President Nelson's Devotional: "The Love and Laws of God"

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Or you could replace it with "understand".

You could.  But that's not the impression I got.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

You could.  But that's not the impression I got.

"Not the impression" vs below:

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I've been accurate in my statements and don't believe that I have misrepresented him.

If the word "judge" is a trigger for you than you can replace it with evaluate.  He sought to evaluate the way I communicate with my Heavenly Father using the principles he outlined.  He asked to know how we applied those principles.

I don't think there is anything terrible about his question.  But it was overly personal for me and so I declined.

 

Just declined, did you? You didn't mock his questions?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

"Not the impression" vs below:

Just declined, did you? You didn't mock his questions?

Yes I have been accurate in my statements.  And, yes, I declined.

And after he kept pressing for an answer, I applied some sarcasm to his question.  You'll note that he actually replied to that post and to highlight the parts that were accurate.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If the goal was/is only to protect the Church from litigation, than it was a good move.  But that has never been presented by one of the Brethen as THE reason for the policy.

Not even sure what this means.

I believe that denying ordinances and telling children that we don't want them to attend our services is not the right way.  In terms of protection from litigation, I think that the latest procedure change (custodial parents/guardians needing to sign a form whenever a membership record is created or a baptism is performed, and then that form being scanned and uploaded to a church database) is a better route.

 

IF it was a "good move" in any way- then you are acknowledging that there is at least TRUTH to the idea that baptizing the children of gay parents would create conflict in their families

You can't ignore that it creates conflict for the family on the legal side while demanding simultaneously that they should be baptized and the church is wrong and that it will NOT create conflict if the children are baptized. 

That is "having it both ways"

But of course it was not the reason for the policy- YOU are the one who noticed it was still a legally good move.

No one is "denying ordinances" it is a question of why anyone would actually WANT their children believing that they could not be together forever as a family while their church peers believe just that.  What parent would ?  NO ONE will answer this aspect, though I have brought it up numerous times.

Perhaps your suggestion from a legal aspect is a good one- but again it admits that there are potential serious problems in allowing baptisms at all.

I don't know how folks opposed to the church's position are going to get around that problem. 

Like it or not the kids WILL figure out that if their parents are not sealed in the temple- they won't be a "forever family" like all their friends.   

I cannot imagine how anyone could think that baptizing them would be beneficial in any way when they can wait until they are 18 if they are true believers.   And as we know, should anything happen before that time, if they have demonstrated faith in the church, their work could be done in the temple with the parents permission anyway.

I see no disadvantage whatsoever to the children in not being baptized, quite frankly, and only positive consequences.  

You guys are used to be baptized at 8- I do not feel disadvantaged by deciding for myself to be baptized at 31.  I would probably have left the church as a teen anyway without my philosophical training- or perhaps with it, before I understood these issues.   I had to be an Alpha of course to appreciate the church. 

 

 

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

IF it was a "good move" in any way- then you are acknowledging that there is at least TRUTH to the idea that baptizing the children of gay parents would create conflict in their families

No.  It's what they could be taught at church that could create conflict.  Is it fair grounds for litigation?  I don't know, I'm not an attorney.

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You can't ignore that it creates conflict for the family on the legal side while demanding simultaneously that they should be baptized and the church is wrong and that it will NOT create conflict if the children are baptized. 

I haven't demanded that they should be baptized.

I think it's wrong on a policy level to deny children baptism.  Instead, I think that decision should be made by the child, their parents, and the bishop.  (What I consider to be the default process prior to Nov 2015 and now seems to be the default process again.)

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No one is "denying ordinances"...

The policy denied baptism to minor children with custodial gay parents.

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

...it is a question of why anyone would actually WANT their children believing that they could not be together forever as a family while their church peers believe just that.  What parent would ?  NO ONE will answer this aspect, though I have brought it up numerous times.

That is a matter of faith and you'd have to ask those individuals as I am not the one in that situation.  But clearly there were people who desired baptism and church involvement for their children.  Why the gay custodial parents believe differently than you is not something I can answer.  I suspect it is because they may believe in much of the truth taught by the church even though they may not think they have truth when it comes to their teachings regarding homosexuality.  Does that help?

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps your suggestion from a legal aspect is a good one- but again it admits that there are potential serious problems in allowing baptisms at all.

Again, I don't think it is the baptism that is the problem.  It is what they could potentially be taught if they attend church (baptized or not).  Additionally, I am not sure what sort of merit such cases would have.  And, while not an attorney, I believe the Church's new procedure with requiring a signed/scanned form would help relieve that risk.

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Like it or not the kids WILL figure out that if their parents are not sealed in the temple- they won't be a "forever family" like all their friends.

This is a struggle for many kids in the church who don't have gay parents.

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I cannot imagine how anyone could think that baptizing them would be beneficial in any way when they can wait until they are 18 if they are true believers.   And as we know, should anything happen before that time, if they have demonstrated faith in the church, their work could be done in the temple with the parents permission anyway.

There are so many great aspects of growing up in the church so I strongly disagree with this assertion.  I don't know any faithful Saint who would say that it's not a big deal if their children don't grow up in the church, they can join when they are adults and if they die first, we'll just do their temple work.  That's what I cannot imagine.

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You guys are used to be baptized at 8- I do not feel disadvantaged by deciding for myself to be baptized at 31.  I would probably have left the church as a teen anyway without my philosophical training- or perhaps with it, before I understood these issues.   I had to be an Alpha of course to appreciate the church. 

I'm grateful that path worked well for you!

Edited October 2, 2019 by rockpond

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  It's what they could be taught at church that could create conflict.  Is it fair grounds for litigation?  I don't know, I'm not an attorney.

I haven't demanded that they should be baptized.

I think it's wrong on a policy level to deny children baptism.  Instead, I think that decision should be made by the child, their parents, and the bishop.  (What I consider to be the default process prior to Nov 2015 and now seems to be the default process again.)

The policy denied baptism to minor children with custodial gay parents.

That is a matter of faith and you'd have to ask those individuals as I am not the one in that situation.  But clearly there were people who desired baptism and church involvement for their children.  Why the gay custodial parents believe differently than you is not something I can answer.  I suspect it is because they may believe in much of the truth taught by the church even though they may not think they have truth when it comes to their teachings regarding homosexuality.  Does that help?

Again, I don't think it is the baptism that is the problem.  It is what they could potentially be taught if they attend church (baptized or not).  Additionally, I am not sure what sort of merit such cases would have.  And, while not an attorney, I believe the Church's new procedure with requiring a signed/scanned form would help relieve that risk.

This is a struggle for many kids in the church who don't have gay parents.

There are so many great aspects of growing up in the church so I strongly disagree with this assertion.  I don't know any faithful Saint who would say that it's not a big deal if their children don't grow up in the church, they can join when they are adults and if they die first, we'll just do their temple work.  That's what I cannot imagine.

I'm grateful that path worked well for you!

Oh my gosh.  I honestly do not believe that you did not understand anything at all.

Quote

No.  It's what they could be taught at church that could create conflict.  Is it fair grounds for litigation?  I don't know, I'm not an attorney.

Yes that is the entire point!!  THEIR PARENTS are REQUESTING that they be taught AT CHURCH the Proclamation etc. which will teach them that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman.  By REQUESTING baptism that is a GIVEN.

Quote

I haven't demanded that they should be baptized.

No their PARENTS do that.  Unless you are a gay parent, you are not in a position to "demand" anything.  You are DEFENDING the notion that they should be baptized- VERY clearly or this discussion would not be happening.  Do I really have to go over this??

Quote

 

I think it's wrong on a policy level to deny children baptism.  Instead, I think that decision should be made by the child, their parents, and the bishop.  (What I consider to be the default process prior to Nov 2015 and now seems to be the default process again.)

 

Good then what is the argument?  This is all so confused I can't believe it.

See above.  You freely acknowledge that it can cause conflict.  THAT is WHY parents who care about their children would never expose them to that conflict.  It is their parents who are essentially forcing them into a conflict situation.

Quote

The policy denied baptism to minor children with custodial gay parents.

No, it DELAYED baptism until the children could understand the options.  Your solution takes away their ability to make a rational decision by putting them into a position to be influenced by their parents to get baptized into a church which will turn them away from their parents.  It is tantamount to child abuse.

Quote

That is a matter of faith and you'd have to ask those individuals as I am not the one in that situation. 

That is correct.  That is why we are discussing it.

Quote

But clearly there were people who desired baptism and church involvement for their children.  Why the gay custodial parents believe differently than you is not something I can answer. 

Nor apparently can they- I have been asking that question for what- 5 years? since it went into place- and NO ONE will discuss my points.  Again- who would want that for ANY parents- that their children be taught that their parents cannot go to heaven unless they "repent"???

Quote

 

I suspect it is because they may believe in much of the truth taught by the church even though they may not think they have truth when it comes to their teachings regarding homosexuality.  Does that help?

 

No of course not.  That is the WHOLE POINT- the teachings on homosexuality create conflict in the family.   Do I have to keep repeating that?   This is getting absurd!

Quote

Again, I don't think it is the baptism that is the problem.  It is what they could potentially be taught if they attend church (baptized or not). 

Uh YES of course that is the ENTIRE POINT?   Are you starting to get it?

Quote

Additionally, I am not sure what sort of merit such cases would have.  And, while not an attorney, I believe the Church's new procedure with requiring a signed/scanned form would help relieve that risk.

Yes again, so you are admitting that there IS a risk caused by the conflict.  Oh my gosh dude this is just plain tedious.

Quote

This is a struggle for many kids in the church who don't have gay parents.

Yes, but this guarantees conflict from day one.

Quote

There are so many great aspects of growing up in the church so I strongly disagree with this assertion.  I don't know any faithful Saint who would say that it's not a big deal if their children don't grow up in the church, they can join when they are adults and if they die first, we'll just do their temple work.  That's what I cannot imagine.

Of course that is not even the issue!!  Growing up in the church WITH CONFLICT CAUSED BY YOUR PARENTS was not something you had to endure

And I just said it so you don't have to imagine anything.  Of course there are advantages- and all 4 of my kids were baptized as kids

BUT they were taught that we could all be family forever which the children of Gay Parents cannot be.  Do you think that might have sullied your ideal childhood if you had been taught that YOU were exceptional and could never be a forever family though all your other church friends could be??

Quote

I'm grateful that path worked well for you!

Thanks, so am I.

[Jake Starkey]

You can assert all you want, mfbukowski, but that is all you can do.

The proclamation was a disaster, and the walking back of it (under tremendous pressure) has been little short of awful.

Tis what is.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

You can assert all you want, mfbukowski, but that is all you can do.

The proclamation was a disaster, and the walking back of it (under tremendous pressure) has been little short of awful.

Tis what is.

You can assert that all you want, Jake Starkey, but that's all you can do.

So neener neener.

Not one argument addressed.

Ever.

For years.

The Proclamation is exactly right

The church is about what is right, not political PR and political  correctness, and if your buddies who cannot answer rational arguments think it's "awful", I think it's awful they have no arguments to make except "it's awful"

Maybe they need some alphas 

Edited October 2, 2019 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

7 hours ago, longview said:

 

1- Do you approve of the several "leading progressive" guardians for "steering" their children (some aged 6 or younger) into gender "reassignments" thru surgical mutilations?  There are plenty of areas for confusion.  Some very tragic.

2- If their motivation is to imbue a radical cultural transformation of the flock, then their "disposition" may be questionable.

3- Willingness is not sufficient if they simply want to join their friends in church and various activities.  Bishops will have to carefully seek guidance of the Holy Ghost.  If they do not have basic understanding of Gospel principles, they are not prohibited from participation.

4- There is a definite incompatibility of homosexual and transgender lifestyles with the basic truths outlined in the Proclamation.  It could be a minefield for some.  If they are opposed to the Proclamation (wholly or in part), then why get involved?

5- LDS authorities are NOT confused.  It is you that is strangely warped in your thinking.  If you are opposed to the Proclamation, then you are also antagonistic to the Gospel, the church and the work of the restoration begun by Joseph Smith.  Shades of Korihor?

Who said "automatic" ?  You should know by now bishops are given the stewardship for prayerfully considering the "readiness" of each candidate (whether 8 years old or older).  It is clear from the Bible that homosexual acts are prohibited in both the OT and NT.  Jesus did not condemn the Samaritan woman for her several indiscretions but did invite her to repentance (the same for the another woman presented for stoning for adultery).  If the guardians understand the basic principles but are unwilling to abandon (repent of) the lifestyle, then will they be extra cautious about sending mixed messages to their children?

The automatic I referred to was in the Nov policy where if you were a minor child of a gay couple your baptism WAS automatically denied..  I haven't seen many on this board that wish the Nov policy stayed in place.  In fact, my whole point is that bishops do and have always had a stewardship for prayerful considering the "readiness" of each candidate.  There should never have been a blanket policy to forbid all minor children from being baptized.  That is what is in stark difference from the teachings of Christ.

Are you telling me that EVERYTHING written in the Bible came from God and is an eternal truth?  Can you assure everyone that those writers of the Bible are not a product of the societies that they were surrounded by much like Brigham Young was with his errant declarations?  Can you show any other scripture outside the Bible that confirms homosexuality is always wrong?  Isn't the Book of Mormon and other scriptures suppose to be a second witness?  Did Christ ever condemn homosexuality?

Look, I get that you and the Church want homosexuality to be a sin.  That is fine with me.  The Church can believe anything it wants.  It doesn't mean they are always right. The Church has a long history of getting homosexual issues wrong over and over again. Why does the Church's understanding of homosexuality need correcting over and over again if all of this is coming from God?  It appears Church leaders are stumbling through "glass darkly" on this issue and have yet to have a clear understanding of God's will concerning His homosexual children.  The November policy is just another pearl in the long string of wrong approaches and of homosexuality.  Maybe God is just not as willing to bar all gay couples from His church and maybe there is a place for all in the Plan of Salvation including gay couples and their families after all.  And maybe that is the reason this one issue seems to trouble so many members.  

 

 

[california boy]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

While it is the PARENTS who are requesting they be harmed? 

You have a very warped view of what you think a parent should do IMO.  We have talked about this over and over again.  Exposing a child to a different point of view is not abuse and does not automatically create conflict. I got news for you.  Children do not always have the same viewpoint as their parents.  It is part of the dynamics of every family. Parents are not raising clones and those that are the good parents are the ones that encourage their children to find their own path, even when that path is different than their own is not harming them.

My own partner grew up in a family that was not religious.  His father, in particular thought religion was, well, misguided.  When my partner was about 8, he started attending a neighborhood Church.  According to your stance, his father was harming his child for allowing him to attend a church he didn't believe in.

Do you have any children?  Are they allowed to have different views than you? Did you harm them by allowing them to explore different ideas than yours? Or were then not allowed to do that in your family.   I raised 5 children.  I allowed them to explore ideas and views that were different from what I held.  They all found their own path.  Most of their values are the same as mine.  But not all.  None of them feel harmed.

[Calm]

Did his father see religion as dangerous or sinful or just mistaken?

Do you think all different paths should be accepted and encouraged/supported or do you believe there are boundaries that should be enforced to avoid harming children?

Also do you see age as relevant, exploration of a teen...is that appropriate for an 8 year old to do as well?

Edited October 2, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Divorce and remarriage patterns in the West have created a complex web of family structures, often leaving ‘‘ambiguous and sometimes tenuous lines of responsibility across generations” (Silverstein and Bengtson, 1997, 434). Add to this web an increasing religious heterogeneity within intergenerational family systems, and the connections among religion, family, and responsibility become even more strained (Kalmijn, 1998). These trends are often taken as motivation for renewed religious efforts to promote strong families and consolidate children’s religious socialization (Wilcox, 2004). Sometimes, however, this socialization is rejected by adolescents, or parents themselves drop out of organized religion. The resulting religious discord can be extremely detrimental to parent–child relationships, as one party dismisses concepts that remain elemental—or even sacred—to the other. Norms about anticipated relations and appropriate actions become muddied, as conflicting religious views—each with its own claims upon life and family, battle for acceptance and perhaps, dominance. During adolescence, children begin to form adult relationships with parents at the same time that they are distancing themselves from parental authority. In the turbulent confluence of these two developmental streams, it appears that adolescents and parents who share religious values are better equipped to enjoy the resulting rapids, rather than be broken apart by them 

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/etag/_files/pdfs/articles/2009/Stokes and Regenerus 2009.pdf

[Jake Starkey]

All you are doing is asserting, mfbukowski, which is fine, tis what is.  What you think is parental harm is simply not so.  And is the parent, not you, who makes decisions such as these.  If the parent and child are in agreement that the child wishes to join or remain and progress in the Church, then that is their choice and your opinion about it means nothing.

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.  I honestly do not believe that you did not understand anything at all.

Yes that is the entire point!!  THEIR PARENTS are REQUESTING that they be taught AT CHURCH the Proclamation etc. which will teach them that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman.  By REQUESTING baptism that is a GIVEN.

There is far more to church than the proclamation.  When kids are sent to school the parents know that there might be some things that the kids pick up from school that the parents will have to deal with and perhaps correct.  this is not much different.  It was odd raising children in the Church.  I liked the church in some ways and found some of it really difficult and worried that some fo that difficulty was not worth it for the kids.  We figured we keep really open channels and be ready to discuss everythign that was said at church.  My oldest was just getting into his teenage years when he started recognizing the poor teachings and as a result ugly language often used in the Church on LGBT.  It was great to see him take it in stride.  he listened, he allowed people their views and grew.  

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No their PARENTS do that.  Unless you are a gay parent, you are not in a position to "demand" anything.  You are DEFENDING the notion that they should be baptized- VERY clearly or this discussion would not be happening.  Do I really have to go over this??

Good then what is the argument?  This is all so confused I can't believe it.

See above.  You freely acknowledge that it can cause conflict.  THAT is WHY parents who care about their children would never expose them to that conflict.  It is their parents who are essentially forcing them into a conflict situation.

This is backwards.  The world is full of conflict.  We can't simply be people who learn to treat each other with respect and figure how to find unity if we lived as you suggest--void of all conflict.  Kids learn when they hear and understand different perspectives.  

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, it DELAYED baptism until the children could understand the options.  Your solution takes away their ability to make a rational decision by putting them into a position to be influenced by their parents to get baptized into a church which will turn them away from their parents.  It is tantamount to child abuse.

This is silly since the church suggests 8 as the year to be baptized so they can understand their options.  Little kids can't decide for themselves was the whole position outlined in the BoM.  Now you are saying 8 is in no way an age where they can understand.  The biggest problem here is a kid who goes to church will hear the Church's position on LGBT whether he/she is batpized or not.  You act as if keeping them from getting baptized will protect them from the church's position.  

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is correct.  That is why we are discussing it.

Nor apparently can they- I have been asking that question for what- 5 years? since it went into place- and NO ONE will discuss my points.  Again- who would want that for ANY parents- that their children be taught that their parents cannot go to heaven unless they "repent"???

So the church's stupid teachings are the parents fault?  Hah that's silly.  Over the years I odn't know how many grandparents I've seen take their grandkids to church because their parents would not, with their parents living in some form or many forms of what the Church considers sin.  This has been going on forever.  You think for some reason this stupid policy is addressing that.  it is not.  if anything it's making it worse.  Most kids are 8 or 9 woudln't even hear or understand the Church's position, because they simply aren't seeing life that way.  I mean by the time the teenage years roll around they will likely hear it.  

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No of course not.  That is the WHOLE POINT- the teachings on homosexuality create conflict in the family.   Do I have to keep repeating that?   This is getting absurd!

No everyone knows that.  The Church is causing conflict...and it will continue to do so.  The cause was there before the policy change and it will always be.  Whether kids get baptized or not the Church's poor perspective will remain a point of conflict for people of all stripes.  

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh YES of course that is the ENTIRE POINT?   Are you starting to get it?

Yes again, so you are admitting that there IS a risk caused by the conflict.  Oh my gosh dude this is just plain tedious.

Yes, but this guarantees conflict from day one.

Of course that is not even the issue!!  Growing up in the church WITH CONFLICT CAUSED BY YOUR PARENTS was not something you had to endure

And I just said it so you don't have to imagine anything.  Of course there are advantages- and all 4 of my kids were baptized as kids

BUT they were taught that we could all be family forever which the children of Gay Parents cannot be.  Do you think that might have sullied your ideal childhood if you had been taught that YOU were exceptional and could never be a forever family though all your other church friends could be??

Thanks, so am I.

This is a sad argument and rather empty if you ask me.  

[CV75]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Looking at our claims to what end?

To look deeper into the claim of studying, pondering and praying (which I accept that you have done) and compare the underlying approach, method and process with those I’ve come to understand thus far, and perhaps adopt them.

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Are you under the impression that it was just a single question and not a lengthy process of studying, pondering, and multiple prayers?

No, but I am under the assumption that there was a defining moment along the way that led to confirmation, witness and testimony. Though revelation may dawn upon us gradually, there is a defining point (or some initial point we can identify) where we handle a spiritual question in a manner that we later describe as God's answer to prayer (in this case, about the policy).

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think so, especially in this thread where appeals to spiritual confirmation and revelation have been made, which leaves the conclusion fairly indisputable (hence no more to discuss by way of rational justification and defense). But I'm having trouble getting those who prayed about the policy and confirmed that it was not of God to share how they formulated their petition in comparison with what i offered here: Posted 6 hours ago (edited)

Well as I said that's a sad perspective.  

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well as I said that's a sad perspective.  

I am open to your perspective that comparing various methods and processes to learning truth as a means of expanding one's understanding and tools is a sad perspective.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Fair enough.  But I assume you know and @CV75 knows that @Jake Starkey isn't going to be able to provide anything about his process that will convince anyone here that he should be rejecting others' experiences, right?

While I know that my experience in seeking answers on this matter has been intensely spiritual, has brought me closer to my Heavenly Father, and has provided me answers as powerful as any I've ever received, I also know that my experience is not meaningful to anyone else nor should it be used to reject their experiences (even though I may not always be the best at acting that way).

I am not asking about anyone's personal experience but the process they underwent in formulating their position and question for prayer about the policy.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

All you are doing is asserting, mfbukowski, which is fine, tis what is.  What you think is parental harm is simply not so.  And is the parent, not you, who makes decisions such as these.  If the parent and child are in agreement that the child wishes to join or remain and progress in the Church, then that is their choice and your opinion about it means nothing.

Accepting for the sake of this discussion that what Mark has done is simply laid  out bald assertions, I've seen several of the same from you in this thread.  Why do you feel that it's OK to call him out for doing something you yourself are doing?  (Pot, meet kettle? )  At least in Mark's case, since many of the people who post here are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they share many of the same basic underlying assumptions, while, conversely no such shared basic underlying assumptions exist between you and your intended audience.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[stemelbow]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am open to your perspective that comparing various methods and processes to learning truth as a means of expanding one's understanding and tools is a sad perspective.

In my mind seeing it as God will only work for us if we follow certain procedures is self-defeating, particularly when our impressions, feelings and thoughts are the guide.  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Did his father see religion as dangerous or sinful or just mistaken?

I actually don't know exactly why he was against religion, so I don't want to speculate.  

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you think all different paths should be accepted and encouraged/supported or do you believe there are boundaries that should be enforced to avoid harming children?

I certainly am not going to support criminal behavior or drug addiction.  But religious beliefs and choices, absolutely.  I didn't agree with some of the things my parents enforced upon me when I was growing up.  So I consciously decided to do things different with my own children.  Didn't really cause any harm for me. I just knew that their beliefs on things like discipline were irrational.  

Let's talk about this whole "harm the children" if they are taught something different in church than their parents beliefs.  From what I have heard, there is a significant number of young people in their teens who do not agree with Church policies  concerning LGBT issues, and might not agree with their parents beliefs.  Are they harmed by continuing church activities?  Should Rockpond allow his children to attend church because he doesn't believe the Church doesn't have gay issues right?  

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Also do you see age as relevant, exploration of a teen...is that appropriate for an 8 year old to do as well?

About 6 months ago, my grandson got baptized at age 8. He knows that I am gay and he knows my partner.  The whole judging thing about whether we are going to the Celestial Kingdom or not hasn't really been an issue he is concerned about..If he were to ask me or his parents if my partner and I are going to the Celestial Kingdom, his parents or me for that matter might simply say, "I don't know.  But I do know that God will have a place for your  grandpa. If he was to ask if we are sinning,  I am not sure what his parents would say.  Maybe yes.  But let's let God worry about that.  So yes, age is relevant. When he gets older, then maybe more complete answers might be needed.  But he will also have his own experience by then to decide his own beliefs on the matter.  They may align with the parents view, or often they may not.  Just like in any other family.

[Jake Starkey]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Accepting for the sake of this discussion that what Mark has done is simply laid  out bald assertions, I've seen several of the same from you in this thread.  Why do you feel that it's OK to call him out for doing something you yourself are doing?  (Pot, meet kettle? )  At least in Mark's case, since many of the people who post here are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they share many of the same basic underlying assumptions, while, conversely no such shared basic underlying assumptions exist between you and your intended audience.

Why?  Because I can.  None of this stuff is definitely provable, Kenngo, other than from the overwhelming push back that the proclamation was a tremendous error by the 15 when published and handled poorly every since.  You claim a "shared understanding" with other LDS, when, in fact, I am not sure that is so.  Time will tell.  Thanks to Heavenly Father for alphas who tell it like it is.

Telling it like it is requires courtesy. Your previous posts question other posters' righteousness. That isn't tolerated here. 

 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In my mind seeing it as God will only work for us if we follow certain procedures is self-defeating, particularly when our impressions, feelings and thoughts are the guide.  

What does that have to do with what I've posted? That is, the importance (or in your terms, the "sadness") of comparing how people approach learning truth as a means to expanding one's (my) understanding and approach.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.  I honestly do not believe that you did not understand anything at all.

Yes that is the entire point!!  THEIR PARENTS are REQUESTING that they be taught AT CHURCH the Proclamation etc. which will teach them that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman.  By REQUESTING baptism that is a GIVEN.

No their PARENTS do that.  Unless you are a gay parent, you are not in a position to "demand" anything.  You are DEFENDING the notion that they should be baptized- VERY clearly or this discussion would not be happening.  Do I really have to go over this??

Good then what is the argument?  This is all so confused I can't believe it.

See above.  You freely acknowledge that it can cause conflict.  THAT is WHY parents who care about their children would never expose them to that conflict.  It is their parents who are essentially forcing them into a conflict situation.

No, it DELAYED baptism until the children could understand the options.  Your solution takes away their ability to make a rational decision by putting them into a position to be influenced by their parents to get baptized into a church which will turn them away from their parents.  It is tantamount to child abuse.

That is correct.  That is why we are discussing it.

Nor apparently can they- I have been asking that question for what- 5 years? since it went into place- and NO ONE will discuss my points.  Again- who would want that for ANY parents- that their children be taught that their parents cannot go to heaven unless they "repent"???

No of course not.  That is the WHOLE POINT- the teachings on homosexuality create conflict in the family.   Do I have to keep repeating that?   This is getting absurd!

Uh YES of course that is the ENTIRE POINT?   Are you starting to get it?

Yes again, so you are admitting that there IS a risk caused by the conflict.  Oh my gosh dude this is just plain tedious.

Yes, but this guarantees conflict from day one.

Of course that is not even the issue!!  Growing up in the church WITH CONFLICT CAUSED BY YOUR PARENTS was not something you had to endure

And I just said it so you don't have to imagine anything.  Of course there are advantages- and all 4 of my kids were baptized as kids

BUT they were taught that we could all be family forever which the children of Gay Parents cannot be.  Do you think that might have sullied your ideal childhood if you had been taught that YOU were exceptional and could never be a forever family though all your other church friends could be??

Thanks, so am I.

@stemelbow responded to your points in this post.  Since he said what I would have said (and probably said it better than I would have), I'll just leave it at that.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

To look deeper into the claim of studying, pondering and praying (which I accept that you have done) and compare the underlying approach, method and process with those I’ve come to understand thus far, and perhaps adopt them.

My approach began years ago.  I've mentioned before on here that some 15 years back while serving as YM president in my ward, I had a couple gay young men in my stewardship.  I spent months compiling everything I could find that our prophets and apostles had taught on the subject of homosexuality.  I then sat with that, pondering and praying, again for months before an answer came.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

No, but I am under the assumption that there was a defining moment along the way that led to confirmation, witness and testimony. Though revelation may dawn upon us gradually, there is a defining point (or some initial point we can identify) where we handle a spiritual question in a manner that we later describe as God's answer to prayer (in this case, about the policy).

The study relevant to this policy was really a lifetime of church attendance, personal scripture study, BYU religion classes, etc. because this policy, for me, strikes at the heart of the restored gospel:  priesthood ordinances.  My prayers were mostly along the lines of praying that the leaders of the church would know God's will for his gay children.  When I first encountered the policy, the Spirit strongly testified to me that this was still the words of men and not the will of God.