“Religious freedom is indeed under attack,” Elder Christofferson

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

So I guess it is safe to say religious freedom is indeed under attack.

You can guess if you want to but I'd like to know what you mean by safe.  There will always be disagreements.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Ahab

[rodheadlee]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

You can guess if you want to but I'd like to know what you mean by safe.  There will always be disagreements.

Indisputable.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Indisputable.

No, remember, there will always be disagreements.

Indisputable is one of what I call useless words.

[Gray]

Is this religious freedom thing the new red scare? It seems like the John Birch society all over again. 

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So I guess it is safe to say religious freedom is indeed under attack.

Never said it wasn't. But simple disagreements with some religion isn't an attack against that religion. My right to swing my righteous fist ends at your nose.

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Never said it wasn't. But simple disagreements with some religion isn't an attack against that religion. My right to swing my righteous fist ends at your nose.

The idea of an attack doesn't have to involve some kind of physical violence.  A heart attack, for example, isn't some kind of physical attack to a heart, but just the stopping of what would otherwise keep the heart beating.

But as I have already said, there will always be disagreements and on every issue we could ever discuss, including the meaning of words, such as attack, for example.

[consiglieri]

Ironic the Church keeps playing the victim card in light of the following:

 

You know the new Doctrinal Mastery program in seminary everybody is so excited about?

 

Guess what already made it into the manual?

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng

 

 

If you guessed President Nelson's proclamation that the November anti-gay marriage policy is revelation, you would be correct.

 

 

Quote

“This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation” (“Becoming True Millennials” [Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults, Jan. 10, 2016], broadcasts.lds.org).

 

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

You meant, or should have meant, it couldn't get any more clear.

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You meant, or should have meant, it couldn't get any more clear.

Oh...it is definitely clear.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Oh...it is definitely clear.

Some things areally just wrong, like gay marriage, and while it can be sad sometimes to hear about things that are wrong it's also good to be clear about what is wrong and how to correct such wrongs.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

Some things areally just wrong, like gay marriage, and while it can be sad sometimes to hear about things that are wrong it's also good to be clear about what is wrong and how to correct such wrongs.

And some things like refusing to baptize children because of the sins of their parents is just wrong. It is clear that doesn't come from God. You would have to completely ignore the entire message of Christ to swallow that one.  

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

The idea of an attack doesn't have to involve some kind of physical violence.  A heart attack, for example, isn't some kind of physical attack to a heart, but just the stopping of what would otherwise keep the heart beating.

But as I have already said, there will always be disagreements and on every issue we could ever discuss, including the meaning of words, such as attack, for example.

Sophistry.

[Ahab]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

And some things like refusing to baptize children because of the sins of their parents is just wrong. It is clear that doesn't come from God. You would have to completely ignore the entire message of Christ to swallow that one.  

Postponing rather than refusing, and to understand why they must wait you would need to understand the mind of Christ on why it is better that they wait in some specific circumstances.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ahab

[Ahab]

34 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Sophistry.

On your part, yes, otherwise you would be more open to understanding the many, many ways a person can attack another person or even themselves.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Postponing rather than refusing, and to understand why thry must eait you would need to understand the mind of Christ on why it is better that they wait in some specific circumstances.

OK I will bite.  Where in the gospel of Christ did He teach we should "postpone" baptism of children because of the sins of their parents??   And if the criteria of whether to baptize children is based on whether the parents are sinning, then why are any children baptized?  Should the church start to interview the parents of all children seeking baptism to make sure their parents are not sinning before allowing  children to be baptized?  Where did Christ ever teach that baptism for ANYONE is based on the sins of their parents or ANYONE else sins??  Because this is still looking like it is going against the very core of the gospel that Christ taught. Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds??

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

OK I will bite.  Where in the gospel of Christ did He teach we should "postpone" baptism of children because of the sins of their parents??   And if the criteria of whether to baptize children is based on whether the parents are sinning, then why are any children baptized?  Should the church start to interview the parents of all children seeking baptism to make sure their parents are not sinning before allowing  children to be baptized?  Where did Christ ever teach that baptism for ANYONE is based on the sins of their parents or ANYONE else sins??  Because this is still looking like it is going against the very core of the gospel that Christ taught. Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds??

No.  I don't.  The fact that you insist that it is ridiculous and wrong and that no well-meaning, rational person could possibly believe this is the will of God and that it makes sense, reflects poorly on you.  I can simultaneously believe that this policy was inspired and necessary, and understand how others would find it hurtful and exclusionary.  

This has nothing to do with "sin."  It has to do with open rebellion against a fundamental doctrine of the Church.  So your first question is irrelevant.  There is no case of postponing baptism because of the sins of their parents currently or historically.  Thus the follow-up questions are equally irrelevant.  

 

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No.  I don't.  The fact that you insist that it is ridiculous and wrong and that no well-meaning, rational person could possibly believe this is the will of God and that it makes sense, reflects poorly on you.  I can simultaneously believe that this policy was inspired and necessary, and understand how others would find it hurtful and exclusionary.  

This has nothing to do with "sin."  It has to do with open rebellion against a fundamental doctrine of the Church.  So your first question is irrelevant.  There is no case of postponing baptism because of the sins of their parents currently or historically.  Thus the follow-up questions are equally irrelevant.  

 

Why is gay marriage open rebellion against the doctrine of the church is a way that, say, adultery is not? 

[thesometimesaint]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

On your part, yes, otherwise you would be more open to understanding the many, many ways a person can attack another person or even themselves.

I never said there weren't. Only that the most obvious is a hit on the nose. In the context of this message board an Ad Hominem attack is also repugnant.

[Jeanne]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

And some things like refusing to baptize children because of the sins of their parents is just wrong. It is clear that doesn't come from God. You would have to completely ignore the entire message of Christ to swallow that one.  

True..and this was my point.  Sticking it to the kids is a whole different ball game to me.  I don't particularly like making everyone apostates either..but they have that right as a particular doctrine.  To keep that doctrine and not penalize those who live in sin (hetro) should be fair.  I just don;t understand the gymnastics of the whole thing. 

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

True..and this was my point.  Sticking it to the kids is a whole different ball game to me.  I don't particularly like making everyone apostates either..but they have that right as a particular doctrine.  To keep that doctrine and not penalize those who live in sin (hetro) should be fair.  I just don;t understand the gymnastics of the whole thing. 

It isn't sticking it to kids. Kids are under the direct control of their parents until they are 18 years old. We are commanded to reject all sin. Doesn't it seem weird to you that a SSM parent would push a child to be baptized into the Church?

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It isn't sticking it to kids. Kids are under the direct control of their parents until they are 18 years old. We are commanded to reject all sin. Doesn't it seem weird to you that a SSM parent would push a child to be baptized into the Church?

If the child attends with any member of the family..gay  OR NOT..and wants to be baptized..what good  reason is there to tell this child..NO!  Look at them in their eyes and tell them it is because of their parents..the very people who love them. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

Why is gay marriage open rebellion against the doctrine of the church is a way that, say, adultery is not? 

Are those engaged in adultery attempting to get their relationship recognized as appropriate by society?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are those engaged in adultery attempting to get their relationship recognized as appropriate by society?

They don't have to.  It may be a sin..but their sin is somewhat more acceptable.  Why...I don't know.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It isn't sticking it to kids. Kids are under the direct control of their parents until they are 18 years old. We are commanded to reject all sin. Doesn't it seem weird to you that a SSM parent would push a child to be baptized into the Church?

Children are under direct control of their parent until they are 18 UNLESS the parents are gay. Then the parents no longer have the choice to allow their child to be baptized. 

I would certainly let my child join the church if they were straight. Is it weird that I see value in the church if they are straight?  Which is exactly what I have done. Though Mark thinks I should be reported to child protection services for doing so because I am a bad parent. 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are those engaged in adultery attempting to get their relationship recognized as appropriate by society?

In many cases yes, depending on how you define adultery. See: polygamists and swingers.

Of course, children of polygamy are also banned. But not children of swingers, rapists, murderers, terrorists, etc. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Gray