MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So you have no idea what that scripture means?

Where did I say that?  If you want to start another thread about what those scriptures actually mean, go ahead.  But for this topic, you used them to back up or as proof for something they were not intended to do.  They do not state what you claim they state.  

.

Edited November 2, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

42 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

  In case it isn't clear: I was not aggressive in my questions; they were sincere and earnest, and I was polite and respectful in my tone and conversation (and certainly had nothing to do with death threats!).

Please know that I don't doubt this at all.  I tried to convey that I fully believe you were completely respectful and polite and earnest.  I just wonder if he might have made the assumption that someone asking for records was part of the attempt to harass/intimidate him and simply reacted that way despite the fact that you had nothing to do with that movement.  Again I can't speak to his motivations, nor am I justifying as appropriate his response to you.  I just had the thought when you said it was 8 years ago that it would have been about the same time as what he described and wondered if there might be a connection. 

 

46 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I DO hold converstion/reparative therapists to a somewhat higher standard, to whatever degree that they fail (or refuse) to look back upon the results of their past and ignore self-introspective patterns as a therapist of what's healthy/possible/realistic vs. what's counterproductive/unhealthy/unrealistic.  I think their ethtical responsibility as therapists is to adapt their therapies to what is therapeutically realistic, rather than being purely driven by religious belief or ideology.  And, as I said before, I welcome changes to therapeutic approaches that seek self-refinement to encourage healthy choices, instead of promoting unhealthy and unrealistic options.  I am glad, Kllindley, to hear of the changes that continue to be made.  Efforts by those types of therapists, I believe, is the mark of someone who is a seeker of truth, rather than someone who merely seeks to continue to profit from self-loathing populations wishing to become something they cannot and never will.

 

I also agree about therapists's ethical responsibility to engage in short and long-term evaluation of their treatments.  I admire those who are open to changing their views in light of experience, rather than simply blaming the client/patient for not trying hard enough (Something that Nicolosi has done in the past, which really turned me off from him for a long time!)

I am so grateful that by the time I hit my crisis in 2008, this change in tone was already underway and my therapist (very familiar with Evergreen) was clear about not trying to change my orientation or setting my hopes on that outcome.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So your interpretation of that scripture leads you to believe that a child of gay parents must forsake his parents in order to be worthy of baptism, and that since he/she can't, it's right for the church to deny baptism to the child?

My interpretation of that scripture is that if there is a choice between a principle of God and a family demand that we are required to choose God over family.
An 8 year old child is not legally able to recognize that their family structure violates the law of God in the Church they are looking to join.  Nor should they ever be put in that position as a young child to have to do that.  They are unable to make that decision.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Where did I say that?  If you want to start another thread about what those scriptures actually means, go ahead.  But for this topic, you used them to back up or as proof for something they were not intended to do.  They do not state what you claim they state.

My goodness, your refusal to engage in common sense discussion is exhausting.
The scriptures are clear.  Twist them all you want.  I'll bow out for now (although I'm sure this thread will repeat with another new title in a couple of weeks for the umpteenth time.)

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So your interpretation of that scripture leads you to believe that a child of gay parents must forsake his parents in order to be worthy of baptism, and that since he/she can't, it's right for the church to deny baptism to the child?

I am not going to comment on the policy at all right now.  But I have to say that this comment seems to be a very respectful effort to charitably state your "opponent's" beliefs clearly and accurately.  I admire that very much!

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My interpretation of that scripture is that if there is a choice between a principle of God and a family demand that we are required to choose God over family.
An 8 year old child is not legally able to recognize that their family structure violates the law of God in the Church they are looking to join.  Nor should they ever be put in that position as a young child to have to do that.  They are unable to make that decision.

Why does a child's family structure make them unworthy of baptism?  It wasn't the child's choice and as you have pointed out, they are powerless to do anything about it, nor would we want to make them.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, rockpond said:

Why does a child's family structure make them unworthy of baptism?  It wasn't the child's choice and as you have pointed out, they are powerless to do anything about it, nor would we want to make them.

I've explained myself.  I've provided doctrinal reasoning with scriptural backing (which you in turn have rejected).
At this point you already know the answer I would give before I type it.
I'll leave you to your thread.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My interpretation of that scripture is that if there is a choice between a principle of God and a family demand that we are required to choose God over family.

The bolded words are where you go wrong.  This new policy is not from God and asking a child to turn away from their parents is not from God either.

Of course there are circumstances where a child needs to be removed from their parents, but that is not what is happening here with this new policy.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My goodness, your refusal to engage in common sense discussion is exhausting.
The scriptures are clear.  Twist them all you want.  I'll bow out for now (although I'm sure this thread will repeat with another new title in a couple of weeks for the umpteenth time.)

It's funny that you accuse me of twisting those scriptures when you are the one who wants them to support something they do not support.  There is nowhere in those scriptures where it states what you are using them to support

And, I'm the one without common sense?  

Common sense would tell anyone that those scriptures are not God stating that he wants innocent children to be denied baptism into His church.  They also do not state that a young child needs to turn his back on loving parents in order for God to accept them into His church.  I certainly do not have to twist the meaning of those scriptures to know that.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I've explained myself.  I've provided doctrinal reasoning with scriptural backing (which you in turn have rejected).
At this point you already know the answer I would give before I type it.
I'll leave you to your thread.

I've done my best to follow your reasoning but I still don't see how a child's parents being a gay couple make the child unworthy of baptism.  I understand that you believe the parents relationship is outside of the bounds God has set but that shouldn't impact the child's worthiness.  We are only responsible for our own sins.

[Calm]

Quote

Certainly, I had concerns with his avoidance of having any more discussion with me about my concerns about how he knew his therapies were effective if he didn't keep records. 

I am curious as to how you think, barring a client participating in a long term study, how a therapist would be able to tell whether or not longterm success occurred?

Do you see it as appropriate for therapists to track down typical patients that have stop using them as therapists to quiz them on their current status, etc.?  This would need to include patients that just stopped treatment without explanation to be a valid measure.

IIRC, you were the only former client to make such a request after that many years having past.  I understand the desire to have records of those exchanges.  It would be very interesting to be able to have a window into the past; I would love to have many of the conversations my mom and I shared, especially now so I could recapture my sense of who she really is now that so much of her vitality and intelligence has gone to sleep.  It is unfortunate you did not request them during the usual time frame.  It is possible that if more clients expressed an interest in having records after the recommended standard, that standard would change, but I think it is reasonable for Jeff to abide by the current standards and I honestly don't see how that could be adapted so as to keep track of long term developments with most clients without being intrusive (addresses change, clients stop contact...at times without giving reasons, at times making it clear they are moving forward and wanting to leave the issue behind them).

I got confirmation again a few minutes ago on my beliefs in regards to both record keeping (he follows a more rigorous version of the overseeing standards organization recommendations---may be APA, I forgot to ask that---in order to fully protect the client from any unnecessary exposure of personal information---think insurance companies and employers---as well as himself as any provider of treatment must these days) and the type of therapy (the mentioned yelling and hitting things) being described here done by David Matheson, (sp?).  This type of therapy is definitely not what Jeff does, just making this clear so that others don't make that assumption as you have grouped their names together as if their therapy styles are similar.  DM apparently tended to be one of the more creative therapist in the LDS community, it sounds like it was a very unfortunate mix for you.  Good to know he has changed to more supported approaches.  Jeff also had some significant disagreements on treatment approaches with the late Dean Byrd who he had worked with on somethings (having a common goal of helping people and working towards that with someone doesn't always mean total agreement...evidence this board with so many Saints seeking good in so many different ways).  Dr. Byrd's approach pretty much dominated the LDS community till his death in my understanding/observation.

And again, in the 30plus years I have been discussing this with Jeff, he has never in any way given any indication that he would encourage someone experiencing same sex attraction to marry the opposite sex, but would instead follow the lead of the client, support him as best he could in the choices the client makes.  If the client is personally committed for the right reasons to work on attitude change with the hope of eventual marriage or in hopes of improving a current marriage, Jeff is of course also committed to helping him fulfill his dream in that area.

Add-on:

Quote

Even in giving him the benefit of that doubt, I wonder why he didn't offer that matter-of-fact explanation with the additional context you provided. 

It is possible, is it not, that he believed he had given that explanation in an understandable way, but for some reason clarity was lost in communication and he saw your persistence as a refusal to accept his explanation and didn't see what else he could say to better informed you.

Given how often people misunderstand on this board when there is the written word in front of us that we can refer to multiple times and even have almost instant feedback on whether or not we have expressed an understanding of a post by the original author and given my personal experience of telephone conversations, is it not possible that it wasn't a refusal to explain or even an incomplete one, but one that simply wasn't clear enough to you given the assumptions that you brought to the conversations as well as Jeff's assumptions.  I will have to ask him if he explains his procedures with record keeping at the beginning of therapy (my therapist did in a small way).  Conversations can be very confusing if people make too many assumptions about what the other person knows.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

 Again I can't speak to his motivations, nor am I justifying as appropriate his response to you.  I just had the thought when you said it was 8 years ago that it would have been about the same time as what he described and wondered if there might be a connection. 

8 years ago...iirc that would have been when he was a bishop and caring for his failing parents who lived across the street along with a very large family.  I had not been aware of the death threat at the time it happened, he didn't make a big thing of it or the other difficulties that were thrown his way for many years (broken professional promises due to political pressure from activist groups for example).  I ask him sometimes if he would still choose to go into this therapy field if he knew at the start where it was headed and he gives that lopsided smile and says nothing.

Doublechecked, parents died in 2006, but I think he still would have been bishop.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Calm

[kllindley]

On 11/1/2016 at 11:10 AM, Daniel2 said:

 

1. I think it’s always helpful to clearly (albeit as simply as possible) articulate the point that any of us is trying to explore, defend, or advocate on behalf of.  I’m not sure that either of us has done so, which may be why I feel as though listing all the references you’ve provided hasn’t added clarity in my mind as to what you’re suggesting.  So, in the spirit of trying to be specific, I’ll try and add more relevance to my point, with an invitation for you to do likewise, so that we can then delve into the sources you listed to see how they relate to the point you’re attempting to make…

First, thanks for this real response.  I would love to have a more serious and productive dialogue.

I am mostly defending three ideas The first is that sexual orientation is a social construct.  Especially a view of sexual orientation that simply categorizes homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual.  The second is that gay, straight, and bi (as ways to self-identify) do not always match orientation.  The third is that where as sexual orientation is the least likely to change (fluidity), identity, behavior, and attractions are more fluid.  I note that I separate attraction from orientation not to pathologize or anything, but because orientation (to me) implies a long-lasting pattern of attraction that is different from the feelings of attraction I may feel in a particular moment or time in my life.   

 

2.  What I’ve asked for clarification on and references for is the suggestion that “recent research (after the passage of marriage equality) now indicates that sexual orientation is fluid,” at least, in so far as that phrase is intended to suggest or is proposed to mean that ‘now that marriage equality has been achieved, studies are now willing to admit that sexual orientation can change.’

I felt that the Bailey, Diamond, et al article (2016) that I quoted (and which you also stated you liked) was in some ways an admission, that some of the previous claims about the immutability or solely biological causes of sexual orientation were overplayed in an attempt to argue for rights which should not have to depend on anything other than human dignity.  Also, it is less common since 2015, that for example the psychology today articles are posted without numerous comments denying bisexuality.   The  Copen 2016 article is the clearest in showing that discrepancies exist in self-reported attractions and self-reported sexual identity.  And since that came out after June 2015 . . . . 

 

3.  In so doing, my use of the term ‘sexual orientation’ is the same as that contained in the “Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients” section of the Definitions Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity in APA Guidelines and Policy Documents, which define sexual orientation this way:   “Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one’s own sex (gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to members of both sexes (bisexuals). While these categories continue to be widely used, research has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and instead occurs on a continuum (e.g., Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Klein, 1993; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolff, 1985; Shiveley & DeCecco, 1977) In addition, some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women (e.g., Diamond, 2007; Golden, 1987; Peplau & Garnets, 2000).”

 

4.  You’ll note that the last sentence of the paragraph above acknowledges that “some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people,” and notes that that “may especially be true for women,” but the three references therein all pre-date marriage equality, and emphasize that such is especially true of women.

Yes, I acknowledge that is correct.  And the more recent research by Epstein shows that men are more fluid than previously thought too.  I acknowledge that there has been research prior to that.  I also noted that the definition I quoted from a 2015 APA guide acknowledged the possibility of fluidity, where as the one I had been working with previously (2009) did not.  Thank you for pointing out that they had added that as early as 2012.

 

5.  Based on my own personal experience and experiences in discussing sexual orientation with other men (straight, gay, and bisexual) and women across the spectrum of sexual orientation (both which obviously inform my own beliefs on the subject), I find it very true that women tend to be more sexually fluid than men, and that the category of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” tend to be more rigidly defined and unchangeable with regards to men rather than women.

I'm surprised to see you leave out "bisexual" as a category.  I understand fluidity to refer to changes in general patterns of attraction, not the capacity to be attracted to both sexes.

 

6.  I have said before that any given individual’s sexual behavior may or may not be an expression of any given individual’s innate sexual orientation.  Individuals don’t always choose to engage in sexual activities to which they are inherently attracted to (celibacy is the most extreme example of this, but so is respectful modesty in any modern society… We almost take it for granted in modern society that no one is given free rein to go around and simply grab whomever they’re attracted to and force them to engage in sexual activities).  And sometimes individuals choose to engage in sexual behaviors to which they aren’t attracted to (these may range from mixed-orientation marriages due to religious convictions to heterosexual men engaging in homosexual behaviors due to being in populations where there’s a scarcity of the opposite sex).  Just because a man has had sex with a man doesn’t mean he’s gay, or even bisexual, depending on the circumstances.  And just because a man has sex with a woman doesn’t mean he’s straight, or even bisexual, depending on the circumstances.  Accordingly, sexual behavior isn’t always the determinative indicator of an individual’s sexual orientation.

 

We are totally on the same page!  My focus was less on the difference between orientation and behavior and more on the distinction between orientation and identity.  Which you address in a following comment.  Where I think we also agree.  

7.  Some of your sources speak of the fluidity of sexual orientation in terms of a different set of ranges of other physical characteristics—aside from and unrelated to gender—to which individuals may be attracted (age, race, body type/size, eye color, muscle mass, hair/body hair, individual looks/characteristics, etc.)  While these other types of physical characteristics that vary from person to person and even culture to culture may change over time, they’re really beyond the scope of what I’m focused on and concerned about, which is sexual orientation as it relates to gender.  That goes back to the definition of sexual orientation I referenced in the “Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients” that “Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one’s own sex (gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to members of both sexes (bisexuals).”  In other words, what I’m saying is that any of your references that speak of the fluidity of sexual orientation in terms of characteristics other than gender really aren’t related to the point I’m trying to discuss. 

I agree. The way I posted that with an exclamation mark and then said "but seriously"  was meant to imply some humor.  I think that article does do a good job not of disproving sexual orientation or anything, but of helping expand our view of sexuality in general.  There are certainly some differences between gender and other characteristics, but I think it is valid to ask why sex/gender gets it's own ticket as an innate immutable orientation while age, race, and other characteristics are seen as different.  Maybe there is some research to show that there is a qualitative difference.  I have never seen that.  And in fact, his research suggest that there may be less than we want to think.  In fact he argues that these other characteristics are not really that fluid either.  The biggest take away for me is that if this is some of the most recent research into sexuality, maybe we don't understand sexual orientation quite as much as we think we do, simply prompting some openness rather than claiming that the science is settled.  

 

8.  I also want to make one thing clear (and I’m speaking generally to here, not just to you, Kllindley): I believe it’s NEVER helpful to try to misrepresent the views of those who may hold different opinions than myself, nor to attempt to personally attack anyone as a means of ending dialogue.  I believe it’s always in the best interests of having informed and productive discussion to strive to understand and accurately respond to the actual points of one’s “opponent” (although I use that term without mal intent, despite its oppositional implication).

I also agree.  I hope I have not acted in poor faith in this regards.  I apologize and will accept correction if you feel I have.  

 

So, Kllindley… with all of the above in mind, as I’ve browsed through your list sources…  Is there any aspect of what I’ve said about my approach that you’d like to discuss in a more focused fashion, either as it relates to one/some of your sources? 

I think that much of what you have written in response to others later in the thread resolves much of our potential disagreement.  I really do support anyone identifying as gay or lesbian and think that should be respected.  There is unfortunately a lack of popular language to distinguish between a gay (maintaining gospel standards) individual and a gay (in or pursuing same-sex relationship) individual.  There is also unfortunately a lack of good language to describe bisexual people in general as there are so many different "flavors" of bisexuality. Heterosexually coupled monogamous, heterosexually coupled open, homosexually coupled monogamous, homosexually coupled open, homoerotic-heteroromantic, heteroerotic-homoromantic, and on and on and on.  Most bi men in relationships with men are assumed to be gay.  Most bi men with women are assumed to be straight.  

Is there a way we can identify someone as gay without assuming one way or another what their relational behavior is?  Is there a way we can refer to non-heterosexual people, without assuming they are gay and erasing the possibility of bisexuality?  

 

[california boy]

Killindey, I think one thing that you have to keep in mind is that outside the church, people who are attracted to the same sex and self identify themselves as gay have no problem with this label or the attraction. So for the sake of discussion let's take the religious implications out of the equation for a moment.  I think that the Kindsey scale theory seems to be holding up as a valid understanding of sexual preference.  In my opinion, there are definitely some people who are straight and find the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex repulsive.  There are also some people who are gay and find the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite sex equally repulsive.  And then there are all those people in between.  What the percentage of each group is I think will never be known.  While it is easy to identify the extreme two ends, it becomes significantly different identifying those that float in the middle.

Now from a Mormon point of view.  I think it is very difficult for someone who is at the far end of the Kindsey scale that identifies as gay to either marry a woman or have a successful marriage with a woman.  I also believe that the further towards the straight end of the scale a person is, the more likelihood that person is to have a successful relationship with a woman.  For some it is simply repressing those same sex feelings and concentrating on the opposite sex feelings. That can be a very successful way of fitting into what the church demands of those that have an attraction to the same sex.

For people outside the church it becomes simply a choice which of these attractions they choose to follow.  In all likelihood they could have  successful relations with either sex.  For them, there is no reason to limit who they find attractive and want to share a life with. They are not influenced by religious beliefs when making that choice.  Their sexual relations become much more fluid.  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Killindey, I think one thing that you have to keep in mind is that outside the church, people who are attracted to the same sex and self identify themselves as gay have no problem with this label or the attraction

And I have no problem with this label or this attraction.  And inside the church people who are attracted to the same sex and self identify themselves as gay have no problem with this label or the attraction.  (evidence in the videos)

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think that the Kindsey scale theory seems to be holding up as a valid understanding of sexual preference.  In my opinion, there are definitely some people who are straight and find the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex repulsive.  There are also some people who are gay and find the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite sex equally repulsive.  And then there are all those people in between.  What the percentage of each group is I think will never be known.  While it is easy to identify the extreme two ends, it becomes significantly different identifying those that float in the middle.

I don't really disagree with this except the part that states we will never know the percentages.  That is exactly what research is working to find.   And we're getting a clearer and clearer picture of that distribution as the above cited research shows.  About 1.7 identify as gay while even among those who identify as gay some percentage of them will actually be bisexual.  

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Now from a Mormon point of view.  I think it is very difficult for someone who is at the far end of the Kindsey scale that identifies as gay to either marry a woman or have a successful marriage with a woman.

I agree.  I don't think that it is a realistic possibility for a Kinsey 6 to have a successful heterosexual marriage.  Now Epstein's research on SOR (sexual orientation range) suggests that some Kinsey 6 individuals have the potential to experience a shift in sexual orientation to a 5 or a 4 or even a 3.  No suggestion that therapy or willpower or prayer can cause that change.  Just that it can happen.  Some may not have a large SOR.  

So from a Mormon point of view, even if someone genuinely identify and experience their sexual orientation as a 6, from that Mormon point of view, would we want them to identify as gay, pursue a same-sex relationship and lose the blessings of exaltation, when there is a chance that later in life they will become a Kinsey 3 and therefore have an opportunity for a successful marriage?   

1 hour ago, california boy said:

For people outside the church it becomes simply a choice which of these attractions they choose to follow.

So true.  Also true for people inside the Church.  It all comes down to choice.    

[CV75]

On 11/2/2016 at 4:14 PM, rockpond said:

Why does a child's family structure make them unworthy of baptism?  It wasn't the child's choice and as you have pointed out, they are powerless to do anything about it, nor would we want to make them.

 

On 11/2/2016 at 4:27 PM, rockpond said:

I've done my best to follow your reasoning but I still don't see how a child's parents being a gay couple make the child unworthy of baptism.  I understand that you believe the parents relationship is outside of the bounds God has set but that shouldn't impact the child's worthiness.  We are only responsible for our own sins.

"Worthiness" is not the same as "eligibility," and the latter is much easier to ascertain. Assuming "worthiness" is the call of a judge in Israel, and "eligibility" is defined by policy, worthy children are typically not baptized without parental permission.

“All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” The Church will not interfere with that relationship by interjecting ordinances and covenants the parents are opposed to, to the degree of apostasy. It would undermine the child’s claim upon his parents as well a proper understanding of his claim upon the Church.

Apostates are not parents in Zion, and so are not teaching in proper context “the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old…” Non-member (even simply “unworthy”) parents who are not apostate in their attitudes and behavior toward the Church and give permission are able to see their children baptized.

Edited November 4, 2016 by CV75

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

"Worthiness" is not the same as "eligibility," and the latter is much easier to ascertain. Assuming "worthiness" is the call of a judge in Israel, and "eligibility" is defined by policy, worthy children are typically not baptized without parental permission.

“All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” The Church will not interfere with that relationship by interjecting ordinances and covenants the parents are opposed to, to the degree of apostasy. It would undermine the child’s claim upon his parents as well a proper understanding of his claim upon the Church.

Well this is  not true.  This policy does exactly that. If the parents want their children baptized (which is a requirement for baptism of anyone under 18), by this policy the church is directly interfering with the rights of the parents to decide what is best for their child.  If the parents are opposed to the baptism, then this policy of absolutely forbidding the baptism is not required.  Hence, the policy is not necessary.

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Apostates are not parents in Zion, and so are not teaching in proper context “the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old…” Non-member (even simply “unworthy”) parents who are not apostate in their attitudes and behavior toward the Church and give permission are able to see their children baptized.

Are non member parents parents in Zion?  Are parents living together without marriage parents in Zion? Has any person repented of sins when they continue to sin?  What is required of any parent who are not members of the church to allow them to have their children baptized?

I really don't care whether the church has this policy.  But let's quit pretending that this is not a policy directed at a very specific group of people in order to further distance the church from gay marriage.  This policy was not done for the sake of the child or the parents.  This policy was instituted as a volley against gay marriage no matter what the cost was to innocent children.  The church threw them under the bus in order to make a statement.  For a Mormon to have to say that a child, any child would be better off not baptized and receive the blessings of the Holy Ghost to guide them through their teen years is to deny the power and blessing of that gift.  It is saying that the worth of that gift is of less importance than the fact that the gay parents choose to marry against the wishes of the church.  Either the power of the Holy Ghost is of the upmost importance to those that receive it or it is just some unimportant ritual that is not important to teenage kids and can simply be done at a later time.

[Scott Lloyd]

On November 2, 2016 at 2:14 PM, rockpond said:

Why does a child's family structure make them unworthy of baptism?  It wasn't the child's choice and as you have pointed out, they are powerless to do anything about it, nor would we want to make them.

Unworthy of baptism? How about ineligible for baptism? There is a difference, you know. 

A child whose parents refuse permission for him to be baptized would be ineligible for it, even though he might be worthy. 

Richard Holzapfel pointed out on Fabrizio's KUER program yesterday that some people in Third World countries have been deemed ineligible for baptism because baptizing them would have put their lives in danger. 

I think it is a reasonable request that as a show of good faith you acknowledge the difference between ineligibility and unworthiness. 

I also think you should stop saying the Church deems 8-year-old children of gay parents unworthy when you know very well it is a matter of eligibility, not worthiness. 

Edited to add: 

I see that CV75 made the same point. I honestly was not copying him. I had not seen his post. It's just that your post prompted the same thought in my mind as it did in his. 

Edited November 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I really don't care whether the church has this policy.  But let's quit pretending that this is not a policy directed at a very specific group of people in order to further distance the church from gay marriage.  This policy was not done for the sake of the child or the parents.  This policy was instituted as a volley against gay marriage no matter what the cost was to innocent children.  

I think I can understand where you are coming from in seeing no redeeming quality to the policy against baptism of these children.  At the same time, I disagree that it is the only way to look at the matter.  I think the policy was absolutely necessary because of the influence of the "progressive" members of the Church who had been suggesting and even teaching that once a same-sex couple could be married, they wouldn't really be breaking the law of Chastity.  I know several members (Kinsey 4-5) who had started to believe this, but when the policy came out, felt that it was clarification from God that the doctrine of gender complimentarity in the eternities was not going to change.  In this sense I guess you could see is as an attack against gay marriage.  I see it as a defense of vulnerable individuals being attacked by worldly philosophies, particularly from "within" the Church.  

Secondly, I really do believe the policy contains an element of mercy to the children.  I can see a way that same-sex marriage is different than other sins because of the impact it would have on the child throughout their life as a member of the Church.  Even a child of the most sinful heterosexual couple can hold out the hope that after they have died, they can perform Temple work for them and there is a chance that the parent's will accept the Gospel in the after life.  The individual can eventually be sealed to his or her parents.  The child of a gay couple can never have this hope.  Asking them at age 8 to covenant(promise) to follow Christ when that may ultimately require rejecting their parent's marriage seems a bit harsh.  I would want my child to know and be able to understand the consequences of such a decision.  

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is saying that the worth of that gift is of less importance than the fact that the gay parents choose to marry against the wishes of the church.  Either the power of the Holy Ghost is of the upmost importance to those that receive it or it is just some unimportant ritual that is not important to teenage kids and can simply be done at a later time.

I can see how there seems to be a disconnect here.  If the Gift of the Holy Ghost is so important, why deny it to someone based on their parent's decisions?  It that a fair summary of your point?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well this is  not true.  This policy does exactly that. If the parents want their children baptized (which is a requirement for baptism of anyone under 18), by this policy the church is directly interfering with the rights of the parents to decide what is best for their child.  If the parents are opposed to the baptism, then this policy of absolutely forbidding the baptism is not required.  Hence, the policy is not necessary.

Are non member parents parents in Zion?  Are parents living together without marriage parents in Zion? Has any person repented of sins when they continue to sin?  What is required of any parent who are not members of the church to allow them to have their children baptized?

I really don't care whether the church has this policy.  But let's quit pretending that this is not a policy directed at a very specific group of people in order to further distance the church from gay marriage.  This policy was not done for the sake of the child or the parents.  This policy was instituted as a volley against gay marriage no matter what the cost was to innocent children.  The church threw them under the bus in order to make a statement.  For a Mormon to have to say that a child, any child would be better off not baptized and receive the blessings of the Holy Ghost to guide them through their teen years is to deny the power and blessing of that gift.  It is saying that the worth of that gift is of less importance than the fact that the gay parents choose to marry against the wishes of the church.  Either the power of the Holy Ghost is of the upmost importance to those that receive it or it is just some unimportant ritual that is not important to teenage kids and can simply be done at a later time.

This post demonstrates what I have suspected is behind much of the outcry over the policy. It is not so much concern for children as it is anger that gay marriage won't be accommodated within the doctrinal structure of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This post demonstrates what I have suspected is behind much of the outcry over the policy. It is not so much concern for children as it is anger that gay marriage won't be accommodated within the doctrinal structure of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

No, not really. Both are important issues.

Quote

Unworthy of baptism? How about ineligible for baptism? There is a difference, you know. 

Aside from "worthiness", what other scriptural reasons are given for someone being "ineligible" for baptism?

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well this is  not true.  This policy does exactly that. If the parents want their children baptized (which is a requirement for baptism of anyone under 18), by this policy the church is directly interfering with the rights of the parents to decide what is best for their child.  If the parents are opposed to the baptism, then this policy of absolutely forbidding the baptism is not required.  Hence, the policy is not necessary.

The permission given by apostates for the Church to baptize their children is on all levels perfectly (and hilariously) illegitimate. Not only will the Church not interfere with the child having claim upon his parents (funny you should see this as a parental rights issue, rendering the child a mere prop and pawn), but she will not perversely interject ordinances and covenants into a willfully apostate home. That's just plain sick! nd it would undermine the child’s claim upon his parents as well as his developing sense of his claim upon the Church. I'm sure you've heard this before. When you come up with a retort, make it worthwhile.

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are non member parents parents in Zion?  Are parents living together without marriage parents in Zion? Has any person repented of sins when they continue to sin?  What is required of any parent who are not members of the church to allow them to have their children baptized?

Non-member, unmarried and unrepentant parents are not apostate. Big difference! But all that is required of these parents is their legitimate permission. I'm sure you've heard this before. When you come up with a retort, make it worthwhile.

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

I really don't care whether the church has this policy.  But let's quit pretending that this is not a policy directed at a very specific group of people in order to further distance the church from gay marriage.  This policy was not done for the sake of the child or the parents.  This policy was instituted as a volley against gay marriage no matter what the cost was to innocent children.  The church threw them under the bus in order to make a statement.  For a Mormon to have to say that a child, any child would be better off not baptized and receive the blessings of the Holy Ghost to guide them through their teen years is to deny the power and blessing of that gift.  It is saying that the worth of that gift is of less importance than the fact that the gay parents choose to marry against the wishes of the church.  Either the power of the Holy Ghost is of the upmost importance to those that receive it or it is just some unimportant ritual that is not important to teenage kids and can simply be done at a later time.

If you don't care about the existence of the policy, your warped sense of the motives for it don't matter. This is just irresponsible blather. And you want your child to be baptized into such an environment? Step right up folks! See the perversity and illegitimacy of apostasy in making accusations against and demands upon the Church!

You've got it backwards: the light of Christ is of utmost importance; everyone is born with it and it leads them to the Lord and the ordinances with the attendant spiritual blessings. This gift is best nurtured in children as they grow past the age of accountability in a home where the parents are not in conflict with or sending conflicting messages about the doctrines they left behind. Don't worry -- the light of Christ is how the Lord watches over children despite any hypocritical and conflicted attitudes  their parents have toward the church they apostatized from.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, not really. Both are important issues.

Aside from "worthiness", what other scriptural reasons are given for someone being "ineligible" for baptism?

Age (under eight years); having parents who, by virtue of apostasy, are exempt from the requirements of Zion; those who have claim upon apostate parents for their maintenance.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This post demonstrates what I have suspected is behind much of the outcry over the policy. It is not so much concern for children as it is anger that gay marriage won't be accommodated within the doctrinal structure of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

You may be right for some who had hope of accepting gay marriage by the church.  But was that message really worth withholding baptism and the blessing of the Holy Ghost on innocent children? It seems like the church decided to play games with children in order to make a point.  I think it is pretty clear that there is anger with some members over both the church's refusal to allow gay marriage AND using children to make their point.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I think I can understand where you are coming from in seeing no redeeming quality to the policy against baptism of these children.  At the same time, I disagree that it is the only way to look at the matter.  I think the policy was absolutely necessary because of the influence of the "progressive" members of the Church who had been suggesting and even teaching that once a same-sex couple could be married, they wouldn't really be breaking the law of Chastity.  I know several members (Kinsey 4-5) who had started to believe this, but when the policy came out, felt that it was clarification from God that the doctrine of gender complimentarity in the eternities was not going to change.  In this sense I guess you could see is as an attack against gay marriage.  I see it as a defense of vulnerable individuals being attacked by worldly philosophies, particularly from "within" the Church.  

Secondly, I really do believe the policy contains an element of mercy to the children.  I can see a way that same-sex marriage is different than other sins because of the impact it would have on the child throughout their life as a member of the Church.  Even a child of the most sinful heterosexual couple can hold out the hope that after they have died, they can perform Temple work for them and there is a chance that the parent's will accept the Gospel in the after life.  The individual can eventually be sealed to his or her parents.  The child of a gay couple can never have this hope.  Asking them at age 8 to covenant(promise) to follow Christ when that may ultimately require rejecting their parent's marriage seems a bit harsh.  I would want my child to know and be able to understand the consequences of such a decision.  

I can see how there seems to be a disconnect here.  If the Gift of the Holy Ghost is so important, why deny it to someone based on their parent's decisions?  It that a fair summary of your point?

Yeah.  I can agree with what you wrote.  Others definitely do view this policy in a different light.  They have no problem with this policy.  But clearly others do struggle with the justification for the policy.  Either way, children are denied a gift that the church teaches is extremely important for them to have even in their teen years.  Yes it is a fair summary of my point.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

It seems like the church decided to play games with children in order to make a point.

This is exactly what you are doing by interpreting D&C 83:4 as a parental right to have children baptized into the Church from which they apostatized.