Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm sorry... what do the children of gay parents need to repent of?

That would depend on each individual, though I suspect the list would be nearly as long as my own in most cases. Thankfully, God gives us some of the biggies up front (think about the questions we ask in a baptismal interview) and then works with each of us over the course of our lives to help us see and repent of so many more. There is no one who doesn't need to repent, and God is the one who decides what sin is.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Anyone who wants her/his favourite sin struck off the list fits that description. Some are certainly more organised about it.

If they are wanting to sit in those pews each Sunday than it seems they are wanting to be confronted by the Savior's challenge.

We're the ones telling them that they aren't welcome.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That would depend on each individual, though I suspect the list would be nearly as long as my own in most cases. Thankfully, God gives us some of the biggies up front (think about the questions we ask in a baptismal interview) and then works with each of us over the course of our lives to help us see and repent of so many more. There is no one who doesn't need to repent, and God is the one who decides what sin is.

Agreed, we all need to repent.  But that doesn't have anything to do with denying baptism to the children of gay parents.

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We're the ones telling them that they aren't welcome.

BS, and you know it! As I have now stated for the third time on this very thread, anyone who wants to sit in the pew next to me is welcome. And you know that too. This pretense doesn't suit you. We don't throw people out of our churches unless they are disrupting the worship. And then we would welcome them back the next week if they chose. We have at least two men who attend our ward most Sundays despite having been excommunicated, and we've had one other in the recent past. I'm realising that you derive some sort of perverse pleasure by repeatedly smearing your fellow Saints, but please stop it. It's neither decent nor honest.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But that doesn't have anything to do with denying baptism to the children of gay parents.

Another one of your oft-repeated smears. Does it make you feel smug somehow to use language that evokes some mediaeval priest consigning a bas+ard child to eternal hellfire instead of accurately noting that certain complicating circumstances might require a short delay in accessing baptism out of consideration for everyone involved???

Edited November 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

BS, and you know it! As I have no stated for the third time on this very thread, anyone who wants to sit in the pew next to me is welcome. And you know that too. This pretense doesn't suit you. We don't throw people out of our churches unless they are disrupting the worship. And then we would welcome them back the next week if they chose. We have at least two men who attend our ward most Sundays despite having been excommunicated, and we've had one other in the recent past. I'm realising that you derive some sort of perverse pleasure by repeatedly smearing your fellow Saints, but please stop it. It's neither decent nor honest.

Yes, we tell them they are welcome.  There is most definitely a spot for them on our pews.  We'll be kind and gracious.  And we'll tell them that they are apostates and that their children must disavow their relationship.  I don't find that to be welcoming.  You might.

[kllindley]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think the justifications for the policy all fall apart upon serious examination.

I continue to believe that this policy was and is about trying to avoid the impact that loving, committed gay parents would have on our congregations.

As a church, we are walking a very fine line right now with our teachings that being gay isn't a sin, only acting on it.  It's a position that won't hold over the long term.  And if members start sitting in the pews next to happily married same sex couples who are raising kids in the gospel... our current stance will be even shorter lived.

If only you gave Church Leaders and members the same benefit of the doubt you give Sam Young and his "stories."

There you can't say anything about the probability of an absolutely outrageous story being true or not. But here, seem to have no problem believing the worst of leaders and members. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Another one of your oft-repeated smears. Does it make you feel smug somehow to use language that evokes some mediaeval priest consigning a bas+ard child to eternal hellfire instead of accurately noting that certain complicating circumstances might require a short delay in accessing baptism???

Nope, nothing "smug" about it.

Does it make you feel better to minimize it by calling it a "short delay" and referring to the child's parents as a "complicating circumstance"?  It's a lot like Elder Christofferson claiming that "nothing is lot".

Except that quite a bit IS lost.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If only you gave Church Leaders and members the same benefit of the doubt you give Sam Young and his "stories."

There you can't say anything about the probability of an absolutely outrageous story being true or not. But here, seem to have no problem believing the worst of leaders and members. 

I don't believe the worst of leaders and members.  That's slander and untrue!

And the probability of that particular story being true is zero or 1.  I already addressed that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And we'll tell them that they are apostates and that their children must disavow their relationship. I don't find that to be welcoming.  You might.

In other words, you want certain egregious sins to be struck off of God's list, or at minimum you want certain people to be exempt from hearing His call to repent; otherwise, you are willing to smear all other Saints -- none of whom get special exemptions for their sins -- as unwelcoming and un-Christlike. Nice.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Does it make you feel better to minimize it by calling it a "short delay" and referring to the child's parents as a "complicating circumstance"?

It always makes me feel better to be more accurate and honest.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Nevertheless, he did say, “Go, and sin no more.” There’s no doubt about what he meant by that. Repentance is the common denominator for all people.  

 

How can you use this as an example of how Christ dealt with sinners and not see a stark difference in how the church treats gay sinners.  Christ told all of us to sin no more.  Didn't hear any name calling directed at her of calling her an apostate and preventing her underaged children from being baptized.  

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It always makes me feel better to be more accurate and honest.

18 years... short delay.  Doesn’t strike me as honest and accurate. 

And what are the odds that children kept out of the church are going to want to join when they turn 18 (upon disavowing their parents’ marriage — whatever that means)?

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In other words, you want certain egregious sins to be struck off of God's list, or at minimum you want certain people to be exempt from hearing His call to repent; otherwise, you are willing to smear all other Saints -- none of whom get special exemptions for their sins -- as unwelcoming and un-Christlike. Nice.

Nope.  I do not want egregious sins struck off God’s list.  I’ve never advocated for such. 

What I am saying is that telling someone that they may come to our services but that their loving committed marriage makes them an apostate is not really “welcoming”.  

Telling someone that there is a place for them in our ward but that their children shouldn’t attend because it could cause acrimony in the home, also is not “welcoming”. 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

18 years... short delay.  Doesn’t strike me as honest and accurate. 

And what are the odds that children kept out of the church are going to want to join when they turn 18 (upon disavowing their parents’ marriage — whatever that means)?

There is nothing wrong with religious freedom, i.e., for a church to define apostasy, decline support of apostate relationships and principles, set limits on the kind of ecclesiastical support extended to apostates and their dependents, or to require disavowal of such before full participation. 

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In other words, you want certain egregious sins to be struck off of God's list, or at minimum you want certain people to be exempt from hearing His call to repent; otherwise, you are willing to smear all other Saints -- none of whom get special exemptions for their sins -- as unwelcoming and un-Christlike. Nice.

 

I am a little. unclear.  What egregious sins are you talking about that people are demanding to be struck off of God's list when we are talking about prohibiting the baptism of underaged children?  Have you decided that the sins of the parents should be applied to the children?  Why?

Should the church be delaying baptism for a short time for all children who parents are sinning and haven't repented of those sins?

Edited November 13, 2018 by california boy

[CV75]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Nope.  I do not want egregious sins struck off God’s list.  I’ve never advocated for such. 

What I am saying is that telling someone that they may come to our services but that their loving committed marriage makes them an apostate is not really “welcoming”.  

Telling someone that there is a place for them in our ward but that their children shouldn’t attend because it could cause acrimony in the home, also is not “welcoming”. 

Yes, it is most "welcoming" to set respectful boundaries despite apostasy.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I am a little. unclear.  What egregious sins are you talking about that people are demanding to be struck off of God's list when we are talking about prohibiting the baptism of underaged children?  Have you decided that the sins of the parents should be applied to the children?  Why?

The sin of abrogating religious freedom.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There is nothing wrong with religious freedom, i.e., for a church to define apostasy, decline support of apostate relationships and principles, set limits on the kind of ecclesiastical support extended to apostates and their dependents, or to require disavowal of such before full participation. 

100% agree. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, it is most "welcoming" to set respectful boundaries despite apostasy.

We have different ideas of what respectful and welcoming mean.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

18 years... short delay.  Doesn’t strike me as honest and accurate. 

Honestly? No one has to wait 18 years. The absolute maximum would be 10 years.

Quote

And what are the odds that children kept out of the church are going to want to join when they turn 18 ... ?

We have a young man who has been attending our ward and receiving missionary visits since he was 11. He's waiting till he's 18 in order to be baptised. (He's 17 now.) It doesn't seem to have had any impact on him since he clearly has a testimony. Our former bishop likewise waited till he was 18 to get baptised. It just solidified both his determination and his desire.

Quote

...  (upon disavowing their parents’ marriage — whatever that means) ...

It means accepting and acknowledging that their parents' marriage is an extreme (because intentionally formalised) violation of God's law. I think that's a pretty straightforward point.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

What I am saying is that telling someone that they may come to our services but that their loving committed marriage makes them an apostate is not really “welcoming”.  

In other words, you want certain people who come to our services to be sheltered from God's call to repent even when their behaviour is egregious sin according to His law. If not telling people that their sins are sinful is a requirement for the Church to be welcoming, then absolutely no one is going to feel welcome at church, including you and me. Why don't you make this same demand for all of us?

Quote

Telling someone that there is a place for them in our ward but that their children shouldn’t attend because it could cause acrimony in the home, also is not “welcoming”. 

And another misrepresentation. No one has told any children not to attend church. No one.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

What egregious sins are you talking about that people are demanding to be struck off of God's list when we are talking about prohibiting the baptism of underaged children? 

You are misrepresenting me. Rockpond has falsely argued, repeatedly, that we as a church as not welcoming to gay couples because we refuse to turn a blind eye to their sins and withhold from them the sacred privilege of repenting therefrom. This is the religious equivalent of accusing a doctor's office of being unwelcoming to patients because the doctor actually tells her patients that they need to shed a few kilos, exercise more, drink less, etc. It just doesn't fly. I'm left concluding that Rockpond's goal is to play word games in order to smear and antagonise the Saints who, unlike him, accept what ancient and modern prophets have unitedly taught regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex behaviour.

Quote

Should the church be delaying baptism for a short time for all children who parents are sinning and haven't repented of those sins?

Only those whose parents are in a situation so complicated that repenting would require breaking the family apart. I would think that anyone could see that as a significant and unusual complication.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We have different ideas of what respectful and welcoming mean.

Yes, it would appear that you equate being respectful and welcoming with not preaching repentance to certain people with certain sins. All else, it would seem, can be expected to sit in a worship service or class that encourages them to mend their ways without its causing you any worry.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

A parent withholding consent is not within the Church's control. 

Nor is disregarding revelatory instructions.  You are acting as if the Church implemented this policy arbitrarily.  It did not.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Though significantly different, I am also opposed to the policy prohibiting full fellowship of children of polygamist parents.

And yet nobody has said boo about it.  Funny, that.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Elder Christofferson gave the interview in response to the leak.  There is no evidence to suggest that this was going to be shared with membership at large without the leak. 

Okay.  And?  

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

One month earlier (and the leaked emails, see Mormon Wikileaks for the CFR, suggest that this policy was being informally used prior to that) they had the opportunity to instruct the members regarding the apostate status of those in same-sex marriages and the need to deny ordinances to their children but they did not.

Again, I do not understand your point here.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, the policy affects the "one" as opposed to the "ninety and nine". 

Not sure what this means, either. 

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not a good justification, more like an excuse to minimize it.

Nobody's trying to minimize it.  Just contextualize it.

Again, there is no hue and cry about the century-old policy pertaining to children in polygamous households. 

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've given you my explanation.  You disagree.  No hard feelings.  I'm confident someday the policy along with our teachings regarding homosexuality will be walked back and disavowed all under the explanation of new revelation, as has been done before.  I imagine you disagree with that as well.

Yes.  But I can accommodate both trajectories, one in which the Church adheres the the same doctrines and teachings as it ever has (pertaining to the Law of Chastity), and another in which it radically re-defines the Law of Chastity to legitimize homosexual behavior.  I think the former is a near-certainty, but I am open to the theoretical possibility of the latter.

My concern is that people like you are setting yourselves up for disappointment in the future.  If and when the Church does not alter course, and instead maintains its teachings pertaining to the Law of Chastity, what would you do?  I ask this sincerely (and rhetorically).

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

1.  Boundaries.  Yeah, I agree that's one valid reason for the policy.

It's a pretty significant one, too.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

2.  Revelatory.  Yes, it was claimed by an apostle, not by the prophet of the time, to be revelation. 

It was described as a revelation by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, speaking on behalf of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

Honestly.  How long is this "Elder Nelson just went rogue" theory going to be tossed around?

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

We've also had the prophetic process of revelation defined as consensus and unity among the Twelve.  Does it fit either this current definition of revelation or the definition of prophetic revelation that I was taught all my life in the church?  We don't know.

Actually, we do know.  

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

3.  Matches the policy with respect to polygamists.  Yep.  Also not a good policy.

You presume that which has yet to be demonstrated.  Even after years of discussing this topic over and over and over, objections to it boil down to "I don't like it" emotionalisms.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

4.  Guidance from the Brethren.  Yes, it was needed.  Unfortunately, we went this direction.

I really don't get this.  Guidance from the Brethren is only appropriate when it is socially popular?  And otherwise it's "unfortunate?"

Thanks,

-Smac