I know there are a lot of LDS people here
- Thread starter green
- Start date
Colton will find my position offensive in insinuation that the LDS policy might soon, as in a few years, be radically changed, in order to maintain a principle of LDS official compliance with the law, if the law becomes beyond reasonable hope of allowing the LDS doctrinal position to be acceptable under "Freedom of Religion" or "Freedom of Speech" legal precedents. Colton might go through that whole process maintaining complete unquestioning support of LDS leaders because his belief and support of Mormonism is not directly founded on doctrinal positions or scriptural interpretations, but on more general foundations of a relationship with God.
I can do a "real discussion" on this, once I navigate beyond my concerns about general government involvement in securing compliance with progressive social agendas intended to fundamentally transform society according to specific governance objectives, which I find offensive to the general principle of human liberty and the right of religious associations to compose their own doctrines and beliefs without fear of government oppression.
Do you want to discuss it in a purely doctrinal or philosophical context? I sorta realize that is what you and b-line are wanting to address. How can this Church announcement be a fundamentally valid doctrinal position, in contradistinction to other scriptures about presenting a loving and gracious and "charitable" demeanor to those who are in some way "not perfect" or in regard to accepting innocent children within the general congregation.
You might actually want me in this discussion in that department.
I don't go to "Church" any better than Stoked says he does. I found that in ordinary Church activity, folks kept taking issue with my presence there specifically because I did not just comply with policy, and was not my way to just pretend compliance. But I figured a Church organization is entitled to it's scruples, as are other people generally, and they should be free to make up their own criteria for compliance with their free association of like minded believers. I figure if it's God's Church, well, God is entitled to His own criteria as well. I'm happy to let other people be as free and live as comfortably in their own opinions and beliefs as I would like to live.
The question you and others of similar opinions/beliefs/ideals actually face here is pretty much the same.
The question to be asked then, is that is the church punishing these children by making them wait? And the answer is that clearly the church doesn't think a delay is the same as a punishment. And given the long term view of LDS doctrine in matters such as gospel being preached in the hereafter & temple work, that seems fairly consistent to me.
Now, if I myself were setting the policy (and let's be clear, this is policy, not doctrine), I probably wouldn't make the kids wait that long. Waiting until age 12 or 14, perhaps, would probably make more sense to me. But if babe's correct that a similar policy is already in place regarding children of polygamists, then I suppose it makes sense to have the policy be consistent. I'd probably make the age requirement lower for both, myself, but it doesn't seem like the end of the world to me.
I feel awful for all my LDS friends and family right now, and those of of you on this board. This news has been shattering for many of you and I cant imagine the pain and confusion you must be feeling. I know this decision does not represent what many of you feel is right. I wish you luck and love while you and your families work through this.
This sucks.
This sucks.
green
Well-Known Member
Colton, thanks for answering. You have missed my point and given me that talking points. My issue isn't that homosexuality is a sin and you have to follow the rules to be a member. I'm ok with that.
My issue is this:
The scriptures put homosexuality and fornication and adultery on the same level. In God's eyes, it is the same. Why is it different in the Church's eyes?
According to the statement on gay relationships, a child cannot get baptized until they are 18, they cannot receive the priesthood, pass the sacrament, etc.
BUT, in the church, if you commit fornication/adultery, marry the person you committed fornication with then have kids, those kids can get baptized, receive the priesthood, etc.
Why is one sexual sin ok to punish kids with, but not the other, when God CLEARLY states they are equal?
Why is it that the Church has decided to take a stand against a group of people and NOT take a stand against a SIN?
That is my issue. IF the Church was to take a stand against SEXUAL SIN, they would require ALL breakers of that law to pay the SAME penalty.
They would require that couples who fornicated before marriage to get divorced and not get remarried before their kids could get baptized. They would require couples who came together through adultery to do the same.
Yet they don't.
Also, you say my problem is the source. My source is NOT the SLTRIB. It is the HANDBOOK of the Church.
I'm sorry if I come off rude, but I am really trying here. I want answers. My problem is, I think I have seen the answer and it is bigotry, which we know has happened in the history of the church and has happened through the prophet. The Church came out and threw Brigham Young under the bus for his racist policy against blacks. When will the Church do the same with this new policy?
Sorry, I missed this part in my earlier reply. No, you've got it wrong, by implication at least. The church does not teach that if you died without baptism you are not saved. That's what the "preach the gospel in the hereafter/temple work" line from my earlier post was referring to. So the situation is not at all like you suggest.
green
Well-Known Member
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?
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Can of worms opened
So I see you understand my point pretty well. Thanks for making it clear to others who would hijack your thread for their own purposes as well. We've done a great job of focusing the topic. But I will sit back when someone comes in here to invoke "social progress" specifically intended to impose governance on the LDS Church, because, hey, this is your thread.
No, I don't find that offensive. I do disagree with it, but understand why some would feel that way.
But "maintaining complete unquestioning support of LDS leaders" is far from my attitude. "Maintaining support of LDS leaders while believing the doctrine and sometimes questioning/pondering policy decisions" would be more accurate.
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.
Fair enough. But I bet you do feel your foundation of belief does center on your relationship with God, and I do not mean that to imply anything but respect.
As I mentioned in another post, punish is by far the wrong word to use. They are being treated differently, yes, but a delay is only marginally the same as a punishment.
I think this is a reasonable view...
...but I don't see that as being analogous at all. You should have said, "They would require that children being raised by parents who are living together but aren't married would need to wait until legal age before getting baptized/receiving the priesthood/etc." That would be the analogous situation.
No, I didn't say that. I said that the Trib article was pretty useless when it comes to understanding what the new policy actually is.
Thanks for using the word "policy" instead of "doctrine". The doctrine that homosexual behavior is sinful isn't going anywhere in my opinion. But we'll have to wait and see about this particular policy. The policy of treating such children differently than children of unmarried heterosexual couples (in my example) may or may not be here to stay. Since it's just a policy, I could totally see it being reversed in the not-too-distant future if there's enough outcry against it.
Yes, I totally get this argument, and think it's reasonable.
But I also think the church's position is reasonable, that due to the changing norms of society they consider homosexual marriage to be an especially problematic situation and want to make extra sure that church members agree with church doctrine on this.