With the new policy banning children of gay parents from baptism, there has been much talk about the 2nd Article of Faith.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
Many have emphasized the first part of the sentence, but Frank Pellett noted that this Article of Faith is incomplete when read that way, and really refers to the idea of original sin. He noted that
It specifically talks about Adam’s transgression, not that no one is ever affected by the sins of their ancestors. Women covenant to their husbands for Eve’s transgression. In the Temple. That’s about as far from your interpretation of AofF2 as you can get.
Come to think of it, all men die because Adam partook of the fruit. All women covenant to obey their husbands because of Eve’s indiscretion in the garden. Women have painful childbirth because of Eve. For a long time, the LDS Church blamed the restriction of priesthood and temple ordinances to blacks because of the Curse of Ham. I suppose that it could be argued that Mormons do believe in some curses that span generations. This has caused me to wonder, do we need to clarify Article of Faith 2? Do Mormons believe God curses people so much so that He doesn’t want them to be baptized?
[poll id=”538″]
Wheat & Tares 
I think you are conflating issues.
As Frank pointed out, the context of AoF2 is original sin as was being taught during Joseph Smith’s time and location.
Curses and wonky theories that female reproductive systems were magically changed by a piece of fruit in some magical garden are stuff of archaic legends. And wives obeying husbands because of Eve’s choice is oppressive and perpetuated patriarchical traditions that have no place in today’s society.
We aren’t beholden to 13 statements from a letter on some things we believe. We have grown and believe lots of things. Are we going to rewrite AoF#4 to include temple ordinances? Will we rewrite AoF6 to include Elders and Deacons (and take out those pastors and evangelists…those are other churches!)? AoF8 to include PoGP and D&C? No. Re-writing creates more problems than it fixes.
We just need to use our brains to know what the Articles of Faith were in their context.
There is a precedent for this. The wording of several articles were revised in the 1981 edition of the Pearl of Great Price.
But dropping the second half is a horrible idea. Without that context, it reads like a denial of repentance, grace, atonement, and redemption. We’re all doomed as sinners. No thanks.
Do Mormons believe God curses people so much so that He doesn’t want them to be baptized?
Somehow, I don’t think this question was asked in a spirit of honest inquiry.
Our God invites all adults who will hear to come and receive baptism and to keep the commandments. And our God calls all parents in Zion, fathers and mothers, to teach their children and to raise them to keep the commandments — and, these parRents who do so, fathers and mothers, may bring their children for baptism. It is a beautiful pattern.
Do Mormons believe God curses people so much so that He doesn’t want them to be baptized?
I don’t believe God curses innocent children of Gays, why would He do that? But I do believe Pharsical LDS leaders did! And I wouldn’t attempt any deeply abstract exegesis of AoF2 or convoluted mental gymnastics as apologetics since it is a plainly written 19th century statement by the uneducated founder that was meant to be plainly taken. The LDS Pharisees simply hung themselves with their own law with this banning of innocent children and it will become a curse upon themselves! Gay is the new black and LDS “Prophets” are little more than well intended but out of touch blind guides.
JI, I do think the question was honest inquiry. How else are we to understand the new policy? (Or how would you re-write the question if you think it is unfair?) I simply think you don’t like the question, but it is an absolutely fair question.
You talk about adults being baptized, but that’s not what D&C 68:25 says: of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.
This scripture obviously condemns the First Presidency because if gay parents are consenting, then the First Presidency gets the sins of those children 8 years old and older who can’t be baptized. Clearly this policy is unscriptural, unless you believe in godly curses, and I simply don’t believe in godly curses. Godly curses are an anathema to the god I worship, and curses of Eve, Cain, Ham, and Laman are perversions of God’s will.
Guy,
Calm down. Take a deep breath — maybe even smoke some weed. Then sit down and read this after your head is clear:
http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/11/19/some-mistaken-claims-associated-with-the-churchs-policies-regarding-same-sex-marriage/
Here’s my attempt at re-write.
We believe that through grace and Christ’s atonement, we can receive a forgiveness of all sins. We do not believe men are punished for Adam’s transgression, nor for Eve’s transgression, and don’t believe children should be punished for the sins of their parents, and believe that men are punished for their own sins, according to the grace and atonement of Christ.
Uniting against a common enemy is a time honored method of tightening up tribal unity, so we hear a lot about the “evil” world during the 3 hour block and how we are above it! The world is our enemy, it’s just us righteous LDSs against the world!
Blacks made a great underclass owing to being easily identifed, having (wrongly) been enslaved and being a minority and therefore easy to pick on, put down and even hate. Gays are also easy to pick on, also a minority and since we have a couple of obscure Biblical scriptures (possibly) calling their acts an abomination they ostensibly also make a good underclass except for one very major thing; unlike blacks they are born somewhat randomly into faithful LDS families! And this will eventually be the undoing of our Q15 leaders on this subject!
Much is at stake here given the church’s history regarding both blacks and gays. The gay curse is a more modern issue. Gay wasn’t really an issue or much of an issue early in church history, it didn’t become an issue until gay sexual acting out became a potential embarassment for the hetro church leadership. What followed was many failed attempts by the church to put gays back in the closet including 1970s BYU entrapment, aversion electric shock therapy, Elder Packer’s ignorant and bigoted GC talks, major support for Prop 8 and finally loosing SSM nation wide! What is at stake is the brethern’s creditability, having already been proven wrong about blacks both by the world and later by God Himself they don’t want to back down on the gay question, an issue so minor Jesus never spoke of it and God failed to list it in the 10Cs!!! Gay is the new Black simply because Q15 seeks to save face and in doing so they have armed the time bomb that will become the next 1978 reversal.
The core problem is, true revelation is missing. They no longer channel God, nor did “they” ever channel God! God was channeled via The Prophet not via The Brethren or via committee or via The Correlation Dept. or via The Church Newsroom! These men depend on slight of hand to remain in power. They substitute Authority for Revelation by conflating the two. In fact conflation IS the LDS proprietary secret sauce! When you de-conflate (contemporary) LDS prophets you are left with nude well intended but out of touch old men. When you de-conflate LDS priesthood you are left with authority to officiate within the LDS community but LDS priesthood power (not authority) is available to nonmembers including women! When you de-conflate the LDS gift of the spirit you are left with the same gift of the spirit that is available to anyone, the LDS gift of the spirit at baptism is simply a (wonderful) formal invitation to receive and engage the spirit.
So as the world and along with it a growing part of the membership look behind the curtain at the wizards running the church the brethren are being undressed and they sense it! What they have left are two distinctly different paths; 1) Return to true revelation! Hint, punishing the children of gays isn’t. Or 2) Tighten up on obedience to (their) Authority and amplify this by implying by conflation that Authority is somehow magically Power too!
MH,
Good re-write — I’m not in favor of adopting the re-write, but it is correct. However, the new policy would be unaffected by such a re-write. Anyone errs who sees the policy as punishment of children, and further errs by sharing the notion abroad in an attempt to chastise, correct, or weaken confidence in the leaders of the Church before the world.
But Article of Faith no. 2 was certainly written for original sin.
As ji suggests, this was not asked in the spirit of honest inquiry, but as a rhetorical question pointing out the absurdity of the new policy punishing the children of gay parents for their parent’s sins. The leadership argues this is not a punishment, but a protection.
Additionally, I would argue that NOT being baptised in the church is NOT a curse, but sort of a blessing. According to Paul, “before the Law I was free and could not sin, then the Law came into me, and I died.” In a way, the gospel curses us with a whole new set of laws and commandments which we are free from without the knowledge of the gospel. We obey because we were called to this more difficult path. The path has its advantages, but also its disadvantages, because with greater light comes greater responsibility. In the end, it is simply different. “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you.” None of us chose this path, WE were chosen for it, even if we think we chose. “I sought the Lord and afterward I knew, He moved my soul to seek Him seeking me.” We are self-deceived if we think anyone choses the church because of superior righteousness. Lots of righteous people don’t chose the church, and not because they are selfish or deceived. Rather they were not called.
If God does not move a soul to seek out the Mormon church, is this God’s curse? I don’t think so. There is a time and a season for all things. God made gay people, and then made a church that condemns gay sex. That is God’s problem, not ours. It means He doesn’t call them. Why should we get upset about that? We get upset because we mistake the church as the “only” way, or the “only true church.” This new policy suggests that the church is not as universal as it really thinks it is. Would God really make a church that was the “only” way and then make it so absurd, peculiar, and judgemental that it automatically excluded 99.99% of all humanity from even considering it? This is the only way for those who are called. This is OUR strait and narrow way.
If not being baptized is “sort of a blessing” isn’t it sort of a blessing for the kids of hetero parents too? And what about the social stigma? Is that sort of a blessing too?
These sort of explanations are nothing more than sort of apologetics.
How is denying any person baptism and the gift of the holy ghost a protection? I thought the holy ghost was supposed to protect us from sinning.
Any attempts to justify this protection are blatant falsehoods and entirely against scripture. These attempts are intellectually and spiritually dishonest
Yesterday, i spoke with a recently released stake president. I asked him how this policy is justified by scripture. He said there is no way to justify this policy by scripture. It is impossible.
He merely said that we need to sustain the leaders. I responded that i think the brethren can make mistakes, and i believe this policy has set back the church 100 years. I said i believe brigham young was wrong for denying blacks the priesthood, and this policy is just as wrong. He didnt have a response.
In order to explain this policy you must explain the differential treatment of gay’s kids to hetero’s kids.
Powerful Op-ed from a child of polygamists who talks about being punished for his parents polygamist sins. See http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3186680-155/allred-i-was-a-pawn-in
—–
I grew up in polygamy through no choice of my own. And because of that, I was on the fringes, an “apostate.” When my family moved to Utah from our polygamous commune in 1987, the Allred name was still fresh and synonymous with my grandfather Rulon Allred, who had been assassinated in 1977. My parents actually wanted us kids to attend the local LDS ward, because they wanted us to have a safer and more moderate upbringing. But we were turned away because of our family name and because my father was not ready at the time to disown his family, brothers and mothers.
Consequently, I was branded with a scarlet letter, the biggest kid in my grade with giant hearing aids and a funny way of talking. On top of all that, if there is one thing a Mormon doesn’t like, it’s a polygamist Mormon. The bullying and constant feeling of being “less than” among my classmates was brutal. This happened because I was paying the price for the choices and actions of my ancestors. I was being punished for my father’s sins, and not my own: a direct conflict of the Second Article of Faith.
I was a pawn in the church’s grown-up version of bullying and intimidation, and now the children of gay people are, too.
The most serious harm is not going to come from the kids not being in church, fully welcomed, it will come from the social ostracizing at school and their community. The LDS Church and its devout followers are playing coy and completely disregarding the social ramifications a child will endure when it flippantly says, “When they are 18 they can be baptized.” Sure, when they are 18, after going through their most formative years as a teen, through a gantlet of mental abuse, developing who knows what kind of emotional complexes and illnesses. But, too bad, because their parents are apostates.
I’ve always looked at this AofF as pushing against the idea
of infant baptism, practiced by other faiths.
Do men look at their roles as the provider as punishment for Adam’s weakness? If so what does it say about modern times where many women not only give birth, but also help provide for the family? It would seem women’s burdens are increasing!
I would vote to change the WoW, to eliminate the taboo against coffee and tea. Coffee (and tea) can be beneficially healthy so why are they banned?
And beer and wine.
Guy:
“2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”
That’s true. Than you write – Disobedience Leads To Curses – that’s true.Then you write some small and some large words and then some people holding some forks and torches and waving some torches in a violent manner which is sick. Then everything else you say is sick. What is going on in the Church today?
Heber13:
Who cares what was taught in Joseph Smith’s day as long as the teachings came from the Lord? What did He teach? He created a garden He called the Garden of Eden. He showed Adam and Eve the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them not to eat of it. He said they would die if they did. They ate it anyway. As He told them what would happen, they died. The earth fell to a lower state. If I remember right they found out about that after they ate the fruit. They also found out about the weeds and Eve’s and women’s births being much worse. Hebe13! If that’s the way God did things, and it was, what business is that of yours? And, especially, why are you saying it’s a myth? The next time you see God, grab him by the arms and shake Him good and tell Him He’s not much of a God for doing things that way. I mean He must be a real liar.
You guys:
If you have problems like this with AoF 2, what will you do with AoF 3 which has a serious Grace problem?
“Do Mormons believe God curses people so much so that He doesn’t want them to be baptized?”
Oh, my goodness, my goodness. People, the next time you read the scriptures (especially The Old Testament) try to remember the goodness of God taught in the other scriptures. That is the same in The Old Testament. God wants us to be with Him and He wants us to know things that will keep us away from that. When heterosexuals commit immorality, they can’t be in an exalted state. That’s the same for homosexuals.
If they get married, God won’t accept it because He can’t without ceasing to be God. So, therefore, that kind of marriage becomes sinful. It can bring on a curse. You people seem to like that word.
One of the worst uses I see of scripture is whenever someone brings it out to “prove” their point. It’s one of the reasons Joseph Smith went into the grove; everyone was using scripture to “prove” they were the true church. That’s why the LDS church relies on Prophets and personal revelation, top to bottom.
MH, if my autistic child is not baptized at 8, am I under condemnation, using your “proof” of D&C 68:25? Should we update that scripture as well, to help people who just don’t get it? Do we really need -more- rules codified as scripture?
MH:
“Godly curses are an anathema to the god I worship, and curses of Eve, Cain, Ham, and Laman are perversions of God’s will.”
MH:
From what you’ve posted before, I thought you were LDS. If this is true, why do you stay in the LDS church since this is not what they teach about God?
MH,
Is same-sex marriage authorized by scripture? The Church has chosen not to recognize same-sex marriage. That is the reason for the policy, it seems to me. The policy isn’t covered by scripture because it deals with a problem not ever present in olden times.
Rich,
I stay in the church because I believe it to be true. I sustain the prophets because I believe they are led by God. This policy debacle, however, stymies me a bit.
I have written a number of policies as a Medical Director. For example, I will cite policy written guiding a clinic’s management of opiate pain medications for people who take opiate pain medication for chronic, non-malignant pain. In order to write policy, I’ve attended meetings of other Medical Directors and heard directly what has worked and what hasn’t worked. I’ve been to trainings where former pill scammers described their successful scheming techniques. I’ve studied other policies such as the state of Washington, where all patients who are an a level opiate therapy above a certain dose are required to have a consultation with a pain specialist before their primary care provider can continue to manage them. I’ve studied the adverse reactions and the trends that put accidental deaths from opiate medications higher now compared to deaths from heroin overdose.
What I am trying to say is, that I have a pretty good understanding about what is needed to create a sound policy that has clarity, absence of loopholes, and logic that represents tested elements.
So, I am stymied at how a body of 15 apostles with a collective millennium or more of church service experience could release a policy that had not been vetted to a degree that it needed a major statement of clarification within a week.
Conjecturing on the clarification from the point of view that the prophet is, without question, the spokesman for God and that the 15 prophet-seers-revelators are carrying out His revealed will, I would think of the following explanations:
1. The interval between the policy leak and revision was a ‘test’, like that given to Abraham when he was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. The revision was the plan all along, but interval was a test of faith.
The main difference is that Abraham was an extremely faithful and obedient follower when the test was given. The thousand plus who left the church because of this were in a large part represented by those that had already been disaffected.
2. The prophets received a different revelation before releasing the clarification compared to original policy that was leaked. Perhaps there was pleading in behalf of those that were to be affected just as Abraham tried to plead for a city out of compassion for the collateral inhabitants.
If this was the situation, it would have saved many faithful members the experience of much pain if the revelation-based clarification had preceded putting any policy into print.
3. The basic principles of commandments behind the policy are important to God, but the administration of church discipline and the associated particulars matter less to God. The prophets have leeway to decide this according to their experience and wisdom.
I have been to priesthood leadership trainings where a GA has told us to read the Handbooks because they are where we will receive revelation. This attitude would go against this possibility.
In this case, then perhaps the prophets didn’t really understand the impact of the policy and how certain innocent parents and children would be so deeply hurt, despite their travel to all parts of the world–meeting people in all walks of life and facing many of these situations in past leadership posts. Perhaps the influence of social media had an impact of bringing areas where the policy lacked clarity to their attention.
4. The leaked policy had always been intended to convey the same interpretation as the clarification had suggested. It was just not adequately worded. It seems, as others have pointed out, that the clarification has a bigger function than clarifying. It also has a revising function. This case would suggest that the pain experienced by many was unnecessary and something that would be deserving of apology, as it was not the Lord’s intent to bar as many from ordinances.
Am I missing any possibilities? I would ask Rich, if you have a feeling whether one of these case scenarios is more likely than others? I’m pretty sure your answer will be something like, ‘it doesn’t matter because the bottom line is follow the prophet.’ But if you have reconciled it with any deeper consideration, I would be interested in having you share that process.
Frank,
Of course someone mentally disabled does not need baptism. That is a godly policy and I have no problem with that. There is a girl in my ward that is mentally retarded, so she was never baptized. At age 15, she wanted to participate in baptisms for the dead. When leaders explained she hadn’t been baptized, she wanted to be baptized. At age 15, it seems she understood that. I have no problem with this policy. Her hetero parents agreed, she seemed to have a basic understanding, and it seemed appropriate.
But children of same sex parents are not retarded or autistic. They are intelligent human beings. This policy affects them unjustly. As Lance Allred said above,
Why are you and JI denying these social consequences?
JI, this post in not about the rightness or wrongness of SSM, so that is a tangent and you are conflating issues. This is a program of social and spiritual ostracization. It is wrong on all levels, and there is no way to justify it as a so-called protection. It is not a protection and any spin is hollow. It is wrong morally, spiritually, and socially.
The only other people who need First Presidency approval for baptism are murderers. These children have done nothing to merit this ostracization. Period.
The so called faithful can spin it anyway they want but this policy cannot be reasonably defended from a gospel context. It was likely put in place as a proactive legal barrier but in doing so it violates the gospel and it violates pastoral care. For many this is the last straw, for others their shelves are sagging badly. I agree with MH, this policy is a major setback for the church.
Whilst I believe the policy to be unscriptural and inhumane, regardless of my intellectual position on the subject, I just feel embarrassed. I have been able to internally resolve every dumb policy, every other aspect of the church, but this one I can’t. I am embarrassed to share this gospel. I cannot and will not express support for it in any forum at any time. As a result I will now not accept a leadership position where I will be a party to advancing this policy. No way.
The Salt Lake Tribune OpEd
As experienced educators, we are asking the church to realize the harm their latest policy toward gays invokes on their innocent children who might want acceptance into your church and still be allowed to love their parents. We ask the leaders of the Mormon church to recognize this policy doesn’t only affect what is taught and learned within the walls of your wards and temples but spills over to the lunchrooms, playgrounds and classrooms of our schools.
I know some don’t click on link, but the link Howard posted deserves to have some emphasis.
—-
“even more damaging is the church saying it is done because they “love” the children of gay families and they want to “protect” them from any conflict and will do so by “rejecting” them from membership in the Mormon church whereupon at the age of 18, if the child will “renounce” their gay parents’ relationship and move out from the home where they have been raised, the highest authority of the Mormon church may allow them in.
This type of passive-aggressive behavior comes from a deep sense of anger and resentment and is an attempt to control the child and the situation is a classic push-pull relationship. We love you but reject you will now be seen as acceptable behavior and rationale by the children, in the classrooms in our schools, toward their classmates.
…
As experienced educators, we are asking the church to realize the harm their latest policy toward gays invokes on their innocent children who might want acceptance into your church and still be allowed to love their parents. We ask the leaders of the Mormon church to recognize this policy doesn’t only affect what is taught and learned within the walls of your wards and temples but spills over to the lunchrooms, playgrounds and classrooms of our schools. It places burden on educators to insure every child is supported in a safe environment and their social, emotional, psychological and academic needs are met.
We’re gravely concerned that the schools will not have the needed resources to provide these children the true “love” and “protection” they will need to help ease the grief and pain that will likely play out in schools, on walks home and in their neighborhood. We would hope the church leaders recognize this is an unnecessary burden on these children and respectfully request they “renounce” this policy that victimizes children in so many ways.”
—-
This policy is wrong for both polygamist children, as well as children of gays. It is time for children to quit being stigmatized!!! It has gone on far too long.
While I really like MH’s rewrite in #8, I think that is much better reflection of what we believe, I still maintain that rewriting would be a bad precedence. Do you realize how many things we would have to go back and rewrite in our scriptures to support where we are now? It is much easier to just explain it away, as we do in religion.
I really really REALLY like Nate’s comments #11. Some are not called to mormonism and this is become more clear. It is hard to maintain what we believe and allow everyone in various circumstances to be included without going back and rewriting things. “Many (not all) are called, but few (even less) are chosen.” And because of our belief in the spirit world preaching and temples…we can be open minded to things being able to work out, even if others aren’t in the church. God has a plan. For ALL His children. We won’t be able to make perfect sense of it from our perspective in 2015 in the United States in Utah. We aren’t capable of understanding His works.
It kinda makes mormonism look like a club…with membership dues and requirements to be called or nominated. Fact is…some will not be called and be just fine in this life becoming more god-like outside of mormonism, and the Atonement makes up the difference after all they can do…just like the rest of us. I just have to be careful I don’t climb rameumptums because I’m mormon.
I get a bad feeling about some peole (even church leaders) telling others…”you shouldn’t be baptized, based on your family situation, we’ll protect you from what we see are problems for you. Remember when the missionaries talked about all those blessings for following Christ into the waters of baptism and how eternally imporant that is…ya…that doesn’t apply to you.” (Wha???)
I would much prefer a loving approach of “Before you get baptized or want your children baptized, be aware of all the risks of how much the church teaches bout homosexual sin…and also…here is some church history stuff you may not have known about how the church did things in the past…be well informed before you choose. Once you choose, we will do all we can to support you and your family situation, but we will continue teaching things we believe are correct from God.”
I would even support a policy that states approval from Apostles for First Presidency must be given, instead of a blanket ban.
I think they handled this wrong and it is not good PR because of it. They could have had this added to the manual, with loving leadership training and videos that apply to small, unique situations…and sounded more Christ-like and full of Charity for all to come to Christ.
I reread the letter of response to the Supreme Court Decision yesterday. I quote “The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility-even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully.”
Does the church and is leaders have a right and responsibility to uphold the laws of God and top keep the body of Christ pure and undefined? This the why of the new policy.
As a victim of bullying in my youth I understand how others feel. As a percent and youth leader I need to set the right example and attitudes. I need to monitor the behavior of my children and the youth I work with so that they are not bulling, but at the same time. I need to limit their exposure harmful influences and attitudes.
All LDS discrimination is to be done with loving kindness.
Rich#19: Thanks for commenting and sharing your literal views.
If that’s the way God did things…What business is it of mine?? Um…it’s the whole reason we go to church and read the scriptures…to try to understand how God interacts with His children. The more we study, the more our minds are open to learning.
Parable and myths are some of the greatest teaching tools. They go beyond words to help us.
I see you have a very literal view of all things in the church which you hide behind without seeking to validate them because the church is all you need to know, and that validates all your feelings, which leads to some silly comments like “Next time you see God, grab him and shake him…he must be a liar!”
I think I get what you are trying to express, even if I don’t feel you understand me and my faith at all.
God isn’t a liar. There are lots of examples of things in the scriptures that were once thought to be historical truths that don’t look like they really are. Job wasn’t a real person…having Job’s mythical character presented in the scriptures for us to learn from does not make God a liar…it just makes those who thought Job was real misunderstood. Like so much in the bible and the temple, we are to learn from symbols and parables…not historical facts.
“Who cares what was taught in Joseph Smith’s day as long as the teachings came from the Lord?” …substitute Isaiah for Joseph Smith in that sentance and you’ll see that understanding context and curlture and historical background has a profound impact on our understanding of the teachings that came from the Lord, penned by prophets with limitations by their world view and language.
Like Brigham Young showed with racial policies…sometimes we are unconsciously incompentant (to use Maslow’s model) in which we aren’t even aware we don’t understand the situation, only later to become aware…consciously incompetant…which allows us to move with greater light and knowledge to become competant and correct, only after awareness.
I think a lot of us are unaware of how the church policies really impact families. In time, we’ll become more aware. I wish prophets and apostles were always 100% aware of everything…but…their track record doesn’t really show they are. It’s ok to accept them as fallible leaders.
Howard…All LDS discrimination should be done with meekness and humility and love.
Heber,
The church has clarified lots of scriptures. Lectures on Faith was removed from the D&C completely. The Book of Mormon has changed “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome.” They recently added a heading to OD2 discussing the black ban. There is a precedent for fixing things, and I’ve mentioned just 3 easy ones of the top of my head. I’m sure there are more. There is a precedent for this.
“Love your enemies” Jesus said. “Go ye into all the world, baptizing in my name” Jesus said. He didn’t include any prohibitions on children of blacks, polygamists, or gays.
Good point, MH. They have done it and usually for the better. I do think this doesn’t need to be clarified because it is talking about something else, and so to add clarification introduces more to it that isn’t there, as opposed to “fixing” something inherently problematic.
While Christ calls ALL to come unto him, those living contrary to it’s teachings (living in apostasy) are asked to change to be in line with teachings first on order to come unto Christ. I think the difficult part is understanding why children (not living in apostasy, but living in homes of “apostates”) are told to wait. Right? In other words…not all are called as they are…there are always conditions put on the invitation. That’s always been the case.
Christ didn’t get into prohibitions and a detailed handbook. But I’m not sure that means he didn’t realize church leaders that don’t have his vast knowledge may need to try create policies and handbooks since they are less capable than Him. This policy has been in place for other situations, like polygamous families, and there hasn’t been this outcry. So…I’m not sure the issue is having conditions on baptism…the issue is why these conditions are being put on children that haven’t apostatized. Just trying to clarify the call for all to come unto him.
It is all in the execution of the gospel principles and the scriptures you quote. The devil is in the detail, for sure.
Therefore, I will unfold unto them this great mystery;
For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts; Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely. Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.
Heber there hasn’t been an outcry over polygamists because nobody knew the policy existed until now. In my most recent post and previous one, I have called for the ban to be lifted on polygamists too.
It is true they’ve been treating children of polygamists wrong for decades, but it is still wrong. I don’t give them any credit for a wrong policy that is decades wrong. IT IS WRONG and needs to be removed just like this policy.’
It really cements in my mind that the Church Handbook is apostate, not the children.
I agree, MH. Wrong is wrong. I guess I was just pointing out the church does have stuff like this that should change, not trying to defend it.
The outcry comes from how it impacts more people. Probably like how some news becomes in the public eye when it happens to a country we know or are interested about, as opposed to news that happens in obscure parts of the world. Doesn’t make it less horrific, but does find it’s way to the news.
I agree this policy should be changed, in both cases. I don’t see the wisdom in it.
Rigel:
I just about missed you. I hope you haven’t disappeared. Yes, I have some things to say about what you have written.
“I stay in the church because I believe it to be true. I sustain the prophets because I believe they are led by God. This policy debacle, however, stymies me a bit.”
Maybe, to start out, you need to stay in the Church because you KNOW it’s true. You stay in the Church because you KNOW the leaders are led by God before any policy ‘debacle’ comes that ‘stymies’ you.
“So, I am stymied at how a body of 15 apostles with a collective millennium or more of church service experience could release a policy that had not been vetted to a degree that it needed a major statement of clarification within a week.”
Let’s assume, what you are saying, that they should have that kind of experience, is true. You probably are correct. But maybe they don’t have it, anyway. I don’t know. As far as I’m concerned, these rules needed to be made. I was shocked to find out that there were SSMs in the Church with children in them. That should never have been. How much were the leaders aware of this? And when God reveals to them a problem how much wording does He give them to add to the policy statement? Sometimes when I think of the beginning of the Church, God would slapped a lot of their mouths for some things they said. Now don’t think that I am a Church historian because I’m not, but a lot of the people in the bloggernacle ARE and when they make statements, the things that make me think about is too much for me to use it in speaking and especially in teaching. Anyway!
“1. The interval between the policy leak and revision was a ‘test’, like that given to Abraham when he was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. The revision was the plan all along, but interval was a test of faith.
The main difference is that Abraham was an extremely faithful and obedient follower when the test was given. The thousand plus who left the church because of this were in a large part represented by those that had already been disaffected.”
Rigel! Don’t be disaffected. That’s way too much of a weakness for those who know. So start knowing! As for those who left, good riddance. They will join again in the spirit world when they recognize how foolish they were. Abraham believed even when God told him to do something he recognized as murder from the beginning. What the ‘disaffected’ received was nothing what Abraham received and so, as a result of this policy, the disaffected remain ‘nothing’.
“2. The prophets received a different revelation before releasing the clarification compared to original policy that was leaked. Perhaps there was pleading in behalf of those that were to be affected just as Abraham tried to plead for a city out of compassion for the collateral inhabitants.”
If this was the situation, it would have saved many faithful members the experience of much pain if the revelation-based clarification had preceded putting any policy into print.”
Careful. You sound like you may be trying correct God. Let’s assume you aren’t trying that. The people, for example, of Sodom were not collateral inhabitants. They stayed and were killed. The people leaving now are not collateral inhabitants. They left and will be killed. Today they are much worse than the Sodomites, knowing much more than the Sodomites did. Both parties will be judged and will probably receive their salvation and will probably miss, greatly, what they could have had in the judgement.
“3. The basic principles of commandments behind the policy are important to God, but the administration of church discipline and the associated particulars matter less to God. The prophets have leeway to decide this according to their experience and wisdom.
I have been to priesthood leadership trainings where a GA has told us to read the Handbooks because they are where we will receive revelation. This attitude would go against this possibility.
In this case, then perhaps the prophets didn’t really understand the impact of the policy and how certain innocent parents and children would be so deeply hurt, despite their travel to all parts of the world–meeting people in all walks of life and facing many of these situations in past leadership posts. Perhaps the influence of social media had an impact of bringing areas where the policy lacked clarity to their attention.”
The part I liked there the best was the part about receiving revelation. If the handbook will get you there then read it and read it, especially if you are a leader. Talk to God. Stop sucking on a bottle from the leaders. If you would have asked God enough about this policy you would not have had the policy problems you now have. If you are living in a SSM condition, you are living in hell on earth and you will end up dealing with hell. You seem to think that’s less of a problem on earth than it will be in hell. Get rid of it on earth and you might well miss the hell part.
“4. The leaked policy had always been intended to convey the same interpretation as the clarification had suggested. It was just not adequately worded. It seems, as others have pointed out, that the clarification has a bigger function than clarifying. It also has a revising function. This case would suggest that the pain experienced by many was unnecessary and something that would be deserving of apology, as it was not the Lord’s intent to bar as many from ordinances.”
“The leaked policy had always been intended to convey the same interpretation as the clarification had suggested. It was just not adequately worded.”
Who cares? This would imply that the membership had some understanding. They don’t and never will.
“. It seems, as others have pointed out, that the clarification has a bigger function than clarifying. It also has a revising function.”
Who cares? This would imply that the membership had some understanding. They don’t and never will.
“This case would suggest that the pain experienced by many was unnecessary and something that would be deserving of apology, as it was not the Lord’s intent to bar as many from ordinances.”
Oh my. The members are barring themselves by the way they live. SSM is not good in any way. It is completely evil. If you don’t believe that, you don’t have a God. He not only believes it. He teaches it.
Rigel! Know God and when you do, don’t be ashamed of it.
Rigel:
As far as what I think about any of the things you said, I would say and I suppose I really said it is get closer to God and ask Him. You’re closer to Him than I am and you’re much more charitable.
You are high in the sky.
Heber13 #32
“Parable and myths are some of the greatest teaching tools. They go beyond words to help us.”
Jesus used the word ‘parable’ but the word ‘myth’ or ‘myths’ is not used anywhere. He did make up stories but He made it known what He was doing.
Rich,
I had given up on you replying so had quit checking. I don’t have time to respond to all of your comment, so will start with this.
“you need to stay in the Church because you KNOW it’s true. You stay in the Church because you KNOW the leaders are led by God before any policy ‘debacle’ comes that ‘stymies’ you”
There are things that I know, but they are too sacred to me to share on a thread like this. Having said that, “KNOWING” is NOT one of the principles and ordinances of the Gospel. Faith certainly grows to the point of knowledge, but it is the design that we live by faith.
Brigham young said in relationship to death:
“But could we have knowledge and see into eternity, if we were perfectly free from the weakness, blindness, and lethargy with which we are clothed in the flesh, we should have no disposition to weep or mourn (DBY, 370).”
But we ARE clothed in the flesh and are not perfectly free from blindness, weakness, and lethargy. We ARE commanded to MOURN…with those that MOURN. Our existence is meant to be associated with mourning and not with knowledge and insight into eternity.
Also, God intended for each of us to acquire our own witness that the church is true. So many on facebook thinking that they can help someone questioning this policy by posting a link to Elder Christofferson and that is the answer for them to have a witness that this policy is of God. We should no more do this than get up in testimony meeting and play links to a general authority’s testimony in lieu of bearing our own.
“I was shocked to find out that there were SSMs in the Church with children in them”
Well, that is where we WANT them to be.
“The gospel is a hospital for the sick and not a museum for the whole.”
“As for those who left, good riddance”
Rich, I don’t think you can hold that attitude and remain a member in good standing. It violates D&C 64:10:
“I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men”
If you hold a calling as a ‘judge in Israel”, then perhaps you can make such a statement, but if you don’t, then such a statement means you are breaking the commandment of forgiveness.
“Who cares?”
I do because Jesus taught us about leaving the ninety and nine to go after the one that is lost until we find them. The trouble is, with policies that change within a week, how can one study out in their mind and seek and answer in prayer how to reach out to the one in one hundred? The lack of clarify with the original policy release hindered our ability to follow Christ’s counsel.