I haven't seen a thread devoted to fact-checking the Otterson statement released yesterday.
See: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article...
I get the sense it is jammed with a lot of false information.
A few thoughts to get the ball rolling:
1. In defending a policy that denies blessings to certain babies, it is probably not a good idea to lead with:
If there's one thing that virtually all Christians agree on, it's Jesus Christ's tender love of children. Both the Bible and Book of Mormon deliver touching accounts of His love for "little ones," blessing them and forbidding His disciples from keeping children from Him.
2. In promoting a policy that flatly contradicts core established Mormon doctrine in AoF 2, it might not be wise to include:
Of course the Savior's love was never withheld from anyone and His words on the cross exemplify that. But, He also expressed love by teaching clear doctrine and standing firmly against sin with sometimes-tough lessons for which people rejected Him.
3. When you are claiming the divinity of a new policy that punishes children for the acts of their parents, why include the following:Of course the Savior's love was never withheld from anyone and His words on the cross exemplify that. But, He also expressed love by teaching clear doctrine and standing firmly against sin with sometimes-tough lessons for which people rejected Him.
4. I have a genuine question about this next one. In his statement, Otterson tries to show all the other policies the Church has that deny ordinances to others. Some I had heard of, but this one I had not:
A married man or woman isn't baptized if the spouse objects.
Is this true? Maybe it is and I had never heard of it? So if a 40-year old man wants to be baptized into the LDS Church, the Church will forbid him baptism if his wife objects?
This is a new one on me. If it is true, it is true. But I get a sneaking suspicion Otterson is trying to pull a fast one here.
|
