cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-09-2015, 12:29 AM   #31
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 02:42 AM   #32
ute4ever
I must not tell lies
 
ute4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
ute4ever is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
ute4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 02:45 AM   #33
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 03:48 AM   #34
ute4ever
I must not tell lies
 
ute4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
ute4ever is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
almost no one who is excommunicated for apostasy ever returns.
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.
ute4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 04:48 AM   #35
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 04:52 AM   #36
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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?
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 01:44 PM   #37
Levin
Senior Member
 
Levin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
Levin is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12
Levin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 02:42 PM   #38
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 02:58 PM   #39
Levin
Senior Member
 
Levin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
Levin is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12
Levin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 03:43 PM   #40
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levin View Post
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).
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.