MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

The 8 year old requirement is legit.

CFR on the rest. Remember, I asked for scriptural requirements of eligibility.

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

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.

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.

Of course my opinion doesn't matter.  I think I stated that.  But that doesn't mean I can't state what my opinion is.  You certainly can ignore it.  The church can single out gay parents and call them apostates if they wish.  The church can also choose to not call unmarried unrepentant parents apostates. It is their leverage that they can use however they want. It is not me and other former members of the church whose opinion you or the church have to worry about.  It is all those faithful members, serving in priesthood callings, and mothers who love their gay sons, daughters, nephews and brothers that you have to worry about.

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The 8 year old requirement is legit.

CFR on the rest. Remember, I asked for scriptural requirements of eligibility.

These are in the scriptures: D&C 68:25 and 83:4.

Children whose parents are apostate from Zion, and upon whom they have claim for their maintenance, are not eligible for baptism because apostates by definition will not teach them the Church covenants correctly, and foster a home environment that is inherently unable to support the realization of even correctly understood principles (which would be even worse).

See Posted 2 hours ago

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

Of course my opinion doesn't matter.  I think I stated that.  But that doesn't mean I can't state what my opinion is.  You certainly can ignore it.  The church can single out gay parents and call them apostates if they wish.  The church can also choose to not call unmarried unrepentant parents apostates. It is their leverage that they can use however they want. It is not me and other former members of the church whose opinion you or the church have to worry about.  It is all those faithful members, serving in priesthood callings, and mothers who love their gay sons, daughters, nephews and brothers that you have to worry about.

I didn't say your opinions don't matter. I said your warped sense of the motives for the policy don't matter, if by your own admission, you don't care about the policy. Your opinions matter, hence the time I spend reading them.

The Church is not calling "unmarried unrepentant parents apostates" -- only that same-sex marriage is apostasy.

Exactly in what way do I have to worry about all those faithful members?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

These are in the scriptures: D&C 68:25 and 83:4.

Children whose parents are apostate from Zion, and upon whom they have claim for their maintenance, are not eligible for baptism because apostates by definition will not teach them the Church covenants correctly, and foster a home environment that is inherently unable to support the realization of even correctly understood principles (which would be even worse).

See Posted 2 hours ago

You are assuming a lot. Lets look specifically at the verses you are supposedly quoting from to justify additional requirements for a child to be eligible for baptism.

Quote

D&C 68:25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand 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, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

Think about this. The restriction only includes children who desire to be baptized and receive the gift of the holy ghost. So clearly they have been taught these principles. Further, you can only assume that children from every gay household are not taught repentance or faith in Christ. That is absurd. You likely make the assumption because that's what apostasy is, but that's a great example of why SSM is not necessarily apostasy. You are using circular logic to back up your claim. Apostates can't have their children baptized because they haven't taught their children because they're apostate. Silly.

Quote

D&C 83:4 All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

Great. So parents are responsible for raising their children. No argument here. But why does that mean a child isn't eligible for baptism?

CFR stands. Please provide scriptural evidence that there are eligibility requirements beyond personal worthiness and being at least 8 years old.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Good point and I will honestly try to remember to use the word ineligible rather than unworthy from now on.

Fortunately, the child of gay parents wouldn't be putting his/her life in danger by being baptized.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good point and I will honestly try to remember to use the word ineligible rather than unworthy from now on.

Fortunately, the child of gay parents wouldn't be putting his/her life in danger by being baptized.

 

No, but it arguably would be putting him/her in an untenable position by making him/her accountable for the fulfillment of covenants when he/she has parent(s) who are in apostasy.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Great. So parents are responsible for raising their children. No argument here. But why does that mean a child isn't eligible for baptism?

Entrapment no different than that tried on the Savior (https://www.lds.org/bible-videos/videos/render-unto-caesar-and-unto-god?lang=eng).

If children are allowed baptism the Church would very much be vilified by the government.
If children are denied baptism forever the Church would be negligent in its duty to God.

The current position of the Church is an attempt to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But why now? What's different? Caesar is. The Church changed aspects of its policy because Caesar and his demands have changed.

[Calm]

Cb, Since when did parents have the sole right to decide whether or not their child should be part of an organization.  Unless they also run the organization, it has always been a two part decision...that of the parents and that of the organization.  I just don't see how this can be dalled interfering with a right when that right does not actually exist in the sense being used.

Organizations have the right to decide what type of members they wish to admit.  If a soccer organization wants the child to come play for them, is the parent interfering with the organization's right to decide what is best for it/them if the parent refuses to give permission?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are assuming a lot. Lets look specifically at the verses you are supposedly quoting from to justify additional requirements for a child to be eligible for baptism.

Think about this. The restriction only includes children who desire to be baptized and receive the gift of the holy ghost. So clearly they have been taught these principles. Further, you can only assume that children from every gay household are not taught repentance or faith in Christ. That is absurd. You likely make the assumption because that's what apostasy is, but that's a great example of why SSM is not necessarily apostasy. You are using circular logic to back up your claim. Apostates can't have their children baptized because they haven't taught their children because they're apostate. Silly.

Great. So parents are responsible for raising their children. No argument here. But why does that mean a child isn't eligible for baptism?

CFR stands. Please provide scriptural evidence that there are eligibility requirements beyond personal worthiness and being at least 8 years old.

The restriction is for children of apostate parents because apostates are not in Zion. The child is not apostate, but, having claim on apostates for his maintenance, relies on apostates to inform his spiritual convictions. An apostate cannot teach his children the faith and repentance required for the child to be spiritually maintained. Maintenance is the ongoing process of spiritual nurturing and progress, not just a superficial data dump that contradicts the apostate reality (talk about cognitive dissonance!). It entails the whole of the home environment.

Should the apostate develop faith and repent and return to Zion, all that changes. To correct your silly remark, "Apostates can't have their children baptized because they haven't taught their children the truth of the obedience membership entails." The apostate being responsible for raising his child renders the child ineligible for baptism because the child hasn't been taught the principles listed in the scripture, and the Church cannot assist an apostate in raising his child according to apostate principles.

Understanding the child's eligibility requires integrating the scriptures about parent-child responsibility. You evidently understand how the references I provided apply to eligibility but for some reason you won't accept them.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, but it arguably would be putting him/her in an untenable position by making him/her accountable for the fulfillment of covenants when he/she has parent(s) who are in apostasy.

I guess if we are going to alter the age of accountability based on the spiritual status of the parents, we should do that across the board, and not just for children of gay or polygamous parents. 

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess if we are going to alter the age of accountability based on the spiritual status of the parents, we should do that across the board, and not just for children of gay or polygamous parents. 

There is more to it than a parent's spiritual status There is the role of the Church as an assisting party to what the parents are responsible for maintaining in the home, and when the parents are apostate, the Church cannot perform that function. The parent-child relationship comes before the Church-family, Church-parent, or Church-child relationship. That is how highly and with integrity the Church respects the family unit. See Posted 27 minutes ago

Edited November 4, 2016 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess if we are going to alter the age of accountability based on the spiritual status of the parents, we should do that across the board, and not just for children of gay or polygamous parents. 

As I see it, people in polygamous and gay marriages are in a category by themselves, having apostatized in a manner that pertains to the vital doctrines of marriage and family. 

Nothing has changed about the age of accountability, but in these instances, that is superceded by eligibility considerations formulated under divine inspiration. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The restriction is for children of apostate parents because apostates are not in Zion. The child is not apostate, but, having claim on apostates for his maintenance, relies on apostates to inform his spiritual convictions. An apostate cannot teach his children the faith and repentance required for the child to be spiritually maintained. Maintenance is the ongoing process of spiritual nurturing and progress, not just a superficial data dump that contradicts the apostate reality (talk about cognitive dissonance!). It entails the whole of the home environment.

Should the apostate develop faith and repent and return to Zion, all that changes. To correct your silly remark, "Apostates can't have their children baptized because they haven't taught their children the truth of the obedience membership entails." The apostate being responsible for raising his child renders the child ineligible for baptism because the child hasn't been taught the principles listed in the scripture, and the Church cannot assist an apostate in raising his child according to apostate principles.

Understanding the child's eligibility requires integrating the scriptures about parent-child responsibility. You evidently understand how the references I provided apply to eligibility but for some reason you won't accept them.

Non member parents are also "not in Zion". Every argument you're making about how a child may be negatively influenced by "apostates" also applies to "non member" parents.

I notice you still haven't answered my CFR, except for the scriptures that state a child has claim on his parents. Weak sauce.

Quote

Entrapment no different than that tried on the Savior (https://www.lds.org/bible-videos/videos/render-unto-caesar-and-unto-god?lang=eng).

WHAT are you talking about? Are you accusing me of entrapment?

If children are allowed baptism the Church would very much be vilified by the government.
If children are denied baptism forever the Church would be negligent in its duty to God.

The current position of the Church is an attempt to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But why now? What's different? Caesar is. The Church changed aspects

What a strange comment. Was the government vilifying the church for baptizing children of gay couples BEFORE the policy? If not, you have no point. If they were, CFR. I'd like to see examples of how the government was vilifying the church for baptizing children of gay parents who desired for their children to be baptized.

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Non member parents are also "not in Zion". Every argument you're making about how a child may be negatively influenced by "apostates" also applies to "non member" parents.

I notice you still haven't answered my CFR, except for the scriptures that state a child has claim on his parents. Weak sauce.

What a strange comment. Was the government vilifying the church for baptizing children of gay couples BEFORE the policy? If not, you have no point. If they were, CFR. I'd like to see examples of how the government was vilifying the church for baptizing children of gay parents who desired for their children to be baptized.

I answered that. Non-members are not apostates; they can and do (and don't) give permission for their children to be baptized. A non-member hasn't the baggage and bad faith an apostate does.

I provided two scriptures -- if you don't understand their connection with each other and the policy as I explained, no reference will do that for you. If you have questions, I will answer, but don't hide behind a charge that I didn't provide references and explanations. Others seemed to understand them.

The "strange comment" wasn't mine; you'll have to properly address that poster as he might not see it. But I think he's saying that if you do more than Caesar demands, Caesar will quickly take advantage and dictate her, vilifying the Church in the eyes of the faithful.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I didn't say your opinions don't matter. I said your warped sense of the motives for the policy don't matter, if by your own admission, you don't care about the policy. Your opinions matter, hence the time I spend reading them.

The Church is not calling "unmarried unrepentant parents apostates" -- only that same-sex marriage is apostasy.

Exactly in what way do I have to worry about all those faithful members?

I am sure you are aware that this policy has caused big enough concerns among some active members to question the claim that the leadership of the church receives revelation from God  Some have even left the church over this issue because they strongly believe this kind of policy does not reflect the teachings of Christ.  If you don't care that the policy is strongly affecting very active members of the church to the point that some are even leaving the church over this, then I won't worry as well.  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Cb, Since when did parents have the sole right to decide whether or not their child should be part of an organization.  Unless they also run the organization, it has always been a two part decision...that of the parents and that of the organization.  I just don't see how this can be dalled interfering with a right when that right does not actually exist in the sense being used.

Organizations have the right to decide what type of members they wish to admit.  If a soccer organization wants the child to come play for them, is the parent interfering with the organization's right to decide what is best for it/them if the parent refuses to give permission?

As far as I know, no child under 18 has ever been allowed baptism without both parents permission. My room mate in college wanted to join the church when he was 16.  His parents refused to give permission for him to be baptized.  He had to wait until he was 18.  Parent permission is not required after a child turns 18.  

I never said that the church were required to baptize anyone, including a child.  Even with parent permission. the church can reject anyone they want based on any reason they want.  It is their church.

The same goes with any soccer league that my children have been involved with.  Parent permission was required to play.  While the soccer league had a policy of letting in any child that wanted to play, they still had the legal right to reject anyone for a valid reason other than just discrimination..  A soccer league would have to allow a child to play even if it didn't like Mormons.

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am sure you are aware that this policy has caused big enough concerns among some active members to question the claim that the leadership of the church receives revelation from God  Some have even left the church over this issue because they strongly believe this kind of policy does not reflect the teachings of Christ.  If you don't care that the policy is strongly affecting very active members of the church to the point that some are even leaving the church over this, then I won't worry as well.  

On the thread about the poll...the SLC Trib poll tells a sad story.  It will make you heart break..at least mine did. 

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am sure you are aware that this policy has caused big enough concerns among some active members to question the claim that the leadership of the church receives revelation from God  Some have even left the church over this issue because they strongly believe this kind of policy does not reflect the teachings of Christ.  If you don't care that the policy is strongly affecting very active members of the church to the point that some are even leaving the church over this, then I won't worry as well.  

If you won't answer my question to better understand your question, I won't worry about answering you, since you're not worrying about it either.

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

The Church is not calling "unmarried unrepentant parents apostates" -- only that same-sex marriage is apostasy.

It would be helpful if the Church explained what apostasy is as it seems to went far beyond the normal usage of the term to attach it to gay marriage.   I see SSM to be no more apostate than breaking the Word of Wisdom, stealing, murder, or having premarital sex to be apostasy.  They are all sins with their own classification.  To me apostasy is simply rebellion or rejecting the Church or its leaders itself.  I think the Church could have easily solved this issue by declaring that though the government may recognize gays being married, the Church does not recognize such marriages and will treat gays who are married exactly the same as gays who live together but are not married.  Keep everything the same as before the Supreme Court acted. 

Edited November 5, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

It would be helpful if the Church explained what apostasy is as it seems to went far beyond the normal usage of the term to attach it to gay marriage.   I see SSM to be no more apostate than breaking the Word of Wisdom, stealing, murder, or having premarital sex to be apostasy.  They are all sins with their own classification.  To me apostasy is simply rebellion or rejecting the Church or its leaders itself.  I think the Church could have easily solved this issue by declaring that though the government may recognize gays being married, the Church does not recognize such marriages and will treat gays who are married exactly the same as gays who live together but are not married.  Keep everything the same as before the Supreme Court acted. 

That would have been a lot simpler. Besides, are there really that many gay married couples lining up to have their children baptized into the church?  I can kind of see where the church is coming from with this policy but I don't understand it why it was necessary.  As far as I can tell, it has done nothing but make a lot of people angry.

Has it really been a whole year since this policy came out?

Edited November 5, 2016 by Rivers

[CV75]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It would be helpful if the Church explained what apostasy is as it seems to went far beyond the normal usage of the term to attach it to gay marriage.   I see SSM to be no more apostate than breaking the Word of Wisdom, stealing, murder, or having premarital sex to be apostasy.  They are all sins with their own classification.  To me apostasy is simply rebellion or rejecting the Church or its leaders itself.  I think the Church could have easily solved this issue by declaring that though the government may recognize gays being married, the Church does not recognize such marriages and will treat gays who are married exactly the same as gays who live together but are not married.  Keep everything the same as before the Supreme Court acted. 

I think the online definition fits perfectly well. A member entering a same-sex marriage meets those conditions of apostasy. At least that is how the leaders see it and they have the keys to administer the Church covenants (and apostasy from them).

"When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy."

It could be said that everyone does this to some degree. I think entering a same-sex marriage takes apostasy to an extreme by turning away from the culminating ordinance the earthly kingdom offers.

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the online definition fits perfectly well. A member entering a same-sex marriage meets those conditions of apostasy. At least that is how the leaders see it and they have the keys to administer the Church covenants (and apostasy from them).

"When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy."

It could be said that everyone does this to some degree. I think entering a same-sex marriage takes apostasy to an extreme by turning away from the culminating ordinance the earthly kingdom offers.

And besides calling gays names is so much more fun than calling other sinners names.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

And besides calling gays names is so much more fun than calling other sinners names.

So trivializing people's concerns and reducing them to grade school playground behaviour is a good response to a concern that they are trivializing and dismissing others' experiences?  How is any understanding and communication be achieved if we resort to this?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

So trivializing people's concerns and reducing them to grade school playground behaviour is a good response to a concern that they are trivializing and dismissing others' experiences?  How is any understanding and communication be achieved if we resort to this?

It is my opinion that the church calling gays apostates is just that, calling them names that mean absolutely nothing.  The church views them as sinners.  Church leaders want to call out their sins.  What other names can they throw at them?  Married gay couples by definition can not be members of the church.  So what really is the point of calling them apostates?  So that all the other members of the church can shame them?  So that all the other members will know that their sin of marrying is way worse than other members sins?  It seems trivial and childish to me.  Not really a bridge builder to the gay community is it.