Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Coach McGuirk]

What do you predict will happen?

Dinosaurs will become extinct.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Dinosaurs will become extinct.

Good I am no fan of lizards.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

What if Bruce R was always the voice of reason backing the church off the ledge in these decisions?

[Surfah]

Good I am no fan of lizards.

Not even terrible lizards?

[SeattleUte]

Anyone who says this is not a big change is being disingenuous. This does not just cover children adopted by a gay couple. The way it is written, anyone who has a married or cohabiting gay parent (<--singular) falls under this policy. We have a family in our ward where the husband left his wife for another man when their three sons were young. The mother won primary custody, but the father (who lived with his partner) had custody every other weekend and during parts of the summer. Mother was devout LDS and these kids were fully integrated into the ward. Baptism, ordination, scouts, youth conference, temple trips, everything. They were part of our ward family and everyone loved them and included them in every way. Under this new policy, this will not be possible. This is a stunning and far-reaching decision.

The point of this is to halt this very phenomenon, you dope.

[cougjunkie]

That's some pretty sophisticated logic, quarter roll

Thanks, assclown.

[LVAllen]

"a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. Although children are not officially considered members of the LDS Church until they are baptized at age 8, the blessing of a child creates a membership record. Children are not considered accountable or mature enough to receive baptism until the age of 8."

Sure, that's one way of doing it. Another way to create a membership record if the child is under 8 (and totally sanctioned by Handbook 1) is to simply get the parent's approval to create a membership record and then do it. This policy is about appearances, not doctrine. Not families.

[cowboy]

This is a bit disingenuous. The problem isn't the degree of surprise it is the clear homophobic tone implied in punishing the kids. You mentioned the polygamy example as an example of the church being consistent yet you didn't mention anything about kids that live with heterosexual parents that are living in a manner that is in direct conflict with church doctrine. Kids with parents that are cohabitating or addicted to drugs or who are openly and vehemently anti Mormon. These kids aren't restricted from being blessed or given a name or being baptized. In fact we would generally hail these kids as examples. But if your parents are gay (or polyg apparently) then the kid is treated differently. I think saying "what's the big deal, no surprise" comes off as a lazy way to approach what is actually a serious issue. Just my thought.

We have a lot of polygs, and if it is handled the same, exceptions are pretty easy to approve. A situation like JL described would be a slam dunk rubber stamp approval from the first presidency. Sure, kids are old enough to know right from wrong enough to get baptized at 8, but are they mature enough to decide whether they want to be a part of an organization that specifically excludes one or more of their parents? Probably not. This, like the polygamy policy, is just designed to allow kids to be old enough an mature enough to make that weighty decision.

I understand and empathize with the concern for kids and being punished for their parents' choices. However, if it is like the polygamist situation we deal with, they are able to participate in every way but go to the temple if they want to. It takes a few more hoops, but it is possible. Also, since this will likely involve very few kids, I think each case will be thoughtfully considered instead of just automatically approved/not approved based on what is written in the handbook.

I don't know why I bothered writing this, since everyone has their mind made up, but I guess it helped me not think about the cows I have on the mountain that are likely snowed in and rimrocked.

[Pelado]

"a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. Although children are not officially considered members of the LDS Church until they are baptized at age 8, the blessing of a child creates a membership record. Children are not considered accountable or mature enough to receive baptism until the age of 8."

Sure, that's one way of doing it. Another way to create a membership record if the child is under 8 (and totally sanctioned by Handbook 1) is to simply get the parent's approval to create a membership record and then do it. This policy is about appearances, not doctrine. Not families.

So if a child is born to a non-mormon parent or couple - gay or straight - a membership record can be created for that child just with authorization from a parent?

[Northwestcoug]

3D is correct, so don't get all worked up. We will see a back-track fairly soon.

If only the church had access to lawyerly advice that would have helped them craft a policy that wouldn't need to be back-tracked...

I'm sorry, I don't see any back-tracking anytime soon. I think the church is very deliberate in policy. They knew exactly what they were doing. If it ends up being revised, it will happen when the next version of the CHOI is slated to be rolled out.

[kccougar]

We have a lot of polygs, and if it is handled the same, exceptions are pretty easy to approve. A situation like JL described would be a slam dunk rubber stamp approval from the first presidency. Sure, kids are old enough to know right from wrong enough to get baptized at 8, but are they mature enough to decide whether they want to be a part of an organization that specifically excludes one or more of their parents? Probably not. This, like the polygamy policy, is just designed to allow kids to be old enough an mature enough to make that weighty decision.

I understand and empathize with the concern for kids and being punished for their parents' choices. However, if it is like the polygamist situation we deal with, they are able to participate in every way but go to the temple if they want to. It takes a few more hoops, but it is possible. Also, since this will likely involve very few kids, I think each case will be thoughtfully considered instead of just automatically approved/not approved based on what is written in the handbook.

I don't know why I bothered writing this, since everyone has their mind made up, but I guess it helped me not think about the cows I have on the mountain that are likely snowed in and rimrocked.

Exactly. Missionaries have rules restricting baptism of children for several different situations - polygamists, muslims, non-member parents, etc. As I see it they tend to be put in place to ensure that a child has a supportive family environment for new church membership and to eliminate as much as possible conflict within the family. This issue is a hot-button topic and has more emotion currently attached, but I honestly don't see it being significantly different.

[Mormon Red Death]

We have a lot of polygs, and if it is handled the same, exceptions are pretty easy to approve. A situation like JL described would be a slam dunk rubber stamp approval from the first presidency. Sure, kids are old enough to know right from wrong enough to get baptized at 8, but are they mature enough to decide whether they want to be a part of an organization that specifically excludes one or more of their parents? Probably not. This, like the polygamy policy, is just designed to allow kids to be old enough an mature enough to make that weighty decision.

I understand and empathize with the concern for kids and being punished for their parents' choices. However, if it is like the polygamist situation we deal with, they are able to participate in every way but go to the temple if they want to. It takes a few more hoops, but it is possible. Also, since this will likely involve very few kids, I think each case will be thoughtfully considered instead of just automatically approved/not approved based on what is written in the handbook.

I don't know why I bothered writing this, since everyone has their mind made up, but I guess it helped me not think about the cows I have on the mountain that are likely snowed in and rimrocked.

quick question... are your cows ever not in trouble?

[wuapinmon]

Knock it off

I won't take my name off the records of the church; they're going to have to get rid of me.

Lol, cabron.

You don't know what you just said, carepicha.

[Topper]

We have a lot of polygs, and if it is handled the same, exceptions are pretty easy to approve. A situation like JL described would be a slam dunk rubber stamp approval from the first presidency. Sure, kids are old enough to know right from wrong enough to get baptized at 8, but are they mature enough to decide whether they want to be a part of an organization that specifically excludes one or more of their parents? Probably not. This, like the polygamy policy, is just designed to allow kids to be old enough an mature enough to make that weighty decision.

I understand and empathize with the concern for kids and being punished for their parents' choices. However, if it is like the polygamist situation we deal with, they are able to participate in every way but go to the temple if they want to. It takes a few more hoops, but it is possible. Also, since this will likely involve very few kids, I think each case will be thoughtfully considered instead of just automatically approved/not approved based on what is written in the handbook.

I don't know why I bothered writing this, since everyone has their mind made up, but I guess it helped me not think about the cows I have on the mountain that are likely snowed in and rimrocked.

Your words are thoughtful. However, it does not appear leadership considered carefully the public backlash from its awkward approach to this issue. Ever since Proposition 8 blew up in its face, the Church has been in a lose-lose situation. If I read the demographics correctly, the Church is bleeding members at a rate unseen before in its history. The consistent negative press it is receiving hurts the declared mission of the Church, as they are just killing interest with Millennials and those younger.

Btw, I enjoy reading about your ranching as it reminds me of my family's gentleman ranching. We were by no means real ranchers because we were cityfolk driving to the ranch on weekends. Nonetheless some fond memories are evoked by your commentary. Keep it up.

[Topper]

I won't take my name off the records of the church; they're going to have to get rid of me.



You don't know what you just said, carepicha.

A bastard calling out a dick face. Lol.