Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » LDS church declares SSM couples apostates and their children banned from attending (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: LDS church declares SSM couples apostates and their children banned from attending
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So I could understand perhaps somewhat that LDS would reject SSM couples - but it also rejects their children and their children can't receive baptism or blessings? Anyone able to explain or rationalize this?

quote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has instructed local church leaders that same-sex couples are apostates and that children living with them can't take part in church activities until they're adults and leave home, the church told NBC News on Thursday night.

[...]

A separate section of the handbook includes new language instructing local leaders that a child — biological or adopted — of parents living in a same-gender relationship may not receive the church's blessing, begin training to become missionaries, or be baptized, confirmed or ordained without permission of top church leaders.

Even then, such approval would be allowed only if the child is 18 or older, leaves home and "specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage," according to the revisions.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mormon-church-bars-children-same-sex-couples-baptism-blessings-n458416?cid=sm_fb
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that they are applying the current policies for children of polygamists to children of SSM couples.

But it gets complicated when they don't live with the SSM parent. Parents get divorced because dad likes men, kids are with mom, why should it matter what dad does?

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very distressing. Even we won't refuse to baptise a child whose parents sincerely want it - although some priests might.
quote:
...when people living in such unions request a child’s baptism, almost all the responses emphasize that the child must be received with the same care, tenderness and concern which is given to other children. Many responses indicate that it would be helpful to receive more concrete pastoral directives in these situations. Clearly, the Church has the duty to ascertain the actual elements involved in transmitting the faith to the child. Should a reasonable doubt exist in the capability of persons in a same sex union to instruct the child in the Christian faith, proper support is to be secured in the same manner as for any other couple seeking the baptism of their children. In this regard, other people in their family and social surroundings could also provide assistance. In these cases, the pastor is carefully to oversee the preparation for the possible baptism of the child, with particular attention given to the choice of the godfather and godmother.
THE PASTORAL CHALLENGES OF THE FAMILY IN THE CONTEXT OF EVANGELIZATION INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS VATICAN CITY
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just to be clear, the norm is to be baptized as a child in the LDS not as an "adult" after turning 18 right?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe it is after the child reaches an "age of accountability" which is around 8. But I am not an expert.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, the threshold and norm is 8 years old.

The church - and its many volunteer apologists - are spinning this as an effort to protect children from a heavy and confusing conflict between their family, including what is valued and taught in the home, and what the church teaches. This is, admittedly, a benefit of the policy not to baptize children living at home with parents whose very lifestyle is at odds with the church. (Not that I'm saying that it's a compelling benefit.)

But that's not the only restriction - adult children have to move out and specifically disavow their parents' same sex relationships in order to apply for approval for baptism.

So I think the real motivation is to create a clear division between the church and those who support others in their same sex relationships. Right now, a substantial fraction of the LDS church members know and support people in same sex relationships: generally their family members who are probably not observant Mormons. I think this is an alarming (to the church leaders) pattern of unorthodoxy and the church is trying to stamp it out.

The same restriction exists for children of polygamists, because the church needed to distance itself from the practice after the Manifesto that ended official support for it. The association stuck, and there were even pockets of disobedient members who still practiced it for a few years after the Manifesto, so they took extra measures to create and maintain that separation. (Of course, the association of Mormons with polygamy will probably never go away completely.)

The leaders of the LDS church are seeing growing support for same sex relationships within the church, and have so far responded by affirming the church teaching that such relationships are deeply sinful - second only to murder. The divide between the beliefs of some of the membership and the entrenched position of the church is difficult to reconcile.

For the church to change that teaching is the type of reversal that has only happened twice before (polygamy, then black men and the priesthood), and this is arguably a more entrenched and fundamental position than the past examples, given that their position on same sex marriage ties in with their view of gender and marriage being eternally significant - one of the taught requirements for exaltation in the afterlife is marriage between a man and one or more women (the church has never disavowed the doctrine of polygamy, only the current practice of it).

They are trapped. They either undermine their own authority in a direct way by reversing some of the most fundamental of their teachings - supposedly revealed by God - or undermine it slowly, by tolerating divisions of belief and practice within the church in ways they have never tolerated before, with theological implications for the members' salvation.

Or, they do what they are doing, and try to stamp out the unorthodoxy. It's not surprising to me that fearful old men who have bought fully into the fantasy that they are God's instruments on earth in a top down authoritarian spiritual regime would choose the path they have chosen, but it is still sad to see members of the church lose hope that some other form of reconciliation was possible.

[ November 06, 2015, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A side benefit for the church: children who are giving a name and blessing at birth, or baptized at 8, become part of the church's recorded population. It's much more likely for children with gay parents to end up leaving later (based on anecdotal evidence but I think for obvious reasons it's true). That leaves the church with either "inactive" members or exits. And that hurts their narrative of growth and success.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's interesting to watch theological darwinism at work. Is it odd the number of religions dealing with serious issues of doctrine all at the same time, or is this (and other religion's issues) a result of the information age and globalization? It's not like all religions are dealing with the same societal change/influences.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's a result of the information age and a lot of that information being at odds with institutions that are especially committed to their own inerrancy.

Although, really, it's also the specificity of the doctrines.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Even we won't refuse to baptise a child whose parents sincerely want it - although some priests might"

That would be relevant if baptism meant anything like the same thing to you that it does to mormons.

Not being baptized in this life does not condemn you to hell. I was personally taken off church rolls myself, exed, not punish me but to withraw me from covenants that would prove to my damnation if I failed to live up to them.

Note that there is no policy against same sex members or their families receiving church welfare, which is often still bestowed on me, despite my exmo status.

I had not heard of this policy and am somewhat surprised, but suggest you check the LDS press as ABC has a history of sometimes distorting LDS positions. But Phil is right; what is described is the precise policy that has been applied to plig families for decades. But to those ignorant of LDS culture and policy, it sounds much harsher than it is. The LDS community is forbidden in both the Book of Mormon and current church talks to shun excommunicants. The welfare program is open to them. And there is no teaching that excommunication involves helfire and all that scary stuff. Being part of the LDS church means representing God on a set of specific projects

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been pretty immersed in talk about this issue for the last couple of days, and you're the first person I've seen mention the church welfare program. It hadn't occurred to me. So, two things: I don't think this is something people are concerned about, HOWEVER, it's nice to know that the church would not be against helping those children with material needs. I'm not sure what I would assumed about it if I hadn't read your post before I ever thought about it.

quote:
But to those ignorant of LDS culture and policy, it sounds much harsher than it is. The LDS community is forbidden in both the Book of Mormon and current church talks to shun excommunicants.
True, it's not quite shunning that's involved. But what people think of the church is not the point.

The people who really care about this are not people who are ignorant of church culture - they are the families where a gay ex-spouse has joint custody, and suddenly this makes it impossible for the other parent to continue with raising the kids in the church in a normal fashion. I've seen several examples already of families that are directly impacted - and they are telling heartbreaking stories of their children's confusion about how living part of the time with dad and dad's husband is going to affect whether they can get baptized, ordained, or serve missions.

These are situations where the gay married couple had agreed to support the children's religious life, although such an accommodation was no doubt difficult. And the church has caused a crisis for those families that had already bent over backwards in favor of making church attendance as easy on the kids as possible.

In the future, it will cause parents to try to prevent such custody arrangements, tearing children away from one of their parents so they can continue to have full access to church ordinances.

The church was caught off guard by the backlash, which makes a lot of the last few years' "we love our gay church and family members" rhetoric ring hollow. They don't understand the types of families they are interfering with.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I've been pretty immersed in talk about this issue for the last couple of days, and you're the first person I've seen mention the church welfare program. It hadn't occurred to me. So, two things: I don't think this is something people are concerned about, HOWEVER, it's nice to know that the church would not be against helping those children with material needs.

My point was broader that that. It was that equating LDS "excommunication' to Catholic excommunication, as Kate did explicitly and zs others seem to be implicitly, is painfully ignorant at best and hatefully doshonest at worst. LDS excommunication is closer to what the Catholics call defrocking, as the typical active member has duties comparable to those of a catholic deacon to parish priest. And to suggest that the LDS church is not concerned with the spiritual welfate of excommunicants is as misleading as claiming that Catholics dont care about the spiritual welfare of a defrocked Catholic priest, monk or nun. The folks that brought me, unsolicited, 8 bags of groceries last week also prayed with me and laid on hands to give a blessing. As conversant as you are in lds culture would you argue for a moment that (1) the LDS curch would withhold priesthood blessings and fellowship of the sort I just described from the kids of same sex couples or (2) that home visits, prayer and priesthood blessings or being welcome to LDS meetings does not represent an interest in their spiritual welfare as well as their spiritual?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"True, it's not quite shunning that's involved"

It isnt shunning at all that's involved. And yet the media blitz attempts to protray that the issue *is* shunning. I dont see an honest effort by detractors to adress what the church actually is doing,

I wont say that there is not a real issue or grievance here. But I have yet to see a grievance articulated that isn't grossly misleading.

When I see remarks like 'The church was caught off guard by the backlash" I am dismayed and bewildered by the implication that the church has committed some sort of sin by failing to have its PR department run its excommunicaqtions policy. Is THAT really the world you want to live in?

[ November 08, 2015, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
So I think the real motivation is to create a clear division between the church and those who support others in their same sex relationships. Right now, a substantial fraction of the LDS church members know and support people in same sex relationships: generally their family members who are probably not observant Mormons"

As an attorney, I knew supported and protected civil right of same sex couples, but being a member of the LDS church is not a civil right.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
A side benefit for the church: children who are giving a name and blessing at birth, or baptized at 8, become part of the church's recorded population. It's much more likely for children with gay parents to end up leaving later (based on anecdotal evidence but I think for obvious reasons it's true). That leaves the church with either "inactive" members or exits. And that hurts their narrative of growth and success.

But your narrative of a supposed church narrative of growth and success doesnt ay attention to the actual church narrative. The news was still describing the LDS church as a rapidly growing presence in America a decade ago when the church was telling a starkly different story in General Conference: that the church had stopped growing overall in America.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So...the children of a parent in a SSM must move out of said parent's home, and disavow the relationship, in order to be a member in good standing, and you can't see how this issue is in the same ballpark as "shunning?"

[Roll Eyes]

[ November 09, 2015, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didnt say it wasmt in the same *ballpark*. Jesus said being angry with your brother is in the same ballark as murder. But only a really stupid or dishonest person pretends that he said that someone who gets mad is an actual murderer, or that a kid who peeps at a picture of a topless lady jas ACTUALLY committed adultery. Au fond, mon cher sp, your own contortions of reality are painfully parallel to those of the illiterate literalists who sent you running and screaming from the church of your childhood. Hope you can look at the subject with adult eyes when you grow up.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I also think that it's a bit hysterical and hatemongering to discuss excommunication and apostasy un the LDS church, comparing policies to Catholicism, without noting that the LDS church does not have centuries of established formal tradition of shunning and violence against apostates and excommunicants. And in fact such actions are explicitly forbidden by the book of mormon, the doctrine and covenants, and repeated teachings of modern living authorities.

To throw around those terms knowing that you will be misunderstood my 99 perdent of your listeners is to lie by omission.

The I could fully sympathize and might be inclined to agree if someone were to argue that LDS church may have overacted when it applied its precedent of plig marriages to ssm. But what I see here is an effort to coerce the church into change, by using obvious duplicity and gross ignorance and misunderstanding to creating a media backlash. Much as the right used Silent Scream to speed up and slow down the4 images of fetal movement to give the false impression of a baby fighting in frenzied agony against an abortion.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is the church policy adress the childrean of ALL samecsex couples or only against the children of same sex couples who have specifically used the rulings of a the United States Supreme Court to assert marriage status?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SciFi, i recognize that these are not the questions you had askec but that is because you have asked the wrong ****ing questions


The *last* time the feds declated war against the LDS church, the church had to recognize that declaration of war too. Burnt down Fort Sumpter against the march of the advance of federal troops.

As those troops wintered in the ashes of Fort Sumpter, they were, like the couples who have declared "Marriage" under the belligerent terms set forth by the same federal government, recipients of mormon church welfare. Mormons labored then and I suuspect will continue to labor now to see that those that war against them do not die in winter. And the church may compromise itself and offer terms of surrender now as it did then. But what it wont and cannot do is bend over and surrender without terms. Accept a Roman surrender. The church aint Nazi Germzany and it aint reasonable for you to expect a surrender on the same terms we gave the Nazis. The feds have declaredd war on the church and those that walk into the church waving their flag are, by definition, apostates, i.e. ersons who make war on the church. But unlike other historical 0organizations, the LDS church does not have a history of burning or strangling its apostates. So Kate's analogy is rather foolish, if not murderously stupid. Traditionally, at worst the lDS church locks apostates out in the cold for half a winter, brings them blankets and warm soup, then brings them in and negotiates terms for the church's surrender.

[ November 09, 2015, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The feds have declaredd war on the church...
When did they do that, exactly?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
he people who really care about this are not people who are ignorant of church culture - they are the families where a gay ex-spouse has joint custody, and suddenly this makes it impossible for the other parent to continue with raising the kids in the church in a normal fashion. I've seen several examples already of families that are directly impacted - and they are telling heartbreaking stories of their children's confusion about how living part of the time with dad and dad's husband is going to affect whether they can get baptized, ordained, or serve missions.

These are situations where the gay married couple had agreed to support the children's religious life, although such an accommodation was no doubt difficult. And the church has caused a crisis for those families that had already bent over backwards in favor of making church attendance as easy on the kids as possible.

In the future, it will cause parents to try to prevent such custody arrangements, tearing children away from one of their parents so they can continue to have full access to church ordinances.

All of these are excellent arguments that I hope that church leaders will consider prayerfully, weighed against the consideration of damage that would be inflicted on the church if its members were led to believe that "media backlash" was the reason for a change in policy.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The feds have declaredd war on the church...
When did they do that, exactly?
Exactly ... March 4, 1857. Sorry; I could not find the time of day.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I've been pretty immersed in talk about this issue for the last couple of days, and you're the first person I've seen mention the church welfare program. It hadn't occurred to me. So, two things: I don't think this is something people are concerned about, HOWEVER, it's nice to know that the church would not be against helping those children with material needs.

My point was broader that that. It was that equating LDS "excommunication' to Catholic excommunication, as Kate did explicitly and zs others seem to be implicitly, is painfully ignorant at best and hatefully doshonest at worst. LDS excommunication is closer to what the Catholics call defrocking, as the typical active member has duties comparable to those of a catholic deacon to parish priest. And to suggest that the LDS church is not concerned with the spiritual welfate of excommunicants is as misleading as claiming that Catholics dont care about the spiritual welfare of a defrocked Catholic priest, monk or nun. The folks that brought me, unsolicited, 8 bags of groceries last week also prayed with me and laid on hands to give a blessing. As conversant as you are in lds culture would you argue for a moment that (1) the LDS curch would withhold priesthood blessings and fellowship of the sort I just described from the kids of same sex couples or (2) that home visits, prayer and priesthood blessings or being welcome to LDS meetings does not represent an interest in their spiritual welfare as well as their spiritual?
I wasn't, actually, talking about Catholic excommunication at all; I was talking about baptism. Although your view of Catholic baptism is pretty skewed as well. And perhaps I should have been talking about excommunication in the sense that ex-communication is closer to what both Churches do. In Catholic excommunication, one is specifically denied communion, is prevented from being part of the Body of Christ. Now that doesn't mean that people can't be nice or charitable to them - but we are called to be charitable to strangers too. My grandmother went through this for decades and I saw how painful it was to her. We, as far as I know, don't do this to children.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
So...the children of a parent in a SSM must move out of said parent's home,,

In many states and Canada, an unemployed husband or adult son living from the proceeds of a prostitute who is his mother or wife, must by statute move out of her house or be charged with pimping. So at worst the church policy is less unfair that the actual law of the land.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate, I am offered communion each weeek but was asked in 2012 upon my excommunication to not take it until I was rebaptised into the church. Yes it is painful. But someone who has n0ot been baptised or exed (such as an unbaptised child or adult) is actually encouraged to take the saacrament. I will look uo a link to sources on this. So here again, we speak of drastically different policies.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots, wasn't it done to whole countries in the old days? Excommunicate the king and nobody gets sacraments, including kids? But that was the bad old days.

Pete, our laws on prostitution have changed. I don't know if it's still illegal to live on the avails.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" your view of Catholic baptism is pretty skewed as wel"

Please correct any of my staements that are incorrect. Did I err when I said that nonCatholics cannot take communion? Becayse when I attend Mass, I cross my arms and receive the priest's blessing rather than taking the Ostia (not sure what they are called in English). While I criticize Catholic history and doctrine where I disagree in this forum, I freely admit there are aspects of Catholic worship that I prefer to what I grew up with.

Since an unbaptised child or adult can take LDS communion, do you see why I resist the analogy to Catholic excommunication?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
kmbboots, wasn't it done to whole countries in the old days? Excommunicate the king and nobody gets sacraments, including kids? But that was the bad old days.

Pete, our laws on prostitution have changed. I don't know if it's still illegal to live on the avails.

It may have changed, but last I checked, prostitution in Canada was LEGAL but living on avails was criminal.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Our Supreme Court ruled that the law against living on the avails was unconstitutional. I don't remember the details of the Harper (spits) government's legislation in response.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
n Catholic excommunication, one is specifically denied communion, is prevented from being part of the Body of Christ. Now that doesn't mean that people can't be nice or charitable to them - but we are called to be charitable to strangers too. My grandmother went through this for decades and I saw how painful it was to her. We, as far as I know, don't do this to children.
The LDS church has never done that to children. The unbaptized child of an excommunicant can take "the sacrament" which is what Mormons tend to call Communion. (On that terminology and many other though not all points, Catholicism is more true to scripture than Mormonism. I dont claim to be unbiased but I try to give credit where it is due).
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Our Supreme Court ruled that the law against living on the avails was unconstitutional. I don't remember the details of the Harper (spits) government's legislation in response.

Thank you for the update. Good for Canada! Chalk another win for the paper King. I will have to read the decision. Would love to see how judicial review works in Canada, and I always love a story eith a happy ending. [Smile]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" your view of Catholic baptism is pretty skewed as wel"

Please correct any of my staements that are incorrect. Did I err when I said that nonCatholics cannot take communion? Becayse when I attend Mass, I cross my arms and receive the priest's blessing rather than taking the Ostia (not sure what they are called in English). While I criticize Catholic history and doctrine where I disagree in this forum, I freely admit there are aspects of Catholic worship that I prefer to what I grew up with.

Since an unbaptised child or adult can take LDS communion, do you see why I resist the analogy to Catholic excommunication?

Non-Catholics are discouraged from taking communion because Catholics and Protestants disagree about what the Host is. I am talking about communion in the wider sense. My parents are not Catholic but I was not required to disavow them when I became Catholic.

It is not merely baptism that is being denied to children with parents in a SS relationship. It is blessing and participation in those things that I have been led to understand are an important part of being in the LDS community such as mission work.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots, do you remember if Anglicans/Episcopalians have problems with trans-sub? Back when I was theoretically an Anglican I could never remember if I was supposed to skip communion at Mass.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I recall it being a big stumbling block between Catholics and Anglicans in the 16th century but some of them have worked it out since then. [Wink] Actually, there is a variety of opinions on trans v con- substantiation in the Anglican Church.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I've been pretty immersed in talk about this issue for the last couple of days, and you're the first person I've seen mention the church welfare program. It hadn't occurred to me. So, two things: I don't think this is something people are concerned about, HOWEVER, it's nice to know that the church would not be against helping those children with material needs.

My point was broader that that. It was that equating LDS "excommunication' to Catholic excommunication, as Kate did explicitly and zs others seem to be implicitly, is painfully ignorant at best and hatefully doshonest at worst. LDS excommunication is closer to what the Catholics call defrocking, as the typical active member has duties comparable to those of a catholic deacon to parish priest. And to suggest that the LDS church is not concerned with the spiritual welfate of excommunicants is as misleading as claiming that Catholics dont care about the spiritual welfare of a defrocked Catholic priest, monk or nun. The folks that brought me, unsolicited, 8 bags of groceries last week also prayed with me and laid on hands to give a blessing. As conversant as you are in lds culture would you argue for a moment that (1) the LDS curch would withhold priesthood blessings and fellowship of the sort I just described from the kids of same sex couples or (2) that home visits, prayer and priesthood blessings or being welcome to LDS meetings does not represent an interest in their spiritual welfare as well as their spiritual?
Uh, you need to catch up on your facts, Pete. Elder Christofferson - in his hurriedly taped interview to justify the policy - specifically mentioned home teaching as something they are trying to avoid in these situations.

Your outrage that someone might think this kind of excommunication is like Catholic excommunication is a uniquely Pete-like concern. That potential association is something that literally no one else cares about, because it has no impact on anything. And yet you're concerned that it might be murderously stupid. [Roll Eyes] (Not to mention, you didn't seem to understand her in the first place. This happens often enough that you should really make a rule for yourself to read her posts three times and check with someone else what a decent person might have meant by her words before you respond.)

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"True, it's not quite shunning that's involved"

It isnt shunning at all that's involved. And yet the media blitz attempts to protray that the issue *is* shunning. I dont see an honest effort by detractors to adress what the church actually is doing,

I wont say that there is not a real issue or grievance here. But I have yet to see a grievance articulated that isn't grossly misleading.

When I see remarks like 'The church was caught off guard by the backlash" I am dismayed and bewildered by the implication that the church has committed some sort of sin by failing to have its PR department run its excommunicaqtions policy. Is THAT really the world you want to live in?

Pete, I am not concerned about the church's PR. I'm concerned about the fact that the church did something that caused a great deal of pain to its members - and their ex- or non-mormon family members - without anticipating it. They don't understand. That's the problem.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Is the church policy adress the childrean of ALL samecsex couples or only against the children of same sex couples who have specifically used the rulings of a the United States Supreme Court to assert marriage status?

Again, I kind of wish you'd catch up on the facts before attempting to play apologist. It's cohabiting same sex couples as well as those who are legally married.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
n Catholic excommunication, one is specifically denied communion, is prevented from being part of the Body of Christ. Now that doesn't mean that people can't be nice or charitable to them - but we are called to be charitable to strangers too. My grandmother went through this for decades and I saw how painful it was to her. We, as far as I know, don't do this to children.
The LDS church has never done that to children. The unbaptized child of an excommunicant can take "the sacrament" which is what Mormons tend to call Communion. (On that terminology and many other though not all points, Catholicism is more true to scripture than Mormonism. I dont claim to be unbiased but I try to give credit where it is due).
I feel the need to point out that the church's reasoning for this policy also works to argue that those children should not attend church at all. They've said they don't want kids tormented by different messages at church and at home - that argument applies to church participation more than baptism.

It's honestly hard to believe them, for that reason. This is more about something OTHER than wanting to avoid confusing children. Or the rule would be against having them attend.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My parents are not Catholic but I was not required to disavow them when I became Catholic"

Nonmormons are not required to disavow their parents when they become Mormon.

I was told that an Orthodox Christian can take mass but an Episcopal cannot. A married Anglican priest or Orthodox priest can become a Catholic priest while remaining married. And a Hindu fakir can baptize you a Catholic in a pinch if no Catholic priest can be found, but a Mormon cannot, because apparently the lds "three persons in One God" poses mo0re of a difficulty that actual polytheism. Nevertheless the LDS church and Catholic church work together on many projects both spiritual and material with mutual respect and admiration. There are bigots in the trenches on both sides, sad to say. I have sharp differences with Kate but dont consider her a bigot.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
Your outrage that someone might think this kind of excommunication is like Catholic excommunication is a uniquely Pete-like concern"

Kate's the one who brought up the analogy to Catholic excommunication. And several of her argu,emts (eg denial of commun ion to kids) reflect her erroneos assumption that LDS doctrine and practive resemble the Catholic.

I also subit that eben if I was the first to bring something up, does not mean that others might not agree with me that it's relevant to the discussion and illuminates. If you did not think that these points cut against your argument, why would you labor to exclude them?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think I recall it being a big stumbling block between Catholics and Anglicans in the 16th century but some of them have worked it out since then. [Wink] Actually, there is a variety of opinions on trans v con- substantiation in the Anglican Church.

That explains why I was confused. We didn't have a proper rule. Figures.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"My parents are not Catholic but I was not required to disavow them when I became Catholic"

Nonmormons are not required to disavow their parents when they become Mormon.

I was told that an Orthodox Christian can take mass but an Episcopal cannot. A married Anglican priest or Orthodox priest can become a Catholic priest while remaining married. And a Hindu fakir can baptize you a Catholic in a pinch if no Catholic priest can be found, but a Mormon cannot, because apparently the lds "three persons in One God" poses mo0re of a difficulty that actual polytheism. Nevertheless the LDS church and Catholic church work together on many projects both spiritual and material with mutual respect and admiration. There are bigots in the trenches on both sides, sad to say. I have sharp differences with Kate but dont consider her a bigot.

I have no idea what you mean by a Hindu fakir baptizing people. It is true that ordinary Catholics can baptize in an emergency. The reason that someone who has been baptized in certain non-Trinitarian - not just LDS - traditions must be re-baptized if they convert to Catholicism is that - as you pointed out earlier - baptism means something different.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1