I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[Stoked]

What is indefensible is for political hacks/change agents espousing a specific belief system, like most of the above posters seem to be, hijacking the government to force their views on others.
I have expected the LDS Church to abandon it's quibbling disputes with the "progressives" once the "law" gets defined in favor of GLBT rights/privileges/special status pre-emptive of other's rights to disagree with them, and just announce they're going along with "the law", once the law is settled.

There is no such thing as an inevitable "march of History" towards a better world of social justice and stuff. That's pure hogwash. It's always one group of people having their way the rest, and always will be.

People who believe in such "ideals" are being unwise to make the government powerful enough to force anyone to comply with anyone's "Ideal". I thought we learned that lesson when we decided to restrict the Federal government from having the power to legislate human beliefs/religion in prohibiting a State-sanctioned "Church".

Next time something is insinuated about you that you do not agree with and want to complain about remember posts like these Babe.

 

[MVP]

whenever humanity makes 100 steps forward it sometimes makes a step back just to make sure that we still need to move forward. I see this as small step back which eventually will make little to no impact for the future.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

What a stunner that an organization run by 90 year old men would come up with a policy like this. No worries, though. As soon as the pressure gets too high God will send them another revelation and this policy will be modified. That's the way he rolls.

 

[green]

What a stunner that an organization run by 90 year old men would come up with a policy like this. No worries, though. As soon as the pressure gets too high God will send them another revelation and this policy will be modified. That's the way he rolls.

That's my issue.

Babe, can you do me a favor and take a pass on this thread? This is a valid concern and I'd like a real discussion on this.

Colton, what's your take on this?

 

[b_line]

I am trying to stay Mormon for the benefits it brings to my family. I find it hard, however to explain to my family that the prophet is leading us astray on this matter. This is wrong. There is no other way to look at it.

It is divisive when Christ teaches love. It is offensive to children when Christ says "bring your little ones to me"

I the past, some of my issues with the church have been things that I could very easily overlook, or didn't matter in the long run. This is something that is definitely wrong.

 

[Stoked]

I am trying to stay Mormon for the benefits it brings to my family. I find it hard, however to explain to my family that the prophet is leading us astray on this matter. This is wrong. There is no other way to look at it.

It is divisive when Christ teaches love. It is offensive to children when Christ says "bring your little ones to me"

I the past, some of my issues with the church have been things that I could very easily overlook, or didn't matter in the long run. This is something that is definitely wrong.

I can see, and respect, the Church being against gay marriage. It is expected and OK.

But I agree with you and Green on the kids part. This goes against direct teachings of the Church IMO. I was thinking of returning to being an active member one day but this will be a serious road block to that. I just do not agree, at all.

 

[green]

I can see, and respect, the Church being against gay marriage. It is expected and OK.

But I agree with you and Green on the kids part. This goes against direct teachings of the Church IMO. I was thinking of returning to being an active member one day but this will be a serious road block to that. I just do not agree, at all.

This. 100% this.

This is what bothers me. I stayed up last night pouring through the bible looking at the scriptures on homosexuality. There are some and the Bible is very clear on the matter: Homosexuality is wrong.

BUT, in EVERY case, listed right next to homosexuality is adultery and fornication. So, why are we singling out gay people?

Why is it a couple can commit fornication, get married, and their kids can get baptized, receive the priesthood, and go on missions? According to this announcement, shouldn't the couple that fornicated be required to divorce, renounce their sins, and move on to other people before they can be cleaned of their sin? Shouldn't their kids not be allowed to get baptized, receive the priesthood, and go on missions before renouncing their parents' sin? Shouldn't the people who committed the sin not be allowed to be Bishops, young men leaders, Primary leaders, etc?

Same for adultery? Why is it a person can commit adultery, marry the person they committed it with, have a child and that child can be baptized?

 

[green]

My oldest turned 8 two days ago.

I'm not sure what we are going to do with him now. Like others, I've stayed active for the benefits on family. How can I morally teach my kids it is okay to be a bigot, as this new doctrine clearly teaches?

Show me where I am wrong.

 

[babe]

Next time something is insinuated about you that you do not agree with and want to complain about remember posts like these Babe.

oh, I remember when folks turn my arguments around and use them on me. And sometimes I take the point they make to heart. I hope you remember that I took thought to use some qualifiers like "most of the posters above seem to be", which I put in there specifically thinking of you, because I knew you should not be included in the general rhetorical picture I was painting. I also realize that "political hacks/change agents espousing a specific belief system" makes a distinction between merely sincere believers in specific belief systems" and those who are not sincere believers, just hacks. I expect you might need to ponder the distinction I'm trying to make in that perspective before you will get it. You are entitled to the time you need. Maybe by about next year.

The real damaging distinction, in my view, is the matter of using government power, writing new laws, to enforce specific beliefs or viewpoints which are not actually necessary to protect individual rights, but which can and will be used to deny human rights to choice, opinion, belief, thinking, and speech.

And yes, I see that some unprincipled and insincere "movers and shakers" use ideals of "progress", "human rights" included, and ideals of "social justice", and any convenient arguments to advance the cause of more intrusive and powerful government which they want to use to take down human liberty. And some people buy their arguments without really thinking twice.

 

[b_line]

My oldest turned 8 two days ago.

I'm not sure what we are going to do with him now. Like others, I've stayed active for the benefits on family. How can I morally teach my kids it is okay to be a bigot, as this new doctrine clearly teaches?

Show me where I am wrong.

Leave it up to him. Isn't that what the whole argument is about? That kids should he able to choose for themselves, and not have the decision made for them?

 

[colton]

Help me out with this one:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/3144035-155/new-mormon-policy-makes-apostates-of?page=2

How is this Christ like at all? How is punishing children, not allowing baptisms, missions, the priesthood, etc for parent's "sins" in accordance with what Christ and Joseph Smith taught?

That's a pretty useless article, frankly. They didn't even say what new policy is. I had to turn to DesNews
https://www.deseretnews.com/article...on-families-in-same-sex-marriages.html?pg=all

A mission or stake president may request approval and determine that: "the child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage"; and "the child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

So the policy is that they must be adults, and must affirm the church's position on homosexual relationships, before they can join the church.

The "affirm the church's position" part isn't particularly shocking to me. And in a sense it's not a new policy at all because people are routinely asked if they support church leaders as one of the interview questions prior to baptism/priesthood/mission/etc. The church is just clarifying one specific case in which the positions of church leaders must be supported.

The bit about having to wait until legal age does surprise me a bit, but seems not unreasonable to me that if a child is under the care of someone who is blatantly opposed to one of the core LDS teachings, the church would want to wait until the child is living on his/her own before asking the individual if they support the church's teachings in this. Otherwise it might put the individual in an untenable situation.

 

[b_line]

The other question I have is why does God make gay people if he hates them?

 

[franklin]

I am trying to stay Mormon for the benefits it brings to my family. I find it hard, however to explain to my family that the prophet is leading us astray on this matter. This is wrong. There is no other way to look at it.

It is divisive when Christ teaches love. It is offensive to children when Christ says "bring your little ones to me"

I the past, some of my issues with the church have been things that I could very easily overlook, or didn't matter in the long run. This is something that is definitely wrong.

Oh for ****'s sake. When has being Christian (of any sect) ever amounted to acting Christian?

 

[colton]

What doesn't fit here:

"Serious Transgression
. . . It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities"

So two consenting adults agreeing to have same sex relations is the same as attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse and intentionally injuring someone else?

Wow.

You missed the bolded word, which has long been church policy. That's what homosexual relations are most closely the same as.

edit: Ah, I see in a later post of yours you made that connection.

 

[colton]

I found out how this is defensible:

It's in the Articles of Faith:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression...unless your parents are gay. They you can be punished for their sins unless you renounce them...but you can't have the priesthood, pass the sacrament, prepare the sacrament or serve a mission until you are 18 and renounced your parents. Buts its ok, because if you die, we will just baptize you and save your soul from your whoring parents, who we have placed on the same level as rapists, murderers, abusers..."

Total strawman in multiple ways. Where is the church saying that children of gay parents are sinful themselves are sinful and will be punished by God? It isn't. And where is the church saying that they must renounce their parents? It isn't.

The church is saying that people must support church doctrine that homosexual behavior (including marriage) is sinful if they want to be part of the church. Shocker... you have to support church doctrine in order to join a church? What will they think of next?

 

[colton]

Finally, green, the Church has a similar policy in regard to other ostracized pariah-class people, like polygamists. Children of polygamists have to go a special interview to get baptized, and basically they have to disavow their parents just like children of LGBT parents.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

 

[RandyForRubio]

The Church cannot, and should not, support homosexuality as long as it keeps the Bible as its law and doctrine.

The Church cannot, and should not punish children because of what their parents have done. You will find no backing for this in the Bible, not anywhere.

Green made excellent points on the hypocrisy within almost all churches with the adultry, fornication, etc and homosexuality.

I just don't see how this is defensible. If a person wants to be baptized (and they show they are a true believer), how can the church deny that? Especially when in the LDS church where you can't be saved if you aren't baptized (I think that's right, correct me if wrong). The Churh then is essentially saying that they won't allow this person to be saved. The church does not have the authority to save people! This is just so wrong, and so distressing.

 

[Stoked]

This. 100% this.

This is what bothers me. I stayed up last night pouring through the bible looking at the scriptures on homosexuality. There are some and the Bible is very clear on the matter: Homosexuality is wrong.

BUT, in EVERY case, listed right next to homosexuality is adultery and fornication. So, why are we singling out gay people?
Why is it a couple can commit fornication, get married, and their kids can get baptized, receive the priesthood, and go on missions? According to this announcement, shouldn't the couple that fornicated be required to divorce, renounce their sins, and move on to other people before they can be cleaned of their sin? Shouldn't their kids not be allowed to get baptized, receive the priesthood, and go on missions before renouncing their parents' sin? Shouldn't the people who committed the sin not be allowed to be Bishops, young men leaders, Primary leaders, etc?

Same for adultery? Why is it a person can commit adultery, marry the person they committed it with, have a child and that child can be baptized?

Some family made the argument that it is about not creating strife in said families, why would gays want their kids baptized anyways and its to make sure the kids will be active and truly understand.

If that is the was the case they would stop baptizing any minor that did not have active, hetero married parents.

But they are fine baptizing minors to parents of other religions, unmarried parents, inactive parents, parents that smoke and drink...

So I cannot buy the argument that it is to ensure the activity of the child.

But once again, on not letting gays join I agree. If you are joining you are agreeing to live by said groups morals, commandments and theology and that clearly does not allow homo relationships of any kind. if you cannot agree then you cannot join.

 

[green]

oh, I remember when folks turn my arguments around and use them on me. And sometimes I take the point they make to heart. I hope you remember that I took thought to use some qualifiers like "most of the posters above seem to be", which I put in there specifically thinking of you, because I knew you should not be included in the general rhetorical picture I was painting. I also realize that "political hacks/change agents espousing a specific belief system" makes a distinction between merely sincere believers in specific belief systems" and those who are not sincere believers, just hacks. I expect you might need to ponder the distinction I'm trying to make in that perspective before you will get it. You are entitled to the time you need. Maybe by about next year.

The real damaging distinction, in my view, is the matter of using government power, writing new laws, to enforce specific beliefs or viewpoints which are not actually necessary to protect individual rights, but which can and will be used to deny human rights to choice, opinion, belief, thinking, and speech.

And yes, I see that some unprincipled and insincere "movers and shakers" use ideals of "progress", "human rights" included, and ideals of "social justice", and any convenient arguments to advance the cause of more intrusive and powerful government which they want to use to take down human liberty. And some people buy their arguments without really thinking twice.

This is why I want you to stay out of this thread. Your issue is completely different than mine. Mine has NOTHING to do with government. Please stay out of this thread. Go make another thread espousing your point. Please.

 

[RandyForRubio]

The other question I have is why does God make gay people if he hates them?

I'm not going to argue whether they're born that way or if it's a choice, bc IMO, it doesn't matter. So just let me ask you this:

Why does God create people who are born sinners if He hates sin? I would like to stress that God doesn't hate homosexuals. He hates the action, just as much as He hates it if I curse, lie, steal or cheat.