Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Damien the Leper]

Val, this will continue to be a contentious issue.  It is not easy to answer and there is a fine line between being loving and supporting of our gay friends while at the same time rejecting a gay lifestyle.  It is walking in a secular world, but when it becomes a religious context we recognize what sin is and what it is not.  

 

I continue to go back to being more concerned about my own sins rather than the sins of my neighbor.  This topic is so emotional that it rips us out of this type of context and immediately makes things "us" and "them" without any middle ground.  I am beginning to dislike activists of all kinds because they make so many thing adversarial.  

 

I admire those that remain steadfast in being able to love all people regardless of their sins, station, etc. and consistently invite others to a greater relationship with Christ.  Joseph Smith's statement about teaching correct principles and allowing the saints to govern the themselves follows Christ's teachings.  Truth can be taught, but it remains the individual's responsibility to follow or ignore.  

 

I have always believed that policies are not preferred and often not helpful.  If there is a revelation, then teach the revelation, but keep policies to a absolute minimum.  This new policy is not something I would have recommended, not because of the topic, but simply because it remains a man-made policy. 

 

No one asked for my opinion and I am not responsible for it; the leaders are and they will answer for the manner of their leadership.  I will follow the Savior and try to do my best.

Baptising children of SS parents or polygamous parents shouldn't be a problem as they are not the ones "sinning".

If this is a means to keep families from arguing with each other (concerning religion(and the LDS church is not that big a deal)) from within then this is a very bad move.

[CV75]

As a father of four, I have a working knowledge of parent-child relationships.

Maybe; maybe not. We all know how that can go!

 

The problem with your statement is that attending at all will still "indoctrinate" the child. So what were dealt saying is, if you have a gay parent just stay out until you are an adult, move out, and are ready to disavow the relationship of your parent.

Yes, attending at all will indoctrinate to some extent, but the Church is always secondary to what goes on at home.

 

I think it is not so great a problem when his participation from the start is structured and guided as having a boundary between the social relationship and the spiritual covenants. Naturally this is laid out more through the interpersonal dynamics than having it explained to a four-year old, but he would get the idea as he grows up. Adults are responsible for helping him navigate how much social involvement he gets, and how he gets along with everyone. Hopefully the same-gender parents, who are primarily responsible in all this, are overseeing his participation in his best interests, just as other non-member families do where a child does not receive permission for baptism but otherwise participation is tolerated, leaving it to him when he is of age. It is actually quite helpful, I think, in helping him avoid the blurring of lines that we see with those who “love the church” but can’t abide her precepts and try to make it everyone else’s problem.

 

I’m not sure of how many same-gender couples would, or would be able to, encourage their child’s making and keeping Gospel covenants on a spiritual level as LDS typically consider that to occur (by example, testimony, companionship of the Holy Ghost, priesthood power, etc.). A non-member with a testimony can only expect to help his child participate spiritually to a limited degree; an apostate or someone with apostate leanings even less so, by definition. Not that any of these are not otherwise good-hearted, law-abiding and upright people in the eyes of the world around them. But I think there are a time and place to wisely shepherd a child in spiritual matters, whether as a parent, relative, friend, or church leader or member, etc. and in that order of responsibility.

 

I can't support such a policy.

Hopefully that is only because you may not understand it as it was given.

 

“True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior… The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior.”

[omni]

You don't want it to hold water. What you're failing to grasp is that in all of the situations you mention, there are times when there does have to be additional approval for baptism - because of the situation the child is in. That happens all the time.

That's precisely the point - in the situations I mentioned children still have the option to be baptized/ordained/blessed.

How does this policy help children and their parents who want to participate in church? Children have it difficult enough as it is with bullying and being different, imagine being a young boy and not being able to bless or pass the sacrament with all of the other boys his age due to no fault of his own. You don't think that will affect the way he views the church?

[Scott Lloyd]

Commitment is only salutary if one is faithful to good things.

And resisting commitment is only salutary when such resistance is praiseworthy.

 

As my 12-year-old might say, point taken, Captain Obvious.

[jwhitlock]

Excellent point.

 

Not really. Anyone can make trendy accusations against the church that are readily applauded by those who have been "enlightened" to come out of the church.

 

However, what canard stated was his own rationalized perspective of what is wrong with the leadership of the church. That perspective doesn't care to dig too deeply into what the leaders are really saying because it knows all too well that shallow sound bites ("the children are going to be hurt!") play far better to the audience that shares his view.

 

To really understand takes much more effort, and some on this thread don't want us digging deeper into the reasons behind the policy. We might find that the policy is actually quite sound, and that doesn't play well to those who habitually pre-judge the church negatively on everything it does.

[Bob Crockett]

The problem with your statement is that attending at all will still "indoctrinate" the child. So what were dealt saying is, if you have a gay parent just stay out until you are an adult, move out, and are ready to disavow the relationship of your parent.

I can't support such a policy.

 

I'm sorry to pick you for a comment, but you're in the same boat as others.   My responsive comments.

 

1.  You're just an anonymous poster lacking the courage to use your own name.  If you "can't support such a policy" you need to make your feelings known to your stake president.  I personally opposed Prop 8, as a libertarian, but was asked to support it with time and money.  I went to my stake president, and then over his head, during the Prop 8 campaign about certain claims made by the Coalition and urged upon priesthood leaders and my comments went all the way to CHQ and changes were made; maybe not my comments did the trick but maybe.  But, I think it would have been morally repugnant to voice my concerns anonymously here.

 

2.  Much of this is a matter of religious freedom, and the most basic element of religious freedom is defining whom to admit and whom to deny.  

 

          a.  Since the Middle Ages, Rabbis within orthodox Sephardim have issued edits which say that they will not admit converts, and that if a Sephardim marries out of the faith, his or her children will never be admitted to the congregation and will be shunned.   I personally know a Sephardic man has never seen his granddaughter and doesn't know her name, despite the fact that his son used to be vice president of the man's global business.  The grandmother has seen the granddaughter once, even though they live in the same small town.  The Sephardim are duty bound to honor the last version of the "Edict."  This is the essence of religious freedom; if it doesn't harm anybody in a secular sense, a religion should be able to do what it wants and outsiders have no standing to contest it, or apostates, or anonymous posters.

 

          a.1.   For a long time the Pope threatened to excommunicate Catholic politicians who voted for abortion and capital punishment.  Now, one could argue that a politician must do what his or her constituents want, but was there anything wrong with the Pope making these threats?  Even so, Catholics who marry outside the faith are excommunicants, given the Catholic definition of the phrase.  Anything wrong with that?  

 

          b.   Deuteronomy excluded from the congregation children to the 10th generation who were Moabites.  (However, we also read that David became King, and his grandmother was a Moabite.)   Deut. also excluded children who were illegitimate, and men who were damaged in the testicles.

 

          c.   Jesus refused to give a blessing to an ill child of a non-Israelite, telling the mother and the child that they were "dogs" (the term used to denote gentiles).  It was only with the mother's persistence that the blessing was given.  Likewise if a gay married couple want the blessing strong enough for their children, they can figure out how to get it.

 

          d.  The Church today denies baptism to convicted felons who have not worked out the terms of their probation, if any.  

 

          e.   The Church denies baptism to the children of polygamists.  The Church has a long, long history of polygamists who lie to get their children baptized, through the temple and on missions.  I'm not saying a gay couple would have the same incentive to lie, but I just can't see sending home teachers and visiting teachers and primary presidents into those homes, although I have been a home teacher to a gay couple for 20 years.   But asking somebody else to do it, well ...

 

3.  The policy doesn't mean "shunning," no matter what else is said here.  In almost every large ward, there are excommunicants, disfellowshipped members or men stripped of their priesthood and the ward members in large part have no clue.  Although they are asked not to partake of the sacrament, there is nothing to stop them.  In my past wards, some of these people have been extended callings to teach and home teach, and the bishops then have to take extraordinary measures to defeat the request.   But, that just demonstrates that there is no "shunning" going on.

 

4.  Unlike the Catholic faith, baptism isn't a sacrament to extinguish original sin.  One can be baptized at any time after the age of 7.  Dead or alive, it doesn't matter.   It is probably much better off not throwing dissonance into the household with a baptized child to invoke the church's apparatus than provide intangible blessings for 10 years.  I don't see that policy any much different than declining to baptize where one parent opposes.  Here, by entering into a gay relationship and staying there, the married couple "oppose" the priesthood with as much effect as opposing a child's baptism.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[jwhitlock]

Or lampooning the Church on Broadway and cable TV.

 

For such an insignificant church filled with illogical rubes and led by evil right wing conservative men like Dallin Oaks, we sure get a lot of press.

[Teancum]

A thoughtful reading of 1 Nephi 14 tells us that the church will be small in relation to the world when looking at absolute numbers. Insignificant, however, is not how it is viewed there. Nor is the influence of the church insignificant currently.

 

If it were, we wouldn't have so many people frothing at the mouth about what the church does at every turn.

 

 

Oh I think the Church influence world wide is pretty small and insignificant.  The so many people "frothing at the mouth" ( what a kind way to view people who may disagree with you) that you and I see is because we may be more interested in monitoring these things. For most, this issue and many other LDS issues either never hit their sphere or pass relatively quickly.

 

My guess is most people in the world will not have heard a word about this policy nor will they care.

 

If you really think the LDS Church has an inordinate influence in the world I would be happy to hear how you think it does and I would ask for CFRs on your examples.

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

I don't know if that's entirely that simple. I think a good chunk of those who are concerned about it would be less so or even fine if the church had stopped at describing entering SSM as a member as apostacy.

 

It's the children part that is disconcerting and confusing for many. Personally, after having a day or 2 to process plus Cristofferson's interview (whether staged or no) has helped because I get the sense that it's more for children being raised primarily or solely in SS partners' homes. I am hoping that ones where there is only one SS parent who may have joint custody with their straight counterpart or where primary custody is given to the straight parent it would be more like policies where one parent is a non-member and you need both's permission to be baptized. 

 

But either way, I'm coming to terms with it. Where their parents are soley a SS couple, it generally makes sense to me overall and most wouldn't fall in that category period. Most that might experience this would probably either be teens or the rare SS partner(s) who grew up LDS and want their children to be raised in an LDS tradition for whatever reason. If teens and the parents for some reason agreed, it would be for the reasons Christofferson mentioned. If they were children/infants, it make several religious rites more as traditional center-pieces than introduction into covenants that entail home and church preparation for upholding doctrines that they may not be aware of run counter to their basic family structure.

 

For those with joint custody....it could be messy either way. I don't think it's fair if both parents mutually agree that they would continue to raise the children LDS post-divorce. In that case I feel the parents should have the right to continue with the religious projection they wanted for their children. I do wonder what that would look like for the children though. In the short run it may be easier for them because it may reduce conflict for the parents involved. At the same time, particularly if the divorce is less amicable and there's power struggles, having a parent be able to veto baptism may also cause more tension and strife between parents and children. It also makes changing custody agreements (or deciding one period) more contentious.  

 

Anyway, these are some of my random thoughts post initial shock of it. 

 

wtih luv,

BD

Edited November 7, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Teancum]

Do you know about rep points?

 

 

I don't.  What are they?

[Storm Rider]

Baptising children of SS parents or polygamous parents shouldn't be a problem as they are not the ones "sinning".

If this is a means to keep families from arguing with each other (concerning religion(and the LDS church is not that big a deal)) from within then this is a very bad move.

 

Val, I don't understand why this policy is being instituted, but I have tried not to be so dogmatic that I need understand something completely before accepting it and following it.  It is a policy; nothing more and nothing less.  Some will have hurt feelings about policies, but it is not the first time their feelings will have been hurt and it will not be the last.  I put my faith in our Father in Heaven that he will make all things better if we put our faith in him.  

 

I have lost a child, a brother, parents, had an organ replaced, put into prison while completely innocent, have a very rare disease (1 in a 100,000 kind of rare); bad stuff happens.  However, experiences of this caliber are not reason to get up in arms and begin complaining that God did not love me or care about me and my feelings.  He plan for me is much greater than creating a world where my feelings will not get hurt.  Experiences of this nature, which this policy may be one, require that we hold to faith and keep walking and trusting in the Lord.  He remains the captain of the ship and I have no reason or need to jump ship.  

[BlueDreams]

I don't.  What are they?

 

It's the little green arrow by the quote button. When someone likes a post you made for whatever reason they press it. The accumulative amount shows up in green when you scroll over your name. You can also click the number to see who rep'd your post

Edited November 7, 2015 by BlueDreams

[jwhitlock]

That's precisely the point - in the situations I mentioned children still have the option to be baptized/ordained/blessed.

How does this policy help children and their parents who want to participate in church? Children have it difficult enough as it is with bullying and being different, imagine being a young boy and not being able to bless or pass the sacrament with all of the other boys his age due to no fault of his own. You don't think that will affect the way he views the church?

 

Evidently it needs to be re-stressed, that in the real world the hypothetical situation you portray doesn't really happen.

 

The church isn't about participation. It's about covenants and salvation. It's not a cultural club to be joined so you fit in; it's about submitting to the will of the Lord so that you can gain eternal life.

 

As has been mentioned already, all children need permission to be baptized. There needs to be real, spiritual support and commitment as part of that permission. That hasn't changed. It has only been clarified to point out that in a SSM situation, something that is totally contrary to the principles of the restored gospel, that spiritual support and commitment is not going to be available.

 

If any family or parents want to make the same commitments that the rest of us have made to try to adhere to the principles of the gospel, then the church will work with them on that. However, as has also been pointed out, how many couples in a SSM or cohabitation are going to split up and go through the repentance process needed to enable baptism for them and their children?

[Calm]

I'm saying that the argument's logic doesn't hold, and it feels post hoc. He was also being a little disingenuous when it came to explaining the reasoning behind the polygamist policies.

While the polygamist policy may have come about to prevent improper use of the temple, I see it as possible that they quickly figured out it was also in the best interest of the child in most cases.

I don't know if it has been posted here, but I read the comments of a child of polygamist parents, who after extensive interviewing got an exception and was baptized at eight, iirc. It ended up with one of her parents refusing to be in the same room with her and denouncing her to her siblings. Her testimony survived, but she stated that most she saw in similar situations had not been able to keep up that level of commitment to the Church.

It is on facebook, missjessmeredith

 

added:  https://www.facebook.com/missjessmeredith/posts/10153741849381563

They could have been clearer about the beginnings of the policy, but I can see why they might have wanted to keep things simple.

From what I've read from those who have worked with children in families where caution is appropriate, the wording does allow for the First Presidency to make exceptions in their view as is currently allowed. A friend pointed out by bumping it up to the FP, this will create a more consistent approach plus provide a greater continuity and level of experience as opposed to callings that change the individual involved every five years or so.

I see two, three needs possibly triggering the change...first likely in my view was a desire to emphasize that interpretations on SSM as a sin weren't going to be changing because of the evidence that many members were expecting it to and some sooner than later. Knowing that it would be wise not to set up false expections, the need for a clear policy is decided upon. At that point it was examined how to best go about it and the potential effects on children would then become a major part of the discussion along potential legal issues not only for the Church, but for parents in custody conflicts...which unfortunately there are plenty of examples for in a variety of situations out there to draw from. And of course custody conflicts can have a huge negative impact on children, so good to remove points of conflict if possible.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Calm

[ERayR]

As usual those who want to believe will find a reason to do so even if the explanations are poor ones.

 

Out of curiosity why does it make a difference to you?  You do not believe anyway.  What pleasure does railing against something you do not believe in bring to you?

[Jeanne]

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?

If his calling was from God..let him follow his conscience and have his own prayers answered.  The brethren seem to take two steps forward and two steps back there are still no guidelines...!

[jwhitlock]

I don't know if that's entirely that simple. I think a good chunk of those who are concerned about it would be less so or even fine if the church had stopped at describing entering SSM as a member as apostacy.

 

It's the children part that is disconcerting and confusing for many. Personally, after having a day or 2 to process plus Cristofferson's interview (whether staged or no) has helped because I get the sense that it's more for children being raised primarily or solely in SS partners' homes. I am hoping that ones where there is only one SS parent who may have joint custody with their straight counterpart or where primary custody is given to the straight parent it would be more like policies where one parent is a non-member and you need both's permission to be baptized. 

 

But either way, I'm coming to terms with it. Where their parents are soley a SS couple, it generally makes sense to me overall and most wouldn't fall in that category period. Most that might experience this would probably either be teens or the rare SS partner(s) who grew up LDS and want their children to be raised in an LDS tradition for whatever reason. If teens and the parents for some reason agreed, it would be for the reasons Christofferson mentioned. If they were children/infants, it make several religious rites more as traditional center-pieces than introduction into covenants that entail home and church preparation for upholding doctrines that they may not be aware of run counter to their basic family structure.

 

For those with joint custody....it could be messy either way. I don't think it's fair if both parents mutually agree that they would continue to raise the children LDS post-divorce. In that case I feel the parents should have the right to continue with the religious projection they wanted for their children. I do wonder what that would look like for the children though. In the short run it may be easier for them because it may reduce conflict for the parents involved. At the same time, particularly if the divorce is less amicable and there's power struggles, having a parent be able to veto baptism may also cause more tension and strife between parents and children. It also makes changing custody agreements (or deciding one period) more contentious.  

 

Anyway, these are some of my random thoughts post initial shock of it. 

 

wtih luv,

BD

 

I think it's worth remembering that there will always be exceptions that can be made to policy for individual situations. The church has always done so through the review process up to the FP. If there really are valid situations that come up (probably, as you note, mostly with divorced couples) then the review process should be able to address those.  However, I suspect strongly that they are going to be rather rare at best.

[Duncan]

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."

 

I tend to think that's what is happening or will be happening too, I have a mission buddy resigning and I think his wife is out of the church, but for him this seems to have pushed him over the edge. Apparently there is another "mass resignation" event in SLC somewhere either today or next week

Edited November 7, 2015 by Duncan

[Teancum]

I'm sorry to pick you for a comment, but you're in the same boat as others.   My responsive comments.

 

1.  You're just an anonymous poster lacking the courage to use your own name.  If you "can't support such a policy" you need to make your feelings known to your stake president.  I went to my stake president during the Prop 8 campaign and my comments went all the way to CHQ and changes were made as to certain communications; maybe not my comments did the trick but maybe.  But, I think it would have been morally repugnant to voice my concerns anonymously here.

 

2.  Much of this is a matter of religious freedom, and the most basic element of religious freedom is defining whom to admit and whom to deny.  

 

          a.  Since the Middle Ages, Rabbis within orthodox Sephardim have issued edits which say that they will not admit converts, and that if a Sephardim marries out of the faith, his or her children will never be admitted to the congregation and will be shunned.   I personally know a Sephardic man has never seen his granddaughter and doesn't know her name, despite the fact that his son used to be vice president of the man's global business.  The grandmother has seen the granddaughter once, even though they live in the same small town.  The Sephardim are duty bound to honor the last version of the "Edict."  This is the essence of religious freedom; if it doesn't harm anybody in a secular sense, a religion should be able to do what it wants and outsiders have no standing to contest it, or apostates, or anonymous posters.

 

          b.   Deuteronomy excluded from the congregation children to the 10th generation who were Moabites.  (However, we also read that David became King, and his grandmother was a Moabite.)   Deut. also excluded children who were illegitimate, and men who were damaged in the testicles.

 

          c.   Jesus refused to give a blessing to an ill child of a non-Israelite, telling the mother and the child that they were "dogs" (the term used to denote gentiles).  It was only with the mother's persistence that the blessing was given.  Likewise if a gay married couple want the blessing strong enough for their children, they can figure out how to get it.

 

          d.  The Church today denies baptism to convicted felons who have not worked out the terms of their probation, if any.  

 

          e.   The Church denies baptism to the children of polygamists.  The Church has long, long history of polygamists who lie to get their children baptized, through the temple and on missions.  I'm not saying a gay couple would have the same incentive to lie, but I just can't see sending home teachers and visiting teachers and primary presidents into those homes, although I have been a home teacher to a gay couple for 20 years.   But asking somebody else to do it, well ...

 

3.  The policy doesn't mean "shunning," no matter what else is said here.  In almost every large ward, there are excommunicants, disfellowshipped members or men stripped of their priesthood and the ward members in large part have no clue.  Although they are asked not to partake in the sacrament, there is nothing to stop them.  In my past wards, some of these people have been extended callings to teach and home teach, and the bishops then have to take extraordinary measures to defeat the request.   But, that just demonstrates that there is no "shunning" going on.

 

4.  Unlike the Catholic faith, baptism isn't a sacrament to extinguish original sin.  One can be baptized at any time after the age of 7.  Dead or alive, it doesn't matter.   It is probably much better off not throwing dissonance into the household with a baptized child to invoke the church's apparatus than the provide the blessings for 10 years.  I don't see that policy any much different than declining to baptize where one parent opposes.  Here, by entering into a gay relationship and staying there, the married couple "oppose" the priesthood with as much effect as opposing a child's baptism.

 

 

1: You really are a one note wonder. We all know your view on anonymity.  Get over it.  It makes sense to by anonymous on boards like this for a variety of reasons. I think you call others cowards to make yourself feel you are something special. 

 

2:  a-c... so what?  Ancient history does not mean we should do things this way now. Do stone adulterers and Sabbath breakers?  2 e the adult children of polygamist families who want to be baptized ought to be able to be baptized without restrictions.

 

3: It always surprises me that this argument is made.  Maybe no shunning but being kicked out and stripped of all what membership means does have social impact in a ward and stake.  Few people who are ex'd ever come back.  It is not a benign action. Stop pretending it is.

 

4: No comments.

[jwhitlock]

Oh I think the Church influence world wide is pretty small and insignificant.  The so many people "frothing at the mouth" ( what a kind way to view people who may disagree with you) that you and I see is because we may be more interested in monitoring these things. For most, this issue and many other LDS issues either never hit their sphere or pass relatively quickly.

 

My guess is most people in the world will not have heard a word about this policy nor will they care.

 

If you really think the LDS Church has an inordinate influence in the world I would be happy to hear how you think it does and I would ask for CFRs on your examples.

 

Like the number of Latter-day Saints in Congress in relation to the number of members of the church in the United States? And the influence of those Congressional LDS in the leadership positions they hold in the most powerful country in the world?

 

And that's one minor example of the "inordinate influence" the church and its members have. One wonders how Elder Benson was able to get into Europe so quickly after WW2 and provide help to the saints living there, when the Allied military had things so locked down. Influence comes in many different ways, and not all of them are recognized by the powers of the world or by those who see the church as insignificant.

[carbon dioxide]

Suppose the Church did not come out with this and allowed children of SSM families be baptized at age 8 and all that.  What would those who oppose this say when contention starts brewing in the family between the children and the parents when the kids get older with the kids siding with the position of the Church that the parents relationship being morally wrong.  Is that a good idea?  The Church is not going to change its position on gay marriage anymore than it going to change its position on who Jesus Christ is and whether he really was resurrected or not.  So what would you rather prefer.  

[jwhitlock]

You poorly assumed that I suggested children reject God. That was your mistake.

 

I don't see where I assumed anything of the sort. Please point it out.

[jwhitlock]

Designated by Him according to the LDS church. That is not binding on the whole world.

 

Then that's between the world and God when they get up to meet Him.

 

In the meantime, however, you've provided no evidence of a "haven and covenant" that God provides to anyone who "believes". Might be nice if you did so.

[Teancum]

It's the little green arrow by the quote button. When someone likes a post you made for whatever reason they press it. The accumulative amount shows up in green when you scroll over your name. You can also click the number to see who rep'd your post

 

 

Hmmm

So what does it do for you?  Just see who your fan club is?

 

[Duncan]

Seems to be an almost perfect summation of the attitude found in 2 Nephi 2:28

And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God--he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

 

 

I think Elder Christofferson said that no child would be denied blessings for not joining the Church. I told my unbaptized 12 yr old not to worry about joining till he was 18 so whatever I guess