Popular Post JAHS Posted November 9, 2018 Popular Post Posted November 9, 2018 2 hours ago, california boy said: IMO, the impact of this policy has been for the most part a distancing from the church for many both within the church and without rather than children of gay parents. I am guessing that a lot more children of straight parents have not been baptized as a result of this device policy than children of gay parents. There are countless situations where parents might be in conflict with church teachings. Unmarried couples, part-member families,, inactive couples, parents of a different religion etc. In all of those situations, a church leader is able to talk to the parents to evaluate as led by the Spirit, what is best for the child. The strong influence of grandparents and a lack of interest about religion of the parents who are willing to allow and even support the child's choice to attend church may very well be an important factor in deciding what is best for a child. But what is best for the child gets thrown out the window by this blanket policy against all gay couples and their children. Treating all gay parents exactly the same is insulting to those parents and their children as well as polygamist families who have a similar one size fits all policy. The church certainly doesn't do that with other groups. It just seems like another notch in the belt that the church has been pursuing against gay couples since Prop 8 and their very public opposition to how gay couples choose to live their lives. If the goal of the church is to strengthen it's perception of being an anti-gay church, this policy certainly reinforced that impression to those outside the church and certainly within the gay community. How do baptized children live the gospel and promise at baptism to agree to living all it's principles including believing that same sex marriage is a sin, when their parents are telling them otherwise and setting an opposite example at home? If they are not baptized they are not obligated to keep such promises, making it easier for them and their relationship with their parents and allowing their parents to maintain control over what they learn. The parents can still teach them all the gospel principles at home that they want their children to know and if they want to be baptized they can do that when they are older. 5
sunstoned Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, JAHS said: That could not have been the only reason and anyone who says it is is not being truthful. Perhaps the last straw maybe? You are correct. It was a last straw thing. I agree that it would be a rare occurence if an active member just out and out resigned over one issue. However, I do know many, and I count family in this, that this Policy did affect profoundly. Several no longer attend. Edited November 9, 2018 by sunstoned 1
Ouagadougou Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I would need to be convinced of the profundity on a case-by-case basis. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/16/organizer-at-mass-resignation-event-1500-mormons-quit-church-over-new-anti-gay-policy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ed7d4e37d819 IMO, this policy had a profound effect on numerous members who left the church. Maybe it was the final straw or maybe it wasn't, but regardless, I think many were deeply affected/hurt by this policy. 2
Duncan Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 58 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I also resigned my membership over this November policy. are you now or have you ever been a Dr. and lived in Canada?
carbon dioxide Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 16 hours ago, Rivers said: I am sorry to bring this old can of worms up again but I am curious about the kind of impact it as had over the few years it has existed. I am of course speaking of the infamous policy concerning children in same-sex marriage households. I had always felt that the impact would be minimal seeing that very few gay couples would have any interest in having their children baptized into the Church. Anybody have any insights on how many children this has actually affected? Can't think of one person that I personally know that has been affected by it.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: IMO, this policy had a profound effect on numerous members who left the church. Maybe it was the final straw or maybe it wasn't, but regardless, I think many were deeply affected/hurt by this policy. Come to think of it, the policy has had a rather profound effect on me too, though not the one you're positing. I'll concede the point. 1
carbon dioxide Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 56 minutes ago, JAHS said: That could not have been the only reason and anyone who says it is is not being truthful. Perhaps the last straw maybe? Yeah. I have a hard time believing someone who goes from "I have a testimony of Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ, ect" to "What!!! The Church is not going to allow the kids of married gay couples to be baptized? The Church is wrong. Bye". 3
Storm Rider Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) Here is the staff, look upon it and you shall live. Such an easy thing to do, but many did not look and they died by the bite of a serpent. How often have we been told that the fan is in his hand and he will thoroughly purge his floor, put his wheat in his garner, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire? God's purpose for his children is not to provide them with an earthly life of joy, peace, and ease. His objective is to make us like him - to make us one with him. How could so great a gift be given to those too weak in their love of God and whose hearts are set upon the pleasures of the flesh? He will not allow it. The chaff will be separated and burned. Eternal life will rest with the saints that hold to the rod. Edited November 14, 2018 by Storm Rider 2
The Nehor Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: Here is the staff, look upon it and you shall live. Such an easy the to do, but many did not look and they died by the bite of s serpent. How often have we been told that the fan is in his hand and he will thoroughly purge his floor, put his wheat in his garner, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire? God purpose for his children is not to provide them with an earthly life of joy, peace, and ease. His objective is to make us like him - to make us one with him. How could so great a gift be given to those too weak in their love of God and whose hearts are set upon the pleasures of the flesh? He will not allow it. The chaff will be separated and burned. Eternal life will rest with the saints that hold to the rod. There is a distinct irony in those who have the pleasures of the flesh decrying those who do not or cannot have them for wanting them. It is like the wealthy decrying the impoverished for desiring more then a subsistence living and saying it can be motivated by greed. Both are true. It is just hard to take the speaker seriously. 3
carbon dioxide Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: God purpose for his children is not to provide them with an earthly life of joy, peace, and ease. His objective is to make us like him - to make us one with him. How could so great a gift be given to those too weak in their love of God and whose hearts are set upon the pleasures of the flesh? He will not allow it. The chaff will be separated and burned. Eternal life will rest with the saints that hold to the rod. Some people think they are hurting God or the Church by leaving it. Not really the case. They simply are hurting themselves. It is like a multi-billionaire promising his sons each 1 billion in inheritance if they do certain things the dad asks. Some choose to do what the dad asks even if it is not always pleasant and they get their billion dollars. A few decide to rebel against the dad in an effort to show day who is boss and the dad simply does not give them a billion dollars. The rebellious sons get some temporary satisfaction of rebelling against dad and the obedient sons get to buy a Gulfstream G650 and fly around the world in style and all the houses they want. Some people give up a lot for a temporary fix of making a statement against Pop. 1
california boy Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 11 hours ago, JAHS said: How do baptized children live the gospel and promise at baptism to agree to living all it's principles including believing that same sex marriage is a sin, when their parents are telling them otherwise and setting an opposite example at home? If they are not baptized they are not obligated to keep such promises, making it easier for them and their relationship with their parents and allowing their parents to maintain control over what they learn. The parents can still teach them all the gospel principles at home that they want their children to know and if they want to be baptized they can do that when they are older. How do baptized children live the gospel and promise at baptism to agree to living all it's principles when their parents are living in sin and not married? Yet those children are allowed to be baptized are obligated to keep such promises, Or how does a child whose parents believe in another religion expected to live the gospel as the church teaches that is far different than the beliefs of their parents? My post was about the inconsistency and targeting specifically all gay parents and their children as one group whose situations are treated all the same. Each situation is not looked at individually. The local church leader is not allowed to seek the Spirit and make a determination on what would be best for the child as he would in the other scenarios I mentioned. It makes this policy seem more like and agenda against gay couples and throwing their children under the bus in order for the church to make a point. 4
california boy Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, The Nehor said: There is a distinct irony in those who have the pleasures of the flesh decrying those who do not or cannot have them for wanting them. It is like the wealthy decrying the impoverished for desiring more then a subsistence living and saying it can be motivated by greed. Both are true. It is just hard to take the speaker seriously. It is not just the denying the pleasures of the flesh. It is denying the entire plan of marriage, family, love, the very core of the plan of salvation because you are gay, when those that have such opportunities are scoffing and dismissing those who can not participate in that plan their entire lives. Those that make it all about sex fail to see the implications of such a life. I have yet to hear one person who makes such a commentx as Carbon Dioxice or StormRider say they are willing to give up their families, their children, their love, their joys in order to be a member of the church, comparing gays to wayward children who just don't want the billion from a wealthy parent. I don't mind the policy as much as I mind the dismissive nature of those that don't have to live such a policy. When their grandchildren are not allowed to be baptized because of the sins of the parents, then let's see how enthusiastic and justified they believe this policy is. Edited November 9, 2018 by california boy 3
The Nehor Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, california boy said: It is not just the denying the pleasures of the flesh. It is denying the entire plan of marriage, family, love, the very core of the plan of salvation because you are gay, when those that have such opportunities are scoffing and dismissing those who can not participate in that plan their entire lives. Those that make it all about sex fail to see the implications of such a life. I have yet to hear one person who makes such a commentx as Carbon Dioxice or StormRider say they are willing to give up their families, their children, their love, their joys in order to be a member of the church, comparing gays to wayward children who just don't want the billion from a wealthy parent. I don't mind the policy as much as I mind the dismissive nature of those that don't have to live such a policy. When their grandchildren are not allowed to be baptized because of the sins of the parents, then let's see how enthusiastic and justified they believe this policy is. Yeah, I should be clear I do not mean just sex by the “pleasures of the flesh”. I see that as everything from a child hugging you to walking with someone you love. Besides if the sensations and pleasures of the flesh are truly bad then the resurrection is a step backwards. Lusts of the flesh are a different animal as lust implies a more predatory approach. 2
USU78 Posted November 9, 2018 Posted November 9, 2018 On 11/8/2018 at 6:24 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Anecdotes are of zero value in making such an estimate. The Brethren probably have no idea what impact it may have had on the children of gay couples. Discussion in the press and online is another matter. I don't understand. How are online discussions or press wonks' stories of more value than or anything more than gossipy speculation? What distinction are you making here?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 9 hours ago, USU78 said: I don't understand. How are online discussions or press wonks' stories of more value than or anything more than gossipy speculation? What distinction are you making here? None. Simply making an observation about reality.
sunstoned Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 On 11/8/2018 at 8:42 PM, Duncan said: are you now or have you ever been a Dr. and lived in Canada? I do have a PhD, but do not live in Canada.
USU78 Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: None. Simply making an observation about reality. Alrighty then
Thinking Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 I think that that the only thing that the policy accomplished was to provide more ammunition for the critics. That said, I'm having a hard time imagining the Christ of the New Testament worrying about the marital status of the parents of somebody who wanted to follow Him. 4
Duncan Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 36 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I do have a PhD, but do not live in Canada. 😶
Scott Lloyd Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Thinking said: I think that that the only thing that the policy accomplished was to provide more ammunition for the critics. That said, I'm having a hard time imagining the Christ of the New Testament worrying about the marital status of the parents of somebody who wanted to follow Him. I think what was important to Christ was obedience to divine law and commandments, hence the injunction to the woman taken in adultery to “go and sin no more.”
Scott Lloyd Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 (edited) The only meaning an anniversary such as this might hold for me is an occasion for quiet, personal contemplation about and gratitude for the determination of the Church’s leaders to hold fast to the laws of God even as society slips away from them. Edited November 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 2
sunstoned Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The only meaning an anniversary such as this might hold for me is an occasion for quiet, personal contemplation about and gratitude for the determination of the Church’s leaders to hold fast to the laws of God even as society slips away from them. No Scott. This policy has nothing to do with God. He has already made it clear how we should treat children. Quote Matthew 19:14 King James Version (KJV) But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 3
Ouagadougou Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: No Scott. This policy has nothing to do with God. He has already made it clear how we should treat children. And what about the 2nd Article of faith as well? 2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. IMO, these children are being punished for their parents' transgressions. If you read what Christ taught, I don't see how one can truly claim that Christ would deny a child baptism because of the lifestyle of his/her parents; I think it is contrary to Christ's teachings. 2
california boy Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think what was important to Christ was obedience to divine law and commandments, hence the injunction to the woman taken in adultery to “go and sin no more.” But what Christ didn't say to the woman is "You Are An Apostate, and can not be a member of my church. And your children can not be a member as well until they are 18". 3
CV75 Posted November 10, 2018 Posted November 10, 2018 26 minutes ago, california boy said: But what Christ didn't say to the woman is "You Are An Apostate, and can not be a member of my church. And your children can not be a member as well until they are 18". I'm sure Jesus came across many same sex couples, and this was a politically-charged issue in His day.
Recommended Posts