I want to fight the exclusion policy

[ebenezerarise]

Do not read more into my words than are there. I did not comment as to if this is revelation or not. Indeed it likely is. I simply would like to have such "BASIC FUNDAMENTAL doctrine" placed into the canon that's all. Otherwise it can end up being like the whole priesthood ban something that everyone thought was doctrine but which turns out 150 year latter not to be. If we are willing to believe this to be "BASIC FUNDAMENTAL doctrine" then we should be willing to have it included into the D&C as such, right?

What part of the plan of salvation don't you understand? It's clearly basic, fundamental doctrine that is already there.

[ebenezerarise]

I support agency. Personally, if one person's agency does not infringe on another's, then I do my best to respect their personal decision. If an 8yr old wants to show with a physical ordinance that they want to follow the Savior, I wouldn't stand in their way.

If anything, the good that could come from denying baptism would be for LDS members to wake up and actually question the Lord, instead of just blindly following. We prayed about this policy within my family, and it was a very interesting answer we received. I would encourage everyone to ask the Lord if children not being permitted to be baptized based on their home life is what He wants us to support.
I believe He is doing all He can to get us to communicate with and trust in Him and remember that He is Lord, not us and not our leaders.
What would you do if you sincerely prayed and the Lord told you the policy is not what He wants for His children? There are a !ot of Sauls in the church- wonderful, valiant people who just don't always realize when they're running at full speed in the wrong direction, myself included. If we will talk with the Lord on our own road to Damascus, we can become Pauls and use our effort to defend the right thing.

This isn't about the agency of 8 year olds. It is about the agency of parents.

[ebenezerarise]

Here is my position on the subject.

There's plenty of "room" for those who have different standards than the Lord. "In my Father's House there are many mansions..."

But you really expect the Lord to bestow his highest blessings -- which begin at baptism -- upon those who demand things contrary to His plan?

The gay community will most certainly demand nothing less than exaltation.

I fail to see how God can do that.

[ebenezerarise]

A desire to NOT turn away a child from Christ because of the lifestyle of parents of that child is NOT choosing to follow Lucifer, sorry bud.

How many of these children do you really think will get baptized when they are 18? Good luck. They will most likely be bitter towards the church by then :ymapplause:

How many gay parents do you think would allow a child to be baptized in the Mormon Church?

I know many and I cannot think of one who would consider it for even a second. Not one.

[Sarah]

Legally defining yourself as married when you are with someone of the same sex the major sin we need to focus on. When parents are engaging in this sin - making a statement to everyone including their child that same sex marriage is right - the child must understand that to be a follower of Christ is to admit that his parents are living in sin - the sin of calling their relationship a marriage. How can baptism to a child be meaningful if he looks at this sin as something Christ would approve of when it most assuredly is not? That's why an extra layer of approval is needed - First Presidency approval. They need to determine by the spirit if this child is really able to keep this sacred covenant. If you go ahead and let the child be baptized, they are surely going to break that covenant, and will by eternal law be held more accountable. In the Lord's mercy, he withholds light and knowledge from his children so they will be spared a greater eternal punishment for breaking covenants and living against the knowledge they've been given. He waits until they are ready before he reveals higher principles they must live by.

[Zathura]

A desire to NOT turn away a child from Christ because of the lifestyle of parents of that child is NOT choosing to follow Lucifer, sorry bud.

How many of these children do you really think will get baptized when they are 18? Good luck. They will most likely be bitter towards the church by then :ymapplause:

How many gay parents do you think would allow a child to be baptized in the Mormon Church?

I know many and I cannot think of one who would consider it for even a second. Not one.

Good thing the few that would allow it can't do it anyways :ymapplause:

[Elizabeth]

There are many, including myself who were adults when baptised into the LDS Church.

[jockeybox]

There is no compromise nor discussion to be had on the matter of the evils of homosexuality. That it is of Lucifer is a given. The choice is clear, if your choice is to follow Lucifer then leave the LDS Church, LDS members, and other Christians and take the consequences of the way you have chosen.

What you type feels far removed from the gospel Christ preach from the Sermon on the mount.

Like I said, you might be offended by the above. and probably just ignore it. But I would encourage some empathy for those that you say are following Lucifer. One day, you may need their help.

[jockeybox]

Why indeed. Why would God deprive his children of the saving ordinances if all involved including his parents wanted him to have them and would actively support him ? Why can a child living in the home of his sexually active and promiscuous lesbian mother have the saving ordinances but not a child living in the home of two committed stable gay parents? Why is an innocent child being deprived of the saving ordinances by the Church because of the life style choices of his parents ?

The policy encourages promiscuity of both unfaithful (or adulterous) hetros and homosexuals so that their kids can still be baptized. The hammer swings more heavily on open gay couples.

The policy also suggests that as long as we are polished properly on the outside (i.e. hiding your sins), you fine staying in the church.

[zionminded]

Here is my position on the subject.

There's plenty of "room" for those who have different standards than the Lord. "In my Father's House there are many mansions..."

But you really expect the Lord to bestow his highest blessings -- which begin at baptism -- upon those who demand things contrary to His plan?

The gay community will most certainly demand nothing less than exaltation.

I fail to see how God can do that.

You and I see homosexuality differently. We see sin differently too.

What we have here is cultural belief that gay "sex" is evil in all forms, all ways, near murder, and all versions are the same. Heterosexual sins are different in LDS circles, a shade of grey, from masterbation, to petting, premarital sex in various forms, to adultery. We vary Heterosexual sins by their impact on the individual or others. We don't vary homosexual sins at all, or very, very little.

[Elizabeth]

Hell would freeze over first, (figuratively) and even then NO WAY!

There is no compromise nor discussion to be had on the matter of the evils of homosexuality. That it is of Lucifer is a given. The choice is clear, if your choice is to follow Lucifer then leave the LDS Church, LDS members, and other Christians and take the consequences of the way you have chosen.

What you type feels far removed from the gospel Christ preach from the Sermon on the mount.

Like I said, you might be offended by the above. and probably just ignore it. But I would encourage some empathy for those that you say are following Lucifer. One day, you may need their help.

[jockeybox]

Hell would freeze over first, (figuratively) and even then NO WAY!

You wouldn't extend or receive help from someone because they are gay?

[Elizabeth]

I do not acknowledge the meaning you are attributing to that stolen word, nor do I nor would I ever use it in such context.
If you are referring to those who practice the abominable evil acts of homosexuality then I assure you I have no association with any such person nor do I intend to.

[gkearney]

I do not acknowledge the meaning you are attributing to that stolen word, nor do I nor would I ever use it in such context.
If you are referring to those who practice the abominable evil acts of homosexuality then I assure you I have no association with any such person nor do I intend to.

Oh I doubt that you have "no association" with homosexuals, statistically you have to. Homosexuals make up about 3.8% of the U.S. adult population, similar percentages are found in most other developed nations. In a typical LDS ward of 400 people this means that there are 15 homosexuals. This also means that you are encountering homosexuals all the time you just don't know it. Better check under the bed, they're everywhere,

[Elizabeth]

Come back to Australia Greg, you have been too long in California.

[boo]

A desire to NOT turn away a child from Christ because of the lifestyle of parents of that child is NOT choosing to follow Lucifer, sorry bud.

How many of these children do you really think will get baptized when they are 18? Good luck. They will most likely be bitter towards the church by then :ymapplause:

How many gay parents do you think would allow a child to be baptized in the Mormon Church?

I know many and I cannot think of one who would consider it for even a second. Not one.

Actually when in a different universe as bishop I had a number of gay parents in my ward. They ALL wanted their children to be baptized and raised with the blessings of the gospel I concede that not many nonmember would want that for their underage children but the bulk of the members probably soon to be non members do want that for their children. Obviously the 15 must think so too or they never would have come up with the policy. If this wasn't happening there would be no need for the policy would there !

[samizdat]

The policy is consistent with Scripture as well as cultural norms to respect the decisions of the parents.

You cannot baptize a minor with nonmember parents, unless they give consent. That goes for EVERYONE.

The policy states simply two things:

1. Those living in a same sex relationship akin to marriage or cohabitation are commiting apostasy and thus are open to excommunication.

2. Those children living within a same sex relationship akin to marriage or cohabitation won't be baptized until they are 18 and understand that the Church doctrines run counter to the parents' lifestyle.

It is the responsibility of the PARENTS to teach their children the doctrine of repentance and of baptism when they are eight years old. Since the same sex parents cannot teach this doctrine to the children because they are not living what they are teaching, the sin falls on the parents. It's straight out of the D&C people.

[Zathura]

This post made me very sad. Sounds very much like these scriptures I posted below.

If you are referring to those who practice the abominable evil acts of homosexuality then I assure you I have no association with any such person nor do I intend to.

Mark 2
16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

[gkearney]

:D Come back to Australia Greg, you have been too long in California.

While it is true that Australians do not talk about private sexual matters as freely as folks in the U.S. seem to, the fact remains that even in the land downunder about 3.8% of the population are homosexuals and you can't avoid interaction with them. You may not know that your bank teller, school teacher, or bus driver is a homosexual but your still associating with homosexuals all the time.

[butterfly]

[quote ]"gkearney"

Oh I doubt that you have "no association" with homosexuals, statistically you have to. Homosexuals make up about 3.8% of the U.S. adult population, similar percentages are found in most other developed nations. In a typical LDS ward of 400 people this means that there are 15 homosexuals. This also means that you are encountering homosexuals all the time you just don't know it. Better check under the bed, they're everywhere,[/quote]

I had no idea you statistically have 15 homosexuals per LDS ward! That's a lot higher than I imagined. Is this some new trend or do you know if ancient cultures had similar proportions?

[gkearney]

I had no idea you statistically have 15 homosexuals per LDS ward! That's a lot higher than I imagined. Is this some new trend or do you know if ancient cultures had similar proportions?

The standard figure of homosexuals in the adult population of the United States and other developed nations is 3.8%. Given that LDS as a group tend to follow the general population trends in most things, drinking and smoking being exceptions but even then not by that much. For example, while it is true that LDS in the intermountain region of the U.S. have more children than the general population that figure is only by a fraction of a child and LDS outside of the intermountain region have no more children than the general population. Indeed in some European nations LDS members have fewer children than the general population. Taking everything into account church members are remarkably the same, statistically speaking, to the general populations that surround them.

A typical ward will have 400 adult members so 3.8% of 400 = 15.2. Rounded downward that gives us 15 homosexual persons, on average, per ward.

Now these are averages some wards in urban areas will have more, wards in rural areas less. We are not talking about sexual activity here either just the numbers of homosexuals as a percentage of population overall.

[jockeybox]

I do not acknowledge the meaning you are attributing to that stolen word, nor do I nor would I ever use it in such context.
If you are referring to those who practice the abominable evil acts of homosexuality then I assure you I have no association with any such person nor do I intend to.

Well, if you're not willing to mourn with those that have reason to mourn, they can come by my house for a bite to eat and a laugh. I bet there are some things I could learn from them.

[Elizabeth]

Birds of a feather flock together.

[samizdat]

I do not acknowledge the meaning you are attributing to that stolen word, nor do I nor would I ever use it in such context.
If you are referring to those who practice the abominable evil acts of homosexuality then I assure you I have no association with any such person nor do I intend to.

Well, if you're not willing to mourn with those that have reason to mourn, they can come by my house for a bite to eat and a laugh. I bet there are some things I could learn from them.

We can all learn from anyone.