Avatar4321 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 You guys do realize there will be a time when the missionaries around the world are called back and we will not be preaching or baptizing anyone except those that come to us, right? This isn't the first time people have been told to wait for the blessings of the gospel. why should we find this unloving when we know everyone will get every blessing they are willing to recieve 2
MiserereNobis Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 And you should also look up "begging the question". What you have said does not "beg the question". Oh, this is such a pet peeve of mine, too! (go, fight, win, philosophy majors!) 2
MiserereNobis Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 This is the second time today I've had to address faulty comparisons between parliamentary government and the government of God. I agree! The Roman Curia should not be held to the standards of democratic governments.
MiserereNobis Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 It's this pit bull thing that I do. The post-modern pit bull. Leave us poor peaceful Platonist puppies alone!
Ahab Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 The national news is having a heyday with this. If the Church teaches that same sex marriage is so evil that the children of a parent in a same sex relationship must "specifically disavow" same sex marriage before they can be baptized, the church should be consistent and excommucate all members who don't specifically disavow it. Most people have friends or loved ones in same sex marriages. Why are the children of such people the only ones required to specifically disavow it?It's a parent/child issue, with parents having responsibility for teaching their children. Parents shouldn't complain that others (including the Church) won't take that responsibility upon themselves or put their own restrictions on how far they will go to teach their children. It's the parent's problem to solve and ultimately our Lord holds them, the parents, responsible for teaching them what our Lord wants to teach them.I'm actually a little surprised that a child becoming 18 makes any difference. The parents are still responsible for their children after they turn 18. Until our Lord takes that responsibility from them, if he ever does.
Storm Rider Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 When I read my friends post that described how terrible this was, I almost called him on it, but then decided it was not worth creating a problem. However, it really bothered me that he was presenting himself as if he was an active faithful LDS and all these gay couples had called him expressing their anguish over the Church's actions. Of course, the comments were all from like-minded "Mormons" who were then claiming this was the last straw. They just could not stomach the terrible, heartless actions of the Church. I still don't think I should say anything, but it does gall me. I dislike those who spin a story so falsely to support their agenda. Thank you for helping me to understand that I was not blind and was not missing all of these active members who are not really active members. I cannot think of a gay friend that has remained active in the Church while also being outwardly active in a homosexual lifestyle. This appears to be more a story of smoke and mirrors rather than a real story about real people. More a projection of what feelings would have been had they remained active and had children they were bring to church every week. Tempest in a teapot and the teapot does not exist. Go figure. 1
MiserereNobis Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I'm glad your still not serving as a Bishop. You'd probably get ex-d for ignoring policy by the First Presidency and end up sealed to the devil. (Alma 34:35) There are plenty of MEN in this Church who will and do uphold the First Presidency. Whiners, beware. This makes me want to start a thread on what it means to be a man in Mormonism. The Mormon masculinity. PeterPear has clearly drawn lines between men and whiners and linked it to following the First Presidency. Interesting.
mfbukowski Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I respectfully disagree, mfbukowski. It is precisely the institutional Church that causes conflict when someone of sincere heart and a desire to be baptized is turned away -- not because of anything about them -- but simply because of their parents.How many staunch Church members today were baptized in their teens? Sometimes at odds with their parents? I know several. And this policy will prevent any such teenagers who happen to be children of gay parents that blessing/opportunity.I have never seen a teen who wanted to be baptized, at odds with their parents about it, being allowed to be baptized.We have had several attend church and activities who had to wait to age 18, as is the policy. 1
Nevo Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 This isn't the first time people have been told to wait for the blessings of the gospel. Yes, well, the problem is that the blessings of the Gospel are now supposed to be available to everyone—even children. In the words of lds.org: "In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. . . . The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: '[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.'" 2
JAHS Posted November 7, 2015 Author Posted November 7, 2015 Just got back so sorry if this has been pointed out....And it is not clear if there is any problem if a parent is homosexually active, s/he can be dating...just not living with someone or married to them.There are some definite details that are going to be needed to explained and probably revised.For example I have been hearing some first hand accounts of a situation of a divorced couple, where one of them has entered into a gay marriage and the other parent who has primary custody has gotten permission to have her 8 year old baptized. The direction they got was that the policy only applied to children being raised exclusively by gay couples, not by those in joint custody situations where one is gay and the other is not. Hopefully some official explanations about this will come out soon. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 The post-modern pit bull. Leave us poor peaceful Platonist puppies alone!Yeah, it's too frustrating for me. I want to eradicate the argument, not the person, but I tend to mix the two I guess. I see what I think is inconsistency and go after it. I think in flow charts and see arguments spatially. Weird.
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Apparently the church has exempted itself from this:"And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Children of SS parents should reject the church, the missionaries and baptism to protect themselves. 1
carbon dioxide Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Children of SS parents should reject the church, the missionaries and baptism to protect themselves.To protect themselves from what?
JAHS Posted November 7, 2015 Author Posted November 7, 2015 Apparently the church has exempted itself from this: What would be offensive is placing a child in the middle between the church and his parents where they have to choose between the two. By not giving them that choice the gay parents can maintain the right to teach their child what they want. I am pretty sure no gay couple is going to want to have their child join a church that they themselves can not belong to. This gives complete control to the parents where it should be.
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 To protect themselves from what?From the church. As the church continues to marginalize an already marginalized group of people it becomes an emotionally dangerous place. It is better to avoid such danger all together. 1
MiserereNobis Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 What would be offensive is placing a child in the middle between the church and his parents where they have to choose between the two. By not giving them that choice the gay parents can maintain the right to teach their child what they want. I am pretty sure no gay couple is going to want to have their child join a church that they themselves can not belong to. This gives complete control to the parents where it should be. You didn't respond to what Jesus said. (unless you were adding something to what He said...)
carbon dioxide Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 When I read my friends post that described how terrible this was, I almost called him on it, but then decided it was not worth creating a problem. However, it really bothered me that he was presenting himself as if he was an active faithful LDS and all these gay couples had called him expressing their anguish over the Church's actions. Of course, the comments were all from like-minded "Mormons" who were then claiming this was the last straw. They just could not stomach the terrible, heartless actions of the Church. I still don't think I should say anything, but it does gall me. I dislike those who spin a story so falsely to support their agenda. Thank you for helping me to understand that I was not blind and was not missing all of these active members who are not really active members. I cannot think of a gay friend that has remained active in the Church while also being outwardly active in a homosexual lifestyle. This appears to be more a story of smoke and mirrors rather than a real story about real people. More a projection of what feelings would have been had they remained active and had children they were bring to church every week. Tempest in a teapot and the teapot does not exist. Go figure. If it is not the SSM issue it will be something else. Either one has the testimony build on a rock foundation or a sandy foundation. If it be a rock foundation then even troubling things like this don't shake them too much. They just put the matter into the Lord's hands. For those on a sandy foundation, pretty much anything can knock the house down. The world is just going to get worse. It will be harder to hold to the iron rod. There are some that will hold on for a while, hear the mockery from the great and spacious building and let go and wander off into strange paths. It is sad but that is just how it is going to be. 1
MiserereNobis Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Yeah, it's too frustrating for me. I want to eradicate the argument, not the person, but I tend to mix the two I guess. I see what I think is inconsistency and go after it. I think in flow charts and see arguments spatially. Weird. Most people can't even see an argument, so don't beat yourself up too much. On Monday, I think I'll talk to my students about viewing arguments spatially as flow-charts, and tell them I got the idea from some poor misguided relativist 1
carbon dioxide Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 From the church. As the church continues to marginalize an already marginalized group of people it becomes an emotionally dangerous place. It is better to avoid such danger all together.The world will get more dangerous and wicked in many ways. Avoiding the church will bring temporary safety for a time but Satan is not done with them. Even those he leads or persuades out of the Church he still has more goodies for. And I will not get into the issues of what these people will do after they die. One can't avoid the church, die, and expect good things to come to them. It just gets worse.
JAHS Posted November 7, 2015 Author Posted November 7, 2015 You didn't respond to what Jesus said. (unless you were adding something to what He said...)I guess I was adding something or at least giving an example of something that would truly "offend one of these little ones".
Duncan Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Here, watch this http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson Purple tie and grey suit?........................... Edited November 7, 2015 by Duncan
Duncan Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson Watch this
carbon dioxide Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Apparently the church has exempted itself from this: Not really. A child that dies without being baptized will still be saved. I am not worried about any baby not getting an optional baby blessing. A child that is denied baptism but would be baptized if it was available to them are on just as solid ground as those that are baptized. The sins of the parents do not fall upon the children. None of the children of gay couples are accountable for the decisions of the parents. But like what happens often in heterosexual relationships, the sins of the parents lead to consequences that also affect the children in some way. 1
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 The world will get more dangerous and wicked in many ways. Avoiding the church will bring temporary safety for a time but Satan is not done with them. Even those he leads or persuades out of the Church he still has more goodies for. And I will not get into the issues of what these people will do after they die. One can't avoid the church, die, and expect good things to come to them. It just gets worse.God is strong enough to provide haven for all persons outside the church. The church isn't the place for everyone. God's embrace is. The church is not God's embrace.
Recommended Posts