Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[Teancum]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sure. Why not?

Delaying their eligibility for baptism protects them from making and being bound by covenants under circumstances that render it extremely-difficult-to-impossible to keep them.

So attending church with others when they cannot participate  does not cause conflict?  And receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is not critical to their development spiritually? 

Their circumstances make it no more difficult to keep baptismal covenants than the child of an inactive heterosexual couple living together out of wed lock or variety of other situations.

so come to church but when all your fiends get baptized and ordained well....not you.  Too bad though.

what this does really is indirectly or perhaps directly keeps gay families away from the church. 

Your argument is weak.

[Teancum]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ours did as well, but as I said, it dealt in great measure with hearkening to the will of God as revealed through His servants.\

Discussion ensued regarding the prophetic nature of the family proclamation being published when it was, long before most people could have foreseen how applicable it would be today.

I thought about this board during the discussion, particularly when I made a comment about how it matters little whether something is labeled as "revelation" or "a commandment" or "counsel"; that if it comes from God, it ought to be followed regardless of what one chooses to call it.

Sounds like you border on LDS leader infallibility.  But I have suspected this.  I am sure you will disagree but this post and so many others you make are though to interpret otherwise.

by the way I see little prescience in the proclamation.   The battle over gay rights and marriage issue was well heated in 1995 or so and the church was already parting to get in the thick of it in Hawaii and Alaska, if I recall.  And other nations were granting SSM rights then as well. The proclamation seemed needed and timely then from a church stand point.   Maybe more now.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Teancum

[Storm Rider]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So attending church with others when they cannot participate  does not cause conflict?  And receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is not critical to their development spiritually? 

Their circumstances make it no more difficult to keep baptismal covenants than the child of an inactive heterosexual couple living together out of wed lock or variety of other situations.

so come to church but when all your fiends get baptized and ordained well....not you.  Too bad though.

what this does really is indirectly or perhaps directly keeps gay families away from the church. 

Your argument is weak.

What is weak is talking about these children as if they are real.  It is a fantasy.  There are no active gay, married couples that attend church and desire to raise their children in the Church of Jesus Christ.  They don't exist.  Striving to put this in strictly emotional terms is good propaganda, but the reality is they have never existed and do not exist today.  

Your argument is weak because it is built strictly and solely on fantasy and emotion. 

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

There has never been eternal promises for gay couples. Never. Homosexual behavior has always been contrary the will of God. What the heck do you expect? A Revelation from God with angelic ministry and God himself appearing to the brethren loudly proclaiming "it's not right and I really mean it this time"?

Or are you sitting around waiting for God to announce " Look I'm sorry I was completely wrong on that "? Cause that's what it seems you are looking for. And unless you get the answer you want you won't listen to any Revelation the Lord has revealed.

I understand how you feel. No one likes being told what they are doing is wrong. I know I sure as heck don't like it. And it's perfectly natural to be angry about it. But being angry isn't going to change Gods will. Or make us happy when we sin. Or change the fact that we aren't happy when we ignore the will of God.

That's why Jesus Christ came and atoned for us. So we aren't just acting naturally. But instead we have the power to be born again, forgiven, a new creature, and put off the natural man submitting to the will of God and waiting on Him. God is teaching us how to be Divine when He gives us commandments we aren't  inclined to obey. Have you been spiritually born of God? Have you felt His overwhelming love for you?

Because that is the Revelation you need. And that only comes personally.

 

I guess I was looking for salvation and exaltation with the one you love would be open to all of God's children.  I certainly understand the law of chastity of no sex outside of marriage.  God has never said if sex within marriage was acceptable for his gay children.  Looks like that was a silly idea. I guess I am just one of those rare gay guys that have NO interest in spending this life or eternity with a woman.  So exaltation is out for me by a revelation announced through the handbook and confirmed in a youth conference talk.  I can see why you so easily dismiss it as being my problem for being born gay.  And just what should i be looking for from the atonement?  Make me straight?  Should I look to the quackery of reparative therapy to help me put off the natural man?  

You are right.  I don't like being told I was born wrong.  I should have done something to be born straight I guess.

Ironically, I have found a stronger witness to my soul that God indeed loves me since leaving the church.  I am at peace with God over the path I have been guided to take.  Like I have said repeatedly, the church can institute any policy it wants against gays.  I really don't care.  What I am really commenting on is the flippant way this major revelation from God was so unimportant to the brethren that they shoved it in the handbook and let Delhims announce it to the world.  While the Prophet of God who received the revelation has yet to utter a single word about it.  It's insulting.

 

 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What is weak is talking about these children as if they are real.  It is a fantasy.  There are no active gay, married couples that attend church and desire to raise their children in the Church of Jesus Christ.  They don't exist.  Striving to put this in strictly emotional terms is good propaganda, but the reality is they have never existed and do not exist today.  

Your argument is weak because it is built strictly and solely on fantasy and emotion. 

So this banning of children of gay couples and calling their parents apostates was for what purpose??  The need for such a guideline was for what reason? Either this was an issue that needed to be addressed or it is just another volley by the church against gays to make them and those that see the goodness in gay relationships to distance themselves further away.  It does make closing that door in the face of the missionaries a much easier choice which seems like a good thing lately.  Fewer members is now a good thing.

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What is weak is talking about these children as if they are real.  It is a fantasy.  There are no active gay, married couples that attend church and desire to raise their children in the Church of Jesus Christ.  They don't exist.  Striving to put this in strictly emotional terms is good propaganda, but the reality is they have never existed and do not exist today.  

Your argument is weak because it is built strictly and solely on fantasy and emotion. 

So out of 15 million LDS persons there are no real children of gay couples in which those parents may want to send them to church.   Not one.  No real children of gay couples that may want to attend church and whose parents may support it!

wow.  And you call my argument weak?  

If I recall one of the posters on this board is in a gay marriage and there are children.  That poster said they would support their children attending and participating in the church.  I guess those children are not real.

this is about the silliest argument I have seen on is policy issue.

so question for you,. If there are no....not one at all....real children that may be in such a situation then why the need for the policy?  Is it for fantasy children?

[Russell C McGregor]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I withdraw nothing.  I have first hand evidence, As stated in my post: 

And I will not be revealing the personal details of the young people who I am working with and who have confided in me.  Their story does deserve to be heard, but here.  People like you would mock and judge.  In other words, I will not cast pearls before swine.

Alas, your unverified claims are not "pearls." They are dross.

I repeat my call for references, please.

Your "first hand evidence" is not evidence as long as you refuse to produce it.

 

[sunstoned]

6 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Alas, your unverified claims are not "pearls." They are dross.

I repeat my call for references, please.

Your "first hand evidence" is not evidence as long as you refuse to produce it.

 

You are a cheap coward.  You bring nothing to this board or to the  discussions here but ad hominem attacks. 

[Russell C McGregor]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You are a cheap coward.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

You bring nothing to this board or to the  discussions here but ad hominem attacks. 

 

And you bring assertions that are favourable to your agenda, and which you cannot support.

And which we are fully entitled to reject.

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[smac97]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, this is the the best explanation I've seen, Calm.  But, if it was a revelation received by President Monson and was printed in the handbook, I can't see why it wouldn't have been revealed to the members since it affects us, our family members and friends.  Why stick it in a handbook where most members don't see it?  If it was a revelation from God, for the church members, why not announce it to the members?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what is going on here.  Let me lay out my perspective:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to have been founded by a prophet of God, endowed with authority given to him by ministering angels.

2. The LDS Church claims that God directs the affairs of His Church.  Not in each and every minute detail, of course (see D&C 58:26), and often through spiritual promptings rather than angelic visitations or flaming bushes or whatnot.  But the Church claims that its leaders are generally guided by revelation.  And while records of such revelations are kept, they are rarely published to the Church or to the world.  Nevertheless, revelation in the administration of the Church is presumptively present, particularly as to matters of significant spiritual, doctrinal or social import to the Church and its members.  Put another way, "revelation" is the rule, not the exception.

3. Sometimes the Church will promulgate a policy that has to do with, shall we say, mundane matters.  For example, the Church prohibits fundraisers on church properties (like church buildings) because such activities may imperil the tax exempt status of the building.  Food is supposed to be only "warmed" in the kitchen area of a church building, not cooked.  I think this may relate to safety concerns, and also perhaps to varying state and local laws pertaining to food preparation ("warming" food is allowed, but "preparation" might require inspections, certifications, etc.).  The Church limits what types of music may be performed and what types of musical instruments may be played during church services.  This probably is rooted in a desire to maintain a quiet, contemplative worship environment (perhaps a weekly approximation of a "solemn assembly").  There is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with, say, playing a saxophone, but you'll never hear one during Sacrament Meeting.  

I'm not sure how much of a direct hand the Lord has in providing instruction in matters like these.  As noted previously, "it is not meet that [God] should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant."  So some things He leaves to the reasonably-exercised discretion of His servants (see, e.g., D&C 80:3).  And the Saints may not always know when a particular action taken by the Church is principally revelatory (item 2 above) or discretionary (item 3).

4. Given the considerations set forth in items 2 and 3 above, the public attention pertaining to the recent changes to the CHI gave rise to some speculation / concern / questions about the nature and origin of the those changes.  That is, some people were surmising that the changes were merely a policy decision that did not involve specific, revelatory instruction.  These surmises, together with the vitriol being poured on this issue by critics and enemies of the Church (and, sadly, even some members of the Church), as well as the preemption by John Dehlin of the Church's planned roll-out of the policy (assuming that the Church was planning to make a church-wide announcement about the policy change), apparently precipitated both Elder Christofferson's November 6 interview explaining the context and intended application of the policy changes and Elder Nelson's January 10 remarks explaining the nature and origin of the policy changes.

So here we are.  Elder Nelson publicly explained the revelatory origins of the policy changes not because those origins are unique or unexpected or out-of-the-ordinary, but because circumstances combined to necessitate a clarification between items 2 and 3 above, and an explanation that the policy changes were revelatory.

That's what I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what is going on here.  Let me lay out my perspective:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to have been founded by a prophet of God, endowed with authority given to him by ministering angels.

2. The LDS Church claims that God directs the affairs of His Church.  Not in each and every minute detail, of course (see D&C 58:26), and often through spiritual promptings rather than angelic visitations or flaming bushes or whatnot.  But the Church claims that its leaders are generally guided by revelation.  And while records of such revelations are kept, they are rarely published to the Church or to the world.  Nevertheless, revelation in the administration of the Church is presumptively present, particularly as to matters of significant spiritual, doctrinal or social import to the Church and its members.  Put another way, "revelation" is the rule, not the exception.

3. Sometimes the Church will promulgate a policy that has to do with, shall we say, mundane matters.  For example, the Church prohibits fundraisers on church properties (like church buildings) because such activities may imperil the tax exempt status of the building.  Food is supposed to be only "warmed" in the kitchen area of a church building, not cooked.  I think this may relate to safety concerns, and also perhaps to varying state and local laws pertaining to food preparation ("warming" food is allowed, but "preparation" might require inspections, certifications, etc.).  The Church limits what types of music may be performed and what types of musical instruments may be played during church services.  This probably is rooted in a desire to maintain a quiet, contemplative worship environment (perhaps a weekly approximation of a "solemn assembly").  There is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with, say, playing a saxophone, but you'll never hear one during Sacrament Meeting.  

I'm not sure how much of a direct hand the Lord has in providing instruction in matters like these.  As noted previously, "it is not meet that [God] should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant."  So some things He leaves to the reasonably-exercised discretion of His servants (see, e.g., D&C 80:3).  So the Saints may not always know when a particular action taken by the Church is principally revelatory (item 2 above) or discretionary (item 3).

4. Given the considerations set forth in items 2 and 3 above, the public attention pertaining to the recent changes to the CHI gave rise to some speculation / concern / questions about the nature and origin of the those changes.  That is, some people were surmising that the changes were merely a policy decision that did not involve specific, revelatory instruction.  These surmises, together with the vitriol being poured on this issue by critics and enemies of the Church (and, sadly, even some members of the Church), as well as the preemption by John Dehlin of the Church's planned roll-out of the policy (assuming that the Church was planning to make a church-wide announcement about the policy change), apparently precipitated both Elder Christofferson's November 6 interview explaining the context and intended application of the policy changes and Elder Nelson's January 10 remarks explaining the nature and origin of the policy changes.

So here we are.  Elder Nelson publicly explained the revelatory origins of the policy changes not because those origins are unique or unexpected or out-of-the-ordinary, but because circumstances combined to necessitate a clarification between items 2 and 3 above, and an explanation that the policy changes were revelatory.

That's what I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

An excellent post, as usual.

I should mention, however, that I don't know that saxophones would be strictly prohibited in sacrament meeting. When I was growing up, my older brother was a very accomplished saxophonist (still is), and he occasionally played solos with piano accompaniment -- sacred music -- during sacrament meeting.

Maybe things are different today, but as I recall, the handbook says something about instruments "with a less-worshipful sound" being avoided. I know that flutes and other woodwinds, such as clarinets, are acceptable. A saxophone is about mid-way between woodwinds and brass, but I think it could be played in such a way as to contribute, not detract, from a worshipful atmosphere.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You are a cheap coward.  You bring nothing to this board or to the  discussions here but ad hominem attacks. 

I beg to differ.

[Scott Lloyd]

[Duplicate post occasioned by this at times aggravating new message board software.]

Edited February 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So attending church with others when they cannot participate  does not cause conflict?  

They can participate as unbaptized attendees. I don't see how it must necessarily cause conflict.

Quote

And receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is not critical to their development spiritually? 

People can progress spiritually prior to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. How do you think investigators become ready for baptism?

And conferral of the gift of the Holy Ghost (defined as the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost to the extent one remains worthy) does not preclude an unbaptized individual from being influenced by the Holy Ghost and from receiving spiritual gifts to the extent a just and merciful God sees fit to bestow them. If anything, a child being reared in a home where the law of chastity is not observed may even receive an extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit as he or she needs it due to his or her circumstances.

I see the role of the gift of the Holy Ghost as being a specialized endowment to help those who have entered into covenants to have the strength and wisdom to be true to those covenants. Those who have not entered into such covenants may still enjoy the Holy Ghost as needed and as bestowed by a merciful Deity.

 

Quote

Their circumstances make it no more difficult to keep baptismal covenants than the child of an inactive heterosexual couple living together out of wed lock or variety of other situations.

I think this is your own supposition, which I reject. See above.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Just a little fyi, in Canada and probably the US, if they allowed food prep, they would have to have a restaurant quality setup because food was being cooked for the public.  Just allowing the warming and food distribution means less costly equipment, all members can used the kitchens and not just those certified and inspections by Health Dept. not required and probably other stuff I am not aware of such as building codes.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So attending church with others when they cannot participate  does not cause conflict?  And receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is not critical to their development spiritually? 

I am confused.  Please feel free to disregard the following if you find it inappropriate or too nosy: The tenor of your posts is very hostile to the LDS Church.  I don't follow your posts or keep track of them, but I do not recall you ever speaking about the Church in anything other than unpleasant, critical, hostile words (I'm certainly open to correction about that, tho).  

So if you're not LDS, or a non-believing Latter-day Saint, I'm curious about the nature of the second question above.  The first one I get.  It's sociological.  One does not need to have a "testimony" of the Restored Gospel in order to ask it.  But the second one . . . that's a bit different.  It's like me, an observant Latter-day Saint, injecting myself into an argument amongst observant Catholics regarding the particulars of transubstantiation.  Such a discussion might involve differences of opinion about specific issues pertaining to this topic, but the topic itself is substantively agreed upon by the participants to the argument.  So wouldn't it be, well, a bit weird for Spencer the Mormon to wade into the controversy and weigh in on one side or the other about such a topic?  I have respect for the Catholic Church and its beliefs, but I do not believe in the concept of Transubstantiation.  So what would the point be of me weighing in on that concept?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You are a cheap coward.  You bring nothing to this board or to the  discussions here but ad hominem attacks. 

Dude your posts are not shining lights and you are the coward hiding behind a fake name. Perhaps we should all remember these verses.   11 Not that which goeth into the mouth ^adefileth a man; but that which cometh out of the ^bmouth, this defileth a man.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am confused.  Please feel free to disregard the following if you find it inappropriate or too nosy: The tenor of your posts is very hostile to the LDS Church.  I don't follow your posts or keep track of them, but I do not recall you ever speaking about the Church in anything other than unpleasant, critical, hostile words (I'm certainly open to correction about that, tho).  

So if you're not LDS, or a non-believing Latter-day Saint, I'm curious about the nature of the second question above.  The first one I get.  It's sociological.  One does not need to have a "testimony" of the Restored Gospel in order to ask it.  But the second one . . . that's a bit different.  It's like me, an observant Latter-day Saint, injecting myself into an argument amongst observant Catholics regarding the particulars of transubstantiation.  Such a discussion might involve differences of opinion about specific issues pertaining to this topic, but the topic itself is substantively agreed upon by the participants to the argument.  So wouldn't it be, well, a bit weird for Spencer the Mormon to wade into the controversy and weigh in on one side or the other about such a topic?  I have respect for the Catholic Church and its beliefs, but I do not believe in the concept of Transubstantiation.  So what would the point be of me weighing in on that concept?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think if you heard a Catholic leader say that some younger Catholics shouldn't be allowed to take communion on account of the fact that it isn't that important, and that the idea of Transubstantiation is probably taught a little too literally in the Catholic Church,  no one would blame you for being a little surprised and seeking clarification to see if you heard correctly. 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They can participate as unbaptized attendees. I don't see how it must necessarily cause conflict.

People can progress spiritually prior to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. How do you think investigators become ready for baptism?

And conferral of the gift of the Holy Ghost (defined as the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost to the extent one remains worthy) does not preclude an unbaptized individual from being influenced by the Holy Ghost and from receiving spiritual gifts to the extent a just and merciful God sees fit to bestow them. If anything, a child being reared in a home where the law of chastity is not observed may even receive an extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit as he or she needs it due to his or her circumstances.

I see the role of the gift of the Holy Ghost as being a specialized endowment to help those who have entered into covenants to have the strength and wisdom to be true to those covenants. Those who have not entered into such covenants may still enjoy the Holy Ghost as needed and as bestowed by a merciful Deity.

 

Wow.  I had previously thought the most interesting byproduct of this policy was the degree to which apparently believing members were being inspired to reject it. 

But I totally missed a much bigger effect:  apparently it will be a catalyst for a massive redefining of one of the first principles and ordinances of the gospel: The Gift of the Holy Ghost!   I wouldn't be more surprised if someone were suggesting that the policy also means that it's okay to conduct baptisms by sprinkling, or that repentance isn't necessary before being baptized.

Just so we're all clear, this is what the Church teaches about "The Gift of the Holy Ghost":

Quote

The gift of the Holy Ghost is one of God’s greatest gifts to us. Through the Holy Ghost we may know that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that His Church has been restored to the earth. We may have the promptings of the Holy Ghost to show us all the things we should do (see 2 Nephi 32:5). The Holy Ghost sanctifies us to prepare us for God’s presence. We may enjoy the gifts of the Spirit (see chapter 22 in this book). This great gift from our Heavenly Father can also bring peace to our hearts and an understanding of the things of God (see 1 Corinthians 2:9–12 ).

 

In the words of LeGrand Richards:

I would just like to mention a few things that occurred to me that we have by virtue of the Holy Ghost, which each of us, as members of the Church, receives by the laying on of hands by one who has the authority to thus administer that gift.

To me, the gift of the Holy Ghost is as important to man as sunshine and water are to the plants. You take them away, and the plants would die. You take the Holy Ghost out of this Church, and this Church would not be any different than any other church. And it is manifest in so many ways in the lives and the devotion of the members of the Church.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/10/the-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

These are truly interesting and momentous times for the Church and its doctrines.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by cinepro

[VideoGameJunkie]

I love when the church is in the news, regardless of what for. It gives people a chance to talk about the church with neighbors or friends.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think if you heard a Catholic leader say that some younger Catholics shouldn't be allowed to take communion on account of the fact that it isn't that important, and that the idea of Transubstantiation is probably taught a little too literally in the Catholic Church,  no one would blame you for being a little surprised and seeking clarification to see if you heard correctly. 

I don't see the analogy as appropriate.  If anything the restriction is demonstrating the importance of the ritual of baptism, that it be done not just for a rite of passage or because friends are doing it, but because one is ready to fulfill the covenants with God one makes at that time...and the love of God that he excuses those who are in an environment that will prevent them from fulfilling and understanding what they have taken upon themselves, including children of a same sex couple living under their care.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

Just so we're all clear, this is what the Church teaches about "The Gift of the Holy Ghost":

In the words of LeGrand Richards...

 

LeGrand Richards must have been fully aware of the billions of people who have managed to live without the Holy Ghost.  I would see his words as relevant to those who have grown used to the nourishment of the Spirit through seeking and receiving the Spirit and then depriving themselves of it through loss of faith.  As with muscles once developed no longer exercised, the result is diminishment of abilities.

Blessings come from God not like Christmas presents that can be played with for as long as they interest us and they be cast aside when we are bored with them.  Receiving a blessing is like a lung patient receiving for the first time in her life a healthy pair of lungs through a transplant, treat the blessing in the way commanded by the Lord it will flourish and bring joy and happiness and growth to the one who cares for it just as following the proper protocol will bring new life and choices to the transplant recipent.   Neglect, intentional ignorance, mistreatreatment or even abuse of one's blessing, the blessing like a transplant will become twisted, sick and even die with the corruption of its death spreading additional poison through one's spiritual life.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Wow.  I had previously thought the most interesting byproduct of this policy was the degree to which apparently believing members were being inspired to reject it. 

But I totally missed a much bigger effect:  apparently it will be a catalyst for a massive redefining of one of the first principles and ordinances of the gospel: The Gift of the Holy Ghost!   I wouldn't be more surprised if someone were suggesting that the policy also means that it's okay to conduct baptisms by sprinkling, or that repentance isn't necessary before being baptized.

Just so we're all clear, this is what the Church teaches about "The Gift of the Holy Ghost":

 

 

From the link:

 

Quote

 

The Gift of the Holy Ghost

• •

  What is the difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost?

The gift of the Holy Ghost is the privilege—given to people who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ, been baptized, and been confirmed as members of the Church—to receive continual guidance and inspiration from the Holy Ghost. ...

A person may be temporarily guided by the Holy Ghost without receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost (see D&C 130:23). However, this guidance will not be continuous unless the person is baptized and receives the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

 

 

 

The verse cited in the above quote states: "A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him."

After praying fervently to find someone to teach, our missionary son and his companion while on a train were approached by a young man who asked them for information about the Church. After they got off the train, they took him to a local young adult center operated by the Church and taught him. He seemed very receptive to the message.

Then, he disappeared for two weeks. They were unable to contact him, and he did not respond to their text messages.

In the e-mailed letter we received from our son late last night, he said the young man had at last texted the missionaries and asked for the time and place for Church meetings.

Though he doesn't yet enjoy the constant companionship (i.e. "gift of") the Holy Ghost, I have to think the Holy Ghost eventually influenced him to resume contact with the missionaries. Here on the other side of the world, we are praying for him and for our son and his companion as they teach and nurture him.

This is the sort of thing that happens when non-members are prepared by the Spirit to receive the gospel message. In accordance with the wisdom and mercy of God the same sort of thing can happen with children who, because of current circumstances, must delay baptism but who remain receptive to the whispering of the Spirit.

The Church won't baptize an under-age child without the consent of his/her parents, regardless of how fervently he/she may desire baptism. Are you as incensed about that longstanding policy as you are about the more recently drafted policy regarding minor children who are under the care of homosexual couples? If you are, you haven't indicated so.

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am confused.  Please feel free to disregard the following if you find it inappropriate or too nosy: The tenor of your posts is very hostile to the LDS Church.  I don't follow your posts or keep track of them, but I do not recall you ever speaking about the Church in anything other than unpleasant, critical, hostile words (I'm certainly open to correction about that, tho).  

So if you're not LDS, or a non-believing Latter-day Saint, I'm curious about the nature of the second question above.  The first one I get.  It's sociological.  One does not need to have a "testimony" of the Restored Gospel in order to ask it.  But the second one . . . that's a bit different.  It's like me, an observant Latter-day Saint, injecting myself into an argument amongst observant Catholics regarding the particulars of transubstantiation.  Such a discussion might involve differences of opinion about specific issues pertaining to this topic, but the topic itself is substantively agreed upon by the participants to the argument.  So wouldn't it be, well, a bit weird for Spencer the Mormon to wade into the controversy and weigh in on one side or the other about such a topic?  I have respect for the Catholic Church and its beliefs, but I do not believe in the concept of Transubstantiation.  So what would the point be of me weighing in on that concept?

Thanks,

-Smac

Teancum, as I understand it, is still at least a nominal member of the Church and even, if I recall correctly, a former bishop.

But you are right about the tenor of his posts.

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Wow.  I had previously thought the most interesting byproduct of this policy was the degree to which apparently believing members were being inspired to reject it. 

I've never yet seen anyone claim they were "inspired" to reject it, who had previously given me the impression that they actually believed any of the Church's key truth claims. To any extent.

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

But I totally missed a much bigger effect:  apparently it will be a catalyst for a massive redefining of one of the first principles and ordinances of the gospel: The Gift of the Holy Ghost!   I wouldn't be more surprised if someone were suggesting that the policy also means that it's okay to conduct baptisms by sprinkling, or that repentance isn't necessary before being baptized.

"Massive redefining?" There's a point where hyperbole goes beyond exaggeration; and you've reached it.

Scott's description of the Gift of the Holy Ghost as being related to our baptismal covenants, and how non-members can have the companionship of the Holy Ghost from time to time, is a pretty decent paraphrase of what I was teaching, as a missionary, almost 40 years ago.

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just so we're all clear, this is what the Church teaches about "The Gift of the Holy Ghost":

In the words of LeGrand Richards:

What part of the policy, of of Scott's post, do you see as being incompatible with any of that?

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

These are truly interesting and momentous times for the Church and its doctrines.

And yet the doctrines in question are exactly what they previously were.

Funny, that.

Baptism is a binding covenant with God. It is not a blessing for someone to enter into that covenant when their home situation makes it virtually impossible to keep.