What's new
By:

I know there are a lot of LDS people here

GVC said:
**** you then. I served part of my mission there. Singapore gave the church only a handful of work visas, almost all of which were given to Pakistani elders to see how the church was supposed to be run/function before they were sent back to Pakistan. All other missionaries in Singapore (the vast majority) were there on visitor visas, and had to leave the country every one or three months (Americans got three months, people from other Western countries got one month), and return in casual attire to get their passports stamped again. If/when missionaries were not allowed entry, they continued/finished their missions in Malaysia. I actually think the situation in Malaysia was iffy as well. Foreign missionaries were also expelled from Indonesia sometime in the early 90s when they tried to return illegally (I was part of the first returning legal wave of LDS missionaries Indonesia in 2000 since they were officially barred from Indonesia around 1980).
Click to expand...

This clearly required swearing. Your relaying your experiences while on your mission there would have been plenty.
 
Stoked said:
This clearly required swearing. Your relaying your experiences while on your mission there would have been plenty.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Siro said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aside from the hubris of one thinking they know what Jesus (God) would do in an particular situation, there is also the question of which Jesus are we talking about. The kindler, gentler Jesus of the New Testament, or the Jehova of the Old Testament (Mormon doctrine holds that Jesus was Jehova in the old testament)who was a megalomanaical murderer?

As for the OP, this stikes me as a counter productive measure. While it may serve to bolster the Mormon rank and file inclined toward homophobia (the majority), it will, at the margin, push yet more Members out of the church, particularly, I imagine, millenials.

It also strkes me as excessively putative and mean spiritied.

So much for "We believe that man will be punished for his own sins . . . "
 
colton said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
colton said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
colton said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top