Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

Yes.  Is this a serious question?  Where did you get the idea that I would disagree with it?

I would love the children of gay parents to be able to join the Church.  I would also love to see the children of polygamous parents join the Church.  I would also love to see the citizens of China, and most Middle Eastern countries, be able to join the Church.  Broadly speaking these folks have "done nothing" to disqualify themselves from baptism, but baptism is nevertheless not available to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 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.

The Church also has a policy that "denies baptism to children based on the actions of their parents" when the parents do not consent.  Is that a "doctrinal problem" also? 

And how is the policy a "doctrinal problem" when, according to Elder Nelson, the policy came through revelation to Pres. Monson?

Isn't withholding baptism from a child of nonconsenting parents also "tak[ing] away the agency of the child based on behavior of the parents?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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?

In the case of the parents who don't give their consent, they are the ones preventing their child from being baptized.

In the case of gay married parents who consent for their child to be baptized, the Church (via this policy) is preventing the baptism.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I haven't ignored his remarks at all.  CFR on what I have ignored.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

In the case of the parents who don't give their consent, they are the ones preventing their child from being baptized.

In the case of the parents who don't give their consent, the Church is withholding baptism from the child.  

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

In the case of gay married parents who consent for their child to be baptized, the Church (via this policy) is preventing the baptism.

The Church is withholding baptism in both scenarios.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

 

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).

So it's all about the parents and whether the Church can "collaborate" with them.  That's my point.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In the case of the parents who don't give their consent, they are the ones preventing their child from being baptized.

In the case of gay married parents who consent for their child to be baptized, the Church (via this policy) is preventing the baptism.

That is only true based on your choice to arbitrarily treat the two situations differently. In both cases the Church has a policy that prevents the child from being baptized.  I guess the difference is that you like one policy and not the other. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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. 

Of course it's a simplification, but it's accurate.

Right, the church honors the legal choice of the government as it should. It also honors the legal choice of the parents, which it should. But in the case of denying children of gay parents the church is making it's own decision to deny baptism. In that case the church is overriding the choice of the parents and the child who both consent to baptism. They can't blame the denial on anyone other than themselves. It is there policy. They are not merely upholding the legal rights of others making that decision, like in your first examples.

This shouldn't be so difficult. The church chooses not to baptize certain people, sometimes it's for legal reasons and sometimes it's not. This child policy is not for legal reasons. It's merely their choice and yes, it's just a policy that can easily be changed. 

 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

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.

The part in bold is the point I've been making.  Requiring that the parents qualify for their child to be baptized is counter to our teachings on accountability and agency.

It is also worth noting that the "qualifications" are not really equally applied.  Around the same time this policy came out, our ward bent over backwards to get a 9 year old boy baptized.  His father, whom he lived with, was cohabitating with his girlfriend.  Everyone was aware and it didn't impede the boy's ability to be baptized.  His grandparents wanted him baptized.  So he was. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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. 

Actually, I have.  I don't believe explaining it again will help.  And with the entry of Smac into the discussion it has deteriorated to the point that I am losing a desire to continue.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Is this a serious question?  Where did you get the idea that I would disagree with it?

I would love the children of gay parents to be able to join the Church.  I would also love to see the children of polygamous parents join the Church.  I would also love to see the citizens of China, and most Middle Eastern countries, be able to join the Church.  Broadly speaking these folks have "done nothing" to disqualify themselves from baptism, but baptism is nevertheless not available to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm glad we agree on that!

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course it's a simplification, but it's accurate.

Right, the church honors the legal choice of the government as it should. It also honors the legal choice of the parents, which it should. But in the case of denying children of gay parents the church is making it's own decision to deny baptism. In that case the church is overriding the choice of the parents and the child who both consent to baptism. They can't blame the denial on anyone other than themselves. It is there policy. They are not merely upholding the legal rights of others making that decision, like in your first examples.

This shouldn't be so difficult. The church chooses not to baptize certain people, sometimes it's for legal reasons and sometimes it's not. This child policy is not for legal reasons. It's merely their choice and yes, it's just a policy that can easily be changed. 

 

And if baptism is so important for these parents, they can easily bring their lives into conformity with the doctrine of the Church.  

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church also has a policy that "denies baptism to children based on the actions of their parents" when the parents do not consent.  Is that a "doctrinal problem" also? 

And how is the policy a "doctrinal problem" when, according to Elder Nelson, the policy came through revelation to Pres. Monson?

Isn't withholding baptism from a child of nonconsenting parents also "tak[ing] away the agency of the child based on behavior of the parents?"

Thanks,

-Smac

It is a doctrinal problem also but it is also a legal issue -- we can't legally override the parent's lack of consent.

We've been told that if all the apostles agree on something it is considered revelation.  But they can agree and be mistaken.  We've got all kinds of doctrinal problems in our past and present... I think that's part of the ongoing restoration.

And, yes, to the last question but as I mentioned above -- it's a legal issue over which we have no control.

[CV75]

 

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

This is like saying the child’s baptism is denied because his parents decided to have him. Silly!

The scope of any child’s actions is delineated by his parents’ actions, even a child who is baptized at age eight. Add to this the condition that parents’ actions vis-à-vis ordinances for themselves and their children are delineated by the Church, and you get the child’s actions being delineated by the Church through the stewardship of his parents, as well as by his parents. When the parents and the Church disagree, the child’s actions are going to be delineated by both parties in a different way than if they were in alignment.

24 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 have a doctrinal problem with the agency of children, then; what is required for agency to operate; and what constitutes agency in various spheres of development and progression. This is related to your conflation of age of accountability with the age of consent, which presents other doctrinal (and moral, and ethical) problems.

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So it's all about the parents and whether the Church can "collaborate" with them.  That's my point.

That is very different than the child not getting baptized because of the parents' deeds. And it's not "all about" that, whatever that means. let's not pretend this sums it up just to refute the policy from other angles.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The part in bold is the point I've been making.  Requiring that the parents qualify for their child to be baptized is counter to our teachings on accountability and agency.

Not really. Setting the qualification of not being an apostate on the subject of ssm aside for the moment, accountability and agency are developmental within the family construct (eternal progression through the priesthood order) where exaltation is at the zenith and minor children having claim on their parents for their maintenance at the start of their fallen condition.

[rockpond]

Just now, CV75 said:

Not really. Setting the qualification of not being an apostate on the subject of ssm aside for the moment, accountability and agency are developmental within the family construct (eternal progression through the priesthood order) where exaltation is at the zenith and minor children having claim on their parents for their maintenance at the start of their fallen condition.

Then under that construct we should only baptize children who live with parents that are active members.  But there is no such policy.  We're okay baptizing children with custodial parents who are not members or who are but are making not attempts to live the teachings of the Church or be active in the Church.

[Meerkat]

On 11/8/2018 at 11:57 AM, Rock_N_Roll said:

In fact, I would probably not even attempt to take them to church because I wouldn’t want them to feel left out or “other” by the other children.  

Yet you still attend. Why?  I would guess that, even though you don't like the prospect of not baptizing your grandchildren until they are eighteen, God has told you this is His church in a way you can't deny.  Therefore, we put up with hard things and fallible humans in leadership positions because the Lord sustains them and we should too.  Plus, they may know something we don't know.  The Lord may actually have His reasons for not baptizing children who, for the most part, would not be supported by their parents in Church activity.  It may be they would become an additional weight and concern for active families who are already stretched thin.  

The Elect will hear His voice and respond to the baptism invitation when they are 18 or older, in my opinion.

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

The Church also has a policy that "denies baptism to children based on the actions of their parents" when the parents do not consent.  Is that a "doctrinal problem" also? 

And how is the policy a "doctrinal problem" when, according to Elder Nelson, the policy came through revelation to Pres. Monson?

Isn't withholding baptism from a child of nonconsenting parents also "tak[ing] away the agency of the child based on behavior of the parents?"

It is a doctrinal problem

I don't understand what you mean by this.  How is the policy a "doctrinal problem?"

And how is it a "problem" when, according to Elder Nelson, the policy came through revelation to Pres. Monson?

Quote

also but it is also a legal issue -- we can't legally override the parent's lack of consent.

That's probably the case most of the time.  

Quote

We've been told that if all the apostles agree on something it is considered revelation. 

No, I don't think we've been told that.  The Apostles can come to an agreement on all sorts of things that do not have a specific revelatory component.

And we weren't told that in this instance.  Elder Nelson didn't say "We agreed on the policy, ergo the policy is from God."  Rather, he said:

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed ... with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

How do you account for this?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

On 11/14/2018 at 12:51 PM, smac97 said:

Jesus said it, but the record is Matthew's.  I believe Matthew represented Jesus' teachings to us.  I believe the same about Elder Oaks.

Actually the first record comes from Mark

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10&version=NIV

Matthew actually softens it somewhat, which is one of the marks of the authenticity of the teaching. It was a hard saying, but was commonly understood to be a saying of Jesus. So rather than omit it, they began to soften it. Specifically, Matthew adds the exception - divorce is permissible in the case of adultery. Mark has no exceptions to the ban on divorce/remarriage.

Quote

Matthew, then, was telling us the will of God.  And we accept it because of his apostolic calling.  And yet you seem to reject the ability/authority of Elder Oaks, also an apostle, to do the same thing.

Jesus was telling us the word of God. Mark wrote down a widely reported saying of Jesus.

None of the evanglists were among the original apostles, however.

 

Quote

I'm struggling to understand your position.

It is?  CFR, please, for attestations of this teaching that do not derive from Matthew.  I'm all ears.

As I said, Mark is the earliest surviving, although parts of the Matthew teaching might be considered earlier given the Q source. Matthew itself however is later than Mark. Here's a primer:

https://books.google.com/books?id=igMXmZ055ooC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=jesus+on+divorce+criterion+embarrassment&source=bl&ots=IPB1M_gQYz&sig=EdHxlhKkP9H4UOE41qZUXKfzpVU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhivvZ09neAhXiooMKHW06CN8Q6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=jesus on divorce criterion embarrassment&f=false

 

Quote

And I'm not the least interested in "wriggl[ing] out of the word of the Lord."  I'm willing to listen, whether it comes through an ancient apostle (Matthew) or a modern one (Elder Oaks).

It doesn't come from an apostle at all.

 

Quote

It can be a hard thing to listen to modern prophets and apostles.  I suspect this is partly why some of the folks in ancient Israel struggled with accepting Jesus Christ.  They had Abraham and the ancient prophets, so it was hard for them to hear something new (see, e.g., John 6).

It's harder still to listen to them abrogate the teachings of Jesus.

 

Quote

I agree.  But you concede that by "the word of the Lord" you mean "the writings of an ancient apostle named Matthew," correct?

No, I mean the sayings of the historical Jesus.

 

Quote

So how is it that you are willing to listen to "the word of the Lord" when it comes through an ancient apostle, but not through a modern one?

A non sequitur.  Matthew as an apostle.  So is Elder Oaks.  As regarding authority to speak on behalf of God, they are on equal footing.

Elder Oaks is not Denethor, if you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, you are misinformed. The author of Matthew was anonymous and not one of the original apostles.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Gray