I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[green]

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?

I don't know. I'm trying here. But I may be done. How is this any different than prohibiting the priesthood from blacks?

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Can't wait to see the mental gymnastics in this thread.

 

[green]

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"

 

[Stoked]

I am usually pro LDS but yeah I don't get it either Green.

I always expected the LDS church to remain against gay marriage but this is foolish IMO. It goes against Mormon teachings as far as I can tell. Disappointed.

 

[green]

I am usually pro LDS but yeah I don't get it either Green.

I always expected the LDS church to remain against gay marriage but this is foolish IMO. It goes against Mormon teachings as far as I can tell. Disappointed.

I don't understand it at all.

 

[green]

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.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Though it is remarkably incongruous that the church has officially said that members can personally support same-sex marriage... except, apparently, if that marriage is between one's own parents.

.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I am very glad the LDS church has made this decision. It is letting people know their stance and who they are and will drive lots of people away from them.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

Indefensible.

 

[Siro]

This is riveting stuff about what Jesus would and wouldn't think of random issues. I will keep a very close eye on this thread, I assure you.

 

[babe]

Indefensible???

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".

 

[Gameface]

I agree with babe, it's totally defensible. An imaginary sky daddy told them to do it. Who can argue with that?