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

[atpollard]

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.

 

[Katzpur]

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.

To be perfectly honest, I am really struggling with this recent decision. No matter how hard I try, I cannot convince myself that God would have told my Church's leadership to discriminate against innocent children. They claim the decision was made to "protect" the children, and while I can sort of understand their reasoning (although it's quite a stretch to do so), my heart tells me it's not the way to go and it doesn't really protect anyone. Every year, I march with a group called "Mormons Building Bridges" in Salt Lake City's pride parade. This group is comprised of Mormons, like myself, who believe that we should follow the example of our Savior and show love and compassion to everyone. We aren't, as some people seem to think, "advocating for sin." We are "advocating for love." Last year there were over 400 of us who marched. This year, I suspect there will be even more. Interestingly enough, my bishop, who has a transgendered son, fully supports what I am doing.

 

[jeager106]

I'm glad to know your bishop supports you.
That must make you feel less alone.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm glad to know your bishop supports you.
That must make you feel less alone.

It means the world to me. My bishop is one of the most Christ-like people I have ever known.

 

[Orontes]

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.

The Church's position mirrors the stance it takes with polygamous families. Polygamous and gay marriages are anathema to the Church's position. The rationale seem to be minors growing up in an environment Church teaching utterly reject are placed in a position with cross purposes. Therefore, individuals are to wait until reaching the age of maturity so they can choose for themselves what course to take. This is a policy the Church has adopted. Policies can and do change. Personally, I think if family X (regardless of their status vis-à-vis the Church's teachings) is OK with their kids being part of Mormondom, and the kids want to be affiliated, I would welcome them.

 

[Jane.Doe]

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.

Like Katzpur, I originally really struggled with it too.

But then, I did have a lightbulb moment, and actually now support it. A child raised by gay parents can be raised / attend the LDS church, be nurtured by the good Word, serve their fellow man and be served, and LDS theology does is NOT "if you aren't baptized, you're going to Hell". Rather, a person can only be baptized when their heart desires it AND circumstances permit-- this policy is actually like the policy that "If you're under 18, you can't be baptized if your parent's say no"-- such a person cannot be baptized and they are under no obligation to be. By likewise extending the age of baptism for children of gay parents to the age of 18, the church is actually sheltering 8 year old children from the excruciating choice of: should I follow Jesus and openly acknowledge Mommy-and-Mommy's relationship as evil, or should I not? Under such view, extending the age in which they may be baptized in extremely merciful.

My support for this policy being said, I also don't think it's a direct "Thus saith the Lord" revelation, nor would I be upset if it were changed/reversed.

 

[Prestor John]

Like Katzpur, I originally really struggled with it too.

But then, I did have a lightbulb moment, and actually now support it. A child raised by gay parents can be raised / attend the LDS church, be nurtured by the good Word, serve their fellow man and be served, and LDS theology does is NOT "if you aren't baptized, you're going to Hell". Rather, a person can only be baptized when their heart desires it AND circumstances permit-- this policy is actually like the policy that "If you're under 18, you can't be baptized if your parent's say no"-- such a person cannot be baptized and they are under no obligation to be. By likewise extending the age of baptism for children of gay parents to the age of 18, the church is actually sheltering 8 year old children from the excruciating choice of: should I follow Jesus and openly acknowledge Mommy-and-Mommy's relationship as evil, or should I not? Under such view, extending the age in which they may be baptized in extremely merciful.

My support for this policy being said, I also don't think it's a direct "Thus saith the Lord" revelation, nor would I be upset if it were changed/reversed.

Thank you for your comments.

I enjoyed them.

 

[Prestor John]

Like Katzpur, I originally really struggled with it too.

But then, I did have a lightbulb moment, and actually now support it. A child raised by gay parents can be raised / attend the LDS church, be nurtured by the good Word, serve their fellow man and be served, and LDS theology does is NOT "if you aren't baptized, you're going to Hell". Rather, a person can only be baptized when their heart desires it AND circumstances permit-- this policy is actually like the policy that "If you're under 18, you can't be baptized if your parent's say no"-- such a person cannot be baptized and they are under no obligation to be. By likewise extending the age of baptism for children of gay parents to the age of 18, the church is actually sheltering 8 year old children from the excruciating choice of: should I follow Jesus and openly acknowledge Mommy-and-Mommy's relationship as evil, or should I not? Under such view, extending the age in which they may be baptized in extremely merciful.

My support for this policy being said, I also don't think it's a direct "Thus saith the Lord" revelation, nor would I be upset if it were changed/reversed.

Thank you for your comments.

I enjoyed them.

 

[Prestor John]

I could not agree more with the new policy enacted by Church leaders.

To me, this entire issue boils down to separating what is eternal from what is temporal.

In the eyes of God the Father, His Christ and the Church, membership in the Church of Jesus Christ is an eternal membership. Meaning that said membership extends beyond this mortal life and into the next. The same is believed about marriage.

This is why there is no side-stepping these issues. There is no "give and take". It either is or it is not.

I feel that the policy does protect the children in LGBT households because membership in the Church of Jesus Christ has eternal consequences which can be both positive and negative. The positive including: having the gift of the Holy Ghost, receiving a remission of sins upon partaking of the Sacrament, possible ordination to the Priesthood, possible reception of Temple covenants and eventual entrance into the Kingdom of God.

There are also some negative consequences which can be involved with Church membership, such as if someone should turn away from the Church and the truth after having received it.

" For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." (2Peter 2:21)

It would not be in harmony with the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to cause a child growing up in a household presided by a relationship that has negative eternal consequences and is considered apostate by God the Father, His Christ and the Church to enter into such a membership.

A child cannot grow up as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and also feel that there is nothing sinful about same-sex coupling.

The eternal matters always outweigh the temporal ones.

 

[Katzpur]

Somehow, I have a really, really hard time imagining Jesus saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me... except for those three. Their parents are bad examples."

 

[Jane.Doe]

Somehow, I have a really, really hard time imagining Jesus saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me... except for those three. Their parents are bad examples."

It's not about them not coming to Christ-- ALL the children are encouraged to come to Christ. All grow in Christ, learn His teachings, and follow Him. But not all have the opportunity to be baptized (one part of right this instant, such as those who's parents forbid it. Such is not forbidding them to come to Christ, but acknowledging that flowers need to bloom when the time is right, and not before.

 

[Katzpur]

It's not about them not coming to Christ-- ALL the children are encouraged to come to Christ. All grow in Christ, learn His teachings, and follow Him. But not all have the opportunity to be baptized (one part of right this instant, such as those who's parents forbid it. Such is not forbidding them to come to Christ, but acknowledging that flowers need to bloom when the time is right, and not before.

It sure does help to have the gift of the Holy Ghost when you're a flower trying to bloom in a field of weeds. If they are encouraged to come to Christ, it shouldn't be just at an arm's length, in my opinion, but to be treated the way He would treat any child. We don't believe men will be punished for Adam's transgression, but we do exclude children from having all of the spiritual support they need to get through their childhood and teenage years -- because of something their parents have done. I'm not saying this is an issue that's going to push me out of the Church, because it's not. But I cannot convince myself that it is for a child's best good to be treated so differently from his peers due to something that's not even his fault.

 

[Jane.Doe]

It sure does help to have the gift of the Holy Ghost when you're a flower trying to bloom in a field of weeds. If they are encouraged to come to Christ, it shouldn't be just at an arm's length, in my opinion, but to be treated the way He would treat any child. We don't believe men will be punished for Adam's transgression, but we do exclude children from having all of the spiritual support they need to get through their childhood and teenage years -- because of something their parents have done. I'm not saying this is an issue that's going to push me out of the Church, because it's not. But I cannot convince myself that it is for a child's best good to be treated so differently from his peers due to something that's not even his fault.

How is an unbaptisized child kept from Christ by this policy?

Are they forbidden from attending sacrament meeting? No.
Are they forbidden from taking the sacrament? No.
Are they forbidden from participating in the ward? No.
Are they forbidden from reading scripture? No.
Are they forbidden from praying? No.
Are they forbidden from having the Holy Ghost testify of God's truth? No.
Are they forbidden from testifying of the truth they have, including from the chapel pulpit? No.
Are they forbidden from following Christ as best as their circumstances permit? No.
Are they forbidden from the Celestial Kingdom? No.

Where is spiritual support lacking? Where is the punishment?

 

[Katzpur]

How is an unbaptisized child kept from Christ by this policy?

Are they forbidden from attending sacrament meeting? No.
Are they forbidden from taking the sacrament? No.
Are they forbidden from participating in the ward? No.
Are they forbidden from reading scripture? No.
Are they forbidden from praying? No.
Are they forbidden from having the Holy Ghost testify of God's truth? No.
Are they forbidden from testifying of the truth they have, including from the chapel pulpit? No.
Are they forbidden from following Christ as best as their circumstances permit? No.
Are they forbidden from the Celestial Kingdom? No.

Where is spiritual support lacking? Where is the punishment?

Hey, look. I really don't enjoy arguments, especially with my fellow Church members. Can we just agree to disagree on this issue?

 

[Jane.Doe]

Hey, look. I really don't enjoy arguments, especially with my fellow Church members. Can we just agree to disagree on this issue?

Ok. Sorry- I didn't realize I got my hackles so raised. I apologize for that. Of course we can agree to disagree.

 

[Watchmen]

Everyone hear that Bednar said there are no homosexuals in the church? Obviously he didn't mean what he said, but he said what he said, so it allowed the critics to go up in arms again. I really think the church needs some PR lessons when it comes to LGBT issues.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Everyone hear that Bednar said there are no homosexuals in the church? Obviously he didn't mean what he said, but he said what he said, so it allowed the critics to go up in arms again. I really think the church needs some PR lessons when it comes to LGBT issues.

Everyone who's up in arms obviously didn't watch the broadcast.

Bednar openly admitted that there are people whom are attracted to the same sex. What he objected to was having that attraction be your defining label- which it shouldn't be at all.

 

[Watchmen]

Everyone who's up in arms obviously didn't watch the broadcast.

Bednar openly admitted that there are people whom are attracted to the same sex. What he objected to was having that attraction be your defining label- which it shouldn't be at all.

Oh, I get that, but it was a major foot-in-mouth moment.

 

[Prestor John]

Not only do I believe that this new policy protects the children of LGBT couples but it also protects the religious freedoms of the Church.

We all know that one of the main components of the standard policy in the Church for baptizing minors has been to first receive permission from the parents.

Now, imagine if the Church had extended this policy to LGBT couples as well.

If the Church desired to baptize the children of these couples, they would first need to obtain the consent of the parents.

If the Church had done this, then many could then claim that the Church had inadvertently recognized the marital status of those LGBT couples.

This could then give other's grounds to claim that since the LDS Church recognized the marital status of those LGBT couples then they should be obligated to recognize all LGBT marriages.

Which could then lead to further legal battles about the Church marrying/sealing LGBT couples.

I believe the new policies were inspiration received from the Lord by wise leaders and were actually the only course of action available to the Church in regards to this issue.

 

[Katzpur]

We all know that one of the main components of the standard policy in the Church for baptizing minors has been to first receive permission from the parents.

Now, imagine if the Church had extended this policy to LGBT couples as well.

If the Church desired to baptize the children of these couples, they would first need to obtain the consent of the parents.

If the Church had done this, then many could then claim that the Church had inadvertently recognized the marital status of those LGBT couples.

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.

I believe the new policies were inspiration received from the Lord by wise leaders and were actually the only course of action available to the Church in regards to this issue.

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.