The November policy change was reaffirmed as revelation in the Oct. Ensign

[Okrahomer]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No one should surprised that the more zealous members will pick up on the churches talking points and then regurgitate them in settings like this Neanderthal member did.  But as disgusting as this mans statements are he is just repeating what his church teaches him...and taking them to the bigoted teaching logical conclusions.

"More Zealous"...? In what way is this fellow more zealous than his LDS political opponent (Senator Bramble) who offered his sympathy and support to this young person's surviving loved ones?

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No, the church doesn't go as far as this guy, when he said that this young man was a sinner for being homosexual. The church makes clear that they aren't sinners, only when they act on it. If that were the case I think the suicides would skyrocket. Thank the Lord that the church hasn't said this. And they say over and over that homosexuality doesn't make them a sinner. 

Thanks for that, Tacenda! I don't think anyone likes it when people paint a whole people using the brush of their worst examples. What a lot of critics delight in is taking extreme examples of idiotic Mormons and trying to apply that to all of us. 

“I am not so blind in my admiration of the Mormon people, 

or so bigoted in my devotion to the Mormon faith as to think that there are no individuals in the Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly, intemperate speech and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that some in their over-zeal have lacked judgment . . ." (B.H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, p. 48.)

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I am not aware of any. The handbook change says that exceptions can be applied for, but I don't think any will be granted. Not in the current climate with the whiplash over the policy and explanations about it.

That's just my opinion about my opinion, though . . .  

If the Handbook states exceptions can be made, there is no difference in policy unlike Rockpond claimed though....nor in practice as far as we are aware (if in another decade when the controversy has died down and no exceptions have been made for actual requests, then I will be willing to admit a difference exists in practice, if not in language).

It may be there is a difference if children are allowed to be baptized in areas where polygamy is legal.  All we know for sure is the policy and practice where it is illegal.

[Tacenda]

Just now, rongo said:

Thanks for that, Tacenda! I don't think anyone likes it when people paint a whole people using the brush of their worst examples. What a lot of critics delight in is taking extreme examples of idiotic Mormons and trying to apply that to all of us. 

 

 

I have to say and gladly so, that all the LDS I'm around, don't ever act the way this politician has. Nor has anyone on this board.

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

You are being obtuse.

The phrase "contrary to the law" makes ALL the difference.

 

What difference does that make? In theory, an exception could be granted to most any policy if circumstances justify it.

Quote

Additionally, from what I understand, the LGBT policy only applies to homes presided over by same-sex couples who are legally MARRIED (it doesn't say anything about whether or not there's homosexual behavior by any parent/s).

I have a contrary understanding, believing it to apply to any domestic situation where parents are engaged in homosexual behavior, be it a legal marriage or a live-in domestic partnership.

Furthermore, use of the phrase "presided over" strikes me as odd here, since the Church does not accept the ecclesiastical validity of any same-sex marriage.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If people can accept the Word of Wisdom, tithing, three-Sunday meeting blocks and fasting once a month, surely they can come to tolerate if not aaccept BYU football.

In what I have heard for many years..BYU football and sports in general are one of the church's biggest missionary tools.  I would hate to see this happen.  If the BYU program should become obsolete in light of any issues it will throw mormonism in a horrific box to so many outsiders trying to understand the church.  Kind of like ..shooting yourselves in the foot.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, omni said:

 A church in which God's will is communicated through his mouthpiece on a daily basis.  If this is all true, why did it take so long for the Lord to reveal his will through his mouthpiece?  

Simple, your question is based on the assumption that you know  that God gives detailed instructions DAILY to the leaders of the church, and you are aware of His plans and thoughts.  In your world, simply waiting is unacceptable in your view of how God works.

Now, you obviously know more than we do and yet here you are asking us this question.  Having this knowledge and insight that is beyond our understanding, why don't you ask Him yourself?

OR, if your actual question is why we still believe that the church is true despite your attempts to point out that the church had mortal leaders, well, that is something else and I suggest you start a new thread where we can give you a detailed answer.

Edited October 1, 2016 by cdowis

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Call me obtuse, but I don't see a lot of difference between this and the policy vis a vis children in homes where parents are engaged in homsexual behavior, including gay "marriage."

Okay, Obtuse, the policies are similar but not exactly the same.  In countries where polygamy is legal, there are no restrictions against baptizing children of polygamists. 

With gay marriage, whether or not it is legal is irrelevant.  That's the difference. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

You can't authoritatively say that this is "the answer." Your answer, yes. 

From another perspective, you are the one making a mistake, and have not accurately discerned your answer.

Both can't be right. One of us is wrong.

Yes, it is my answer.  And I'm quite comfortable with it.  If God wants to condemn me in the next life because I disagreed with the Brethren over their decision to "protect" the children of gay couples through a policy of ostracism that is counter to Christ's teachings - so be it.  

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Rare and difficult" being the operative terms. Those qualifiers could be applied to virtually anything as most anything is subject to an appeal to a higher authority, including last November's policy.

The application of the two policies (children of gay marriage vs plural marriage) is only dependent on legality in the case of polygamy.  So it is incorrect to say the the policies are the same. Someone like you who is so quick to point out wording mistakes of people on this board shouldn't dismiss the difference in wording of these two policies from the Brethren (one of which you claim to be the revealed will of God). 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

It's not the people who "can accept the Word of Wisdom, tithing, three-Sunday meeting blocks and fasting once a month" that may kill BYU sports. Rather, it will be people who don't accept those and many other things. 

It appears that BYU's inclusion in the Big12 is now dead because of pressure from activist groups. That isn't a huge problem, but these same groups are agitating to get schools to refuse to schedule to play BYU *at all* (regardless of conference affiliation or independence). If that momentum picks up steam, then BYU sports will be done. If no one will play them for fear of the activists, then there is no athletic program. As mentioned, this will be from people who are not accepting our unique standards and practices. 

Should others be required to accept "our unique standards and practices"?

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The application of the two policies (children of gay marriage vs plural marriage) is only dependent on legality in the case of polygamy.  

I don't know where you are getting your information -- perhaps from the person in the mirror.

There are no polygamist families allowed in the church, including where it is legal.  The policy is not dependent on its legality.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

In countries where polygamy is legal, there are no restrictions against baptizing children of polygamists. 

CFR again please.  Knowing how it works where polygamy isn't legal does not mean we know how it works where it is legal.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I don't know where you are getting your information -- perhaps from the person in the mirror.

There are no polygamist families allowed in the church, including where it is legal.  The policy is not dependent on its legality.

I know the policy as it addresses parents.  Do you have evidence for children?  I have always assumed when I am told familes are not baptized if polygamous, this includes the children, but I would like to see documentation that my assumption is correct.

[cdowis]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know the policy as it addresses parents.  Do you have evidence for children?  I have always assumed when I am told familes are not baptized if polygamous, this includes the children, but I would like to see documentation that my assumption is correct.

I can only say that I am aware of the policy == no baptism for underage children, and children who have reached majority must get 1st Presy approval.  They must completely renounce the polygamy lifestyle of their parents.

[cdowis]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR again please.  Knowing how it works where polygamy isn't legal does not mean we know how it works where it is legal.

You will have to take my word for it.  This policy was the  issue that got an apostle excommunicated (Taylor, I believe).  It was legal in Mexico and there was a disagreement whether the Manifesto applied there, outside the US.

Missionaries today are instructed that in countries where it is legal, a polygamous husband must choose only one wife.

[rongo]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Should others be required to accept "our unique standards and practices"?

Of course not. But refusing to play BYU sports teams on grounds that playing them constitutes being forced to accept BYU's honor code is ridiculous. It's an attempt to force the Church/BYU to change its own unique standards and practices via boycott/embargo tactics.

Can you really say with a straight face that playing a BYU team denotes acceptance of BYU's honor code or LDS doctrine?  Then does that mean that BYU or the Church is forced to accept foreign standards and practices when BYU plays other schools?

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

I don't know where you are getting your information -- perhaps from the person in the mirror.

There are no polygamist families allowed in the church, including where it is legal.  The policy is not dependent on its legality.

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR again please.  Knowing how it works where polygamy isn't legal does not mean we know how it works where it is legal.

I provided the exact text from Handbook 1 that specifically exempts children of plural marriages from the baptismal restrictions (meaning they are permitted to be baptized) where such marriages are legal.  

That's the official church policy copy/pasted directly from the current online version of Handbook 1.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

Missionaries today are instructed that in countries where it is legal, a polygamous husband must choose only one wife.

Not from what I have heard.  Returning missionaries have stated that families are told not to break up, remain unbaptized as divorce can lead to extreme hardships for exwives and children because of the culture.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

Of course not. But refusing to play BYU sports teams on grounds that playing them constitutes being forced to accept BYU's honor code is ridiculous. It's an attempt to force the Church/BYU to change its own unique standards and practices via boycott/embargo tactics.

Can you really say with a straight face that playing a BYU team denotes acceptance of BYU's honor code or LDS doctrine?  Then does that mean that BYU or the Church is forced to accept foreign standards and practices when BYU plays other schools?

1.  Do you have a reference for teams saying that playing BYU is forcing them to accept BYU's honor code?  Because the way I understood it is that other schools don't want to be associated (even through sports) with a university that discriminates in that manner. 

2.  Why can't other schools live their standards, including refusal to associate with universities that operate contrary to their missions and values?  Isn't that a freedom we should honor in the same way we want our religious freedom respected?

3.  Let's say it is an attempt to force BYU to change its standards.  How is it materially different than the church attempting to enforce its standards of marriage on the general public?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

I provided the exact text from Handbook 1 that specifically exempts children of plural marriages from the baptismal restrictions (meaning they are permitted to be baptized) where such marriages are legal.  

I saw the post where it was about where it was illegal, could you please provide a link to where it said "in places where it is legal" (old iPad keeps bombing if I try to change pages, but direct links seem to work okay).

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If the Handbook states exceptions can be made, there is no difference in policy unlike Rockpond claimed though....nor in practice as far as we are aware (if in another decade when the controversy has died down and no exceptions have been made for actual requests, then I will be willing to admit a difference exists in practice, if not in language).

It may be there is a difference if children are allowed to be baptized in areas where polygamy is legal.  All we know for sure is the policy and practice where it is illegal.

I claimed that there is a difference in the policies.  There is.  I've provided the proof by quoting the handbook directly. 

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I saw the post where it was about where it was illegal, could you please provide a link to where it said "in places where it is legal" (old iPad keeps bombing if I try to change pages, but direct links seem to work okay).

From 16.3.9:

"Children of parents who have practiced or are practicing plural marriage contrary to the law must receive approval from the First Presidency before they may be baptized and confirmed."

(emphasis added)

This is clear that children of parents in a plural marriage, where such marriages are legal, are exempt from the provisions/restrictions of this policy. 

There is nothing else in the handbook relating to places where such marriages are legal so the ecclesiastical leader using the handbook is only left with the remaining (standard) provisions regarding baptism. 

Therefore, as I stated, the policy regarding children of gay marriages is NOT the same as the policy regarding children of plural marriages.  I hope people will stop making that false claim. 

[Calm]

Is there someplace it specifically discusses what takes place where it is legal as opposed to discussing where it is illegal?  Logically speaking, from the language used in the latter, one cannot assume those are not requirements for where it is legal.  That would be, I believe, "inversion".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

[rodheadlee]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- Is it impossible for "revelation" tp come by committee or council?

2- Sought confirmation. Spirit confirmed God did not say that. So I've got my confirmation and you've got yours. Now what?

Live your life according to yours, but do't expect us too. You have no stewardship over me or my family.