Church to allow baptisms, blessings for children of LGBT parents

[Fiannan]

My generation was for the most part oposed to homosexuality. We didn't accept it and most still find it abnormal. My kids however are quite open and welcoming of it. In fact my wife, who teaches high school, states that some girls claim to be "bi," because by doing so they gain in popularity. I believe that one day you will see gay marriage in the LDS temple. Not because God will have ordained it but because the majority of members will demand and accept it. Why the flip-flop in church policy this week? Is it God will or pandering to a changing society? I do not know for sure but my guess is the later.

In the late 70s and into the 1980s the only female teens who would identify as bi-sexual or lesbian were the ones who were the introverted art types or masculine feminists. I knew one gal in my graduating class who was very attractive, and kinda hinted at bisexuality, but she was an herbal type so it was hard to say.

Fast forward to today. Young women have no problems telling pointing to another woman and saying they would not mind going on a date with them. And it has gone from being a late 1990s trendy thing to being very mainstreamed. Soon it will be institutionalized within the culture.

[brlenox]

deznatDefender has said I mock him and he's totally sincere
split off from the church he shouts - which methinks is rather queer

He does not seem content in the religion of his choice
and I wonder why he hangs with those who won't receive his voice.

I know he wants it different - he has an awful lot to say
all this pent up anger - when he should be trying to be more gay

He tries, but one foot in and one foot out it's so hard to be supportive
but in that frilly tutu he can't help but feel cavortive

Mocking is an art form and it can take a very clever mind
and a willingness to sacrifice respect of any kind

Well we all adopt behaviors that satisfy our needs
Others point their fingers claiming homogeneous deeds

Yet when I think of mocking I'm not sure he has come out
'cause dissing the leaders of the church is what mocking is all about

Land sakes alive, Brlenox!

You were a poet, but we did not know it.

charlie.jpg

You are prime example #1 of what will happen when the Church officially sanctions homosexual marriages.

In some ways, it's almost shocking (but it's really not) at how you are playing right into what I'm saying. I really do hope those who are lurkers, those who are commentators, see your behavior and understand it for what it.

For those who don't think it will happen, what your behavior demonstrates is that if it occurs and you do not believe in it you will be mocked, shamed, persecuted in your own faith.

This is why the battle is sore for those engaged in it. The consequences of losing are tremendous. I believe yes, the homosexuals will completely take over the Church . . .and God's Power will leave it. For followers of Christ, He always provides a way out-even if they must be persecuted to the ninth degree of hell.

The danger to the church is and always has been from individuals inside the church who do not sustain its leaders...again you point fingers in the wrong direction but the adage is true
every time you point your finger there is three pointing back at you.

[brlenox]

To your 2nd point "2. most gays don't act feminine.". So does that mean that all these parents who claim they knew their child was homosexual from the time they were 3 b/c they "acted like it" really didn't know.

So do you make these observations because you have raised a gay child? Or are you talking about something of which you have absolutely no knowledge? It appears the later.

[Joel]

[drtanner]

Many it seems are hoping or claiming the church said things it did not and believes things it does not about these changes. There will be further clarification in conference that will once again establish the lords doctrine of marriage. How soon we forget the talk president Oaks just gave last conference on the issue.

I sincerely hope what you are saying is true. However, Oaks seems to have reinforced the most compelling (to them) argument the LDS for LGBT acceptance groups have put forth, and that is, with gay marriage a legal contract now, then committed fidelity in that marriage should be accepted by the church as living the law of chastity. I've read this argument in several papers written by the LDS for LGBT rights groups. I can't imagine that I would know of this rationale and argument of theirs, but not a single employee in the COB has informed the second-ranking General authority of the Church, especially a lawyer.

If Oaks, or another of the Brethren clarify his statement of equal treatment to mean what you and I believe, that hetero sex in marriage is good, and gay sex in gay marriage is sinful, we will see THOUSANDS of resignations. I'm not sure they can put this cat back in the bag.

Although I never thought a cat was let out if you believe there was Elder Anderson just put it back in with that talk.

[Lizzy60]

I'm grateful for Elder Anderson's talk.
Side note: Mormons Building Bridges just posted the suicide hot line phone numbers, and ways others can recognize when someone might be in crisis. Because, you know, talks like that will cause a jump in LGBT committing suicide. Or so they believe.

Edit to add: Their graphic states that "suicide attempts and crisis calls dramatically increase in direct relation to the words spoken at conference."

Many it seems are hoping or claiming the church said things it did not and believes things it does not about these changes. There will be further clarification in conference that will once again establish the lords doctrine of marriage. How soon we forget the talk president Oaks just gave last conference on the issue.

I sincerely hope what you are saying is true. However, Oaks seems to have reinforced the most compelling (to them) argument the LDS for LGBT acceptance groups have put forth, and that is, with gay marriage a legal contract now, then committed fidelity in that marriage should be accepted by the church as living the law of chastity. I've read this argument in several papers written by the LDS for LGBT rights groups. I can't imagine that I would know of this rationale and argument of theirs, but not a single employee in the COB has informed the second-ranking General authority of the Church, especially a lawyer.

If Oaks, or another of the Brethren clarify his statement of equal treatment to mean what you and I believe, that hetero sex in marriage is good, and gay sex in gay marriage is sinful, we will see THOUSANDS of resignations. I'm not sure they can put this cat back in the bag.

Although I never thought a cat was let out if you believe there was Elder Anderson just put it back in with that talk.

[creator]

While it would be ridiculous to avoid speaking truth because "someone might commit suicide" or be offended, there does tend to be too much of a shame & guilt culture within the Church.

[John Tavner]

While it would be ridiculous to avoid speaking truth because "someone might commit suicide" or be offended, there does tend to be too much of a shame & guilt culture within the Church.

I agree, but I think that comes from our own hypocrisy. We think doing is the same as becoming. We pride ourselves on our works rather than focusing on becoming as teh Lord taught. Our works are dead unless we have Christ written upon our hearts. Moreover, we look for everyone else's mote when we don't see our own beam.

[innocentoldguy]

LOL. It is hard for me understand how anyone can still think they speak for God when they makes change based on social pressures and study groups.

Isn't that how it is supposed to work though, according to the D&C? Are they not supposed to study things out in their minds (via discussions, study groups, research, etc.) and then come to the Lord to confirm their decisions?

[Toast]

LOL. It is hard for me understand how anyone can still think they speak for God when they makes change based on social pressures and study groups.

Isn't that how it is supposed to work though, according to the D&C? Are they not supposed to study things out in their minds (via discussions, study groups, research, etc.) and then come to the Lord to confirm their decisions?

Oh I like that thought. "They come to their own decisions and if they feel good about it, then declare it as inspiration"

[Mark]

deznatDefender has said I mock him and he's totally sincere
split off from the church he shouts - which methinks is rather queer

He does not seem content in the religion of his choice
and I wonder why he hangs with those who won't receive his voice.

I know he wants it different - he has an awful lot to say
all this pent up anger - when he should be trying to be more gay

He tries, but one foot in and one foot out it's so hard to be supportive
but in that frilly tutu he can't help but feel cavortive

Mocking is an art form and it can take a very clever mind
and a willingness to sacrifice respect of any kind

Well we all adopt behaviors that satisfy our needs
Others point their fingers claiming homogeneous deeds

Yet when I think of mocking I'm not sure he has come out
'cause dissing the leaders of the church is what mocking is all about

Land sakes alive, Brlenox!

You were a poet, but we did not know it.

charlie.jpg

You are prime example #1 of what will happen when the Church officially sanctions homosexual marriages.

In some ways, it's almost shocking (but it's really not) at how you are playing right into what I'm saying. I really do hope those who are lurkers, those who are commentators, see your behavior and understand it for what it.

For those who don't think it will happen, what your behavior demonstrates is that if it occurs and you do not believe in it you will be mocked, shamed, persecuted in your own faith.

This is why the battle is sore for those engaged in it. The consequences of losing are tremendous. I believe yes, the homosexuals will completely take over the Church . . .and God's Power will leave it. For followers of Christ, He always provides a way out-even if they must be persecuted to the ninth degree of hell.

The danger to the church is and always has been from individuals inside the church who do not sustain its leaders...again you point fingers in the wrong direction but the adage is true
every time you point your finger there is three pointing back at you.

Pres. Eyring in his General Priesthood talk spoke very pointedly about the need for members to sustain the Lords servants. In fact he quoted George Q Cannon in relating the dangers of becoming critical and finding fault with those called to preside in the church. It is a warning that should cause some self reflection to those who participate in that damaging practice. It grieves the spirit and will cause spiritual darkness. It is a common practice on this forum sadly.

[dezNatDefender]

charlie.jpg

You are prime example #1 of what will happen when the Church officially sanctions homosexual marriages.

In some ways, it's almost shocking (but it's really not) at how you are playing right into what I'm saying. I really do hope those who are lurkers, those who are commentators, see your behavior and understand it for what it.

For those who don't think it will happen, what your behavior demonstrates is that if it occurs and you do not believe in it you will be mocked, shamed, persecuted in your own faith.

This is why the battle is sore for those engaged in it. The consequences of losing are tremendous. I believe yes, the homosexuals will completely take over the Church . . .and God's Power will leave it. For followers of Christ, He always provides a way out-even if they must be persecuted to the ninth degree of hell.

The danger to the church is and always has been from individuals inside the church who do not sustain its leaders...again you point fingers in the wrong direction but the adage is true
every time you point your finger there is three pointing back at you.

Pres. Eyring in his General Priesthood talk spoke very pointedly about the need for members to sustain the Lords servants. In fact he quoted George Q Cannon in relating the dangers of becoming critical and finding fault with those called to preside in the church. It is a warning that should cause some self reflection to those who participate in that damaging practice. It grieves the spirit and will cause spiritual darkness. It is a common practice on this forum sadly.

It was also a warning to those who blindly believe that simply because a man has risen through the ranks of a hierarchy that that man is a servant of God.

Mark-I'm really trying to help here. I really believe you are a good person trying to do what's right. There is a lot of cultural baggage in the Church.

Last year or the year before we had a Bishop in the Church who used the 3rd hour to conduct some sort of weird shaming those who don't "accept" LGBTQ, he called in ex members, members living in sin and had them preach from the pulpit how to be more loving and accepting.

Now ask yourself in your heart, what is the Doctrine of Christ? Is the Doctrine of Christ that we are who we are and there is nothing we can do to change it? The resounding answer is NO!

So how can a man who is in the office of a Bishop, be a servant of God when his entire foundation is build upon the sand that people can't change. Is he really God's servant? Sure he might have the office of a Bishop, but is he really His servant?

How did a man who doesn't believe in the Doctrine of Christ (nor care to-apparently) get to be in the office of a Bishop?

It's because some Stake President felt he had an impression (or maybe it just seemed like a good idea b/c he was good friends, or the Bishop knew somebody who knew somebody) and submitted his name to the First Presidency. With all the tasks, unless God tells them yes or no on each Bishop they will approve.

And then because no one wants to rock the boat, the entire congregation says yeah okay sure we sustain you as Bishop. And then the Bishop starts preaching that which is not of God, no one really wants to say anything b/c that's speaking evil against the Lord's anointed don't cha know and the Bishop has the stamp of approval from the SP, the First Presidency, basically from a bunch of individuals who we think have the Spirit and should be able to tell us who is who.

Elder Eyring said something very, very interesting. How do we know they are the Lord's servants. We look for evidences!

It's not a blind faith, it's a willingness to see evidences that they are the Lord's servants. If we find those evidences that is fantastic! We should whole-heartedly sustain them. And what is the evidences, while miracles, tender mercies, etc. are wonderful. The main evidence is do the preach the Doctrine of Christ and do they live it (regardless of their mistakes). The devil is crafty and he can make faux miracles appear-they are always manifested as frauds later on, but for a while they can keep people going. But the Doctrine of Christ-preaching it and trying to live it-you can't fake that. People will see right through it.

But what happens if we don't see the evidences, then we pray that they may be made manifest. How do we know by their words and their actions.

What happens if we see contrary evidences-then we have a duty to reject them.

Elder Oaks gave another great talk about the consequences of choices; he wasn't just talking about individuals but as communities, as wards, branches and even as a Church.

Use the Spirit Mark! What is going to happen now that homosexual marriages are no longer apostates and as you have Bishops and Stake Presidents who no longer believe that men can fundamentally change.

It is okay to reject those who show contrary evidences to being the Lord's servants-regardless of what title they hold. But before you do that-be very certain of the evidences.

[dezNatDefender]

While it would be ridiculous to avoid speaking truth because "someone might commit suicide" or be offended, there does tend to be too much of a shame & guilt culture within the Church.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you expound?

[Lizzy60]

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/sa ... 1903886065

What will the Church do if/when entire families start to resign when their gay-married children are excommunicated?
How many members leaving the church is too many for the FP and Q12?

[Joel]

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Sure it's possible. Let's say that you did what you shoulda done when President Nelson took the mantle and prayed and received a witness that he is indeed God's prophet. Let's say you did the same for President Monson and got the same answer. Now, would you just willy nilly jump to a conclusion that one of them must have been wrong or would you follow that same pattern to study it out and seek an answer in faith from he who knows much more than you? Might there have been a purpose here that *gasp* you are unable to see or understand?

According to Elder Oaks, you can receive false revelations. He said the only way to know if the revelation you received is legitimate, is to compare it to the direction from the Brethren. If it is different, your revelation is from a false spirit. This creates a situation whereby it is literally impossible to receive from Heavenly Father any revelation that is contridictory to the Brethren. Your suggestion to receive confirmation is a mute point.

[Mark]

You are prime example #1 of what will happen when the Church officially sanctions homosexual marriages.

In some ways, it's almost shocking (but it's really not) at how you are playing right into what I'm saying. I really do hope those who are lurkers, those who are commentators, see your behavior and understand it for what it.

For those who don't think it will happen, what your behavior demonstrates is that if it occurs and you do not believe in it you will be mocked, shamed, persecuted in your own faith.

This is why the battle is sore for those engaged in it. The consequences of losing are tremendous. I believe yes, the homosexuals will completely take over the Church . . .and God's Power will leave it. For followers of Christ, He always provides a way out-even if they must be persecuted to the ninth degree of hell.

The danger to the church is and always has been from individuals inside the church who do not sustain its leaders...again you point fingers in the wrong direction but the adage is true
every time you point your finger there is three pointing back at you.

Pres. Eyring in his General Priesthood talk spoke very pointedly about the need for members to sustain the Lords servants. In fact he quoted George Q Cannon in relating the dangers of becoming critical and finding fault with those called to preside in the church. It is a warning that should cause some self reflection to those who participate in that damaging practice. It grieves the spirit and will cause spiritual darkness. It is a common practice on this forum sadly.

It was also a warning to those who blindly believe that simply because a man has risen through the ranks of a hierarchy that that man is a servant of God.

Mark-I'm really trying to help here. I really believe you are a good person trying to do what's right. There is a lot of cultural baggage in the Church.

Last year or the year before we had a Bishop in the Church who used the 3rd hour to conduct some sort of weird shaming those who don't "accept" LGBTQ, he called in ex members, members living in sin and had them preach from the pulpit how to be more loving and accepting.

Now ask yourself in your heart, what is the Doctrine of Christ? Is the Doctrine of Christ that we are who we are and there is nothing we can do to change it? The resounding answer is NO!

So how can a man who is in the office of a Bishop, be a servant of God when his entire foundation is build upon the sand that people can't change. Is he really God's servant? Sure he might have the office of a Bishop, but is he really His servant?

How did a man who doesn't believe in the Doctrine of Christ (nor care to-apparently) get to be in the office of a Bishop?

It's because some Stake President felt he had an impression (or maybe it just seemed like a good idea b/c he was good friends, or the Bishop knew somebody who knew somebody) and submitted his name to the First Presidency. With all the tasks, unless God tells them yes or no on each Bishop they will approve.

And then because no one wants to rock the boat, the entire congregation says yeah okay sure we sustain you as Bishop. And then the Bishop starts preaching that which is not of God, no one really wants to say anything b/c that's speaking evil against the Lord's anointed don't cha know and the Bishop has the stamp of approval from the SP, the First Presidency, basically from a bunch of individuals who we think have the Spirit and should be able to tell us who is who.

Elder Eyring said something very, very interesting. How do we know they are the Lord's servants. We look for evidences!

It's not a blind faith, it's a willingness to see evidences that they are the Lord's servants. If we find those evidences that is fantastic! We should whole-heartedly sustain them. And what is the evidences, while miracles, tender mercies, etc. are wonderful. The main evidence is do the preach the Doctrine of Christ and do they live it (regardless of their mistakes). The devil is crafty and he can make faux miracles appear-they are always manifested as frauds later on, but for a while they can keep people going. But the Doctrine of Christ-preaching it and trying to live it-you can't fake that. People will see right through it.

But what happens if we don't see the evidences, then we pray that they may be made manifest. How do we know by their words and their actions.

What happens if we see contrary evidences-then we have a duty to reject them.

Elder Oaks gave another great talk about the consequences of choices; he wasn't just talking about individuals but as communities, as wards, branches and even as a Church.

Use the Spirit Mark! What is going to happen now that homosexual marriages are no longer apostates and as you have Bishops and Stake Presidents who no longer believe that men can fundamentally change.

It is okay to reject those who show contrary evidences to being the Lord's servants-regardless of what title they hold. But before you do that-be very certain of the evidences.

You can take isolated incidences like the one you reference about some Bishop somewhere who went off the reservation and did something stupid all day long but that was not the point of Pres Eyrings talk. He is referencing those servants who are given the stewardship of leading and guiding Christs church thru these perilous times. I know of isolated incidences of Bishops all over the world who were excommunicated for all manner of sinful behavior. Does that mean I should start telling others that that church has gone astray and is no longer led by the Savior who uses Prophets and Apostles as His spokesmen because some Bishop somewhere couldn't keep the commandments? Yet many do just that. It is unfair and wrong to take isolated cases and paint them as the rule in today's church. The Lord continues to direct his church through living Prophets and Apostles. We as members should sustain them in their difficult stewardships and pray for their success. Not come on anonymous forums and take pot shots at them which is done on a regular basis here. That has and will continue to drive the spirit away from any person who participates in that type of foolishness.

[EmmaLee]

Speaking of bishops - now, with the 180 the Church just did on this policy - bishops, instead of the First Presidency, will be deciding on behalf of the Church as to whether children of same-sex couples will be allowed to be baptized. Should be interesting.

[EmmaLee]

Also meant to add, I think bishops who are faced with such a situation now shoulder a great burden that they didn’t have before. They must strive mightily to exercise true Godly discernment in such instances and to avoid any tendency to rubber stamp such requests. And they must avoid any urge to state or imply, even as an expression of private opinion, that the Church is going to change its doctrines at any time in the future to allow or sanction same-sex 'marriages'. That would not be kind to those involved, most especially, the innocent children of such couples. We already have seen recently, that some bishops have no problem with same-sex 'marriage' and even support it, so it makes one wonder what will be taught to such children in their wards.

[marc]

This is worth reading. My Unconventional Journey: An uncorrelated view of the new LDS policy on baptism

[Sirius]

This is worth reading. My Unconventional Journey: An uncorrelated view of the new LDS policy on baptism

Thanks for that, marc. I thought she made some great points, and all coming from her own experiences. I believe any individual willing to follow Jesus Christ and his doctrine, should not be held back from doing so. Especially for those who might be held back because of other's choices.

As the world in many ways glamorizes homosexuality, I have seen many within the Church go out of their way to be overly apologetic of the lgbt community, to the point of almost demanding all within the Church be accepting of the lifestyle, not necessarily the individual.

In my occupation I have observed and had interaction with several members of those belonging to the Jeff families here in Northern Utah. I work with several very active LDS who are very accepting of those lgbt and their lifestyles, yet are so quick to demean and mock these women/daughters of the Jeff's family and their lifestyle.

I wonder how these same co-workers would react or treat these children of polygamists if the Church put a specific emphasis on loving and accepting children of polygamist families. Will the apostate label for these brothers and sisters be removed?

I'm glad the policy has been reversed regarding the children. I hope with all this, we as individuals can do better at treating others better, without the need of our leaders telling us, or membership majority determining this is the new "in" thing to do.

[marc]

Well, I've always been an oddball and a loner. I decided a couple years ago to claim discipleship in Jesus while the marching beat was follow the prophet. I no longer feel like my own worst enemy, which was my username title/rank before having changed to disciple of Jesus Christ. I did the same on Facebook. And it's nothing against the traditional FTP mantra, but if I am ever going to be convicted of being a disciple of Jesus Christ, I am making sure to provide as much evidence as possible.

[dezNatDefender]

charlie.jpg

You are prime example #1 of what will happen when the Church officially sanctions homosexual marriages.

In some ways, it's almost shocking (but it's really not) at how you are playing right into what I'm saying. I really do hope those who are lurkers, those who are commentators, see your behavior and understand it for what it.

For those who don't think it will happen, what your behavior demonstrates is that if it occurs and you do not believe in it you will be mocked, shamed, persecuted in your own faith.

This is why the battle is sore for those engaged in it. The consequences of losing are tremendous. I believe yes, the homosexuals will completely take over the Church . . .and God's Power will leave it. For followers of Christ, He always provides a way out-even if they must be persecuted to the ninth degree of hell.

The danger to the church is and always has been from individuals inside the church who do not sustain its leaders...again you point fingers in the wrong direction but the adage is true
every time you point your finger there is three pointing back at you.

Pres. Eyring in his General Priesthood talk spoke very pointedly about the need for members to sustain the Lords servants.

I agree 100%.

Who are the Lord's servants? Is it simply because a man has a title? Or is it something more.

I do and will wholeheartedly support and sustain those whom the Lord calls, regardless of what their title may be. A man may have the keys but if he abuses the keys he is therefore not fit to lead. The scriptures (especially the old testament) witness to this.

I absolutely follow the Lord's servants. I have been very well nourished this General Conference. I do believe things are going to be interesting rather soon.

With the homosexuals no longer considered apostate and with no disciplinary action for those who propagate outright lies about the very basics of life (whether they commit those acts themselves of not) they are free to do their missionary work among the Church.

A righteous people will not listen to their lies, their deceiving . . . but a wicked people will. If we as a people repent, God will still allow us to have prophets; but if we do not, the power to be lead by a man of God will be taken from us. We might have the form of it but the function will be lost.

There is a very simple thing for Nelson to do to strike a stake in the heart of this wickedness. It would be to canonize the Proclamation. I believe if we repent as a people it will be canonized. If we do not repent-it will not be canonized.

Why not? Because a wicked people will twist the Scriptures to mean whatever they want it to say, so canonizing it would be pointless.

[dezNatDefender]

Also meant to add, I think bishops who are faced with such a situation now shoulder a great burden that they didn’t have before. They must strive mightily to exercise true Godly discernment in such instances and to avoid any tendency to rubber stamp such requests. And they must avoid any urge to state or imply, even as an expression of private opinion, that the Church is going to change its doctrines at any time in the future to allow or sanction same-sex 'marriages'. That would not be kind to those involved, most especially, the innocent children of such couples. We already have seen recently, that some bishops have no problem with same-sex 'marriage' and even support it, so it makes one wonder what will be taught to such children in their wards.

Yeap, which ones are servants of God and which ones only hold the title.

When the tide goes out, who is swimming naked.

It's gonna be interesting. I'm excited, I think there is the potential for some really awesome things to happen.

[Lizzy60]

Also meant to add, I think bishops who are faced with such a situation now shoulder a great burden that they didn’t have before. They must strive mightily to exercise true Godly discernment in such instances and to avoid any tendency to rubber stamp such requests. And they must avoid any urge to state or imply, even as an expression of private opinion, that the Church is going to change its doctrines at any time in the future to allow or sanction same-sex 'marriages'. That would not be kind to those involved, most especially, the innocent children of such couples. We already have seen recently, that some bishops have no problem with same-sex 'marriage' and even support it, so it makes one wonder what will be taught to such children in their wards.

Yeap, which ones are servants of God and which ones only hold the title.

When the tide goes out, who is swimming naked.

It's gonna be interesting. I'm excited, I think there is the potential for some really awesome things to happen.

I agree. More than just the potential -- really awesome things are going to happen!