Damien the Leper Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Nope. No evidence of that at all.Spammer, Misererenobis and 3DOP are part of that church. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are not man made churches. They are the successors to the apostles. Edited November 8, 2015 by Valentinus
Jeanne Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Drama kings and queens. They were on their way out anyway. The Celestial Kingdom will get along without them I guess. You don't even know them.
carbon dioxide Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 I agree with carbon dioxide. Making a big event just to show off your resignation is not a good path to follow and will come with eternal consequences.The event is childish but not sure that the eternal consequences are any different than doing it private. When one reads through the BOM you see various individuals and groups leaving the church for various reasons. I am sure many at the time felt they were good reasons. I wonder if we go the chance to have the veil opened to us so that we could interview them for a few minutes and asked them "Was it all worth it" what kind of response they would give to us after 2000 or so years being in the spirit world. Giving up membership in the church is not like giving up membership at Costco. If the restoration did occur, the decision is not life changing but eternity changing.
rpn Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 When custody is shared...and maybe even when not depending on how the policy is going to implemented, these children appear not to be able to be baptized even when mostly living in a supportive environment and in many cases with the same sex parent being supportive of their church activity as well.Most of us know that people have asked for exceptions made to the handbook directions on any number of things over the years. I asked for permission to be married in the temple without meeting the handlbook time requirements, and got it. Others have asked for this or that waiver. So I just see a bishop who has a reasonable request for an exception to this policy, asking for it at the time it occurs. And, as Elder Christopherson said, the handbook requirement that a disciplinary counsel must be held for homosexual cohabiitation or marriage does NOT dictate the results of such counsels. 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 I agree and I was talking about giving up membership any way not just in public but I was talking about the eternal consequences of leaving the church and giving up a good spot in the Celestial Kingdom.
carbon dioxide Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Then let me be clear. Rejecting the LDS church is NOT rejecting God. That would be unreasonable and silly.Whether it by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same. It is not really of question of whether the person rejecting the Church thinks they are rejecting God but how God feels on the subject. If person A thinks they have not rejected God by rejecting the LDS Church and God says "Oh yes you did" then the conversation is over. God never loses the argument. Edited November 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide
Zakuska Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) I don't completely follow but i think the first question is how would Captain Moroni view SSM.Captian Moroni didn't want to go to war but his people and their leaders decided to anyway. So against his better judgement after pleading with his people and their leaders, he went along with it. I disagree with the policy and I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle, just like Captian Moroni.All I know and am thankful for is that if our falible leaders are implementing bad policy it will be them who answer to the Lord for it and not us. Its as if they are putting unnessecary stumbling blocks in peoples way. Edited November 8, 2015 by Zakuska
rpn Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Let's assume for the purposes of argument that the policy does state all of the awful things that the biggest critics are suggesting it does. Don't most of us have personal experience of people who, with their bishop, petitioned the First Presidency for an exception to one of the rules in the Handbook, and were authorized to do what they requested? I know more than one such case, and I'd presume others do to (though it does take a bishop willing to get seek and get spiritual confirmation of approval for seeking the exception, and courageous enough to act on it). So lets all just pray that if bishops or MP encounter someone who can handle the dissonance, who will not be affected in the way Elder Christopherson said the church is trying to protect against, who should be granted an exception to baptism, or ordination, will be able to recognize them as potential exceptions and have the courage to ask. And let's all pray that those who find themselves denied baptism might act like those hundreds of saints in Nigeria who believed gospel had been restored but were told they couldn't be baptized yet, so they created their own congregations, carefully read all the available info about how to run a congregation, and proceed to live consistent membership such that they were ready to be baptized when they were finally allowed to do so. The ugliness we are experiencing now, won't occur with those who are prepared for and receive confirmation of the Spirit that this is the Lord's church. Yes, they may well be horribly disappointed. They may be fiercely angry for the hurt caused by the ban. (All of those who've known someone who was refused baptism for what they saw as unjust reading of the handbook requirements, or the disapproval of a spouse, know that the feelings can be raw on the subject.) But ultimately their testimonies will lead them to submit their will to God's so that they can be baptized when they meet the requirements. And that will be sufficient for them at that time.
Damien the Leper Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Wrong reply. Edited November 8, 2015 by Valentinus
rpn Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Elder Christopherson said that the handbooks requires a disciplinary counsel for apostasy, but it does not dictate the result of that counsel.
GingerRed Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 The event is childish but not sure that the eternal consequences are any different than doing it private. When one reads through the BOM you see various individuals and groups leaving the church for various reasons. I am sure many at the time felt they were good reasons. I wonder if we go the chance to have the veil opened to us so that we could interview them for a few minutes and asked them "Was it all worth it" what kind of response they would give to us after 2000 or so years being in the spirit world. Giving up membership in the church is not like giving up membership at Costco. If the restoration did occur, the decision is not life changing but eternity changing. This may sound really sappy.......but you just made me cry! I was visualizing what you just said about the veil opening and talking to those people...( especially ones who haven't had their temple work done yet.....oh my gosh....the tears hit me! I feel so silly! I'm not sure why it hit me like that! Red
Damien the Leper Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Whether it by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same. It is not really of question of whether the person rejecting the Church thinks they are rejecting God but how God feels on the subject. If person A thinks they have not rejected God by rejecting the LDS Church and God says "Oh yes you did" then the conversation is over. God never loses the argument.But God hasn't said this. Section 1was authored by JS own hand and mind.
Avatar4321 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Not ONLY at LDS baptism. The LDS church is not the exclusive, super VIP church.Can you name another church that has the authority to baptize?
JAHS Posted November 8, 2015 Author Posted November 8, 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?No. In fact I know of one such case where the child of an active LDS divorced mother (the father was now in a separate gay marriage), was allowed to be baptized. The mother was told that the policy only applies to the situation where the child is living full time in a home with same gender married parents.
carbon dioxide Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Captian Moroni didn't want to go to war but his people and their leaders decided to anyway. So against his better judgement after pleading with his people and their leaders, he went along with it. I disagree with the policy and I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle, just like Captian Moroni.All I know and am thankful for is that if our falible leaders are implementing bad policy it will be them who answer to the Lord for it and not us. Its as if they are putting unnessecary stumbling blocks in peoples way.The leaders are fallible and the policy is not perfect. The policy affects very few people. How many non-LDS gay parents would have their under 18 year old kids ask to be baptized in the LDS Church? I would be shocked if it happened even 5 times in a year. If anything is wrong with the policy is that it probably was not needed for the handbook. These instances would be so rare that the handbook could just say for those rare instance of a gay couple having a child being baptized, call church headquarters on how to proceed.
Avatar4321 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Spammer, Misererenobis and 3DOP are part of that church. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are not man made churches. They are the successors to the apostles.They claim that. But threading have any apostles.So who do you appeal to when there are multiple conflicting teachings?The Holy Spirit.And He says differently. Edited November 8, 2015 by Avatar4321
carbon dioxide Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 This may sound really sappy.......but you just made me cry! I was visualizing what you just said about the veil opening and talking to those people...( especially ones who haven't had their temple work done yet.....oh my gosh....the tears hit me! I feel so silly! I'm not sure why it hit me like that! RedIt makes me sad as well and it something I like to ask myself when I make decisions though not as often as I should. Some decisions we make only matter a little bit and some matter far more than we realize. I do feel bad for people who leave the Church and especially those who have a testimony of sorts but leave over minor things. How sad to give up all that the Father has over that?
Avatar4321 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 But God hasn't said this. Section 1was authored by JS own hand and mind.Then why does the Holy Spirit teach otherwise?
rockpond Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Who knows but if the LDS Church is a church of man, they lose nothing and gain more time for themselves on Sunday morning. If the Church is the Lord's Church they are basically blowing up eternity over it. I picture one billion earth years into eternity"Dude, what got you here in the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom." Response: "I got mad over the LDS church decision on SSM and kids and I lost my faith." Response: "Dude, you are an idiot."I tend to think the Lord would not be so harsh if a person was sincerely doing what they felt was right (which I believe to be the case with many, if not all, of these folks).
rockpond Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 I agree. I am just feeling very discouraged lately.Hang in there. You're not alone. 1
Damien the Leper Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 They claim that. But threading have any apostles.So who do you appeal to when there are multiple conflicting teachings?The Holy Spirit.And He says differently.The churches that follow apostolic succession. Read the book "From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church" by Jesuit Francis A. Sullivan. No need for a little apostasy to put Christianity in darkness when Christ's love and power were there all along.
Bobbieaware Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 This line of reasoning comes from people who really don’t understand how parent-child relationships actually work. Such parents indoctrinate the child in the virtues of same-gender marriage in word and deed while placing him in a spiritual community that indoctrinates the child in the virtues of temple marriage. That is incredibly irresponsible if not hypocritical and spiritually abusive. It is better to just participate socially, which is what the Church advocates in how we are to treat people, than to use spiritual covenants and commitments to impose conflict upon a tender, developing soul.You hit the bullseye! And it's not at all hard to imagine that if this policy was not put in place that in the near future there could be an avalanche of charges laid against the Church, bitter accusations that It is turning the children of same sex couples against their own parents. As a consequence of these charges -- and the possible law suits that could also insue -- the Church would be dragged through the mud even worse than it is now, with accusations of child abuse and violations of human rights.
rockpond Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) This may sound really sappy.......but you just made me cry! I was visualizing what you just said about the veil opening and talking to those people...( especially ones who haven't had their temple work done yet.....oh my gosh....the tears hit me! I feel so silly! I'm not sure why it hit me like that! RedYou can take solace in Elder Christofferson's words from last night's video. Remember, he said "nothing is lost" for those who are denied saving ordinances and excluded from participation in the church. Edited November 8, 2015 by rockpond
rockpond Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) The leaders are fallible and the policy is not perfect. The policy affects very few people. How many non-LDS gay parents would have their under 18 year old kids ask to be baptized in the LDS Church? I would be shocked if it happened even 5 times in a year. If anything is wrong with the policy is that it probably was not needed for the handbook. These instances would be so rare that the handbook could just say for those rare instance of a gay couple having a child being baptized, call church headquarters on how to proceed.Two things to remember:First, we are to go after "the one" so number of those affected is irrelevant. Second, this policy does not only impact children of gay couples. It prevents a child being raised by an active heterosexual divorced LDS parent from being baptized or ordained if the child's other parent happens to be in a gay relationship. The policy provides no exceptions. Edited November 8, 2015 by rockpond 1
Kenngo1969 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 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. Nice.
Recommended Posts