rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 How many people are going to resign over this new policy? We'll never know that number but I have seen a lot of people (on social media) state that they are sending in their letters over this.
rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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. I understand what you are saying and the feelings behind it but... The church does not belong to any one person or group on these threads. The church does not belong to the Q15 or to the PA department. We are all the church and I'd prefer to keep serving and trying to do my part to move us closer to Zion. (Though I admittedly fail frequently.)
CV75 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) Good luck being able to bless the children and parents after you have excluded them for 18 years.I do it all the time. It doesn't necessitate getting their name on the records of the Church, baptism, or anything else. How parochial! We bless them with our friendship, help and even priesthood blessings of comfort, healing, etc. if they desire. The Gospel and the priesthood permit a very broad and liberal expression of charity aside from the formal covenants. When children are prepared and in a position to undertake those covenants given their opposing experience in the home, they may enter them. Children raised by a same-gender couple are kept in their position by the couple, and the Church recognizes that reality. Again, those that can use the Church as a social, non-covenant option, this works out fine. Edited November 7, 2015 by CV75 1
Avatar4321 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 The Abrahamic covenant of adoption into Israel via the atonement of Jesus Christ.And that covenant is made at baptism.
Duncan Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 How many people are going to resign over this new policy? Next saturday is some Mass Resignation day in SLC
Avatar4321 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Sure. Could be. Or maybe not. Time will tell. I do thing this will hurt retaining the millennial generation. But I could be wrong. I often am.Why is the Church's consistent stance going to hurt millennials rather than the choices they make in regards to it? 1
rockpond Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I do it all the time. It doesn't necessitate getting their name on the records of the Church, baptism, or anything else. How parochial! We bless them with our friendship, help and even priesthood blessings of comfort, healing, etc. if they desire. The Gospel and the priesthood permit a very broad and liberal expression of charity aside from the formal covenants. When children are prepared and in a position to undertake those covenants given their opposing experience in the home, they may enter them. Children raised by a same-gender couple are kept in their position by the couple, and the Church recognizes that reality. Again, those that can use the Church as a social, non-covenant option, this works out fine. This is bizarre... I can't even believe it's the same church. You "do it all the time"? Really? All the time you go to children and say "Look, you're parents are apostates and we don't want you to come to our church until you are an adult, move out, and disavow their relationship because you are being taught falsehoods in your home. But we'd like to be friends and give you priesthood blessings." Since when do we promote the church as a social, non-covenant option? 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Duncan I could go and watch that and protest if I want. I asked in another thread about apostasy since that's in the thread title but is Emma Smith considered an apostate? She left the church and joined the RLDS. If I did that I'd be considered an apostate. But is her soul ok since she had the 2nd anoibting?
ksfisher Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Next saturday is some Mass Resignation day in SLC I recall some years ago Garrison Keillor making a joke on his "Prairie Home Companion" radio show that the Unitarian version of heaven has an hour set aside each day for protest. Perhaps the Mormon version of heaven needs the same. 1
ksfisher Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Duncan I could go and watch that and protest if I want. I asked in another thread about apostasy since that's in the thread title but is Emma Smith considered an apostate? She left the church and joined the RLDS. If I did that I'd be considered an apostate. But is her soul ok since she had the 2nd anoibting? I don't think anyone here is in a position to judge or completely understand Emma Smith. The woman went through a lot. 2
Avatar4321 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Commitment is only salutary if one is faithful to good things. I have no doubt that bigots will continue to be committed to bigotry in the future, and will raise increasing numbers of bigots to take their place, contentedly complacent in their sure knowledge that their prejudice and the pain they deliberately cause are divinely mandated.And the Church of Jesus Christ is good because it leads men to Christ. This policy is far more likely to bring more people to Christ than not.
rockpond 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. The policy does not make that distinction. If a child has a parent living in a gay relationship (married or cohabiting) they may not be baptized. It doesn't matter who they live with, they may not be baptized until they reach the age of 18.
Zakuska Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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.Why do i feel like Captian Moroni? Just because the leaders took their nation to a war of anialation doesn't mean their leaders were right.
Jeanne Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Duncan I could go and watch that and protest if I want. I asked in another thread about apostasy since that's in the thread title but is Emma Smith considered an apostate? She left the church and joined the RLDS. If I did that I'd be considered an apostate. But is her soul ok since she had the 2nd anoibting?Her parents weren't gay...she's okay.
Stone holm Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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,BDI think you pretty much nailed. I have heard next to no concern about the supplementation of apostasy other than nobody really was that unclear about it. The concern, and I think it is predominantly just concern, is with the child issue. It is going to impact a lot more people than the child exclusion with regards to polygamous unions, plus the latter did have a Trojan horse aspect to it that is basically lacking in the SSM situation. It has created an awkward situation, but not one that cannot be overcome with a healthy tolerance for cognitive dissonance. I am a little surprised, however, how quickly those who have expressed doubts or concerns about the policy have been written off as being part of a wicked society.
Calm Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 " I am a little surprised, however, how quickly those who have expressed doubts or concerns about the policy have been written off as being part of a wicked society." By whom?
Stone holm Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 What ever happened to the Eleventh Article of faith?We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our [own]1 conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.The handbook is nothing more than "Chains that bind" Joseph Smith was always complaining about those.The By laws in the D&C say nothing about X-ing people for Apostasy?For committing sin yes.Is it a sin to go against leaders DICTATES?What the 11th Article of Faith was referring to was religious freedom. It meant we would never join an inquisition against another faith, people are free to leave or never join our faith without persecution. It did not mean that anything goes within our faith. We have skirted that line at times when we became involved in political activism, but the Church did not violate that particular Article with these actions. The concern people are having for the most part is not with the Apostasy definition supplementation which was basically unnecessary, but with the part about children.
canard78 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Agreed.The winnowing has begun.It must be wonderful to have such a simplistic view. If the church is growing... Hooray, the stone cut without hands is rolling etc. The church is true!If the church is growling... Hooray, the winnowing has begun. The church is true!You get to feel vindicated either way. 1
CV75 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 This is bizarre... I can't even believe it's the same church. You "do it all the time"? Really? All the time you go to children and say "Look, you're parents are apostates and we don't want you to come to our church until you are an adult, move out, and disavow their relationship because you are being taught falsehoods in your home. But we'd like to be friends and give you priesthood blessings." Since when do we promote the church as a social, non-covenant option?We don't promote it that way, but very often that is all someone wants or can use her for. I’ve even seen (you have too!) some comments from one or more of the gay dads on this or the other threads that says so much—the Church is part of their family tradition, culture, friendships, etc.; they love the Church, want elements of it to remain part of their of their children’s’ lives (though not necessarily vice-versa), etc. When someone wants to be part of the Church socially, or isn’t in a position to participate in the covenants for one reason or another but still participate at some level, we welcome them and even give them blessings. As much as you mischaracterize our words and sentiments, we just do it. Children need special care in general, and their parents are the primary key to meeting their temporal and spiritual needs, and so we welcome them all to the degree their parents make it possible. Obviously you're still too angry to have a reasonable perspective of those with whom you disagree. Go ahead a keep promoting a false generalization of what members like me are doing. People typically and most successfully come into the Church when the Spirit that touches their heart after a member has established a social relationship with them first. Some need more time than others through no willful act of the own to receive all the covenants and friendships and activities continue throughout that period, and even when baptism never happens.
canard78 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 As usual for those who want to find fault no explanation would be satisfactory.And, as usual, for those who are unable to find fault any explanation will be satisfactory. 1
canard78 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Oh so well said. Canard I am always impressed with your comments and insight. I would love to talk about so much of this with you in real time.Thank you.There's always Skype...
canard78 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 I'm not seeing this in the change (but could have missed it) can you quote it or show a reference?This might have been answered already (I'm a few pages behind), but in case not:"A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "the child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage"; and "the child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."From the Des News article.
Damien the Leper Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 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.Only according to Mormonism. Your argument doesn't work.
canard78 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 And I am personally shocked that people who think it is nonsense spent so much time fixated on it.It's only because we care so much about you Nehor. We're secret agents of the dirty Dawkins atheist movement and are aiming to tear down all religions and then invite you for a friendly pint down the pub.
jwhitlock Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 It must be wonderful to have such a simplistic view.If the church is growing... Hooray, the stone cut without hands is rolling etc. The church is true!If the church is growling... Hooray, the winnowing has begun. The church is true!You get to feel vindicated either way. I don't think you understand what that word "simplistic" means. "Nowadays they just roll out one of the 15 from time to time so they can waffle about policy and clarifications of official practices." or "This interview is a useful reminder that this is an American church lead by right wing conservatives men." Those are simplistic. Further, they're simplistic to the point of being blatantly inaccurate, unless redefining a Democrat like Elder Oaks as right wing conservative is somehow correct. Come to think of it, that's what critics of the church do, don't they. 1
Recommended Posts