The no blessings, no baptism policy just flies in the face of any current Christian sect practice that I am aware of. Who discriminates this way against babies and children? Mormons are now further discredited with mainstream religion. Did they not see this? It's a major loss in the image department. It's a major gain for people who already maintain that "Mormons are not Christians".

The way this whole thing is unfolding, I have to believe that nobody really sat down and reasoned the policy out to begin with, I mean from a practical perspective. What would the implications be and therefor how it would be implemented in various cases? How it would be perceived in the mainstream religions. How it would read to the population in general. (As far as that last, they've made themselves look as warm and fuzzy as the Westborough Baptist Church.)

Really?

"The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships..."
(Catholic News Service)

The Canadian and American Reformed Churches cite Biblical sources from Leviticus 20:13, which reads: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." A homosexual member of one of these churches will be placed under censure or excommunicated and can only be received again into the communion of saints and be admitted to the Lord's Supper in these Reformed traditions after he/she has declared repentance from his/her homosexuality, which the churches teach is a sin. Parents, in order to have their children baptized in the church, must promise to raise children according to the church's doctrines; parents under censure or excommunication cannot make such a promise, making minor children of censured or excommunicated members ineligible for baptism.

The Eastern Orthodox Church declares they will "not allow the sacraments to people who seek to justify homosexual activity."

Jehovah's Witnesses state that their church ""cannot give homosexuality a cloak of respectability."

Pentecostals: "Whereas the inerrant, inspired Word of God emphatically declares, in Romans chapter I, homosexuality to be vile, unclean, unnatural, unseemly, and an abomination in the sight of God, and Whereas the United Pentecostal Church International is a fundamental Bible-believing organism entrusted with a divine destiny to provide spiritual direction to a wayward world, Let us therefore resolve that the United Pentecostal Church International go on public record as absolutely opposed to homosexuality and condemn it as a moral decadence and sin."

And so on and so on.
Yes, there are a few christian sects that accept without reservation homosexuals, same-sex couples, and their children. They are far and away the minority -- not the mainstream.

Pope Francis continues to urge Catholic priests not to block gay couples from having their children baptized.
http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/pope-francis-tells-priests-do-not-deny-baptisms

michaelm (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pope Francis continues to urge Catholic priests
> not to block gay couples from having their
> children baptized.
> http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/chr
> istianity/pope-francis-tells-priests-do-not-deny-b
> aptisms

That Francis had to "urge" priests to NOT do that indicates that it's being done.
So even if they're changing (and notice that Francis hasn't issued a papal bull stating they CANNOT deny baptism, it's not "doctrine"), the change is VERY recent.

I agree with your points. I'm not Catholic by the way but I found it interesting that the Pope's message was so different from that LDS apostle's. Even though the Catholic church opposes same sex marriage, the Pope says that baptism should never be denied.

I agree it's encouraging that the current pope sees this practice as unjust. Great for him!

The difference is it wasnt done across the board as absolute policy. If your priest wouldnt baptize your child, you could find one who would. BTW,anyone can perform a valid baptism in the Catholic church. You dont have to even be Catholic. When my sister underwent nurses training she was taught how to baptize a Catholic baby in an emergency. Doctors and nurses often baptized premature babies who were not likely to live long enough for a priest to arrive. I read about a premature child who was baptized by a priest a doctor and several nurses who were not aware that she had already been baptized

That is very true. As an elementary school student attending weekly Catholic catechism classes, we were taught how to baptize in an emergency situation. Anyone can baptize in the Catholic faith. Of course, the ideal would be to get a regular church baptism ASAP.

I think that Catholics tend to view baptism as both a necessity and a right. I don't see the Catholic church denying baptism to an innocent child.

And beyond that, I've seen gay Catholics worshiping openly with their partners in Catholic churches. The church may not marry them but they are not thrown out or disparaged.

One more thing -- it sort of blows my mind that the Mormon church believes that a baptism can ever be taken away through excommunication. This would be unthinkable in the Catholic faith. Once baptized, always baptized.

They used to deny baptism to illegitimate kids, kids of divorce and kids with only one Catholic parent. I was born in the 60s and they still did this throughout my time in the Catholic Church and many congregations are still doing this now. Both in the US and abroad.

Denying communion to these kids and their parents happened then and still happens now, for the very same reasons.

Some will listen to the Pope on this, some will not. Because it is and none of it ever has been made doctrine. It was always up for discussion and debate and was always inelegantly, unequally and il liberally applied, on a whim, for spite, to maintain ir regain control of adherents and worshippers. It was always handled in a looser/less rigid way during a certain Popes tenure, then tightened up/more rigid during another's.

Same with requiring parishioners to register in only one parish and only attend mass in one parish church you were assigned to by street address or neighborhood/local area. That's gone by the wayside and isn't even remembered in most Catholic churches in the US these days---but not in all of them or by all of us who dealt with it.

Sounds as if the LDS church braying about their inspired revelation when the thing is said, trumpets sounding, then later walking it back and saying those who heard trumoets are deaf and those were the words of men, not God--doesn't it?

I grew up Catholic in the 60's and don't remember anyone being denied baptism. I don't remember anyone being turned away from communion. It almost sounds like we grew up in different churches.

I do remember being assigned a church as your home parish that made geographic sense in terms of where you lived. It did not prevent you from attending church elsewhere on occasion, and of course, you could attend whichever service at that church that you wished. Or you could stay at home and be a "twice a year" Catholic: Christmas and Easter.

^^^^What Summer said!

Agree. I grew up then and my dad was Catholic andmy mother Mormon. It wasnt an issuewith anyone I knew. My parents decided we should wait until we were old enough to decide for ourselves but both Mormons and Catholics offered baptism if we wanted it. I was born in 1949 and my siblings in the 50s.

The official position for Catholic leaders has been that if the parents, straight or same-sex, pledge to raise the child Catholic, then no girl or boy should be refused baptism.

Pope Francis isn't "changing" things in this regard. He is simply reiterating this doctrine for those pastors who are wading into the relatively uncharted territory of legal same sex marriage. There was a bishop in Wisconsin who apparently went rogue and wanted to have baptisms in such cases be run by him first. I don't know whether he was admonished or not but, unless shown otherwise, I am skeptical that any children were denied baptism. Remember, most babies don't just crawl to the Catholic Church on their own and demand to be baptised. Rather, they are brought there by adults who, if not in full communion with the church, can appoint godparents who are and commit to help raise the child into the sacramental life.

In my opinion, the LDS Church probably could have softened the PR backlash a bit if they allowed for blessings and baptisms and other ordinances to be done for the children under a "sponsor" who is a faithful member insofar as this is OK with the child's legal guardians. This could be a grandparent or Michael Corleone for all I care. It's not my call.

None of these outfits declines to bless or baptize children of gays.

That's the point.

Of _course_ many Christian sects and others disapprove of gay relationships. Nothing could be clearer!

Titanic Survivor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> None of these outfits declines to bless or baptize
> children of gays.
>
> That's the point.
>
> Of _course_ many Christian sects and others
> disapprove of gay relationships. Nothing could be
> clearer!

I listed at least three above that *do just that.*
And those that don't have only changed VERY RECENTLY.
Yes, mormons are being idiots, breaking up families, living in the past, blaming children for parents' behavior.
They're not unique in "christianity" on that, and they're not far behind even the most "tolerant" denominations.

I would not include Jehovah's Witnesses in a club called "normative Christianity".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2015 03:58PM by Nightingale.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would not include Jehovah's Witnesses in a club
> called "normative Christianity".

And Jehovah's witnesses probably wouldn't include you in that club. So?
There are more than 30,000 different christian sects, and they agree on precious little. And they all individually think they're "normal," and the ones who don't agree with them aren't.

So back atya, hie. It's not a contest. I just made a statement that JWs are in no way considered to be "Christian" by "normative Christians", which I take to mean "mainstream", in the OP.

I don't mean it as a slur or a judgement. It's just a fact. You included JWs as "normative Christians". Mainstream Christians do not. Fact. Just stating it.

The individual Christian groups agree on core beliefs, such as God's existence, "nature" is Trinity, baptism, salvation, Christmas, Easter, Sabbath. They diverge in other ways but still find a core on which they agree which can bring them together. However, ecumenical gatherings do not include JWs, Mormons and various other sects that do not believe in the core mainstream doctrines.

So, the "precious little" is enough for the mainstreamers. The outsiders are happy to be in their own club and do not even consider themselves to be "normal". They don't wanna be.

This is a tangent from the OP so I will stop now.

Nightingale, I agree that there is general agreement among Christian churches on fundamental beliefs, those beliefs which pertain to Christian salvation and the nature of God. Baptists might disagree, for instance, with Wesleyans on the issues of sanctification or eternal security but neither issue has a direct bearing on salvation. Most Christians can have fellowship with a broad range of Christians from different churches, an idea that might be surprising to many Mormons because the idea of the various denominations being at each other's throats fits in neatly with their idea of a general apostasy and a need for the restoration of a "one true church".

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...there is general
> agreement among Christian churches on fundamental
> beliefs, those beliefs which pertain to Christian
> salvation and the nature of God.

Well, sure, if the only churches you call "christian" are the ones who believe like (pick any random church) does.

Then again, if you pick another one, you'll wind up with a different set of agreeing churches.

And if you pick some "doctrine" other than, say, "is god three in one or not," you'll wind up with a different set.

> ...the idea of the various denominations
> being at each other's throats fits in neatly with
> their idea of a general apostasy and a need for
> the restoration of a "one true church".

Not agreeing on doctrine doesn't imply or mean "at each other's throats" (though that has been the case for a great deal of the past 400 years or so).
But seriously, anyone who actually studies the beliefs and doctrines of any reasonable subset of the 30,000 different sects can see that the disagreements far outnumber the few agreements. And "normative" is largely whatever one is used to or a member of, not a reality.

My point in bringing this up wasn't to justify the harmful, bigoted crap the mormons are pulling. It was just to point out that "normative christianity" is subjective and relative, and that comparing mormons to (pick any random christian church) doesn't get you very far, because they don't agree on much of anything, and ALL of them either have done recently or are doing now much the same as the mormons are doing.

In my opinion, the JWs are considered to be a cult by mainstream Christians. Pentecostals are considered fringe. I attended a Reformed church for a while and never saw nor heard any hint of discrimination against gays. The policies may be on the books but I question the degree to which they are enforced. And the Orthodox churches are off in their own little sphere.

They are more cultish than Mormons and are not generally considered by Christians to be Christian.

The thing about other anti-gay churches is that I'm not aware of any that have a policy punishing children for the "sins" of their parents. If anything, I'd think they would be very happy to have such people in their membership, having seen the light or whatever other bs.

That's the difference here. Hating on gays? Not just the Mormons. Punishing (in their eyes) the children of gays? Nobody else.

"What would the implications be and therefor how it would be implemented in various cases? How it would be perceived in the mainstream religions. How it would read to the population in general. (As far as that last, they've made themselves look as warm and fuzzy as the Westborough Baptist Church.)"

They don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and they are NOT a religion so why should they care about what religions think? They are an evil CULT and they are now proving it to the world.....

"what they are doing can only be described as evil." -

thank you. It looks like some are agreeing with me now about the CULT being pure EVIL.

What I was trying to ask in my OP is didn't they consider how this would play out for _them_. PR-wise. I know they don't care about the kids. I am sure the church has no conscience.

What they are doing, if they believe their own teachings, is turning innocent souls away that want to come to Christ through the ONLY "true church" on Earth.

It's breathtakingly cruel, if they actually believe in what they teach.

(I think it's all a load of crap. But assuming that THEY believe in the atonement, eternal souls, and returning to Heavenly Father through the only "true" church, what they are doing can only be described as evil.)

(Edited to add): And furthermore, for those TBM's that say it's only a "postponement", if it isn't important for the souls of children with gay parents to be baptized until the age 18, then why is it important for children with hetero parents to be baptized at age 8? Unless, of course, you feel that some children have souls that are worth more than others.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2015 05:21PM by fortheloveofhops.

Besides,how many kids who were denied baptism when they were eight are going to want to join when they are 18?. Whose fault is this? I am guessing not many. Didnt Jesus say that anyone who offends a child would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and being thrown in the sea?

Does this mean that all of those years of "Mainstreaming" were all wasted by the morg!???