Originally Posted By ecdc >>I see how the policy can be beneficial in most cases.<< So just to be clear, you are saying it is better for a child to live without the gift of the Holy Ghost for ten years than experience a potential conflict between their personal beliefs and a parent's lifestyle? Do you believe a child with a parent who drinks should go without the gift of the Holy Ghost? What about a child whose parents aren't married and are living in sin?
Originally Posted By utahjosh ecdc, are you telling me you don't see the wisdom of not putting a child in a situation where the church they belong to teaches that their parents are living is open sin, and that their family cannot be together forever as a family unit? You can't see the danger or difficulties in that?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Our beliefs about sex being only allowed between husband and wife are going to be viewed with disdain and ridicule, that's just a fact. But they aren't going to change.> Sure they are. Not tomorrow. But they will. It may take (the inevitable) proof that sexual orientation is largely or even wholly genetic, it may take enough extended families with gay members leaving the church, it may take the (rapidly approaching) moment when American society in general considers homophobia to be as beyond the pale as racism (which doesn't mean it disappears - just that it's no longer considered acceptable in polite society - and most Mormons I've met are nothing if not polite, in all its meanings)... but it will happen.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <ecdc, are you telling me you don't see the wisdom of not putting a child in a situation where the church they belong to teaches that their parents are living is open sin, and that their family cannot be together forever as a family unit? You can't see the danger or difficulties in that?> Will you answer ecdc's questions if he answers yours? He did ask first, and you didn't answer.
Originally Posted By utahjosh To answer ecdc: The policy in our church as long as I can remember has been that minors cannot be baptized until they have parent permission, or until they are 18. Nobody has ever had a big beef with this policy, because it respects the parents. Nobody freaked out that these 8, 12, or 16 year old kids were "denied salvation" until they turned 18. Baptism is a serious covenant to follow God and His prophets on earth. I believe that children are baptized at age 8 because generally they are being raised by parents who teach about the commandments and encourage the child to live the commandments. When a child is being raised by parents whose marriage, according to the church doctrine, is sing and whose marriage cannot continue after death, the church policy is requiring those children to be 18 and fully accept that doctrine before being baptized. I haven't read these "hero stories" about an 8 year old going against their parents that ecdc is talking about, although some anecdotes or magazine articles along those lines wouldn't shock me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "ecdc, are you telling me you don't see the wisdom of not putting a child in a situation where the church they belong to teaches that their parents are living is open sin, and that their family cannot be together forever as a family unit? You can't see the danger or difficulties in that?" What sin, josh? It sure as shit isn't the fact the parents are gay, because that's not a sin. So what else do you have?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "When a child is being raised by parents whose marriage, according to the church doctrine, is sing and whose marriage cannot continue after death, the church policy is requiring those children to be 18 and fully accept that doctrine before being baptized." Got news for you kid. You and yours are breaking the 9th Commandment every time this spews out from Utah.
Originally Posted By utahjosh SPP, we don't' believe that being gay is a sin. But the law of chastity isn't going to change in our church, no matter how many times others say it will. We do recognize that same sex-marriages are now legal in the US. We accept that people have the right to do that legally - but that's not a right that exists in the church. "We're not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know that sin does not," he said. "And so we're going to stand firm there, because we don't want to mislead people. There's no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ." - Elder Christofferson. https://www.ksl.com/?sid=37258228&nid=1284&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-5
Originally Posted By utahjosh Oh, forgot to answer these: <Do you believe a child with a parent who drinks should go without the gift of the Holy Ghost?> Nope, not if the parent(s) are teaching them the gospel and have no objections to the church's teachings. <What about a child whose parents aren't married and are living in sin?> Nope, I don't have a problem with that kid being baptised if the parent(s) are teaching them the gospel and have no objections to the church's teachings. Look - I understand the pain this is causing some. I would honestly PREFER that children in some of those situation could be baptized, if they have support in the gospel. But I can see the good in this policy. If it changed, I wouldn't care, but I can see the good in it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The policy targets children for the perceived sins of the parents. It's twisted, cruel, irrational logic that can't be explained away by more Mormonspeak. "We do recognize that same sex-marriages are now legal in the US. We accept that people have the right to do that legally - but that's not a right that exists in the church." So the judge presumes to judge them then, eh? You're in a cult josh, one akin to Islam terrorism. Hope you're not around when one of your acolytes goes ballistic.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <You're in a cult josh, one akin to Islam terrorism> Calm down. You're better than that. Take a breath and realize that just because we believe gay sex is a sin, that doesn't make us terrorists.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<But I can see the good in this policy.>> Of course you can. You've been screaming for years that LDS will NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER recognize gay marriage. So anything coming out of SLC that tears apart gay families helps to keep that anti-gay marriage belief alive is a totally grand idea in your mind. <<If it changed, I wouldn't care, but I can see the good in it.>> That's BS. You absolutely care, 100%. You hate gay marriage because LDS hates gay marriage. You're defending LDS in this action because you firmly believe that keeping kids out of the church because their parents are gay is very good for LDS. You believe it because you don't want the church to change their position down the road and put the OK on gay marriage. Because that would prove you to be WRONG. And you HATE HATE HATE being wrong. So anything that keeps LDS from accepting gay marriage in the future is OK by you. Because having gay marriage acceptance in LDS proves you don't understand your religion as well as you think you do. And that just burns you like damnation fire.
Originally Posted By utahjosh That's a good try at reading my heart and soul, but you're incorrect, skinnerbox.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Josh reminds me of a former co-worker of mine whose husband came very close to beating her to death. She refused to leave him because she firmly and steadfastly believed he loved her, even through the name calling and physical violence. Over the years, he managed to convince her that she was the cause of his drinking, because she was somehow deficient as a wife. And that her "nagging" for him to get help with his drinking, as well as personal concerns over her own life and her own career meant she was a terrible wife and "deserved to be punished." In his mind, only a "good wife" would devote herself 100% to the needs and desires of her husband, letting him do whatever the hell he wanted, including drinking away their life savings and sending her to the ER on occasion with broken bones. It wasn't until her husband beat up on their young preschool daughter that she got the message. With the help of family members on the other side of the country, she packed up their belongings and the two of them left him. I never heard from her again. But I knew she was in a better place without him. Perhaps having LDS "beat up on the kids" will finally give these abused adults their wake-up call so they can pack up and leave their abusive relationships with the church.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<That's a good try at reading my heart and soul, but you're incorrect, skinnerbox.>> Nonsense. I know the rationalizations of an addict when I read them.
Originally Posted By utahjosh So delusional you are, skinnerbox. So full of hatred toward me. It's sad, really.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox BTW... Jesus would never punish children for the "sins" of their parents. That's the Old Testament Judaic shtick that Jesus was totally against. Just how "Christian" is a church that would treat its most innocent attendees in such a cruel and heartless manner? Brainwashing cults do it all the time. True followers of Jesus... not so much.
Originally Posted By utahjosh You are completely missing the point of the policy, skinnerbox. You are so blinded by your hate you refuse to even take a PEEK at the policy from another perspective.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<So delusional you are, skinnerbox. So full of hatred toward me. It's sad, really.>> I don't hate you, Josh. I hate your church. LDS is a hate-filled cult. You're not. Big difference. What's really sad is that you cannot tell the difference between my hatred for the organization that's brainwashed you and how I feel about you as an individual. Again, it's the typical rantings of someone in the grip of addiction. "YOU HATE ME!" is a common meme from folks like you. And to paraphrase, "it's sad, really."
Originally Posted By utahjosh <I don't hate you, Josh> Thanks for not hating me. But being compared to someone who abused his wife didn't come across as love. And being accused of thinking and feeling things I do not kind of skews my perception of the accuser.
