Go Back   Fratching! > General > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 11-14-2015, 03:53 PM
Talon's Avatar
Talon Talon is online now
Atheist
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 347
Default

Update:

Thousands plan Mass-Resignation from LDS church

Quote:
But a new policy to ban christenings for the children of same-sex couples, and excommunicate Mormons who are married to the ‘wrong' gender, seems to be the final straw for thousands of people.
I can't tell you how happy this makes me. I'd smile, but my face might collapse

But on a more serious note, I have a pretty good idea what the LDS church will do if they get enough blowback. They'll have a "vision" that their god told them it's actually ok to be LGBT after all, and reverse their stance. Why not? That's what they did to finally allow people of darker skin into positions of leadership in 1978, over a decade after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Guess their god was wrong the first time, or didn't reveal he was wrong until 1978?
__________________
Customer: I need an Apache.
Gravekeeper: The Tribe or the Gunship?

Last edited by Talon; 11-14-2015 at 04:55 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 11-15-2015, 04:05 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,135
Default

I believe that the official word on doctrine changes is that God was right all along, we just misunderstood what He was saying. (which, depending on your point of view, if not technically wrong...) The idea being that God is always correct- but since very few (if anybody) can talk directly to God- at least in the sense of an actual conversation- then the person who is transcribing God's word can make mistakes. (It's the same reason why you get different translations of the Bible. They all- presumably- are a reasonably faithful translation of the original text, but the opinion of the translator can affect the translation. (one example is the phrase "you shall not suffer a witch to live"- in the original text, the word used is closer to necromancer than witch. (which, if you think about it, makes far more sense- God is likely to care far more about someone yanking people out of heaven/hell than he is someone offering concoctions that are supposed to help various ailments. Especially when those concoctions were no worse than the doctors of the time could use.)
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 11-16-2015, 01:18 PM
Shangri-laschild Shangri-laschild is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
(one example is the phrase "you shall not suffer a witch to live"- in the original text, the word used is closer to necromancer than witch. (which, if you think about it, makes far more sense- God is likely to care far more about someone yanking people out of heaven/hell than he is someone offering concoctions that are supposed to help various ailments. Especially when those concoctions were no worse than the doctors of the time could use.)
I've also heard the explanation of that to be along the lines of modern day psychics and con artists type thing and that "suffer not to live" basically meant stop giving them money and funding them.

I'm very curious where the lines with this new ruling are. Lets say you have a son and they get baptized. They receive the priesthood and are an upstanding member of the church. Then, when they are 14, you die. They go to live with your mother who is living with another woman. Does the 14 year old get temporarily kicked out? That would be fairly cruel. And if they don't, what's the difference between their situation and a minor with gay parents who actively sought out the church and chose it rather than having it taught to them from birth? Really all this does is make kids less likely to want to join. Believing something and being told "oh, you are different and can't join until you're 18 maybe" doesn't really make someone feel like they belong and the church has a hard enough time as it is making kids feel welcome.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 11-17-2015, 07:17 PM
HYHYBT's Avatar
HYHYBT HYHYBT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,191
Default

What was it again Jesus said about keeping children out? Something about seas and millstones...
__________________
"My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 11-17-2015, 07:17 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,135
Default

regardless, I suspect that it will depend on the individual parish, or even whatever the Mormon equivalent of a priest/bishop is- the same applies to the restriction on the children of gay couples getting baptised, actually. While it doesn't excuse the institutional bigotry, christendom has a thriving tradition of priests looking the other way on the more petty restrictions. (there's a reason that there is a stereotype in fiction of a kindly parish priest) Therefore, I expect that in less strict parishes, they'll simply pretend the parents are opposite genders. (officially, at least)

As for how it would work, the ruling is specific about it being baptism. I would imagine that a kid who is already a mormon would remain one. (it's the parents that are apostate, not the kids)

On the other hand, again, there are both stricter and more liberal mormons, so that might not be true everywhere.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 11-18-2015, 01:43 PM
Shangri-laschild Shangri-laschild is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
regardless, I suspect that it will depend on the individual parish, or even whatever the Mormon equivalent of a priest/bishop is- the same applies to the restriction on the children of gay couples getting baptised, actually.
Explained like a store,
Store manager = bishop
Area manager = stake president (store districts = stakes)
It goes up from there but probably most specifically it would depend on your region and the bishop and stake president. However, this specifically I believe is classified as not one of the things there is wiggle room on since once the child turns 18, you need first presidency (think along the lines of the company's board) approval still to baptize. This is not one of the things that would be considered a small thing to overlook unless maybe the gay parent was estranged or something like that and even with that I think there would be some issues due to the minor needing both parent's permission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
As for how it would work, the ruling is specific about it being baptism. I would imagine that a kid who is already a mormon would remain one. (it's the parents that are apostate, not the kids)
But the thing with that is, why is it different? If it would be fine for someone who was already a member, how would it not be ok for someone who is seeking this out? If anything, the child who is seeking out the church will be more likely to stick around despite their family whereas the child who went through a trauma and is now being cared for by people who have much different beliefs probably has a higher chance of leaving the church.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.