There is one thing that been bugging me about the new LDS policy regarding children of gay parents being baptized (well, lots of things really).
Why is it that here in Canada (and other countries for that matter; we weren’t the first) marriage equality has been in place for over a decade and it has never been a problem for gay couples to have their children baptized? Gay marriage becomes legal in the United States and all of a sudden, God decides it’s time for children of gay parents to no longer be baptized?
Sorry. I don’t buy it.
Thanks for sharing this! 🙂
How do your apostate views settle with your Stake President?
Steve, sometimes the apostate view is the correct view 😉
Considering that there were states that legalized SSM prior to June of 2015, it seems that in particular, God mostly cares about Utah.
Well, it's difficult for me to answer, Steve, since you have an unproven assertion within it. My stake president is fully aware of my thoughts on the new policy. He is accepting of others having unorthodox opinions.
You're welcome, Christopher.
This post asks the question, but doesn't seem to take any interest in having it answered, let alone attempts to find an answer that isn't particularly jaded. So my question is, aren't there also plenty of biblical precedents for conditions or practices being evident, and yet it isn't until later (sometimes much later) that the Lord reveals His will to His servants to implement a change? Are we then going to assume all such instances are suspect and this fraud has been perpetuated since antiquity, let alone in our day? So many variables go into revelations to God's servants in biblical times. It seems like we're all just looking for fuel to feed our own fires in this thing. And there's plenty to be had on either side.
I'm sorry your views were referred to as "apostate views" That word needs to be put to rest when other members, who also love the gospel, have a different opinion. Not a sin, you are not an apostate and neither am I if I appreciate your comments. Makes me sad to hear such remarks from others who are to quick to judge. Frustrating.
Thanks, Mary Ellen. I get comments like that all the time, so they are meaningless to me now. I appreciate your thoughtful, supportive, and constructive comments though.
As a fellow Canadian, this was my exact reaction Kim. I found it Amerocentric that the reaction to marriage equality and then the subsequent exclusion policy were only in response to what happened in the U.S., despite that fact that SSM has been legal in a number of countries for years now. On another note, I couldn’t help but notice that you’re from Saskatchewan. I was born, raised and currently live in Saskatoon. I am about a decade younger than you so you likely wouldn’t know me, but my family name might ring a bell.
I grew up in Regina, but I left in 1989. I don’t know any Saskatoon saints really, and only longtime Regina names seem familiar to me now.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. 🙂
I'm seeing a mojor shift with what you are blogging about and airing on the RFaiths podcast… I listened to a few of the sex therapist for Mormons last year and they were great! Now it seems that you are turning more and more to the anti-Mormon subjects. You are bringing up any and all questions and subjects that cause contention. I'm sure you're making quite a bit of dough so I guess it's working! It's just sad that you are slowly getting more anti and bringing thousands of followers along for the testimony destroying ride. Not that you are blatantly doing this… But little by little is all it takes and that's what you are doing.
How does a child enter into The Covenant Of Christ when part of that covenant means "honoring your father and your mother", and the child's "parents" are not only living a lifestyle that's in open rebellion to God Himself, but also legally declaring it so? I think you need to contemplate this, Mr. Siever.
I don't see anything unreasonable about the "timing" of this reaffirmation of existing church policy, with the exception that homosexual marriage is now called apostasy, since it is now a "legal right" according to The SCOTUS.
The LDS Church is incorporated, and therefore subject to the laws of The U.S. Corporations have mission statements which represent the will of the corporation, and these are in fact codified, as the corporation's interests must first be expressed formally, before associates/members can be discharged for insubordination. The reaffirmation of existing church policy probably addresses some legal issues which the church is dealing with, in response to marriage being redefined in The U.S.
Can you explain what is meant by “the will of the corporation”, and who would be responsible for determining what that is?
I would have thought that, for a corporation sole like the LDS church, that would be the same as the will of the current president, no?