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

[leibowde84]

right back at ya.

I explicitly stated it applied to both of us. No argument there.

 

[leibowde84]

Nice nature, can see you're being taught wonders.

Nice nature? This is an honest question btw. No hard feelings. Just curious what u meant.

 

[Unification]

Minds give birth? And what's a foul mind child?

They do unless someone is brain dead. Your conscious mind is impregnating your subconscious mind constantly. Yours just gave birth to a network of seeds that condescended someone on "incoherent English."

 

[Katzpur]

Also the large and growing number of people who are not gay, but not narrow either. The biggest and most influential group driving the equal rights for gays movement are straight people who are better educated than their parents.

LDS might hold on to the older LGBT supporters like Katzpur. But younger people might not be so willing to compromise their beliefs.

Well, the younger LDS are probably better educated than their parents, too, so wouldn't they be influential in the future of the LDS Church, maybe even more than us old folks are?

I seriously don't think age has all that much to do with it. I think it's more a matter of what your conscience tells you. See I don't see my beliefs being compromised in the slightest. My belief is that Jesus told us to be loving, caring, compassionate and non-judgemental, and that's exactly what I try to be.

 

[Unification]

Nice nature?

It was sarcasm for poor character of condescending.

 

[Katzpur]

They do unless someone is brain dead. Your conscious mind is impregnating your subconscious mind constantly. Yours just gave birth to a network of seeds that condescended someone on "incoherent English."

Sorry, Unification. We just don't seem to be making much headway. You'll have to excuse me if I just disregard the rest of your posts as they are making no sense to me at all.

 

[leibowde84]

It was sarcasm for poor character of condescending.

Oh ... like the behavioral nature of a person. I actually like that way of putting it. Much obliged.

 

[McBell]

I explicitly stated it applied to both of us. No argument there.

seems I should call it a night.
that is two posts I misread in less than...
However long it didn't take to to misread them.

 

[Unification]

You think you're teaching anybody anything? I haven't been able to even understand 90% of your posts.

You're right, I should come to your church building and be taught loads of bigomy, how to condescend others, how to get wet with water, how to treat others unjustly with little to no respect.

You don't need to be taught, the church building has done a tremendous job of helping you understand the above.

 

[gsa]

June, 1978.

Yes, it is, and it's nowhere near as juicy as the racist history of a lot of Christian Churches in the deep south.

We are debating whether it was 1978 or 1979 when Mormons allowed blacks into the priesthood? OK, my date may be off by a year. I'll deal.

Yes, Southern churches were often rabidly racist hellholes. No dispute.

 

[Katzpur]

We are debating whether it was 1978 or 1979 when Mormons allowed blacks into the priesthood? OK, my date may be off by a year. I'll deal.

No, we're not debating that at all. Leibowde said he thought it was in the 80s. You said you thought it was '79. I just followed up with the actual year. I wasn't even making a statement other on the topic other than that.

 

[Katzpur]

You're right, I should come to your church building and be taught loads of bigomy, how to condescend others, how to get wet with water, how to treat others unjustly with little to no respect.

From everything I've read so far, you already understand how to do all of those things. At any rate, that's it for me, Uni. You seem to be determined to have the last word, so be my guest. I will not be responding to any more of your posts, no matter what they say.

 

[Unification]

From everything I've read so far, you already understand how to do all of those things. At any rate, that's it for me, Uni. You seem to be determined to have the last word, so be my guest. I will not be responding to any more of your posts, no matter what they say.

I'd love to be your guest, but I haven't been very welcomed by the host. Appreciate the short-lived hospitality.

 

[Nietzsche]

You think you're teaching anybody anything? I haven't been able to even understand 90% of your posts.

I gave up trying to parse what he says into useable English a while ago. I swear, his posts could be the litmus test on "coherent language".

 

[Watchmen]

Once again, the Mormon Church looks foolish in its approach to LGBT issues. 30 or 40 years from now people will look back in astonishment at how obtuse the Church was, much as it was with race - behind the curve there as well.

 

[Etritonakin]

This seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to show their refusal to accept same-sex marriage by targeting children. Can anyone explain how this is morally acceptable according to the teachings of Christ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/05/mormon-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-getting-blessed-and-baptized-until-they-are-18/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name:homepage/story

I'm not sure what "blessing" is supposed to do -but biblical baptism was of mature people, anyway -followed repentance -understanding the commandments, turning from sin -which would include sexual sin -which would include same sex marriage.... But as we are talking about the parents' lifestyle being considered......

Waiting until at least 18 to be baptized would not be a bad idea for any -but then one must consider whether those baptizing are truly ministers of God and Christ -whether the one being baptized had actually repented -knew basically what to repent of -and whether or not God then chose to put his spirit within them.

Baptism itself is just a ritual -but one God chose to signify repentance and foregiveness -is for forgiveness of the sins of the truly repentant -and precedes the giving of the spirit of God (at the laying on of hands of the ministry -also a ritual in and of itself).


The lifestyle of parents should not be a consideration in the baptism of a mature person -though views about such could be considered -and children are not likely to be mature enough to have adequate understanding or repentance. One must also be ready to make a lifelong commitment before seeking to receive God's spirit.

The New Testament church -as described in scripture -did not allow people to congregate with the church if they were not willing to keep the commandments, etc.... so everyone was generally like-minded....

Perhaps their decision is based on the fact that the children of people who were not of the same religion would not have the same sort of support and teaching at home as others -might be seen as more likely to not stay with the religion -so they wait until they are more mature.

I don't know.
I am not familiar with that religion

I think it rather futile to not "accept" something which is happening regardless of your acceptance..... But a religion is pretty much defined by the things which are deemed acceptable and unacceptable to do -so not accepting certain behavior for one's self, or within a congregation of people who think they should do otherwise, is understandable.

 

[Sonofason]

This all makes perfect sense to me. Infants are not capable of choosing their own salvation. Surely they are incapable of making decisions that will affect their eternal futures. Our society has come to an agreement that minors are incapable of making their own decisions. As children grow older they are permitted greater levels of autonomy. Children under 18 cannot enter into binding contracts, which is truly what church membership is. In the United States the permitted age of consent for marriage is 18 years of age. With parental consent a person in the United States generally can be married at the age of 15 or 16, depending on the state the marriage is to take place. But what happens when the guardian is unfit to make such decisions?

We do not have some inalienable right to be members of some particular church.

 

[Unification]

This all makes perfect sense to me. Infants are not capable of choosing their own salvation. Surely they are incapable of making decisions that will affect their eternal futures. Our society has come to an agreement that minors are incapable of making their own decisions. As children grow older they are permitted greater levels of autonomy. Children under 18 cannot enter into binding contracts, which is truly what church membership is. In the United States the permitted age of consent for marriage is 18 years of age. With parental consent a person in the United States generally can be married at the age of 15 or 16, depending on the state the marriage is to take place. But what happens when the guardian is unfit to make such decisions?

We do not have some inalienable right to be members of some particular church.

Very true, their membership is their membership. No one is obligated to stay or enter, or get touched by guys laying hands on them, or getting wet with water.

Can see this as a positive for the child, more time to have salvation from unjust and unequal doctrinal conditioning and perhaps never enter.

 

[Sonofason]

Very true, their membership is their membership. No one is obligated to stay or enter, or get touched by guys laying hands on them, or getting wet with water.

Can see this as a positive for the child, more time to have salvation from unjust and unequal doctrinal conditioning and perhaps never enter.

Great, then we agree... disallowing children of same sex marriages from entering into church membership is best for all parties concerned.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't agree with the church, but then again if you want to be in the church, well of course you have to adhere to their beliefs, if not, then go to another that will baptise same sex couples.