Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who are you, that I should listen to you rather than to the Lord's anointed?

Thanks,

-Smac

I never said you should listen to me.  I'm just asking you a question.  

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.  

A really good question. 

[Mystery Meat]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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?

That's not the question you are dodging. You are dodging his question as to the source of the policy and your belief about the 15's stated reason and revelation.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.  

The church hasn't answered that question, so any reply is just speculation.  However, the brethren did say that this policy did not come into existence until there was a need (they stated that having to address some issues with the topic is what prompted them to create the policy in the first place).  It's reasonable to assume that the reason that such a policy doesn't exist for every kind of apostate is because it hasn't been needed.  

It seems likely that most doctrinal apostates would not want their children baptized into the church.  That could be the reason that the church has not had to create a policy to deal with them.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

That's not the question you are dodging. You are dodging his question as to the source of the policy and your belief about the 15's stated reason and revelation.

I believe the source of the policy is one or more of the church leaders going on advice from legal counsel (or other counsel, but not revelation from God).  

I will not hold my breath regarding getting an answer for the question I've asked numerous times.  If his reasoning is that there is no difference in denying an active 8 year old baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost (only because they live in a home where a parent is in a SSM) and denying a 5 year old baptism, then that's a ridiculous answer.  

Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church hasn't answered that question, so any reply is just speculation.

I agree.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.  

I don't know.  In the absence of information coming from a credible source, I do not have an answer to your question.  

I am following and trusting the Brethren.  

I allow the Brethren a fairly broad scope of latitude to act as they see fit.

To reasonably exercise the discretion given to them as servants of God.

To act in accordance with their understanding of the Restored Gospel and revealed truths given to us and them previously.  

To act in accordance with information they have and I don't, to incorporate factors and considerations apparent to them but not to me or to the world at large, and to act upon promptings / inspiration / revelation given to them but not to me.

To address difficult issues and make difficult decisions based on their understanding, their collective experience, and the Spirit.

To function as quorums and to seek and, whenever possible, reach a unified decision on how to proceed.

To make difficult decisions that will not be popular with the World, or even with some church members who are prone to hold the opinions of the World higher than the counsel of the Lord's anointed.

To acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, but that they are ultimately bound to obey God despite the calumnies thrown at them for so doing.

To live and act in good faith and with God's grace.

Does that clarify things enough for you?

Here are my questions again:

1. 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?
2. 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?  
3. How do you reconcile such an accusation with Elder Nelson's remarks?  
4. 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?  
5. 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?
6. 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?  
7. Who are you, that I should listen to you rather than to the Lord's anointed?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[Mystery Meat]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.  

This has been asked many times on this board since the policy came out, and answered to death. The LGBT movement and their supporters have defined their homosexuality as such that it has become the central, defining character trait. I have been told countless times that it is not enough to "hate the sin, and love the sinner", but if I do not accept their relationship as good I cannot accept them. That is a pretty strong line in the sand. In direct opposition to this is the Church's doctrine on the eternal nature of marriage and the family: marriage is between one man and one woman. When properly and authoritatively sealed, a man and woman can be together in a marital unit for all time and eternity. NO LGBT relationship can extend into the eternities. A child, whose parents are in a SSM and who enters sacred covenants if so allowed, is placed in a position to stand opposed to the unlawful, abominable and sinful relationship of her very parents. To do otherwise would be a violation of those sacred covenants and would bring her under even greater condemnation. Not to mention the conflict this would cause at home between child and parent. Not a good situation.

[ERMD]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

Years ago, I found your posts insightful, witty, and entertaining.  The wit is still there, but otherwise the thrill is gone.

Sorry to see.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe the source of the policy is one or more of the church leaders going on advice from legal counsel (or other counsel, but not revelation from God).  

Okay.  So how you reconcile this ("...but not revelation from God") with Elder Nelson's remarks?

What is the evidentiary/argumentative basis for your accusation that the Brethren are not "going on ... revelation from God?"

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? 

Quote

I will not hold my breath regarding getting an answer for the question I've asked numerous times.  If his reasoning is that there is no difference in denying an active 8 year old baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost (only because they live in a home where a parent is in a SSM) and denying a 5 year old baptism, then that's a ridiculous answer.  

I have answered your question.  There are circumstances when an 8-year-old cannot be baptized.  One of them is where he/she is being raised in a same-sex-parents household.  But there are others.  Children in polygamous families cannot be baptized until they reach adulthood.  Children of parents who forbid baptism cannot be baptized until they reach adulthood.  I even understand that baptism is sometimes delayed where the child is in a familial or sociopolitical milieu that might imperil the welfare of the child if he/she is baptized.

Your evasive quasi-rebuttal of these points is not persuasive, nor is resorting to unreasoned, unwarranted ad hoc potshots ("that's a ridiculous answer").

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.

Then why are you getting all hot and bothered (resorting to ALL CAPS and all that) about a question posed on this board which you know cannot be answered by members of this board?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

This has been asked many times on this board since the policy came out, and answered to death. The LGBT movement and their supporters have defined their homosexuality as such that it has become the central, defining character trait. I have been told countless times that it is not enough to "hate the sin, and love the sinner", but if I do not accept their relationship as good I cannot accept them. That is a pretty strong line in the sand. In direct opposition to this is the Church's doctrine on the eternal nature of marriage and the family: marriage is between one man and one woman. When properly and authoritatively sealed, a man and woman can be together in a marital unit for all time and eternity. NO LGBT relationship can extend into the eternities. A child, whose parents are in a SSM and who enters sacred covenants if so allowed, is placed in a position to stand opposed to the unlawful, abominable and sinful relationship of her very parents. To do otherwise would be a violation of those sacred covenants and would bring her under even greater condemnation. Not to mention the conflict this would cause at home between child and parent. Not a good situation.

Although conjectural, I think the foregoing is as reasonably accurate (though not necessarily complete) an answer as you are going to get on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  In the absence of information coming from a credible source, I do not have an answer to your question.  

I am following and trusting the Brethren.  

I allow the Brethren a fairly broad scope of latitude to act as they see fit.

To reasonably exercise the discretion given to them as servants of God.

To act in accordance with their understanding of the Restored Gospel and revealed truths given to us and them previously.  

To act in accordance with information they have and I don't, to incorporate factors and considerations apparent to them but not to me or to the world at large, and to act upon promptings / inspiration / revelation given to them but not to me.

To address difficult issues and make difficult decisions based on their understanding, their collective experience, and the Spirit.

To function as quorums and to seek and, whenever possible, reach a unified decision on how to proceed.

To make difficult decisions that will not be popular with the World, or even with some church members who are prone to hold the opinions of the World higher than the counsel of the Lord's anointed.

To acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, but that they are ultimately bound to obey God despite the calumnies thrown at them for so doing.

To live and act in good faith and with God's grace.

Does that clarify things enough for you?

Here are my questions again:

1. 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?
2. 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?  
3. How do you reconcile such an accusation with Elder Nelson's remarks?  
4. 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?  
5. 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?
6. 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?  
7. Who are you, that I should listen to you rather than to the Lord's anointed?

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for your honest reply.  I wish more would be as honest regarding this.

Here are my answers to your questions (honest answers like yours):

1.  I'm not sure where these policies are coming from.  I don't know if anyone on this board "knows" for sure.  We all have our opinions, feelings, and our beliefs and faith, but the only people who "know" where and why the policy originated are those actually involved in writing it.

2.  I do not believe this policy is God's will.  Not even close.  I believe that God would not deny innocent children baptism into His true church or deny them the gift of the Holy Ghost just because of a parent's actions.  Period.

3.  I don't doubt that Elder Nelson believes this policy was a revelation, if that's what he stated.  But, who received this revelation?  President Monson?  That information was not given (unless I missed it and I'll read what he stated again.....).

4. I'm sure if President Monson shared with these other leaders that he received a revelation on this matter, they believe him.

5.  No and I've never stated that (and don't believe that).   

6. Nope and I've also never claimed that.  I'm basing my feelings and beliefs regarding this policy on exactly the same thing you are (what the spirit tells me and also on my beliefs regarding God).  We just differ in our conclusions.

7.  I already answered that, but, I've never said you should listen to me.

Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

2 hours 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)?

Most types of apostasy will be individually related...one parent can be in apostasy while the other is a believing spouse.  Plural marriage and same sex marriage are two examples where both of the parents are apostates.  It makes sense that these cases the approach of postponing baptism is standard while in other cases where it is possible there is a parent not in apostasy that it be more of a case by case approach.

[Daniel2]

On ‎01‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:59 PM, Mystery Meat said:

Daniel,

I have posted one way I think certain members of the Church could do better. I would like to know one way you think the LGBT community could do better.

Thanks, Mystery Meat.  I appreciated the post you refer to above, in which you shared one way that you think certain members of the church could do better.  Great conversations begin with a single sentence and every journey starts somewhere, however small, so I value even the shortest of steps.

In answer to your request for me to post to one way I think the LGBT community could do better:

I think great care needs to be taken with the attention and energy which are given to suicides.  From what I have read by experts, this type of care needs to be given in how we approach discussing the topic to avoid glorifying the victims or saying things that could in any way shape or form characterize victims as martyrs, lest the discussions themselves lead to even more suicides. 

The message to those of our family members and friends who are suffering, for whatever reason, and who are plagued by thoughts of killing themselves should be one of support, love, and acceptance (as you described in your recommended post, for which I gave you a rep point, btw ), as well as the firm understanding that suicide is NEVER ok, even if a cause to die for seems like a romantic, noble, or just course of action.  Suicide is NEVER the answer to bring about change, even for compassionate or worthwhile causes. 

IMO, any and all worthwhile movements should encourage its supporters to spend our valuable time and energy on this earth in educating, discussing, dialoguing, serving, and helping others to understand our views/cause.  NONE should romanticize suicide or uphold it's victims as people who chose a vialbe or admirable means of self-expression or a viable attempt to change the hearts and minds of others.

I also think the "It Gets Better" campaign is a great message for youth to hear, and I'd love to hear MORE of such messages addressing LGBT LDS youth by adult LGBT Mormons AND former Mormons through a flood of diverse channels.

Wow... this thread has grown to gargantuan levels after being away for just a few days... hard to keep up, but I will try.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then why are you getting all hot and bothered (resorting to ALL CAPS and all that) about a question posed on this board which you know cannot be answered by members of this board?

Thanks,

-Smac

Why are you coming up with all kinds of convoluted answers to the question before you finally answer it by stating "I don't know"?  I do appreciate that you finally answered it and for your honesty. (And, I'm not even close to being "hot and bothered", lol.  And the little bit of all caps was for emphasis on 2 words regarding the part of the question you were dodging numerous times).  Again, thanks for answering.

Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Most types of apostasy will be individually related...one parent can be in apostasy while the other is a believing spouse.  Plural marriage and same sex marriage are two examples where both of the parents are apostates.  It makes sense that these cases the approach of postponing baptism is standard while in other cases where it is possible there is a parent not in apostasy that it be more of a case by case approach.

I wonder why they didn't just have the policy state something similar to that... could have saved a lot of confusion and grief.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

2.  I do not believe this policy is God's will.  Not even close.  I believe that God would not deny innocent children baptism into His true church or deny them the gift of the Holy Ghost just because of a parent's actions.  Period.

3.  I don't doubt that Elder Nelson believes this policy was a revelation, if that's what he stated.  But, who received this revelation?  President Monson?  That information was not given (unless I missed it and I'll read what he stated again.....).

4. I'm sure if President Monson shared with these other leaders that he received a revelation on this matter, they believe him.

Here's an interesting perspective on those three questions/answers from Rock Waterman's Pure Mormonism blog:

Taking the Lord's Name in Vain?

[Daniel2]

On ‎01‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 3:44 PM, smac97 said:

And now Daniel2 is publicly accusing Latter-day Saints of not caring about teen suicides.

What a repellent, uncharitable bit of false accusation this is.  The Internet has Godwin's Law pertaining to Nazi comparisons.  I suppose we Latter-day Saints will have to endure our own special version of that law: "If you don't agree with us, you don't care about children murdering themselves."

Thanks for that, Daniel!

Thanks,

-Smac

 

By the way, Smac,

My post didn't say what you said it did, and I want to set the record straight (no pun intended).  I had previously posted,

Quote

Most of what I've read in this thread are devout Latter-day Saints bristling at the thought that the church (as a group of believers) isn't doing a good enough job at helping LDS gay teens and young adults from committing suicide.  It appears they can't separate a call to compassionate action from the finger of blame and criticism. Instead of worrying about the teenagers that are killing themselves--or even attempting to understand why or what could be done, throughout the body of the church, to better minister to such teens--they appear hell-bent on absolving the body of Saints, the policy, the way it's been handled on the church's side...

 

You characterized my comment above by saying, "And now Daniel2 is publicly accusing Latter-day Saints of not caring about teen suicides."

Given the preceding sentence which framed the paragraph you quoted, I thought it was clear that I was talking about the context of this thread----I was NOT making any kind of a blanket statement or accusation which would accurately be called "publically accusing Latter-day Saints of not caring about teen suicides."

However, given that the twist you put on it garnered enough attention to actually gain you 5 rep points, I went back and edited the sentence in that post to accurately clarify what I intended at that point in the thread to read:

 

Quote

Instead of spending more time worrying or focusing their posts in this thread about how to help teenagers avoid killing themselves--or even attempting to understand why or what could be done, throughout the body of the church, to better minister to such teens--they appear hell-bent on absolving the body of Saints, the policy, the way it's been handled on the church's side...

 

Of course, the conversation has moved beyond that point--but I figured I'd clarify, all the same.  I have not accused and do not believe that Latter-day Saints don't care about teen suicides.  At THAT POINT in the thread, I hadn't seen very much discussion of it, and THAT was the lament in my post, at that time.

(I have re-edited THIS post several times now to try to fix the quotations... it looks like it finally worked.)

As I have commented in this thread since the above postings, I have very much appreciated the church's leadership in responding to this issue through the articles in the Deseret News.  Rather than even wait to verify numbers or fully deflect blame, leadership took measures to begin a dialogue to prevent further suicide--which was the very dialogue I felt was missing in the first four pages of this thread.  Again, Kudos to the church for jumping in and attempting to focus on saving kids' lives.  Well done.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for your honest reply.  I wish more would be as honest regarding this.

Here are my answers to your questions (honest answers like yours):

1.  I'm not sure where these policies are coming from.  I don't know if anyone on this board "knows" for sure.  We all have our opinions, feelings, and our beliefs and faith, but the only people who "know" where and why the policy originated are those actually involved in writing it.

2.  I do not believe this policy is God's will.  Not even close.  God would not deny innocent children baptism into His true church or deny them the gift of the Holy Ghost just because of a parent's actions.  Period.

3.  I don't doubt that Elder Nelson believes this policy was a revelation, if that's what he stated.  But, who received this revelation?  President Monson?  That information was not given (unless I missed it and I'll read what he stated again.....).

4. I'm sure if President Monson shared with these other leaders that he received a revelation on this matter, they believe him.

5.  No and I've never stated that (and don't believe that).   

6. Nope and I've also never claimed that.  I'm basing my feelings and beliefs regarding this policy on exactly the same thing you are (what the spirit tells me and also on my beliefs regarding God).  We just differ in our conclusions.

7.  I already answered that but, I've never said you should listen to me.

I'm still not understanding your point.  Elder Nelson has publicly declared the policy changes were the result of revelation.  You reject this.  So what is your assessment of Elder Nelson's remarks?  Was he lying?  Deluded?  What?

Also, Elder Nelson is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.  He was not merely stating his "opinion."  He stated that the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve concurred regarding the revelatory provenance of the policy changes.  So it's not just one prophet, seer and revelator.  It was all fifteen of them.  How do you reconcile this with your "feelings and beliefs?"

You have set yourself up as a voice alternative to and superior to that of the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  While I respect your opinion, I find it lacking in reason and substance.  And you are incorrect to state that we are relying on "exactly the same thing" to reach our respective positions.  I constantly gauge and re-assess my personal beliefs and opinions against A) my personal research, observations, and assessment, B) spiritual promptings, and C) counsel from past and present prophets and apostles.  As Elder McConkie so aptly put it: "Truth is ever in harmony with itself."

There have been times when my personal beliefs and opinions have been well-founded in reason (IMHO, anyway), but nevertheless contradicted by the cumulative voice and influence of the Spirit, the Scriptures, and past and present prophets and apostles.  When that happens, I generally revise my views to comport with the counsel and revealed knowledge available to the Saints.  There are still a few issues I have bouncing around my brain, issues which I have not been able to fully reconcile with the counsel of the Brethren.  As to these issues, I keep them to myself.  I do so because I recognize that A) reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including the things bouncing around in my brain, and B) I will generally not speak out against the Brethren.  I suppose there could be some sort of farfetched, "Jews in the Attic" hypothetical where I might publicly speak, but in all likelihood this will not happen.  I sustain the Brethren, even when they do things which are unpopular in the eyes of the World.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

P.S. Smac--my post didn't say what you said it did.  I said,

 

Of course, the conversation has moved beyond that point--but I figured I'd clarify, all the same.

Key words: "Instead of."

Your remarks are too craven, too poisonous.  I will not engage you in substantive discourse.  Your reciprocation will be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm still not understanding your point.  Elder Nelson has publicly declared the policy changes were the result of revelation.  You reject this.  So what is your assessment of Elder Nelson's remarks?  Was he lying?  Deluded?  What?

I already answered that here:

"I don't doubt that Elder Nelson believes this policy was a revelation, if that's what he stated."

Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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?

 

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.  

You may have missed my earlier post:

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.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wonder why they didn't just have the policy state something similar to that...

What do you mean specifically?  And why do you think this would change any of the reaction to the children's having to delay their baptism?  If the issue is the delay of baptism and how unfortunate it is for the child, then why would they be less troubled by it simply because the link to marriage inherently has both parents not being believers is pointed out?

Things were most likely done that way for more than one reason, dealing with the reality that there will not be the possibility of a faithful (in terms of sustaining doctrine, etc) parent and the need for other issues to be addressed such as any of the expectations for acceptance of same sex marriage and probably a number of reasons that leadership are aware of (per bluebell's point in her recent post).

Also if I understand your comment correctly, I suspect most would see it as simple common sense that would occur to them if there were not the emotions swirling around the discussion causing them to focus on other things.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Calm

[busybee]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wonder why they didn't just have the policy state something similar to that... could have saved a lot of confusion and grief.

What would have saved a lot of confusion and grief was if people hell bent on destroying the church had kept their pokey noses out of things that are none of their business, and left the church to administer it's own affairs. If this policy hadn't been gleefully leaked by an apostate rubbing his hands together at the grief he knew it would cause, then we wouldn't even be having this converstion