Mormon Church refuses to bless children of Same-Sex Couples.

[SkepticThinker]

The Mormon church establishment believes that homosexuality is a sin. The children are minors, and ought not be permitted to enter into church membership and be baptized without their parents consent. Because the parents are sinners, those gay parents are ineligible for church membership themselves, which excludes them from being considered fit guardians for their children by the church. It all makes complete sense to me.

To be denied membership in a church is no cause of suffering. I think you're being a little over dramatic. Christ is not going to deny eternal life to any person who is obedient to Him, especially children who are denied the rights of baptism by mere human beings. Let the children grow up and study the word of God. And if they should still believe that Christ is the only way of salvation, let them participate in the church's baptismal ceremonies. Everyone wins, except the sinners who shall one day answer for their sins.

But everyone is a sinner, are they not? Why only focus on the "gay" sinners?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If they are trying to keep the commandments, they can neither sanction gay marriage or the above. And if that is what they are doing, I applaud them.

I missed the commandment to disavow children because you don't like gay marriage.

I don't think it will be from God.

David and Johnathan and Jesus and John will be throwing a pride parade for you in heaven.

(Personally, I don't see Jesus as gay myself, but John sure likes to talk about how "beloved" to Jesus he is.... But we do have Jesus saying something akin to "Guys, some folks are born or made this way. Chillax and be cool.")

You cannot join with immorality if you are keeping the commandments. And if you are not, then you face judgement. "You" is not you specifically.

"Marriage doesn't really exist in heaven." -- Jesus
Also, still waiting on that commandment.

Because, IMO, God has nothing to do with the negativity that is used in the name of God. God, IMO, is not racist, bigoted or against anyone. God made me and I am openly Bisexual. If a group wishes to think that God would condemn people God had a hand in creating, let them. It doesn't affect my relationship with God in any way. It merely means, IMO, that they have no clue what God is about.

In the news on Yahoo, women can't be straight.

Pedophiles are born with this sexuality. How come they are shunned, tortured, killed? Why is it considered bigotry when gays are being shunned and not when it happens to pedophiles?

Do you know the difference between consenting individuals and nonconsenting individuals? Was it right for someone like Mary, a virgin tween, to be sold off to some man who had thoughts of getting rid of her when she got knocked up? Was it right for Adam to "seek for a helpmate" from amongst ALL those animals in the Garden?

What to say?? That is a 's-t-r-e-t-c-h' of the imagination I think, and suggests you might have ulterior motives behind it. The scripture is clear. But you are free to ignore it if you want. Just don't say it doesn't say it as that is misleading to others.

If monogamous hetero marriage was sent by God, why are there so few people in the bible who have that kind of marriage? The funny thing is, polygamy IS there, as is pedophilia (in the sense that girls could be sold to men as "wives"), as is being a playah with all the hookahs in the yard, etc.
Let America's Best Christian explain it to you slowly

It is yours and others opinions that he never met him. I say he did. It has little to do with culture and more about commands and teachings.

Where in the bible does it say Paul met Jesus? "Visions" don't count.

It is only natural in the sense that mankind does it, like murder, but both are wrong, but one is an adulteration, and therefore not normal and not natural. I don't see why there is this modern idea of saying that a body part is fine for using for something it is not designed for, clearly.
So again we disagree.
Still the big text. Still not mentioned how you read the rest of the screen

Murder is the wilful undeserved removal of a human's right to life. Gay marriage is nothing like that at all.

But there will always be problems like that as we insist on everybody living together... so either we will have some hating others, or we will have people bottling thigns up, and that can lead to problems later.

But Jesus wants us all to be one big happy family. Why are you more exclusive than Jesus? It was the apostles who kept trying to kick people out. Jesus kept trying to let them in. Whose example is superior?

 

[psychoslice]

Okay, so we have Jesus on the one hand who is more than willing to accept repentant sinners into the kingdom of heaven, and we have the Mormon Church unwilling to allow minors of gay parents from being baptized in their church. Can you please show me what these two facts have to do with each other?

The simple thing is that no matter who you are you should be baptised if you want to.

 

[Sonofason]

Never let it get you down so far as you can't get back up again. No one ever said it would always be 'beer and skittles', to coin a pun.

You're right...God is merciful, and always has an outstretched arm to lift us back up, assuming we are willing to allow him to do it.

 

[Sonofason]

I don't think I am being overly dramatic. And this thing about children not being allowed, or rather having to be indoctrinated is exactly why I loathe those parents who force their children to be indoctrinated in the first place. Children under the age of roughly 10 are not capable of abstract thought. And God and religions are clearly abstract. If this church holds such ideals, children should be allowed to consider the issue when they are able and however it makes sense to them. What you suggest is no different than raising a child to be a blatant racist. Do you think that is okay too? And lastly, I do not believe in sin. I find the concept to be one that leads to an either/or scenario. Either believe this or you go to hell. Its coercion at best.

Then I assume you are against all indoctrinating of children. Teaching is indoctrination. Families have rules. Societies and governments have rules. God has rules. if you are to learn those rules, and have any hope of obedience to those rules, you must be indoctrinated.

I think racism is fine, so long as you have good reason for your racism.
I think coercion is fine, so long as you have good cause to coerce.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think racism is fine, so long as you have good reason for your racism.

I don't have much to add to this thread, and this might be a derail, but...no. Racism is not fine. Ever.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't have much to add to this thread, and this might be a derail, but...no. Racism is not fine. Ever.

I would agree and further add that coercion isn't fine either.

 

[Sonofason]

I agree most definitely. I have no issue with people who are Christian as long as they keep their faith to themselves and try not to proselytize or convert me. I also believe in God but not in the way that Christians do. Which is fine in my book. And yes, God does know our hearts.

Why are the democrats proselytizing the citizens of the United States with regard to gun control?
Why are the democrats proselytizing us with regard to gay rights?
It works both ways. We want a society of God fearing people. And we will likely continue proselytizing our beliefs until you all believe as we do. Its what we do. Its what you do.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would agree and further add that coercion isn't fine either.

I'm less sure of that one. Laws are a form of coercion, aren't they? Perhaps I'm incorrectly defining the word in my head.

 

[Sonofason]

But everyone is a sinner, are they not? Why only focus on the "gay" sinners?

It is my opinion that God doesn't want unrepentant sinners in the church at all. If you are a thief, and have no intention of changing your ways, you have no business going to church.
If you are an unrepentant murderer, you have no business in the church.
If you are a pedophile, adulterer, liar, backstabber, whore-monger, you have no business in the church.
Homosexuals are unrepentant. They won't even admit their sin is sin. They have no business in the church.

 

[Sonofason]

The simple thing is that no matter who you are you should be baptised if you want to.

And I disagree.

 

[Sonofason]

I don't have much to add to this thread, and this might be a derail, but...no. Racism is not fine. Ever.

I see your opinion, you saw mine. We can leave it at that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm less sure of that one. Laws are a form of coercion, aren't they? Perhaps I'm incorrectly defining the word in my head.

Maybe I'm defining it differently in my head as well. And I was definitely thinking of it in a strictly religious context.

You make a good point in that the law may be a form of coercion. I guess if you define coercion as "the use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance" then the law could be seen as a form of coercion. But if you define it as "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats" then maybe not so much? Don't our laws urge us to NOT DO something rather than to DO something?

 

[Sonofason]

Maybe I'm defining it differently in my head as well. And I was definitely thinking of it in a strictly religious context.

You make a good point in that the law may be a form of coercion. I guess if you define coercion as "the use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance" then the law could be seen as a form of coercion. But if you define it as "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats" then maybe not so much? Don't our laws urge us to NOT DO something rather than to DO something?

Do pay your taxes or else

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do pay your taxes or else

Perhaps then, I should amend my statement to indicate that I mean to say that coercion is not fine in the context of religious beliefs (especially in regard to children) and in the sharing and exchange of ideas and opinions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then I assume you are against all indoctrinating of children. Teaching is indoctrination. Families have rules. Societies and governments have rules. God has rules. if you are to learn those rules, and have any hope of obedience to those rules, you must be indoctrinated.

Teaching is not indoctrination, if properly done. Proper teaching creates independent thinkers and learners.

Rules, in of themselves, are not indoctrination.

I think racism is fine, so long as you have good reason for your racism.
I think coercion is fine, so long as you have good cause to coerce.

There is no good reason for racism. It's unscientific and illogical.

What do you mean by "coercion"?

 

[Sonofason]

Perhaps then, I should amend my statement to indicate that I mean to say that coercion is not fine in the context of religious beliefs (especially in regard to children) and in the sharing and exchange of ideas and opinions.

My son, read your Bible, and obey God, or else...
You may refuse, and you will pay the consequences for your decision.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My son, read your Bible, and obey God, or else...
You may refuse, and you will pay the consequences for your decision.

I don't consider that fine, for a number of reasons; one of those being that you cannot demonstrate that to be the case.

I also don't think it's fine to tell children that if they don't believe, and/or if they question religious belief, then they are going to hell.

 

[Sonofason]

Teaching is not indoctrination, if properly done. Proper teaching creates independent thinkers and learners.

Rules, in of themselves, are not indoctrination.

There is no good reason for racism. It's unscientific and illogical.

What do you mean by "coercion"?

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). Indoctrinationis a critical component in the transfer of cultures, customs, and traditions from one generation to the next.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=indoctrination

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, indoctrination is defined:
Indoctrination:
1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach

Yes rules are not indoctrination. Teaching someone those rules is indoctrination.

Yes, I know of no circumstance where racism is justified. But that is not to say that it can't be justified under some particular circumstance.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). Indoctrinationis a critical component in the transfer of cultures, customs, and traditions from one generation to the next.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=indoctrination

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, indoctrination is defined:
Indoctrination:
1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach

That's not the way the word is commonly used. Indoctrination has connotations of enforcing a certain viewpoint and not allowing dissenting views. Education is something different.

Yes rules are not indoctrination. Teaching someone those rules is indoctrination.

Not in the common understanding of what indoctrination is.

Yes, I know of no circumstance where racism is justified. But that is not to say that it can't be justified under some particular circumstance.

There is no circumstance where it's justified.