Church makes gays and their children apostates

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

I must say I'm surprised by the whole lot of you. At first I thought you were trolling, but now it's apparent that you truly never knew the gospel's stance on homosexuality.

During all these years, while you've been starting threads about physical evidences of the Book of Mormon, and theological studies, and the life of Joseph Smith, did you seriously never even bother to read the actual scriptures that you've been proving authentic? What have you been doing during your Sunday meetings? And your Monday evenings? And your ward temple nights?

When the prophets said the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon remains sealed because the members don't even utilize the unsealed portion, they weren't kidding.

Uh, I never said anything about that. No one said anything about what is or isn't part of the law of chastity. And I was commenting on something completely different. I'm just having a hard time getting past your seemingly snarky comment about it being "unfortunate" that the church grew so much in recent decades. You're just as much out of line with the prophets with that comment as anyone else is on a different subject.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Uh, I never said anything about that. No one said anything about what is or isn't part of the law of chastity. And I was commenting on something completely different. I'm just having a hard time getting past your seemingly snarky comment about it being "unfortunate" that the church grew so much in recent decades. You're just as much out of line with the prophets with that comment as anyone else is on a different subject.

I think you misunderstood the context. Quantity vs. Quality. Rush through the discussions, have them attend church once, and they're in. And when they're inactive a month later? Too busy rushing more through the discussions to go find them.

[MikeWaters]

It's fourth hand information (or even more distant), but I heard that Eyring is the one who drafted/wrote/approved the BSA gay leader press release.

I mean, it doesn't really matter which apostle it was. It was at least one of them.

The infants who will be refused an opportunity to receive a name and a blessing--they didn't violate any laws of chastity.

My thinking is along the lines of Levin. This is firing a shot across the bow, hoping to prevent gay couples from attending Mormon services. First we make you feel unwelcome. If you attend, we will excommunicate you. If you insist on staying after that, just be aware that if you have progeny none of them will receive any blessings of the gospel while under your care as children.

If all of this doesn't work, who knows what the next step will be.

[ute4ever]

Separating the wheat from the chaff? Discovering which virgins have oil in their lamps? The wedding feast?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Separating the wheat from the chaff? Discovering which virgins have oil in their lamps? The wedding feast?

I can't tell if you are not chumming the waters, because your posts are caricatures of real life.

[MikeWaters]

http://danelarsen.blogspot.com/2015/...medium=twitter

[ute4ever]

Where were all the activists, the protest signs, the condemnation- when the church had this policy on the books for kids that are living with heterosexual unmarried parents? Where was the outcry for "civil rights" for an 8 year old? I guess the very few kids in THAT situation aren't up for political fodder?

The church made this policy because it doesn't want to get in the middle of families. But now that it extends to LGBT, even thought the church has made it clear on their stand about LGBT, only NOW they are robbing kids of their rights?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

I think you misunderstood the context. Quantity vs. Quality. Rush through the discussions, have them attend church once, and they're in. And when they're inactive a month later? Too busy rushing more through the discussions to go find them.

The point is, it wasn't missionaries or even their presidents being rogue or disobedient or misunderstanding what they should have been doing. They were faithfully following the direction of those who instructed them how to proceed on when to invite someone to be baptized. And those instructions came to them at the MTC and from their mission presidents who got it from the prophets and apostles of the time. So what. Ok, a few people got baptized who may not have been fully prepared, however you want to define that.

The Lord is merciful and won't come down on anyone who didn't really understand what they were doing or even those leaders who felt at the time that baptizing quickly was the way to go. The Lord's church has the authority to administer saving ordinances, but the Lord himself also recognizes that part of our purpose in this life is to try our best to figure things out sometimes the best we can and learn from our mistakes and correct and move on. That goes for non-members, regular members, and all the way up to the prophets and apostles. But I'm willing to be patient and don't have the need for every single policy and practice to be 100% perfect in order to believe the church is still true. And it's my weakness, but it's a littler harder for me to be as patient with members who are so quick to condemn other members and give them a dirty look for not wearing the right color shirt when passing the sacrament or using the wrong hand, or whatever other perceived weakness, including not believing things in the right way however we define it. That kind of nonsense is frequently all over cougarboard and sounds like kind of garbage within the church that the Book of Mormon comes down pretty hard against.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Where were all the activists, the protest signs, the condemnation- when the church had this policy on the books for kids that are living with heterosexual unmarried parents? Where was the outcry for "civil rights" for an 8 year old? I guess the very few kids in THAT situation aren't up for political fodder?

The church made this policy because it doesn't want to get in the middle of families. But now that it extends to LGBT, even thought the church has made it clear on their stand about LGBT, only NOW they are robbing kids of their rights?

Is that really the policy for those kids?

[MikeWaters]

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/11/0...re-not-bigots/