here.But whether to deny one of God's children who accepts Christ as their Savior and repents of their sins entrance into the baptismal covenant can't be considered anything but a moral issue. The importance of the gospel completely outweighs the importance of the Church.
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Are children of couples living out of wedlock under the same conditions? If not then the Church needs to get its policies in sync. Unmarried heterosexuals living together are violating the law of Chastity just as gay married couples are. But one is in apostasy and the other is not (at least not just by being unwed, they may be for other reasons)...that is if they are LDS members, which seems like the only reason they would want their child blessed or baptized.
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) A strict reading suggests that the child must be living in the home with the same sex relationship (which I assume includes joint custody) to apply. If they live exclusively in the home of a parent not involved in same sex marriage or a relationship they could be baptized though if they are a minor the need for the approval of both parents would still apply.So in a joint custody situation, the child could not be baptized? The person who asked the question is in this situation (their ex-husband is in a same sex marriage). They wrote that this would be the last straw for them and they'll stop attending church if their child is not allowed to be baptized and she will not ask her child to stop seeing (or living part time with) their Dad. Edited November 6, 2015 by ALarson
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 That's because you disagree with my view on this issue.I read it as tongue in cheek.
sunstoned Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Anyone know if there is a splinter-group out there that still believes in Joseph Smith's calling and the Book Of Mormon and uncreated material intelligences and divine anthropomorphism and Temples and the law of consecration, but doesn't have all this blatant homophobia and anti-feminism and tribalistic family-splitting nonsense? Because that's the Church I want to belong to. I mean, not like anyone would care if I was gone from this one (to say the least), but stuff like this just makes me want out. I know, I know, good riddance to all of us neo-orthodox heretics. I guess I should sleep on it before seeing myself to the door. I am thinking the same thing.
Gray Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Nah -- no apotheosis, too Trinitarian, and I still like the Book of Abraham (historicity-issues and all) and the Joseph Smith History too much. As I understand it, members of the COC have very diverse beliefs.
carbon dioxide Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 It would be even better to not label them an "alcoholic" but rather an individual who deals with alcoholism, a person who gossips, a person who commits adultery, etc. When my daughter was diagnosed with diabetes, they underlined several times we were not to call her a diabetic, but rather talk about her as a person who is coping with diabetes. Words have a way of crafting reality. Better not to encourage a reality we don't want. It is too easy for one aspect of a person's life to assume too much importance if we identify that person as that aspect, whether a behaviour, a belief or a personality trait. Not really a problem if it is a good thing we want to encourage, but better to avoid placing the negative labels on individuals where able when we want to encourage change. We probably will never get past the habit as shortcuts tend to stick around, but it will be helpful imo if we at least recognize that we are doing it and how it would be better in many cases if we didn't.That is too PC for me. I think people have a thicker skin that what PC police claim. I can't think of one diabetic that I know who has a problem with the term "diabetic."
smac97 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I think I am proceeding in reasonable and fair discussion. That you don't like what I am saying does not make it in bad faith. And I have modified my stance to be renounce their lifestyle. Better? I have no problem with reasoned, good faith disputes with my faith. And yes, your modified stance is considerably better. Thanks. -Smac
The Nehor Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 It would be even better to not label them an "alcoholic" but rather an individual who deals with alcoholism, a person who gossips, a person who commits adultery, etc. When my daughter was diagnosed with diabetes, they underlined several times we were not to call her a diabetic, but rather talk about her as a person who is coping with diabetes. Words have a way of crafting reality. Better not to encourage a reality we don't want. It is too easy for one aspect of a person's life to assume too much importance if we identify that person as that aspect, whether a behaviour, a belief or a personality trait. Not really a problem if it is a good thing we want to encourage, but better to avoid placing the negative labels on individuals where able when we want to encourage change. We probably will never get past the habit as shortcuts tend to stick around, but it will be helpful imo if we at least recognize that we are doing it and how it would be better in many cases if we didn't. Probably true, I picked alcoholism because we do have a noun that means a person dealing with alcoholism in the same way the words gay or homosexual are also nouns. I did it to show the differentiation in how the person usually views it. A person can call themselves an alcoholic but most do not see it as the core of who they are. I honestly think the whole identity thing will fade in time. Already gay bars are fading away. I have one gay friend who shared that a lot of gays feel a sense of loss along with the feeling of success now that the campaign is over. They are becoming mainstream and they feel like they are losing something. Gays are coming out and the general response is "who cares?" which seems kind of anticlimactic to those who hear more dramatic stories of coming out from a decade or two decades ago. The non-binary gender thing is becoming popular and even being gay is losing its identity. Soon they will just fade into the mainstream and be almost conservative when some unique and shocking pansexual weirdo revolution starts. I give it a decade or two unless you count trans rights. 1
The Nehor Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Even if the prophet proclaimed a revelation sanctioning SSM? No, that would flip everything. I do not believe it would retroactively make what was once sin not sin because it is okay now but my response would be: "Cool."
Teancum Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I have no problem with reasoned, good faith disputes with my faith. And yes, your modified stance is considerably better. Thanks. -SmacI really am trying to improve my part in the dialogue.Sorry about the comment about Jesus teachings.
Gray Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) The question then is do more people leave the Church by accepting gay relationships or by the present course. People are going to leave but if the most important thing is simply numbers, which causes more to leave? For myself, I can't attend a church that supports it. I would retain my testimony in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, ect but I would probably join a break off sect that retains the values I believe in. Good question. But I think going forward it's going to be very tough for people who have (openly) very conservative views on homosexuality to be functional members of society. Imagine what it would be like to be openly against mixed race marriage in 2015. What if people at work knew you felt that way? Then project anti-gay views forward 20 years and imagine what that will be like to hold those views. So I think the way forward is not to cater to the most conservative members. People with those views will be all but gone in a generation. Edited November 6, 2015 by Gray
Recommended Posts