What's new
By:

I know there are a lot of LDS people here

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.
 
green said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
babe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
b_line said:
The other question I have is why does God make gay people if he hates them?
Click to expand...


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.
 
green said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Howard said:
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.

...I just don't see how this is defensible.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top