GingerRed Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 As long as the custodial parent is not living in a gay relationship, I don't see a problem based on the words of the policy I read. Just because a couple divorced and the parent without the children is living in a gay relationship, I don't see that delaying the baptism of the children. Did i miss something? Thats how I'm reading it, too. It said nothing about custodial arrangements or divorced parents. Just same sex married couples.
volgadon Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) HmmmSo what does it do for you? Just see who your fan club is?I think that you upset Lloyd with your frivolous waste of words instead of using the little, green arrow. Edited November 7, 2015 by volgadon
rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 If it's wrong, then the Church has been wrong for a long, long time, because it has never, to my knowledge, baptized a minor child without the express permission of that child's parent or guardian. I said WITH parental permission.
rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 “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.” This is policy. Not doctrine. The doctrine of Christ stands boldly in contrast to this policy: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 1
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I think that you upset Lloyd with your frivolous waste of words instead of using the little, green arrow. I think I upset Scott a lot. I did tell him I would try hard to work at my side in more civil discourse.
Bob Crockett Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Just about everything..gees..he would never turn a way a child no matter what..In a harried response to all this that has gone one the past two days..I saw a picture of Jesus with some children..a horried response from him was don't touch me..your parents are gay...this is how the darn thing reads! How well do you know your New Testament? See this discussion about Jesus turning away a child: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=317: "Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil." Edited November 7, 2015 by Bob Crockett
CV75 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 This is policy. Not doctrine. The doctrine of Christ stands boldly in contrast to this policy: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."A fuller and more correct understanding of the doctrine will help understand the policy, that is what I'm saying. We are to bless the children and their same-gender parents in many, many ways, and treat them in a manner (as does the policy) in a manner that is best suited to lead them to Christ in the proper, season and circumstance. 1
rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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. I am making my feelings known publicly but I see no need to go to my Stake President. I recognize and value the Church's religious freedom and right to establish this policy. But it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. As you point out, parents already had the right to oppose so there was no need for a special policy against gay parents.
rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Are you suggesting that God will hold a person accountable for not being baptized even though they are not allowed to be baptized? No, I think He will hold the leaders who denied the ordinance accountable.
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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.The Abrahamic covenant of adoption into Israel via the atonement of Jesus Christ.
rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 A fuller and more correct understanding of the doctrine will help understand the policy, that is what I'm saying. We are to bless the children and their same-gender parents in many, many ways, and treat them in a manner (as does the policy) in a manner that is best suited to lead them to Christ in the proper, season and circumstance. Good luck being able to bless the children and parents after you have excluded them for 18 years. 2
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I don't see where I assumed anything of the sort. Please point it out.In post #51, you wrongly assume I'd left God out of the list I made. I did not. God does not belong on that list. Plain and simple.
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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.Except those of us with a mind to reason do not place the blame of this policy on God. He doesn't deserve to be insulted in such a vile manner.
bluebell Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I think that you upset Lloyd with your frivolous waste of words instead of using the little, green arrow. Scott wasn't even talking to Teancum. He was talking to wants2know. And i doubt he was reprimanding her for anything. 1
Bob Crockett Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) I am making my feelings known publicly but I see no need to go to my Stake President. I recognize and value the Church's religious freedom and right to establish this policy. But it doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. As you point out, parents already had the right to oppose so there was no need for a special policy against gay parents. It is just my opinion, but to me the essence of lack of courage is to attack somebody's religion, and its policies, anonymously and publicly. I would be profoundly disappointed to learn that one of my best friends made a practice of going onto Jehovah's Witnesses websites and attacking the religion anonymously. I'm not perfect. It took me a few weeks to come to this conclusion when I first started posting, but I read a number of treatises on the subject, as well as some statements by the Church, and came to the conclusion that I needed to either post in my own name (or offer a link to a place where my name can be determined) or leave the boards. Edited November 7, 2015 by Bob Crockett
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 This is policy. Not doctrine. The doctrine of Christ stands boldly in contrast to this policy: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Friend you and I are fighting a losing battle. It would likely be best for us to move on from this board and maybe even the LDS Church.
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 How well do you know your New Testament? See this discussion about Jesus turning away a child: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=317: "Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil." Typical Crockett, challenge the intellect of those he disagrees with.
Teancum Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 It is just my opinion, but to me the essence of lack of courage is to attack somebody's religion, and its policies, anonymously and publicly. I would be profoundly disappointed to learn that one of my best friends made a practice of going onto Jehovah's Witnesses websites and attacking the religion anonymously. I'm not perfect. It took me a few weeks to come to this conclusion when I first started posting, but I read a number of treatises on the subject, as well as some statements by the Church, and came to the conclusion that I needed to either post in my own name (or offer a link to a place where my name can be determined) or leave the boards. Bob has no good argument so he in his one not wonder approach attacks the anonymity issue.
Jeanne Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 No child is being turned away. The kids can still come to church if they want. So a baby can't get a blessing. That is not a big deal. So the kid can't get baptized. If a child is not allowed to be baptized but their heart is in the right place and would be baptized if offered, I think that is good enough for Jesus. All the formalities will be taken care of later on. But I suppose you would like the kid to be baptized, go to church and be taught that SSM is wrong and then go home and say to his parents " hi dad and dad, guess what I learned in church today? Yeah that is right and as a member I accept that. Both of you are damned if you do not repent." I don't think you really think that is a great idea. That would be damaging. Best to avoid that don't you think?I respect your reply..but it does matter. The child isn't turned away until they are stunted while their friends are being baptized. For LDS grandparents..blessings of grandchildren are what they live for,.it hurts everybody. And as far as going home to parents and telling them that they live in sin..surely that conversation has already taken place with love and respect. My parents didn't live the gospel fully..and I told them so..
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 How many people are going to resign over this new policy?
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 The Abrahamic covenant of adoption into Israel via the atonement of Jesus Christ. The Abrahamic covenant requires making the covenant via ordinances with a priesthood holder who has the authority to do so. Doesn't support your argument.
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) In post #51, you wrongly assume I'd left God out of the list I made. I did not. God does not belong on that list. Plain and simple. You're mistaken. God is in the list, and he is the director and founder of the church. His hand is evident in the church today, including the policy as it has been set forth. Otherwise, your accusation about children rejecting God has nothing to do with this. How you pulled that out of my comments defies reason. Edited November 7, 2015 by jwhitlock
jwhitlock Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Several of you have taken issues with this characterization of the Church's policy. Where one ends up on the issue, I suppose, depends on where one believes the Brethren are starting from. Even procedures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that, arguably, involve an element of punishment, such as excommunication or disfellowshipment, are not solely or primarily punitive in nature. If one believes the Brethren are acting in bad faith, that they don't have the best interests of the people who will be affected by any given policy at heart, or that their motivations otherwise are suspect, I can certainly understand why this policy would be considered punitive. Conversely, even if I thought the Brethren to be mistaken on some matter or other, I would have difficulty ascribing bad faith to them, or saying that they don't have the Saints' best interest at heart, or that their motivations otherwise are suspect. There certainly have been some involved in this discussion who don't think highly of the Brethren as leaders of the church or as individuals. Not that they've provided any evidence for their perspective, but it evidently helps, when bashing the church, to make its leaders look as bad as possible. It gets tiring after a while, see the kind of twisted "logic" that's used to argue that they're acting in bad faith. 3
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I think I asked before, but was Emma Smith an apostate? She didn't follow the saints west and joined the RLDS instead.
rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 It is just my opinion, but to me the essence of lack of courage is to attack somebody's religion, and its policies, anonymously and publicly. I would be profoundly disappointed to learn that one of my best friends made a practice of going onto Jehovah's Witnesses websites and attacking the religion anonymously. I'm not perfect. It took me a few weeks to come to this conclusion when I first started posting, but I read a number of treatises on the subject, as well as some statements by the Church, and came to the conclusion that I needed to either post in my own name (or offer a link to a place where my name can be determined) or leave the boards. It's just my opinion but I value my privacy and the privacy of my family and I don't spread my real name around the internet. Also, I am not attacking somebody's religion. I don't do that. I am here, on a discussion board, discussing my own religion. Is that not the purpose of this website?
Recommended Posts