Apparently new policy is no longer

[HappyJackWagon]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The church requires couples living together to be married before being baptized. I know no such who attend regularly but if they exist, they are in the same category.

The church doesn't label unmarried parents as apostates and refuse their children baby blessings, baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordination. That's a pretty significant and disparate treatment. You don't know anyone who attends church who have children out of wedlock? Seriously? They are not in the same category

Hate was too strong a word I admit that.

 

If I had chosen a lifestyle of remaining unmarried while fathering children I would never allow my children to attend our church.

That might be fine if you choose to make that decision for your family but it is quite different for the church to refuse to baptize your children or let them progress through priesthood ordinances.

Being gay is not a chosen lifestyle but having children while being gay is a chosen lifestyle.

Yes. Choosing to have a loving family is a lifestyle choice. It's a very good one. If only those gays would instead decide against having families so they can instead have empty, promiscuous relationships so they aren't labeled an apostate.

I cannot fail them the idea of sending my children to a church which opposes a lifestyle which I have freely chosen.

Wrong. The church opposes being gay (which you just said wasn't a lifestyle choice). It doesn't oppose the lifestyle of family. So you kind of got it backwards.

It would be like a conservative sending their children to a communist School. Why would anyone do that?

Absurd. It's more like a non-Mormon going to BYU or a Methodist attending a catholic high school.  Who would ever do that? Actually, a lot of people. It's nice to allow them the choice.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

 

2 Timothy 3

 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,unthankful, unholy,

 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

I think it's pretty much accepted that in the NT when it references last days, it means NT times.  They thought of themselves as being in the last days. 

This isn't very explicit in referring to homosexuality.  It seems like a stretch to say this is referring to a time when homosexuality will be embraced and practiced.  Oh well if that's wha tyou got, that's what you got. 

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

If we can't get the next generation on board, they (the next generation) will have to make some tough choices. In that, I agree. As for the Church, picking eternal truth is always an easy decision.

Their love and acceptance of our LGBT brothers and sisters, over dogma/policy, hasn't seemed to be a tough choice for the younger generation.  But I understand your perspective on it.

If you think that the Church choosing "eternal truth" is always an easy decision you might want to go back and re-read the entire text of OD1.  It wasn't easy and the fallout continues to this day.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

No, its telling them to turn away from the "Natural Man."

Not if their nature is being gay.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If this is going to be  in the end an actual revelation..please don't keep this from the teens.  Some of us have been there and done that already with things we were kept in the dark about.  Let's not repeat it. 

I was always under the impression that actual revelation had to be shared with the body of the church.  I thought that was the prophet's calling.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I like your addition

When these topics arise, I think that is the exact phrase we who understand the church policy, need to trumpet from the housetops

With that perspective, I just cannot understand why others don't see this as totally obvious.

The idea of a hopeless situation is counter-intuitive the the Atonement.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I was always under the impression that actual revelation had to be shared with the body of the church.  I thought that was the prophet's calling.

As I've stated before, it is odd that Pres. Monson has not shared his experience of receiving this revelation from God with the members of the church.   So far, he has been silent about it (as far as I know).

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

They moved it to the D&C Student Manual, as I understand it. I cannot see it in there as of yet (again this information is based on the report provided in Sky's post).

I guess we will just have to wait and see if it is actually added.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As I've stated before, it is odd that Pres. Monson has not shared his experience of receiving this revelation from God with the members of the church.   So far, he has been silent about it (as far as I know).

In all honestly I'd hate to force his hand.  We'd probably get something like what came from President Nelson.  Some will read into it as some clear direct God speaking to Him kind of way, even if it doesn't say as much. 

 

Pres Neslon:

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively, and then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

Doesn't get specific enough to say much other than, possibly, "the prophet feels inspired or compelled to go with certain decisions or ideas sometimes presented to him".  Not exactly a rousing endorsement of the Lord speaking directly to or through the prophet. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

To paraphrase mfb, “Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents [are in, and have placed their children in, a hopeless situation] is beyond me.”

As mentioned by others, placing their "children in a hopeless situation" totally ignores the concept of atonement. But there's an element to this that isn't often mentioned. It's the ex post facto implementation of a law (policy, rule, whatever)  and it's consequences on past behavior.

Quote

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

While we're not talking about legal consequences we are talking about serious consequences that are being applied to a situation and relationships, that in many cases is after the fact. IOW- a SS couple could already be living with children. The new law (rule, policy, whatever) is implemented making their past behavior unlawful and thus imposes a consequence that didn't previously exist. This is fundamentally unfair.

So I have more than a few problems with this policy.

1- It's fundamentally unfair because it is an ex post facto implementation of a rule and consequences based on past behavior and relationships

2- It represents a double standard. Children of these newly minted "apostates" are not treated like the children of other sinners, or even other apostates (with 1 exception)

3- Labeling SSM couples apostate encourages are more promiscuous lifestyle. Gays who are not in a SSM are not "apostate".

4- It has been labeled by Elder Nelson as a revelation, yet the person who supposedly received the revelation hasn't commented on it, not has any revelation been presented to the church for acceptance by common consent.

5- It creates a hostile church environment for gays and promotes bigotry by codifying intolerance.

6- By refusing children saving ordinances at the times other children would receive them, the church seems willing to push kids away and risk their salvation.

 

Frankly, this policy is soooo bad that it reminds me much more of Westboro than the LDS church.

 

[SteveO]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Frankly, this policy is soooo bad that it reminds me much more of Westboro than the LDS church.

 

 

Appeal to extremes much?

Good grief

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As mentioned by others, placing their "children in a hopeless situation" totally ignores the concept of atonement. But there's an element to this that isn't often mentioned. It's the ex post facto implementation of a law (policy, rule, whatever)  and it's consequences on past behavior.

No, it recognizes the atonement. The atonement offers the greatest hope and realization in the form of exaltation only by way of covenant. Otherwise the atonement offers only salvation.

There are many covenants, but none for same-sex marriage. So same-sex spouse-hood with its outgrowth of same-sex parenthood is an eternally hopeless situation, because it defies our doctrine and covenants; the participants willingly and willfully thus limit the reach of the atonement to their individual salvation.

The policy addresses the present situation, no matter how much or how much of the participants’ past behavior led to it. None of the child’s behavior certainly had anything to do with it, and so the child is saddled with a situation the Lord will help him deal with after the apostate parents spitefully calling for his baptism are done using him as a pawn or a prop.

Once some people suddenly find out their position was apostate, they repent.

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

5- It creates a hostile church environment for gays and promotes bigotry by codifying intolerance.

Good.
I hope the Church environment remains and always will remain hostile and bigoted against all sin and never stoops to tolerating sins.

It's the only way we will ever become like God who cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance (tolerance).
The day we start calling evil good we are in deep trouble as God's people.

Edited September 8, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

False dichotomy.

Embezzlement is not a lifestyle you are allegedly born into

Interesting you would compare being gay to crimes.

Seriously? Being gay is not a 'lifestyle' any more than being homosexual, korean, blond, or 6' 2". Gays are not 'allegedly' born, they're actual real people. You should meet some of them. 

As for the comparison to other sins, I gave three examples of sinful behavior - commit adultery, embezzle, deal drugs. Only two are crimes (in the US). 

So here's a few more non-criminal behaviors the church teaches are sinful: get a tattoo, drink coffee, watch porn, treat the sabbath like just another day, decline to pay a full tithe after being baptized.  I could go on and on. These are not false dichotomies. They're clear examples of behavior the church teaches is sinful and yet tons of people engage in. My point stands. If the principle really is to prevent children from being taught that their parents are sinners, well, there's very many children who are going to be kept out of the baptismal font (and subsequent ordinances, ordinations, spiritual experiences) until they are adults.

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The church requires couples living together to be married before being baptized. I know no such who attend regularly but if they exist, they are in the same category.

Hate was too strong a word I admit that.

If I had chosen a lifestyle of remaining unmarried while fathering children I would never allow my children to attend our church.

Being gay is not a chosen lifestyle but having children while being gay is a chosen lifestyle.

I cannot fail them the idea of sending my children to a church which opposes a lifestyle which I have freely chosen.

It would be like a conservative sending their children to a communist School. Why would anyone do that?

If you seriously can't understand such parents, I suggest you find some of them and ask. That is if you really want to know. Daniel2 posts on this board. Start with him.

From my view, the fundamental disconnect here is your (and others') thinking that gay parents *want* their children to be taught that a SS relationship is sinful. I rather doubt they do. But that doesn't mean they don't want their children to attend church for the 1,000s of other things the parents do want taught.

This really is not that hard. I'm struggling to see why you can't understand. Every parent faces situations where their children want to participate in some group, but it turns out that there are a few aspects of that group that the parent doesn't support. For example, my kids play baseball. As they get older, lots of their teammates start swearing. I still let them play. It's not because I somehow *want* them exposed to the profanity. It's that I (and their mother) have weighed the costs/benefits and concluded that on the whole the experience is worth it. I image that for a gay parent, sending their child to an LDS church is a similar calculation. The benefits outweigh the costs.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

If the principle really is to prevent children from being taught that their parents are sinners, well, there's very many children who are going to be kept out of the baptismal font (and subsequent ordinances, ordinations, spiritual experiences) until they are adults.

Another way of stating the principle it that it is to prevent children from being damaged by being immersed in two diametrically and irreconcilably opposed environments, each governed by love but one cemented by subjection to divine covenant ("obedience" to the covenant) and the other cemented by force of will ("sin" by rejection of the covenant). Teaching a child that the parents are sinners is a shorthand way of saying that, but that is not the only thing being taught, and the Church isn't doing all the teaching.

Edited September 8, 2016 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

 

Appeal to extremes much?

Good grief

Yes. If it fits. In this case it does.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Another way of stating the principle it that it is to prevent children from being damaged by being immersed in two diametrically and irreconcilably opposed environments, each governed by love but one cemented by subjection to divine covenant ("obedience" to the covenant) and the other cemented by force of will ("sin" by rejection of the covenant). Teaching a child that the parents are sinners is a shorthand way of saying that, but that is not the only thing being taught, and the Church isn't doing all the teaching.

So should we also turn kids whose parents are gay away from attending Church?  Are you advocating that the policy get changed? 

[Buckeye]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Another way of stating the principle it that it is to prevent children from being damaged by being immersed in two diametrically and irreconcilably opposed environments, each governed by love but one cemented by subjection to divine covenant ("obedience" to the covenant) and the other cemented by force of will ("sin" by rejection of the covenant). Teaching a child that the parents are sinners is a shorthand way of saying that, but that is not the only thing being taught, and the Church isn't doing all the teaching.

Once again, that is where the disagreement lies. LGBT families who want their children raised in the church do not see the church and their families as being diametrically and irreconcilably opposed. And, frankly, neither has the church. Otherwise, it would have implemented the policy years ago when gay marriage became legal in other countries. And church leaders would not be actively reaching out and meeting with LGBT leaders to find common ground. Yes, there is disagreement on this issue. But it's not so great that we can't work together in the very many areas where we do agree.  

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So should we also turn kids whose parents are gay away from attending Church?  Are you advocating that the policy get changed? 

Huh? Attendance is part of the baptismal covenant, but baptism doesn’t magically happen with attendance. I see a good deal of doctrinal confusion at the root of complaints against the policy.

30 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Once again, that is where the disagreement lies. LGBT families who want their children raised in the church do not see the church and their families as being diametrically and irreconcilably opposed. And, frankly, neither has the church. Otherwise, it would have implemented the policy years ago when gay marriage became legal in other countries. And church leaders would not be actively reaching out and meeting with LGBT leaders to find common ground. Yes, there is disagreement on this issue. But it's not so great that we can't work together in the very many areas where we do agree.  

LOL you didn’t bold enough of the phrase*: “two diametrically and irreconcilably opposed environments, each governed by love but one cemented by …covenant …and the other …by …will…” The covenant feature makes all the difference, and is the central feature of the disagreement, not the love. Those who don’t see the opposition aren’t recognizing the covenant**, but those who see the opposition recognize the love on both sides of the child’s dilemma. Refusing to recognize the covenant or accept the Church’s manifestation and expression of love is the biggest barrier of all to working together. At least the Church recognizes both the environment the child is living in without insisting it change and the love his parents have for him without denigrating it.

* too narrow a persective.

** a pretty BIG, MAJOR BLIND SPOT!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

If you seriously can't understand such parents, I suggest you find some of them and ask. That is if you really want to know. Daniel2 posts on this board. Start with him.

From my view, the fundamental disconnect here is your (and others') thinking that gay parents *want* their children to be taught that a SS relationship is sinful. I rather doubt they do. But that doesn't mean they don't want their children to attend church for the 1,000s of other things the parents do want taught.

This really is not that hard. I'm struggling to see why you can't understand. Every parent faces situations where their children want to participate in some group, but it turns out that there are a few aspects of that group that the parent doesn't support. For example, my kids play baseball. As they get older, lots of their teammates start swearing. I still let them play. It's not because I somehow *want* them exposed to the profanity. It's that I (and their mother) have weighed the costs/benefits and concluded that on the whole the experience is worth it. I image that for a gay parent, sending their child to an LDS church is a similar calculation. The benefits outweigh the costs.

In taking it this far, they are simply not recognizing the costs of what they are asking. It is no different than if they shrugged their shoulders and walked away completely. If they understood, they would attend as visitors / guests / friends or allow the child to attend as such.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Huh? Attendance is part of the baptismal covenant, but baptism doesn’t magically happen with attendance. I see a good deal of doctrinal confusion at the root of complaints against the policy.

I'm confused by your position here.  The policy doesn't comment on whether kids who have gay parents should or can attend Church. 
if there are kids out there who want to get baptized but have gay parents, what are they to do?  not attend church?  What if their gay parents want them to be in the Church?  You seem to be suggesting such kids should not be going to Church at all because if they do attend they'll find themselves in "two diametrically and irreconcilably opposed environments" which you suggest may damage them.  I thought you were arguing that Church is wise to have the policy because it will solve that potential problem.  But sadly, it does nothing to address that issue. 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Huh? Attendance is part of the baptismal covenant, but baptism doesn’t magically happen with attendance. I see a good deal of doctrinal confusion at the root of complaints against the policy.

 

LOL you didn’t bold enough of the phrase*: “two diametrically and irreconcilably opposed environments, each governed by love but one cemented by …covenant …and the other …by …will…” The covenant feature makes all the difference, and is the central feature of the disagreement, not the love.

There are many couples (married or just living together, members or not members) who are not sealed in the temple.  You state that "the covenant feature makes all the difference".  That is extremely narrow minded and exclusive.  Are you ready to not allow the children of these unsealed couples to enter into baptism as well?  

Also, if a child attends who is not baptized, aren't they still going to be exposed to teachings that may damage their relationship with their parents?  Why exclude them from baptism?

Edited September 8, 2016 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

All:

Bigger things have come up

I am out of thread

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

1- Huh? Attendance is part of the baptismal covenant, but baptism doesn’t magically happen with attendance. I see a good deal of doctrinal confusion at the root of complaints against the policy.

 

LOL you didn’t bold enough of the phrase*: “two diametrically and irreconcilably opposed environments, each governed by love but one cemented by …covenant …and the other …by …will…” The covenant feature makes all the difference, and is the central feature of the disagreement, not the love. Those who don’t see the opposition aren’t recognizing the covenant**, but those who see the opposition recognize the love on both sides of the child’s dilemma. Refusing to recognize the covenant or accept the Church’s manifestation and expression of love is the biggest barrier of all to working together. 2- At least the Church recognizes both the environment the child is living in without insisting it change and the love his parents have for him without denigrating it.

 

* too narrow a persective.

** a pretty BIG, MAJOR BLIND SPOT!

1- The point is, if the church's policy is all about removing cognitive dissonance of a child by preventing them from hearing negative things at church about a parent's SSM, then the current policy refusing baptism and other ordinances doesn't go far enough. To truly remove the possibility of dissonance and familial discord, it would seem the church should ban families of gays from attending all together because the current ban will not keep them from hearing the dissonant teachings. I think the confusion is on your end.

2- Ha, ha. I think I'm living in Bizzaro world. Are you honestly proposing that the church doesn't denigrate SSM and families, or are you stating that at least the church isn't requiring the child to denigrate the parental relationship? Or at least not until they're 18. (The bolded sentence is unclear so I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding)