Special Sacrament Meeting Next Week

[capctr]

The policy was leaked, not announced. And no, the church didn't leak it.

True dat, Shadow. That DOES bring to mind something about secret deeds being shouted from the house tops, no?

Isn't that referring to our internet histories being broadcast in the last days? ;)

[shadow]

The policy was leaked, not announced. And no, the church didn't leak it.

True dat, Shadow. That DOES bring to mind something about secret deeds being shouted from the house tops, no?

No, not really. The church wasn't going to hide it, they just hadn't announced it yet. Were they going to hide it, it wouldn't have ever been a policy. And the reference you're making is that of sin. This policy isn't sin. So no.

[Rachael]

My funny/sad food story from my Primary teacher days ------

It was a Super Saturday for all teachers and Primary kids. There was a huge bribe -- the giant Costco muffins. I don't remember how many times it was pounded into the kids that there would be Costco muffins. Costco is very near us, and I'm pretty sure most people knew that they come in 3 favors, banana, blueberry, and chocolate-chocolate-chip.

Well, the time came to serve the muffins. They had been cut in half, every child was told to only take one of the half-muffins, and unknown at the time, ALL the chocolate ones had been reserved in the kitchen. This was discovered when some helpful ladies walked in on a select group of women and children (need I say, the Primary Presidency and families?) eating their fill of chocolate muffins. Yeah, it's a small thing, but it's amazing the way the word got around, and people were miffed. It wasn't a good day.

At least it wasn't that good old licked cupcake lesson that used to be taught in the youth meetings... SWK and MofF book era
New improvement era is just to be deprived of choc chip muffins, but yeah, they're my favorite. I would resent it too a bit

[Obrien]

The policy was leaked, not announced. And no, the church didn't leak it.

True dat, Shadow. That DOES bring to mind something about secret deeds being shouted from the house tops, no?

No, not really. The church wasn't going to hide it, they just hadn't announced it yet. Were they going to hide it, it wouldn't have ever been a policy. And the reference you're making is that of sin. This policy isn't sin. So no.

Ok...sure shadow...They just hadn't "announced" it yet...riiiiiiiiiiigghht. ;) They just surreptitiously stuck it into the CHI where no one would see it because they planned to announce it later...

Don't misread me, I have no problem with the apostasy angle of the policy, but the "suffer not the children to come to me" part gives me heartburn.

[skmo]

Ok...sure shadow...They just hadn't "announced" it yet...riiiiiiiiiiigghht. ;) They just surreptitiously stuck it into the CHI where no one would see it because they planned to announce it later...

Oh please tell me you're not so jaded or mentally challenged as to think that 15 of the most spiritually connected men on this planet really didn't know this would become known publically. Our most sacred ordinances may be viewed with pictures and instructions in numerous places in both print and electronic form.

Don't misread me, I have no problem with the apostasy angle of the policy, but the "suffer not the children to come to me" part gives me heartburn.

If your head would talk to your heart, your digestive problems could be averted. To be able to think this new policy hurts children rather than helps them is something an anti-Mormon would falsely spread, and something a person completely ruled by knee-jerk emotions rather than even the most basic form of rational thought would believe.

[Obrien]

Ok...sure shadow...They just hadn't "announced" it yet...riiiiiiiiiiigghht. ;) They just surreptitiously stuck it into the CHI where no one would see it because they planned to announce it later...

Oh please tell me you're not so jaded or mentally challenged as to think that 15 of the most spiritually connected men on this planet really didn't know this would become known publically. Our most sacred ordinances may be viewed with pictures and instructions in numerous places in both print and electronic form.

Wow, this post is a pretty thorough condemnation of Obrien. I'm jaded, mentally challenged, anti-Mormon, ruled by knee jerk emotion and incapable of rational thought. Your post is certainly an efficient piece of invective.
I have no idea what the big 15 think. Apparently neither do they, since they had to have Christofferson explain their policy within days, THEN the first presidency offered additional clarification a few days later. I don't recall any bona fide prophets having to amend their words with such alacrity. I suppose Jonah didn't have the pleasure of seeing Nineveh destroyed, so technically he got it wrong, but the people repented and that was the basis of his missing the mark.

Don't misread me, I have no problem with the apostasy angle of the policy, but the "suffer not the children to come to me" part gives me heartburn.

If your head would talk to your heart, your digestive problems could be averted. To be able to think this new policy hurts children rather than helps them is something an anti-Mormon would falsely spread, and something a person completely ruled by knee-jerk emotions rather than even the most basic form of rational thought would believe.
I have many shortcomings and faults, but not the ones you categorize. How, pray tell, does this policy help children? The scriptures are pretty clear about the appropriate age for baptism, and the lds have long taught that the HG is crucial during the teen years to make good decisions. These two steps in progression are based on scriptures and a person's choice / worthiness / willingness to make the covenant. There is no scriptural reason to avoid the explicit injunction of dc 20 regarding naming and blessing infants. This policy flies in the face of the basic church doctrine regarding infants. Assuming you can read the scriptures and comprehend written word on a page, how can you agree with the new policy?

ETA - I don't have digestive problems, either.

[farmerchick]

Has anyone thought that Christ himself is acting on behalf of these children. Meaning that in these final winding up scenes, the sin will be upon the parents who practiced undeniable rebellion against His gospel. The children of these individuals are not accountable for the indoctrination they will surely experience living in a homosexual household further influencing their opinions and choices as they grow and develop. Jesus Christ loves them and in my opinion showing these children mercy. These children and the adults they will become, will be held to account for the light they have been given. Perfect love of the Savior is incomprehensible and we can't understand it in our limited current mortal state. He knows what he's doing. I trust him.

[skmo]

Wow, this post is a pretty thorough condemnation of Obrien.

Not at all. It's a thorough condemnation of an idea I believe to be ludicrous.

Apparently neither do they, since they had to have Christofferson explain their policy within days, THEN the first presidency offered additional clarification a few days later.

If the world is too stupid to understand words from God's prophets, it makes sense to have someone who is a professional at speaking in nice small words explain it to them. This is obviously the case since many people were so blinded by their comfortable position in bed with sin acceptance to understand that the church will not allow their directives to be an excuse for the breakup of a family.

I have many shortcomings and faults, but not the ones you categorize. How, pray tell, does this policy help children?

By recognizing the likelihood that the firm stance this policy could have may be used to drive a wedge between parents and their underage children. The church is recognizing the rights of parents, even ones the church views as being apostate, to maintain a caring and nurturing relationship that would almost certainly be damaged by a child being placed under the need to condemn the actions of their parents until they are of legal age and experienced and mature enough to make an informed decision on their own. This is the same situation children in apostate FLDS polygamous families are placed in. The church recognizes the importance of family relationships as the most important on earth between people. We exercise faith in our God that children who are denied the opportunity to receive the gospel in their formative years will still have a full and equal opportunity to hear and accept the gospel. If a sparrow cannot fall without Him knowing it, does it not make sense that He will remember to give full advantage to receive the gospel equally to all?

The scriptures are pretty clear about the appropriate age for baptism, and the lds have long taught that the HG is crucial during the teen years to make good decisions.

This is correct, but it's also important that a child has a loving and supportive family relationship. I have always been taught that family must be placed first in importance over everything, even over the gospel. This policy is in line with that teaching.

There is no scriptural reason to avoid the explicit injunction of dc 20 regarding naming and blessing infants. This policy flies in the face of the basic church doctrine regarding infants. Assuming you can read the scriptures and comprehend written word on a page, how can you agree with the new policy?

It is a blessing ordinance, not a saving ordinance. It is not required for salvation or exaltation, so the lack of this act does nothing to change the baby's eternal progress. If, for whatever reason, a SSM couple wished to have a Melchizedek Priesthood holder give the child a Priesthood blessing, I see no reason they could not have that done. However, the official naming and blessing of a child is a matter of church record, thus it has been decreed that doing so with a child of parents living in open rebellion and apostasy is not permissible.

The Lord does not appear to want to allow His church to be used as a means to split families apart. I support this, and I am convinced it has been done with God's authority.

ETA - I don't have digestive problems, either.

Let me know if you'll be in the Uintah Basin. I'm sure I can make a batch of chili that will give you a run for your money. I melt an average of 3 spoons per batch.

[Obrien]

Has anyone thought that Christ himself is acting on behalf of these children. Meaning that in these final winding up scenes, the sin will be upon the parents who practiced undeniable rebellion against His gospel. The children of these individuals are not accountable for the indoctrination they will surely experience living in a homosexual household further influencing their opinions and choices as they grow and develop. Jesus Christ loves them and in my opinion showing these children mercy. These children and the adults they will become, will be held to account for the light they have been given. Perfect love of the Savior is incomprehensible and we can't understand it in our limited current mortal state. He knows what he's doing. I trust him.

I remember years ago sitting in Sunday School, age 15. We were talking about the importance of daily scripture study, prayer, listening to the holy ghost, choosing the right, etc in becoming (and eventually building) faithful kids that could return to live with heavenly father. One of the boys (yo Spencer, shout out) said that a truly loving parent would just kill his kids the day before they turned 8, and ensure the child's exaltation. Sacrificing your eternity for your child would be the most loving act you could perform as a parent. Great idea, eh? Limit their mortal experiences so they won't be guilty, then they can have an "easy" path to exaltation.

It was a unique take on the gospel in my tender years, and I see it again on ldsff all these years later.

[Obrien]

Wow, this post is a pretty thorough condemnation of Obrien.

Not at all. It's a thorough condemnation of an idea I believe to be ludicrous.
I re-read your original comments, they seemed directed to me. However I see no reason to quibble about that.

Apparently neither do they, since they had to have Christofferson explain their policy within days, THEN the first presidency offered additional clarification a few days later.

If the world is too stupid to understand words from God's prophets, it makes sense to have someone who is a professional at speaking in nice small words explain it to them. This is obviously the case since many people were so blinded by their comfortable position in bed with sin acceptance to understand that the church will not allow their directives to be an excuse for the breakup of a family.
Nice blanket accusations here (people who disagree with you need small words to understand things and we are also comfortable with sin.)
This policy is presumably enforced only after a family has broken up. The typical scenario currently is that a husband and wife divorce after one figures out they're gay. If they have children, and if the gay spouse "marries" in a gay relationship, then the policy affects the kids. The family is already broken by the time the policy goes into action.
Presumably this policy will also bar children conceived or adopted by a gay couple from membership as well. Admittedly I'm not totally up to speed on what goes on in all wards, but I'm not seeing a large number of same sex couples at church, actively trying to raise lds kids in a same sex marriage home.
Since the policy apparently addresses a problem that doesn't really exist, maybe there's another reason for the policy that is, as of now, undisclosed.

I have many shortcomings and faults, but not the ones you categorize. How, pray tell, does this policy help children?

By recognizing the likelihood that the firm stance this policy could have may be used to drive a wedge between parents and their underage children. The church is recognizing the rights of parents, even ones the church views as being apostate, to maintain a caring and nurturing relationship that would almost certainly be damaged by a child being placed under the need to condemn the actions of their parents until they are of legal age and experienced and mature enough to make an informed decision on their own. I leave the condemning to Jesus. There's a great need in lds culture to condemn "sinners", especially people that sin with their genitals. This is the same situation children in apostate FLDS polygamous families are placed in. The church recognizes the importance of family relationships as the most important on earth between people. We exercise faith in our God that children who are denied the opportunity to receive the gospel in their formative years will still have a full and equal opportunity to hear and accept the gospel. If a sparrow cannot fall without Him knowing it, does it not make sense that He will remember to give full advantage to receive the gospel equally to all?

The scriptures are pretty clear about the appropriate age for baptism, and the lds have long taught that the HG is crucial during the teen years to make good decisions.

This is correct, but it's also important that a child has a loving and supportive family relationship. I have always been taught that family must be placed first in importance over everything, even over the gospel. This policy is in line with that teaching. I've always been taught that family is important, but staying loyal to the church is more important. The only way you'll be with your family forever is by being an active, temple going LDS. FWIW, Jesus taught that following Him is more important than maintaining family relationships.

There is no scriptural reason to avoid the explicit injunction of dc 20 regarding naming and blessing infants. This policy flies in the face of the basic church doctrine regarding infants. Assuming you can read the scriptures and comprehend written word on a page, how can you agree with the new policy?

It is a blessing ordinance, not a saving ordinance. Yes, I know... It is not required for salvation or exaltation, so the lack of this act does nothing to change the baby's eternal progress. If, for whatever reason, a SSM couple wished to have a Melchizedek Priesthood holder give the child a Priesthood blessing, I see no reason they could not have that done. However, the official naming and blessing of a child is a matter of church record, thus it has been decreed that doing so with a child of parents living in open rebellion and apostasy is not permissible. Sadly, we all live in open rebellion to God's way in some degree. That is the state of mortality. You're just worried about someone else's rebellion method, rather than more LDS-friendly methods of rebellion like hypocrisy, grinding the poor, porn addiction, anti depressant abuse, obesity, etc etc etc

The Lord does not appear to want to allow His church to be used as a means to split families apart. I support this, and I am convinced it has been done with God's authority.
Good for you - I disagree. Let me state again I am not in favour of liberalizing the church's teachings on homosexuality. I believe it is an egregious sin, but it's only sin. It can be covered by the atonement.

ETA - I don't have digestive problems, either.

Let me know if you'll be in the Uintah Basin. I'm sure I can make a batch of chili that will give you a run for your money. I melt an average of 3 spoons per batch.

you're on.

[tribrac]

Thanks EdGoble.

I know a few people who don't know what to do with the policy. For some it seems to fly in the face of their LDS tradition. I hope the talk by the presiding bishop helped.

[farmerchick]

Has anyone thought that Christ himself is acting on behalf of these children. Meaning that in these final winding up scenes, the sin will be upon the parents who practiced undeniable rebellion against His gospel. The children of these individuals are not accountable for the indoctrination they will surely experience living in a homosexual household further influencing their opinions and choices as they grow and develop. Jesus Christ loves them and in my opinion showing these children mercy. These children and the adults they will become, will be held to account for the light they have been given. Perfect love of the Savior is incomprehensible and we can't understand it in our limited current mortal state. He knows what he's doing. I trust him.

I remember years ago sitting in Sunday School, age 15. We were talking about the importance of daily scripture study, prayer, listening to the holy ghost, choosing the right, etc in becoming (and eventually building) faithful kids that could return to live with heavenly father. One of the boys (yo Spencer, shout out) said that a truly loving parent would just kill his kids the day before they turned 8, and ensure the child's exaltation. Sacrificing your eternity for your child would be the most loving act you could perform as a parent. Great idea, eh? Limit their mortal experiences so they won't be guilty, then they can have an "easy" path to exaltation.

It was a unique take on the gospel in my tender years, and I see it again on ldsff all these years later.

So this is your take on my opinion. It really doesn't surprise me. Taking a life is a extreme measure on a parents part. No one in their right mind would entertain that thought. Your childhood\young adult church experiences have made you seriously cynical. The children who are taught correct principles by their parents also get to choose. Everyone gets to choose, even you! I have a son named Spencer and he's still alive. I decided for better or worse along time ago to let him live! So far it's been the right decision......lol He's guilty of a few things....where there is life there is hope.....so your idea isn't any good.

[Obrien]

It wasn't my idea, it was my classmate, Spencer's. It just struck me as quite an extreme proposition, and not really in keeping with the spirit of good parenting.

I see similarities with the new policy in regards to children, because it is contrary to scripture and removes from some children the ability to make a covenant with God. That, too, is an extreme proposition, to me.

And, what of the children who live with the hetero, active LDS parent but have a homo parent? Why should that child be disallowed from baptism?

Ps - I'm glad your Spencer is still alive. All 5 of mine have made it to 8 yrs old without the threat of murder.

[farmerchick]

It wasn't my idea, it was my classmate, Spencer's. It just struck me as quite an extreme proposition, and not really in keeping with the spirit of good parenting.

I see similarities with the new policy in regards to children, because it is contrary to scripture and removes from some children the ability to make a covenant with God. That, too, is an extreme proposition, to me.

And, what of the children who live with the hetero, active LDS parent but have a homo parent? Why should that child be disallowed from baptism?

Ps - I'm glad your Spencer is still alive. All 5 of mine have made it to 8 yrs old without the threat of murder.

I'm glad to hear yours are all still alive too! Back to your last question. There seems to be priesthood discretion for those in hetero/homo parental situations. Why would anyone want to confuse a child living in a homosexual environment with ideas that are not in harmony with the parents lifestyle? Parents have a god given right to indoctrinate their children in their own philosophy. Would you take the agency away from the parent in this situation by teaching the child something contrary to the conditions they are exposed to? Your children do belong to you. You are to guide them and direct them as you see fit. That's your job as a parent for better or worse. The child has no control over the parents selection of choices. The church is respecting agency here. They are saying simply that the parental right to live how they will and to teach their children how the will are to be revered and respected no matter what...well as long as everyone is alive and well. The choice to become a member still exists for the child when he\she is of a mature mind and can see clearly the issues of homosexuality or polygamy for themselves. We should be celebrating this stand taken by the church, because it is forward looking, respectful of all involved, and shows mercy and love! Perfect love!!!! Rejoice Obrien....Oh Rejoice!!!!! Again I say REJOICE!!!!