Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[consiglieri]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wrote a letter to my Stake President and he took it to his Area Seventy leader.  No word back on it yet.  Trying to kindly persuade is the only other thing I'm attempting to do.  This is all a first for me, but I'm trying to do what my conscience compels me to do in spite of all the rhetoric in our culture to just fall in line.  Its been hard, but I'm trying.  

Then you are braver than many and I, for one, applaud you.

Of course your Stake President had to take your letter to his Area Seventy leader because all disciplinary matters are handled on the local level with no input from above.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're calling me a bad parent AND a communist? Why? Because you can't make a cogent argument?

You continue to press the assumption that no one in a SSM household would have any desire to participate with the church for any reason. Again, if that is the case, why is there a need for a policy at all?

Avoid the ad hominem and try to actually answer the questions.

Wow dude cool your jets.

You are being a bit defensive there.  I had no intent to make that personal in any way. 

Indeed the question IS- why is there a need for the policy at all??  

Who in their right mind would want their kids taught that their parents are living in sin?

My question and the point stands, even if you can't see it because of your own defensiveness. 

That was an abstract question about parenting.  I don't even know if you have kids or are a Republican or communist or gay or not.  Every word still stands.

It IS a cogent argument.  It is a question about parenting and whether or not good parenting includes allowing your kids to be taught principles which are diametrically opposed to your own.

I think I should start a thread on that one.   Or does someone else want to?  I am pretty busy of late.

[hope_for_things]

51 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Then you are braver than many and I, for one, applaud you.

Of course your Stake President had to take your letter to his Area Seventy leader because all disciplinary matters are handled on the local level with no input from above.

Thanks.  

BTW, I don't think I'm being disciplined here, I asked the Stake President to pass the feedback upwards, I didn't want it to just remain local.  I've been pretty open with my disagreement, and I'm trying provide input through what church leaders would consider proper channels.  

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks.  

BTW, I don't think I'm being disciplined here, I asked the Stake President to pass the feedback upwards, I didn't want it to just remain local.  I've been pretty open with my disagreement, and I'm trying provide input through what church leaders would consider proper channels.  

That's great.  I'll hope you'll let us know how things go ... particularly if any feedback flows back toward you.

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Wow dude cool your jets.

You are being a bit defensive there.  I had no intent to make that personal in any way. 

Indeed the question IS- why is there a need for the policy at all??  

Who in their right mind would want their kids taught that their parents are living in sin?

My question and the point stands, even if you can't see it because of your own defensiveness. 

That was an abstract question about parenting.  I don't even know if you have kids or are a Republican or communist or gay or not.  Every word still stands.

It IS a cogent argument.  It is a question about parenting and whether or not good parenting includes allowing your kids to be taught principles which are diametrically opposed to your own.

I think I should start a thread on that one.   Or does someone else want to?  I am pretty busy of late.

I'll answer as directly as I can.

A parent who believes in the truth claims of the church may want their child to learn about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, modern prophets and apostles, etc. Does that possibility change just because someone is gay? Would a mother who lives with her boyfriend be in her right mind if she chose to take her children to church where they learn about the law of chastity. Clearly the mother isn't living it and has even taken the bold step of officially moving in with her boyfriend. Why would a mom take her kids to church? If you can't answer that question you really don't have much hope for people.

I am a sinner and when I take my kids to church sometimes they realize even more how imperfect I am. Does that mean I don't want to take them to church? No. It means I find more value than I do harm. You're assuming that there will always be more harm than good. You may be right but that is every parent's decision to make. Or at least it used to be.

A good parent presents valuable information and teachings to their children. A good parent may not impose their will and belief on their child but they want them to have access to it so the child can make their own decision. Again, this used to be the case with SSM children, but no longer. Why? Because the church agrees with you and assumes there will always be more harm than good for those children at church.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll answer as directly as I can.

A parent who believes in the truth claims of the church may want their child to learn about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, modern prophets and apostles, etc. Does that possibility change just because someone is gay? Would a mother who lives with her boyfriend be in her right mind if she chose to take her children to church where they learn about the law of chastity. Clearly the mother isn't living it and has even taken the bold step of officially moving in with her boyfriend. Why would a mom take her kids to church? If you can't answer that question you really don't have much hope for people.

I am a sinner and when I take my kids to church sometimes they realize even more how imperfect I am. Does that mean I don't want to take them to church? No. It means I find more value than I do harm. You're assuming that there will always be more harm than good. You may be right but that is every parent's decision to make. Or at least it used to be.

A good parent presents valuable information and teachings to their children. A good parent may not impose their will and belief on their child but they want them to have access to it so the child can make their own decision. Again, this used to be the case with SSM children, but no longer. Why? Because the church agrees with you and assumes there will always be more harm than good for those children at church.

Wow!

I am really surprised that you would say that people living in SSM know they are sinning.

If that is what you are saying, if they know they are sinning and want better for their children, then we agree.  The children should be allowed to attend church.

But I don't think that is what they think at all.

[mfbukowski]

In that case the children should, and can attend church.  They can get baptized at 18 when they can fully evaluate whether or not they agree with their parents, that their parents are living in sin.  Maybe the kids will believe their parents were NOT being sinful at the age of 18, and not want to join the church.

This is a surprising turn of events.  I am flabbergasted this would come up.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

In that case the children should, and can attend church.  They can get baptized at 18 when they can fully evaluate whether or not they agree with their parents, that their parents are living in sin.  Maybe the kids will believe their parents were NOT being sinful at the age of 18, and not want to join the church.

Given what you are saying here, how do you reconcile what the Lord said to Joseph Smith on Nov 1, 1831:  "And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands."  --D&C 68:27

 

[consiglieri]

 

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Given what you are saying here, how do you reconcile what the Lord said to Joseph Smith on Nov 1, 1831:  "And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands."  --D&C 68:27

 

And if they are not baptized when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

On whose head will the sins be if it is the Church forbidding their baptism?

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Wow!

I am really surprised that you would say that people living in SSM know they are sinning.

If that is what you are saying, if they know they are sinning and want better for their children, then we agree.  The children should be allowed to attend church.

But I don't think that is what they think at all.

You know that's not what I said. You're purposely misrepresenting so there's no chance for a viable discussion. We're done here.

[Mystery Meat]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

And if they are not baptized when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

On whose head will the sins be if it is the Church forbidding their baptism?

The parents. It is the parents sins that are preventing the baptism.

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Given what you are saying here, how do you reconcile what the Lord said to Joseph Smith on Nov 1, 1831:  "And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands."  --D&C 68:27

 

Huh?

That is a weird thing to bring up.  Do you think we should have parental permission and they be raised in a gospel centered home too, or should we just abduct kids off the street aged 8 and dunk them?  Do you think it might be wise that their parents be faithful members?

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And if they are not baptized when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

On whose head will the sins be if it is the Church forbidding their baptism?

The sins are on the heads of parents whose tradition imposes upon the children a conflict they haven’t the capacity to manage... insomuch as non-members are held accountable by God (not the Church) for such things. They have effectively increased the age of accountability on this point for their children. The parents remain as accountable as any non-member, and the Church treats them and their children as such.

Edited December 11, 2015 by CV75

[KevinG]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Given what you are saying here, how do you reconcile what the Lord said to Joseph Smith on Nov 1, 1831:  "And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands."  --D&C 68:27

 

Let's look at the rest of that passage shall we?

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

 26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.

 27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

 28 And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord.

Entering into an arrangement that is opposed to the laws of the church is not teaching repentance.

Edited December 11, 2015 by KevinG

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

That is a weird thing to bring up.  Do you think we should have parental permission and they be raised in a gospel centered home too, or should we just abduct kids off the street aged 8 and dunk them?  Do you think it might be wise that their parents be faithful members?

It's weird to bring up the Lord's revealed age for baptism... in a discussion about when a child should be baptized?

I do think that we should have parental permission.  This policy only applies to children who have parental permission to be baptized.

I do think it is wise to have faithful members, but that's not something every child has and we still baptize them.

So, how do you reconcile this policy with Section 68?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, KevinG said:

Let's look at the rest of that passage shall we?

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

 26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.

 27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

Entering into an arrangement that is opposed to the laws of the church is not teaching repentance.

So your feeling is that vs 27 doesn't apply to those kids because their parents haven't (or aren't) property teaching them repentance (vs 25) due to their marriage to someone of the same gender?

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You know that's not what I said. You're purposely misrepresenting so there's no chance for a viable discussion. We're done here.

That is exactly what you said.

Quote

A parent who believes in the truth claims of the church may want their child to learn about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, modern prophets and apostles, etc. Does that possibility change just because someone is gay? Would a mother who lives with her boyfriend be in her right mind if she chose to take her children to church where they learn about the law of chastity. Clearly the mother isn't living it and has even taken the bold step of officially moving in with her boyfriend. Why would a mom take her kids to church? If you can't answer that question you really don't have much hope for people.

I am a sinner and when I take my kids to church sometimes they realize even more how imperfect I am. Does that mean I don't want to take them to church? No. It means I find more value than I do harm. You're assuming that there will always be more harm than good. You may be right but that is every parent's decision to make. Or at least it used to be.

 

The analogy was with a mother living with a boyfriend, a violation of the law of chastity, and yet wanting her children to learn that breaking the law of chastity is wrong.

You followed it up with an example of you being a sinner (I am as well- we all are I freely admit.  In fact I am sure I have done "worse" things than you in my life- wanna compare? ) and realize that you are imperfect"

We all do that.

But the whole position of SSM is that it is NOT even "imperfect" or a tiny flaw, and is indeed sanctioned by God himself as a lifestyle.

So the analogy just plain falls flat.  For it to be a valid analogy, it would have to be true that SSM is in some degree wrong.   I did not make up the analogy you did.

If that is the basis on which you think that the policy is wrong- that gay people should have their children taught that SSM is wrong, then I agree with you and the policy should be re-thought.

I agree with you!   Why are you complaining??

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

And if they are not baptized when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

On whose head will the sins be if it is the Church forbidding their baptism?

Dude

Cartoons of arguments are for kids.  Get a clue about what is being discussed or go watch pokemon.  At least figure out who is on your side for pete's sake.  It's not that complicated.

Edited December 11, 2015 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

If they do not teach their children that obedience to laws and covenants are important then they do their children a disservice by baptizing them without the means to keep those covenants.

Doctrine and Covenants 18:22  And as many as repent and are baptized in my name, which is Jesus Christ, and endure to the end, the same shall be saved.

Moroni 4: 3 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So your feeling is that vs 27 doesn't apply to those kids because their parents haven't (or aren't) property teaching them repentance (vs 25) due to their marriage to someone of the same gender?

Yes. I said as much a few weeks ago.

[KevinG]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So your feeling is that vs 27 doesn't apply to those kids because their parents haven't (or aren't) property teaching them repentance (vs 25) due to their marriage to someone of the same gender?

Baptism is much more than the ordinance itself.  It is coupled with faith and repentance, and followed by obedience.  If someone simply baptizes their kids without teaching those important principles associated with the covenant and ordinance they have failed to prepare them and the sin is on their heads.

Defiantly disobeying the laws of chastity and the Lord's anointed is diametrically opposed to preparing children for baptism, and sustaining them in the restored gospel afterwards.   

If the gay parent believes that their marriage is approved of by God and seeks a doctrine that supports that belief, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the church where they will find that doctrine or make those covenants.  

A reminder of Elder Christofferson's words about the handbook policy change:  "We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by KevinG

[mfbukowski]

I'm out.

I get too upset and waste too much time dealing with this nonsense.

[rongo]

I find the claim interesting that the Church is de facto unwelcoming if its doctrines and policies emphasize the law of chastity. Whether or not we are genuinely welcoming of people whose lifestyles or standards deviate sharply from the Church. 

On my mission, I had a powerful experience that was part of a bunch of powerful experiences. I had a vision, an actual visual vision, of where we should go. I saw that we would need to ride our bikes along a canal for a long ways and enter what we called a Hochhaustal ("high-rise valley" --- a canyon of high-rise apartments). We had never been there before, and didn't know the area. When we went there, it was just as I had seen --- it was as if I was familiar with the place. My German, which was grammatically very good, was much better while working there, but nowhere else (accent, full fluency and freedom of expression, etc.). This is my personal experience with the gift of tongues. 

We had a lot of really good experiences there, including a lady we taught extensively, who only let us in because my companion had a lazy eye (her toddler had a lazy eye just like his). At a doorstep, a huge man (he must have been at least 6'5") screamed angrily at us. We hated gays, and he hated us because we hate gays. I yelled back, asking if we could come in and defend ourselves (Dürfen wir hineinkommen, und uns verteidigen? ) and surprisingly, he let us in. He took a deep breath, and apologized for his tirade. He told us that he was a gay actor, that all of his friends were gay, and that he was upset because Mormons hate people like him. We told him that we don't hate gays, and I asked if he thought we did because we believe that homosexuality is a sin. He sidestepped that question, and told us that he believed in God, but didn't believe that God regards homosexuality as a sin. I replied that God couldn't agree with both of us; one of us was right and one of us was wrong; and did he believe that we could actually know what God really thinks about this? He wasn't sure about that. The Proclamation on the Family had just been issued the Saturday before, and our mission president had had it translated and put into glossy pamphlets. We gave him one and read to him the second-to-last paragraph, and testified that the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets would fall upon individuals, communities, and nations that violate the law of chastity ---- and that if this is true, then our preaching repentance to wayward sinners (homo and hetero) is very important. We told him that we would be taking the train to Hamburg on Saturday to hear the modern apostles who had issued that proclamation (Conference weekend was looming). We invited him to come with us, and he told us he would like to.

When Saturday came, we waited and waited for him to come, but he didn't show up (a very common occurrence on missions). We had to be leaving if we were going to get to Hamburg on time, and just as we were about to board, he came running up. Out of breath, he told us he had been trying to call us all morning, but that we hadn't answered (we had been en route and waiting at the train station). He told us that he really did want to go with us, but that the lead role in Cyrano de Bergerac had fallen ill and he was asked to quickly assume the part --- and would not be able to come with us because of that. His tracking us down to tell us meant as much to us as if he had come with us (we were double-transferred at Conference, and I never learned whether anything further happened with him).

Long story short . . . I find the claim that we are unwelcomoning simply because of doctrine and policy to be false, just as this man's initial belief that we hated him because we regarded his lifestyle as a sin. Some Mormons are downright unwelcoming, but most are not at all. I think there might be a lot of projecting on the part of people who aren't comfortable being there, but that's not because of the Church's doctrines, policies, and stances.

[KevinG]

I love you and I agree with you are two different and independent thoughts.

It takes a certain amount of maturity to see that they can coexist.

 

[consiglieri]

52 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

The parents. It is the parents sins that are preventing the baptism.

In what version of Mormonism does that make any sense whatsoever?