Nobody around here seems to really like or understand the policy, but "we don't want to create conflict in families" is a million miles from "gays are worse than rapists!"Originally Posted by Scorcho
Nobody around here seems to really like or understand the policy, but "we don't want to create conflict in families" is a million miles from "gays are worse than rapists!"
clearly, nobody would even think of equating the two.
but, why have a policy that focuses on gay parents exclusively. It's blatantly homophobic.
I don't want to dive into this discussion but I'll just note that the same policy applies to children of polygamous parents. In fact, this one was modeled on that one. I have issues with how the new policy was rolled out, among other things, but I don't think it singles out any group. Ugh. I hate this.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Like many things, the policy was an answer seeking a problem. The policy of the LDS Church has always been that minors need parental permission to receive an LDS Church ordinance. This policy preventing such ordinances to the children of same sex marriages, even when the parents consent, is unnecessary. I guess that, instead of the parents saying no to Johnny's baptism, the parents can now say that the church you want to join won't let you join because of our marriage.
File this for what it is worth, I personally don't put too much credence in it which is why I never mentioned it. I also agree with the "solution looking for a problem" analysis.
However, BEFORE the policy a LDS church employee I know told me there was a group of gay parents in CA who were going to LDS churches and asking that their children be blessed. For you ward clerks out there you know you fill out a paper or online form that requires a mother and a father before a blessing. Uncertain what to do resulted in multiple calls to the COB that triggered issues.
Later when this happened he said he believed it was a response to that.
Like I said, I don't know and I said to him at the time it seemed a pretty dramatic response to a clerical issue.
File it for what is worth, which is less than the pixels it is taking.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Polygamous parents promote/teach their children about the virtues, advantages and "correct doctrine" of polygamy beginning at a very young and impressionable age. Gay parents are not known to promote the advantages, virtues and correct doctrine of being gay to their children. There's little, if any, relationship between the two situations IMO.
“Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman
"You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb
"Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.
The relationship between the two is that there is potential for family strife/pain/hurt.
I agree with UTEopia that this was a solution without a problem. The hypothetital problem was that kids would be baptized and then be taught that their parents are living contrary to the commandments of the church. It's not hard to imagine how that could be bad for a family.
Don't like what I wrote, so I'm deleting it. Sorry.
Last edited by sancho; 03-26-2017 at 10:02 AM.
A Protected Class of Sin -- Mormon Women Stand
http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/protected-class-of-sin/
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
This policy is not about not creating conflict in families. Not in the slightest.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
So I said to David Eckstein, "You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
--fjm.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote