I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[RandyForRubio]

You can examples both de facto and de jure. Children of non-believing parents killed, refusals to admit Egytians to status of Israelites for ten generations, etc.

Vastly different. One has to take context into consideration. We're talking about the church for this discussion. Will you find any record of the church refusing to admit children because of a parent's sin in the Bible?

 

[One Brow]

Please enlighten me here.

A detailed and balanced resource:

https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

 

[One Brow]

Vastly different. One has to take context into consideration. We're talking about the church for this discussion. Will you find any record of the church refusing to admit children because of a parent's sin in the Bible?

I am not confused that you are discussing the current policies of the church. I was just pointing out the falseness of your claim that punishing children for their parentage is never seen in the Bible.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I am not confused that you are discussing the current policies of the church. I was just pointing out the falseness of your claim that punishing children for their parentage is never seen in the Bible.

I was referring to how the Church was ran in the Bible as evidence. I probably should have stated that, but I thought it was obvious.

Let me try again: When we look at how the Church was ran in the Bible, we will find no evidence that this is a right and proper thing to do. That better?

 

[One Brow]

Again, they are not required to disavow their parents. They are required to disavow their parents' *actions*. If you don't see a difference, then there's no hope for this conversation.

Do you think that there are actions that are so fundamental to the identity of a person, that you can not disavow the action without also substantially disavowing the person?

 

[One Brow]

Let me try again: When we look at how the Church was ran in the Bible, we will find no evidence that this is a right and proper thing to do. That better?

I don't think you describe anything in the NT as being a single Church, but outside of that, OK.

 

[colton]

So, a man who is sealed to multiple women won't have multiple wives?

It is exactly the same thing.

No, not necessarily. "Serial sealings" don't guarantee polygamous relationships in the hereafter. After all, there is no opportunity for the deceased spouse to agree to the plural marriage which would need to be a requirement.

 

[green]

No, not necessarily. "Serial sealings" don't guarantee polygamous relationships in the hereafter. After all, there is no opportunity for the deceased spouse to agree to the plural marriage which would need to be a requirement.

Source?

 

[DutchJazzer]

"LGBTQ advocates see spike in suicide calls after announcement of LDS policy change, officials say"

https://fox13now.com/2015/11/10/lgb...ouncement-of-lds-policy-change-officials-say/

*edited for offensive content*

 

[RandyForRubio]

I don't think you describe anything in the NT as being a single Church, but outside of that, OK.

Through the various churches (Ephesus, Galatia, etc) we are given a background on how the Church should be ran. Certainly all individual churches, but also certainly one church.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This is such a loaded question. Do you realize that Mormons still practice polygamy? Many members of the Quorum of the 12 are married to more than one woman.

Another example of the Church picking and choosing rules to follow. They make the child of a polygamist go against their parent's marriage to join a church where many of the leaders are married to more than one woman.

If what you are saying is true it's a bombshell. What's your source?

 

[fishonjazz]

If what you are saying is true it's a bombshell. What's your source?

I'm curious as well.
If there are really a bunch of polygamists in the quorum of the 12 then im shocked I have never heard about it before.