“Religious freedom is indeed under attack,” Elder Christofferson

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

It happens all the time. They commit adultery, break up their current family and want a legal marriage to start another one. Don't see the church pushing to change the law to not allow adulterers from getting married. 

Besides this his new policy/revelation came AFTER gay marriage was legal. 

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by california boy

[kllindley]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

Well, people don't usually force bakers, florists, and photographers to celebrate and take pictures of them committing adultery.  More seriously, adultery is rarely a public, life-long commitment.  I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a man would say: "I am am married to Jane, but I regularly have sex with Sister Jones, and I believe that regardless of what you say, God approves of my relationships.  And I'm proud to be showing my children that I can be happy committing adultery.  However, I want them baptized into a church where they will hear that my lifestyle is somehow less righteous than monogamy." 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, people don't usually force bakers, florists, and photographers to celebrate and take pictures of them committing adultery.  More seriously, adultery is rarely a public, life-long commitment.  I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a man would say: "I am am married to Jane, but I regularly have sex with Sister Jones, and I believe that regardless of what you say, God approves of my relationships.  And I'm proud to be showing my children that I can be happy committing adultery.  However, I want them baptized into a church where they will hear that my lifestyle is somehow less righteous than monogamy." 

According to Jesus, remarriage after divorce is adultery. So bakers who balk at baking cakes for gay couples are often serving adulterers without a twinge of conscience. 

But you're right - adultery isn't tied up with a protected class, or a soon to be protected class.  Bakers are forced to bake cakes for mix-race marriages, though. I'm sure at one point people thought that was an affront to religious freedom too. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Gray

[california boy]

51 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.  

 

Ok, lets go with your changing the question  Where in the gospel of Christ did He teach we should "postpone" baptism of children because the parents are in "open rebellion against a fundamental doctrine of the church"??   Should the church start to interview the parents of all children seeking baptism to make sure their parents are not "open rebellion against a fundamental doctrine of the church" before allowing  children to be baptized?  Should the church prohibit the children of ALL members who are supportive of gay marriage??? Where did Christ ever teach that baptism for ANYONE is based on the faithfulness of their parents or ANYONE elses attitudes towards fundamental doctrine of the church??  Because this is still looking like it is going against the very core of the gospel that Christ taught. Now do you see how ridiculous this all sounds??

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, people don't usually force bakers, florists, and photographers to celebrate and take pictures of them committing adultery.  More seriously, adultery is rarely a public, life-long commitment.  I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a man would say: "I am am married to Jane, but I regularly have sex with Sister Jones, and I believe that regardless of what you say, God approves of my relationships.  And I'm proud to be showing my children that I can be happy committing adultery.  However, I want them baptized into a church where they will hear that my lifestyle is somehow less righteous than monogamy." 

All this is hunky dory...but hey...it is all sin. I don't think God bases the level of sin on cakes.

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, people don't usually force bakers, florists, and photographers to celebrate and take pictures of them committing adultery.  More seriously, adultery is rarely a public, life-long commitment.  I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a man would say: "I am am married to Jane, but I regularly have sex with Sister Jones, and I believe that regardless of what you say, God approves of my relationships.  And I'm proud to be showing my children that I can be happy committing adultery.  However, I want them baptized into a church where they will hear that my lifestyle is somehow less righteous than monogamy."

If you could find ONE SINGLE baker in the entire country that interviews their clients to see if they are free of sin before baking a cake for them then you would have a point.  Do bakers routinely ask their customers if they are currently living together before agreeing to bake them a cake?  Do bakers routinely ask their customers if they have been divorced before agreeing to bake them a cake?  

Are  you telling me that you have never heard of someone committing adultery wanting their children to be baptized???  And have you ever heard the church issue a policy stating that anyone who is having sex outside of marriage will not be allowed to have their children baptized?  Would a missionary refuse to baptize a child of a couple that is living in adultery?  Because on my mission I knew families who the husband was still legally married to his first wife and was living with another woman.  Actually they had been living together for over 10 years.  They had 4 children and no one had a problem baptizing their children.  Do you think they should have been allowed to be baptized??

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds??

I see how it could seem ridiculous if not correctly understood, and as I already said, to understand this issue correctly you would need to understand what is involved as Christ understands it.

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I see how it could seem ridiculous if not correctly understood, and as I already said, to understand this issue correctly you would need to understand what is involved as Christ understands it.

Ok then.  Explain it to me.  I am all ears.  How is denying baptism to children because of the sins of their parents in keeping with the gospel that Christ taught?

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you could find ONE SINGLE baker in the entire country that interviews their clients to see if they are free of sin before baking a cake for them then you would have a point.  Do bakers routinely ask their customers if they are currently living together before agreeing to bake them a cake?  Do bakers routinely ask their customers if they have been divorced before agreeing to bake them a cake?  

Are  you telling me that you have never heard of someone committing adultery wanting their children to be baptized???  And have you ever heard the church issue a policy stating that anyone who is having sex outside of marriage will not be allowed to have their children baptized?  Would a missionary refuse to baptize a child of a couple that is living in adultery?  Because on my mission I knew families who the husband was still legally married to his first wife and was living with another woman.  Actually they had been living together for over 10 years.  They had 4 children and no one had a problem baptizing their children.  Do you think they should have been allowed to be baptized??

I do a few cakes at work..I can just see me asking some redic questions here...hmmm...what kind of cake??  And..is this for an LDS wedding reception??  Have you repented of all your sins?  What flavor icing??? Oh..and are you currently in a relationship without marriage..are you straight?  Do you want this cake with two men...two women...oh both??? Delightful! 

[thesometimesaint]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

According to Jesus, remarriage after divorce is adultery. So bakers who balk at baking cakes for gay couples are often serving adulterers without a twinge of conscience. 

But you're right - adultery isn't tied up with a protected class, or a soon to be protected class.  Bakers are forced to bake cakes for mix-race marriages, though. I'm sure at one point people thought that was an affront to religious freedom too. 

Actually bakers aren't forced to serve anyone unless they serve the general public. It is perfectly legal for a baker to have a limited specific clientele. IE; Bake only for close friends.

[kllindley]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ok, lets go with your changing the question  Where in the gospel of Christ did He teach we should "postpone" baptism of children because the parents are in "open rebellion against a fundamental doctrine of the church"??   Should the church start to interview the parents of all children seeking baptism to make sure their parents are not "open rebellion against a fundamental doctrine of the church" before allowing  children to be baptized?  Should the church prohibit the children of ALL members who are supportive of gay marriage??? Where did Christ ever teach that baptism for ANYONE is based on the faithfulness of their parents or ANYONE elses attitudes towards fundamental doctrine of the church??  Because this is still looking like it is going against the very core of the gospel that Christ taught. Now do you see how ridiculous this all sounds??

Thanks.  Those are questions I can answer.  1) Christ has a very long history of delaying participation in the gospel to various people for various reasons.  Apostles forbidden to teach to gentiles.  Christ's conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well.  Church also has a policy against baptizing Muslim converts unless certain criteria are met.  2) We already do.  Minors of non-member parents aren't baptized willy-nilly. Parental support is necessary, and not some "I consent, whatever."  3) Maybe that's a future step.  Right now that seems unnecessary.  We're not talking about respecting other people's right to make decisions.  The issue is those who actually make the decisions. 4) See policy and prophetic explanation above.  5) No I don't see it as ridiculous.  

Look, I get that you disagree.  Have you always been as adamant about the wrongness of the policy regarding children of polygamous families?  How do you explain to an eight year old that they can never be sealed to their two daddies?  That unlike the children of cohabiting or other sinning parents, his parents can never repent and be sealed.  Never,  Not even in the afterlife.  That's a major distinction that opponents disingenuously fail to acknowledge.  

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Actually bakers aren't forced to serve anyone unless they serve the general public. It is perfectly legal for a baker to have a limited specific clientele. IE; Bake only for close friends.

Yes, of course

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thanks.  Those are questions I can answer.  1) Christ has a very long history of delaying participation in the gospel to various people for various reasons.  Apostles forbidden to teach to gentiles.  Christ's conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well.  Church also has a policy against baptizing Muslim converts unless certain criteria are met.  2) We already do.  Minors of non-member parents aren't baptized willy-nilly. Parental support is necessary, and not some "I consent, whatever."  3) Maybe that's a future step.  Right now that seems unnecessary.  We're not talking about respecting other people's right to make decisions.  The issue is those who actually make the decisions. 4) See policy and prophetic explanation above.  5) No I don't see it as ridiculous.  

Look, I get that you disagree.  Have you always been as adamant about the wrongness of the policy regarding children of polygamous families?  How do you explain to an eight year old that they can never be sealed to their two daddies?  That unlike the children of cohabiting or other sinning parents, his parents can never repent and be sealed.  Never,  Not even in the afterlife.  That's a major distinction that opponents disingenuously fail to acknowledge.  

Except, the examples you gave are not what this discussion is about.  You stated that the reason for the policy is because the parents are in open rebellion against a fundamental doctrine of the church".  The examples you gave have NOTHING to do with the sins or the open rebellion against a fundamental doctrine of the church.  So once again.  Show me where Christ ever taught that children should not be baptized based on how the parents are living their lives.

I had no idea that the church prevented baptism of a child because the parents were practicing polygamy.  Of course i think that is just as wrong and against the gospel Christ taught as denying children of gay couples baptism.  It is wrong to deny baptism to any child that has there parents consent and support.

If a gay couple promises parental support for their child's decision to be baptized, would the church then allow that child to be baptized????  And why is not allowing gay children to not be baptized now necessary?  Was there some kind of mass baptism of gay children wanting to be baptized??  If determining whether parents of gay couples are in open rebellion of church doctrine is the reason to prevent their children from being baptized since October, why wouldn't it be important for straight couples to not be in open rebellion against church doctrine since October as well??

You really think an 8 year old understands what sealing means????  Should the church not allow any children to be baptized if their parents can't be sealed??  Can you guarantee that any child's parents will be sealed in the afterlife?? Is that the criteria??

I do have to thank you for answering my questions.  I am trying to make some sense out of this policy.  I have been unable to. I just still have major problems with the logic of the answers you give.  If you can make any sense out of this policy, I would love to hear your answers.   Without understand the reason for this policy, is all I am feeling is that this policy/revelation was instituted solely to attack gay couples and based on prejudices and bigotry towards gay families.  Given the history of the church against gays, you can certainly understand how I would draw that conclusion.  If it is not a renewed attack against gay couples, I would like to find out the reason for this policy.  Because for me this stinks like the same kind of nonsense the church had against blacks.  I don't want to hear 20 or 50 or 100 years from now that these men were only products of their own prejudice and time they lived.  

[thesometimesaint]

Does this sound reasonable at all to you? Daddy and Daddy/Mommy and Mommy actively oppose the Church in regards to SSM, but we encourage and will support you(An 8 year old) if you want to get baptized into the Church.

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Does this sound reasonable at all to you? Daddy and Daddy/Mommy and Mommy actively oppose the Church in regards to SSM, but we encourage and will support you(An 8 year old) if you want to get baptized into the Church.

I actively oppose the church's position on gay marriage. They're happy to let my child be baptized, though. 

[kllindley]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is wrong to deny baptism to any child that has there parents consent and support.

I honestly want to understand where you are coming from.  You believe that it is morally wrong for a church that you do not believe to be true to deny baptism to any child with parental consent and support?  On what basis of morality?  

 

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

You really think an 8 year old understands what sealing means

Yes.  Our three children knew what sealing was enough to want it very badly when their adoptions were finalized at ages 4, 5, and 2.  Today (9, 7, 5) they place a lot of value in being sealed.  

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Should the church not allow any children to be baptized if their parents can't be sealed?

Not just can't be sealed right now.  Can't ever be sealed.  I.E. the kids cannot ever use Family Search to do family history because they weren't born to a man and a woman who may at some future point at least theoretically accept the gospel and be sealed.  

[kllindley]

California Boy,

I mean it just seems like you think the church is the moral equivalent of the KKK.  Fine.  I can accept that.  But doesn't it seem weird to then be furious when the KKK doesn't accept a white boy adopted by two black people to join?  You don't wonder why these black parents would support their 8 year old joining the KKK?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I actively oppose the church's position on gay marriage. They're happy to let my child be baptized, though.

Do you teach your child to do the same?

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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. 

It isn't a "sticking it to the child" kind of thing, though, at least not if the child wants to be baptized and the only reason the child isn't being baptized is because those with the authority to baptize have the authority to put the child's baptism on hold.  The child is then off the hook and treated as an pre-8 year old is, with it being no sin for the child to not be baptized.  

And postponing a boy's ordinations to offices in the priesthood isn't a form of punishment, either.  It would be kinda sweet for a boy or young man to see it that way, maybe, but not having the opportunity to serve the Lord in priesthood office duties doesn't mean the boy or young man can't serve the Lord in other ways, other than priesthood office duties.  Girls and women don't ever get ordained to priesthood offices and yet they can still serve the Lord in many, many ways.

You just need to be able to see all of these things in our Lord's perspective to be able to see that there really is nothing at all wrong with postponing a child's baptism and/or opportunities to perform priesthood office duties.

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you teach your child to do the same?

Too early to discuss it, as he wouldn't understand the issue. When he's old enough I'll share my feelings on the topic, allow him to come to his own conclusions.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Too early to discuss it, as he wouldn't understand the issue. When he's old enough I'll share my feelings on the topic, allow him to come to his own conclusions.

So after being baptized he will have to choose between his parents and his Church.

Yeah, I can't see why Church leaders consider this an issue.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Actually bakers aren't forced to serve anyone unless they serve the general public. It is perfectly legal for a baker to have a limited specific clientele. IE; Bake only for close friends.

Quote

 

Quote

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Or not.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So after being baptized he will have to choose between his parents and his Church.

Yeah, I can't see why Church leaders consider this an issue.

I hold many views that are quite divergent. Most people, when you get to know them, depart from orthodoxy on some issue or other - including you!

I can promise you that regardless of what measures are put into place to discourage gay families from attending church, the youth of the church are going to have gay friends, and have friends with gay parents, and they won't get what the big deal is about it. The sea change is coming for the church. It can't be stopped. It's a generational thing. 

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Ok then.  Explain it to me.  I am all ears.  How is denying baptism to children because of the sins of their parents in keeping with the gospel that Christ taught?

Postponing, I said.  It is not denying baptism to them.  It is just postponing it.

First try to correctly understand that it is only a delay before you try to understand the reason the proper authorities have decided that there should be a delay because of specific circumstances.

And yes I know that delays are not particularly fun, especially when someone wants to have something done to them or for them.  

I've been in the hospital for almost a week now waiting for my wife to have an operation and it hasn't been particularly fun waiting for it.  But my wife didn't do anything wrong to cause the delay and there have been good reasons for all of this waiting.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

The sea change is coming for the church. It can't be stopped. It's a generational thing.

On that we agree.
The Church relationship with homosexuals WILL change.

But then I believe in a Church that will make more and more mistakes before God will read us the riot act.  I don't believe in a Church that is perfect now or will become perfect prior to the return of Christ.

Scripture and prophecy are clear.

Edited July 7, 2016 by JLHPROF