mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 5 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? Yes this is the issue with those who accept it I guess. Apparently they all think that 8 year olds are fully informed about sexuality. If that is really their position with no boundaries, then there is nothing here to discuss. That then becomes the issue, whether or not parents should guide their children in these matters. The chasm is so deep that cannot be crossed. Edited October 2, 2019 by mfbukowski
CV75 Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 53 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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. 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. 15 years ago, in prayerfully studying and pondering what prophets and apostles taught on homosexuality, did the witness of God’s will concerning priesthood ordinances for his gay children come to you unsolicited; did it come by way of acquired understanding; did you formulate a specific conclusion or question to bring to the Lord to answer; or, did you do something else to obtain this witness or confirmation? When did you begin praying that Church leaders would know God’s will concerning priesthood ordinances (I’m thinking this includes marriage) for His gay children? When the policy came out, it seems you had an unsolicited spiritual witness consistent with a preestablished testimony and the process of ongoing study and prayer. I think this was a common response, and not so much praying about it specifically, though I’m sure some did just that.
CV75 Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 10 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. I think that changing the policy is consistent with a common approach the Lord takes when kindly substituting immediate lessons (and the associated heartache) with an "OK, learn the lessons at your your own pace, but that will not permanently forestall the consequences and heartache." 1
Jake Starkey Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 There has been no consistent policy "with a common approach the Lord takes" in informing His children that the proclamation is His will. It does not exist.
rockpond Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yes this is the issue with those who accept it I guess. Apparently they all think that 8 year olds are fully informed about sexuality. I'm not aware of anyone who has made this argument. 1
rockpond Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: 15 years ago, in prayerfully studying and pondering what prophets and apostles taught on homosexuality, did the witness of God’s will concerning priesthood ordinances for his gay children come to you unsolicited; did it come by way of acquired understanding; did you formulate a specific conclusion or question to bring to the Lord to answer; or, did you do something else to obtain this witness or confirmation? It came to me through study, pondering, and prayer. As I've stated previously. 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: When did you begin praying that Church leaders would know God’s will concerning priesthood ordinances (I’m thinking this includes marriage) for His gay children? I don't recall the specific date or year. It's been a long time. 1
longview Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 8 hours ago, california boy said: 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 looked in Handbook 2 and have not found that word. I am inclined to think the word was not in the November version either. The policy then most likely was to refer the matter to the First Presidency. 8 hours ago, california boy said: 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. This statement is poorly constructed. The Lord takes the process of making covenants VERY seriously. You want to take the cafeteria approach. Nothing stark about the Lord requiring His House to be orderly. 8 hours ago, california boy said: Can you show any other scripture outside the Bible that confirms homosexuality is always wrong? Yes. The Proclamation on the Family. It was presented at a VERY quiet time (back in 1995, a quarter of a century ago). 8 hours ago, california boy said: 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. That makes reason stare (from the hymn: O My Father). I am very curious. You and Jake Starkey have avoided answering point #1 recopied here: "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." From the Handbook 2: 21.4.6 Homosexual Behavior and Same-Gender Attraction Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance. If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances. 21.4.10 Same-Gender Marriages As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly affirms defining marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.
Jake Starkey Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 Your structuring of #1 above has no implication at all for denying children baptism and membership in the LDS church. Fight for the children, longview.
CV75 Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, rockpond said: It came to me through study, pondering, and prayer. As I've stated previously. I don't recall the specific date or year. It's been a long time. Yes, you stated that previously; and as I’ve also stated previously, I am trying to drill down from that. Regarding when you began praying that that Church leaders would know God’s will concerning His gay children, did it begin around the time you first sought or received your own witness about it 15 years ago, some time later, or in stages as particular issues came up over the years (no dates are necessary)? Edited October 2, 2019 by CV75
Jake Starkey Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 The question above is immaterial to the discussion. 1
rockpond Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 1 hour ago, CV75 said: Yes, you stated that previously; and as I’ve also stated previously, I am trying to drill down from that. Regarding when you began praying that that Church leaders would know God’s will concerning His gay children, did it begin around the time you first sought or received your own witness about it 15 years ago, some time later, or in stages as particular issues came up over the years (no dates are necessary)? Time to time over the years often prompted by things happening in my life... a former seminary student talking to me about whether or not he should serve a mission, for example. 2
CV75 Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, rockpond said: Time to time over the years often prompted by things happening in my life... a former seminary student talking to me about whether or not he should serve a mission, for example. So sometime after this process started some 15 years ago (when you first began to prayerfully study and ponder what prophets and apostles taught on homosexuality), and when the witness of God’s will concerning priesthood ordinances for his gay children first came to you, was it unsolicited; or did it come as an acquired understanding; or in answer to a specific conclusion or question that you formulated to bring to the Lord for an answer; or, did you do something else to obtain it? Edited October 2, 2019 by CV75
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 5 hours ago, stemelbow said: 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. Well I am about done here too. I did not realize the depth of the difference in moral values we are facing here I guess. It appears you raised your kids to question church, while I raised mine to let them think for themselves and how to evaluate "truth claims" and think philosophically. I taught myself how to think for my self and evolved from atheism and communism to where I am today. In regard to the "progressive" to "conservative" continuum, I have moved across the entire spectrum from Chairman Mao, my teenage idol, to libertarianism today. I have learned that moral standards have evolved for survival value, and so has the church's value system and I love the humanism and the notion of exalted humans creating worlds as we do now. But my world is very different than your world, as mine has evolved. I am not here to judge morals, just to say that we are quite far apart on these issues and how one should raise children. Thanks for giving me my answer to the child-rearing question - it appears that folks on "your side" actually see the conflict kids will face as a positive thing. I do not. So I cite irreconcilable differences as a reason for an intellectual divorce with supporters of your position, I guess. We have nothing to talk about. Thanks for teaching me that, it will save me a lot of effort in explaining my position further. But I suppose I will finish this post perhaps to illustrate the same point further. I taught my kids to question everything and how to find wisdom and recognize what they already had. Now they do that for themselves as adults and I have some active and some not active. Fine. That is their decision. I protected them in their youth and taught them to think for themselves and did not expose them early on to the horrors of the world. When they matured I opened all the doors and windows and philosophical issues. Quote 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. No, they may learn and hear different perspectives but lack the maturity to understand the flaws in logic they will encounter. One first needs to teach them HOW to evaluate truth claims before they start going forward uneducated listening to all the garbage out there, turning them loose in the woods for every wolf that comes along. Quote 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. NO that is not the case. It is because they know at age 8 that it is wrong to hit their sister and steal toys from Walmart. They are NOT old enough to make moral choices or be exposed to all the evils of the world. THAT to me is child abuse as I have said before, but I cannot adjust other's views on these matters if they think that at age 8 kids are ready to be immersed in every worldly view. If you want them immersed in the world at that age, it is a good reason why you should NOT want them immersed in the church. Quote ** 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. No in fact I think I clearly said, though I could be wrong, that they should also be barred from meetings if their parents want them to be raised knowledgeable about LGBT issues. THAT is the bottom line. If you think an 8 year old can consider LGBT issues and be exposed to all this, go for it. I would not even consider such a thing. Irreconcilable differences. Quote 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. Wow that has to be the most confused set of statements I have seen in a single couple of sentences in years!! So obviously these hypothetical kids are being exposed BY THEIR PARENTS to "stupid teachings" and the parents are REQUESTING the "stupid teachings" but it is not the parent's fault that the teachings are "stupid". Brilliant. And so it is a good thing then, I guess in your assessment that grandchildren to take over training the children in morality because the parents live "in sin" Great. So turn it all over to the grandparents to teach the kids morality because the parents see the moral teachings as "stupid" and that is all a good thing. Just brilliant. Amazingly brilliant. Quote 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. And now you contradict your central position. You just ADMITTED that kids would not understand the church's stupid position and don't see life "that way". Yet above you said they should be exposed to all these thoughts and were mature enough at 8 to understand them. Remember this? Quote **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. Quote 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. VS Quote Now you are saying 8 is in no way an age where they can understand. WHICH IS IT? Quote 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. This is a sad argument and rather empty if you ask me. Conflict cannot exist unless there are two positions involved, and you put it on the church which is trying to protect the kids from conflict while you think it is a good idea to expose them to conflict. It is impossible for "conflict" to be one-sided. Yes indeed it is a sad argument. But thanks for stating how sad it IS so clearly. 1
rockpond Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, CV75 said: So sometime after this process started some 15 years ago (when you first began to prayerfully study and ponder what prophets and apostles taught on homosexuality), and when the witness of God’s will concerning priesthood ordinances for his gay children first came to you, was it unsolicited; or did it come as an acquired understanding; or in answer to a specific conclusion or question that you formulated to bring to the Lord for an answer; or, did you do something else to obtain it? I crossed out a few words to keep your paraphrase accurate with what I have said. I'm not entire sure what you mean in asking whether it was... ...solicited? Well, I was obviously studying and praying about the matter. Is that soliciting? ...acquired understanding? If years of prayer, study, and promptings of the Spirit fit into your idea of "acquired understanding", then yes. ...in answer to a specific conclusion? No. ...question that I formulated? There were many questions that I studied, pondered, and had in mind as I prayed. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 4 hours ago, rockpond said: @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. I don't think you have chosen the best spokesman judging by that post. But to each his own. The chasm grows.
rockpond Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Thanks for giving me my answer to the child-rearing question - it appears that folks on "your side" actually see the conflict kids will face as a positive thing. So I cite irreconcilable differences as a reason for an intellectual divorce with supporters of your position, I guess. You might want to stop trying to paint those who oppose the policy with the same broad brush. Neither stemelbow nor I represent everyone who opposes or opposed the Nov 2015 policy. 4
rockpond Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I don't think you have chosen the best spokesman judging by that post. But to each his own. The chasm grows. I don't see us as being that far apart. I think you are trying to create a chasm where none exists. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: You might want to stop trying to paint those who oppose the policy with the same broad brush. Neither stemelbow nor I represent everyone who opposes or opposed the Nov 2015 policy. Yet presumably everyone opposed to it agrees that 8 is a good age for kids to be exposed to all that is entailed in same-sex marriage and be able to make their own decisions. Because that is exactly what will happen. I am opposed to that view.
rockpond Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: Yet presumably everyone opposed to it agrees that 8 is a good age for kids to be exposed to all that is entailed in same-sex marriage and be able to make their own decisions. You've stopped making sense. And, as I said, you should stop making unsubstantiated presumptions. 3
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't see us as being that far apart. I think you are trying to create a chasm where none exists. Well make some points toward reconciliation then. I certainly don't see any.
CV75 Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, rockpond said: I crossed out a few words to keep your paraphrase accurate with what I have said. I'm not entire sure what you mean in asking whether it was... ...solicited? Well, I was obviously studying and praying about the matter. Is that soliciting? ...acquired understanding? If years of prayer, study, and promptings of the Spirit fit into your idea of "acquired understanding", then yes. ...in answer to a specific conclusion? No. ...question that I formulated? There were many questions that I studied, pondered, and had in mind as I prayed. I kept "priesthood ordinances" in there since you referred to them as the heart of the restored gospel as you lived it throughout your lifetime, and in consideration of temple marriage for same-sex partners. By unsolicited, I meant that the Holy Ghost revealed it to you without your consciously asking (as He does when He warns us of danger). It relates to not having a prior conclusion or disposition about the matter, the revelation coming out of the blue so to speak, without asking in prayer. Yes, that is what I meant by acquired understanding. So far it seems that this is the basis for your testimony and receiving the promptings and impressions you described abut the policy (not that it's a bad thing, but this is why I'm asking the other questions as well). The policy is a subset of a larger perspective that informs or answers all the individual issues that might arise. What were some of the key questions that you had in mind? Edited October 2, 2019 by CV75
rockpond Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Well make some points toward reconciliation then. I certainly don't see any. I'm not a fan of your tone or style here. I'll pass. Maybe another day. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, rockpond said: You've stopped making sense. And, as I said, you should stop making unsubstantiated presumptions. So where is the attempt then at helping me "make sense" and what exactly ARE the "unsubstantiated presumptions"? Is it or is it not true that if the children of LGBT parents, are baptized, then children will be taught that they cannot be in a "forever family"? And apparently the assertion is that that conflict is good for them so they can grow up and make their own decisions? Where am I wrong in that? THAT is what @stemelbowsaid, and you said you agreed with him. Where am I not making sense? 1
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I'm not a fan of your tone or style here. I'll pass. Maybe another day. Uh huh.
rockpond Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 Just now, CV75 said: I kept "priesthood ordinances" in there since you referred to them as the heart of the restored gospel as you lived it throughout your lifetime, and in consideration of temple marriage for same-sex partners. Understood. But I thought your paraphrase should be accurate as to what I wrote. Just now, CV75 said: By unsolicited, I meant that the Holy Ghost revealed it to you without your consciously asking (as He does when He warns us of danger). It relates to not having a prior conclusion or disposition about the matter, the revelation coming out of the blue so to speak, without asking in prayer. Since I was in the midst of studying, pondering, and praying about such, I don't consider any of it to be unsolicited. Just now, CV75 said: Yes, that is what I meant by acquired understanding. What were some of the key questions that you had in mind? I don't recall if I had "key questions". What was and has been on my mind is God's will for his gay children. 2
Recommended Posts