LDS Scientist/Biographer Presents Findings on the Science of Sexual Orientation

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Calling it postponing isn’t good faith either.  

Yes, it is.  Baptism is not "forbidden."  It is postponed.

Accuracy is per se good faith.  Deliberate attempts to mislead and distort, on the other hand . . . 

I realize that reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.  But in this case, it is manifestly more accurate to state that the policy is to postpone baptism, not forbid it.

Quote

That dismisses the value and importance of everything we do the first 18 years of our lives in the church. 

It does not.

I strongly suspect that the Brethren took this into account when evaluating how to proceed on the policy.  That a salvific ordinance is being postponed demonstrates just how profoundly out-of-harmony with the Restored Gospel same-sex marriage is.  It is on par with unauthorized polygamy.  And yet children from either family type will, upon reaching majority, be able to join the Church.

The baptismal ordinance really only matters if it is valid.  But it is administered by that same authority that was used to promulgate the policy changes.  For me, if I believe in the former, I should also believe in the latter.  I think the latter is a difficult, but necessary and correct, thing.  But if it is not, I trust that God will tell His servants as much.  It is not for me to publicly speak or act against their decision.  It is within their stewardship, not mine.  I can only pray for them.

Quote

And I’m also strongly opposed to the policy for children of polygamous couples. 

I can understand that.  Strange, though, that virtually nobody actually voiced such opposition until after the November 2105 policy changes.  It rather seems to undercut the fierce moral urgency of opposing the current policy, since nobody seemed to care enough to do (or even say) anything about the identical one that has been around since the 1920s.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2017 by smac97

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The postponing of the baptism of children, you mean.  

It sure would be nice to have some good faith enter into this discussion.  Mighty nice, indeed.

And I note, once again, that nobody has characterized as "radical" the nearly identical and in-place-since-the-1920s policy regarding the children of polygamous families.

Frankly, it is normal.  The Church has long had sensible constraints on children from polygamous families, and largely for the same reasons as have been given for the more recent policy.

But I guess it's more dramatic to resort to fabricated Captain Renault-esque hyperbole:

CB is shocked - shocked! - to find that the LDS Church places constrains on children from same-sex parent households, even though identical constraints as to children from children from polygamous families have been in place for nearly 100 years.

Shocking!  Radical!

Kabuki theatre.  Pearl-clutching.  Pick your metaphor.  It all comes across the same way these days.

Thanks,

-Smac

Whatever.  I don't really care to play word games.  An 18 year old is not a child.  They are considered adults at that point.  I get you love this policy.  Others don't.  That is my point.  Nice visuals though.  

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it is.  Baptism is not "forbidden."  It is postponed.

Accuracy is per se good faith.  Deliberate misstatements of readily-accessible fact, on the other hand . . . 

I realize that reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.  But in this case, it is manifestly more accurate to state that the policy is to postpone baptism, not forbid it.

It does not.

I strongly suspect that the Brethren took this into account when evaluating how to proceed on the policy.  That a salvific ordinance is being postponed demonstrates just how profoundly out-of-harmony with the Restored Gospel same-sex marriage is.  It is on par with unauthorized polygamy.  And yet children from either family type will, upon reaching majority, be able to join the Church.

The baptismal ordinance really only matters if it is valid.  But it is administered by that same authority that was used to promulgate the policy changes.  For me, if I believe in the former, I should also believe in the latter.  I think the latter is a difficult, but necessary and correct, thing.  But if it is not, I trust that God will tell His servants as much.  It is not for me to publicly speak or act against their decision.  It is within their stewardship, not mine.  I can only pray for them.

I can understand that.  Strange, though, that virtually nobody actually voiced such opposition until after the November 2105 policy changes.  It rather seems to undercut the fierce moral urgency of opposing the current policy, since nobody seemed to care enough to do (or even say) anything about the identical one that has been around since the 1920s.

Thanks,

-Smac

Don’t forget... the policy regarding children of polygamous couples is hidden in a book that very few members can access.  You can’t be opposed to something you don’t know exists. 

Calling it forbidden is as much a misstatement as calling it postponed.  Children of gay couples are forbidden baptism until they are adults and have disavowed their parents marriage.  It is an oversimplification to call it “postponing” when we are excluding them from full fellowship until those requirements have been met and greatly reducing the chance that they’ll even return to the church. 

Edited November 5, 2017 by rockpond

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

Whatever.  I don't really care to play word games.  

And yet here you are, playing word games by deliberately mischaracterizing the policy under discussion.  You are using inflammatory and misleading rhetoric ("I was thinking the whole forbidding the baptizing of children thing as being pretty radical.")

"Forbidding" is plainly inaccurate, as any child of same-sex parents can get baptized once they reach the age of majority.  Such a person is no longer a child as to his age, but manifestly remains a child as to his parents.  The grievance here is not about the child's age, but about the child's relationship to his parents.  The policy requires the child to no longer be a child as to age, but does not require the child to cease being a child to his same-sex parents.

"Radical" is likewise inaccurate.  There is nothing "radical" about adopting a policy nearly identical to the one that has been in place for nearly a century, with nary a peep of protest from folks like you.  

Quote

An 18 year old is not a child.  They are considered adults at that point.  

And at that point the individual - who remains the child of same-sex parents - can get baptized.  

"Child," you see, can refer to a persons age or to a person's status in a family unit.  The Church's policy allows the child of a same-sex couple to be baptized.  It is misleading to the point of falsehood to omit this from the discussion.

Quote

I get you love this policy.  

You get no such thing.  I have never said, nor even hinted, that I "love this policy."  I wish it did not have to be in place, but I can see why it does.

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Don’t forget... the policy regarding children of polygamous couples is hidden in a book that very few members can access.  

That's a cop-out.  The policy regarding the children of same-sex couples is also in that book.

Quote

You can’t be opposed to something you don’t know exists. 

Convenient ignorance, that.  Plausible deniability.

Meanwhile, there remains no public outcry about the older policy, even though plenty of people know about is now.  No media coverage.  No public indignance.  No histrionics about it from folks like CB.  Just . . . meh.  Who cares about the kids of polygamists, after all...

The lopsided reaction manifested by you and yours as regarding the two policies is, as I see it, pretty telling.

Quote

Calling it forbidden is as much a misstatement as calling it postponed.  

Flatly untrue.  The former is manifestly more accurate than the latter.

Quote

Children of gay couples are forbidden baptism until they are adults and have disavowed their parents marriage.  

I'm actually okay with that formulation.  Funny, though, how often the "until..." part gets left out.  The "shock value" is so much less when the policy is discussed in context.

Quote

It is an oversimplification to call it “postponing” when we are excluding them from full fellowship

Then it can be explained further.  But at least it's not inflammatory.  People like CB are seeking to foment ill will against us by using misleading rhetoric.  I am defending my faith by using more accurate rhetoric and context.  

And the "we" that is doing the "excluding" includes the head of the Church.  And I'm not referring to Pres. Monson.

Quote

until those requirements have been met and greatly reducing the chance that they’ll even return to the church. 

I'm content to let things play out.  The Gospel has never been presented to everyone at the exact same time.  The Jews received it before the Gentiles.  By your reckoning, we should find fault with Peter for following the instructions he received in Matthew 10:5-6:

Quote

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

By your reckoning, he should have disobeyed Jesus Christ, because the delay in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles reduced their ability to receive it.

By your reckoning, your judgment should have superseded that of Jesus Christ.  

By your reckoning, your judgment should supersede that of Pres. Monson and the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

I think that's quite a limb to go out on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2017 by smac97

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet here you are, playing word games by deliberately mischaracterizing the policy under discussion.  You are using inflammatory and misleading rhetoric ("I was thinking the whole forbidding the baptizing of children thing as being pretty radical.")

"Forbidding" is plainly inaccurate, as any child of same-sex parents can get baptized once they reach the age of majority.  Such a person is no longer a child as to his age, but manifestly remains a child as to his parents.  The grievance here is not about the child's age, but about the child's relationship to his parents.  The policy requires the child to no longer be a child as to age, but does not require the child to cease being a child to his same-sex parents.

"Radical" is likewise inaccurate.  There is nothing "radical" about adopting a policy nearly identical to the one that has been in place for nearly a century, with nary a peep of protest from folks like you.  

And at that point the individual - who remains the child of same-sex parents - can get baptized.  

"Child," you see, can refer to a persons age or to a person's status in a family unit.  The Church's policy allows the child of a same-sex couple to be baptized.  It is misleading to the point of falsehood to omit this from the discussion.

You get no such thing.  I have never said, nor even hinted, that I "love this policy."  I wish it did not have to be in place, but I can see why it does.

-Smac

Ok.  Mormons don't forbid children of gay couples from being baptized.  Is that more accurate for you?  I really don't care.  It is a wonderful policy that truly shows the kind of thing Christ taught about how children should be treated.  The policy clearly points to the true church of Christ.  

Edited November 5, 2017 by california boy

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ok.  Mormons don't forbid children of gay couples from being baptized.  Is that more accurate for you?  

Sigh.  It would be nice to just get the straight dope.  Let's not try to mislead. 

The policy prohibits the child of same-sex parents from getting baptized until the child turns 18, after which the child "can make an informed and conscious decision about their own Church membership," which includes "assent{ing} to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage before entering Church membership or missionary service."  This is a disavowal of the practice of same-sex marriage, not a disavowal of the parents themselves.

Stated dispassionately, and stripped of your deliberate slant and misleading characterization, and when evaluated in context and in light of the explanations provided by the leaders of the Church, the policy becomes . . . pretty understandable.  Mundane, even.  "Radical" it is not.

Quote

I really don't care.  

And yet here you are, participating in pretty much every thread about this topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2017 by smac97

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sigh.  It would be nice to just get the straight dope.  Let's not try to mislead. 

The policy prohibits the child of same-sex parents from getting baptized until the child turns 18, after which the child "can make an informed and conscious decision about their own Church membership," which includes "assent{ing} to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage before entering Church membership or missionary service."  This is a disavowal of the practice of same-sex marriage, not a disavowal of the parents themselves.

Stated dispassionately, and stripped of your deliberate slant and misleading characterization, and when evaluated in context and in light of the explanations provided by the leaders of the Church, the policy becomes . . . pretty understandable.  Mundane, even.  "Radical" it is not.

And yet here you are, participating in pretty much every thread about this topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do comment on the affects of the policy.  But I have never said that I had a problem with the church policy.  It is no longer my church.  How it is run doesn't matter to me.  But I am fascinated by the impact of the policies.  And I like to talk about those impacts both with members and with non members attitudes towards the church.  And I am fascinated by how those that support the policy defend it.  How they like to minimize what is actually happening to make it sound like forbidding children from being baptized until they become adults is such a good idea.  How they fit that into the teachings of Christ.  How they diminish the importance of baptism on those children.  One wonders why anyone is baptized until they are 18.  After all, it is just a delay and not forbidding.

You got to admit, the way you and others defend this policy is quite interesting.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have never said, nor even hinted, that I "love this policy."  I wish it did not have to be in place, but I can see why it does.

-Smac

So why don't you love the policy?  

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

That’s a beautiful sentiment and I don’t disagree.  How do I apply that to the topic we were discussing? ... are you suggesting that I take every verse of the Bible as the perfect word of God?

Listen! I fully understand that GOD spoke to various men at various times throughout the historic writing of the various books of the Bible. I also am fully aware that for the most part their language was primarily Hebrew. I do get it. Most of us are reading and studying translations of God's Word. With that said, I feel strongly that the Hebrew and later Greek (mainly New Testament) writings, are exactly as God wanted them to be.  We know historically that when the scribes penned a new copy of various Biblical Text, that if multiple mistakes were found, the copy was destroyed and had to be rewritten. If one things the Jews were ---they were precise and didn't fool around with holy text.

Now as for translations of the Bible, we know that for instance the New World Translation of the Bible by the Jehovah Witnesses has been slanted towards their peculiar doctrinal stances ------------- Particularly THEIR NEW TESTAMENT. We know this because we have much older copies in Greek, etc., and can see that THEIR translation of In the beginning was the word and the word was with GOD and the word  was a god --- is entirely taking liberties with the text to suit themselves.

So I believe that there enough early text in the original language to substantiate the reality that what we posses are very fine translations  (for the most part) from original language transcripts. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's a cop-out.  The policy regarding the children of same-sex couples is also in that book.

Convenient ignorance, that.  Plausible deniability.

Meanwhile, there remains no public outcry about the older policy, even though plenty of people know about is now.  No media coverage.  No public indignance.  No histrionics about it from folks like CB.  Just . . . meh.  Who cares about the kids of polygamists, after all...

The lopsided reaction manifested by you and yours as regarding the two policies is, as I see it, pretty telling.

Flatly untrue.  The former is manifestly more accurate than the latter.

I'm actually okay with that formulation.  Funny, though, how often the "until..." part gets left out.  The "shock value" is so much less when the policy is discussed in context.

Then it can be explained further.  But at least it's not inflammatory.  People like CB are seeking to foment ill will against us by using misleading rhetoric.  I am defending my faith by using more accurate rhetoric and context.  

And the "we" that is doing the "excluding" includes the head of the Church.  And I'm not referring to Pres. Monson.

I'm content to let things play out.  The Gospel has never been presented to everyone at the exact same time.  The Jews received it before the Gentiles.  By your reckoning, we should find fault with Peter for following the instructions he received in Matthew 10:5-6:

By your reckoning, he should have disobeyed Jesus Christ, because the delay in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles reduced their ability to receive it.

By your reckoning, your judgment should have superseded that of Jesus Christ.  

By your reckoning, your judgment should supersede that of Pres. Monson and the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

I think that's quite a limb to go out on.

Thanks,

-Smac

For most people, the policy about children of polygamous couples wasn’t known until is was used to justify the leaked policy about children of gay couples.  I’m sorry that I don’t know any polygamists but since I do know gay people and a number of same sex couples, the 2015 policy hits home more.  

Christ’s injunction in Matthew 28 was to teach all nations and baptize them.  I believe that still stands. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Listen! I fully understand that GOD spoke to various men at various times throughout the historic writing of the various books of the Bible. I also am fully aware that for the most part their language was primarily Hebrew. I do get it. Most of us are reading and studying translations of God's Word. With that said, I feel strongly that the Hebrew and later Greek (mainly New Testament) writings, are exactly as God wanted them to be.  We know historically that when the scribes penned a new copy of various Biblical Text, that if multiple mistakes were found, the copy was destroyed and had to be rewritten. If one things the Jews were ---they were precise and didn't fool around with holy text.

Now as for translations of the Bible, we know that for instance the New World Translation of the Bible by the Jehovah Witnesses has been slanted towards their peculiar doctrinal stances ------------- Particularly THEIR NEW TESTAMENT. We know this because we have much older copies in Greek, etc., and can see that THEIR translation of In the beginning was the word and the word was with GOD and the word  was a god --- is entirely taking liberties with the text to suit themselves.

So I believe that there enough early text in the original language to substantiate the reality that what we posses are very fine translations  (for the most part) from original language transcripts. 

Here’s a New Testament scripture, is this exactly as God wanted it to be?

1 Cor 14:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

[Bob Crockett]

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Here’s a New Testament scripture, is this exactly as God wanted it to be?

1 Cor 14:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Bad example. See JST. 

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Here’s a New Testament scripture, is this exactly as God wanted it to be?

1 Cor 14:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The Bible spells out over and over that Men are to be the leaders and that women are a help-meet to their husbands. Church is not the place to gab or gossip. A wife needs to interact with her husband so that they are both on the same page, are in agreement as to how to handle finances, children,  understand each other, etc...  I get it --- don't you? Just because "modern" society thinks things need to be different doesn't mean things are getting any better and women are happier and the divorce rate is dropping....

Sorry, just making point and not trying to change the subject. But certainly "Christians" need to be listening to GOD through His Word and not be overly concerned with what the worldly thinks is correct... 

Edited November 5, 2017 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Whatever.  I don't really care to play word games.  An 18 year old is not a child.  They are considered adults at that point.  I get you love this policy.  Others don't.  That is my point.  Nice visuals though.  

An 18 year old isn't necessary very mature or understanding of when he is being duped  (taken for a ride) either!  I had this guy come up to me when I was 19 years old and just knew I could make good college money as a model. He then proceeded to quality that saying, "You don't have any problem with say a little nudity do you fella." Thankfully it wasn't just the fact of how he rubbed my shoulder or thumped his finger against my chest. I just knew he was up to no good --- though twice my age. But I had a Christian family, gone to Church and a still small voice to advise me. Just because a guy can grow a beard and has chest hair doesn't make him a man of the world.  

Edited November 5, 2017 by LittleNipper

[thesometimesaint]

30 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The Bible spells out over and over that Men are to be the leaders and that women are a help-meet to their husbands. Church is not the place to gab or gossip. A wife needs to interact with her husband so that they are both on the same page, are in agreement as to how to handle finances, children,  understand each other, etc...  I get it --- don't you? Just because "modern" society thinks things need to be different doesn't mean things are getting any better and women are happier and the divorce rate is dropping....

Sorry, just making point and not trying to change the subject. But certainly "Christians" need to be listening to GOD through His Word and not be overly concerned with what the worldly thinks is correct... 

A silent partner.

[LittleNipper]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

A silent partner.

Women can talk, they simply were not intended to be ministers. And I don't know how Mormons handle Sunday services, but I don't imagine people can randomly interrupt a service to speak their mind.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

So why don't you love the policy?  

It's a policy.  It's not my wife or my children or a valued friend.  It's not a puppy.  It's a necessary guideline for a very difficult circumstance.  "Loving" it doesn't come into the equation.

Let me illustrate my position a bit further.  As an attorney, I do a lot of work in real estate law, including foreclosures and evictions.  This can be hard, unpleasant, but necessary, work.  I am grateful that our legal system has in place mechanisms for foreclosures and evictions.  These mechanisms are obviously the source of a lot of stress and angst for those being foreclosed on or evicted, but they are necessary because without them, the real estate market could not function properly.  A bank will generally only have long-term success if it makes wise financial decisions.  A secured loan, such as one to purchase residential real estate, is a much more reliable expenditure than an unsecured loan.  The difference between the two is the presence, or absence, of security (the collateral, the home).  The bank's viability as a business depends on its ability to recover the collateral in the event of a default.  Without that ability, secured loans become much more risky.  Without that that ability, banks would be far less willing to loan people money to buy homes.  Without that ability, many people would be without the means of purchasing a home.  The financial and sociological benefits of home ownership for those situated to afford it are significant.  I think our society is better of with home ownership within reach.

But homeownership comes at a real cost.  It requires banks lending money.  Lending requires security.  Security requires the ability to recover collateral  Recovering collateral, in this context, means . . . foreclosure, then eviction.  Both of these can be painful.  Embarrassing.  Stressful.  And yet our real estate market absolutely depends on the bank's ability to foreclose and evict.  So do I "love" foreclosure and eviction laws?  Do I "enjoy" the real-world ramifications, the pain and stress endured by families, of foreclosure and eviction?  No.  Not at all.  But I do feel that these laws are necessary.  I am appreciative of these laws, even though the enforcement of them can result in discomfort and stress to innocent persons.  

As regarding the topic of this thread, I think the November 2015 policy changes were necessary.  I understand that they have caused stress and discomfort and anger.  I am a husband and father.  I get it.  I am not indifferent to these feelings.  But I am also not indifferent to the necessity of the policy changes.  I am also cognizant of the good character of the men who promulgated the policy, and of their collective experience and wisdom, and of their sincere motives, and of their efforts to discern and follow the will of God, and of their stature as prophets and apostles.  I am also cognizant of the social changes which have necessitated the policy changes.  The LDS Church takes marriage very, very seriously.  It asserts divine authority to define the parameters of that institution for the members of the Church.  It asserts divine authority, and mandate, to discipline those who disregard clear and unambiguous prophetic counsel regarding those parameters.  So polygamy, when prohibited by God, is an extremely serious transgression.  Same-sex marriage is likewise an extremely serious transgression.  There are otherwise good and decent people who choose to enter into these transgressive behaviors.  Such is their right, but not as members of the Church.  And when the consequences of their transgression begin to manifest in the lives of the children of such persons, then the Church has sought to develop and maintain policies that maintain the parameters set by God while also allowing those innocents adversely affected by their parents' transgressive behaviors to eventually obtain every possible blessing of membership in the Church.

The policies pertaining to the children of polygamous and same-sex marriages are difficult.  But necessary.  Painful.  But necessary.  Unpleasant.  But necessary.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

For most people, the policy about children of polygamous couples wasn’t known until is was used to justify the leaked policy about children of gay couples.  

Which was two years ago.  And yet the response to this in-place-since-the-1920s policy has been . . . crickets.  Chirping.

If the newer policy is innately wrong and immoral, then so is the older one it was modeled on.  And yet . . . nobody cares.

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m sorry that I don’t know any polygamists but since I do know gay people and a number of same sex couples, the 2015 policy hits home more.  

Yes, I can understand that.  But to me that demonstrates that the opposition to the policy is borne more of factors like personal connections, emotions, and popularity (all of which make the newer policy "hit home more"), and less of the actual form and content and intent of the policy itself.  If the policy was controversial because it is innately bad, then so is the older one.  And yet nobody gives a tinker's darn about the older one.  On the other hand, if the policy was controversial because it "hits home more" (that is, because it potentially adversely affects a more socially popular group (popularity), it affects people you know (personal connections / emotions)), then there wouldn't be as much room for judgmentalism against the Brethren and the Church, rising up to join with critics and opponents of the Church in publicly criticizing and condemning the Brethren, and so on.

Again, the lopsided reaction to the two nearly identical policies is, to me, quite illuminating.

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Christ’s injunction in Matthew 28 was to teach all nations and baptize them.  I believe that still stands. 

Yes, it does.  But you aren't accounting for the instructions Christ gave to Peter in Matthew 10:5-6.

By your reckoning, Peter should have disobeyed Jesus Christ, because the delay in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles reduced their ability to receive it.

By your reckoning, your judgment should have superseded that of Jesus Christ.  

By your reckoning, your judgment should supersede that of Pres. Monson and the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it is.  Baptism is not "forbidden."  It is postponed.

Accuracy is per se good faith.  Deliberate attempts to mislead and distort, on the other hand . . . 

I realize that reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.  But in this case, it is manifestly more accurate to state that the policy is to postpone baptism, not forbid it.

It does not.

I strongly suspect that the Brethren took this into account when evaluating how to proceed on the policy.  That a salvific ordinance is being postponed demonstrates just how profoundly out-of-harmony with the Restored Gospel same-sex marriage is.  It is on par with unauthorized polygamy.  And yet children from either family type will, upon reaching majority, be able to join the Church.

The baptismal ordinance really only matters if it is valid.  But it is administered by that same authority that was used to promulgate the policy changes.  For me, if I believe in the former, I should also believe in the latter.  I think the latter is a difficult, but necessary and correct, thing.  But if it is not, I trust that God will tell His servants as much.  It is not for me to publicly speak or act against their decision.  It is within their stewardship, not mine.  I can only pray for them.

I can understand that.  Strange, though, that virtually nobody actually voiced such opposition until after the November 2105 policy changes.  It rather seems to undercut the fierce moral urgency of opposing the current policy, since nobody seemed to care enough to do (or even say) anything about the identical one that has been around since the 1920s.

Thanks,

-Smac

And even now, nobody gets around to voicing it until the inconsistency is pointed out. Which feeds my suspicion that the indignation is not so much in behalf of hypothetical and possibly non-existent children as it is for those whose choices as adults make of them apostates. 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Women can talk, they simply were not intended to be ministers. And I don't know how Mormons handle Sunday services, but I don't imagine people can randomly interrupt a service to speak their mind.

That isn't what Paul said.

LDS are very polite, we don't interrupt a speaker. But there have been very rare occasions where the Bishop has corrected what a speaker has said.

We have a lay ministry so every member has the right to speak in our church services. Our first Sunday of the month is Fast and Testimony Meeting the congregation is encouraged to bear their testimonies. Other times the Bishop calls on speakers of both sexes to give talks. Sunday School meetings can be conducted by either sex. Priesthood Meetings are designed for the guys and Relief Society is for the gals. But can attend either.

Edited November 5, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[kiwi57]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

Calling it postponing isn’t good faith either.

So speaking facts instead of hyperbole "isn't good faith."

I see.

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

 That dismisses the value and importance of everything we do the first 18 years of our lives in the church. 

No. It does not.

It merely calls things what they are. It is value-neutral.

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

And I’m also strongly opposed to the policy for children of polygamous couples. 

At least you are consistent in your strong opposition to the Lord's Anointed servants.

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

That isn't what Paul said.

LDS are very polite, we don't interrupt a speaker. But there have been very rare occasions where the Bishop has corrected what a speaker has said.

We have a lay ministry so every member has the right to speak in our church services. Our first Sunday of the month is Fast and Testimony Meeting the congregation is encouraged to bear their testimonies. Other times the Bishop calls on speakers of both sexes to give talks. Sunday School meetings can be conducted by either sex. Priesthood Meetings are designed for the guys and Relief Society is for the gals. But can attend either.

How will they learn without a preacher?

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The Bible spells out over and over that Men are to be the leaders and that women are a help-meet to their husbands. Church is not the place to gab or gossip. A wife needs to interact with her husband so that they are both on the same page, are in agreement as to how to handle finances, children,  understand each other, etc...  I get it --- don't you? Just because "modern" society thinks things need to be different doesn't mean things are getting any better and women are happier and the divorce rate is dropping....

Sorry, just making point and not trying to change the subject. But certainly "Christians" need to be listening to GOD through His Word and not be overly concerned with what the worldly thinks is correct... 

I agree that we should not be concerned with what the world thinks is correct.  

My point was that to align those verses in 1 Corinthians with your beliefs you had to completely change the meaning of them.  So if the Bible is perfectly as God wants it, why can’t you accept that women need to stay silent in church?  That’s very clearly what the Bible says. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which was two years ago.  And yet the response to this in-place-since-the-1920s policy has been . . . crickets.  Chirping.

If the newer policy is innately wrong and immoral, then so is the older one it was modeled on.  And yet . . . nobody cares.

Yes, I can understand that.  But to me that demonstrates that the opposition to the policy is borne more of factors like personal connections, emotions, and popularity (all of which make the newer policy "hit home more"), and less of the actual form and content and intent of the policy itself.  If the policy was controversial because it is innately bad, then so is the older one.  And yet nobody gives a tinker's darn about the older one.  On the other hand, if the policy was controversial because it "hits home more" (that is, because it potentially adversely affects a more socially popular group (popularity), it affects people you know (personal connections / emotions)), then there wouldn't be as much room for judgmentalism against the Brethren and the Church, rising up to join with critics and opponents of the Church in publicly criticizing and condemning the Brethren, and so on.

Again, the lopsided reaction to the two nearly identical policies is, to me, quite illuminating.

Yes, it does.  But you aren't accounting for the instructions Christ gave to Peter in Matthew 10:5-6.

By your reckoning, Peter should have disobeyed Jesus Christ, because the delay in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles reduced their ability to receive it.

By your reckoning, your judgment should have superseded that of Jesus Christ.  

By your reckoning, your judgment should supersede that of Pres. Monson and the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

-Smac

You are incorrect on my “reckoning” and ought not make such false assumptions. 

You’ve also incorrectly identified why the 2015 policy hits home.  It has nothing to do with it being targeted toward a more socially popular group.  I have a great affinity toward faithful fundamentalists who steadfastly believe in the early teachings of the church.  That the dark side of polygamy has made them less accepted is sad. 

When I said the policy hits closer to home it’s because I have dear friends and family members who are gay and either are in same sex marriages or hope to be someday.