carbon dioxide Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) People have asked what's the difference between a child living with a heterosexual couple that's not married and living with gay parents who are married. Why should a child be baptized if their parents aren't married and are living in sin? If a child is a member of the church and wants their parents to repent of whatever sin they are committing, one situation is clearly more conflicting than the other. For a child's shacking up parents to repent, they would have to get married. For a child's SSM parents to repent, they would have to get divorced. That would be pretty sad if a child felt like they would need to beg their parents to get divorced. I just wanted to make that brief point in a sea of many, many SSM posts. For me the difference really is meaningless. The SSM couple are in the same boat as the shacking up heterosexual couple if everything stays the same. The process of repentance is different for each group but if each group decides not to repent, I see no substantive difference between the two. Edited November 15, 2015 by carbon dioxide
strappinglad Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 I recall reading Ex 20:5 and Num 14: 18 having something to say about children and parents. Doesn't seem fair but , there it is. Now all we have to do is wrest the scriptures until they fit our desires. Oh, and as has been said, waiting a bit is not the same as eternally being locked out. 3
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Current religions or historical religions. "A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:2 Edited November 15, 2015 by The Nehor
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 I guess but it is an odd odd thing.Based on this nobody should argue that the LDS church not a polygamist religion. It is only polygamist if you accept that our conception of the afterlife is correct. If you do not we are for all intents and purposes monogamous. In fact LDS on average have fewer spouses and sexual partners per lifetime then the average. We seem to be better at monogamy then many monogamists.
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 So it was so important that Utah became a state that the Church considered to give up a commandment of God to gain a couple of senators? If that is true, what else would they have done? Perhaps the Church would have given up the Book of Mormon for one extra representative in the house. The LDS wanted to become a state so they got a say in their local government because as a territory their federal leaders were largely despised and the federal government was talking about dissolving the church and stealing everything. God gave permission to abrogate the application of the principle for now to avoid that. If we had truly been righteous and built Zion we would have watched God tear the United States to pieces to preserve his people so really, it is probably a good thing for everyone else too that we failed. 1
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Is there any precedent anywhere in any religious history where someone was not allowed to join a faith because of a sin their parents were doing? Reposted from other thread: "A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:2
DJBrown Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Current religions or historical religions. When has same-sex marriage been legal? That is the context which should be compared.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Who cares anyway? Who says the Church is obligated to follow precedent set by others. This question reminds me of rebellious Israel: We need a king because other nations have kings. Edited November 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Teancum Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Not the least bit surprised. I am glad there was no fuss over the dead wife.Fuss?
Teancum Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 It is only polygamist if you accept that our conception of the afterlife is correct. If you do not we are for all intents and purposes monogamous. In fact LDS on average have fewer spouses and sexual partners per lifetime then the average. We seem to be better at monogamy then many monogamists.What an odd justification for strange practices.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 "A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:2Yeh, and Deut 23:3 as well. Curses can last for several generations. One's parentage often restricts what one can and can't do -- especially in cultures with rigid caste systems.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 So it was so important that Utah became a state that the Church considered to give up a commandment of God to gain a couple of senators? If that is true, what else would they have done? Perhaps the Church would have given up the Book of Mormon for one extra representative in the house.You and Zakuska have got it wrong. The LDS Church was actively being dismembered as an institution by the Feds -- temples and meeting houses, etc., all being taken over by them. The only option to avoid extinction of the LDS Church was to knuckle under and accept Federal Law against polygyny. Other benefits followed accommodation, but they were secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc. 1
carbon dioxide Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 You and Zakuska have got it wrong. The LDS Church was actively being dismembered as an institution by the Feds -- temples and meeting houses, etc., all being taken over by them. The only option to avoid extinction of the LDS Church was to knuckle under and accept Federal Law against polygyny. Other benefits followed accommodation, but they were secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc.Yes I agree. I don't think the issue about Utah being a state was the issue. If they believed polygamy was a commandment, why would they disobey God so they could become a state? All that would prove is that their hearts were upon the world than on God.
Teancum Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Who cares anyway? Who says the Church is obligated to follow precedent set by others. This question reminds me of rebellious Israel: We need a king because other nations have kings.Well some do seem to care.Nobody says the Mormon Church has to follow any precedent. Edited November 15, 2015 by Teancum
sjdawg Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 ...and yet we still don't baptize people in a common law marriage until they get legally married.How narrow minded of us.What about their children? Can they be baptized?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 I still just can't wrap my head around why anyone would be denied the right to be baptized at any age if their parents are all for it!It has to do with the family as a fundamental unit. The family is where most everyone learns the basics of life, and, if that family environment is inimical to the LDS faith, we are setting the children up to fail if we baptized them without the full cooperation of the parents (active honest living and adherence to basic Gospel principles).
filovirus Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 You and Zakuska have got it wrong. The LDS Church was actively being dismembered as an institution by the Feds -- temples and meeting houses, etc., all being taken over by them. The only option to avoid extinction of the LDS Church was to knuckle under and accept Federal Law against polygyny. Other benefits followed accommodation, but they were secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc.Perhaps the church at the time was more willing to listen to the Lord than those during the time of the prophet Jeremiah. 50 years in exile for not accepting a treaty with Babylon. I agree with the quote above. The US was about to seize all church assets, including ward buildings and temples. With the church still struggling financially, the Lord was still directing.
Zakuska Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Reposted from other thread:"A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:2Good thing the Apostles in the book of acts showed us that that whole chapter was one of those man made bad policies by the Jewish officials and they went ahead and baptized the eunuch into Christ without batting an eye. Edited November 15, 2015 by Zakuska
Ron Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Well some do seem to care.Nobody says the Mormon Church has to follow any precedent.So is it safe to say that the mormon chuch is the most intolerant of gay people of any religiion taht eixsts or has ever existed? Edited November 15, 2015 by Ron
Teancum Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 So is it safe to say that the mormon chuch is the most intolerant of gay people of any religiion taht eixsts or has ever existed?I am not touching that one.
Ron Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Muslims. Why? What is their policy against gays? Edited November 15, 2015 by Ron
Russell C McGregor Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 So is it safe to say that the mormon chuch is the most intolerant of gay people of any religiion taht eixsts or has ever existed?Ron,We know what you're trying to do here.Circular argument is not especially admirable. Please don't try to smuggle your assumptions into the discussion as if they've been settled in your favour.Please note that on the now closed thread, Elder Christofferson's interview of November 6 was discussed. Neither you nor any of your fellow critics even tried to address its evidentiary value. Which means that it stands unrefuted by you, and all of you.Thus, you are obliged, for the purposes of any further discussion of this matter, to accept it as authoritative.Elder Christofferson clearly and unambiguously stated that the purpose of the policy was not to "punish" anyone. Rather, it was to spare minor children the stress of having their spiritual lives in direct conflict with their home lives. (Thus proving that the policy was always intended to address children living in SSM homes; but I digress.) Thus, far from being settled in your favour, your assumptions have been decisively disproved.Please make this fact your point of departure.Thank you. 3
Ron Posted November 15, 2015 Posted November 15, 2015 Ron,We know what you're trying to do here.Circular argument is not especially admirable. Please don't try to smuggle your assumptions into the discussion as if they've been settled in your favour.Please note that on the now closed thread, Elder Christofferson's interview of November 6 was discussed. Neither you nor any of your fellow critics even tried to address its evidentiary value. Which means that it stands unrefuted by you, and all of you.Thus, you are obliged, for the purposes of any further discussion of this matter, to accept it as authoritative.Elder Christofferson clearly and unambiguously stated that the purpose of the policy was not to "punish" anyone. Rather, it was to spare minor children the stress of having their spiritual lives in direct conflict with their home lives. (Thus proving that the policy was always intended to address children living in SSM homes; but I digress.) Thus, far from being settled in your favour, your assumptions have been decisively disproved.Please make this fact your point of departure.Thank you. So does that mean a yes or a no?
Recommended Posts