MrShorty

Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children

Recommended Posts

I really don't understand the anger about this.

 

Wait.  Yes, I do.  It comes mostly from those who are always looking for another excuse to get angry at the church.  It comes from those who have a temper tantrum any time the church doesn't do things their way.

 

I was a little puzzled when I first started reading about the handbook changes but the more I thought about it, I understood that it's a good thing and not the evil, hurtful, politically-incorrect attack.  It is actually policy meant to protect children, families, and the church.

 

Take the LDS church and same-sex marriage out of it for a moment. 

 

You have a minor child who gets interested in a religion through...say...social activities with a friend.  The religion is at complete odds with the parents' beliefs/lifestyle.  Joining the religion is going to cause a rift...friction...between the child and parents.  Why should that be encouraged?

 

And it is a child we are talking about.  A still maturing mind and heart.  Having beliefs at odds with one another can cause difficulties in a marriage where you are dealing with two adults, who have more experience, education and maturity and they often are unable to navigate the differences and keep the marriage together, but we expect children to deal with all of this and burden them with the responsibility of keeping a family together?  Because that is how it is going to feel to them and that is what the naysayers are asking them to do.

 

How does it help the children, the family....anyone....if you have a child who dearly loves his/her parents, but learns that their parents' behavior and choices are at odds with the church?  Why would you place such a burden on a child's shoulders? You are expecting them to understand things that they cannot possibly understand and make choices they should never have to as a child.

 

I see this as policy meant to help families, not hurt them.  To protect children.

 

And, yes, I think it protects the church, too.   There are those with an agenda of hatred who - as same-sex parents whose child is interested in joining the church - would gleefully welcome an opportunity to attack the church (or any and everyone who doesn't agree with their world-view), claiming that the church is harming the child and their family by teaching their child "bigotry", etc. The word 'cult' would be thrown around. Lawsuits would happen. And their goal would be to eradicate anything and anyone who doesn't share their same beliefs.  Because that is what the goal is for more and more people.  It's not enough that people get to live their chosen lifestyle, that they got to change the definition of marriage, etc.  They want EVERYONE to come around to their world-view and not be allowed to live or believe in a way different to their own.

 

And I am not talking just about gay people.  I am talking about the growing numbers of people who think any kind of religion is wrong.  Its not enough that they have the freedom to not believe in God or live whatever lifestyle they so choose, they don't want anyone else believing in God, either.

 

Just recently here in Portland, some school districts have banned choirs from singing at The Grotto, a beautiful piece of Catholic property, during The Festival of Lights at Christmas time.  Because - obviously - singing a few Christmas songs in such a location is somehow "forcing religion down our throats".  I guess if you sing a Christmas Carol in such a location - shazam! - you are forced against your will to be a Catholic or something.

 

A few years back, I was personally aware of a situation where one spouse wanted to convert to Judaism but the other parent objected and it was putting the marriage at risk.  The rabbi in this situation counseled that he could not recommend - nor would he be a participant in - potentially breaking up a family over it.  That if the choice was between the marriage or the conversion, that the correct choice would be the marriage.

 

A child with same-sex parents would be placed in a difficult situation that could cause great distress to them and to the family. It actually seems the kinder thing to me to not place a minor child in that situation.  Let them participate as they can, but it makes great sense to have them wait until adulthood to officially join the church if they still so choose.  Their salvation is not being denied in any way.  They are not being condemned to hell or however all of the malcontents are saying it on FaceBook and internet forums.  They are being relieved of some burdens and responsibilities that those who are only looking to their own selfish needs would place on shoulders too young to bear it.  And they will get to make the decision to join the church when they are no longer a vulnerable child.

 

The church isn't about destroying families. The church would not institute a policy that would cause such.  This policy is actually trying to preserve families.  But the anti-church people (members as well as non-members) can only see their own selfish, short-sighted needs and refuse to the eternal goals at work here.

 

I've been woefully inarticulate here.  But I have been pondering and praying and I have received confirmation that this comes from a loving Heavenly Father through those He has appointed to lead us through these increasingly difficult times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the anger about this.

 

Wait.  Yes, I do.  It comes mostly from those who are always looking for another excuse to get angry at the church.  It comes from those who have a temper tantrum any time the church doesn't do things their way.

 

....

 

The church isn't about destroying families. The church would not institute a policy that would cause such.  This policy is actually trying to preserve families.  But the anti-church people (members as well as non-members) can only see their own selfish, short-sighted needs and refuse to the eternal goals at work here.

 

I've been woefully inarticulate here.  But I have been pondering and praying and I have received confirmation that this comes from a loving Heavenly Father through those He has appointed to lead us through these increasingly difficult times.

I agree with the sentiment except for one thing, [steps up on personal Soap box] children are a lot more cognizant than most adults admit to, and let their children be.

True it all depends on the child, and the younger and closer to the baptism age of eight the less likely they are to be mature, not to mention that society doesn't really let them grow up until 25...because 18 starts college foolishness...or they are still in high school...

Joseph Smith had his first vision at 14. (not to mention the many young biblical characters)

wait...

[steps down from personal soap box]

Sorry...different topic....

Considering how society treats young people, I understand your justified anger at detractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the anger about this.

 

Wait.  Yes, I do.  It comes mostly from those who are always looking for another excuse to get angry at the church.  It comes from those who have a temper tantrum any time the church doesn't do things their way.

 

I really don't think that's a fair assessment. Perhaps of SOME, but there are others, myself included, who just want clarification of what this means to us personally in our own personal situations. We, with children or grandchildren who might be impacted by this would like to know exactly what it means TO US and to OUR FAMILIES, who may already have struggled or are struggling with whether or not we need to make a serious choice between the Church and our children. To those who do not have this struggle, it may seem as though we are angry - when really we are in pain - and people in pain are often frazzled to the point of a very short fuse. 

 

I was calmed by the interview posted, and I thank Pam for that - I had not seen it - and it helped me a LOT to understand the reasoning behind the decision. The Elder chosen to give the interview seemed kind, genuine, and believable. 

 

There were no smirks or snotty responses, such as the ones I've seen on this forum; no blame, no calling people names or making suppositions or rude remarks between the two of them.  Instead, he gave a clear, concise explanation with no apology and it made sense.

 

You have a minor child who gets interested in a religion through...say...social activities with a friend.  The religion is at complete odds with the parents' beliefs/lifestyle.  Joining the religion is going to cause a rift...friction...between the child and parents.  Why should that be encouraged?

 

It shouldn't be encouraged. However, I think about a gay couple in our ward with several children, who are struggling to live the Gospel and I wonder how this might cut them to the heart, to have their children excluded. They might wonder if the children of adulterers or pornography addicts or abusers will also be excluded, since all of those are things that also can get a person excommunicated if they fail to change.

 

And it is a child we are talking about.  A still maturing mind and heart.  Having beliefs at odds with one another can cause difficulties in a marriage where you are dealing with two adults, who have more experience, education and maturity and they often are unable to navigate the differences and keep the marriage together, but we expect children to deal with all of this and burden them with the responsibility of keeping a family together?  Because that is how it is going to feel to them and that is what the naysayers are asking them to do.

 

It is not only homosexual couples who struggle to navigate differences and keep a marriage together, and in all those cases mentioned above, the children are not burdened with the responsibility to keep the family together. They are harmed just as much by divorce, parents gone wild, etc. 

 

How does it help the children, the family....anyone....if you have a child who dearly loves his/her parents, but learns that their parents' behavior and choices are at odds with the church?  The same way it doesn't help the child who dearly loves his/her parents, and learned their parents' behavior and choices are at odds with the church in any other situation, having an affair, watching pornography, spousal abusal, alcohol and drugs.

 

Why would you place such a burden on a child's shoulders? You are expecting them to understand things that they cannot possibly understand and make choices they should never have to as a child.  My cousins and I would not have survived life if it had not been for grandparents who accepted us, took us to church, and taught us correct behavior. If we had been "left to the wolves" of our extremely dysfunctional parents, I can't begin to imagine what would have become of us. I think the Church can be a good influence for change, and I hope that same-sex parents will stay calm enough in the light of this decision to see that. But parents can be viciously loyal when it comes to their children, and the idea that THEIR children are being singled out, I'm afraid, will cause them to either leave or never come at all. And this could cause more harm - the excusion - in the end. I don't know... it's not simple.

 

I see this as policy meant to help families, not hurt them.  To protect children.

That's what the Church wants you to see - and that's your point of view. 

I agree the church has the right to "stick to its guns" and head off any problems.

Allowing same-sex families in the door is a lot like the eye of the camel.

And though i believe the public reason given, "to protect children" appears very altruistic - I still have a nagging feeling of doubt.

That's MY problem - I will have to pray about it and settle it with the Lord myself.

 

 

And, yes, I think it protects the church, too.   There are those with an agenda of hatred who - as same-sex parents whose child is interested in joining the church - would gleefully welcome an opportunity to attack the church (or any and everyone who doesn't agree with their world-view), claiming that the church is harming the child and their family by teaching their child "bigotry", etc. The word 'cult' would be thrown around. Lawsuits would happen. And their goal would be to eradicate anything and anyone who doesn't share their same beliefs.  Because that is what the goal is for more and more people.  It's not enough that people get to live their chosen lifestyle, that they got to change the definition of marriage, etc.  They want EVERYONE to come around to their world-view and not be allowed to live or believe in a way different to their own.

 

I agree there is some truth here and some things to be concerned about, especially in modern United States society where everyone is so "sue-happy!"  I can see this happening. It is a real concern.

 

And I am not talking just about gay people.  I am talking about the growing numbers of people who think any kind of religion is wrong.  Its not enough that they have the freedom to not believe in God or live whatever lifestyle they so choose, they don't want anyone else believing in God, either.  Yes, I agree.

 

Just recently here in Portland, some school districts have banned choirs from singing at The Grotto, a beautiful piece of Catholic property, during The Festival of Lights at Christmas time.  Because - obviously - singing a few Christmas songs in such a location is somehow "forcing religion down our throats".  I guess if you sing a Christmas Carol in such a location - shazam! - you are forced against your will to be a Catholic or something.

 

I live in Portland, and I didn't know about this. What a shame. I love the Grotto and the Festival of Lights. I believe at some point, people will begin to miss God, and will come back in droves. Unfortunately, it could take another disaster, it could take another World War - that seems to be the turning point - people don't WANT God until they are afraid.

 

A few years back, I was personally aware of a situation where one spouse wanted to convert to Judaism but the other parent objected and it was putting the marriage at risk.  The rabbi in this situation counseled that he could not recommend - nor would he be a participant in - potentially breaking up a family over it.  That if the choice was between the marriage or the conversion, that the correct choice would be the marriage.

 

A child with same-sex parents would be placed in a difficult situation that could cause great distress to them and to the family. It actually seems the kinder thing to me to not place a minor child in that situation.  Let them participate as they can, but it makes great sense to have them wait until adulthood to officially join the church if they still so choose.  Their salvation is not being denied in any way.  They are not being condemned to hell or however all of the malcontents are saying it on FaceBook and internet forums.  They are being relieved of some burdens and responsibilities that those who are only looking to their own selfish needs would place on shoulders too young to bear it.  And they will get to make the decision to join the church when they are no longer a vulnerable child.

 

Well, I don't know the answer. The answer is to do my best to accept the church's decision or to leave the church. Those are my choices. My son and his partner have decided not to have children, so it's not so much an issue for me.  I can think of ways the Church could have gotten around this, by making gay parents (or all parents) sign some sort of legal agreement not to hold the Church responsible for teaching the children a way of life contrary to the parents' way. I'm not an attorney, but seems that could be one answer. I don't expect gay families to come to the church in droves, anyway so it seems the issue wasn't so much of a problem that the handbook needed to be written. But I"m not the Prophet or an Apostle and I can't see the future. 

 

The church isn't about destroying families. The church would not institute a policy that would cause such.  This policy is actually trying to preserve families.  But the anti-church people (members as well as non-members) can only see their own selfish, short-sighted needs and refuse to the eternal goals at work here.

 

I've been woefully inarticulate here.  But I have been pondering and praying and I have received confirmation that this comes from a loving Heavenly Father through those He has appointed to lead us through these increasingly difficult times.

 

That's good for you. I would only ask that you not be too quick to judge those who haven't yet gotten that confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LiterateParakeet

 

I really don't understand the anger about this.

 

Wait.  Yes, I do.  It comes mostly from those who are always looking for another excuse to get angry at the church.  It comes from those who have a temper tantrum any time the church doesn't do things their way.

 

I really don't think that's a fair assessment. Perhaps of SOME, but there are others, myself included, who just want clarification of what this means to us personally in our own personal situations. We, with children or grandchildren who might be impacted by this would like to know exactly what it means TO US and to OUR FAMILIES, who may already have struggled or are struggling with whether or not we need to make a serious choice between the Church and our children. To those who do not have this struggle, it may seem as though we are angry - when really we are in pain - and people in pain are often frazzled to the point of a very short fuse. 

 

I was calmed by the interview posted, and I thank Pam for that - I had not seen it - and it helped me a LOT to understand the reasoning behind the decision. The Elder chosen to give the interview seemed kind, genuine, and believable. 

 

 

I agree with you, Annie.  The people I know who are really struggling with this are, like you, concerned about personal situations, or close friends.  This is a very sensitive and painful topic for many.  I'm so glad the interview was helpful to you.  

We need to help one another get through this.  I mean the people who don't have a problem with it need to be kind and understanding to those who do.  Because we all have our weak places, and Satan knows what they are.  If this isn't your issue, then some other trial or temptation will be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much applaud this decision; this is one of the best things the church has done on this issue.

 

This is as Elder Christofferson alluded to at the beginning not so much about the children, but it is about protecting the members of the Church, the integrity of the organization, and maintaining the absolute morality of the Church.

 

It is a stake in the ground of "you shall not pass".

 

One has to think about why the original policy of not baptizing polygamous family children came into being. When the Manifesto went out and afterwards there were many, many families who continued practice polygamy either in public or in secret. And our ancestors seem to know it better than we do

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

The opposite is also very true, train a child in the way he shouldn't go and when is is old he will not depart from it.

 

The original policy was put in place to full-stop the spread of generational teaching that polygamy was acceptable. As an organization one cannot allow individuals who openly and blatantly disregard God's commandments.  If a polygamous family walked into Church, husband sat next to his 4 wives and had their children baptized into the church while he and his wives were not members of the church it sends a very bad message to additional members of the church. It is called cultural conditioning. What is initially revolting-when seen enough times becomes common-then becomes accepted.

 

Being in a committed homosexual relationship attending church is opening flaunting God's laws. And the Church has finally set a stake in the ground saying in no uncertain terms that the Church as an organization does not want anything to do with those types of relationships.  The Church does not want homosexual couples as part of the organization (it is grounds for Church disciple-just as much as polygamous marriage is) and if one does not discontinue the practice of a homosexual relationship one will not be allowed to be a member of God's Church and any children will not be allowed to be a member of the Church.

 

This is to communicate to the membership that homosexual relationships is in no uncertain terms unacceptable-it is to be a full-stop on any generational teaching within the membership that its okay.

 

Stating and putting into place this policy-does not in any way mean that God does not love these individuals-it does not mean individuals should hate those who engage in these practices.  It doesn't mean that those who have children who are in homosexual relationships shouldn't continue to love their children or associate with them or any children within those walls.

 

What is does mean is that there should be no equivocation or misunderstanding from parents in knowing that homosexual relationships, unions, etc. are 100% against the laws of God. No amount of love or compassion can change this fact: Homosexual relationships are morally wrong and are grounds for excommunication from the church.

 

note: I have not said anything about those who claim to be homosexual only homosexual relationships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one last thing to say and then I am out of here.

Once again, we have people condemning others by trotting out their hypocritical cries of "You're judging others". They don't want others - including Heavenly Father's chosen prophets and leaders - saying anything that conflicts with their limited and self-focused viewpoint. In today's world especially, it is never about anyone or anything else, it's always about me, me, me.

And they also are judging our prophet and apostles and,yes, Heavenly Father himself. They don't like what they hear so the immediate reaction is endless criticism and pronouncements that Heavenly Father got it all wrong and that we smug and superior mortal beings know better than him.

And I remain frustrated and baffled by the practice of church members who castigate other members for "judging" anyone outside the church but then never hesitate themselves for even an instant to judge those inside the church. I've never seen the likes of it anywhere else and it's just as off-putting now as when I was investigating the church. You will embrace anyone living life at distinct odds with the gospel but won't extend the same kindness to fellow members of the church.

As for this policy - I am trusting Heavenly Father on it and not the murmurings of the discontented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those people who seek to know how it will affect them... If you are looking on the internet you are looking in the wrong place.  The internet is full of people who think they know and they are fully willing to share.  And with any group on the internet there will be a small group that say stuff you feel is hateful/shameful wrong.  You can't expect the internet to change its nature.

 

If you truly want to know how the church will respond.  Look to you leaders instead.  Your local bishop/stake president will be the one in charge of initiating any kinds of church discipline per the handbook changes.  They will be the ones who, hearts and minds, and understandings you need to know to gain the knowledge you seek.  They are the ones would can let you truly know if you have something to be worried about or if you can rest easy...  No one else in the entirety of the internet can give you that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LiterateParakeet

I have one last thing to say and then I am out of here.

Once again, we have people condemning others by trotting out their hypocritical cries of "You're judging others". They don't want others - including Heavenly Father's chosen prophets and leaders - saying anything that conflicts with their limited and self-focused viewpoint. In today's world especially, it is never about anyone or anything else, it's always about me, me, me.

And they also are judging our prophet and apostles and,yes, Heavenly Father himself. They don't like what they hear so the immediate reaction is endless criticism and pronouncements that Heavenly Father got it all wrong and that we smug and superior mortal beings know better than him.

And I remain frustrated and baffled by the practice of church members who castigate other members for "judging" anyone outside the church but then never hesitate themselves for even an instant to judge those inside the church. I've never seen the likes of it anywhere else and it's just as off-putting now as when I was investigating the church. You will embrace anyone living life at distinct odds with the gospel but won't extend the same kindness to fellow members of the church.

As for this policy - I am trusting Heavenly Father on it and not the murmurings of the discontented.

 

Where are you getting this from?  I haven't seen it in this thread.  I think you are misunderstanding what has been said, especially if you are referring to my post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LiterateParakeet

I assumed Leah was talking about the discussion at large, beyond this forum. The attitude is out there.

 

Thanks Backroads.  Outside of the forum, yes, I agree, I've seen it too.  There are so many different emotions going on here.  There are the people who are genuinely confused and feeling hurt by this, and there are the haters who see this as another opportunity to rail against the church.  And there are members who are compassionate, and others who are judgmental.  And there are likely many more attitudes I didn't think of . . .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think this policy means the child should not be given any priesthood blessings of any kind simply because of it's gay parents? 

 

No, because that's not what the policy says.

 

Attitude B = good and proper use of priesthood.  

 

Not if attitude B is in the spirit of "go jump in the lake, I'm blessing my child anyway!". If the so-called innocent "Father's" blessing (with a wide-eyed, "It's not a baby blessing. We're not breaking any rules." *blink blink*) is a work-around the fine print attempt to cheat the policy then it is not good and proper use of anything.

 

If the child is sick and needs a blessing then bless it with a blessing for the sick. If the child needs a blessing of comfort (not sure why a baby would need this since they won't understand the words anyhow -- but for slightly older children) then bless the child with a blessing of comfort.

 

But no, it is not appropriate to try and cheat the system by giving the child a pseudo, un-authorized, not-really (but *wink wink* really) baby's blessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not if attitude B is in the spirit of "go jump in the lake, I'm blessing my child anyway!"
Admittedly, I probably did a poor job of explaining the two attitudes I wanted to convey. Attitude A was the "go jump in the lake, I'm blessing my child anyway" attitude. Attitude B was supposed to represent the humble priesthood holder seeking to provide whatever blessing of comfort that would help an infant or its parents. Elder Christofferson addressed this issue towards the end of his interview and seemed to suggest that other blessings (other than the official "name and a blessing of a child") would be appropriate and encouraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were no smirks or snotty responses, such as the ones I've seen on this forum; no blame, no calling people names or making suppositions or rude remarks between the two of them.  Instead, he gave a clear, concise explanation with no apology and it made sense.

I find this random accusation a bit odd. The comments in this thread on the matter have been quite civil thus-far. Why the anger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly, I probably did a poor job of explaining the two attitudes I wanted to convey. Attitude A was the "go jump in the lake, I'm blessing my child anyway" attitude. Attitude B was supposed to represent the humble priesthood holder seeking to provide whatever blessing of comfort that would help an infant or its parents. Elder Christofferson addressed this issue towards the end of his interview and seemed to suggest that other blessings (other than the official "name and a blessing of a child") would be appropriate and encouraged.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood. Since the context of the discussion seemed to be a work-around thing to get away with faking a child's blessing I read it that way.

 

I think you and I agree here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to Elder Christofferson's remarks, I was impressed by two statements, that, I think amount to the same thing. Ultimately this was the Church's attempt to draw a clear line in the sand between "right and wrong" and between "the path of happiness" and the path that leads to unhappiness. It seems that much of the angst over the issue seems to reside in this question. Do I have a testimony that SSM is sin or not? Those who have been given a testimony through the Holy Spirit that SSM is sinful and ultimately leads to sorrow (in this life or the next) are accepting this policy. Those with more of the "gift to believe on their words" accept the policy on the grounds that it is given by prophets and apostles (though this might be getting to be a "hot" enough topic that members may need to seek beyond this argument).

 

It seems to me that those who are arguing most strongly against it have not received this testimony, or believe they have received a witness from the Spirit that SSM is acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I misunderstood. Since the context of the discussion seemed to be a work-around thing to get away with faking a child's blessing I read it that way.

 

I think you and I agree here.

I, too, expect we are in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks, Pam, for posting the video.

It was very helpful.

That was exactly why I suggested we wait for the Church to officially offer the proper characterization of the policy.  So, yes, thanks to Pam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I believe that there are three camps on many divisive issues such as this.

 

1) Those who accept the new policy.

2) Those who refuse to accept the new policy.

3) Those who are struggling with the new policy.  A person cannot stay in this camp for very long.  This person must eventually choose a side or go mad.

 

I sincerely hope that those are in (3) can move to (1).  I hope that those in (2) can move to (3), and eventually to (1).  This is the flip-side of the Church gun policy.  Those who tend to be against the gay marriage policy tend to be for the gun policy, and vice-versa.

 

I have given a lot of thought to the Church policy on guns.  And I am struggling to understand it.  I want to understand more.  But everything I read is something that I cannot fathom based on what I believe to be very important and central principles of the gospel.  

 

But I have yet to say that the Brethren are just fools, or that they just aren't up to the times, or that they aren't aware of what is going on in the "real world" as if they just sit in their ivory towers not understanding all us little people.  NO!  I still sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators.  I realize there is just something I don't understand.  And my attitude is one of sincere desire to learn and become reconciled with this idea.  My attitude is NOT, "Oh it's obvious they just made a mistake and they'll eventually realize I'm right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the flip-side of the Church gun policy.

 

This doesn't strike me as an apples-to-apples equation. A policy that dissuades the bringing of guns to church is hardly the same as you can't get baptized.

 

Those who tend to be against the gay marriage policy tend to be for the gun policy, and vice-versa.

 

I seriously doubt this to be universally true. I get your point though...they are sort of on the liberal/conservative sides of the coin.

 

I'm probably being a bit nit-picky though. Your point is solid, even though I'm quibbling over some details. ;)

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This doesn't strike me as an apples-to-apples equation. 

 

It wasn't intended to be.  I was simply pointing out that I have a problem reconciling a Church policy.  Others have problems with others.  But it is the attitude of how we go about reconciling it that makes 

 

I seriously doubt this to be universally true. 

 

Did you notice my underlining of the word "tend" TWICE!!! I did that specifically for your nit picks. :mad:  :.bullhorn:  :disclaimer: and possibly Vort's.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't intended to be.  I was simply pointing out that I have a problem reconciling a Church policy.  Others have problems with others.  But it is the attitude of how we go about reconciling it that makes 

 

 

Did you notice my underlining of the word "tend" TWICE!!! I did that specifically for your nit picks. :mad:  :.bullhorn:  :disclaimer: and possibly Vort's.

 

I remember on my mission how the Filipinos had the perception that the American equivalent to their obsession with rice was bread. I thought this was strange, as I would never consider replacing the rice options on my plate with bread, but rather with something like potatoes. But they were thinking of it more along the lines of "must have with every meal", which may be more true-ish. Americans do often eat bread on the side with their meals. Practically speaking, however, there is no equivalency. Americans simply do not have a single food item that they must have with every meal.

 

Either way, the point being, we tend to equate what matters to us. That doesn't necessarily make it a valid equivalency, particularly as an analogy. More to the point, the point really being, I don't think anyone who isn't concerned with guns would even begin to consider the gun issue as comparative to this one. ;)

 

Yeah, yeah...more nit-picking...I know.

 

As I said, your point is solid. Your struggle with an issue is the real comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

I agree with you, Annie.  The people I know who are really struggling with this are, like you, concerned about personal situations, or close friends.  This is a very sensitive and painful topic for many.  I'm so glad the interview was helpful to you.  

We need to help one another get through this.  I mean the people who don't have a problem with it need to be kind and understanding to those who do.  Because we all have our weak places, and Satan knows what they are.  If this isn't your issue, then some other trial or temptation will be.  

 AMEN! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else I just gleaned in his talk Elder Christofferson said something about protecting children in their innocence.

But he didn't say which children. As a parent of small children it is not something that I want to deal with, explaining to my children why Billy has two daddies at church. At school it is easier, "they don't believe the way we do". At church, many conflicts will arise between children of peverse relationships vs the normal family structure.

Everyone thinks about their children, but what about my children being exposed to a peverse lifestyle in a setting that they should not be exposed to... No one thinks about that.

Church should not be the setting where my children are exposed to homosexually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now