I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[babe]

If the Church feels that 18 is an appropriate age for a child who lives in a sinful environment (homosexual couple) then why do they have any kids get baptized at 8? Is 8 not old enough? If it isn't old enough, then why don't we make every kid wait until 18? Why do we baptize children where one parent is not in the church and drinks and smokes?

If the reason is that we don't want kids to make a covenant that they can't keep because of their home environment, why do we baptize kids who have a parent who drinks or smokes? Isn't that kid just as likely to break their covenant? What about a kid who has parents who fornicated and their relationship is based on that fornication?

Why not wait until 18 to have EVERY kid baptized?

My kids are twelve, and they like to go to Church and participate in Church activities, but even though they want to be baptized, I have objected with reasoned specific concerns about the compliance the Church requires even of children who are unfairly caught in doctrinal cross currents they really can't be expected to independently evaluate and make covenants to comply with. Fortunately, the ward has respected that line of distinction.

Go ahead, send your kids to Church and be nice to the people who welcome them, and keep a lid on the controversy. They don't need to be baptized if you have that kind of concern.

I merely stated to the leaders that I believed some questions in the bishop's instruction manual required more specific beliefs than faith in Christ, and were inappropriate for children to be required to make any promise about.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Here's the conflict to me, an outsider: y'all have a prophet/leader that is supposed to get direct messages from Jesus. If this policy is from the leader who gets to talk to Jesus, then why should it need to be changed later?

 

[green]

Thanks for your responses Colton. I think we are actually pretty in line with each other.

I'm not sure I can continue to support an organization that allows one sin to be treated one way (allowing parents who fornicate to have their children baptized) but not another.

That is another thing I just thought of. If a male and female are cohabiting together and not married, the church will allow their children to be baptized before 18 but not a homosexual partner.

It's the inconsistencies that bother me. Especially when the inconsistencies are based on bigotry.

That's a problem in my eyes.

It's the same with the WOW. And, for the record, I have NEVER had alcohol, tobacco, or any other types of recreational drugs. How can one man be disciplined by the Church for drinking alcohol or using tobacco but the prophets and quorum of the 12 be obese? Both are sins in the eyes of the WOW and the Lord does not put one worse than another.

The Church does this all the time. They pick and choose laws they want to follow. Another example, the Articles of Faith say

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Yet the Church puts KNOWN felons who are actively breaking the law in positions of Bishops, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidencies. Who? Illegal immigrants.

Why is it that the scriptures say that the leaders of the Church are to not be paid, yet our leaders are paid? When do you get close enough to God that the rules no longer apply to you?

The older I get, the less and less I see a Church run by inspiration and guidance from heaven and the more and more I see this as an organization that is run by men trying to do what is right.

And if that is the case, why should I allow my morals and my children's morals to be shaped by bigots who pick and choose laws to live by?

I should probably find another church/group run by men that make me feel closer to God. In the end (hopefully) they are all men trying to do their best to be good people. And I need to do the same.

 

[green]

My kids are twelve, and they like to go to Church and participate in Church activities, but even though they want to be baptized, I have objected with reasoned specific concerns about the compliance the Church requires even of children who are unfairly caught in doctrinal cross currents they really can't be expected to independently evaluate and make covenants to comply with. Fortunately, the ward has respected that line of distinction.

Go ahead, send your kids to Church and be nice to the people who welcome them, and keep a lid on the controversy. They don't need to be baptized if you have that kind of concern.

I merely stated to the leaders that I believed some questions in the bishop's instruction manual required more specific beliefs than faith in Christ, and were inappropriate for children to be required to make any promise about.

Thank you for this. I really appreciate this response. This might be the best course of action from here on out. That way, when they are old enough to really decide for themselves (as the Church as made known, you cannot be fully accountable until you are 18) they can make a decision for themselves when they are 18.

 

[green]

Here's the conflict to me, an outsider: y'all have a prophet/leader that is supposed to get direct messages from Jesus. If this policy is from the leader who gets to talk to Jesus, then why should it need to be changed later?

My other thread is all about this point exactly. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young claimed to have seen God. They claimed to have conversed with angels. When did that stop?

Holland twists Talmage's words around to make a new doctrine. The Church comes out and says that Young's policy was wrong. A Church led by God wouldn't have those issues. It is taught that God will not allow the prophet to lead the congregation astray. Why did God allow Young to be a bigot? Why doesn't God go to Holland and tell him the new tithing law and we add it to the D&C? Why is it okay to discriminate against sexual sin? Why is it okay to be fat, but not to drink? Why was it ok to lie to the federal government about polygamy? Joseph Smith was arrested because he broke the laws of the land by restricting free speech. That led to him being killed....ok, maybe God did follow through there...yikes..too soon?

 

[green]

Just to be clear, I'm not leaving my faith behind. I may be leaving the people who help me learn more about my faith and turning to other, more inspired people, but I'm not leaving my faith. It's too important.

 

[sirkickyass]

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?

Let, me guess. You looked a King James edition of these passages and don't have any knowledge of the actual words that are being translated as homosexual/Sodomite? You might want to poke under the hood on this one. Translations from the original hebrew and greek in those passages are not particularly clear.

Blah blah, this isn't a punishment to children and sirkickyass accidentally deleted his multi-quote

This does socially ostracize primary children who are not permitted to be baptised when that's the entire point of emphasis for most of the children in their primary class year. I understand they can be baptized for the dead at a later date etc etc, but that puts the onus on them as "not a member" for those ten years.

Here's the practical reality: the retention rates of those children in the church is going to go to near zero. This appears to be a move designed to say that homosexuals aren't welcome, which isn't surprising, but it's the first time we've seen policy directed at children.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I have a question, and it's not just LDS. It's a lot of different churches.

I don't get the exclusion of alcohol. We obviously know that Jesus never sinned. Jesus drank wine. Sooo why can't we drink? Doesn't make sense.

 

[♪alt13]

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.

You can't. You obviously feel strongly.

You cannot sacrifice your integrity for the sake of convenience.

 

[colton]

Here's the conflict to me, an outsider: y'all have a prophet/leader that is supposed to get direct messages from Jesus. If this policy is from the leader who gets to talk to Jesus, then why should it need to be changed later?

You are operating on a mistaken assumption on how LDS believe revelation to church leaders work. Yes, direct revelation comes sometimes, and when God has messages to reveal to the entire world we believe it will come through the prophet. But it's not like we believe Jesus and Pres. Monson have a weekly meeting Fridays at 11 am.

 

[colton]

Thanks for your responses Colton. I think we are actually pretty in line with each other.

I'm not sure I can continue to support an organization that allows one sin to be treated one way (allowing parents who fornicate to have their children baptized) but not another.

That is another thing I just thought of. If a male and female are cohabiting together and not married, the church will allow their children to be baptized before 18 but not a homosexual partner.

Yes, that was my example I posted above. I think that's a legitimate comparison.

It's the same with the WOW. And, for the record, I have NEVER had alcohol, tobacco, or any other types of recreational drugs. How can one man be disciplined by the Church for drinking alcohol or using tobacco but the prophets and quorum of the 12 be obese? Both are sins in the eyes of the WOW and the Lord does not put one worse than another.

Well, obesity can have many factors. But using alcohol/tobacco/drugs is pretty much only from a conscious decision on the part of the user.

Yet the Church puts KNOWN felons who are actively breaking the law in positions of Bishops, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidencies. Who? Illegal immigrants.

Coming to this country illegally is not a felony.

I should probably find another church/group run by men that make me feel closer to God. In the end (hopefully) they are all men trying to do their best to be good people. And I need to do the same.

Yes, in the end, you will be responsible for how you stand before God. So, while I obviously believe in the LDS church, by all means you should do what you personally feel helps you be the "goodest" person you can be.

 

[Stoked]

Yes, that was my example I posted above. I think that's a legitimate comparison.



Well, obesity can have many factors. But using alcohol/tobacco/drugs is pretty much only from a conscious decision on the part of the user.



Coming to this country illegally is not a felony.



Yes, in the end, you will be responsible for how you stand before God. So, while I obviously believe in the LDS church, by all means you should do what you personally feel helps you be the "goodest" person you can be.

But it is against the law and that's the point he is trying to make (I think).

 

[Ron Mexico]

Is this a good place to post all the recent studies about how raising kids secular might make them better people? Just in case people are afraid to leave a religion because of raising kids:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-...-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html#page=1

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danth...hout-religion-show-more-empathy-and-kindness/

 

[Stoked]

Is this a good place to post all the recent studies about how raising kids secular might make them better people? Just in case people are afraid to leave a religion because of raising kids:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-...-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html#page=1

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danth...hout-religion-show-more-empathy-and-kindness/

I don't buy into one way or the other making "better" people. It's not a competition.

But if someone feels leaving a religion is right for their family they should leave it.

 

[♪alt13]

obviously, the core of a religious belief system involves the issues of human nature and human conduct and human belief. Religion is invoked to provide answers which Science has not effectively provided. All Science can do is provide data and invoke explanations based on reason. Religion is necessary to address issues like "Love", "Hope", and other sentimental notions necessary to our happiness.

If all people wanted were a tightly logical system of law, we wouldn't need religion either.

No it's not. It may function that way but it isn't "necessary". Love, hope, etc can be addressed, appreciated, and understood just fine without religion.

 

[green]

I have a question, and it's not just LDS. It's a lot of different churches.

I don't get the exclusion of alcohol. We obviously know that Jesus never sinned. Jesus drank wine. Sooo why can't we drink? Doesn't make sense.

The Word of Wisdom, section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants allows you to drink beer. It says:

Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

What happened is that the LDS Church was run from the US and into Mexico and they were the "weird polygamy people." Baptism rates were near zero for the Church. Then prohibition came along and the Church could "sell" the "we don't drink liquor and have never done that. Come be a good Christian with us" angle. That morphed from no hard liquor into no beer.

There has never been revelation on this topic. The prophet has never said, "Thus saith the Lord, no beers during the ball game". It changed culturally and grew into what it is today. If there had been revelation, there would have been an amendment to the D&C with another section or changing of the words. That hasn't happened.

Here is the scripture on wine and hard liquor:

That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.

Even that says that wine is ok for sacrament.

 

[green]

Yes, that was my example I posted above. I think that's a legitimate comparison.



Well, obesity can have many factors. But using alcohol/tobacco/drugs is pretty much only from a conscious decision on the part of the user.



Coming to this country illegally is not a felony.



Yes, in the end, you will be responsible for how you stand before God. So, while I obviously believe in the LDS church, by all means you should do what you personally feel helps you be the "goodest" person you can be.

It's still illegal and the Church puts people who are knowingly breaking the law into positions of authority.

Also, do you believe that every member of the quorum of the 12 has pituitary issues? Come on now. Overeating

is pretty much only from a conscious decision on the part of the user.

Finally, what is your point in quotating "goodest" and using a childlike phrase?

 

[Ron Mexico]

Fair enough, either way kids in secular or atheist households are growing up as good nice people who contribute to society. Religion is not needed to raise good kids and be a close family.


Sent from my HTC0P4E1 using Tapatalk

 

[Ron Mexico]

They should just make a policy that if parents have sinned kids can't get baptized until 18. Then it's kind of a real choice. This policy definitely ranks acting on being gay as one of the worse sins you can commit in Mormonism.

All religions should be more definitive in their stances and stick to them regardless of societal pressure. This would make it easier for people to decide if they are in or out.

Sent from my HTC0P4E1 using Tapatalk

 

[Stoked]

Fair enough, either way kids in secular or atheist households are growing up as good nice people who contribute to society. Religion is not needed to raise good kids and be a close family.


Sent from my HTC0P4E1 using Tapatalk

On this we absolutely agree.