LDS Church, LGBT ... hate the Sin & love the sinner

[Prestor John]

I'm not sure you've thought through this very carefully. Let's say there is a child being raised by her parents, both non-members and not married. They've been living together for years, but have never chosen to legalize their union. The child develops a friendship with an LDS child in the neighborhood and is invited to Church with the active LDS family. Her parents agree to let her go. She turns eight, and decides that she wants to be baptized. If her unmarried parents, neither of whom is a member, agree to the baptism, the Church will permit it to take place. Has the Church inadvertently recognized her parents marital status (or lack thereof)? I don't believe so.

To the eyes of the secular world, yes, I believe it does look as though the Church is inadvertently recognizing the parent's marital status.

Does not most if not all of the Western world practice "common law" relationships?

I was not saying that those who would claim that the Church was inadvertently recognizing the marital status of LGBT couples were correct in their claim. I only said that they would make that claim and that they would find a lot of support in the legal community.

I realize that's what you believe, and I think it would have been entirely possible for the Church to take another course of action with regards to the children of LGBT couples. It was one course of action they could have taken, but certainly wasn't the only option.

Ok. I feel you on this.

What do you personally feel would have been a better course of action?

 

[Katzpur]

To the eyes of the secular world, yes, I believe it does look as though the Church is inadvertently recognizing the parent's marital status.

But why should a couple's marital status be taken into account at all if they want to allow their child to be baptized? Is there anything in the scriptures to imply that a person's right to baptism hinge on his or her parents' marital status?

I was not saying that those who would claim that the Church was inadvertently recognizing the marital status of LGBT couples were correct in their claim. I only said that they would make that claim and that they would find a lot of support in the legal community.

I guess I just don't see why this would be the case. With respect to the example I gave, do you think that the legal community would claim that the LDS Church is okay with hetersexual couples cohabitating outside of the bonds of marriage, just because we would allow their child to be baptized?

What do you personally feel would have been a better course of action?

Allow the children to be baptized -- with their parents' permission. Period. If we believe we are to be punished for our own sins, and not for Adam's transgression, why should the innocent child of a same-sex couple be made to bear the consequences for his parents lifestyle?

 

[Prestor John]

I understand your views on this subject and I hope you don’t perceive me to be out of line when I claim to disagree with you on this subject.

Even though I disagree, please do not assume that my opinion is motivated by hatred, fear or bigotry of homosexuals. I have nothing against homosexuals personally. Also, please do not interpret my views to be an attack on you or that I am trying to place your faith and testimony in question.

My views are motivated by my love for others and my desire to obey what I believe to be my Lord’s commandments.

I am not trying to be a “teacher” or anything here. I am just sharing what I believe and why I am motivated to believe it.

When I ponder on topics like these I try to view them from differing angles because I know that our common enemy is armed with various weapons from all avenues of this life and we have to be prepared to defend ourselves and our beliefs from unforeseen enemies all around us.

I often try to view things like this from an “eternal perspective”. Obviously I am unable to do this perfectly, but I try to look at our world and all the issues we have through the eyes of our Father in Heaven and then work my way down. Rather than start by looking up, I tend to start by looking down.

I also feel that my experience as a Baptismal Interviewer, which helped me comprehend the weight of responsibility that comes with that position, helps me better understand and ultimately agree with what the Brethren have said and done in regards to this issue.

But why should a couple's marital status be taken into account at all if they want to allow their child to be baptized?

This question is somewhat misleading because it really is comparing apples to oranges. At least as far as Church doctrine is concerned.

Along with the new policy regarding the children of same-sex couples, the Brethren also took that opportunity to make clear that those men and women who enter into a same-sex marriage would be considered apostates by the Church and would be subject to disciplinary action.

This is what I feel really makes your question an invalid comparison.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism defines an “Apostate” as, “Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately)…whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion.”

It goes on to say that, “A Church disciplinary procedure may be held for any member who violates important commandments and "will not repent" (Mosiah 26:32; D&C 42:28).” (Bold, underline and italics added)

This is the key difference between members of the Church who have a same-sex attraction (whether they embrace it or not) and those members who enter into a same-sex marriage. Those who enter into a same-sex marriage are publicly declaring that they are making a life-long commitment by contract to indulge in their homosexual desires.

In other words, those members of the Church who enter into a same-sex marriage are publicly declaring that they are unwilling to repent of their sexual sin for the remainder of their lives and they are affirming this commitment by contract.

One of the missions of the “three-fold mission” of the Church is to perfect the saints. All Church leaders should be actively engaged in this task. All members of the Church should expect their leaders to be interested in their lives and worthiness. These leaders are there to help members become better by repenting of their sins when it is needful.

By declaring that they have no intention of repenting of their sins, those who enter into a same-sex marriage are stating that they do not wish to participate in the mission of the Church. They are also claiming that they do not regard the leaders of the Church as “prophets, seers and revelators”. They also do not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the Restored Church of Jesus Christ in these latter-days.

Basically, those members of the Church who enter into same-sex marriages were not truly converted to the Restored Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is why they are considered apostate.

It is for these reasons that I do not feel that the marital status of heterosexuals and homosexuals are comparable in regards to this issue.

It is possible for an unmarried heterosexual couple with children to become converted and repent of their fornication and enter into a marriage contract that is sanctioned by the Lord. Those who enter into a same-sex marriage cannot become converted and repent unless they first dissolve that marriage contract and afterwards resist their sexual desires for members of the same-sex.

Now, I know what you are thinking, “What does any of this have to do with the children?”

Don’t worry. I’m getting to that. I promise!

When I was on my mission (Canada Toronto West) my Mission President asked all of us to perform a simple visualization technique when we prayed about our investigators. He told us to try and imagine them in white to see if we felt if they were ready for baptism. Could we picture them in white?

However, my Mission President took it a step further. He said that the Church’s true goal was not baptisms, but to bring the spirits of Man back to the Father in the Celestial Kingdom. He said that we needed to visualize our investigators in white at their baptism, at the Temple and then in the Celestial Kingdom of God.

I thought about this a lot when I interviewed those for baptism. I sought the Spirit earnestly because I could feel the mantle placed upon me at that time more than ever. Even more than performing baptisms! As an interviewer, you decide (through the guidance of the Spirit) whether or not someone is worthy of baptism. Are they truly ready to take upon them the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and all that that entails? It can be intense.

You receive a lot of feelings and impressions during those interviews. The spirit of discernment is a wondrous gift and I believe I have only held it a few times in my life and most of those times were during those interviews. I’ve had to postpone baptisms. Some people just need more time to prepare.

There was also a time or two that, even though I felt that they were sincere, I also felt that something was off. I found out either through the interview or from the missionaries that the investigator had family or friends who were not pleased with their decision.

I commend those who are able to take hold of the truth even in the face of such opposition. I hope they can hold on. Yet, I mourn for the relationships negatively affected or lost completely. That is a tough burden for any new convert to bear.

Now I will try to explain how I feel this applies to these children.

The goal of this Church is not simply to baptize people, but to get them back to our Father in His Celestial Kingdom. It is crucial for all worthy members of the Church to go to the Temple and receive the ordinances of exaltation and to remain true to their covenants throughout their life.

One of the Temple Recommend questions is,

“Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

In order for the child of a same-sex couple to be baptized they would first need to disavow the same-sex marriage of their parents.

You understand how family-oriented the Church is. It has advocated that the family unit is crucial to the proper development of a child during their formative years. The Lord and the Brethren do not wish to place any strain, strife or disharmony between a child and his/her parent(s)/legal guardians. Every child deserves to have the love and support of their parental figures and those parental figures also need the adoration and respect of their children.

Having any stress on the child/parent relationship could cause lifelong damage to all involved.

 

[Prestor John]

I found a news article that accounts interviews had with various members of the Church about the new policy affecting the children of same-sex couples. They had also interviewed members who had come from polygamous families, who had had the same restrictions placed on them when they were children.

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-memb...urchs-new-lgbt-policy-will-protect-and-divide

One of those members shared that her family was from the Apostolic United Brethren and that after she had been baptized in the Church she claimed that,

"[I wasn't sure] how to love them, despite what I was choosing to do," she said.

Looking back, Melissa said she feels getting baptized made her feel she was better than her parents because "what they did was wrong, and what I was doing was right. I was going to go to heaven, and they were not."

She also claimed that she felt that the policy somehow created an “us vs them” mentality and she worried that this new policy would perpetuate that. I don’t know how credible that claim is, but I’m sure that is not an attitude that the Brethren encourage. This is an example of fallible Man.

The article also mentioned the experiences of another member,

“But Utah resident Jess Durrant believes both policies protect children. In a Nov. 6 public Facebook post, Durrant related her experience of being an exception to the rule -- baptized at age 8 while still living in a polygamist household.

"Once I made the decision to be baptized, the parent that did not agree with my decision began to treat me as though I was a plague in their house," Durrant wrote. "I grieved the loss of a parent though they were living down the hall. It took years before that parent could stand to be in the same room as me."

Durrant said her childhood was not warm or loving, and though she chose to stick with the LDS faith, it made her life difficult and destroyed any chance she had to have a good relationship with her parents.

"These are not new rules, they are simply being broadened to accommodate the changes that are happening in this world," Durrant wrote of the new LGBT policy. "But I repeat and promise you with every ounce of my being -- This is to protect the children!"”

Not only is this a concern, but it is accurate to claim that a person who grew up in a same-sex marriage household would be likely to support the practice of same-sex marriage as an adult.

I am not saying that same-sex couples are encouraging their children to “experiment” with the same-sex or that children raised by same-sex couples will suddenly develop a same-sex attraction. All I am saying is that if they grow up immersed in that lifestyle, they are statistically more likely to support that lifestyle later in life.

Now, do you think it makes sense for the Church to baptize the children of same-sex couples who would most likely never be unable to attend the Temple because they “support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

That does not fall within the three-fold mission of the Church. The Church wants to “perfect the saints”, not just get them baptized.

I feel that this is one of the main reasons why the Brethren want the children of same-sex couples to wait until they are of legal age and are experienced and mature enough to handle their disavowing of same-sex marriage without it potentially damaging them or their relationship with their parent(s)/legal guardians.

I want to mention again that the idea that the marital status of a child’s parents might affect the child’s opportunity to be baptized is not new. There has been an exactly similar policy in place in regards to children of polygamous marriages for many years. A child would need to disavow the polygamous marriage of his/her parents before being baptized.

This leads me to another valid point from that news article I quoted from earlier.

In order for any child of a polygamous or same-sex marriage to be baptized, they need to disavow the marriage of their parents, not live with those parents and also be interviewed by a General Authority.

One claimed that during his interview with Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin that the Apostle had said that one of the reasons that they had enacted the policy concerning the children of polygamous marriages was “to prevent polygamist believers from coming into the church to get [temple] ordinances."

Another claimed that Elder Richard G. Scot told him during his interview that there were many people who wanted to join the Church in order to spread apostate teachings, such as polygamy. Being interviewed by a General Authority was a precaution to quell the introduction of apostate teachings in the Church.

Both those interviewed claimed that even though they were required to disavow polygamous marriages, they were both encouraged by the Apostles to honor their parents. The one interviewed by Elder Richard G. Scott claimed that he was told to, "repair and strengthen the bond I had with my parents but still acknowledge that they were wrong in practicing polygamy."

This is in harmony with what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says about how members of the Church should treat those who were considered apostate,

“Latter-day Saints are strongly counseled to love those who have left the faith, and to encourage, plead, and work with those who have strayed, inviting "the lost sheep" back to the fold (Luke 15:3-7). Of the wayward, the resurrected Savior taught, "Ye shall not cast him out of your…places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them" (3 Ne. 18:32). The desire to return is motivated by the reality of repentance enabled by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. "He who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them" (D&C 58:42-43)”

So, in summary, I believe that the Church is right in placing certain precautionary restrictions on the children of same-sex marriages because,

1.) They have an intimate relationship with a group or individual who is considered apostate by the Church,

2.) The disavowing of same-sex marriage can negatively affect the lives of the children or the relationship between the child and his/her parent(s),

3.) The leaders of the Church have a responsibility to try and prevent any apostate teachings from entering the Church,

4.) The Church does not want to baptize children if they are more than likely going to grow up supporting an apostate practice that would prevent them from attending the Temple.

 

[Prestor John]

Is there anything in the scriptures to imply that a person's right to baptism hinge on his or her parents' marital status?

I don’t think that anyone’s “right” to be baptized is being compromised here.

All the children of same-sex couples can be baptized if and when they become a legal adult and they no longer share a primary residence with the same-sex married couple.

I remember when I went to my school orientation that there were many lines that divided the students by the first letter of their last name. The first letter of my last name is very common, so the line I had to wait in was significantly longer than the lines for student’s whose last names began with a Q, X or Z.

Was my “right” to go to school infringed upon? No. I went to that school, I just had to wait longer than some other students to sign up for classes based on how the school’s administration decided to run the orientation.

In the grand scheme of things (eternally speaking) asking the children of same-sex couples to wait a few years to be baptized is no different, in my opinion, than my having to wait in a longer line to sign up for classes than others.

There are also some scriptural examples of the Lord withholding certain blessings and ordinances from people based on their genealogy or heritage.

All of ancient Israel had been denied the blessings of living by the Higher Law because of the disobedience of those who made a golden calf at Mount Sinai. Obviously, not every single Israelite was rebellious, but all of them were given the same restrictions throughout their generations until the coming of the Lord in the flesh.

The disobedience of the men and women in the time of Moses caused many generations of people to be denied access to the Higher Priesthood and their accompanying ordinances.

Also, remember that when the Lord finally came in the flesh, He explicitly said that He had not come to the Gentiles. Excluding very few exemptions, the Gentiles were denied all the blessings of the Gospel which included baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and other blessings during the life of the Savior.

Let’s not forget the conditions placed on the seed of Cain (for whatever reason) that did not allow them to receive the Priesthood or participate in saving ordinances until recently.

That reminds me of another scriptural example. After Cain slew Abel, Adam began waiting many years before giving the Priesthood to his male progeny. I think Enoch’s father, Jared, did not receive the Priesthood until he was 666 years old. It seems as though Adam learned a lesson from what happened with Cain and became more cautious.

Did not the Lord also say that he would curse those who hated Him up to the third or fourth generation?

It seems that the Lord takes into account what some people have done with the blessings they have received and that it can and has affected how He sends the same blessings to others.

Even though these kinds of restrictions were placed on all kinds of people, we know that they can still receive a fullness of joy and salvation through the Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Most of these people were never baptized in their mortal lives, but they are still offered salvation if they had remained faithful to what had been given them.

Why is it wrong to ask the children of same-sex marriages to wait ten years before they get baptized? If they are truly converted, where is the issue?

I guess I just don't see why this would be the case. With respect to the example I gave, do you think that the legal community would claim that the LDS Church is okay with hetersexual couples cohabitating outside of the bonds of marriage, just because we would allow their child to be baptized?

I most definitely think that they could and would argue that. Sure.

However, I still do not believe that your example is very relevant.

One relationship is considered apostate while the other is not.

One relationship is a public declaration of a life-long commitment affirmed by a contract that they are unwilling to repent, while the other is…not so much that.

I really don’t feel like it is appropriate to conflate the two.

Allow the children to be baptized -- with their parents' permission. Period.

I cannot agree with this. We live in an imperfect world and sometimes more scrutiny is needful.

If we believe we are to be punished for our own sins, and not for Adam's transgression, why should the innocent child of a same-sex couple be made to bear the consequences for his parents lifestyle?

I am confused by this question.

I don’t understand how these children are being punished or blamed or somehow receiving the consequences of their same-sex parents.

I am an Immigration Officer so I have an immigration-like question which I believe is relevant here.

Warning, this question does mention “terrorists”, but I am not in any way trying to equate homosexuals with terrorists. Most of my job has to do with the threat of terrorism, so it’s kind of hard to talk about immigration without terrorism being mentioned.

Do you believe that it is wrong for the U.S. government to use more scrutiny and apply a more rigorous screening process for Syrian refugees who are closely related to known Syrian terrorists before letting them into our country?

Would you consider that would be the U.S. government “punishing” those Syrian refugees just because they have familial ties to terrorists?

Would you equate that with the U.S. government “blaming” these refugees for the terrorist actions of their relatives?

Are these Syrian refugees being forced to bear the “consequences” of their relative’s terrorist lifestyle?

I just want you to know that I did not write any of this in anger or resentment or any negative feeling. I value you and your viewpoint, which is the only reason why I would take the time to write so much. I believe you are worth my time and effort. I believe this topic is worth my time and effort.

I really hope you are not offended by whatever I said. I was just sharing what I believe and examples for why I believe it.

 

[Katzpur]

I really hope you are not offended by whatever I said. I was just sharing what I believe and examples for why I believe it.

I'm not offended. I just disagree with you and since I've explained why on multiple occasions already, I see no point to doing so again.

 

[Prestor John]

I'm not offended. I just disagree with you and since I've explained why on multiple occasions already, I see no point to doing so again.

Ok. I was just answering your questions to the best of my ability.

God bless.

 

[Watchmen]

All the children of same-sex couples can be baptized if and when they become a legal adult and they no longer share a primary residence with the same-sex married couple.

That's an artificial requirement without a scriptural basis.

 

[Prestor John]

That's an artificial requirement without a scriptural basis.

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "artificial"?

Ignoring for a moment all the recorded instances of the Lord commanding differing requirements for different people at different times, would you also mind explaining why inspiration received by the Brethren would need a scriptural basis in order to be the will of the Lord?

 

[Thanda]

Let’s not forget the conditions placed on the seed of Cain (for whatever reason) that did not allow them to receive the Priesthood or participate in saving ordinances until recently.

Until recently? Who are the seed of Cain?

 

[Prestor John]

Until recently? Who are the seed of Cain?

I believe it is anyone who descends from Cain.

I don't know if there is a percentage factor (like you are only considered a descendant of Cain if you have ??% genes that originated from him or something), so I would only speak of these things in general terms.

So, generally, those who descend from Cain.

That has been my understanding.

 

[Watchmen]

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "artificial"?

Ignoring for a moment all the recorded instances of the Lord commanding differing requirements for different people at different times, would you also mind explaining why inspiration received by the Brethren would need a scriptural basis in order to be the will of the Lord?

Artificial is a common word used everyday in the English language. I think you know what it means.

Was it inspiration or bad judgment? I believe the latter. I don't believe for a second it is "the will of the Lord" to deny people the blessings of baptism because of the lifestyles of other.

 

[Watchmen]

Until recently? Who are the seed of Cain?

He's talking about black people. Another mistake made by the Church (not the fixing of the problem, but creating the problem to begin with, which did not exist with Joseph Smith).

 

[Prestor John]

Why do you feel the need to start getting heated?

Artificial is a common word used everyday in the English language. I think you know what it means.

Yes, I know what the word means but I do not know the context in which you are using it.

I don't understand how a prophet speaking is any different than the scriptural record, so I did not understand why you were compelled to label the new policy "artificial".

Since most of the scriptures were written by prophets, wouldn't you also consider those to be "artificial" if you can so easily label the words of a current prophet thus?

It makes no sense to me and I don't think my being confusion (which was caused by your comments) gives you license to start getting snippy.

Was it inspiration or bad judgment?

I believe it was pure inspiration and that there was no other option.

I believe the latter.

You are free to believe as you would, yet they have been called to establish the policy and doctrine of the Church. Not you.

I don't believe for a second it is "the will of the Lord" to deny people the blessings of baptism because of the lifestyles of other.

I would contend that the scriptural record disagrees with your assertion. The Lord has often denied people blessings based on the "lifestyles" or choices made by others.

I mentioned a few examples above to Katzpur.

He's talking about black people.

Don't imagine for a second that you have the right to dictate what I have said.

I was not talking about black people. I was talking about descendants of Cain, not all of which are black.

Another mistake made by the Church (not the fixing of the problem, but creating the problem to begin with, which did not exist with Joseph Smith).

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Don't put words into my mouth again.

 

[Thanda]

I believe it is anyone who descends from Cain.

I don't know if there is a percentage factor (like you are only considered a descendant of Cain if you have ??% genes that originated from him or something), so I would only speak of these things in general terms.

So, generally, those who descend from Cain.

That has been my understanding.

He's talking about black people. Another mistake made by the Church (not the fixing of the problem, but creating the problem to begin with, which did not exist with Joseph Smith).

I don't want to derail this thread but I am interested in discussing this further. Hope you guys will join me in a same faith debate on a thread I am going to make.

 

[Watchmen]

Why do you feel the need to start getting heated?

Yes, I know what the word means but I do not know the context in which you are using it.

I don't understand how a prophet speaking is any different than the scriptural record, so I did not understand why you were compelled to label the new policy "artificial".

Since most of the scriptures were written by prophets, wouldn't you also consider those to be "artificial" if you can so easily label the words of a current prophet thus?

It makes no sense to me and I don't think my being confusion (which was caused by your comments) gives you license to start getting snippy.

I believe it was pure inspiration and that there was no other option.

You are free to believe as you would, yet they have been called to establish the policy and doctrine of the Church. Not you.

I would contend that the scriptural record disagrees with your assertion. The Lord has often denied people blessings based on the "lifestyles" or choices made by others.

I mentioned a few examples above to Katzpur.

Don't imagine for a second that you have the right to dictate what I have said.

I was not talking about black people. I was talking about descendants of Cain, not all of which are black.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Don't put words into my mouth again.

We all know who Brigham Young labeled the descendants of Cain. You can play coy if you like. I don't buy it.

 

[Watchmen]

I don't want to derail this thread but I am interested in discussing this further. Hope you guys will join me in a same faith debate on a thread I am going to make.

Sure

 

[Thanda]

Sure

I have start the thread. It is titled:
LDS (Mormon) Only: Blacks, the Priesthood and the Seed of Cain.

 

[Prestor John]

We all know who Brigham Young labeled the descendants of Cain. You can play coy if you like. I don't buy it.

I hope this isn't another attempt by you to claim what I know/mean/believe.

Because I told you not to do that again.

 

[Watchmen]

I hope this isn't another attempt by you to claim what I know/mean/believe.

Because I told you not to do that again.

I don't buy it.