Church makes gays and their children apostates
 

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3144035-1...s-apostates-of

The Church is making another huge mistake in this. Prop 8 was a major lack of vision and this is another.

This is another head-scratcher.

Outreach to Mormon gays is dead.

This is the first time we see that good standing in the church REQUIRES active and affirmative disavowal of gay marriage.

It's a precedent and could very well be expanded. Imagine if this is added to temple recommend criteria.

A lawyer friend shared this:

Legally, if an organization can be shown to be interfering with a child and their relationship with their parents, a lawsuit can be brought against them. Even if a gay couple has consented to an underage child being baptized, that child would be learning that their parents' marriage was something their new religion considered a sin. Can you imagine the confusion and heartache it could cause, plus the potential legal ramifications?

This is not only to protect the church, but also those families. I truly believe it is meant to be merciful, not hateful.

In what event would an apostate-behaving person seek the blessings of membership in The Church of Jesus Christ, anyway? In what event would such parents seek blessing for their children, anyway? Children, while wards of their parents, are subject to the environment of their parents. It's just a staging of yet anther political circus and doesn't allow these parents to use their children as props.

Really, you're buying into that logic? Reminds when people argue God killing all the people during Noah's time was an act of mercy. Or Nephi killing Laman was merciful and necessary.

This is a head-scratcher. I wonder if leadership considered how alienating such a policy would be.

The signaling on this is awful. Many teens are baptized even though their nonmember parents don't believe. The parents consent to their teen's baptism and it happens.

We have a teenager in our ward who attends church every week and scouts. But he is not baptized because his father does not consent.

We have an excommunicated male who attends with his family every week.

Apostle Todd Christofferson's excommunicated brother attends church with his gay partner.

There are all kinds of people who attend.

Another problem with this is putting one group of people into a specific bucket giving them different requirements. What bout the child of an unwed parent? What about the child of two persons living together who are unmarried? Should their be language requiring them to disavow the circumstances of their parents?

The church planned to make this announcement yesterday, and you can see the Deseret News article for the least skewed depiction. However, somehow, John Dehlin got his hands on it hours ahead of time, and leaked the document to KUTV and The Salt Lake Teibune: two media outlets who further the adversary's work in stirring contention and pain in Heavenly Father's children. The media picked it up and twisted it all around to sound creepy and horrible.

Here's what's really going on:

1. Same sex marriage is not approved by God, so it will not be a part of the Lord's church. The church does not support the practice.
2. Because the practice is against the church's teachings, those who practice it (I.e. Those who go against the teachings of the church) are apostates
3. Apostates are subject to church discipline.
4. Children of nonmembers, who want to be baptized, have to wait until they are eighteen to do so.
5. Children who are living in a home where home life sharply contrasts the gospel would not be in a good position ... And would probably need more maturity before being able to lovingly reconcile gospel standards with mom/dad's different lifestyle. An eight year old is too black-and-white in his/her thinking.
6. So kids have to wait until they are 18 OR get special first presidency permission to join the church.

That's all.

But the adversary, through his soldiers (like Dehlin & the media) wants to portray this as some new move by the church to render innocent children as apostates.

Knowing that this portrayal will turn more outsiders against the church, weaken members who struggle in this area, and cause other members to misinterpret it and use it as reason to persecute.

Handbook 1 is a document to help bishops and stake presidents know the course of action to take with some of these unique situations. It's not meant for people who do not hold the keys of those offices to Pharisize over.

Another point is this language of "counterfeit families" which were L. Tom Perry's parting words to the church. And then the description from the church about a recent apostle's "authentic LDS family."

This may tap into the desire of some to root out and expunge these "counterfeits" in order to "protect" the church.

Perry's son was trying to de-emphasize his father's words after his death. But I'm not sure that L. Tom Perry would want any de-emphasis. He theoretically it sounds like, might have been a big proponent of this new policy.

It is a PR nightmare. Given the limited number of situations where it might actually apply, it was short-sighted decision, one lacking illumination or insight.

I imagine there will always be exceptions. I recall the CES Fireside where Elder Oaks said he often receives letters like, "Thou shalt not kill is a commandment, but the D&C says to obey the laws of the land and now those laws are drafting me into war, what do I do?"

I wonder if this issue is the Orson Hyde "test" prophesy, which was later quoted by Presidents Young, Kimball, Benson, and Hinckley. (Paraphrasing) "there is a test coming in the last days, a real test, and half of church membership will fall away."

If the test to separate the wheat from the chaff is whether some children should be barred from the church?

Hooray, God. <glum>

Too bad it was leaked from the CHOI instead of being framed in a press release.

If they didn't think this was going to see the light of day, then they are naive.

Church's policies on gays seem really haphazard.

Gay boy scouts, OK.

Gay scout leaders? (Throw a fit!) We're not in session.

Fine OK, gay scout leaders OK.


We'll extend anti-discrimination laws to gays in housing and employment. (Media happy).

Kim Davis, do your job and give gays marriage licenses (media happy).

Gay married couples are apostate, gay children can't get baptized.

On BCC, I've heard this described as whiplash.

For the past many general conferences there has been a common theme to follow the prophet. As they always do, the Brethren prepare us for many upcoming events, including that prophesied great division commonly known as the division of the wheat from the tares (D&C 86:1-7).

"After a time the Church as established by the Lord fell into spiritual decay. His teachings were altered; His ordinances were changed. The Great Apostasy came as had been foretold by Paul, who knew that the Lord would not come again “except there come a falling away first.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

This Great Apostasy followed the pattern that had ended each previous dispensation. The very first was in the time of Adam. Then came dispensations of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others. Each prophet had a divine commission to teach of the divinity and the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ. In each age these teachings were meant to help the people. But their disobedience resulted in apostasy. Thus, all previous dispensations were limited in time and location. They were limited in time because each ended in apostasy. They were limited in location to a relatively small segment of planet earth."

The Gathering of Scattered Israel
President Russell M. Nelson

ute4ever, you are old and aged before your time. You do not connect with those younger than you.

The Church is killing itself with young adults, Millennials and women.

Now, like it or not, the LDS Church stands for misogyny and gay hatred. Not only that, the Church stands for dividing families.

Not what the Church wanted to be known for.

Archaea, you make it sound like the church is in the wrong for not bowing before the whiny entitlement generation. The church is for gathering in the elect, not for being popular.

Waters, you mentioned Elder Christofferson's excommunicated, homosexual brother.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEEMyc6aZms

Call me a mullah if you must, but I found the Church's announcement to be reassuring. I've seen so many members of the Church shy away from correct doctrine in order maintain more popular opinions. I'm grateful that the Church is still willing to stand against popular opinion for what is right. They wouldn't be doing anyone a favor by pretending that their apostate behaviors were acceptable.

As for the church members choosing to be offended on the behalf of the children involved, stop acting like Christ was accepting of everyone. What is the ratio of time that you spend reading internet memes, "intellectual reviews" and anti-religion sophistry vs. reading the scriptures and the words of the prophets? Especially the so-called words of Christ that you've modified and argued out of context? Here's a primer: start with the plagues in Egypt and how God informed Moses that He would slay all of the firstborn children. Twice in fact. Skip ahead to how God allowed all males two and under to be murdered at the time of Christ. Or maybe start with God telling the House of Israel to kill and plunder everything in their path, including women, children, and livestock. You may want to skip Sodom and Gomorrah initially, because your internet memes indicate you may be a suicide risk and of course it's someone else's fault. Maybe instead you'll appreciate the stories in early church history of "fag hating" Mormon women and children being burned alive in their homes.

This Jesus, who you have deconstructed to being an easy God who pats everyone on their heads, giggles and tells them to run off and chase butterflies, was in reality chased away by His local communities. Sermon after sermon, they "pray[ed] him to depart out of their coasts."

Christ himself prophesied to Isaiah: "These children will not hear the law of the Lord: [They] say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us (30:9-11)."

Your memes often quote "As I have loved you, love one another." But what they don't tell you, and what you've failed to learn while turning to other sources, was that to be perfectly clear what He meant by that, he added "if ye love me, keep my commandments," and "whosoever shall break one of the least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven."

And what of those who just want to look at sin or touch it from a distance? Jesus said "if your eye offends you, pluck it out. If your hand offends you, cut it off." To those who thought their Messiah would only speak soothing platitudes, he said "I came not to [bring] peace, but a sword." Is it any wonder that miracle after miracle, His power was attributed not to God but to the devil.

I commend the brethren for sticking to true principles, and not "teaching men so" that they'll turn a blind eye if men want to embrace popular apostate lifestyles. The very people who say the brethren are false and the church is false for not teaching Christ, obviously have no clue who Christ was or what he taught.

As for Julie Rowe's alleged visions that before the end of Obama's presidency, a small percentage of church members will be living in tent cities while a godless, lawless society wars with one another, maybe she was on to something.

Real question. What's your opinion of westboro Baptist?

Real question. Who do you believe has the largest influence in those children's lives: their parents or their primary teacher, who they see two hours a week? Those boys see their parents doing one thing and their primary teacher telling them something else. Let me ask, how do you feel when you read news articles about parents who break the law and bring their kids along as they do? And make excuses like, "but we're good parents because we attend their parent-teacher conferences and take them to Disney movies."

These children are learning one thing in primary while observing something completely different at home. Stop crying foul over church leaders who are stopping them from making covenants before they are old enough to discern for themselves which path they want to follow.

People are just dying to find a victim in this policy thing. We are a society of professional victims. Looking for a cause- trying to see harm where no actual harm exists. Why is that do you think? People are searching for ways to be offended. It's so ridiculous. Even more foolish are that those that are not gay and not LDS are screaming the loudest. They are trying to create a victim. It's nuts.

Do you care if the Church is unpopular with its own young adults and is unsuccessful in its Christian message because it is decried as misogynistic and homophobic?

Most young people view the LDS Church extremely negatively as a woman and gay hating church. If that perspective is to prevail, it will become much like the Community of Christ, small and more unimportant than it already is.

So do you want the Church to say, "We hate gays, shoot them, kill them, because they violate the harsh and heavy-handed law of the God of Moses. We need more eye for an eye around here"?

The decision gained nothing but cost the Church more than it ever stood to gain from it.

Archaea, it's not a popularity contest. Do you know what is popular? Homosexuality. The Kardashians. Sexting. Infidelity. Drugs. Alcohol. Doing whatever you want because "God just wants me to be happy."

Do you know what is unpopular? Sabbath observance. Tithes and offerings. Monogamy. Heterosexuality.

Do I want the church to be popular, so teens can live in sin without guilt? You know, in the premortal world, there was a plan that was offered to allow people to eat, drink and be merry without agency or accountability, but it was rejected.

Christ said to let your light so shine before the world and not hide it under a bushel. He didn't say to put out a dim, flickering light, so the children of Babylon will feel nice and cozy.

Do you want the Church to as unpopular as radical Muslims?

Do you oppose the fact that the Church extended the priesthood to all worthy males? It sounds as if you want as harsh and horrible an environment as possible with camel hair underwear to prove one's worthiness.

Things don't have to be unappealing and awful to show understanding. Under your vision, the Church would wither away and die.

Presentation doesn't matter to you?

The part that I don't get with this "act of love" is the lack of acknowledgment about the very real pain it is causing for some very real families.

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-churc...rom-membership

Zulu used to comment from time to time with how much he felt in common with Muslims (he worked among them in foreign lands). And how similar Mormonism is with Islam.

He doesn't make such comments anymore. Not for many years. At least not publicly.

Archaea, that's not fair. Muslims are unpopular for different reasons. Nazi Germany was also unpopular. So are BYU admissions standards.

If your argument is that the church needs to lower its standards so that it will appeal to people who are looking for a watered-down, lesser gospel, so they may continue doing things that God calls sinful but not have any clue that He does, I have good news: many churches like that already exist. Maybe they can use them as stepping stones. See Joel Osteen's sermons for example, where the whole purpose of life is simply to smile and be happy.

I repeat, as Christ prophesied to Isaiah: "These children will not hear the law of the Lord: [They] say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us (30:9-11)."

I suppose either you have a testimony that it's true doctrine or you don't.

In 3rd Nephi when Jesus blessed the children. Which children were excluded?

Maybe none. Maybe there's as bureaucratic back then. Didn't have to worry about a membership record being created for a child of record and fret whether home teachers and visiting teachers needed to be involved or not. Or whether the child would be invited to attend primary or not.

Waters, you're correct. He blessed every child and still does. Is there anybody in this world, old or young, white or black, gay or straight, who may not receive a priesthood blessing at any hour of any day? Or who may not simply get on their knees and knock, any place, anywhere, any time?

Same question about worthily having the Holy Ghost draw near. Any person, any hour.

Why does He call infant baptism an abomination?

The people who are so outraged over this policy, apparently do not understand the serious nature of covenants. Which isn't surprising, considering how frequently we watch authority figures lie and seemingly get away with it. It's one of the curses of our age. It's saddening to see that Amalickiah, as wicked as he was, refused to break his oaths out of fear for his eternal destination. But today, we see everyone around us, even "active" church members (aka five of the ten virgins) who lie at will, whatever it takes to boost their pride and standing.

If we don't allow these children of apostate parents, who are unrepentant and defiantly continue to live in apostasy, the opportunity to make eternal covenants, then the church stands in danger of losing its popularity!

Some people may see excommunication as a punishment. In reality, it's a tender mercy because those who have made covenants are judged by a higher standard, and if they continue to sin, they receive a higher condemnation. Excommunicating them, until they see the errors of their ways and repent and return, is actually doing them a favor.

It's sad that there's already enough children as it is who have made covenants of baptism but then chosen to follow the poor examples of their parents. Ironically, those choosing to be offended on behalf of the children of apostate parents, actually cite these other children as an example as though it somehow helps their argument. All they are doing is demonstrating a lack of testimony and/or understanding regarding the serious nature of covenants.

Answer this. What happens to all children worldwide, white or black, gay or straight, who die before reaching the age of accountability? They are saved in the celestial kingdom. Now that the church has raised the age of accountability to 18 for children of apostates, exactly which of the two great forces in this world is the one who is NOT happy with the ten more years of protection? Who is the one who cheers when observing apostate behavior and its influence spreading? It's not the one who said it would be better for a millstone to be around the neck of a person who offends the children.

almost no one who is excommunicated for apostasy ever returns.

I guess children where one parent is gay don't need the gift of the holy ghost.

Makes me think that the ordinances must not be all that important after all to our leaders. That they can be important and required for some, but absolutely forbidden to others.

I imagine that stat was a key factor in the decision process. Obviously The Lord views apostate households as worse than any other degree of "error" including homes of agnostics, those with incomplete religions, or even those with inactive (but not apostate) parents. In other words, children of apostates stand in such danger to be misinformed and misdirected, that The Lord is mercifully not allowing them the opportunity to break covenants until they are 18. And "active" church members are choosing to be outraged by this?

Of the two great forces in the universe, who is the one who cheers when a person apostatizes, and cheers even more when that person extends the influence of his apostasy?

Now that the children of these apostates are given a larger shield of protection until they are of legal age, which of the universe's two great forces do you suppose is outraged by this move? Which of those two forces just felt a major strategy in his plan become frustrated?

Today, people are resigning from the church in protest that the children of apostates won't be able to do the same until they are 18.

It boggles my mind.

Did you even read the article I linked?

I think you would be quite pleased to inform these 7 year olds that now they can't be baptized next month because dad is gay. The trauma of divorce is not enough. They now have to be pariahs in their own faith.

"Why is that kid not passing the sacrament?"
"Can't. His dad is gay."

Such love. Can hardly stand this love.

Would really hate for these children to be in primary. Or have home teachers.

I think Todd Christofferson one day will be very embarrassed about this video he made.

I'm not arguing for the church to accept gay sex. Or gay marriage. But to shun children from blessings because THEY MIGHT BE INVITED TO GO TO PRIMARY AS A RESULT?

That's just embarrassing. And I can't believe those words came out of his mouth. From a man who has a gay brother.

Will someone just say the truth? And the truth is that the church wants to make sure persons who are gay and in committed relationships stay as far from the church as possible and they want to have them branded as pariahs, and their children as well.

And why don't we start expanding this love and generosity of spirit to children beyond those born to polygamists, Muslims, and gays.

How about Jews? Let's include them too. Surely this list can increase. All children with a non-member parent. All children with an inactive parent. Or at the very least surely all children where both parents are inactive or non-members.

Don't they deserve the same amount of love?

The Church has lost its way. It's non-doctrinal. If Jesus was unequivocal about anything it was about his acceptance and love for all children, no matter their parentage or circumstances.

The Pope just stated that priests are not to turn away anyone wanting baptism, even and especially babies and children of gay parents.

I don't think the leaders realize how damaging and misguided this policy is. I am a faithful and believing member of the Church. I've felt the Holy Ghost and won't deny it. And my spirit recoils at this. It's not right. It's hateful and spiteful. And the truth is as you said: keep gay parents and their children as far outside the Church as possible. They don't want to the possibility of gay families coming to church and looking and acting like . . . every other family.

The meteor has hit. The dinosaurs will go extinct.

The Boy Scout press release actually bothered me more. Not because it was more important. But because I perceived it as actually intending to deceive and lie. The idea that an apostle or apostles penned it gave me the exact opposite of comfort.

And to see Christofferson now sitting in that chair explaining why this is all about love. I couldn't finish watching.

And now all these Mormons on social media extolling this.

Does this feel more like Jesus or feel more like the pharisees? Who would more concerned about implications for "child of record" in the databases?

The other part that really bothers me is the idea that all the FP and the Q12 were unanimous in backing this. I can certainly accept that a majority would back it. But there wasn't one person who opposed it? Including Christofferson. Including Uchtdorf.

If I were a Bishop, could I actually implement this practice? Could I look a little child in the eye and tell her that her baptism has now been canceled. If the answer is "no" then maybe I shouldn't be a bishop, and maybe I shouldn't have a TR, and maybe I shouldn't have a calling at all. Maybe I don't belong.

Small tent Mormonism. Shrinking the stakes of zion.

My stake presidency said that what was decided is correct, because the Brethren could never lead us astray. The Lord would not allow it. Infallible.

Of course, we have to ignore all the times they were wrong in the past and have admitted they were wrong. Ignore what we said, we spoke with lesser light. Etc.

These are trying times.

How do we know it was unanimous?

Maybe it was a situation where TSM spoke, and everybody took it as the last word and so there wasn't a great debate.

If there was a debate and everyone agreed, then I'm at a loss. It's contrary to the Savior's teachings.

Based on my understanding of how the FP and Q12 work. For example, overturning the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood required unanimity. And it wasn't until 1978 that unanimity was achieved. There is reason to believe that prior to 1978 at one particular point just one person, an apostle at the time, succeeded in stopping the ban from being lifted. Harold B. Lee.

Now how this manual is developed, I have no idea. Was this particular point discussed specifically by the FP and the Q12? I don't know. But having Christofferson be the point person to the public on this sends a very clear message to me--that they are all 100% behind this.

The book "Rise of Modern Mormonism" (DOM biography) was hugely important for providing insight into how decisions are made at the highest levels of the church. And how powerful the FP is compared to the Q12. You can guarantee that this thing has the FP stamp of approval (which of course includes Uchtdorf).