So Now For Something *Totally* Unexpected...

[california boy]

I admire the graciousness of the SF Gay Mens Choir to accept the invitation after all the church has done to the gay community.  I think he summed up his feelings on this quite nicely.

Quote

 

“We have no delusions about changing the course of the Mormon religion. Nor does this wipe away the pain inflicted on the LGBTQ community over the years. We are going into this with eyes wide open,”

 

 

 

I have similar feelings.  Good for them.

 

And so what if it is window dressing.  Perhaps the church will start to think of itself as something more than an organization that has to draw such sharp lines in the sand against the gay community.  That would be a start don't you think?  Baby Steps.

Edited June 26, 2018 by california boy

[JulieM]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For starters, "inclusion" would mean "not actively excluding". Excluding gays and their children from saving church ordinances is expressly exclusionary. Removing that hideous policy and allowing, for example, children to be baptized, would be "inclusive". It's not that hard to understand  

You’re going to get the standard “well, they also do this to polygamists” response.  But let’s talk about inclusion of gays and their families.  That’s the topic here!

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

What change in doctrine do you have in mind?

How do you propose that this change would come about?

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's get those who baptized to be baptized.  Have them baptized with the idea that their parents are different..but they are not evil.

[smac97]

EDITED to stay on topic and avoid debate.

Edited June 26, 2018 by smac97

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Let's get those who baptized to be baptized.  Have them baptized with the idea that their parents are different..but they are not evil.

They are not evil but they will teach their child a different doctrine at home compared to what the child will learn and agree to live when baptized in the church. 
Who does the child obey first? His parents or God?  If he is not baptized he is not obligated to agree with all the doctrines of the church which removes the conflict he might have with his parents. 

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

They are not evil but they will teach their child a different doctrine at home compared to what the child will learn and agree to live when baptized in the church. 
Who does the child obey first? His parents or God?  If he is not baptized he is not obligated to agree with all the doctrines of the church which removes the conflict he might have with his parents. 

The thing is...I don't see anywhere that Jesus nor His Father wants us to exclude children.  So...these parents who take care of all their children;s needs and support them are not going against anything if the child wants to be baptized...the ball is in your court.  The child listens to his parents for very important things in life..but his free agency is his/hers..it is such a win..win..

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I assume you mean "Let's get those who [want to be] baptized to be baptized."  Is that correct?

Is that all?  What about the Church's policy on those who enter into a same-sex marriage?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes...if the children want to be baptized..for grandparents..whatever..let them.  Their parents who love and care for eachother and the family...they have not sinned.  I think we have not given God enough credit here. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

They are not evil but they will teach their child a different doctrine at home compared to what the child will learn and agree to live when baptized in the church. 

Just as many other parents do (who live together without being married, etc.).  Do you propose not baptizing their children as well?

[JAHS]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just as many other parents do (who live together without being married, etc.).  Do you propose not baptizing their children as well?

No but those parents are going to understand, according to scripture,  that they are not living in a relationship that is right  with god (it's called adultery or fornication) and therefore will not actively interfere in the things the child learns at church. 

Also such situations at least are man and woman and have the potential of  being married parents with both mother and father roles represented.

Edited June 26, 2018 by JAHS

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Just as many other parents do (who live together without being married, etc.).  Do you propose not baptizing their children as well?

Right.

I didn't realize we only baptize children with parents who don't "sin".

The argument that the POX is designed to protect the children is laughable. I remember when the POX first came out and many of the most devout members refused to believe it was actually a church policy because it was so antithetical to the gospel. Then an apostle used "but it's for the good of the children" line and everyone seemed to get on board. It saddens me that so many people get in line, even when it means going against their own conscience.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

No but those parents are going to understand, according to scripture,  that they are not living in a relationship that is right  with god (it's called adultery) and therefore will not actively interfere in the things the child learns at church. 

This makes no sense.

Parents who are sinning because they are gay are going to actively interfere with church teachings, but parents who are sinning because of X Y Z, will not ...because...

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

EDITED to stay on topic and avoid debate.

Let's just say that some will use a bridge as a means of attack, regardless of why it was built in the first place.

[SouthernMo]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, let's give this a chance.

Agreed. Let’s embrace all the efforts we see on the church’s part - small or awkward as they may be. 

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No but those parents are going to understand, according to scripture,  that they are not living in a relationship that is right  with god (it's called adultery or fornication) and therefore will not actively interfere in the things the child learns at church. 

How do you know that?  You can’t possibly make that judgement in advance (not for gay parents and not for other parents “living in sin”). What an unfair, blanket pre-judgement!!

[smac97]

Here's a link with an embedded video of Mr. Seelig conducting the joint choir (they sang "This Land Is Your Land").

From the link:

Quote

“It was fabulous,” Seelig [] wrote on Facebook following the event, which he also called surreal.

“They are beyond fabulous. Let me just say that my appearance as guest conductor was approved by the absolute top of the Latter Day Saints hierarchy,” he continued. The chorus and orchestra and entire MoTab staff and all of the Elders present were incredible.”

“When the Master of Ceremonies announced that the guest conductor this evening is the Artistic Director of the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus, there was a nano-second pause (in disbelief) and then a huge ovation. There’s absolutely no question that this invitation had been thought through before it was issued. It was a beautiful evening. More to come. Music heals.”

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 26, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No but those parents are going to understand, according to scripture,  that they are not living in a relationship that is right  with god (it's called adultery or fornication) and therefore will not actively interfere in the things the child learns at church. 

Also such situations at least are man and woman and have the potential of  being married parents with both mother and father roles represented.

To me the underlying issue is not sin, but apostasy on the subject of marriage. The Church cannot have a good-faith ordinance relationship with apostates no matter how friendly the parties may be toward each other. Where the children have claim upon their parents before they do the Church (an application of D&C 83:4; conversely, the wishes of parents who do not want their children baptized are honored), they must be of age and disassociate themselves from apostasy on the subject of marriage by disavowing/renouncing the practice. The requirements in D&C 20:68-69 call for a godly walk and conversation, and considering the circumstances, the requirements of this general policy serves that purpose, and specific circumstances can allow for such children to be baptized.

@HappyJackWagon in reply to your post as well.

Edited June 26, 2018 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Right.

I didn't realize we only baptize children with parents who don't "sin".

The argument that the POX is designed to protect the children is laughable. I remember when the POX first came out and many of the most devout members refused to believe it was actually a church policy because it was so antithetical to the gospel. Then an apostle used "but it's for the good of the children" line and everyone seemed to get on board. It saddens me that so many people get in line, even when it means going against their own conscience.

It couldn't be that upon reflection, study and an infusion of knowledge, they gained further light and understanding. Not in your worldview, I guess.

Smac97 has acknowledged having had difficulty with the policy at first but then coming to understand it. I wonder how he feels about your blanket accusation that he "[got] in line, even when it [meant] going against [his] own conscience."

Edited June 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It couldn't be that upon reflection, study and an infusion of knowledge, they gained further light and understanding. Not in your worldview, I guess.

Smac97 has acknowledged having difficulty with the policy at first but then coming to understand it. I wonder how he feels about your blanket accusation that he "[got] in line, even when it [meant] going against [his] own conscience."

I didn't take his statement as referring to me.  And if he was referring to me, he's simply wrong.

BTW, what's this "POX" thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 26, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's a link with an embedded video of Mr. Seelig conducting the joint choir:

Thanks,

-Smac

It's customary when the Tabernacle Choir is on tour to invite a person of prominence in the community in whatever venue the performance is taking place to guest-conduct the choir in the song "This Land Is Your Land." For example, three years ago, when I covered the choir's East Coast tour, Chuck Schumer did the honors at Carnegie Hall in New York.

That said, this particular occasion is especially meaningful. I hope not too many seize upon it as a chance to do what some on this thread have done already, to use it as "a bridge for attack regardless of why it was built in the first place," as CV75 put it.

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

BTW, what's this "POX" thing?

Could be he meant the X to represent another letter.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I didn't take his statement as referring to me.  And if he was referring to me, he's simply wrong.

BTW, what's this "POX" thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think he's simply wrong, period.

And I, too, wondered about the "POX" thing. The latest insulting buzzword or would-be buzzword, I suppose.

Edited too add:

It didn't take too long in a Google search to find out that "POX" is supposed to mean "policy of exclusion." See this article, for example.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To me the underlying issue is not sin, but apostasy on the subject of marriage. The Church cannot have a good-faith ordinance relationship with apostates no matter how friendly the parties may be toward each other. Where the children have claim upon their parents before they do the Church (an application of D&C 83:4; conversely, the wishes of parents who do not want their children baptized are honored), they must be of age and disassociate themselves from apostasy on the subject of marriage by disavowing/renouncing the practice. The requirements in D&C 20:68-69 call for a godly walk and conversation, and considering the circumstances, the requirements of this general policy serves that purpose, and specific circumstances can allow for such children to be baptized.

This still doesn't make sense. If it's about "apostasy" then wouldn't every child of apostate parents also be restricted from baptism? Of course the church can change their definition of apostasy to whatever they like (as they did in the case of calling SSM apostasy), but this could include a child of any parent who has had their name removed from church records, or been excommunicated for apostasy, etc.

The church seems to be calling those who engage in SSM "apostate" because they are choosing to live contrary to the church's teaching on that subject. Yet many people, even active people, choose to live contrary to the church's teachings on other subjects, yet they aren't apostate. Parents who live together without being married, thus choosing to live contrary to the church's teachings on marriage, are not apostate. Children of totally inactive parents are often sought after to be baptized. But the church treats every group (except polygamists, likely because they're embarrassed by the association with early church teachings/practices) differently than they do gay people.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I didn't take his statement as referring to me.  And if he was referring to me, he's simply wrong.

BTW, what's this "POX" thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

The word "pox" is a disease, and some social engineers knew it would seem clever to the bloggernacale lemmings to come up with POX and the acronym for "Policy of Exclusion" (their term also) to mischaracterize and avoid a factual reference to Handbook 1 dealing with apostasy and ordinances for children affected by those marriages as discussed in the thread-jacks.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he's simply wrong, period.

And I, too, wondered about the "POX" thing. The latest insulting buzzword or would-be buzzword, I suppose.

POX is short for Policy of eXclusion. It's simply faster to type

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The word "pox" is a disease, and some social engineers knew it would seem clever to the bloggernacale lemmings to come up with POX and the acronym for "Policy of Exclusion" (their term also) to mischaracterize and avoid a factual reference to Handbook 1 dealing with apostasy and ordinances for children affected by those marriages as discussed in the thread-jacks.

Ah.  I see.

Thanks,

-Smac