Apparently new policy is no longer

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Being baptized is never a unilateral decision. Baptismal candidates, whoever they may be, are always subject to the decision of a priesthood holder empowered to determine their readiness and ability to enter into that sacred covenant.

As to the matter at hand, we have an instance of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, acting in their authority, determining, under revelation from God, that for children who are obliged to live under certain domestic circumstances, baptism should delayed until those circumstances change.

 

You're right. The individual must decide to be baptized and the judge (whether the bishop or a missionary) determines whether or not they qualify for baptism. In this case the Q15 have determined a policy that dictates situations when a child cannot be baptized.

Can we agree that the judge and/or policy makers will be accountable for who they accept and who they prohibit from being baptized?

 

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, the Zoramite refusal to let the poor worship with them was sinful. 

But only because they were excluding them based on their poverty, right?  In other places in the BOM Alma himself talks about valid reasons to exclude someone from worshipping with the church so we know that he doesn't believe it's always sinful and therefore wouldn't be teaching such in this chapter.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right. The individual must decide to be baptized and the judge (whether the bishop or a missionary) determines whether or not they qualify for baptism. In this case the Q15 have determined a policy that dictates situations when a child cannot be baptized.

Can we agree that the judge and/or policy makers will be accountable for who they accept and who they prohibit from being baptized?

 

I would think "policy makers" would not be under condemnation for implementing a measure they were divinely directed to implement.

By the way, there is no "Quorum of 15." There is a First Presidency and there is a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Together, they constitute a council called the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Baptism, and the baptism of minors, is already handled on a case by case basis. 

Not when the minor lives with parents who are gay.  They are all denied baptism.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 I would think "policy makers" would not be under condemnation for implementing a measure they were divinely directed to implement.

By the way, there is no "Quorum of 15." There is a First Presidency and there is a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Together, they constitute a council called the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

 You crack me up. Yes, I realize there isn't a Q15 but I think you knew what I meant. Or were you confused?

You don't think "policy makers" would be accountable for the way they implement policy? Really? If God tells them in His thunderous voice to have a policy blocking the children of gays from being baptized, and they didn't implement the policy, would they not be accountable? Likewise if they implement that policy and God didn't tell them, would they be accountable? Accountability can be both positive and negative.

*Note- I originally said "accountable". You changed it to "condemnation". Those words mean different things. Condemnation presupposes a certain judgment whereas accountability simply acknowledges responsibility, either good or bad.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can we agree that the judge and/or policy makers will be accountable for who they accept and who they prohibit from being baptized?

I think that if they are sincere in their reasons for prohibition, and more so, if they are sincerely trying to follow the Spirit and sincerely believe they are doing what God wants them to do, that Christ will be merciful towards them should they turn out to be wrong.  That's what i hope for myself so i can't find any reason to hope less for others.

Others probably disagree, but i think this could be one of those situations where we have to be careful not to be demanding justice for others while we hope and expect mercy for ourselves. Because we all have the power to really mess people up with the things we say and the examples we set.  Sometimes we deserve to be held accountable for those disasters but sometimes we do it accidentally-with the best of intentions but our weaknesses interfere and cause harm.  

Are we reading to hope that we will be held accountable for every bad consequence we create with sincere good intentions?  Would we be excited about the idea that each poster will be held accountable by God for who they lead away from the truth because they posted things that turned out to be false but that they sincerely believed were true at the time?

I wouldn't want that for any of us.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But only because they were excluding them based on their poverty, right?  In other places in the BOM Alma himself talks about valid reasons to exclude someone from worshipping with the church so we know that he doesn't believe it's always sinful and therefore wouldn't be teaching such in this chapter.

 

The Zoramites cast out people who were poor in substance as well as those who were poor in spirit. Maybe they were all the same people, maybe not. But I don't think poverty is the only sinful reason to cast people out of the churches and synagogues.

Alma talks about blotting names out of sinners so that they are no longer associated with the church of God. However, that doesn't really apply to innocent children, does it?

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not when the minor lives with parents who are gay.  They are all denied baptism.

I think you're conflating policy and practice. The policy is also applied individually to individual cases. For example, the policy does not apply to those minors living with gay parents who were already baptized, ordained, etc. at the time of its issuance, and I believe exceptions can be made to the policy in certain extenuating circumstances that I can think of.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The Zoramites cast out people who were poor in substance as well as those who were poor in spirit. Maybe they were all the same people, maybe not. But I don't think poverty is the only sinful reason to cast people out of the churches and synagogues.

Can you provide the scripture that says that?  I'm trying to remember off of the top of my head but i was thinking that the people were poor in spirit because they were poor had been cast out.  And i agree that poverty's not the only reason.  But since the story of the zoramites is specifically about kicking people out for being poor, I don't think that we can logically use it to teach anything about this topic.  Because the church isn't kicking anyone out because they are poor, this discussion isn't relevant to Alma's teachings in that story.

Quote

However, that doesn't really apply to innocent children, does it?

No, but since the church has no policy where innocent children are excommunicated that question isn't relevant to the discussion either.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you're conflating policy and practice.

No, I'm stating a fact.  The decision to baptize a minor who is living with their gay parents, is not decided on a case by case basis.  Or do you disagree?

Unless things change and this policy is altered or removed, this is what the leaders have directed for now.

.

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not all that different. The Church would not have baptized her without her parents' permission, so, in effect, the Church required the delay.

C'mon Scott, you honest don't see a significant difference here?  The Church respecting a parental rights over their minor child vs the Church telling a child (who has parental permission) that they may not be baptized because of the sins of their parents?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

Quote

Bluebell- Can you provide the scripture that says that?  I'm trying to remember off of the top of my head but i was thinking that the people were poor in spirit because they were poor had been cast out.  And i agree that poverty's not the only reason.  But since the story of the zoramites is specifically about kicking people out for being poor, I don't think that we can logically use it to teach anything about this topic.  Because the church isn't kicking anyone out because they are poor, this discussion isn't relevant to Alma's teachings in that story.

This one says "poor in heart", not "poor in spirit" but I think contextually they would be similar meanings. I don't know that we can determine that one caused the other. In both cases, a church is casting out a segment of society so I think the comparison is apt.

Quote

Alma 32:3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.

 

Quote

No, but since the church has no policy where innocent children are excommunicated that question isn't relevant to the discussion either.

Why would a child have to be excommunicated to be excluded? A child is cast out from full worship by the church. The child can not worship by making and keeping covenants or receiving ordinances, regardless of how much they and their parents want them to. It's a unilateral decision made by the church to exclude them. The Zoramites cast out a group of people just as our church is casting out a group of people. One might claim that the casting out is justified, but one cannot claim that there is no casting out. It didn't say the Zoramites excommunicated the people before they cast them out, only that they cast them out. This totally applies to children.

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 You crack me up. Yes, I realize there isn't a Q15 but I think you knew what I meant. Or were you confused?

I'm glad you realize that.

I think there is a possibility, though, that some might be misled by your  "Q15" shorthand and might think there is such a thing as a "Quorum of 15." Hence my setting the record straight.

Quote

You don't think "policy makers" would be accountable for the way they implement policy? Really? If God tells them in His thunderous voice to have a policy blocking the children of gays from being baptized, and they didn't implement the policy, would they not be accountable? Likewise if they implement that policy and God didn't tell them, would they be accountable? Accountability can be both positive and negative.

I'm confused by your question.

Yes, of course "policy makers" will be accountable to God for putting a policy in place after He tells them to do so. I thought I had said as much.

And yes, it would work the other way too, but that's a moot point as pertaining to the discussion at hand, as we know from the statement of President Nelson that there was revealed direction to make the policy.

Quote

*Note- I originally said "accountable". You changed it to "condemnation". Those words mean different things. Condemnation presupposes a certain judgment whereas accountability simply acknowledges responsibility, either good or bad.

If one is accountable to God to do a thing and then fails to do it, one is thereby under condemnation -- unless he repents, of course.

I guess I don't understand the distinction you are endeavoring to draw here.

Edited to add:

I was using the word condemnation in a scriptural sense. Perhaps it will help you get my meaning if I paste in this entry from the Church's "Guide to the Scriptures":

 

Quote

 

Condemn, Condemnation

See also Judge, Judgment; Judgment, the Last

To judge or be judged guilty by God.

• God will condemn a man of wicked devices:Prov. 12:2;
• We are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world:1 Cor. 11:32;
• Our words, works, and thoughts will condemn us:Alma 12:14;
• By knowing things and not doing them, men come under condemnation:Hel. 14:19;
• If we should cease to labor, we should be brought under condemnation:Moro. 9:6;
• He that forgives not his brother stands condemned before the Lord:D&C 64:9;
• He who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation:D&C 82:3;
• The whole Church is under condemnation until they repent and remember the Book of Mormon:D&C 84:54–57;

 

•  

Edited September 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

C'mon Scott, you honest don't see a significant difference here?  The Church respecting a parental rights over their minor child vs the Church telling a child (who has parental permission) that they may not be baptized because of the sins of their parents?

"Significant" is a comparative term. I didn't say there was no difference. I said the situations are somewhat similar. And it may be that in the mind of a child or youth the difference is not as great as you or others perceive it to be.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm confused by your question.

Yes, of course "policy makers" will be accountable to God for putting a policy in place after He tells them to do so. I thought I had said as much.

I asked if they will be accountable and you said they will not be condemned but it appears we're on the same page now. We both believe "policy makers" will be accountable to God.

And yes, it would work the other way too, but that's a moot point as pertaining to the discussion at hand, as we know from the statement of President Nelson that there was revealed direction to make the policy.

Quote

*Note- I originally said "accountable". You changed it to "condemnation". Those words mean different things. Condemnation presupposes a certain judgment whereas accountability simply acknowledges responsibility, either good or bad.

If one is accountable to God to do a thing and then fails to do it, one is thereby under condemnation -- unless he repents, of course.

I guess I don't understand the distinction you are endeavoring to draw here.

The confusion comes from your original answer. Policy makers will be accountable to God (we agree on that) and that accountability will not necessarily result in condemnation. I was merely trying to understand your answer because you were answering about condemnation, not accountability.

But we agree. The policy makers will be accountable. That's the answer to my simple question

 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Significant" is a comparative term. I didn't say there was no difference. I said the situations are somewhat similar. And it may be that in the mind of a child or youth the difference is not as great as you perceive it to me.

You don't view it as a significant difference between the church upholding and supporting a parental choice and the church rejecting a parental choice and not supporting the parental wishes?

For the child to be baptized the parent must approve. I think we all agree on that. In one case the church supports that choice, in the other case the church rejects that choice. That seems like a significant difference.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This one says "poor in heart", not "poor in spirit" but I think contextually they would be similar meanings. I don't know that we can determine that one caused the other. In both cases, a church is casting out a segment of society so I think the comparison is apt.

Are you saying that the scriptures show that the zoramites would have kicked out a rich person from their church, if that person had been poor in heart?  I'm not sure if i'm understanding you correctly?

Regardless though, the church is not 'casting out a segment of society'.  The church is not excommunicating or otherwise baring gays or the children of SSMarried parents from attending church.  That's what was happening with the zoramites but that's not what's happening here.

Quote

Why would a child have to be excommunicated to be excluded?

The verse you were specifically speaking about was about excommunication.  I answered your question based on the verse you quoted.  If the verse isn't relevant (if we have to change 'excommunicated' to 'excluded' for example) than we probably shouldn't use it to try to make a point.

Quote

A child is cast out from full worship by the church. The child can not worship by making and keeping covenants or receiving ordinances, regardless of how much they and their parents want them to. It's a unilateral decision made by the church to exclude them.

This kind of language just comes across like hyperbole to me.  I think these kinds of discussions go so much better when we use language that accurately reflects the situation but does not attempt to illicit an emotional response and isn't emotionally charged.  Phrases like "a child is cast out..." can come across silly sometimes.

Quote

The Zoramites cast out a group of people just as our church is casting out a group of people. One might claim that the casting out is justified, but one cannot claim that there is no casting out. 

There is no casting out.  People are not barred from attending or removed from attending if they make it in the door.  That is what the scriptures mean when they say the zoramites cast out the poor.  The church is not doing that, though.

[Jeanne]

Good to know.  Policy makers will be held accountable.  I can't get over the fact that if I am to accept in my mind a policy and/or revelation I have to picture the Savior..turning his back on a child.  That I cannot do  And for all the reasons the church and it's leaders have for this policy...none can compensate for that picture in my mind.  It is wrong.  They are accountable.  If it isn't changed, I want to be a fly on the wall on judgement day. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

Bluebell- Are you saying that the scriptures show that the zoramites would have kicked out a rich person from their church, if that person had been poor in heart?  I'm not sure if i'm understanding you correctly?

The scripture doesn't say if they would have kicked out a rich person or not. It's unclear I'm not sure why that matters. But it appears they cast out people for more reasons than just being poor.

Regardless though, the church is not 'casting out a segment of society'.  The church is not excommunicating or otherwise baring gays or the children of SSMarried parents from attending church.  That's what was happening with the zoramites but that's not what's happening here.

Of course the church is casting out a segment of society. It is excommunicating "apostates" in SSM and denying their children access to full worship. I never claimed the church is excommunicating kids. I'm not sure why you're fixated on that. But the church can cast out existing members by excommunication; that's true. They can also cast out unbaptized members by refusing to allow them to be a part of the community. They may be allowed to attend, but they don't have a church record, they don't have home teachers, they aren't permitted any saving ordinances. The effect is that both the adult and the child are cast out, even though the administrative method may be different.

Quote

Why would a child have to be excommunicated to be excluded?

The verse you were specifically speaking about was about excommunication.  I answered your question based on the verse you quoted.  If the verse isn't relevant (if we have to change 'excommunicated' to 'excluded' for example) than we probably shouldn't use it to try to make a point.

No it wasn't. Alma 32:3 isn't about excommunication. "3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart."

This kind of language just comes across like hyperbole to me.  I think these kinds of discussions go so much better when we use language that accurately reflects the situation but does not attempt to illicit an emotional response and isn't emotionally charged.  Phrases like "a child is cast out..." can come across silly sometimes.

How is it hyperbole. "Cast out" is based on the scriptural example we're using and how it applies here. I am accurately describing the restrictions a child with gay parents faces. I suppose you may not like that I characterize it as casting out, or as a rejection by the church, but that's the practical impact of the policy. A segment of the population is literally cast out or rejected by the church, meaning that they are unable to participate in worship. They're allowed to enter the building and they can listen but they can't be baptized, they are literally prohibited from being a member of the church, they can't take the sacrament, receive the priesthood, attend the temple. They can't pray, they can't give talks or participate in any other way that is afforded to members of the church. I think you are having a negative reaction to "cast out" because it is such an abhorrent idea/behavior and it's difficult to rationalize the church doing it.

There is no casting out.  People are not barred from attending or removed from attending if they make it in the door.  That is what the scriptures mean when they say the zoramites cast out the poor.  The church is not doing that, though.

The Zoramites cast out the poor by barring them from worship. The church is doing exactly that, as I explained above.

 

 

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

No, I'm stating a fact.  The decision to baptize a minor who is living with their gay parents, is not decided on a case by case basis.  Or do you disagree?

Unless things change and this policy is altered or removed, this is what the leaders have directed for now.

.

You can state one fact and ignore contradicting facts by conflating policy and practice. The fact is, all these facts represent a fuller, clearer picture. And then there’s objectivity and subjectivity that have to work together as well in the perception, perspective on, definition and assembly of facts. So I disagree with you there. I don't think you're getting the fuller picture as I laid it out.

These are case by case decisions because there are extenuating circumstances where exceptions can be made. This cannot be done without applying the policy to individual requests. So I disagree with you there as well.

Now if you want to believe otherwise, knock yourself out, but it would be contrary to the gestalt of the facts.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

C'mon Scott, you honest don't see a significant difference here?  The Church respecting a parental rights over their minor child vs the Church telling a child (who has parental permission) that they may not be baptized because of the sins of their parents?

I don't think that is how the request for child baptism is made, nor what the child is told.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You can state one fact and ignore contradicting facts by conflating policy and practice. The fact is, all these facts represent a fuller, clearer picture. And then there’s objectivity and subjectivity that have to work together as well in the perception, perspective on, definition and assembly of facts. So I disagree with you there. I don't think you're getting the fuller picture as I laid it out.

 

These are case by case decisions because there are extenuating circumstances where exceptions can be made. This cannot be done without applying the policy to individual requests. So I disagree with you there as well.

The case by case decisions only relate to the minors who have already been baptized prior to the implementation of this new policy (such as giving them the Priesthood, advancements, etc.).  Also each case will be looked at (by church leaders) after a child is no longer a minor and desires baptism.  So I agree those will be case by case decisions.

There is no case by case decision regarding an unbaptized minor determining whether or not they will be allowed to be baptized.  You are the one who seems confused about this, not I.

Or do you believe there can be "individual requests" granted for one of these minors to be baptized?  If so, I have not heard that this is possible.  Do you have a source for that?

.

Edited September 13, 2016 by ALarson

[bluebell]

HJW-

Quote

But it appears they cast out people for more reasons than just being poor.

It doesn't appear that they cast out people for more reasons than just being poor though.  You can't provide any examples of them doing so.  The only scripture that even talks about it talks about how they are poor in spirit after they have been denied access.

It matters because this scriptural story isn't really relevant to the topic.  It's a story about people being kicked out of a false church for being poor and how the prophet uses their humility to teach them the gospel.  There's not much we can take from that that relates to what we are talking about.

Quote

Of course the church is casting out a segment of society. It is excommunicating "apostates" in SSM

The story of the zoramites casting out the poor is not the same as the church excommunicating apostates.  

Quote

denying their children access to full worship

The story of the zoramtimes casting out the poor is not the same as the church allowing children to attend church but not being baptized.

Quote

How is it hyperbole. "Cast out" is based on the scriptural example we're using and how it applies here.

Not being allowed to attend church is not the same as not being allowed to be baptized but still attend.  It seems obvious that if you are allowed to attend church, you are not being treated like the zoramites treated the poor.

Quote

The Zoramites cast out the poor by barring them from worship. The church is doing exactly that, as I explained above.

You are playing really fast and loose with the definition of 'worship' to make your point work. You don't need to have access to the ordinances to worship God.  That's why i don't find your explanations convincing.   

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Quote

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You can state one fact and ignore contradicting facts by conflating policy and practice. The fact is, all these facts represent a fuller, clearer picture. And then there’s objectivity and subjectivity that have to work together as well in the perception, perspective on, definition and assembly of facts. So I disagree with you there. I don't think you're getting the fuller picture as I laid it out.

 

These are case by case decisions because there are extenuating circumstances where exceptions can be made. This cannot be done without applying the policy to individual requests. So I disagree with you there as well.

 

Now if you want to believe otherwise, knock yourself out, but it would be contrary to the gestalt of the facts.

Quote

 

ALarson- The case by case decisions only relate to the minors who have already been baptized prior to the implementation of this new policy (such as giving them the Priesthood, advancement, etc.).  Also each case will be looked at (by church leaders) after a child is no longer a minor and desires baptism.  So I agree those will be case by case decsions.

There is no case by case decision regarding an unbaptized minor determining whether or not they will be allowed to be baptized.  You are the one who seems confused about this, not I.

Or do you believe there can be "individual requests" granted for one of these minors to be baptized?  If so, I have not heard that this is possible.  Do you have a source for that?

 

 

ALarson is exactly right in his explanation of the policy as written. Some handbook policies are open for exceptions at a local level. Others are not. I've seen nothing to suggest that this policy is open to local exceptions but of course the First Presidency and Q12 can make any exception they like.

CV75 seems convinced local leaders can make exceptions. What is the basis for this? Hope? Rationalization? Or is there some kind of evidence or statement that would suggest this? If you're suggesting that leaders are ignoring the policy, you may be right. I hope you are. But I haven't seen any evidence of that and "ignoring" is not exactly the same thing as "getting and exception".

 

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Good to know.  Policy makers will be held accountable.  I can't get over the fact that if I am to accept in my mind a policy and/or revelation I have to picture the Savior..turning his back on a child.  That I cannot do  And for all the reasons the church and it's leaders have for this policy...none can compensate for that picture in my mind.  It is wrong.  They are accountable.  If it isn't changed, I want to be a fly on the wall on judgement day. 

Why do you have to picture the Savior turning his back on a child? 

My family brings a little 8 year-old boy to church every week. His mother is a convert who abruptly said she didn't want any contact hours before she was to teach a primary class (she had been called to teach with my wife so she could learn the ropes. It is the oldest primary class [11 turning 12], and had great kids --- really ideal for a convert). My wife made a point of teaching her for a month how to teach and including her in the planning and teaching so she could see how it is done. When we were going to be out of town for a couple of weeks, she asked her to teach the next two lessons, and she said she would. Hours before church, she severed ties with the Church --- pretty clearly, to us, because she got stage fright but didn't want to admit to that. She is also into LGBT rights and has tattoos to that affect (and spoke of getting more, specifically about gay rights), although she isn't aware of the Church's stance on that (she would have told us if that played any part in her distancing. She would not have had any inhibition of being plainspoken about that). She has resisted any attempts to get her to talk about it. The funny thing is, shortly after this happened, she asked us if we could bring her son to Church and activities because she wants him to be taught and fully included --- while making it clear that she isn't interested in coming. He is a super nice boy who loves everything about the Church. His birth father won't permit him to be baptized until he is 18, so he is facing 10 years of attendance and participation without being able to receive any ordinances. 

How is his plight any different from the very small handful of children under this policy whose married gay parents want to continue to come to church? If Church members and organizations are welcoming and encouraging to this very small handful of children (even though, like this little boy, they can't receive ordinances) --- and they would be --- how does this denote Jesus turning his back on a child?