I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[green]

I just wanted to comment on the bold statement that has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

This statement in my experience is not true, that children of a male and female living together are allowed to be baptized without thought of the family situation. This goes for many of the other family situations that exist, that of a child with both parents that are not members of the LDS church, one parent is a member while the other parent is not, or even both parents are members but do not attend regularly or often.

In all of these situations my understanding is that there would have to be special permission given at some level, possibly the Stake President or higher, in order to get approval for baptism.
The reasoning behind this has less to do with sins of parents as it does of having a stable and supportive environment for the child that wants to be baptized into the church. If there is not a supportive home environment to being a member of the church and living by the teachings, then it is most likely not the best time to be baptized. It’s very very hard for children to be active members of the church without parent and family support.

This gets to the portion of the issue where the parents are currently not living in a way to be in line with the LDS church teachings. I have seen parents be required to be married in order to join the church, but that is usually when the parents are joining as well. In my opinion this has more to do with keeping families strong whether in or out of the church and giving people the best opportunity to succeed at living the teachings than “meting out punishment”.

I have seen delays in children being baptized many times for parents to make changes before a child is allowed to be baptized. What is the point of baptizing a child if the odds are really high in favor of the child not having support to live the LDS doctrine? Baptism is a gateway to a way of life, it’s not the end of any road, but a beginning.

This is not bigotry, this is policy enacted to protect people.

It is better to not be baptized, than to be baptized knowing full well there is little chance that person will be able to live up to the covenants made at that baptism. When you are baptized, you promise certain things, and children need the support of parents and families in order to keep those covenants.

I hope my rambling ideas/post makes even half the points I intended to make even if not as well worded as I would like.

This is not true. My mother was living with a man and had two daughters with another man. My mother was LDS. My half-sisters were baptized at 8 and 9 years old. They were interviewed by missionaries and the bishop then baptized. There was no other approval needed.

This takes us back to the bigotry. Why allow one and not the other, when the only difference is one is gay?

This decision will be changed someday. The Church has shown time and time again that they will change it when the bigots die off and new leaders take over.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

One would think that if God cared enough to reveal the BoM so that His true and proper church could exist, that He would care enough with how His true and proper church is ran today. It's not like giving revelation is difficult to God, one could say He's certainly more than capable. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Here is an LDS angle on this idea.

D&C 58

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

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.

You can understand his point? Wow.

 

[green]

Let, me guess. You looked a King James edition of these passages and don't have any knowledge of the actual words that are being translated as homosexual/Sodomite? You might want to poke under the hood on this one. Translations from the original hebrew and greek in those passages are not particularly clear.

Please enlighten me here.

 

[green]

Here is another example of things changing throughout time in the Church with no revelation:

The Law of Chastity used to be "sexual intercourse" before marriage. Now, it is "any sexual relations with yourself or others". So, basically it was ok for my parents to neck, pet, fool around in a car as long as they didn't go all the way. Now, petting will get you in big trouble.

What changed? Do kids these days pet with evil thoughts while in the good old days petting was done while quoting scripture? If revelation is happening, shouldn't this have been figured out from the beginning, especially since fornication is just as bad as raping a person, murder, and all the other things the church lists in their handbook next to homosexuality. Why the sudden change? Did God forget about the sin that is second to only murder?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This is not true. My mother was living with a man and had two daughters with another man. My mother was LDS. My half-sisters were baptized at 8 and 9 years old. They were interviewed by missionaries and the bishop then baptized. There was no other approval needed.

This takes us back to the bigotry. Why allow one and not the other, when the only difference is one is gay?

This decision will be changed someday. The Church has shown time and time again that they will change it when the bigots die off and new leaders take over.

The guidance is that depending on the situations there should be approvals for different situations.

If the Bishop didn't ask for guidance from the Stake President and thought it was fine, then it was allowed.

The policy is just taking the decision out of the hands of the Bishops and passing it up the chain for approval on a case by case basis. You can state your experience, and can state mine where I have seen additional approval needed for certain situations. This policy is just making it clear so there are no questions, because it seems in the past these situations were handled in a huge range of ways depending on the leaders involved.

Like I stated in my other post, I don't believe this is bigotry, but is a pointed effort to give children desiring to be baptized the best opportunities to live up to the covenants made that day and going forward.

 

[green]

Here is an LDS angle on this idea.

If that is the case, why the temple interview? Shouldn't it just be this:

Are you anxiously engaged in a good cause and bringing to pass much righteousness?

Why all the individual acts that are questioned in order to gain saving ordinances? Why have prophets that make rules such as the bigoted one made yesterday?

Can homosexuals not be anxiously engaged in good causes?

 

[green]

The guidance is that depending on the situations there should be approvals for different situations.

If the Bishop didn't ask for guidance from the Stake President and thought it was fine, then it was allowed.

The policy is just taking the decision out of the hands of the Bishops and passing it up the chain for approval on a case by case basis. You can state your experience, and can state mine where I have seen additional approval needed for certain situations. This policy is just making it clear so there are no questions, because it seems in the past these situations were handled in a huge range of ways depending on the leaders involved.

Like I stated in my other post, I don't believe this is bigotry, but is a pointed effort to give children desiring to be baptized the best opportunities to live up to the covenants made that day and going forward.

Can you show me in the Handbook where a child of a single member parent has to wait to be baptized until they are 18, and renounce their parents sins before hand and get approval from the first presidency?

 

[colton]

This does socially ostracize primary children who are not permitted to be baptised when that's the entire point of emphasis for most of the children in their primary class year.

Yes, the potential social ostracization is what's most concerning to me. Ward leaders will have to take very special care to deal with those situations and make sure there isn't any sort of stigma for non-baptized primary-aged kids.

But frankly, how common is this situation, anyway? How many gay couples have their young kids attending LDS church meetings? And why would the couple even do that when they clearly don't believe in LDS teachings? I can understand in teen-aged years it might be more common as the kids themselves become more independent, but I have a hard time picturing an 8 year old kid being raised by a gay couple but who also regularly comes to LDS church meetings.

 

[colton]

I have a question, and it's not just LDS. It's a lot of different churches.

I don't get the exclusion of alcohol. We obviously know that Jesus never sinned. Jesus drank wine. Sooo why can't we drink? Doesn't make sense.

From an LDS point of view, it's part of a covenant. I.e. drinking wine isn't sinful in and of itself, but breaking a covenant is. Drunkenness, on the other hand, probably always is sinful. As to why drinking alcohol at all is now part of the covenant now when it wasn't in Jesus's time, I have some thoughts but I don't have time to articulate them all right now. Maybe some other time.

 

[colton]

But it is against the law and that's the point he is trying to make (I think).

And that's why the church discourages illegal immigration. See this statement, for example: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

"As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."

But the church also discourages breaking the law by, for example, speeding? Should those with speeding tickets be prohibited from being baptized, or serving as bishops, etc.? Clearly the church thinks illegal immigration is much closer to that type of law-breaking than it is to a felony. Now you (or green) may disagree with that position, but I myself think it's reasonable.

 

[colton]

What happened is that the LDS Church was run from the US and into Mexico and they were the "weird polygamy people." Baptism rates were near zero for the Church. Then prohibition came along and the Church could "sell" the "we don't drink liquor and have never done that. Come be a good Christian with us" angle. That morphed from no hard liquor into no beer.

There has never been revelation on this topic. The prophet has never said, "Thus saith the Lord, no beers during the ball game". It changed culturally and grew into what it is today. If there had been revelation, there would have been an amendment to the D&C with another section or changing of the words. That hasn't happened.

Not all revelations get put into the D&C. And your description doesn't seem very accurate to me. For a more complete discussion, here's the best reference I've found on the topic when I've researched it in the past: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6038&context=etd