Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I am not brainwashed, although nothing I say - nothing - could convince some of you otherwise.<< Hard proof always helps. Not circular reasoning.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'd also be surprised if he answers post 57. Although it would be fun if he did.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Our church teaches that the parents of a same-sex family should not have been married - and to fix the wrong they need to get a divorce.<< I wonder if anyone within the church reads statements like that and it ever gives them pause. Because if you think about that, especially considering the history of the Mormon church itself, it's just completely insane.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Back in the 70s and 80s, the LDS ran several heartwarming TV spots about patience and being kind and being honest. They were very appealing and welcoming. Every Mormon person I've met, every one, has been nice and friendly and kind. And then someone high up started listening to too much talk radio or something, and made a hard right turn. It culminated in Prop 8 and I think it has badly damaged the LDS brand. It's amazing to me, making that choice. As equality becomes more and more the norm, the church will be seen as an ancient relic within a generation with ridiculous policies of this sort (or wind up spending untold millions in marketing to undo the damage they've done in the past few years.) At this point, they seem to be moving more into the realm of Scientology.
Originally Posted By ecdc Word of the first (inevitable) suicides are emerging on social media. Teenage Mormons are killing themselves. Thank God this policy protects children.
Originally Posted By ecdc You know, until the LDS Church acknowledged in 2013(!) that it's policy against blacks had no divine merit and was solely the racism of past leaders, Mormons cooked up a lot of excuses for the ban. One of the most popular ones was that the priesthood/temple ban actually protected blacks. See, priesthood and temple blessings are very serious and so you have to be prepared for them and maybe because *the rest of the world* wasn't nice to blacks, they weren't ready for the blessings of the priesthood. That explanation holds up about as well as the new one that the LDS Church is just protecting children.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Going back a couple pages, so do Mormon children have to wait until they're 8 years old to get baptized?
Originally Posted By ecdc Yep. Eight is considered the "age of accountability" in Mormonism. Children who die before eight are considered without sin.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/11/10/mormon-boy-denied-priesthood-ordination-because-his-mom-is-living-with-a-woman/">http://janariess.religionnews....a-woman/</a> Reminder: the Mormon church is just protecting kids, they swear! Also, according to Josh, the story I linked to is not really happening, but is just bitter people trying to attack the church because Mormons are the real persecuted ones.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox After reading the article at ecdc's latest link, it is painfully obvious to me that the old farts running LDS are desperately trying to keep the Mormon community at large from accepting LGBT as healthy and natural. By deliberately refusing to accept minors living with gay parents and custodians, they foolishly believe their anti-gay stance will survive the 21st century. Only accepting backwards-thinking members who view homosexuality with as much disdain as they do is their last gasp to control a cultural shift towards gay-friendly attitudes. This situation reminds me of the old farts who left the Episcopal church back in the seventies when women were being ordained as ministers. Many of the older bishops couldn't accept women on the pulpit or administering the Eucharist, so they left. Now the discrimination is on the other foot and countless Mormons will soon be leaving their church. But those who leave will be taking their cues from Jesus who actually preached tolerance and deliberately reached out to those individuals ostracized by society. Conservative Christianity is antithetical to the very foundation of the religion. Jesus was a socialist. The Sermon on the Mount (the Beatitudes) was the very definition of socialist doctrine. Resorting to hate-filled ostracization of church members to further insulate yourself from emerging liberal values is not the Christian way, at least as Jesus would have seen it. Conservative Christianity is not "true Christianity" by a long shot. Church leaders and politicians who continue to define Christianity in their image to defend their bigotry is a guaranteed path to another Holocaust. And the sooner society denounces these fascist fundamentalist hate mongers, the better off we'll all be.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Church leaders and politicians who continue to define Christianity in their image to defend their bigotry is a guaranteed path to another Holocaust.<< I agree. And it is always amazing to me that some hardliners cannot or will not see the exact parallels between their narrow, angry, harsh worldview and that of extreme Islamists.
Originally Posted By ecdc I suppose I'm posting a lot because it is all *so much worse* than you can imagine if you understand something about Mormons and LDS theology. To outsiders, this is bigotry--exclusion of people and fear, but garden variety bigotry gays have dealt with for years. It's easy to shrug and say they're doing these kids a favor or roll your eyes and think "There go those scummy Mormons again." But if you are a believer in Mormon teachings and values, you essentially just said the children of gay parent(s) are not worthy of God's love or even salvation. I won't bore you with details, but Mormons believe the blessings you receive at baptism help protect you from the evils of the world and the temptations of Satan (who is *very* real in Mormonism). Mormons, who polls show care more about wholesome living than any other religious group, just condemned these children to a life of sin. So while outsiders see the defense of "we're protecting children" as patently silly rhetoric to justify bigotry, someone like me or other former Mormons on here know that it is so much worse. It is the opposite of protecting children--it is condemning them. It is as cynical and disingenuous as you can fathom. It is pure Orwellian. It is the spiritual equivalent of handing a drowning man a 50 lb stone and saying you thought it would save him.
Originally Posted By iamsally I cannot listen to you because my Mormon friend told me, "When people leave the Church they forget the truth and tell lies." So you are obviously lying! (This is, of course, being said facetiously.) I do feel for the faithful but I also hope this will help many of them to realize just how much they have been manipulated. I am sure that many of these kids, once they reach 18, will be thankful they got out of it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But if you are a believer in Mormon teachings and values, you essentially just said the children of gay parent(s) are not worthy of God's love or even salvation." Hell, these kids haven't done a damn thing wrong. Neither have their parents for that matter but the Mormons think they have. Rather than "punish" the parents they consciously decide to persecute the children. Make THEM feel bad because their parents are gay. That's just so twisted and cruel. In many cases, these kids are adopted and just happy to be in a loving home but wait- the Mormons think your parents are scum and will punish YOU for it. Go shame your parents kids so you can learn all about the funny underwear and the planet Kolob! It's a good thing I have no kids and more to the point, a really good thing I have nothing to do with the Mormon church. When someone goes after a person I love I tend to get violent. Board old timers might remember the story I related years ago about when I saw this a-hole try and drag my then-girlfriend into our apartment. This little latest Mormon fiasco makes me want to hit one on principle. Pick on KIDS? Really? But hey, Mormons obviously have their share of whackos (just about all of them have to be a strong measure of dysfunctional to even be in the cult) so I I were them I'd be very worried. We should all hope it does not come to this, but if it isn't a deliberate policy of picking on children, what's next that would provoke a despondent gay Mormon parent who is at his or her wit's end from picking up a weapon or two and storming the nearest temple? Look around folks, it's the trend anymore. Scary thought, but why not them too?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 In case anyone didn't read ecdc's link, it was about a family with 4 kids. The three younger kids are the biological kids of both parents, and the oldest is the biological kid of the father and his ex-wife. The ex is now living with a woman, and has joint custody with the father, so the kid spends time in both homes. He's 12 and now forbidden from being ordained to the priesthood, which apparently happens at that age (or maybe when he turns 13? Article doesn't say, but it sounded imminent.) The kid is "crestfallen" and his Mormon dad and stepmom are too. But this devout Mormon family is choosing... family. "However, that was impossible since he is legally required to live part-time in his biological mother’s home according to the terms of their joint custody agreement. Under the new policy, this makes him ineligible for most of the church’s rites until he becomes an adult—and even then only if he disavows his mother’s same-sex marriage. “That is just not an option for us,” Paquette says. “My husband and I feel that it would be wrong to have him disavow half of his family.” The shock wave of this policy change doesn’t just affect her son, though. Her eight-year-old daughter was scheduled to be baptized next week, and now that will not be happening. “Even though our three other children aren’t precluded from being baptized, we feel like we can’t continue to participate in church with the policy as it stands,” she says. “We have a strong conviction that it’s wrong.” The Paquettes have decided that they will either attend church together as a family, with all of their children treated equally, or they will find somewhere that is a “safe place” for the six of them. Paquette breaks down in tears at the thought of not being Mormon, which is “a huge part” of her identity. She does not want to have the family’s names removed from the rolls—“that would be really drastic, and would close a door”—but she won’t choose the church over keeping her family whole. “When you’re raised in the church, you’re raised to sustain your leaders. You’re taught that anything that comes from the church is from God, and to not sustain them is to not sustain God,” she says. “But I don’t know how we’re supposed to sustain something that tears our family apart.” So... looks like the church just lost that extended family, including the half-siblings without a gay parent, kinda like I thought could happen in post #58. I really don't think they thought this through. And a "revelation" will be coming sooner than it might have otherwise.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <"But if you are a believer in Mormon teachings and values, you essentially just said the children of gay parent(s) are not worthy of God's love or even salvation."> This is absolutely not true. I freely admit that this new policy is difficult for some members of the church. It is painful for some families with same-sex parents. It does not in any way communicate that God's love or salvation is held back.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Again, this policy is policy. It could change tomorrow and not bother me. It's not doctrine. I see how the policy can be beneficial in most cases. If you don't see it, you are choosing not to. I can see how the policy can hurt a small number of families. That's all people who have negativity toward Mormons see at all. I can see both sides. Can you? Be sure to understand it before you freak out: "Baptism is generally available to children at age 8. It is a considered a serious covenant, a bond or agreement with God, and it is the first of several on what church leaders in recent years have begun to call a "covenant path" through life that includes acceptance of church doctrine, including the doctrine of marriage. One of the culminating covenants is the covenant made together by a man and a woman when they are sealed in an eternal marriage solemnized in an LDS temple. The new policy released Thursday said a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship may be baptized, confirmed, ordained or recommended for missionary service only once the child reaches 18, no longer lives with a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship and "the child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage."" People are twisting that to say children must "disavow" their family, or have nothing to do with them anymore. That's just not the case. It's a hard thing for my church to exist in today's politial/social/moral climate. Our beliefs about sex being only allowed between husband and wife are going to be viewed with disdain and ridicule, that's just a fact. But they aren't going to change.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It does not in any way communicate that God's love or salvation is held back.<< It is, quite literally, held back for ten years. The idea that Mormons are pretending that the difference between getting baptized at 8 or 18 is no big deal is laughable. I'm going to pitch Back to the Future IV where Biff becomes a billionaire betting Mormons two weeks ago that they'd say baptism at 18 is just as good as baptism at 8, or that the Light of Christ is basically the same as the Holy Ghost. Josh, you're telling me you'd be fine with your own child just not getting baptized because, hey, the gift of the Holy Ghost is no big deal and your kids can just have the Light of Christ for a decade? You're telling me you think the years 9-17 aren't full of temptations for youth and that they are better off without the Holy Ghost? You're telling me that you think the odds are just as good a kid will want to join the church at 18 as they do at age 8? Again, in order to claim that this protects children requires you to ignore over a century of Mormon theology, teachings, and rhetoric. Oh hey, a General Conference talk from like three years ago about how important the Holy Ghost is, whaddya know! https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/an-unspeakable-gift-from-god?lang=eng Read that talk and then get back to me on how denying all those gifts to children is "protecting them."
Originally Posted By utahjosh An interesting perspective: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-cate-hickman/mormon-church-children-same-sex-marriage_b_8524406.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...406.html</a>
