Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I'm not shocked that you're making inane statements like this. I am shocked that you think it is inane... oh wait... no I am not.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I think in order to make things more consistent there needs to be a new temple recommend question and baptismal question for new converts age 12 and up, something along the lines of: Do you believe that marriage is a divine institution ordained by God and is defined in exclusivity as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman? If the individual cannot answer the question in the affirmative, they cannot qualify for a temple recommend. That way everyone must disavow the pernicious and sinful practice of SSM.I could support that.
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 The official goal has always been to bring -->families<-- into the church together. The goal where I live is NOT to get kids baptized if their parents aren't going to be equally committed. Well that is a good thing. So in your area children of inactive parents who are living in one sin or another and who likely won't support their children in church activity are not baptized?
ksfisher Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I don't mind the policy as it now stands, and I also think it's wise not to allow people to join the church unless they accept the doctrines the church teaches.I don't think it's fair for members to have beliefs that people trying to become members are not allowed to have.I'm not sure what the answer is. The standards aren't always the same for members versus perspective converts. I, for example, could start spending all my tithing money on cigarettes and beer and still remain a member of the church. An investigator would be denied baptism because of the same. I don't think there are any easy answers to human problems except trying to live the gospel with all of your heart, might, mind, and soul.
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Who is marginalized; which group are you talking about? I see happy gay people on every night of the week on television. Every movie I go to talks about gay people; every paper I pick up I read about gay people; the forum talks ad nauseum about gay people. Oh, you must be talking about Christians that actually believe that disciples of Christ have a responsibility to invite all to repent and come unto Christ. I should have guessed. You don't really get to play that card anymore; it does not exist. Gays have more rights than anyone else in our society today. They have become the chosen class; the class that no one can touch for they are the beholding to no other group, church, people, organization, and the government makes it so.If this is the case then the other side can no longer play the "this isn't a civil rights issue" card Now that we've established which cards cannot be played, what do we do next?
bluebell Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I can't believe they did this. I'm definitely done.You would be so missed.
carbon dioxide Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) No, I'm saying it seems like a double standard that a child of ssmarried parents can't be a member unless he disavows ssm, but my friend (who's a bishop and a very good man) can support ssm completely and be a member, and even a leader.Depends on what one means by "support." I support the legalization of alcohol and even all kinds of drugs. Not because I think they are good and God wants people to use them but because I believe in liberty and the government does not own our bodies. I support agency for people to make bad or dumb decisions as long as those decisions do not infringe on another person liberty. Thus I support the legalization of alcohol and drugs like cocaine BUT it believe the usage can be unwise. So does the bishop support SSM out of legal, constitutional reasons which even myself can find some merit for or does the bishop support SSM on the grounds that its a righteous thing to do and is not a wicked practice? Does the Bishop support the right that the Church itself support, endorse and even practice it? What is the full position of your friend? I don't think the child is asked to not accept that people don't have a legal right to a SSM but just that it is morally wrong. If Hugh Hefners son was to decide to join the LDS Church, he would not have to disown or hate his father. He would not have to declare that what his father has done in his life was legally wrong. He would have to declare that the lifestyle and some of the decisions his father has made are wrong. Parents can love their kids and kids can love their parents while not accepting all of the decisions and lifestyles they have chosen. Edited November 7, 2015 by carbon dioxide 2
ksfisher Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I could support that. It may come to that eventually, like the Word of Wisdom, I wonder if it wouldn't be best to wait a few years before making it a temple recommend question. I would hope that the Lord could be patient with us for a while longer. Hopefully the current policy change will cause many to rethink their stance on the issue, be touched by the Spirit, and accept the Lord's definition of marriage. Perhaps that's just pie in the sky on my part.
Guest Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I don't think that this is quite true. No one is being denied membership. However, I do think that an eight year old may not be in a good position if they are baptized when their parents are not formally recognized for their marriage. The confusion may be too much for a child. By allowing them to make their own decisions as an adult in this matter just may be the correct way. I also think that that these children will be allowed to be baptized when they are 16 with the parents' permission. Mormons have to make a crucial decision (This is not directed at you): Is the lds church run by god or by human beings. If one decides that it is run by human beings, it would be best to leave and spend time in better ways. If one decides it is run by god, then one needs to work their way through the decisions make by heavenly father. As I see it now from internet reading, the lds church is in internal chaos as members are questioning more and more their church's decisions and its leaders.I understand what you are trying to say, but what hope is there for these Children to want to take part in primary, scouting or YM or YW activities when they know that they can never be a full part of the Church? "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of heaven (or God)". This policy I fear will offend God. Even if they are in a SSM situation does not mean they will be Gay. Homosexuality cannot be caught like a disease. I still do not support SSM, even though I have a Gay child, but that child of mine is loved and does not seek any of her nieces or (for now) her only nephew. But Christ's words are clear to any who would "harm one of these little ones"...a command which carries a horrible fate. God help us all if the Church is wrong! Children are innocent at the age of eight, most for many years to come.I have a testimony of the Gospel and the Church...therefore I am always concerned for the wellbeing of our leaders and the institution. I cannot see any Good coming from the punishing that might be by "punishing" of children for the sins of their fathers or mothers. What hope do we have of having our arms outstretched and the hope of those who struggle with SS attraction, but live the commandments to full fellowship, if before they were in a relationship with a woman and had children, to know that their children cannot become members at the age of 8, 10, 12. Even if only in theory. I believe that SSA, is not a choice, but a burden (even though I cannot comprehend it) and a difficult temptation...in short, one may not be able to stop how they feel, but all may choose how they act! But children cannot be brought into membership, when one parent cannot choose the better path. I have spent countless hours, trying to understand my child's SSA, and how to love her and make her understand how she is loved as much as the other three of my Children. This daughter of which I speak, paid 25% of her younger brother's mission...and as she I'd closer in age with him, made up most of the impression to go, as when that age listening to parents is a passing thing. She even called up his non-member girlfriend (who thought going away for two years was silly, and told her that she was trying to convince him not to go would jeopardize his Spiritual growth and eternal happiness. But if I am being asked to pray for understanding of the treatment of children...all recorded scripture (meaning the Standard Works) has already told us of how we should feel and treat all" Children. So I have no anger to work through. Just my 21 years as a Baptist, my 37 years as a Latter-day Saint, along with my many reads through every word of Scripture. I am not going to leave the Church, or come out in open rebellion. But this I know, anyone who has still maintained a love for our faith are going to dig their heals in and say goodbye forever. I hope I am wrong, and most always am...but do believe that the sins of the parents, should not, shall not, and will not be upon the heads of their parent(s). Also chances are we will lose so many good people, for missions, callings, or even the possibility that they would call unto God for guidance.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) No, I'm saying it seems like a double standard that a child of ssmarried parents can't be a member unless he disavows ssm, but my friend (who's a bishop and a very good man) can support ssm completely and be a member, and even a leader.OK. I'll admit that I, too, find this puzzling. I don't know your friend, of course, and can't speak to his situation. I don't know how much of an advocacy or activist position he takes with his support of same-sex marriage; maybe that makes a difference. I do know that the Church professes to allow people to hold private opinions; Elder Christofferson reiterated that in the video, when he said the Church doesn't exercise "thought control." But, to use Book of Mormon phrasing, perhaps there needs to be "a regulation in the churches [i.e. in the wards and stakes]" on this matter. I wonder how a man can hold a fairly high leadership position, such as bishop, and not be in full accord with the Brethren on important matters such as this. Wouldn't there inevitably be occasions when he would need to teach members of his flock the Lord's law and standard as pertaining to marriage? Edited November 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Duncan Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) I think too, Bishops and Stake Pres. are going to probably just do things their own way, they have to live with the consequences, not anyone else. I can see a Bishop granting permission for a kid to get baptized if his parent isn't gay but his other divorced parent is or some arrangement like that. Edited November 7, 2015 by Duncan
Senator Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 You would be so missed. Does it help to remember that this is policy, and not doctrine?Where the rubbber meets the road it might not make much difference.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) It may come to that eventually, like the Word of Wisdom, I wonder if it wouldn't be best to wait a few years before making it a temple recommend question. I would hope that the Lord could be patient with us for a while longer. Hopefully the current policy change will cause many to rethink their stance on the issue, be touched by the Spirit, and accept the Lord's definition of marriage. Perhaps that's just pie in the sky on my part.I too hope that happens. It could just as easily turn out to be a sifting process. Perhaps both will occur, as when Moses said to the Israelites who had been worshiping the golden calf: "Who's on the Lord's side? Let him come to me." Edited November 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 You forgot "God" in your list. He is, after all, the director of the other three in the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.No. God's love and will are not limited to the LDS church. Let's not be ridiculous.
ksfisher Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I think too, Bishops and Stake Pres. are going to probably just do things their own way, they have to live with the consequences, not anyone else. I can see a Bishop granting permission for a kid to get baptized if his parent isn't gay but his other divorced parent is or some arrangement like that. An action such as you describe by a bishop or stake president would also seem to fit the definition of apostasy. If church leaders knows what they should or shouldn't do and acts in a contrary manner this would seems to constitute rebellion against church authority.
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 God has provided the church and the covenants / ordinances as the haven and safe place from the world. People can only take advantage of safe havens God provides by being obedient to what He tells us we have to do in order to enter those havens. By its very definition, SSM is an embrace of the world and its attitudes, and not of God what God has commanded. People embracing the world cannot enter into God's havens as long as the continue in that contrary embrace.Please stay on topic. We're talking about the children of SS couples. I'll not be derailed into the argument.God has provided a haven and covenant for ALL believers whether the LDS believe it or not. There is no conference talk, Ensign article or D&C section that can refute this.
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 This presupposes the SSM parent wont be supportive. At least one person on this board who is ex LDS and in a SSM disputes this. Also how supportive is an inactive non married heterosexual couple of the child that may have been baptized? I can tell you... not much. How effective or supportive can a SSM parent be who isn't in the church? Are they going to encourage their child to accept the church's teaching on SSM, or are they going to undermine what the child is being taught at church? At best, they may say the child can do what they want. Actively supportive? Unlikely.
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Well that is a good thing. So in your area children of inactive parents who are living in one sin or another and who likely won't support their children in church activity are not baptized? If there's not going to be clear, long term parental support, we don't encourage baptism.
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I too hope that happens. It could just as easily turn out to be a sifting process. Perhaps both will occur, as when the Lord said to the Israelites who had been worshiping the golden calf: "Who's on the Lord's side? Let him come to me." I strongly feel that the SSM issue will be a sifter - among other things.
rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Many people are instructed to wait on baptism. Why is this particular scenario, as unlikely as it is, a problem for you?Because if someone is worthy and has parental permission, than you are denying a saving ordinance and the gift of the Holy Ghost because of their parents' choices. That's wrong. 1
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 OK. I'll admit that I, too, find this puzzling. I don't know your friend, of course, and can't speak to his situation. I don't know how much of an advocacy or activist position he takes with his support of same-sex marriage; maybe that makes a difference. I do know that the Church professes to allow people to hold private opinions; Elder Christofferson reiterated that in the video, when he said the Church doesn't exercise "thought control." But, to use Book of Mormon phrasing, perhaps there needs to be "a regulation in the churches [i.e. in the wards and stakes]" on this matter. I wonder how a man can hold a fairly high leadership position, such as bishop, and not be in full accord with the Brethren on important matters such as this. Wouldn't there inevitably be occasions when he would need to teach members of his flock the Lord's law and standard as pertaining to marriage? Or read a letter from the church pertaining to SSM to the congregation? 1
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 If there's not going to be clear, long term parental support, we don't encourage baptism. I commend you and you local leaders for that.
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I strongly feel that the SSM issue will be a sifter - among other things. Yes it will be and it will be interesting to see how viable what is left will be.
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Really? People are condemning the church for being open about it's stance on SSM.? I haven't seen this. Or are they condemning the stance? All the people condemning the church for publishing such a policy that is consistent with its well known stance on SSM are doing just that - condemning the church for being open about it. There are quite a few people, including some in the church, who think the church should keep its mouth shut on the subject.
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Yes it will be and it will be interesting to see how viable what is left will be. Interesting, but not surprising. It will be very, very viable. That's what Zion is.
Recommended Posts