Jeanne Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 I would accept cookies from someone I hadn't seen on a long time and not read too much I to it. I'm going home teaching tonight to visit two families I've never met. We are going to check on them and see if they want contact with the church. I am anxious that they will receive our visit. I in no way want to "love bomb" or fake affection. Sometimes we don't visit because we're afraid to impose. It's hard to know what to do when someone doesn't come to church but stays on the rolls.I understand how you feel, I was a happy visiting teacher once..and I do understand. A first visit is really no problem (IMO)...but if they have resigned..and you want to visit..a call is best..for both of you. I love cookies.
Mystery Meat Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 I never claimed it was "ALL" obsolete and I agree we do live under some of the same commandments. Those would be the 10 original written on the stone tablets. Not all this man made minutia and bad policy found in Leviticus. You do realize that cold blooded murder was called "Righteous" by God After the Law was given not to Murder? There's even a verse of a Hymn dedicated to it.Pslams 106:30-31Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. 31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore. He's talking about this murder right here.Numbers 256 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; 8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. 9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.God is even elated that Phinehas did it and rewarded him for it.10 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. 12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: 13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel. So please reconcile for us... Why was Phinehas able to murder two people in cold calculated blood (AFTER the Law of Moses was given) and it was considered "Righteous"? He's even given the preisthood for eternity as a reward for murder. Haven't ignored it at all. I just disagree that Homosexuality can be considered an abomination when other Marriage agreements also listed as "abominations" in that chapter are perfectly fine with God.So can you explain why Abraham was allowed to marry his sister and the Levitical law contradicts that and says his marriage was an "abomination"?Maybe all those "Abominations" in that chapter weren't really consider by God "abominations" at all and the Jewish Scribes made it all up. You are trying to take the focus off of homosexuality and gay marriage and you did not address my point. 1
Jeanne Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Please provide an example of where someone was mocked for leaving the church.I don't know if it is mocking or not..but there was a post on a thread last week about the resignations last Saturday..it was said that the Celestial Kingdom would be better off without them.... And after someone posted that a friend here had resigned, they said "and we care about that because?:" Mocking..I don't know..offensive I do know. 1
Daniel2 Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) How many even have children and of that number how many want their children to be members?I have three children. And they're more important to me than any statistic you could quote back to me.I have hosted 18 gay returned missionary former LDS fathers in my home, who each have kids ranging in quantity from 2 to 6, each. All are supportive of our kids' church membership.And our collective experience represents a fraction of hundreds of other kids like ours.Given Christ's approach to leaving the 99 for the one, are the total numbers of children really relevant? Their souls are just as precious, especially when this policy is targeted directly at them. Edited November 18, 2015 by Daniel2 3
Daniel2 Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 No, I'm not saying any one person or group is trying to change hearts and minds. It's the policy itself, in this case, and the implementation of it that will lead to those changes. Just like Prop 8 seemed to usher in a period of change in the church. (I know, I know... You don't see that change but you're looking at one narrow piece of it.)And WRT your final comment there, it's the church's teachings about right and wrong that led me to what I currently believe about homosexuality. Otherwise my very conservative political leanings would have kept me in the anti-gay-marriage camp. Agreed--well said. 1
Sleeper Cell Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Protection from tort law is the best explanation I've heard for why this policy was written and implemented the way it was.Under what circumstances could a church’s decision to not baptize or ordain someone possibly be subject to tort law? 1
CV75 Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Sorry. Typo. 68:27.You haven't actually identified a correct doctrine to teach her. I suspect that's because there isn't one to justify delaying her baptism more than a decade past when the Lord said to do it. Explaining the doctrine on marriage doesn't tell her why she can't be baptized unless you are making her responsible for her parents actions.Please give the examples of your stake leaders going to the First Presidency with questions on Church policy (or anything else for that matter). I’ve asked you a number of times now in different, clarifying ways. The teaching of correct doctrine starts from birth. We teach children many doctrines along the way, by example and precept and in the nuances of the parent-child relationship. That consistent, day-by-day edification prepares the child for many contingencies and for new conversations that may be needed as the unexpected comes up. All the doctrines we teach strengthen a child spiritually and establish an alignment with the Light of Christ. I have identified a doctrine. While the marriage doctrine is certainly pertinent to the policy, so is every other correct doctrine she learns. In the event she cannot be baptized, she will be prepared to receive a custom-made "explanation" as needed from inspired parents and priesthood leaders when invited. Prayerfully pick any doctrine and it can be made to apply; depends on the child and her particular internal and external circumstances. And don’t forget the principle of grace in all this!
Russell C McGregor Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Protection from tort law is the best explanation I've heard for why this policy was written and implemented the way it was.Elder Christofferson had a different explanation. Furthermore, he was speaking from actual inside knowledge, as opposed to mere speculation. You may deny that you're calling him a liar, but if your evidence-free speculation is true, then his direct testimony is false. And he would have to know it. Guess which explanation I find to be the better one? 1
T-Shirt Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Thats not what it says. It states that to be baptized OR serve a mission you must get first presidency approval. A child of SSM couple will never have to seek first presidency approval for mission now that the Nov. 13 letter has changed that rule. Read the policy and then the Nov. 13 letter again please. Ordinance and mission first presidency approval are completely off the table now.The letter states:"When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church..."Which logically means that a child who has already been baptized and has been living with a same-gender couple and has not been actively participating in the Church, the policy can still apply. In other words, a baptized child who has been living with a same-gender couple and has not been active in the Church, who decides to start going to church when he is a teenager, may have to wait until eighteen to be ordained or considered for a mission. I am not sure why you are making this so difficult.
rockpond Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 It seems to me that demanding the Prophet's and Apostles change the rules of the LDS Church to favor their concept of what they should be, or conservative members exclaiming that the rule will never change, are both out of the scope of authority of the current living Saints, and neither indicate a great amount of faith in the Lord or patience with His plans. I really am content to accept the path the church is on and the rules governing us today, while continuing to petition the Lord for understanding, not to recreate the church or the scriptures in my own egos image. I agree and feel likewise.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 The letter states:"When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church..."Which logically means that a child who has already been baptized and has been living with a same-gender couple and has not been actively participating in the Church, the policy can still apply. In other words, a baptized child who has been living with a same-gender couple and has not been active in the Church, who decides to start going to church when he is a teenager, may have to wait until eighteen to be ordained or considered for a mission. I am not sure why you are making this so difficult. Evidently there are some who are so determined to find fault that they will strain every sinew to do so. When they thought the policy meant one thing, the Church was at fault. Now that it has been proved to mean something else, well, their error was the Church's fault. It's easy when you know how.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 I agree and feel likewise. So we can reasonably expect you to stop confidently predicting that the Church is going to change to one day catch up with your superior enlightenment.Excellent news! 2
rockpond Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 You have to by pretty cynical to believe the lawyers wrote it and Elder Christofferson was just providing cover with his comments. No one has provided an ounce of proof that a lawyer even read the change. I would be OK with that, since I've never worked for a large organization that didn't pass everything published past a lawyer (even the use of our university logo gets that treatment). But to say the lawyers wrote it for tort reasons. You are talking out of an orifice that isn't normally used for speaking. It's interesting, I've been told time and time again on this discussion board that the church will eventually face lawsuits regarding same sex marriage. Then, if I suggest that our legal team may have drafted a policy to help protect against such lawsuits it gets branded as cynical and anti-Mormon. I'm also a bit intrigued by your second paragraph... you admit that large organizations tend to pass everything through lawyers but then accuse me of speaking out of my other "orifice" for suggesting that a large organization like the church might do that. #baffled 3
JAHS Posted November 18, 2015 Author Posted November 18, 2015 There has to be some kind of concessions made for any number of unusual circumstances. Perhaps someone has already mentioned this but what if a mother (divorced or widowed) has a few kids, some of which have been baptized and get the Aaronic priesthood, but somewhere along the way the situation changes so that she decides to enter a same gender marriage. They have otherwise been active in the church the whole time. According to the policy the older kids can continue on in the church, but would any of the kids who were under 8 and attending Primary before the same gender marriage happened also be able to be baptized or have to wait till 18? If I were a Bishop I would say they could be baptized.
rockpond Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Under what circumstances could a church’s decision to not baptize or ordain someone possibly be subject to tort law? The baptism or ordination could be used to establish the "duty of care" through a special relationship that is an element of determining liability in negligence cases. The thought being that if the duty of care is established by baptizing a child and the church then acts against the best interest of the child by damaging his/her relationship with the parent, they might be found guilty. Also, adding gay marriage to the definition of apostasy strengthens the first amendment argument when it comes to our refusal to acknowledge such marriages.
rockpond Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Please give the examples of your stake leaders going to the First Presidency with questions on Church policy (or anything else for that matter). I’ve asked you a number of times now in different, clarifying ways. The teaching of correct doctrine starts from birth. We teach children many doctrines along the way, by example and precept and in the nuances of the parent-child relationship. That consistent, day-by-day edification prepares the child for many contingencies and for new conversations that may be needed as the unexpected comes up. All the doctrines we teach strengthen a child spiritually and establish an alignment with the Light of Christ. I have identified a doctrine. While the marriage doctrine is certainly pertinent to the policy, so is every other correct doctrine she learns. In the event she cannot be baptized, she will be prepared to receive a custom-made "explanation" as needed from inspired parents and priesthood leaders when invited. Prayerfully pick any doctrine and it can be made to apply; depends on the child and her particular internal and external circumstances. And don’t forget the principle of grace in all this! Ex. The use of medical marijuana. You haven't picked a doctrine that will explain to a 7 year old why she can't be baptized due to her parents being gay. That was the question. 1
rockpond Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Elder Christofferson had a different explanation. Furthermore, he was speaking from actual inside knowledge, as opposed to mere speculation. You may deny that you're calling him a liar, but if your evidence-free speculation is true, then his direct testimony is false. And he would have to know it. Guess which explanation I find to be the better one? His explanation of protecting the child from conflicts only makes sense if we don't have the child attend church meetings. Since I don't think that is what Elder Christofferson or any of the other Brethren want that, I am trying to find an explanation that makes sense to me. Or would you rather that I not try to find an explanation and assume that they just don't like gays? I am not calling him a liar. I'm just saying that his explanation doesn't make sense to me. And nobody here has been able to explain it either. 3
KevinG Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 It's interesting, I've been told time and time again on this discussion board that the church will eventually face lawsuits regarding same sex marriage. Then, if I suggest that our legal team may have drafted a policy to help protect against such lawsuits it gets branded as cynical and anti-Mormon. I'm also a bit intrigued by your second paragraph... you admit that large organizations tend to pass everything through lawyers but then accuse me of speaking out of my other "orifice" for suggesting that a large organization like the church might do that. #baffled You claimed the policy was drafted by lawyers. Without any evidence to support it. My acknowledging that the church probably passes documents through a legal check is not remotely close to what you suggested. 1
rockpond Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 So we can reasonably expect you to stop confidently predicting that the Church is going to change to one day catch up with your superior enlightenment.Excellent news! Certainly not. No organization will ever catch up to my superior enlightenment. 1
rockpond Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 You claimed the policy was drafted by lawyers. Without any evidence to support it. My acknowledging that the church probably passes documents through a legal check is not remotely close to what you suggested. So do you think that the church getting sued over something related to gay marriage is a possibility or not?
KevinG Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 In declaring that the Church won't change on the matter of homosexuality being a sin, I am only echoing what the Lord's anointed servants have said. That's why I quoted Elder Christofferson and highlighted passages in that official statement. I am in agreement that it is forbidden now. And I suspect it will never be due to our eternal natures and the Lord's teachings that a man and a woman make up a family. However, I cannot say for certain that this will eternally be the case. However that does not mean we should lobby the Lord or complain to the Lord's anointed when there is a decision we don't like.
KevinG Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 So do you think that the church getting sued over something related to gay marriage is a possibility or not? If we are not very careful yes. I think there are groups that loathe our traditional teachings and would love an excuse, any excuse to practice lawfare on us. I am living though it with the BSA where a small group threatened to sue and the group capitulated, resulting in a lot of re-shifting of units and resources, and the loss of units and members. For a small litigious group who will never replace the lost members, or even intended to do so.
mfbukowski Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 The policy is written so a child doesn't here one thing in church and living around a different principle at home....if that child still goes to church by his/her desire or by invitiation...they are welcome..but they are going to still hear te same things,Baptism makes the child responsible for covenants they will not be able to keep if the abandon the church after baptism They would be harmed by BEING baptized. They are better off unbaptized!! 1
KevinG Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Did we forget about Romans already? This is a lot of twisting to prove Levitical Law on Homosexuality doesn't matter, when it is condemned outside of the old testament. I prefer to take the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, etc. along with the counsel of living Prophets and Apostles, along with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. When I am of the spirit to discount one of those sources and find fault with it, I usually find I'm playing into the hands of the adversary and falling into a false dilemma. 2
rockpond Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 If we are not very careful yes. I think there are groups that loathe our traditional teachings and would love an excuse, any excuse to practice lawfare on us. If that's the case, than why wouldn't we want our legal team helping to draft policies to protect the Church? Why is that a bad thing? Why is it cynical?
Recommended Posts