I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[bigb]

Colton could have just asked what my source was without the "don't buy it" comment. Respect is a two way street. You can go **** yourself too.

Someone is clearly in a good mood.

 

[b_line]

Colton could have just asked what my source was without the "don't buy it" comment. Respect is a two way street. You can go **** yourself too.

You mad bro?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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



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.

Here's one relevant passage:

The handbook now includes being in a same-sex marriage under the definition of apostasy and as a circumstance that requires the convening of a disciplinary council. The handbook also clarifies that the ordinance of naming and blessing a child may not be performed for children living with a parent in a same-gender relationship.

I've seen, and I think we've all seen, children blessed and/or baptised who have parents who are living in various states of 'sin' according to Church teachings. Why single out children of same sex couples?

Here's another:
The handbook addition also states that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting," can only be baptized, confirmed, ordained to the priesthood or serve a full-time mission with approval from the Office of the First Presidency. 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."

Note the bolded text. In other words, the child is required, in effect, to renounce his/her parents and declare their love/relationship to be invalid and requires the child to move outside of the household, which, in effect, is a show of disassociation from his/her parents.

You really think these are reasonable requirements?

Put yourself in the position of a child, who dearly loves his same sex parents, being required to disavow them and their relationship as a condition of full faith and membership in the Church. You still think this is reasonable.

 

[GVC]

One more point: I'm not sure what the situation in Indonesia is now, but our visas were not intended to be used for proselyting, but rather for the training of local Indonesian members/leaders/missionaries. On my Indonesian ID, I was officially in Indonesia as an "ahli tafsir dogmatika" or doctrine expert. The other missionaries had equally absurd titles. We were all just trying to teach and baptize, of course.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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?

There is a material difference between supporting church doctrine and being required to disavow one's parents as a demonstration of this support. In what other context are children required to disavow and disassociated themselves from their parents as a condition for full faith and membership?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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.

Is the same required for children who live with co-habitating heterosexual parents? How about parents who don't honor their father or mother? How about parents who bear false witness on occasion? How about parents who drink or smoke? How about parents who cheat on their taxes?

As for whether this consitutes punishment. Your response to this reminds me of a common LDS response about the three degrees of glory and how the terrestial kindgon really isn't punishment, as in, you know, a loving father witholding his full love and blessing from you doesn't qualify as some sort of punishment, but only in this case, the church is withholding from you full faith and membership in the church for something someone else is doing, but is generous enough to give you the full faith and membership if only you'll disavow, and disassociate yourself from, the people who have raised you, cared for you, loved you and sacrificed for you.

Yep, perfectly reasonable and not punishment at all.

 

[Nate505]

Anytime you punish the son for the sins of the father, the optics on it look awful (and after reading the thread, I guess these kids can be members or go on missions after a certain amount of time, but it seems to still feel like a punishment to me)

The only "religion" (or more accurately, denomination) I'm familiar with are the Methodists, and I couldn't comprehend them doing such a thing (then again, it seems the age and requirement of baptism differ wildly across denominations...I was baptized when I was 2 or so, and I don't remember it at all). This is bizarre to me.

And for the record in general, while I probably philosophically disagree with most of the LDS's views on things, I actually respect them in many aspects. While they are a bit too goodie two shoes for my taste (I really don't want to offend anyone with that phrase, but I'm struggling to find one that's better), I find it hard to find fault with it. Also unlike some other religious denominations I won't mention, I never get the sense that they are all that holier than thou about it (keeping in mind I don't live in an area with a huge LDS population).

 

[Gameface]

The making the kids wait until they are 18 is one thing. I could easily shrug that off. It's the making them disavow their parent's relationship is what is really disturbing.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I truly appreciate this sentiment.
For the last couple years, the firmness of my faith and activity in the church has wavered significantly. After listening repeatedly to the last General Conference, I had decided it was time to fish or cut bait. It had been several years since I'd read The Book of Mormon, so I started reading it. Before long, I realized I was doing more than just reading it, I was actively studying it. I even went to all three hours of church this past Sunday. I was legitimately starting to get back into the church thing. Now this new policy comes along and it is really troubling to me. I've been really struggling with it since I heard the news. I really have some soul searching and praying to do.

I mean it man. I have plenty of LDS friends and family, and they battle hard with this stuff. Not only not feeling right about it, but the barrage of criticism is a lot to take. I feel for you mang.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RandyForRubio]

If homosexuals marry, why is it still a sin?

I'm sorry if I come off rude or crass, but I am really trying to find the correct answer to this.

Paul wrote a decent amount about marriage, and how it's meant for a man and a woman. It verifies everything the Bible has said about homosexuality. That would be why.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Paul wrote a decent amount about marriage, and how it's meant for a man and a woman. It verifies everything the Bible has said about homosexuality. That would be why.

Paul also wrote other stuff that are now routinely ignored (e.g., women staying silent in church). So, I'm wondering, what's the decision rule for determining whether what Paul says should be accepted, and what should be ignored?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Paul also wrote other stuff that are now routinely ignored (e.g., women staying silent in church). So, I'm wondering, what's the decision rule for determining whether what Paul says should be accepted, and what should be ignored?

https://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women9

That's a good read regarding what you mentioned.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Personally, I would never discourage my kids from sharing what they believe/is an important part of their lives with anybody. Like I shared before, I've got to come to grips with this new policy myself. As a human, I don't like it. But I don't believe I have to like it to accept it. If I can, after much study and prayer come to a peaceful understanding/acceptance of it, I can move on. If I can't, I get to make a major and difficult life changing decision. IF I feel that God is okay with it (whether it's a "revelation" or not), and my kids are old enough to invite friends (two of mine are currently old enough), I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I saw dais friends taking significant interest in the church, at that point in time I would have a conversation with my kid and the friend.
Did that make sense?

So you will allow your kids to introduce what you believe is the true church to any of their friends that they want to, and then just hope that the subset of friends who happen to have gay parents don't decide that they like it?

 

[bigb]

So you will allow your kids to introduce what you believe is the true church to any of their friends that they want to, and then just hope that the subset of friends who happen to have gay parents don't decide that they like it?

Ugh. That's not at all what I said. I said that IF the friend showed interest, that would be the time to have a conversation. IMO, there is no need to bring it up to a kid that goes to church once and shows no interest in progressing. Never did I say I wouldn't want/hope the kid didn't like it. But nice try.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Ugh. That's not at all what I said. I said that IF the friend showed interest, that would be the time to have a conversation. IMO, there is no need to bring it up to a kid that goes to church once and shows no interest in progressing. Never did I say I wouldn't want/hope the kid didn't like it. But nice try.

Yes, but if a child with gay parents does happen to show interest then you have an uncomfortable issue on your hands. I guess I just can't imagine having that conversation.

 

[b_line]

Yes, but if a child with gay parents does happen to show interest then you have an uncomfortable issue on your hands. I guess I just can't imagine having that conversation.

I don't imagine any gay person would be shocked at a Christian church hating gay people. It sucks. But I'm sure gay people deal with this crap often enough.

It sure makes missionary work difficult.

 

[NUMBERICA]

The LDS Church is and has been a joke. But this is breathtakingly bad even for them.

Keep on digging that grave, boys.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't imagine any gay person would be shocked at a Christian church hating gay people. It sucks. But I'm sure gay people deal with this crap often enough.

It sure makes missionary work difficult.

So you will have your conversation with the parents? You will thank them for allowing you to introduce their child to your church and tell them that you have noticed the child is showing some interest. And then you will tell them that by church policy their child is going to have to renounce their lifestyle? Yeah, I'm sure they will just think, "We deal with this crap often enough."

 

[b_line]

So you will have your conversation with the parents? You will thank them for allowing you to introduce their child to your church and tell them that you have noticed the child is showing some interest. And then you will tell them that by church policy their child is going to have to renounce their lifestyle? Yeah, I'm sure they will just think, "We deal with this crap often enough."

I'm not defending it. I don't want to have that conversation. I was just bringing up the fact that homophobia is not novel.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I'm not defending it. I don't want to have that conversation. I was just bringing up the fact that homophobia is not novel.

Yes, so what I was pointing out is that your stated strategy would lead you into a very uncomfortable situation, unless you got lucky and there were either no friends with gay parents, or those friends did not show interest. Comments like "It makes missionary work difficult," are amazing to me because the reason you are suggesting the work is difficult is that the organization you want to do the missionary work has notified you that they aren't going to treat certain children in a "Christian" way.