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

[Scott C.]

I posted this here because I did not want to start a war, but given the recent decision of the LDS church on this issue, what thoughts do you have, as the faithful, about how YOU can show love and support to those in need.

I would particularly be concerned for children put out of the church for who their parents are or what their parents did.
There should be a hand of reconciliation and friendship offered in time of trouble.

1 Peter 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

I can't say for certain that this policy was given by inspiration, but I believe it was. Generally speaking the children of non-Mormons can be baptized into the Mormon church with parental permission when they're 8 years old. (8 is the minimum age for any baptism). But, the younger the child, the more careful the church will be to make sure that he/she has adult support to attend church and that the child won't drop out in short order. You can't know for certain, but caution is needed. While our scriptures teach that 8 years old is the minimum age of baptism, there's nothing in scripture that says that every person who presents as willing to be baptized, is indeed ready to take that step. And, our scriptures do teach that church leaders need to follow scriptural principles to ensure that the person is ready.

There are some critics of my church who say my church is brainwashing children and nobody should be allowed to get baptized until they are adults, including the children of devout Mormons. It's a bit ironic that these same people are offended that the children of gay couples can't be baptized. Of course there are others who are also bothered by the policy.

I was having this discussion with a couple of my adult children who are devout Mormons and don't like the policy. We can have these discussions as a family without anyone getting their snot in a knot . One son pointed out that children of parents who have life styles contrary to my church, are baptized regularly. The parents might be living together out of wedlock. They might drink alcohol. (I'm not suggesting that's a terrible thing, but simply suggesting that it is against the teachings of my church). So my son asks, what's the difference between those situations and the situation of gay parents?

Not everyone needs baptism. For example, a child who is mentally handicapped to the point of not really being able to understand or to commit to covenants, doesn't need baptism to be saved. I don't want to dwell on this policy, as I don't know all of the particulars, but I use it as an example. Any child who wants to be baptized, but can't because of the gay parent circumstances, will be just fine in the next life, should they die before adulthood and without baptism. This is true whether the policy is inspired or not.

So, I believe that my church leaders do have a scriptural responsibility to make the call on the issue of baptizing the children of gay children. I can't see any scriptures that dictate this policy. Whether they are allowed to be baptized or not, one could say that the policy is consistent with scripture. This situation is exactly why we need inspired church leaders, who hold priesthood keys, and who make decisions on how to proceed, where the scriptures don't provide the answer. I believe my church leaders are motivated by love. Based on everything I know and believe and have experienced as a church member for many years, it's inconceivable to me that my leaders have anything less than pure love for these children.

I see a couple of problems with such children being baptized. These kids will be taught in no uncertain terms that their parent's marriage is not valid in the eyes of God. They won't be singled out and have fingers pointed at them, but as they participate in the church, they will get that message. I don't know why we would want to ask a 12 year old child to decide now that their parents marriage is invalid in the eyes of God, and ask them to make a solemn covenant with God to follow those teachings for the rest of their lives. Is that not a bit much to expect of a child? Why would we want to create such a conflict in the child's mind and heart? I say let them attend church (where they will hear the same things, although not baptized), but let them wait for some maturity before they make a life long covenant to follow teachings that deny a very deeply personal family situation. I can easily see why this is protecting the children.

I also believe that some of the same people that criticize my church for this policy, would be quick to criticize if these children were allowed to be baptized. How long would it take for there to be an uprising of critics claiming that my church is actually recruiting the children of gay parents, with the intention to brainwash them and to create conflict in their homes, and hence destroy that family? They would be accused of turning child against parent. I am quite certain this would happen because that sort of thing already happens in different contexts. As long as my church teaches that gay sex is a sin and that gay marriages are not valid to God, some will vehemently criticize my church regardless of how these policies go.

Having said all of this, I also recognize that there are some Mormons who are devout, who do not attack the church, who love the church, but who disagree with this policy. I accept that. I've learned a few things over the past several years of my life. Some things on which I had great certainty, have turned out to be wrong. Hence I've replaced my internal on/off switch with a dimmer.

 

[Prestor John]

I don't buy it.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

[Watchmen]

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

You're welcome. I'm pretty sure those in the know are well aware Young's comments about descendants of Cain referred to African Americans.

 

[Katzpur]

Some things on which I had great certainty, have turned out to be wrong. Hence I've replaced my internal on/off switch with a dimmer.

That statement, Scott, is an absolute keeper! I love it!

 

[Prestor John]

You're welcome. I'm pretty sure those in the know are well aware Young's comments about descendants of Cain referred to African Americans.

I agree. He did consider them to be among the descendants of Cain.

 

[Watchmen]

I agree. He did consider them to be among the descendants of Cain.

"Among"? Who else did he consider.

Here's a quote from one of his talks. Pretty clear who he's referring to.

I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed

 

[Prestor John]

"Among"? Who else did he consider.

Here's a quote from one of his talks. Pretty clear who he's referring to.

I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed

Where does he say that only Africans are descendants of Cain?

He clearly stated his belief that the "mark" placed on Cain was a "negroid" appearance.

He clearly stated that those commonly called "negroes" are children of Cain.

I never claimed that he did not believe either of these things.

Where, however, did he claim that only Africans are descendants of Cain? Or that only those with "negroid" features are descendants of Cain?

 

[Watchmen]

Where does he say that only Africans are descendants of Cain?

He clearly stated his belief that the "mark" placed on Cain was a "negroid" appearance.

He clearly stated that those commonly called "negroes" are children of Cain.

I never claimed that he did not believe either of these things.

Where, however, did he claim that only Africans are descendants of Cain? Or that only those with "negroid" features are descendants of Cain?

Wrong. Burden is on you. You've been saying from the beginning that the descendants of Cain include non-blacks. I'd never heard that before. Set your ego aside and please share what you're talking about.

 

[Prestor John]

Wrong. Burden is on you. You've been saying from the beginning that the descendants of Cain include non-blacks. I'd never heard that before. Set your ego aside and please share what you're talking about.

What burden? To prove what? That all the descendants of Cain are descendants of Cain? That was the only thing I said.

You were the one to came in here claiming that I was "really" talking about black people.

You are the one that needs to prove this ridiculous theory that you are proposing because you are the one challenging my initial claim that all the descendants of Cain (despite their skin color) descend from Cain.

 

[Watchmen]

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.

Other than African Americans, as identified by Brigham Young, who are the descendants of Cain?