Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<You are so blinded by your hate you refuse to even take a PEEK at the policy from another perspective.>> I read ecdc's article. This policy is tearing families apart, and confusing the hell out of their children. I get it, Josh. I know what this policy is attempting to accomplish: kill any acceptance on the part of LDS membership for gay marriage. That's it, Josh. PERIOD. LDS leadership doesn't care whose lives are destroyed by this policy as long as gay marriage is denounced by the membership. And it's the most cruel and inhumane a church can do to its most innocent and trusting members. Shame on you for being a willing participant in such an organization that pulls shyte like this on children! But you're addicted to what they're feeding you, so you're just as much a victim as they are. Pity.
Originally Posted By utahjosh You are still so blinded by your hate you refuse to even take a PEEK at the policy from another perspective.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck There are two perspectives here. One being clear headed rationality, the other being religious faith. In order to see your perspective Josh, you pretty much have to be a committed member of the church.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Those are two possible perspectives, but I would think a clear headed person could look at the other perspective without being a committed member.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>You can't see the danger or difficulties in that?<< If that were the real issue, then sure. But you have set apart having a gay parent (again, we're not just talking about gay couples raising children) as the ultimate sin. Why not say that children whose parents aren't married can't get baptized? Why not say children of parents who drink alcohol can't get baptized? Why not say children of Evangelicals can't get baptized? Why not say children with parents who are rapists and murderers in prison can't get baptized? Aren't you afraid that those children would be conflicted? As it is, this bizarre idea that Mormon households are totally homogenous flies in the face of reality. This is an entirely new theory in Mormonism that somehow children shouldn't be baptized if there's a conflict in their home. *All* Mormon households face some conflict or another because Mormons are humans who fail and sin (if you believe in that). I grew up in a household where my dad stopped paying tithing because he thought it was ridiculous. I had a conflict, but when I talked to people in the church about it, they didn't somehow suggest that this conflict could damage my precious little brain and I should avoid church. Josh, you and I both know that TONS of kids grow up in part-member and inactive homes. Have you *EVER* heard the church suggest those kids would be better off without the church? In fact, it's the exact opposite. Mormonism says these kids need the church because their parents aren't doing what they're supposed to! The only exception here is kids with a gay parent. >>To answer ecdc:<< You haven't answered at all, you've just repeated the talking points. Josh, answer these questions: Should a child of a mixed religious home not get baptized until they are 18 because of the conflict? Should a child with a parent in prison for rape not get baptized until they are 18 because of the conflict? Do you think the absence of the Holy Ghost in these kids' lives is more important than sparing them a conflict? If your daughter said she was going to wait until she's 18 to get baptized, would you have any problem with that and would you assume the Light of Christ was enough to get her by? And don't just repeat the same talking points about how kids have to get their parents permission. The stories we're talking about and the people affected by this are people who *have* that permission and the church just denied it to them anyway. Stop obfuscating the issue by talking about people who aren't affected by the new policy.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Josh, you and I both know that TONS of kids grow up in part-member and inactive homes. Have you *EVER* heard the church suggest those kids would be better off without the church? In fact, it's the exact opposite. Mormonism says these kids need the church because their parents aren't doing what they're supposed to!>> Bingo! The new policy flies in the face of past actions regarding other situations and "conflicts" in the home. This new policy has ZERO to do with protecting kids. It has EVERYTHING to do with reducing the number of gay-accepting children who will grow up to be gay-accepting adults who will ultimately put pressure on the church through various means to change their official stance on gay marriage.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The new policy flies in the face of past actions regarding other situations and "conflicts" in the home.<< Seriously. You have *NO* idea. As Mormon youth, we were encouraged to visit the kids in part-member homes and pay extra attention to them. We were encouraged to befriend the kids whose parents didn't come to church and make sure they still came. There has never, ever, ever been a policy or doctrine or anything else in the LDS Church that says children should not be baptized as a way to protect them. It has been, quite literally, the opposite. (Josh is correct there is a policy that kids can't get baptized without their parents' permission, but that's obviously to protect the church from lawsuits and it's seen as a kind of necessary evil. A week ago you'd never find a Mormon who said it was good these kids can't get baptized to "protect" them.) There aren't enough emojis, bolds, italics, all-caps, or adjectives for me to express just how full of crap this Mormon explanation is that they are "protecting children." It is the very antithesis of every single thing I experienced growing up Mormon and every single thing I know about it now.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Thanks for not hating me. But being compared to someone who abused his wife didn't come across as love.>> JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU?? I did NOT compare you to the abusing husband! I was comparing you to the ABUSED wife! Your church is abusing you into believing that they are "protecting the children" with this new policy. And just like a battered, abused spouse... you're buying the BS 100%. I'm guessing you also would have shocked into silence that study participant in Milgram's infamous experiment, no matter how many times he would have pleaded for you to stop. Never question church authority. Never. Never. Never. Right, Josh?
Originally Posted By ecdc Josh, it occurs to me that if this is the way you portray it--that the LDS Church has for years encouraged children to not get baptized if there's a serious conflict in their home, or that delaying baptism is okay because it's such a serious responsibility, then you should be able to provide us with dozens of examples of church leaders saying just that. Surely you can find several General Conference addresses where apostles tell the membership that if their eight year old isn't ready, they should wait. OTOH, I found several articles in the Friend (the LDS magazine for children) that tell children to not delay or wait for baptism. Here's just one: https://www.lds.org/friend/1989/07/brother-to-brother-part-seven?lang=eng It's a series of letters between a young boy and his missionary brother. Here's what Mormons have taught children in their official magazine: >>Getting baptized is a wonderful event. Of course I would like to be there for your baptism, but I certainly don’t want you to wait just for me. It’s too important! And there’s no advantage in waiting until you’re old before you’re baptized. In fact, Mr. Rockwell wishes that he could have found the Church when he was much younger so that he could have been baptized then. You see, waiting until the end of your life to be baptized would be like waiting until the end of a baseball game before putting on your catcher’s equipment. Baptism makes us clean of all our sins, the ones both before and after we’re baptized, if we truly repent of them. Your baptism now will be a blessing to you throughout your life. And every time you take the sacrament, it’ll be like renewing your baptism. And two other great things happen when you get baptized. One is that you’ll become a confirmed member of the Lord’s Church. The other is that you’ll be given the gift of the Holy Ghost to help you have a fuller, happier life.<<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Take a breath and realize that just because we believe gay sex is a sin, that doesn't make us terrorists." 'Fraid it does, big boy. Own it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "That's a good try at reading my heart and soul, but you're incorrect, skinnerbox." There's no heart and soul of yours to read if you really believe the bile you're spewing here, josh. This is hands down the worst thing yet about your cult. It's just that you're so beyond brainwashed you don't see it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But the law of chastity isn't going to change in our church, no matter how many times others say it will.> I figure they'll be just about as behind-the-times on this as they were with black people. Which means that it won't be tomorrow, but it also means the clock is ticking. And if this loses the church enough extended families like the one in the article with the 3 kids who DON'T have a gay parent but just a step-brother with one... this policy may do the opposite of what it intends, and hasten it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<And if this loses the church enough extended families like the one in the article with the 3 kids who DON'T have a gay parent but just a step-brother with one... this policy may do the opposite of what it intends, and hasten it.>> I've got a similar feeling as well, Dabob. I believe this is going to backfire on LDS leadership, leaving them holding the bag of a very messy situation. The old SWCM leadership in SLC simply doesn't want to change with the world. In their minds, it's still the 19th century. All of them enjoy the benefits of living in a modern technologically advanced civilization, but refuse to acknowledge the societal gains that made this form of living possible. They want to have it both ways -- 21st century living with 19th century values -- which is impossible to maintain for the long haul. Members will become dissatisfied and eventually leave, which will ultimately doom the current power structure. Once again, it's not about protecting the children. It's about protecting the old SWCM leadership at the top. Why else would this new policy require ONLY the children and step-children of gay-married parents to resoundingly denounce those marriages before baptism? Why isn't this being required of ALL Mormons before baptism? Why only the children of gay parents? If gay marriage is such a diabolical threat to the LDS Church, then why not require ALL members to make a very public statement against gay marriage? Why force only the children of gay parents to renounce these legal weddings? Is it because leadership stupidly believes these children are the only ones who accept gay marriage? Yeah, right. If this is how LDS leadership is going to take their church into the 21st century, then it needs to fall into the waste bin of history, once and for all. Tearing families apart and emotionally torturing children in defense of 19th century bigotry is not Christian. It's not what Jesus would do. EVER. LDS is nothing but a political machine designed to keep the leaders at the top filthy stinkin' rich. And they're using religion as the means to con their members into compliance to make that happen. Good riddance.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Dollars to donuts that the judge is Mormon: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/utah-couple-ordered-to-surrender-foster-child-because-theyre-gay_56449f50e4b060377347d05c">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...7347d05c</a> <> For the last three months, April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce have raised their foster child like their own. Now they claim that a Utah judge has ordered the baby to be removed from their care, not because of anything they've done, but because they are lesbian women. "It's heartbreaking," Hoagland of Price told KUTV while fighting back tears. "I was kind of caught off guard because I didn't think that anything like that would happen anymore." On Tuesday, Judge Scott Johansen, of the state's Seventh District, ordered the removal of the one-year-old and placement into the care of a heterosexual couple for the child's wellbeing, the Associated Press reported. Hoagland said the juvenile court judge cited research in the courtroom that children do better when they are raised by heterosexual couples. She said when he was asked to produce his research, the judge said, "he would not." "I believe that it's a religious belief," she said of Johansen's decision. The married couple -- who are already raising Peirce's two children, ages 12 and 14 -- told KUTV that they have passed home inspections, background checks and interviews from the state's Division of Child and Family Services. They said the baby's biological mother also wants her child to stay with them. "It's not fair and it's not right and it just hurts me really badly because I haven't done anything wrong," Hoagland said. The couple isn't alone in their disbelief. Democratic presidential candidate hopeful, Hillary Clinton, voiced her opinion on the issue on Wednesday in a tweet with a link to the story. "Being a good parent has nothing to do with sexual orientation -- thousands of families prove that," she wrote. The Human Rights Campaign also dove into the discussion. "Removing a child from a loving home simply because the parents are LGBT is outrageous, shocking, and unjust," Chad Griffin, the gay and lesbian political action committee's president, said. "It also flies in the face of overwhelming evidence that children being raised by same-sex parents are just as healthy and well-adjusted as those with different-sex parents. At a time when so many children in foster care need loving homes, it is sickening to think that a child would be taken from caring parents who planned to adopt,” he continued. Hoagland and Peirce said they are seeking an attorney to fight the judge's decision. A spokeswoman for the state's Division of Child and Family Services has also said they plan to review the order and see what options they have to challenge it. Attempts to reach Hoagland, Peirce and the foster child’s attorney for comment were not immediately successful. The story will be updated with more information should we hear back from any of the parties. <> So... the judge refused to produce evidence of these so-called studies demonstrating that children do better in heterosexual households. Of course he didn't. Because they don't exist! This judge, like LDS leadership, is pulling all of this anti-gay propaganda outta his butt. And if he is actually genuinely concerned for the baby's welfare... why isn't he concerned for Peirce's other two children being raised in that environment? Why isn't he ordering psychological testing on them to prove that having two moms is damaging them? Oh, that's right. Because social services gave the household their seal of approval. The lesbian moms are doing NOTHING WRONG. There is no basis for the government to intervene and take away Peirce's other children. The judge is simply exercising his religious indignation and removing the foster baby because of bigotry and pseudo science. He doesn't have the legal authority to do so with the other kids. Effn unreal.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox The judge in the above post is a total whack job: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/11/12/3721645/utah-same-sex-foster-child/">http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/...r-child/</a> <> Given marriage equality is now the law of the land, it may have seemed that same-sex couples are now fully protected from the myths that their families are inferior. This week, however, a judge in Utah cited anti-gay research to justify removing a child from her same-sex foster parents’ care. According to KUTV, Judge Scott Johansen ruled that April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce were unfit parents because they are a same-sex couple. He ordered the baby they’ve been raising for three months be removed from their home in the next week to be placed with heterosexual foster parents. Hoagland and Peirce are married and were approved as foster parents earlier this year, passing all inspections, background checks, and interviews. They also are already raising Peirce’s two children, ages 12 and 14. The child’s birth mother is similarly upset by the situation and wishes to see her daughter stay with the couple. Nontheless, in an as-yet-unreleased opinion, Johansen claimed there were “a myriad” of studies supporting his position that the child should live with a heterosexual couple. According to the couple, he would not identify his citations. It seems likely Johansen was swayed by research from individuals like Mark Regnerus, Douglas Allen, and Donald Paul Sullins. These studies intentionally chose not account for how families formed or the negative impact of parents separating. Thus, the “children of same-sex parents” with negative outcomes were actually children whose different-sex parents split and then one of them later had some form of same-sex relationship. None of these studies compared children raised by married same-sex parents to children raised by married different-sex parents. Most importantly, these stories are severe outliers. In fact, so many studies have confirmed that same-sex couples make good — if not better — parents that the research community had already achieved consensus on this point decades ago. The Utah Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) is struggling to figure out how to respond to the decision. The agency recognizes the decision may not be lawful because of its discrimination against same-sex couples, but it is also required to follow court decisions. Utah currently has some 2,600 children in foster care. Johansen has a long history of bizarre and offensive actions in rulings. In 1997, he was reprimanded for slapping a 16-year-old boy. In 2012, he forced a mother to cut off her 13-year-old’s ponytail in court, punishment for the teenager cutting the hair of a 3-year-old. A month later, he sent a teenage boy to juvenile detention, concluding that his poor report card was not the result of a possible learning disability, but a violation of his probation — he had been convicted of shoplifting a pack of gum. DCFS is investigating options for how to act given the order required the child be removed within a week and an appeal hearing isn’t scheduled until early December. <> Yup. I'm positive he's Mormon. You must be very proud of him, Josh. He's out there fighting the good fight, trying to keep children safe from the evil clutches of gay marriage. Oy vey. I just wanna barf all over my keyboard.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm trying, as Josh suggests, to PEEK at this from an open minded perspective. Part of this new LDS thing is that in order to become baptized at 18, the child (now an adult) must disavow their same sex parents' lifestyle and move out of the home. Are there similar requirements for households where one or both parents are addicts, drunks, or having affairs? If this policy is unique and inconsistent with other forms of "grave sin" then I would ask Josh to at least give us the credit of acknowledging that. I know he's not going to go so far as to ever, ever criticize anything the LDS church takes a position on. He has an unbreakable allegiance to the church no matter what, and that's his choice. But I wonder what, in the church's view, it means to disavow? Is the LDS church asking these children to not celebrate holidays with their same sex parents? To avoid allowing their gay parents to be involved in their grandchildren's lives? Where does it end? How far is far enough? Josh, you said the church wants these gay partners to divorce. If that happens, which parent, if either, is allowed to maintain contact with their children?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm also curious to know: Is it a sin, or a lesser sin, for a man to pretend to be heterosexual, marry a woman, create new life, even if in his heart he knows it all to be a lie? I mean, can't God see that, even if it fools the rest of the world? Isn't trying to fool God a huge sin?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Are there similar requirements for households where one or both parents are addicts, drunks, or having affairs?<< None at all. And again, quite the contrary, the church would identify those children as perhaps needing baptism even more, so they can have the influence of the church in their lives. The closest thing this comes to is an LDS policy on baptizing the children of polygamists. Those children are also required to be 18 and to disavow polygamy. I don't love this policy either, but it makes some sense if you subscribe to Mormon beliefs. 1) Mormons have an uncomfortable heritage with polygamy. You cannot overstate how hypersensitive they are to it and they want to avoid being associated with it. 2) There is at least some evidence that, in the past, polygamous parents have had their children baptized into the mainstream Mormon church so their children can later participate in LDS temple ceremonies, then the children return to the polygamous lifestyle. In short, the policy towards polygamists' children is at least consistent with other Mormon attitudes and beliefs. The new policy towards children of gay parent(s) is nothing less than a completely radical shift in how Mormons view who can be baptized and why.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm also curious to know: Is it a sin, or a lesser sin, for a man to pretend to be heterosexual, marry a woman, create new life, even if in his heart he knows it all to be a lie?<< Well it's interesting you bring this up.... Part of the dilemma right now that the church faces is its own disastrous doing. For years the church openly told gay men and women to just marry someone of the opposite sex and their gay would go away. It's backed off of this a little bit, but not by much, and it remains a common attitude among many Mormons. Remember, a lot of LDS still don't think being gay is a "thing." People experience "same-sex attraction" and it's a temptation and a burden, which when framed like that implies it can be overcome. "Living a gay lifestyle" is still a choice, as far as Mormons are concerned, so living a straight one is a choice too. So to this day there are men who know they are attracted to other men, but they go to BYU, they meet a nice girl, and they marry her hoping it'll fix it all. The end result is what the church has right now: tens-of-thousands of children of gay people who tried to be straight and couldn't. That's why most of the stories you read about who this affects are children being raised in a heterosexual home by a parent and a step-parent who also have a gay father or mother.
