I learned in church today

[lambdacoug]

The leadership is doubling down on its anti-gay marriage stance.

[old_gregg]

I'm sorry. I was drinking last night and stepped out of Clack mode.

I can do better, and vow to do so.

did you drink any of that malted milk brian sent you?

[Crockett]

It would be nice if the Church came out and elaborated on this policy.

Another way to look at this is as being MORE respectful of the same-sex parents, rather than a slap in the face. It prevents parents and underage, living-at-home children from being put in a very awkward place. A place where children must adhere to a position that is at odds with the deeply held beliefs and practices of the parents while still living together and the parents are still raising their kids. It actually seems to me to be respectful of the parents to not have your children set at odds with you. This is a recognition that a parent's wishes and beliefs are respected. Until they turn of age and presumably mature enough to understand the difference between loving the people who raised you even if you don't agree with their lifestyle. It prevents contention and trouble in the home. The Church doesn't want to steal children away and pit them against their parents. The Church doesn't baptize underage children against the wishes of their parents even outside same-sex marriage situations. This is in line with that practice, too. I understand there could be situations where those parents would actually have given permission, but I suspect that would be a rather small number. This policy also allows for exceptions with First Presidency approval. The Lord and the Church play the long game -- the child will have every opportunity to join the Church in adulthood.

Some of you are so quick to assume the worst of motives for the Church on this.

[old_gregg]

It would be nice if the Church came out and elaborated on this policy.

Another way to look at this is as being MORE respectful of the same-sex parents, rather than a slap in the face. It prevents parents and underage, living-at-home children from being put in a very awkward place. A place where children must adhere to a position that is at odds with the deeply held beliefs and practices of the parents while still living together and the parents are still raising their kids. It actually seems to me to be respectful of the parents to not have your children set at odds with you. This is a recognition that a parent's wishes and beliefs are respected. Until they turn of age and presumably mature enough to understand the difference between loving the people who raised you even if you don't agree with their lifestyle. It prevents contention and trouble in the home. The Church doesn't want to steal children away and pit them against their parents. The Church doesn't baptize underage children against the wishes of their parents even outside same-sex marriage situations. This is in line with that practice, too. I understand there could be situations where those parents would actually have given permission, but I suspect that would be a rather small number. This policy also allows for exceptions with First Presidency approval. The Lord and the Church play the long game -- the child will have every opportunity to join the Church in adulthood.

Some of you are so quick to assume the worst of motives for the Church on this.

lol. all you gotta do is move out and disavow your parents' fag lifestyle once you turn 18. thanks for fostering civility and thoughtful discourse, church! also, this extends to every situation in which both parents are not active members. can't have it both ways.

[TripletDaddy]

It would be nice if the Church came out and elaborated on this policy.

Another way to look at this is as being MORE respectful of the same-sex parents, rather than a slap in the face. It prevents parents and underage, living-at-home children from being put in a very awkward place. A place where children must adhere to a position that is at odds with the deeply held beliefs and practices of the parents while still living together and the parents are still raising their kids. It actually seems to me to be respectful of the parents to not have your children set at odds with you. This is a recognition that a parent's wishes and beliefs are respected. Until they turn of age and presumably mature enough to understand the difference between loving the people who raised you even if you don't agree with their lifestyle. It prevents contention and trouble in the home. The Church doesn't want to steal children away and pit them against their parents. The Church doesn't baptize underage children against the wishes of their parents even outside same-sex marriage situations. This is in line with that practice, too. I understand there could be situations where those parents would actually have given permission, but I suspect that would be a rather small number. This policy also allows for exceptions with First Presidency approval. The Lord and the Church play the long game -- the child will have every opportunity to join the Church in adulthood.

Some of you are so quick to assume the worst of motives for the Church on this.

haha, knock it off Mark E Petersen. I assume you also are ready to let every black person drive a cadillac (if they can afford it)!

[SandYFan]

It would be nice if the Church came out and elaborated on this policy.

Another way to look at this is as being MORE respectful of the same-sex parents, rather than a slap in the face. It prevents parents and underage, living-at-home children from being put in a very awkward place. A place where children must adhere to a position that is at odds with the deeply held beliefs and practices of the parents while still living together and the parents are still raising their kids. It actually seems to me to be respectful of the parents to not have your children set at odds with you. This is a recognition that a parent's wishes and beliefs are respected. Until they turn of age and presumably mature enough to understand the difference between loving the people who raised you even if you don't agree with their lifestyle. It prevents contention and trouble in the home. The Church doesn't want to steal children away and pit them against their parents. The Church doesn't baptize underage children against the wishes of their parents even outside same-sex marriage situations. This is in line with that practice, too. I understand there could be situations where those parents would actually have given permission, but I suspect that would be a rather small number. This policy also allows for exceptions with First Presidency approval. The Lord and the Church play the long game -- the child will have every opportunity to join the Church in adulthood.

Some of you are so quick to assume the worst of motives for the Church on this.

What these two statements do is disallow anyone in a same-sex relationship to be a member of the church in any way. You are apostate and your children are not eligible for salvation. There is no room for believing church members who also practice a homosexual lifestyle. Zero.

[smokymountainrain]

It would be nice if the Church came out and elaborated on this policy.

Another way to look at this is as being MORE respectful of the same-sex parents, rather than a slap in the face. It prevents parents and underage, living-at-home children from being put in a very awkward place. A place where children must adhere to a position that is at odds with the deeply held beliefs and practices of the parents while still living together and the parents are still raising their kids. It actually seems to me to be respectful of the parents to not have your children set at odds with you. This is a recognition that a parent's wishes and beliefs are respected. Until they turn of age and presumably mature enough to understand the difference between loving the people who raised you even if you don't agree with their lifestyle. It prevents contention and trouble in the home. The Church doesn't want to steal children away and pit them against their parents. The Church doesn't baptize underage children against the wishes of their parents even outside same-sex marriage situations. This is in line with that practice, too. I understand there could be situations where those parents would actually have given permission, but I suspect that would be a rather small number. This policy also allows for exceptions with First Presidency approval. The Lord and the Church play the long game -- the child will have every opportunity to join the Church in adulthood.

Some of you are so quick to assume the worst of motives for the Church on this.

lol. a cup of CB over here on CS. love it!

[cougjunkie]

It would be nice if the Church came out and elaborated on this policy.

Another way to look at this is as being MORE respectful of the same-sex parents, rather than a slap in the face. It prevents parents and underage, living-at-home children from being put in a very awkward place. A place where children must adhere to a position that is at odds with the deeply held beliefs and practices of the parents while still living together and the parents are still raising their kids. It actually seems to me to be respectful of the parents to not have your children set at odds with you. This is a recognition that a parent's wishes and beliefs are respected. Until they turn of age and presumably mature enough to understand the difference between loving the people who raised you even if you don't agree with their lifestyle. It prevents contention and trouble in the home. The Church doesn't want to steal children away and pit them against their parents. The Church doesn't baptize underage children against the wishes of their parents even outside same-sex marriage situations. This is in line with that practice, too. I understand there could be situations where those parents would actually have given permission, but I suspect that would be a rather small number. This policy also allows for exceptions with First Presidency approval. The Lord and the Church play the long game -- the child will have every opportunity to join the Church in adulthood.

Some of you are so quick to assume the worst of motives for the Church on this.

Totally agree. Nobody is up in arms about polygamists or Muslims who are held to the same standard.

[Bigfoot is Cain]

It would be nice if the Church came out and elaborated on this policy.

Another way to look at this is as being MORE respectful of the same-sex parents, rather than a slap in the face. It prevents parents and underage, living-at-home children from being put in a very awkward place. A place where children must adhere to a position that is at odds with the deeply held beliefs and practices of the parents while still living together and the parents are still raising their kids. It actually seems to me to be respectful of the parents to not have your children set at odds with you. This is a recognition that a parent's wishes and beliefs are respected. Until they turn of age and presumably mature enough to understand the difference between loving the people who raised you even if you don't agree with their lifestyle. It prevents contention and trouble in the home. The Church doesn't want to steal children away and pit them against their parents. The Church doesn't baptize underage children against the wishes of their parents even outside same-sex marriage situations. This is in line with that practice, too. I understand there could be situations where those parents would actually have given permission, but I suspect that would be a rather small number. This policy also allows for exceptions with First Presidency approval. The Lord and the Church play the long game -- the child will have every opportunity to join the Church in adulthood.

Some of you are so quick to assume the worst of motives for the Church on this.

Good post. I can't say whether you are right or wrong, but at least you are giving another possible viewpoint, unlike these bastards who responded to you with scorn. I couldn't stand CB's ultra-orthodox lack of tolerance, but I see that the The Foyer is the same, in the other direction. It's been said many times before, but it's always funny to see how intolerant the self-labeled tolerant crowd can be.

Sometimes people will ask LDS Ute fans how they can cheer for Utah and against BYU. That seems like a silly argument. But I'm not sure why someone who disagrees with what BYU stands for, and the beliefs of the church, would want to cheer for BYU. If you really have such harsh feelings towards the church, and are sure that you know better, then I welcome you to pile on the bitter, disenfranchised bandwagon of the Ute 15% with SeattleUte, MPFunk, and their buddies. You're headed that way, so why wait.

[Sullyute]

haha, knock it off Mark E Petersen. I assume you also are ready to let every black person drive a cadillac (if they can afford it)!

[old_gregg]

Good post. I can't say whether you are right or wrong, but at least you are giving another possible viewpoint, unlike these bastards who responded to you with scorn. I couldn't stand CB's ultra-orthodox lack of tolerance, but I see that the The Foyer is the same, in the other direction. It's been said many times before, but it's always funny to see how intolerant the self-labeled tolerant crowd can be.

Sometimes people will ask LDS Ute fans how they can cheer for Utah and against BYU. That seems like a silly argument. But I'm not sure why someone who disagrees with what BYU stands for, and the beliefs of the church, would want to cheer for BYU. If you really have such harsh feelings towards the church, and are sure that you know better, then I welcome you to pile on the bitter, disenfranchised bandwagon of the Ute 15% with SeattleUte, MPFunk, and their buddies. You're headed that way, so why wait.

you are dumb

[Crockett]

lol. a cup of CB over here on CS. love it!

Ouch, that's actually a pretty mean thing to say.

[Crockett]

haha, knock it off Mark E Petersen. I assume you also are ready to let every black person drive a cadillac (if they can afford it)!

Same-sex attraction and marriage are not Blacks and the Priesthood 2 Electric Boogaloo, so stop comparing them.

[Flystripper]

Sometimes people will ask LDS Ute fans how they can cheer for Utah and against BYU. That seems like a silly argument. But I'm not sure why someone who disagrees with what BYU stands for, and the beliefs of the church, would want to cheer for BYU. If you really have such harsh feelings towards the church, and are sure that you know better, then I welcome you to pile on the bitter, disenfranchised bandwagon of the Ute 15% with SeattleUte, MPFunk, and their buddies. You're headed that way, so why wait.

can't do it, sorry bro.

[Crockett]

Good post. I can't say whether you are right or wrong, but at least you are giving another possible viewpoint, unlike these bastards who responded to you with scorn.

Since this is a religion forum I am going to drop some scriptures. Trigger warning in case some of you might find these offensive. These seem relevant to the way that many in and around the Church are responding to this matter.

1 Nephi 8

26 ... a great and spacious building; ...

27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; ... and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

...

33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.