Russell C McGregor Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I beg to differ. A sense of irony is something our friend Sunstoned apparently lacks.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) Here is a blog on Millennial Star that weighs in on this topic. It highlights what has already been pointed out here about the discrepancy between hearsay claims and what can actually be ascertained from a state agency. But it also links to a post that makes abundantly clear that suicide is too complex to be attributed to any single factor. A summary excerpt: Quote So, to sum up: Here’s what I see. I see a progressive culture, and many liberal Mormons, glomming on to a report of “32 suicides since the Church announced its policy change” that simply does not pass the test of basic common sense. The facts show that nowhere near 32 suicides has taken place. The people involved have an axe to grind and are using this report to encourage opposition to the Church. And the Church’s critics are ignoring the simple reality that the suicides, even if any of them took place, cannot honestly be attributed to a single event. There are a lot of other factors going on in the world (detailed above) that should be considered when discussing suicide. It is also worth considering that the worldwide trends that actually are contributing to suicide are trends, in most cases, that the Church has warned about. Edited February 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: A sense of irony is something our friend Sunstoned apparently lacks. I guess, in his world, a "cheap coward" is one who posts under his real name and requires substantiation of assertions. Edited February 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
busybee Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Teancum said: Your post was ozzing with implication. The word you're looking for is 'OOZING' Edited February 1, 2016 by busybee 1
smac97 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 7 hours 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. So General Authorities have been saying that baptism "isn't that important?" Or is it just another hostile-and-tendentious-and-let's-have-critics-and-enemies-of-the-Church-"interpret"-what-the-General-Authorities-mean-by-promulgating-policy-changes kind of thing? Methinks the latter. Nobody has previously accused the Brethren of lessening the significance of baptism by implementing a similar policy requiring children from polygamous families to wait until adulthood to be baptized. Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that the cranks, critics and enemies of the Church vilifying us over this policy are using the policy as . . . a pretext? That it's not the policy that matters, or even the purported harm to gay teens that matters, it's . . . the opportunity to attack the LDS Church that matters? And let's not even get started on the irony of enemies and critics of the Church who reject the efficacy of LDS baptisms screaming hateful rhetoric about the supposed soul-imperiling delay of baptism of children being raised in same-sex-parent households (but apparently the souls of children of polygamists are not similarly imperiled, or such eschatological peril simply does not merit the same concern). All of this hue and cry is quite facile. As in "(especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial." The explanations from the Brethren are reasonable. It explains both the origins of the policy changes (revelatory, following much fasting, prayer and discussion) and the practical considerations which precipitated those changes (including a decidedly non-facile consideration of the welfare of children being raised in same-sex-parent households). But since the cranks and critics and enemies of the Church certainly can't have the Brethren speak for themselves (quelle horreur!), we end up with tendentious, inaccurate, uncharitable nonsense like "The Brethren are telling us that baptism 'isn't that important.'" Thanks, -Smac 1
consiglieri Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 On 1/31/2016 at 0:23 AM, Russell C McGregor said: Falsely accusing the Church of pointing the finger of accusation is offensive. And detestable. And in character. Oh, come on, Russell. You know as well as I that when anything is wrong with the Church, it is always the members' fault. Is sacrament meeting boring? It's your fault. Did you not receive a witness of the Book of Mormon? It's your fault. Do you have doubts about the LDS Church? It's your fault. And the newest permutation, "Are gay kids killing themselves over policies instituted by Church leaders?" It's your fault.
CV75 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 14 hours ago, california boy said: This issue of what is a policy and what is a revelation from God has been discussed a lot. Members use the term policy when things are changeable at a later date. They use the term revelation from God for things that come directly from Him and is not just the opinion of the prophet or apostles. So what is this? A policy decision or a revelation that every gay married couple is an abomination and they should be branded as apostates and their children should not be allowed to be baptized until they can break free of their parents and denounce them as sinners and apostates? Policies are changeable, yet revelation from God is used for their creation and subsequent adjustments over time. Revelation can also change also over time, for policy, practice, added light and knowledge building upon earlier revelations. And some revealed things do not change, such as the fundamental principles of our religion (the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven) and all other appendages to it. The eternal nature of marriage and family is one of those things. Those who disagree still need to honor the context in which LDS teens are making decisions. Their religious affiliation is key to the well-being of the psychologically vulnerable, and needs to be understood and used to support them, and not misrepresented by those who do not understand it or agree with it. Your experience with hearing about policy, and your exposure to it out of context may have triggered the negativity betrayed in your summary of its meaning. This is not helpful for LDS teens dealing with their own issues in relation to their being exposed to it out of context. They need your understanding, love and respect for their religious affiliation, not further triggering. 14 hours ago, Teancum said: I have a question for you. If the restriction on ordinances for children of same sex unions is allegedly to protect them can such children attend church, participate in primary, young men and young women activities, Sunday school and so on? When you can see that the protection is very proactive and not "alleged," and when you can read the Church statements on the subject since the release of the policy, you will see that yes, the children covered in the policy are certainly able to attend meeting and participate in activities as any non-member. As I mentioned above, those who disagree need to honor the context in which LDS teens are making decisions. Their religious affiliation is key to the well-being of the psychologically vulnerable, and needs to be understood and used to support them, and not negatively criticized by those who do not understand it or agree with it. You well may have been triggered by what you've come across with regards to the policy and how. Acting out about it is not helpful for LDS teens dealing with their own issues in relation to their being exposed to it out of context. They need your understanding, love and respect for their religious affiliation, not further triggering. 2
consiglieri Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: 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. This is the key canard. How does having a gay parent make baptism a covenant "virtually impossible to keep"? How is this different from having a parent who disobeys any other tenet of the LDS Church? 4
Gray Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 1 hour ago, busybee said: The word you're looking for is 'OOZING' Ozzing involves wallabies somehow.
Storm Rider Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 13 hours ago, california boy said: 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. Cal, salvation and exaltation remain open to all of God's children, but that salvation and exaltation remains dependent upon the fulfilling our part of the commitment. If we obey his commandments, consistently strive to repent and maintain godly sorrow for our sins, then God's mercy engaged through the atonement of Christ assures of exaltation. A person who is not repentant, has no sorrow for their sins, and ignores God's commandments have no promise. We are not born wrong, but we are born mortal with a purpose to learn to meld the spiritual and the physical worlds. We must learn to exercise our physical passions within the parameters that God has set. That is the challenge for everyone without exceptions. I am pretty good at finding fault with others whether they are a prophet or not. The fact is that everyone is human and we can disagree with the actions of others with great ease. If I were prophet I know I would change some things, but I recognize that is not my place, I am not the prophet, and I will let God work out the kinks as he continues to work through mortal individuals to accomplish his work. He works with those within and outside the Church without reserve. Those that choose to follow after Christ and his Father will be made one. We have a ways to go. 2
busybee Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 13 minutes ago, Gray said: Ozzing involves wallabies somehow. My thoughts exactly
ALarson Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 55 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is the key canard. How does having a gay parent make baptism a covenant "virtually impossible to keep"? How is this different from having a parent who disobeys any other tenet of the LDS Church? Exactly. Just because parents are not keeping their covenants or living a moral life (according to the church), how does that stop their children from making and keeping their covenants? Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson
Storm Rider Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 13 hours ago, california boy said: 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. I think the policy is meant to clearly identify boundaries. So that those who are agitating for a recognition of gay marriage and an acceptable of living an active gay lifestyle understand that is not a path the Church will pursue. One of the things that Jesus taught most often is that his disciples cry repentance to the people; this was also often in conjunction with the declaration to "repent and be baptized". If we do not feel guilt or that we have committed sin or that we are engaged in wrong-doing, then we cannot repent. There are many reasons that may not to feel guilt or remorse ranging from we haven't committed a particular to sin to we have sinned willingly so much that we no longer sense the the Spirit. We, individually, are the only ones that must work out our relationship with God and know when and where we fall short and are in need of his forgiveness and mercy. Seek the Spirit and follow Him - that is what we all must do and learn to do better every day. 2
smac97 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 15 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is the key canard. How does having a gay parent make baptism a covenant "virtually impossible to keep"? How is this different from having a parent who disobeys any other tenet of the LDS Church? Mosiah 11:29 (indeed the whole chapter, particularly Noah's indignation against Abinadi in v. 27, as well as the conniving of his priests in the subsequent chapters) seems somewhat apt to what is going on here in terms of the Brethren and opposition to them. Let me lay it out a bit: Abinadi, a prophet of God, was tasked with preaching a message which some did not want to hear (11:20-25). The message was heard by a prominent man who was hostile to Abinadi (because Abinadi was a prophet) (11:27). This man, feigning outrage over purported "contentions" caused by Abinadi's message, took adverse action against Abinadi (11:28-29). Some people heard Abinadi's message, and, due to the "pride of their hearts" (11:19) their blind eyes (11:29) and the pretended outrage of the prominent man (11:27-28), they "hardened their hearts" against the prophetic message (11:29). Some time later, wicked men feigning to be righteous (Noah's priests) rose up to publicly attack and falsely accuse Abinadi of prophesying "evil" (12:10), of lying (12:14), and of prophesying "in vain" (12:14). Meanwhile, they congratulated themselves for their superior morality and ethics (12:13). The prominent man then conspired with the wicked priests. They "began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him" (12:19). But Abinadi "did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words" (12:19). The wicked men went so far as to quote scriptural principles they neither believed in nor adhered to (12:20-24). Abinadi, perceiving this perfidy by the wicked men (they were ordained priests, after all), correctly declared that they were "perverting the ways of the Lord" (12:26), that they "have not applied [their] hearts to understanding; therefore, [they] have not been wise" (12:27). He also noted the great irony of these wicked men quoting to him "the law of Moses," while they themselves were not keeping that law (12:27-29). The wicked men and the prominent men, unable to substantively rebut the truths given to them by Abinadi, and their hearts having been hardened, abandoned their efforts "to accuse him" and resorted to outright false accusations and calumnies (13:1 ("Away with this fellow, and slay him; for what have we to do with him, for he is mad")). Abinadi, protected by God, continued to preach the truth to the wicked men and the prominent man. (13:2-35). Several of the "beats" in the story of Abinadi appear to be happening in the current folderol about the Church's policy changes. -Smac 3
CV75 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Exactly. Just because parents are not keeping their covenants or living a moral life (according to the church), how does that stop their children from making and keeping their covenants? By design (if not intent), the conflict inherent a couple’s marital apostasy actively works against a dependent child’s qualitative ability to make and keep covenants because they have claim on their parents for their spiritual maintenance as well as temporal. Making Church covenants in a formally apostate home would be a horribly ridiculous expectation. Same-sex marriage between non-members or same-sex cohabitation in general may not be part of the formal definition of apostasy, but the home life dynamics are sufficiently mimicked to impose the same problems on a child. Other moral and social ills do not rise to the definition of apostasy. 3
ALarson Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: By design (if not intent), the conflict inherent a couple’s marital apostasy actively works against a dependent child’s qualitative ability to make and keep covenants because they have claim on their parents for their spiritual maintenance as well as temporal. Making Church covenants in a formally apostate home would be a horribly ridiculous expectation. So on this, you deny a child baptism and the gift of having the Holy Ghost in their lives? Also, why not do this for the children of all apostates? Why only for children who are in homes where a parent is in a SSM (and polygamists)? Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson
smac97 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 20 minutes ago, ALarson said: So on this, you deny a child baptism and the gift of having the Holy Ghost in their lives? Also, why not do this for the children of all apostates? Why only for children who are in homes where a parent is in a SSM (and polygamists)? First, baptism is not being "denied." Second, none of us promulgated the policy changes. Third, the Brethren have addressed the origins and purpose of the policy changes. Do you dispute Elder Nelson's explanation of how it came to pass? If yes, then what is the factual/argumentative basis for your dispute? If you don't, then why are you asking questions starting with words like "you deny..."? Thanks, -Smac 1
ALarson Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: First, baptism is not being "denied." Yes, it is for a "child". Once they turn 18, there are strict stipulations that they'd have to meet in order to be baptized. But baptism is denied up until that point for children living in a home where the parents are in a SSM. At least be honest about that. These children are also denied the gift of the Holy Ghost until they turn 18. And, I see you have no answer regarding why not protect all children living in a home where the parents are apostates, if that is the purpose of this policy? Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson 1
CV75 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: So on this, you deny a child baptism and the gift of having the Holy Ghost in their lives? Also, why not do this for the children of all apostates? Why only for children who are in homes where a parent is in a SSM (and polygamists)? Speaking from experience, the Lord never abandoned me during the 5 years I had to wait before joining the Church (and I couldn't even attend Church!). I have been recompensed many times over for not having baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. and haven't missed out on anything; I never felt that I did. Friendship and support from members during those years, which I did not enjoy, in my mind would alleviate any undue concern for a child having the desire and testimony to be baptized. I fully expect the Lord to catch up with such children and give them every opportunity to join the Church. Just like he does with everyone else. I don't think any other kind of apostasy so thoroughly engages the child's psyche as his parent's marriage and family (blood is thicker than mere teachings); apostate marriages so imitate the correct practice making them especially deceptive for the child to differentiate; and the other forms of apostasy would prevent the child from getting near the Church in the first place. 2
smac97 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yes, it is for a "child". Once they turn 18, there are strict stipulations that they'd have to meet in order to be baptized. But baptism is denied up until that point for children living in a home where the parents are in a SSM. At least be honest about that. Then baptism is no more being "denied" than it is for, say, a five year old. Or a child being raised in a polygamous family. Or a child whose parents have not authorized baptism. Or any other of a multitude of reasons why a child may not be able to be baptized. At least be honest about that. Now, about the second and third points: Second, none of us promulgated the policy changes. Third, the Brethren have addressed the origins and purpose of the policy changes. Do you dispute Elder Nelson's explanation of how it came to pass? If yes, then what is the factual/argumentative basis for your dispute? If you don't, then why are you asking questions starting with words like "you deny..."? The people promulgating policies pertaining to the baptism of children are not on this board. Those policies are coming from the First Presidency and the Twelve. Do you dispute that? Are you proposing that the Brethren are not acting in accordance with God's will? If so, what is the evidentiary/argumentative basis for such an accusation? And how do you reconcile such an accusation with Elder Nelson's remarks? And how do you reconcile such an accusation with the entirety of both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve being unified on the revelatory provenance of this policy? Are you suggesting that all fifteen of theses prophets, seers and revelators are all uniformly and collectively deluded? Insane? Lying? So wicked that they are all collaborating with each other to deceive the Saints? What are you saying here? Are you claiming to have superior access to and understanding of the mind and will of God? If not, then on what basis do you fault the decision from the Brethren on this policy? Who are you, that I should listen to you rather than to the Lord's anointed? Thanks, -Smac Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97 2
ALarson Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Then baptism is no more being "denied" than it is for, say, a five year old. Of course it is. If this child has been active in the church and attending primary with all their peers, ALL children were denied baptism at the age of 5 years. But, THEY are the only child denied it at the age of 8 years while they watch all the other kids in their age group prepare for and have their baptisms and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. There is a huge difference here and that is a horrible comparison.
Mystery Meat Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 11 minutes ago, ALarson said: Of course it is. If this child has been active in the church and attending primary with all their peers, ALL children were denied baptism at the age of 5 years. But, THEY are the only child denied it at the age of 8 years while they watch all the other kids in their age group prepare for and have their baptisms and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. There is a huge difference here and that is a horrible comparison. You are dodging Smac's questions.
smac97 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, ALarson said: Of course it is. If this child has been active in the church and attending primary with all their peers, ALL children were denied baptism at the age of 5 years. But, THEY are the only child denied it at the age of 8 years while they watch all the other kids in their age group prepare for and have their baptisms and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. There is a huge difference here and that is a horrible comparison. You are simply wrong here. A child from a polygamous family "attending primary with all their peers" will not be able to get baptized. A child whose parents will not authorize baptism "attending primary with all their peers" will not be able to get baptized. Your because-I-say-so argument is not an argument at all. It's an unsubstantiated and unwarranted assertion. I reject it. Meanwhile, back to the other questions I asked: The people promulgating policies pertaining to the baptism of children are not on this board. Those policies are coming from the First Presidency and the Twelve. Do you dispute that? Are you proposing that the Brethren are not acting in accordance with God's will? If so, what is the evidentiary/argumentative basis for such an accusation? How do you reconcile such an accusation with Elder Nelson's remarks? How do you reconcile such an accusation with the entirety of both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve being unified on the revelatory provenance of this policy? Are you suggesting that all fifteen of these prophets, seers and revelators are all uniformly and collectively deluded? Insane? Lying? So wicked that they are all collaborating with each other to deceive the Saints? What are you saying here? Are you claiming to have superior access to and understanding of the mind and will of God? If not, then on what basis do you fault the decision from the Brethren on this policy? Who are you, that I should listen to you rather than to the Lord's anointed? Thanks, -Smac Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97 1
ALarson Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: You are dodging Smac's questions. I'm not the one dodging questions. If he has no other answers other than stating that children of SSM couples aren't denied baptism (until they're 18), and comparing that to a 5 year old being denied baptism, then that really does not answer my question. Why aren't children of all apostates denied baptism until they're 18?
ALarson Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: You are simply wrong here. A child from a polygamous family "attending primary with all their peers" will not be able to get baptized. A child whose parents will not authorize baptism "attending primary with all their peers" will not be able to get baptized. And, I ask again... Why are children of ALL APOSTATES not denied baptism until 18? Why just children of SSM couples and polygamists? If you have no answer to this other than you're following and trusting the church leaders, just state this.
Recommended Posts