LDS church and children of LGBT couples: Jesus weeps

[JakeStarkey]

[I'm sure April conference will be interesting. It always is. I invite you to watch it very closely. I'm skeptical you are going to succeed with boycotts and such over a policy that protects children from making covenants contrary to the family lifestyle and creating conflict with in. But if you are, it will not change anything. The saints have been called through much worse, the Missouri extermination order comes to mind. If you think we will waver you are mistaken.

That's what the Saints said when told they would end polygamy or else: they ended polygamy.

That's what the Saints said when they insisted on the race policies in the Church that debased peoples of color, particularly those of African descent: they ended such policies.

I can give you several instances when the Church said "nope, never" yet changed.

This too will change, but it will take time. The women are more likely to receive the priesthood ordinations before the hate against the children of LGBT ends.

We believe in obeying the law. And we fought for our constitutional rights to worship as we could until the courts said we had none. We submitted to the law.

Policies on priesthood changed long after pressure to change them ceased. In fact, it was the growth of the Church in Brazil that probably influenced it the most. But as that was a fulfillment of prophecy that's been around since the Church began, we knew the change would come.

Gay marriage is contrary to the commandments of God. It's not going to change even if we could. The Lord wants us to be sealed eternally with our Spouses. Became Eternal Life requires an eternal family. Same sex couples cannot reproduce. They cannot create an eternal family. It's physically impossible for them to do no matter how much they want and desire it.

This will not change because people protest, boycott, or rage. Any more than the laws of gravity will change if we do such a thing.

You're upset not with the policy, since it's the same policy in place with polygamist families. Your upset because we are making it clear we will not stop declaring sin to be sin. And the powers of hell may rage against that, but it won't change the truth. And it won't make people happy in sin.

Your history defied the law for scores of years before the Church as an institution was forced to abandon polygamy.

Church membership pressure, not prophecy, ended the color ban on priesthood.

The LDS Church has every right to not marry LGBT couples, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that principles.

However, many LDS couples don't reproduce. Many of your GAs have remarried at the death of their spouses, and they are not reproducing. That argument fails, as you well know.

You demosntrate you dont know the history and understand the arguments. That's oddly enough, good. Because if you did you would be more accountable for what you do.

Come and learn. Understand the truths about eternal marriage and family instead of raging against them. The Lord will bless you if you do.

I know the arguments and the history far better than you. Start a thread on the church collapsing to the states' will on polygamy, if you want a real lesson.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you continue lying why should I stop calling you on it? When you stop lying about the Church of Jesus Christ, I will stop saying you are lying about it.

Calling the church and its defenders out on this policy is not lying, for the Church is clearly trying to come between children and their parents. You are lying above, because you believe that any opposition is based on lie. Clearly when a church comes between children and their parents, the love is conditional. That is truth and not lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[I'm sure April conference will be interesting. It always is. I invite you to watch it very closely. I'm skeptical you are going to succeed with boycotts and such over a policy that protects children from making covenants contrary to the family lifestyle and creating conflict with in. But if you are, it will not change anything. The saints have been called through much worse, the Missouri extermination order comes to mind. If you think we will waver you are mistaken.

That's what the Saints said when told they would end polygamy or else: they ended polygamy.

That's what the Saints said when they insisted on the race policies in the Church that debased peoples of color, particularly those of African descent: they ended such policies.

I can give you several instances when the Church said "nope, never" yet changed.

This too will change, but it will take time. The women are more likely to receive the priesthood ordinations before the hate against the children of LGBT ends.

We believe in obeying the law. And we fought for our constitutional rights to worship as we could until the courts said we had none. We submitted to the law.

Policies on priesthood changed long after pressure to change them ceased. In fact, it was the growth of the Church in Brazil that probably influenced it the most. But as that was a fulfillment of prophecy that's been around since the Church began, we knew the change would come.

Gay marriage is contrary to the commandments of God. It's not going to change even if we could. The Lord wants us to be sealed eternally with our Spouses. Became Eternal Life requires an eternal family. Same sex couples cannot reproduce. They cannot create an eternal family. It's physically impossible for them to do no matter how much they want and desire it.

This will not change because people protest, boycott, or rage. Any more than the laws of gravity will change if we do such a thing.

You're upset not with the policy, since it's the same policy in place with polygamist families. Your upset because we are making it clear we will not stop declaring sin to be sin. And the powers of hell may rage against that, but it won't change the truth. And it won't make people happy in sin.

Your history defied the law for scores of years before the Church as an institution was forced to abandon polygamy.

Church membership pressure, not prophecy, ended the color ban on priesthood.

The LDS Church has every right to not marry LGBT couples, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that principles.

However, many LDS couples don't reproduce. Many of your GAs have remarried at the death of their spouses, and they are not reproducing. That argument fails, as you well know.

You demonstrate you don't know the history and understand the arguments. That's oddly enough, good. Because if you did you would be more accountable for what you do.

Come and learn. Understand the truths about eternal marriage and family instead of raging against them. The Lord will bless you if you do.

I know the arguments and the history far better than you. Start a thread on the church collapsing to the states' will on polygamy, if you want a real lesson.

I had a friend who had me go to several gospel doctrine lessons with him as a visitor. The older men in the back would say the most outrageous things. But I kept my mouth shut, and checked them against the sources. They did not have a clue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

here are no conditions for the Church's love. It's precisely because we love them that we are having them wait to make covenants that their home life makes difficult to keep. Christ established a Church. He obviously felt a need for it.

The first sentence is wrong: the church wants children to publicly disavow their parents. The next three are open to discussion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thank you for admitting that you will break up families if necessary and turn children away from their parents. That is not godly.

You're going on and on about the church “breaking” something that is already broken. It is not without precedent, that those formerly associated with the church, who choose to engage in immoral behavior that the church condemns, often go on to try to blame the church for the adverse consequences of their own behavior.

 

[Avatar4321]

As do people when they are defending the wrong, as does Avatar, we find him accusing me of doing what he is doing: lying.

The church does make children choose between parents and church.

The Mormon people are family centered. The ones I know west of Austin, Texas are unhappy. A few support the church, but several have told me already privately they will organize with others inside the church's active membership to oppose it.

Is that why you are accusing me of lying? Because you know you are defending the wrong. You keep knowingly saying requiring someone to admit same sex marriage is a sin is disavowing a parent or making a child choose between loving a parent and loving the Church. That's a lie. And you know it.Everyone reading knows it. And God knows it.

Saying you are lying when you are lying doesn't mean I'm defending something that is wrong. By the way Satan is raging in the hearts of so many in reaction to this policy that has precedent it's obvious it's the correct one albeit not what I would have come up with initially.

Remember Galatians 5:22-24

You are making people avow that they disagree with their parents, publicly, that they are wrong. That is conditional love.

Satan may be raging in some non-LDS hearts, but it is doing so in many LDS hearts as well.

So we should baptize people who oppose fundamental doctrines of the Church? Why?

The Lord said His house shall be cleaned at some point. This may be an early shaking up.

 

[Avatar4321]

[I'm sure April conference will be interesting. It always is. I invite you to watch it very closely. I'm skeptical you are going to succeed with boycotts and such over a policy that protects children from making covenants contrary to the family lifestyle and creating conflict with in. But if you are, it will not change anything. The saints have been called through much worse, the Missouri extermination order comes to mind. If you think we will waver you are mistaken.

That's what the Saints said when told they would end polygamy or else: they ended polygamy.

That's what the Saints said when they insisted on the race policies in the Church that debased peoples of color, particularly those of African descent: they ended such policies.

I can give you several instances when the Church said "nope, never" yet changed.

This too will change, but it will take time. The women are more likely to receive the priesthood ordinations before the hate against the children of LGBT ends.

We believe in obeying the law. And we fought for our constitutional rights to worship as we could until the courts said we had none. We submitted to the law.

Policies on priesthood changed long after pressure to change them ceased. In fact, it was the growth of the Church in Brazil that probably influenced it the most. But as that was a fulfillment of prophecy that's been around since the Church began, we knew the change would come.

Gay marriage is contrary to the commandments of God. It's not going to change even if we could. The Lord wants us to be sealed eternally with our Spouses. Became Eternal Life requires an eternal family. Same sex couples cannot reproduce. They cannot create an eternal family. It's physically impossible for them to do no matter how much they want and desire it.

This will not change because people protest, boycott, or rage. Any more than the laws of gravity will change if we do such a thing.

You're upset not with the policy, since it's the same policy in place with polygamist families. Your upset because we are making it clear we will not stop declaring sin to be sin. And the powers of hell may rage against that, but it won't change the truth. And it won't make people happy in sin.

Your history defied the law for scores of years before the Church as an institution was forced to abandon polygamy.

Church membership pressure, not prophecy, ended the color ban on priesthood.

The LDS Church has every right to not marry LGBT couples, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that principles.

However, many LDS couples don't reproduce. Many of your GAs have remarried at the death of their spouses, and they are not reproducing. That argument fails, as you well know.

You demosntrate you dont know the history and understand the arguments. That's oddly enough, good. Because if you did you would be more accountable for what you do.

Come and learn. Understand the truths about eternal marriage and family instead of raging against them. The Lord will bless you if you do.

I know the arguments and the history far better than you. Start a thread on the church collapsing to the states' will on polygamy, if you want a real lesson.

What does the Lord say about pride?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for admitting that you will break up families if necessary and turn children away from their parents. That is not godly.

You're going on and on about the church “breaking” something that is already broken. It is not without precedent, that those formerly associated with the church, who choose to engage in immoral behavior that the church condemns, often go on to try to blame the church for the adverse consequences of their own behavior.

Bob, that definition of "breaking" is yours and of the church but may not be the reality of the relationships, in fact. The fact is that the children are not engaged in immoral behavior, so you miss the mark. I see no constitutional problem at all with the church's stand about LGBT marriages, I don't think the church should have to marry anyone they don't want. But going after the children of adults the church does not like goes against the grain of the membership that is family and children centered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As do people when they are defending the wrong, as does Avatar, we find him accusing me of doing what he is doing: lying.

The church does make children choose between parents and church.

The Mormon people are family centered. The ones I know west of Austin, Texas are unhappy. A few support the church, but several have told me already privately they will organize with others inside the church's active membership to oppose it.

Is that why you are accusing me of lying? Because you know you are defending the wrong. You keep knowingly saying requiring someone to admit same sex marriage is a sin is disavowing a parent or making a child choose between loving a parent and loving the Church. That's a lie. And you know it.Everyone reading knows it. And God knows it.

Saying you are lying when you are lying doesn't mean I'm defending something that is wrong. By the way Satan is raging in the hearts of so many in reaction to this policy that has precedent it's obvious it's the correct one albeit not what I would have come up with initially.

Remember Galatians 5:22-24

You are making people avow that they disagree with their parents, publicly, that they are wrong. That is conditional love.

Satan may be raging in some non-LDS hearts, but it is doing so in many LDS hearts as well.

So we should baptize people who oppose fundamental doctrines of the Church? Why?

The Lord said His house shall be cleaned at some point. This may be an early shaking up.

If I understand right, a Bishop conducts a worthiness interview, and if the person does not give the right answers, then said person is not baptized. Fine. There is no need for a public disavowal of one's parents' lifestyle.

And you still have failed to answer what do you with children who are members and have LGBT parents.

What are you going to do with them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's what the Saints said when told they would end polygamy or else: they ended polygamy.

That's what the Saints said when they insisted on the race policies in the Church that debased peoples of color, particularly those of African descent: they ended such policies.

I can give you several instances when the Church said "nope, never" yet changed.

This too will change, but it will take time. The women are more likely to receive the priesthood ordinations before the hate against the children of LGBT ends.

We believe in obeying the law. And we fought for our constitutional rights to worship as we could until the courts said we had none. We submitted to the law.

Policies on priesthood changed long after pressure to change them ceased. In fact, it was the growth of the Church in Brazil that probably influenced it the most. But as that was a fulfillment of prophecy that's been around since the Church began, we knew the change would come.

Gay marriage is contrary to the commandments of God. It's not going to change even if we could. The Lord wants us to be sealed eternally with our Spouses. Became Eternal Life requires an eternal family. Same sex couples cannot reproduce. They cannot create an eternal family. It's physically impossible for them to do no matter how much they want and desire it.

This will not change because people protest, boycott, or rage. Any more than the laws of gravity will change if we do such a thing.

You're upset not with the policy, since it's the same policy in place with polygamist families. Your upset because we are making it clear we will not stop declaring sin to be sin. And the powers of hell may rage against that, but it won't change the truth. And it won't make people happy in sin.

Your history defied the law for scores of years before the Church as an institution was forced to abandon polygamy.

Church membership pressure, not prophecy, ended the color ban on priesthood.

The LDS Church has every right to not marry LGBT couples, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that principles.

However, many LDS couples don't reproduce. Many of your GAs have remarried at the death of their spouses, and they are not reproducing. That argument fails, as you well know.

You demosntrate you dont know the history and understand the arguments. That's oddly enough, good. Because if you did you would be more accountable for what you do.

Come and learn. Understand the truths about eternal marriage and family instead of raging against them. The Lord will bless you if you do.

I know the arguments and the history far better than you. Start a thread on the church collapsing to the states' will on polygamy, if you want a real lesson.

What does the Lord say about pride?

Knowledge of the facts is not pride going before a fall. bobblaylock tried that with me, and after being thrown three times, he put me on ignore. Maybe he has learned humility, because he is back.

Now let's discuss this as Christians with a Christian demeanor.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you continue lying why should I stop calling you on it? When you stop lying about the Church of Jesus Christ, I will stop saying you are lying about it.

Calling the church and its defenders out on this policy is not lying, for the Church is clearly trying to come between children and their parents. You are lying above, because you believe that any opposition is based on lie. Clearly when a church comes between children and their parents, the love is conditional. That is truth and not lie.

Except the policy explicitly does not pit child against parent. That's precisely why we wait on baptizing then until they are adults who are free of their parents care.

Why? Because we love them. We aren't going to create unnecessary contention between parent and child. We are not going to allow overzealous people rush a minor child into baptism unprepared and not knowing the full ramifications and fall out from such an opposed family. It's not what we do. We are not going to undermine a parents authority in his or her own home.

Why should we do that? Especially when the Lord has always taught us to wait on Him and the blessings will be given to all who seek them in the Lord's time table?

There is nothing bad about waiting to make Eternal covenants. Nor is there anything wrong with expecting people who join the Church to acknowledge the doctrines of the Church publicly

 

[Avatar4321]

As do people when they are defending the wrong, as does Avatar, we find him accusing me of doing what he is doing: lying.

The church does make children choose between parents and church.

The Mormon people are family centered. The ones I know west of Austin, Texas are unhappy. A few support the church, but several have told me already privately they will organize with others inside the church's active membership to oppose it.

Is that why you are accusing me of lying? Because you know you are defending the wrong. You keep knowingly saying requiring someone to admit same sex marriage is a sin is disavowing a parent or making a child choose between loving a parent and loving the Church. That's a lie. And you know it.Everyone reading knows it. And God knows it.

Saying you are lying when you are lying doesn't mean I'm defending something that is wrong. By the way Satan is raging in the hearts of so many in reaction to this policy that has precedent it's obvious it's the correct one albeit not what I would have come up with initially.

Remember Galatians 5:22-24

You are making people avow that they disagree with their parents, publicly, that they are wrong. That is conditional love.

Satan may be raging in some non-LDS hearts, but it is doing so in many LDS hearts as well.

So we should baptize people who oppose fundamental doctrines of the Church? Why?

The Lord said His house shall be cleaned at some point. This may be an early shaking up.

If I understand right, a Bishop conducts a worthiness interview, and if the person does not give the right answers, then said person is not baptized. Fine. There is no need for a public disavowal of one's parents' lifestyle.

And you still have failed to answer what do you with children who are members and have LGBT parents.

What are you going to do with them?

Its not my responsibility to make that determination. And it demonstrates the foolishness of this tirade that neither you nor anyone else knows how the policy will be applied and yet you are raging about it. The Lord leads His Church by the Spirit. I'm confident He will continue to do so even if you are upset over what may or may not happen.

 

[Avatar4321]

We believe in obeying the law. And we fought for our constitutional rights to worship as we could until the courts said we had none. We submitted to the law.

Policies on priesthood changed long after pressure to change them ceased. In fact, it was the growth of the Church in Brazil that probably influenced it the most. But as that was a fulfillment of prophecy that's been around since the Church began, we knew the change would come.

Gay marriage is contrary to the commandments of God. It's not going to change even if we could. The Lord wants us to be sealed eternally with our Spouses. Became Eternal Life requires an eternal family. Same sex couples cannot reproduce. They cannot create an eternal family. It's physically impossible for them to do no matter how much they want and desire it.

This will not change because people protest, boycott, or rage. Any more than the laws of gravity will change if we do such a thing.

You're upset not with the policy, since it's the same policy in place with polygamist families. Your upset because we are making it clear we will not stop declaring sin to be sin. And the powers of hell may rage against that, but it won't change the truth. And it won't make people happy in sin.

Your history defied the law for scores of years before the Church as an institution was forced to abandon polygamy.

Church membership pressure, not prophecy, ended the color ban on priesthood.

The LDS Church has every right to not marry LGBT couples, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that principles.

However, many LDS couples don't reproduce. Many of your GAs have remarried at the death of their spouses, and they are not reproducing. That argument fails, as you well know.

You demosntrate you dont know the history and understand the arguments. That's oddly enough, good. Because if you did you would be more accountable for what you do.

Come and learn. Understand the truths about eternal marriage and family instead of raging against them. The Lord will bless you if you do.

I know the arguments and the history far better than you. Start a thread on the church collapsing to the states' will on polygamy, if you want a real lesson.

What does the Lord say about pride?

Knowledge of the facts is not pride going before a fall. bobblaylock tried that with me, and after being thrown three times, he put me on ignore. Maybe he has learned humility, because he is back.

Now let's discuss this as Christians with a Christian demeanor.

When you demonstrate a Christian demeanor and stop accusing others of your sins feel free. But dont expect me to lie to satiate your ego or pretend you are knowledgeable of things as you demonstrate your ignorance because it's not Christian to do so.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no "tirade" here except in your mind, Avatar. The policy does pit child against parents, if the child must publicly disavow the parent's lifestyle publicly. The Bishop;s interview should suffice.

And you keep refusing to answer what will the church do with children of LGBT who are baptized and hold the priesthood.

And where do you think they are doing this? Time square?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no "tirade" here except in your mind, Avatar. The policy does pit child against parents, if the child must publicly disavow the parent's lifestyle publicly. The Bishop;s interview should suffice.

And you keep refusing to answer what will the church do with children of LGBT who are baptized and hold the priesthood.

And where do you think they are doing this? Time square?

Your demeanor has not been Christian, yet you accuse me of that issue? Cure thyself, physician. I will do the same. OK?

The Bishop's interview should suffice.

And why are you refusing to answer about children in the church with LGBT parents.

You LDS get yourself into sticky wickets and accuse everyone else of being at fault.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Two of my LDS friends are bishops, and both have told me this issue is one they wish they did not have.

One is going to ignore it the best he can; the other one is going to the Lord in prayer about it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thank you for admitting that you will break up families if necessary and turn children away from their parents. That is not godly.

You're going on and on about the church “breaking” something that is already broken. It is not without precedent, that those formerly associated with the church, who choose to engage in immoral behavior that the church condemns, often go on to try to blame the church for the adverse consequences of their own behavior.

Bob, that definition of "breaking" is yours and of the church but may not be the reality of the relationships, in fact. The fact is that the children are not engaged in immoral behavior, so you miss the mark. I see no constitutional problem at all with the church's stand about LGBT marriages, I don't think the church should have to marry anyone they don't want. But going after the children of adults the church does not like goes against the grain of the membership that is family and children centered.

The children, in question, are in a position of not being able to separate themselves from their “parents'” immoral behavior. They are not free, as long as they are under the authority of those who choose to rebel against the church, to live in accordance with the values of the church; and they cannot be free until they are old enough to escape the authority of their “parents”, and to renounce their “parents'” rebellion.

There really isn't any rational reason for them to seek membership at that time in a church whose values they are not able to uphold.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Knowledge of the facts is not pride going before a fall. bobblaylock tried that with me, and after being thrown three times, he put me on ignore. Maybe he has learned humility, because he is back.

Now let's discuss this as Christians with a Christian demeanor.

I have not put anyone on “ignore”. I do not know where you claim to have “thrown” me three times, but perhaps you are mistaking a lack of interest in continue a pointless argument with one who stubbornly insists on taking the side of evil and perversion with having conceded defeat in any such argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The children are not involved in the parents' behavior: if they were, it would be a crime.

If you baptize the children of adulterers or serial killers, you surely can investigate in a Bishop's interview, privately, if they are ready for baptism.

I know several LGBT parents whose children are members, and the parents uphold the children.

I certainly hope the church will uphold the children as well.

Yep, bob, you are dismissing what happened before, but that is your problem.

And what is the policy for LGBT's children that are members and some Aaronic priesthood holders?

I hope you all will not be asking the kids to disavow their parents' lifestyles publicly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stories flooding social media tell of canceled baby blessings, postponed baptisms, aborted priesthood ordinations and withdrawn missionary applications. Even many devout Mormons — including congregational and regional leaders — report distress, despondence and despair over the upheaval.

After all, families and children are at the center of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Sons and daughters of murderers, adulterers, fornicators, drug addicts, unwed mothers, divorced parents and sometimes non-Mormons can be welcomed into the community with such special rites, born of the Mormon belief that children are born innocent, rather than carrying the weight of their parents' sins.

Mormons' biggest fear about new gay policy: Children paying for parents' sins