Rivers Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 The great thing abot the policy is that chldren of sam-sex couples get to wait until they are responsible adults to make a decision as serious as baptism.
california boy Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Rivers said: The great thing abot the policy is that chldren of sam-sex couples get to wait until they are responsible adults to make a decision as serious as baptism. Well then, maybe we should set the age of baptism for everyone at 18, since few parents are without sin. Would that be a "great thing" as well? This whole discussion is kinda pointless. It is pretty clear the church has issues with gay families that they don't have with others. We should just accept that and move on. Their position is never going to make any logical sense. It is just what the church does. The church had issues with black people as well. Eventually they got over it. Those that were faithful no matter what the church said were ok with that as well. They were not bothered one bit that black families were barred from the temple How important can these things be if the color of your skin determines whether you receive priesthood blessings. Edited May 25, 2016 by california boy 2
CV75 Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 13 hours ago, bluebell said: I'm using it pretty straight forwardly-two different standards. It can have negative connotations though, I agree. Oh yes, that's how i took it to be (from you! -- LOL). 11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: So let me see if I have this right....So different rules apply to members from those that apply to those who want to become members? Ahhhh....ok Well, yes they do, and why not? Those who are at the stage of merely wanting to become members cannot get a temple recommend like eligible members can. Would that make any sense at all? How many examples do your require?
CV75 Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 4 hours ago, california boy said: Well then, maybe we should set the age of baptism for everyone at 18, since few parents are without sin. Would that be a "great thing" as well? Well, sin is one thing, and apostasy another! There can be some overlap, but then there also isn't. Instilling an apostate value or a civil value that can be easily confused with a religious value in a vulnerable child is one thing, and giving him a bad example sin, bad treatment, etc. in his innocence and dependence is another!
california boy Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Well, sin is one thing, and apostasy another! There can be some overlap, but then there also isn't. Instilling an apostate value or a civil value that can be easily confused with a religious value in a vulnerable child is one thing, and giving him a bad example sin, bad treatment, etc. in his innocence and dependence is another! Yet the church has no problem baptizing children of parents living in sin. This is a Grodian's Knot. No matter how you unravel it, the policy still doesn't make much sense other than showing a prejudice towards gay couples. Quite honestly, just how important is it for anyone to get baptized while on the earth. 99.99% of God's children do not get baptized while on the earth. So how big of deal is it for anyone to join the church? Obviously getting baptized while living is a very low priority for God. He didn't even have His church available on the earth for a couple thousand years. I think the best defense in trying to justify this policy is "baptism? what is the big deal?" God doesn't seem too concerned about his children being baptized, why should you be?
HappyJackWagon Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 I will be interested to see how the staunch defenders of this revelatory policy react when the church quietly removes it from the e-handbook. I honestly don't think there's any question of IF but only WHEN. The policy is a disgrace and I have enough confidence in the church leadership that I believe they will recognize and correct the error at some point. Meanwhile, people are tying themselves up in knots trying to defend the indefensible. 2
CV75 Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: Yet the church has no problem baptizing children of parents living in sin. This is a Grodian's Knot. No matter how you unravel it, the policy still doesn't make much sense other than showing a prejudice towards gay couples. Quite honestly, just how important is it for anyone to get baptized while on the earth. 99.99% of God's children do not get baptized while on the earth. So how big of deal is it for anyone to join the church? Obviously getting baptized while living is a very low priority for God. He didn't even have His church available on the earth for a couple thousand years. I think the best defense in trying to justify this policy is "baptism? what is the big deal?" God doesn't seem too concerned about his children being baptized, why should you be? Evidently you didn’t grasp a word I wrote… *sigh* To paraphrase your comment, “No matter how you unravel it, the policy makes sense in showing that the practice of baptism follows doctrine (D&C 20:69).” Accountable children who have been saddled with an ssm tradition need to manifest before the Church and elders, given their set of imposed disadvantages, a godly walk and conversation to witness that their upbringing won’t sabotage their faithfulness with an apostate application of those traditions. You can’t look at this as if children are props or property, or that they must live their faith in a private vacuum. Don’t you know how badly that would suck? I also see that baptism evidently isn’t important to you; you say that it is a low priority for God and that joining the Church isn’t a big deal for anyone; that the Great Apostasy shows the Church is a low priority God as well. If so, why complain about LDS doctrines, practices and policies about it? Cheap shots; prejudiced, anyone? 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: I will be interested to see how the staunch defenders of this revelatory policy react when the church quietly removes it from the e-handbook. I honestly don't think there's any question of IF but only WHEN. The policy is a disgrace and I have enough confidence in the church leadership that I believe they will recognize and correct the error at some point. Meanwhile, people are tying themselves up in knots trying to defend the indefensible. Whether IF or WHEN, it doesn’t matter. The policy has sound doctrinal basis (see above). I find it odd that your honest opinion amounts to going on the offensive (implying that you know with certainty the correct way to go, LOL!), only to tie yourself up in knots not understanding the understandable. The spirit of contention, anyone? Edited May 25, 2016 by CV75
Jeanne Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: I will be interested to see how the staunch defenders of this revelatory policy react when the church quietly removes it from the e-handbook. I honestly don't think there's any question of IF but only WHEN. The policy is a disgrace and I have enough confidence in the church leadership that I believe they will recognize and correct the error at some point. Meanwhile, people are tying themselves up in knots trying to defend the indefensible. i agree. Time will tell.
The Nehor Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I will be interested to see how the staunch defenders of this revelatory policy react when the church quietly removes it from the e-handbook. I honestly don't think there's any question of IF but only WHEN. The policy is a disgrace and I have enough confidence in the church leadership that I believe they will recognize and correct the error at some point. Meanwhile, people are tying themselves up in knots trying to defend the indefensible. I am a staunch defender and would not be humiliated if it were withdrawn. Policy changes all the time. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) Back to the OP: The question I'm trying to understand is the obvious conflict that exist between the policy and Renlund's statement...this thread has deteriorated into a discussion of the pluses and minus' of the policy...that was not the intended purpose of my OP Edited May 25, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
jkwilliams Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said: Back to the OP: The question I'm trying to understand is the obvious conflict that exist between the policy and Renlund's statement...this thread has deteriorated into a discussion of the pluses and minus' of the policy...that was not the intended purpose of my OP I think the conflict is or should be obvious: you have two groups of adults, one of which is free to support same-sex marriage, and one who is not. I'm not sure how you get around that. 2
JAHS Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I will be interested to see how the staunch defenders of this revelatory policy react when the church quietly removes it from the e-handbook. I honestly don't think there's any question of IF but only WHEN. The policy is a disgrace and I have enough confidence in the church leadership that I believe they will recognize and correct the error at some point. Meanwhile, people are tying themselves up in knots trying to defend the indefensible. They haven't changed essentially the same policy for children living in a polygamous household. The policy sounds unfair to many but the people it effects is going to be very small. Sincere active members of the church will accept this and understand the importance of it.
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I think the conflict is or should be obvious: you have two groups of adults, one of which is free to support same-sex marriage, and one who is not. I'm not sure how you get around that. More specifically...the church is treating members of the same exact family differently based solely on their generational entry into that family. The child of a SS marriage can not be baptized and must disavow the marriage of their parents while the parents of the bride's or husband's engaged in a SS marriage can publically support SSM and Hold a temple recommend. Sorry folks but this make ZERO sense 4
jkwilliams Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, JAHS said: They haven't changed essentially the same policy for children living in a polygamous household. The policy sounds unfair to many but the people it effects is going to be very small. Sincere active members of the church will accept this and understand the importance of it. What about sincere active members who are struggling with this? You seem to be making a judgment about their faith, and I don't think you want to do that. 1
jkwilliams Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: More specifically...the church is treating members of the same exact family differently based solely on their generational entry into that family. The child of a SS marriage can not be baptized and must disavow the marriage of their parents while the parents of the bride's or husband's engaged in a SS marriage can publically support SSM and Hold a temple recommend. Sorry folks but this make ZERO sense Yep. What happens if a child disavows gay marriage, gets baptized, and then 5 years later has a change of heart and supports gay marriage?
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Yep. What happens if a child disavows gay marriage, gets baptized, and then 5 years later has a change of heart and supports gay marriage? I guess you give em their Temple Recommend...cuz only unbaptized children have to pay any consequences... 1
JAHS Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: What about sincere active members who are struggling with this? You seem to be making a judgment about their faith, and I don't think you want to do that. I guess I am just more willing to trust the inspiration and wisdom of the Church leaders on this than others are.
stemelbow Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: More specifically...the church is treating members of the same exact family differently based solely on their generational entry into that family. The child of a SS marriage can not be baptized and must disavow the marriage of their parents while the parents of the bride's or husband's engaged in a SS marriage can publically support SSM and Hold a temple recommend. Sorry folks but this make ZERO sense It is idiotic. what if a child raised in SS family turns 18 and disavows their parents relationship in order to get baptized and then some time later goes back on that disavowal? 2
stemelbow Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Yep. What happens if a child disavows gay marriage, gets baptized, and then 5 years later has a change of heart and supports gay marriage? Oops. That's what I just kinda said. Should have read further.
jkwilliams Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, JAHS said: I guess I am just more willing to trust the inspiration and wisdom of the Church leaders on this than others are. You said active sincere members "will" accept. Have you never struggled with a teaching or policy? I would think some understanding is needed.
JAHS Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: You said active sincere members "will" accept. Have you never struggled with a teaching or policy? I would think some understanding is needed. I do understand that some who are directly involved with this might struggle with it. I certainly have had questions about a few policies and doctrines in the church but not to the point that I let them jeopardize my faith and testimony of the gospel, which many seem to be doing.
Jeanne Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: What about sincere active members who are struggling with this? You seem to be making a judgment about their faith, and I don't think you want to do that. I believe there are these kind of members than we may think. Some are just quiet.
The Nehor Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: I guess you give em their Temple Recommend...cuz only unbaptized children have to pay any consequences... If you only think in purely secular consequences I agree. I do not think that way. This is not isolated policy of raising the bar more to get in then we do to stay in. Once someone is in the Church we tend to give greater leeway then we would someone trying to join so we can avoid setting them up to fail. If a member becomes an alcoholic we do not generally immediately excommunicate them just for that but if an alcoholic wants to join we will usually not allow it until their life changes. If a member doubts the reality of the First Vision we do not boot them but if a prospective member comes to the baptismal interview and doubts that same reality we will not baptize them. Treating both equally would mean mass excommunications which, considering how our opponents howl over them, is not what they claim they want. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted May 25, 2016 Author Posted May 25, 2016 20 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If you only think in purely secular consequences I agree. I do not think that way. This is not isolated policy of raising the bar more to get in then we do to stay in. Once someone is in the Church we tend to give greater leeway then we would someone trying to join so we can avoid setting them up to fail. If a member becomes an alcoholic we do not generally immediately excommunicate them just for that but if an alcoholic wants to join we will usually not allow it until their life changes. If a member doubts the reality of the First Vision we do not boot them but if a prospective member comes to the baptismal interview and doubts that same reality we will not baptize them. Treating both equally would mean mass excommunications which, considering how our opponents howl over them, is not what they claim they want. Wow... (never thought I'd ever say this regarding one of your posts but) Excellent point...
CV75 Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I think the conflict is or should be obvious: you have two groups of adults, one of which is free to support same-sex marriage, and one who is not. I'm not sure how you get around that. No conflict is so facile, and all are free to support ssm anyway, so that’s not even a reasonable point of conflict. The only thing to get around is one’s personal conflict, whatever that might be for some, with the conditions for baptism, missionary service and temple recommends. The Church definitely takes a strong stand against apostasy and setting one up for apostasy when his upbringing has so undermined and sabotaged his godly walk and conversation so as to risk the degradation of civil support into apostasy. To assert otherwise is to disrespect and ignore childhood innocence, dependency and vulnerability and the doctrines of accountability and children having claim upon their parents for their maintenance and spiritual education. Note how the word "obvious" is thrown around on this page alone. Doesn't that betray a fairly closed paradigm, fertile ground for conflict?
Recommended Posts