Calm Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Glenn101 said: I was responding to CB's rather sarcastic response which was rather ironic since he is no longer a believer. And actually there will be no problem for your child. The problem would be yours. Glenn I think there is much talking past each other because some are focusing on the end result, which we have been promised by the Lord that no blessing that is not our fault in not receiving will be withheld from us, including all the long term advantages that can come with a more intimate involvement with the Church at a younger age and others are focusing on the immediate benefits, of which there are many, on receiving baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, whether adult or child. So no problem long term, but some definite costs short term and possibly high costs, both in terms of socializing and spiritual blessings. Otoh, there may also be high costs opening up baptisms of children no matter what the situation is at home. Remember there are a minimum of ten years under parental care, that is ten years where the parents' attitudes may change, sometimes drastically towards the Church, just as has been demonstrated occurring in 2015. I would not be surprised if the Church feels the need to come out with even a stronger statement against gay marriage as it becomes more commonplace and accepted in the next couple of decades. Conflict in the home is a huge thing and can lead to insecurities and emotional difficulties in the children and conflict for parents if there is disagreement on approaches. Personally I think people should be much more concerned about what happens in the family than what happens at Church. And I don't believe every parent or even most are that good at figuring out how their behaviour affects their child, especially where they are very emotionally invested and it is harmful. I have seen too much cluelessness up close as well as adults who were good at justifying their needs over their children's, including believing if it is good for them, it must also be good for the family and if good for the family, it must also be good for each child. It is why I believe the policy is wise, though painful in its introduction. The family and larger social dynamics of gay families do vary from polygamous families in the 1920s and 30s though, so I am opened to being proved wrong 20 years from now. This is most obvious in the larger cases of custody arrangements...or so I am assuming. There may have been plenty divorces among polygamous couples back in the 20s and 30s that I am completely unaware of. Our current leadership has probably many who grew up aware of the difficulties of postmanifest family dynamics, if not firsthand, than through stories of their parents and grandparents. Few of us have the same background. It may be leading them to be overconfident because the situations may not be comparable after all, it may be leading us to see greater future difficulty than there will be since we are on,y judging by the here and now. 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know how to link to specific posts, but he is quoting jkwilliams. Go back one screen before this, and you will see. There is a little sideways v made out of three dots in the upper right hand corner of your post. If you click on that, you can copy and pasted the URL to link directly to that post. Edited October 27, 2017 by Calm 1
ALarson Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If cases are to be handled uniquely and individually, could not this counsel from the past apply in some instances such as those where there is capacity for heterosexual attraction? I don't believe that it should ever be advised as a "cure" for homosexuality (or bisexuality). But, I do believe that some gay people can be happy married to the opposite sex. I haven't heard of anyone's attraction going away (for the same sex), but I'll admit I'm not one to ask about that.
Recommended Posts