Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But the result is the same: baptism of a child is delayed/denied because of the parent(s).

I'm not sure I would put it that way.  To be honest, I think this is a characterization intended to provoke anger and resentment against the Church, and not intended to accurately state the Church's position.

Baptism is delayed (or perhaps "temporarily denied") because of the conduct of the parents.

Yes, that happens.  There can be outside influences that may affect an individual's ability to be baptized.  For example, my son is a Church Service Missionary, and has spent most of his mission manning the "Chat with a Missionary" feature on the Church's websites.  He has had several instances where he has received text chats from people in countries where the Church is not allowed to proselytize, so the CSMs are instructed to not refer people from those countries to the missionaries, to not arrange for sending them a Book of Mormon or a Bible, etc.  Basically, the CSMs do not proselytize them in any way that puts them on a path toward baptism.

There are a number of reasons for this.  The Church does not have a presence in some of these countries, such that baptism wouldn't really make sense (since the person could not participate in Church meetings, hold callings, etc.).  In some of these countries, the Church is not allowed to proselytize, and so the Church obeys the laws of the land.  In some of these countries, joining the Church is risky (such as in the 16 Muslim-majority countries where leaving Islam is a criminal offense).

My parents are currently serving as missionaries in Zimbabwe.  Polygamy is technically legal there (around 10% of women in Zimbabwe are in polygamous marriages).  That creates some substantial impediments to missionary work for people in such circumstances.

A person convicted of and imprisoned for a serious crime may not be baptized and confirmed until they complete their terms of imprisonment.  Persons convicted of a felony or "crimes of immoral character" cannot be baptized until after they complete their parole or probation resulting from conviction (though exceptions from the First Presidency are allowed).

And so on.  Baptism is a serious commitment, and the Church treats is seriously.  

It sure would be nice to dispense with the emotionalisms.  This "sins of the parents" stuff is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  There are all sorts of circumstances in which baptism may be appropriately delayed (or denied).  The Lord will sort out such things in the end.  See D&C 137:8 ("Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom.").

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Actually, it's a logical argument.  Not emotional, as I've explained.

I'll ask of you the same question:  What has the child of gay married parents done differently than the child of straight parents to have their baptism delayed until adulthood?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about people who live in a country where joining the Church is illegal?  Is it a "violation" of their agency to not baptize them?

What are your thoughts about D&C 137:8?

Thanks,

-Smac

The laws of the country are impeding their agency.

Regarding 137:8 -- I agree with this verse.  I don't believe that the child (who is prevented from baptism by the policy) is under condemnation.  I believe the error is on the part of the church.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So do you think the Church should disregard the wishes of the non-consenting parents and baptize their chilren anyway?

Nope.  The Church respects the wishes of the parents, as it should.  But it is the parent impeding the child's exercise of their agency with respect to baptism.  So that sin is on the parents' heads, not the children.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nothing.  But then, a child living in Saudi Arabia is also "disqualified" for baptism, through no fault of their own.

If the laws of Saudi Arabia prevent a child from being baptized, it is not the fault of the church, or the parents, or the child.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  It is an argument that ignores the circumstances that the Church is taking into account.  And it seems like an argument designed to foment ill will against the Church.  To make the Church look bad.

Not emotional at all -- it's strictly logical as I have explained over and over again.

If the logic of the situation foments ill will against the church or makes the church look bad, I can't really do anything about that. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Isn’t 8 the age of accountability for baptism?  And if married gay parents (who are not members) consent, bring their child to church, etc, on what grounds is the baptism being denied?

Oh, brother.  We've been there, done that.  Many times now.  Elder Christofferson explained the "grounds" three years ago.  We've talked about his remarks many, many times on this board. 

See, e.g., this post from November 2015, in which Scott quoted Elder Christofferson extensively in response to . . . you.

And this post from last year, in which I quoted Elder Christofferson extensively in response to . . . you.

And this post from January, in which I quoted Elder Christofferson extensively, posted in a thread in which you participated.

And this post from earlier this week, in which I again quoted Elder Christofferson extensively in response to . . . you.

It borders on bad faith to pretend that the Church has not explained its position on this issue.

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Oh, brother.  We've been there, done that.  Many times now.  Elder Christofferson explained the "grounds" three years ago.  We've talked about his remarks many, many times on this board. 

See, e.g., this post from November 2015, in which Scott quoted Elder Christofferson extensively in response to . . . you.

And this post from last year, in which I quoted Elder Christofferson extensively in response to . . . you.

And this post from January, in which I quoted Elder Christofferson extensively, posted in a thread in which you participated.

And this post from earlier this week, in which I again quoted Elder Christofferson extensively in response to . . . you.

It borders on bad faith to pretend that the Church has not explained its position on this issue.

-Smac

The point is simply that the baptism is being denied/delayed because of the actions of the parents, not the child.  Regardless of the explanations (some of which may be good).

What has a child of gay parents done differently than a child of straight parents?  (None of the above answers that question.)

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you are confirming that children may be punished for their parent's transgressions/sins/apostasy.

Malarky.  CV is saying no such thing.

A person living in Saudi Arabie is not "punished" for his citizenship.

A child whose parent does not give consent is not being "punished."

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Flower it up all you want, but you can't change the fact that children are denied baptism by the church. You can justify it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the church is refusing to baptize children because of their parent's sins.

One day you'll see it and you'll get it. Once you do, you won't be able to unsee it.

Yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You can’t answer the question, can you?

The problem is that an honest answer to my question reveals the flaw in your logic:  the child has done nothing different than the child of straight parents.  So no matter how you try to describe it, the child is being denied baptism due to actions of their parents. 

Yes.  Just like a child is denied baptism where his parents do not give consent ("due to actions of their parents").

Like a person who is denied baptism because he lives in Saudi Arabia.

Again, yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  And it's getting stale.

You want to make the Church look bad.  Got it.  Check.  You can only do so by ignoring Elder Christofferson's remarks from three years ago.  You can only do so by ignoring Pres. Nelson's remarks explaining the revelatory origins of the policy (and/or implying, as a corollary, that he lied and/or "went rogue" when he did so).  You can only do so by re-hashing the same emotional argument over and over.  You can only do so by resorting to special pleading.  

It's been three years.  I really doubt the Church is going to change this policy.  If it does, I'll go along with it.  If it does not, I'll go along with that, too.  This is a difficult topic.  The 2015 policy represented a "judgement call."  It wasn't mine to make, or yours.  It was the responsibility of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  They sought out guidance from God, and apparently received it.  On this point I am going to take the word of the percipient witness, Russell M. Nelson, over your personal preferences.

If, as you so often imply, the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve were deluded into error in formulating the policy (or that they connived with each other and lied to us about it through Russell M. Nelson), I think the Lord will provide correction.  But the key word in the preceding statement is "if."

Meanwhile, the endless re-litigation of the policy is getting old.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Actually, it's a logical argument. 

No, it's not.  The loaded terminology ("sins of the parents" and such) gives you away.  The refusal to meaningfully address the points raised by Elder Christofferson three years ago gives you away.  You asking the same questions over and over, which questions presume that the Church hasn't explained its position, gives you away.

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not emotional, as I've explained.

Pretty much purely emotional.

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'll ask of you the same question:  What has the child of gay married parents done differently than the child of straight parents to have their baptism delayed until adulthood?

Nothing.

What has a person in Saudi Arabia done differently than a person in Topeka, Kansas done to have baptism delayed or denied?

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The point is simply that the baptism is being denied/delayed because of the actions of the parents, not the child.  Regardless of the explanations (some of which may be good).

And my point is simply that baptism is denied/delayed because of the actions of the parents all the time in a number of different circumstances. 

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What has a child of gay parents done differently than a child of straight parents?  (None of the above answers that question.)

Nothing. Answering that question doesn't create any dissonance or reveal a logical flaw for me.  What has a child of non-consenting parents done differently than a child of consenting parents?

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The laws of the country are impeding their agency.

And yet the Church could disregard the laws of the country.  And since the Church doesn't, you could accuse the Church of "impeding their agency."

But you don't, because that would undercut your argument.

Because your argument is based on emotion, not reason.

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Regarding 137:8 -- I agree with this verse.  I don't believe that the child (who is prevented from baptism by the policy) is under condemnation.  I believe the error is on the part of the church.

The "error" being the 2015 policy?  The policy that Elder Nelson specifically attributed to revelation through Pres. Monson?  The policy that was sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?

I get why you persist in refusing to explain how your belief that "the error is on the party of the Church" with the representations made by Elder Nelson.  It's a bridge to far for you.  You don't want to actually come out and say that Elder Nelson was lying, and/or that the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve were deluded/deceived in formulating the policy.  So you resort to hints and implications and such.

But we are not stupid.  We all see what you are doing, and have been doing for years.  I hope you reconsider your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

So do you think the Church should disregard the wishes of the non-consenting parents and baptize their chilren anyway?

Nope.  The Church respects the wishes of the parents, as it should. 

Great!  Then we can dispense with the nonsense about the Church "impeding" the agency of children.

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But it is the parent impeding the child's exercise of their agency with respect to baptism.  So that sin is on the parents' heads, not the children.

Meh.  I'm not much invested in the "sin" label you keep throwing around.  And I think you are only using it because it evokes an emotional response.  Because your argument is based on emotion, not reason.

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If the laws of Saudi Arabia prevent a child from being baptized, it is not the fault of the church, or the parents, or the child.

I quite agree.

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not emotional at all -- it's strictly logical as I have explained over and over again.

No, you haven't.

The laws of the land are not the only ones binding on the Church.  Elder Nelson explained that the policy arose from revelation given to President Nelson.  You have been ignoring and sidestepping this for years.  Or else you are insinuating that Elder Nelson lied and went rogue when he attributed the policy to revelation, or you are implying that the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were deluded/deceived in formulating the policy, notwithstanding the narrative given by Elder Nelson.

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If the logic of the situation foments ill will against the church or makes the church look bad, I can't really do anything about that. 

Alas, we are addressing emotional arguments, not logical ones.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nope.  The Church respects the wishes of the parents, as it should.  But it is the parent impeding the child's exercise of their agency with respect to baptism.  So that sin is on the parents' heads, not the children.

Can you then provide the logical explanation for why you treat two actions of parents with the same outcome (baptism delayed) so differently? In the case of non-consent, you place the sin on the parents' heads. In the case of the sin of entering same-sex marriage, you place the blame on the Church.  You even call it a sin for parents who may not even be members and thus have made no covenants about raising their children to baptism to deny consent.  Why do you treat that sin so differently? What makes it so much more grievous to you?

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Just like a child is denied baptism where his parents do not give consent ("due to actions of their parents").

Like a person who is denied baptism because he lives in Saudi Arabia.

Again, yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  And it's getting stale.

You want to make the Church look bad.  Got it.  Check.  You can only do so by ignoring Elder Christofferson's remarks from three years ago.  You can only do so by ignoring Pres. Nelson's remarks explaining the revelatory origins of the policy (and/or implying, as a corollary, that he lied and/or "went rogue" when he did so).  You can only do so by re-hashing the same emotional argument over and over.  You can only do so by resorting to special pleading.  

It's been three years.  I really doubt the Church is going to change this policy.  If it does, I'll go along with it.  If it does not, I'll go along with that, too.  This is a difficult topic.  The 2015 policy represented a "judgement call."  It wasn't mine to make, or yours.  It was the responsibility of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  They sought out guidance from God, and apparently received it.  On this point I am going to take the word of the percipient witness, Russell M. Nelson, over your personal preferences.

If, as you so often imply, the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve were deluded into error in formulating the policy (or that they connived with each other and lied to us about it through Russell M. Nelson), I think the Lord will provide correction.  But the key word in the preceding statement is "if."

Meanwhile, the endless re-litigation of the policy is getting old.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes- in these instances

1- the parent who doesn't give consent is denying the child baptism

2- the government of Saudi Arabia is denying people the ability to be baptized

3- For children with gay parents, the Church is denying the child the ability to be baptized.

In each case, someone is denying the individual's ability to be baptized. In one case, it is the church that is the roadblock to the baptism of children.

 

I disagree that my argument is emotional and not logical, but I recognize that we can have different views on that. In fact, I think your argument is emotional and not logical. In your case, I view you twisting the logic so that the church never looks bad to you. It looks to me like your emotional reaction to anything that could be construed as negative about the church overrides your ability to see it from a more logical perspective. I suspect you view me as having an emotional reaction because I think everything the church does is wrong. It reminds me of Jonathan Haidt's analogy of the elephant and the rider. We are rarely as logical/rational as we think we are, and therefore rarely as in control of our reactions to arguments as we think we are. Most often we use our rationality to explain our emotional reaction, not lead it.

 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

Oh, brother.  We've been there, done that.  Many times now.  Elder Christofferson explained the "grounds" three years ago.  We've talked about his remarks many, many times on this board. 

See, e.g., this post from November 2015, in which Scott quoted Elder Christofferson extensively in response to . . . you.

And this post from last year, in which I quoted Elder Christofferson extensively in response to . . . you.

And this post from January, in which I quoted Elder Christofferson extensively, posted in a thread in which you participated.

And this post from earlier this week, in which I again quoted Elder Christofferson extensively in response to . . . you.

It borders on bad faith to pretend that the Church has not explained its position on this issue.

The point is simply that the baptism is being denied/delayed because of the actions of the parents, not the child.  Regardless of the explanations (some of which may be good).

And there you go again.  Ignoring Elder Christofferson's remarks.  Again.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you are confirming that children may be punished for their parent's transgressions/sins/apostasy.

Flower it up all you want, but you can't change the fact that children are denied baptism by the church. You can justify it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the church is refusing to baptize children because of their parent's sins.

One day you'll see it and you'll get it. Once you do, you won't be able to unsee it. 

I am not confirming that. One day you’ll see it… 😊

Evidently you disagree with the facts and the principles. List them a specifically as possible according to your perception and understanding and we can review them one by one.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You can’t answer the question, can you?

The problem is that an honest answer to my question reveals the flaw in your logic:  the child has done nothing different than the child of straight parents.  So no matter how you try to describe it, the child is being denied baptism due to actions of their parents.  

Please point out precisely how I did not answer the question. I answered it as an opinion to your hypothetical because the policy does not drive every actuality even though your hypothetical is so worded, which quite arguably wasn't honest, revealing the flaws (whether intellectual or moral I cannot say) in your approach. On the matters of principle, the apostate couple and the non-member couple are identical on this issue so that neither can collaborate with the Church on a covenant level.

The “logic” (not sure if you’re using the right word but let’s go with it) is that, while the two children have the same age of accountability and age of consent, and presumably do similar childlike things, they are subject to two opposing parental paradigms. One paradigm can collaborate with the Church on a covenant level and the other cannot. The Church will not consent to collaborate with apostates or those in spiritual alignment with apostate principles on this particular subject (marriage and family covenants).

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nothing.

So if the child of gay parents has done nothing different to cause their baptism to be delayed, than it is because of the actions of the parents, correct?

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

And my point is simply that baptism is denied/delayed because of the actions of the parents all the time in a number of different circumstances. 

Nothing. Answering that question doesn't create any dissonance or reveal a logical flaw for me.  What has a child of non-consenting parents done differently than a child of consenting parents?

That's all I was trying to communicate.  The policy denies baptism to children based on the actions of their parents.  That's one of the doctrinal problems I have with this because it takes away the agency of the child based on behavior of the parents.  I don't think we should be party to that.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes- in these instances

1- the parent who doesn't give consent is denying the child baptism

2- the government of Saudi Arabia is denying people the ability to be baptized

3- For children with gay parents, the Church is denying the child the ability to be baptized.

In each case, someone is denying the individual's ability to be baptized. In one case, it is the church that is the roadblock to the baptism of children.

From my perspective, this is an oversimplification of each situation.  In each case multiple opposing goals and desires are at play.  The priority given in each is different. In the case of a non-consenting parent, the Church could very easily baptize the child anyway. It is nothing more than Church policy that prevents the child from being baptized. The same is true in the second case. The Church could honor the autonomy of the individual and baptize them anyway. Only a policy of the Church prevents them.  In the case of a child with same-sex parents, it is likewise a policy of the Church that prevents baptism. But just as in the case with the other two situations, to there is another party whose actions trigger the need to apply the policy. 

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's not.  The loaded terminology ("sins of the parents" and such) gives you away.  The refusal to meaningfully address the points raised by Elder Christofferson three years ago gives you away.  You asking the same questions over and over, which questions presume that the Church hasn't explained its position, gives you away.

Pretty much purely emotional.

Nothing.

What has a person in Saudi Arabia done differently than a person in Topeka, Kansas done to have baptism delayed or denied?

Thanks,

-Smac

Nothing.  And, I'm confident that if the person in Saudi Arabia could find a way to legally be baptized, the church would completely support that. 

[HappyJackWagon]

This is how I see so many of the objections people make about this policy in defense of the church.

https://youtu.be/Dx32b5igLwA

 

 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet the Church could disregard the laws of the country.  And since the Church doesn't, you could accuse the Church of "impeding their agency."

But you don't, because that would undercut your argument.

Because your argument is based on emotion, not reason.

The "error" being the 2015 policy?  The policy that Elder Nelson specifically attributed to revelation through Pres. Monson?  The policy that was sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?

I get why you persist in refusing to explain how your belief that "the error is on the party of the Church" with the representations made by Elder Nelson.  It's a bridge to far for you.  You don't want to actually come out and say that Elder Nelson was lying, and/or that the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve were deluded/deceived in formulating the policy.  So you resort to hints and implications and such.

But we are not stupid.  We all see what you are doing, and have been doing for years.  I hope you reconsider your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I believe the 2015 policy to be in error.  And yes, Elder Nelson attributed it to revelation through Pres. Monson.  I don't know if this specific policy was sustained by all 15 apostles/prophets, I'm not privy to such information.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

Yes.  Just like a child is denied baptism where his parents do not give consent ("due to actions of their parents").

Like a person who is denied baptism because he lives in Saudi Arabia.

Again, yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  And it's getting stale.

You want to make the Church look bad.  Got it.  Check.  You can only do so by ignoring Elder Christofferson's remarks from three years ago.  You can only do so by ignoring Pres. Nelson's remarks explaining the revelatory origins of the policy (and/or implying, as a corollary, that he lied and/or "went rogue" when he did so).  You can only do so by re-hashing the same emotional argument over and over.  You can only do so by resorting to special pleading.  

It's been three years.  I really doubt the Church is going to change this policy.  If it does, I'll go along with it.  If it does not, I'll go along with that, too.  This is a difficult topic.  The 2015 policy represented a "judgement call."  It wasn't mine to make, or yours.  It was the responsibility of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  They sought out guidance from God, and apparently received it.  On this point I am going to take the word of the percipient witness, Russell M. Nelson, over your personal preferences.

If, as you so often imply, the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve were deluded into error in formulating the policy (or that they connived with each other and lied to us about it through Russell M. Nelson), I think the Lord will provide correction.  But the key word in the preceding statement is "if."

Meanwhile, the endless re-litigation of the policy is getting old.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes- in these instances

1- the parent who doesn't give consent is denying the child baptism

So is the Church.  Once the individual reaches majority, the Church is willing to allow baptism to proceed.

It is the Church's prerogative to administer its saving ordinances.  That it takes into account the parental authority of minor children is admirable.

I had a number of instances on my mission in Taiwan where teenagers wanted to be baptized into the Church, but were not allowed to by the Church.  Because the Church recongized the authority of the parents and agreed to withold baptism.

My son, a Church Service Missionary living at home, nevertheless had the opportunity a while back to teach all the discussions to an exchange student from Hong Kong.  She wanted to be baptized, but the Church said no.  Because, again, the Church recongized the authority of the parents and agreed to withold baptism.  Happily, she thereafter returned home, spoke with her parents, and they relented.  At that point the Church allowed her to be baptized.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- the government of Saudi Arabia is denying people the ability to be baptized

So is the Church.  If the individual emigrates from Saudi Arabia, the Church is willing to allow baptism to proceed.

Again, it is the Church the makes decisions regarding its saving ordinances.  That it takes into account the laws of the land (and the safety of the individual, and other practical and relevant factors) is admirable.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- For children with gay parents, the Church is denying the child the ability to be baptized.

Yes.  The Church is the gatekeeper for its saving ordinances in all three of the above scenarios.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In each case, someone is denying the individual's ability to be baptized. In one case, it is the church that is the roadblock to the baptism of children.

Not so.  The Church witholds baptism in all three of the above scenarios.

I get why you want to draw a distinction here.  Stipping the Church of any involvement in the first two decisions allows you to paint the Church as a villain and a baddie in the third.  But the Church is involved in all three scenarios.  The Church is withholding baptism in all three scenarios.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I disagree that my argument is emotional and not logical, but I recognize that we can have different views on that. In fact, I think your argument is emotional and not logical.

My argument is based on the explanations provided by Elder Christofferson (as to the rationale underlying the policy) and Elder Nelson (as to the origins of the policy).  I'm not making appeals to emotion through loaded questions and terminology ("sins of the parents" and such).  That's all on you and Rockpond.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In your case, I view you twisting the logic so that the church never looks bad to you.

Not so.  The Church has messed up on any number of occasions.  I acknowledge that all the time.

But the Church is, in my assessment, overwhelmingly good.  And imbued with revelations and authority.  And led by good and decent men and women who are acting in good faith and, in the main, doing a very good job.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I hope you’ll answer my question in the post above but I do want to say that I find this idea that “nothing is lost” (Elder Christofferson) through the implementation of this policy to be an odd statement.

My entire calling as ward YM President is to serve with them in the years of 12-18.  I work tirelessly to teach them, to help them feel the Spirit, to assist them in getting ordained to the priesthood and understand the priesthood, to convert them, to prepare them to become Elders, missionaries, fathers, and husbands. Then Elder Christofferson, to defend this policy, says that nothing is lost if none of the above happens.  Why do I even bother if we could do nothing and then just called up these young men on their 18th birthday and say:  alright, ready to be baptized, ordained, and head out on a mission?

To say nothing is lost is to say that there is nothing productive accomplished through the work of primary, young women, and young men. 

Well I was a convert age 28. I don't know what all I missed. Ultimately the children are under the parents stewardship it is up to the parents to be qualified so their children can be baptized. If you want me to say it's due to the sin of the parents fine I'll say it. But ultimately the responsibility lies on the parents not the church. Nothing you can say no scripture you can point to will change that on Judgement Day.

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- For children with gay parents, the Church is denying the child the ability to be baptized.

Here’s a good (bad?) example of misunderstanding a few principles:

No one has the ability to be baptized without the Church’s consent. No child has the ability to be baptized without both parental and Church consent. The Church can refuse consent, but cannot deny an ability one does not already possess, no matter their age. Otherwise you can spin it as, “The Church preemptively denies the ability to be baptized because it is conditional upon her consent,” which is stupid.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's all I was trying to communicate.  The policy denies baptism to children based on the actions of their parents.  That's one of the doctrinal problems I have with this because it takes away the agency of the child based on behavior of the parents.  I don't think we should be party to that.

You keep using that argument (not withstanding serious disagreements about the concept of agency) but refuse to explain how that is different from other policies that deny baptism to children based on the actions of their parents.