rpn Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I didn't read it as having to repudiate the parents, just the secular marriage/co-habitation of same sex couples. I do wish they'd directly said that they were not requiring the adult children to never be in theiir parents' home or lives. This requirement is quite similar to the requirements for baptism of those whose parents are polygamists.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Then correct your original statement. You said 'most people,' with no restriction to 'most people who read this forum,' or 'most people who are members of this tiny little off-shoot.'Follow your own rules, young Nehor. Can you try to just be marginally less condescending to someone who has approximately 200 posts for every one of yours? IOW, newbies shouldn't lecture. And if you disagree with us referring to the Church of Jesus Christ simply as "the Church," then feel free to opine elsewhere. Because we habitually do so, and nobody is going to stop just to please you. 3
cynth Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 False. False.They are repudiating actions, not parents.And as a matter of fact, they are repudiating the actions of only one parent.Given that no child has ever been born the biological offspring of a same sex couple. Nor has any adopted child ever been born the biological offspring of an adoptive couple.
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 The church allows minor children of unwed heterosexuals to be blessed and baptized.Unwed heterosexuals are not in apostasy, so I can see this as consistent...but I think for the kids' sake, it still might be a good idea.
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) It also supposes those who wrote this in the NT really got it right.Yep. I assume this doesn't actually shock you. Am I right? Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm 1
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Unwed heterosexuals are not in apostasy, so I can see this as consistent...but I think for the kids' sake, it still might be a good idea.I see what you're saying, but what about children of a parent who has been excommunicated for apostasy (not for a same sex marriage)? Will they be kept from being baptized until they're 18? What if both parents are in apostasy? Edited November 6, 2015 by ALarson
Popular Post The Nehor Posted November 6, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 6, 2015 That is fascinating. A stable marriage is more damaging than adultery, fornication and cohabitation, simply because of gender. As long as your parents are one female/one male, they can be felons, murderers, liars, pedophiles, abusers, apostates, etc. All parental sins are acceptable to the Mormon church in terms of childhood baptism, as long as the parents are one each of male and female. No, my geriatric friend. Clearly your senility has caught up with you and you are confused again. Let's go back to your room and get you some pudding and I will try to explain. Did you fall asleep? Wake up! The restrictions on childhood baptism ARE NOT about the severity of the sin. They are about how damaging it can be to the child. As horrific as living with a murderer parent would be I doubt the murderer parent in question would trumpet the virtues of murder to the child and try to confuse the child and have them confused by parent and church teaching two different things. Same with the rest. Now ideally children will not live in homes with parents who do any of these things and those who do do many of those things should be in prison but unlike living in a polygamous family it does not divide the minor child between the teaching of the parent and the church (unless the parent is teaching murder, lying, and abuse but we can't do anything about that or always detect it and the situation is rare). Again, this whole thing is about how horrible it is for the homosexual parents. THEY ARE NOT THE PRIORITY HERE! If they want to be the priority over the welfare of their children then they shouldn't be parents in any case. If they want to teach that their relationship is good at home and send their kids off to church to be taught something else then messing with a child like that is WRONG! It is a bad parenting decision. We are just not letting them make it. Then we do not let the child make a decision between the two until we consider them to be old enough to make that decision and hopefully have developed the ability to love their parent and disapprove of their sin, a skill that requires maturity. 8
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) An 8 year old should not have to deal with being taught one thing at church and seeing it blatantly disregarded at home. Indeed. It seems to me more like removing responsibility from a child than forcing responsibility on them for someone else's sin. Responsibility would mean they would be required to make a decision. The current policy removes the necessity of a decision until they are older and have options besides continuing to live in a situation where they would be accountable for judging as sinful if baptized (assuming church doctrine is correct). Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm 4
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Never mind, Nehor already pointed it out. Edited November 6, 2015 by Calm
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Anyone know if there is a splinter-group out there that still believes in Joseph Smith's calling and the Book Of Mormon and uncreated material intelligences and divine anthropomorphism and Temples and the law of consecration, but doesn't have all this blatant homophobia and anti-feminism and tribalistic family-splitting nonsense? Because that's the Church I want to belong to. I mean, not like anyone would care if I was gone from this one (to say the least), but stuff like this just makes me want out. I know, I know, good riddance to all of us neo-orthodox heretics. I guess I should sleep on it before seeing myself to the door. Just think of what you would have had to deal with if you lived back in the days of actual tribes. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) So the church views adultery, fornication and cohabitation of unwed heterosexuals as less serious a sin than married homosexuals . Yes. FWIW, this is a slightly edited version of what I wrote on another thread: As Elder Scott (and others) have clearly taught, 'The joyful news for anyone who desires to be rid of the consequences of poor choices is that the Lord sees weaknesses differently than He does rebellion. Whereas the Lord warns that unrepented rebellion will bring punishment, when the Lord speaks of weaknesses, it is always with mercy'. Falling into adultery or an extramarital sexual relationship (regardless of gender) is a matter of weakness. Embracing and celebrating sinfulness by engaging in same-sex 'marriage' is an act of open rebellion against and public rejection of all that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches and holds dear. Edited November 6, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 4
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm sure it's been said but what about the 2nd article of faith! And it says when they're 18 they can only join if they bad mouth what their parents did.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Nor has any adopted child ever been born the biological offspring of an adoptive couple. How is that relevant?
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Stuff like this just makes me want out. 'Will ye also go away?' Edited November 6, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Russell C McGregor Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm sure it's been said but what about the 2nd article of faith! And it says when they're 18 they can only join if they bad mouth what their parents did. No, it doesn't say that. And nothing about this policy has any issue regarding the 2nd AofF. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm sure many people on the edge of leaving the church will use this as their final straw for leaving.
carbon dioxide Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 This policy is a little harsh. We still do believe that people should be punished for their own sins and not the sins of others. If a gay couple allows there 15 year old to be baptized, why should the kid not be allowed? Anyway the policy for the most part affects few kids. I don't anticipate very many kids from gay couples wanting to be baptized into the LDS Church and even fewer babies ever being asked to have a blessing done for them. Why would same sex parents ask for their baby to be blessed? Surely if they believe that to be important, they would believe that their gay relationship was very problematic. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Rusell it has everything to do with the 2nd article of faith. These children at baptism age are being punished for the sins of another.
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Again, this whole thing is about how horrible it is for the homosexual parents. THEY ARE NOT THE PRIORITY HERE! If they want to be the priority over the welfare of their children then they shouldn't be parents in any case. If they want to teach that their relationship is good at home and send their kids off to church to be taught something else then messing with a child like that is WRONG! It is a bad parenting decision. We are just not letting them make it."not letting them make it"? No free agency regarding joining the church for the kids until they're 18? Again, if the reason is because their parents are apostates, what about other children whose parents have been excommunicated for apostasy? Edited November 6, 2015 by ALarson
carbon dioxide Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm sure many people on the edge of leaving the church will use this as their final straw for leaving.There is always somebody looking for that final excuse. If it is not this it will be something else. If this action helps speeds the process of cleaning house, its not all bad.
JAHS Posted November 6, 2015 Author Posted November 6, 2015 I can't imagine that any same gender couple who adopt and raise a child are going to even allow the kid to associate with a church they can't belong to. They will teach him that it's OK for gays to marry; a position that he would have to disagree with if he were to want to be baptized when he is of age. Most such couples will not allow him to be baptized anyway. So I don't think the position the church is taking on this is incorrect. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I'm sure many people on the edge of leaving the church will use this as their final straw for leaving. Sadly, you are probably right, but 'to whom shall [they] go?'
ALarson Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Here's the Salt Lake Tribune article: "New Mormon policy makes apostates of children from same-sex unions"http://www.sltrib.com/news/3144035-155/new-mormon-policy-makes-apostates-of
emeliza Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 So what about a child that wants to be baptized, but lives with cohabitating, but not married hetrosexual parents? Same rules apply?
Calm Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I see what you're saying, but what about children of a parent who has been excommunicated for apostasy (not for a same sex marriage)? Will they be kept from being baptized until they're 18? What if both parents are in apostasy?Don't know what the rule is. If you are asking me if it is a good idea, I think it would be wise not to place a child knowingly in a position where they would likely come across views that tell them their parents are in open rebellion against the church they see themselves as committing to until they are older and see themselves and their parents more as individuals, are able to be independent themselves at least emotionally and where it is less likely their parent(s) or leaders will unintentionally create pressure situations that traumatize the kid. 1
Recommended Posts