Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Solon]

Here is the exact wording:
Some claim that exceptions will be freely given. But it seems to state very specifically that approval from the FP can only be sought after the child is 18. Please help me understand what I am missing.

I'm no attorney, but #2's saying that a "child is of legal age" doesn't make sense to me. That's called an adult.
I doubt any missionaries are going to hesitate to baptize a 30-something person who has a gay parent. That ridiculous scenario smacks of missionaries asking to see family photos to make sure that there wasn't any African heritage.

At the end of the day, isn't this all about legitimization? Allowing gay-married LDS to live normal LDS lives with every right, responsibility, and privilege of the LDS faith - except for temple stuff - leaves open the logical gap that gay-married LDS are, in fact, living the law of chastity (in a legalistic sense) and therefore should be eligible for all of the faith's blessings. Similar to the way that people of African descent were members, but not full-fledged members (this is SeattleUte's point above), the church wants to avoid creating a second class of members. So, they're drawing the line and tightening the ranks.

So, I see the logic behind this policy. It's just too bad, though, that this is the corner into which they've painted themselves. It seems to run counter to the softening rhetoric of the past few years - even this past summer when the church noted that gay-marriage was similar to drinking alcohol; both are legal, but neither is acceptable in LDS standards. Last time I checked, people who drink alcohol aren't summarily excommunicated (although flystripper should be worried).

[cougjunkie]

CJ, your bullshit is a little over the top. Maybe take it down a few notches.

Nah I'm good.

[smokymountainrain]

Daughter says everyone at BYU is furious.

apparently cougarboard doesn't represent BYU very well. I get that most CBers are no longer at BYU, but I would have guessed people wouldn't have become even more conservative after leaving.

[cougjunkie]

Daughter says everyone at BYU is furious.

They are not.

You guys need to knock it off. Everyone at BYU is accepting it as Gods plan.

Every faithful Mormon once they read further explanation is fine with it.

It's the guys on this board who are already halfway out the door and the apostates who have a major problem with it.

[Bo Diddley]

you need to copy and paste. some of us can't read that.

And some of us won't read it on principle.

[New Mexican Disaster]

The church is unnecessarily pissing off 80% of the 18-22 aged members, 50% of age 23-69 age members, and 1% of the 70+ members. What benefit do they get from it? I don't see any. When you're getting your ass kicked, it's best to just walk away from the fight.

Damn good point. There is no tangible benefit. It's not just mean spirited, it is politically tone deaf and idiotic.

[jay santos]

apparently cougarboard doesn't represent BYU very well. I get that most CBers are no long at BYU, but I would have guessed people wouldn't have become even more conservative after leaving.

I was surprised a while back when all three of my teenage children were arguing against my wife on gay marriage. From what I see, the younger generation, even among active LDS, just does not want to take on this issue.

[Green Monstah]

It seems to run counter to the softening rhetoric of the past few years - even this past summer when the church noted that gay-marriage was similar to drinking alcohol; both are legal, but neither is acceptable in LDS standards. Last time I checked, people who drink alcohol aren't summarily excommunicated (although flystripper should be worried).

Any goodwill they garnered through the Christofferson family and the mormonsandgays website is gone, which is sad.

[Northwestcoug]

Nah I'm good.

I was going to say, your assholery today is pretty much par for the course. Carry on.

[Green Monstah]

Nah I'm good.

You're really not, man.

I hope this is just bullshit internet bravado, because otherwise, you may be the most vile person I've ever had the displeasure of encountering in any context or situation. And I deal with plaintiffs' attorneys all the time, so that is saying something.

[Paperback Writer]

Lol at anyone who thinks this is in the interest of children of gay parents, as if the church has ever put official policies in place to ensure all young converts have a stable family background before they get baptized. This policy has one simple goal but many collateral effects: clearly demarcate gays and allies as apostates so the majority of the church can go along safely believing their doctrine of marriage.

I think it could also have the effect of forcing gays back into the closet who may want to affiliate with the church and/or raise their children in the church. In other words, OK to be a gay single parent as long as one is not openly gay and the gay relationship is not public. It reminds me of a relative that was a closet gay but stayed married and active in the church for the sake of raising his children in the church.

Somewhat related is a relative who learned that an ancestor was African American who had lived in Utah Territory and this relative was terrified (pre-1978) that if it became known to the church he would lose his priesthood and temple marriage and that his young sons would not be eligible to serve missions. It was interesting how quickly his genealogy got straightened out after the 1978 revelation. I later learned that there were many other active LDS males related to this African American ancestor and the church was OK with them holding the priesthood as long as it wasn't discussed publically or mentioned to priesthood authorities. So I think the Church could take a similar approach with gays. It will be OK to be gay and participate in the church and raise your kids in the Church as long as one is not public about being gay. I don't think this is a good approach for obvious reasons.

[TripletDaddy]

Day 1 was the initial flood of ironic religious memes flying around and general facebook indignation.
Day 2 everyone is sharing their hypothetical situations to illustrate the many ways in which the policy would affect people. Also we see apologists prairie-dogging but retreating quickly into hiding.
Day 3 is usually the sky-is-falling progmo predictions of the end of Mormonism and quasi-insiders from reddit with rumors of mass apostasy. Day 3 is usually my fave because that is where guys like SIEQ shine, quoting a lot of other people with stuff that has been said before anyway, referencing his interfaith counsel pancake breakfasts, and bemoaning the impending end of days. In this case, SIEQ jumped the gun on Day 2 but I will give him a pass, as long as he shows up tomorrow with some good stuff.

[TripletDaddy]

Daughter says everyone at BYU is furious.

at gays.

[Levin]

By Common Consent has been spot on with this issue. They've had some good posts. This new policy is, as a matter of doctrine, off the rails and false. The below quote is from one of BCC's posts:


“In some minds there seems to be an idea that there should be a different form of blessing for children born of non-members and for those who are identified with the Church; and it is from such sources that in the case of children belonging to members of the Church ‘the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ and all the attendant favors are frequently conferred upon the child. This is all wrong. If we take the example of our Lord and Redeemer, who is our pattern and whose example we cannot too closely follow, we find that He blessed all who were brought to Him. We have no hint that He asked whose children they were, or the standing or faith of their parents. His remark was, ‘Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven;’ and He laid His hands upon them and blessed them. All little children, no matter what their parentage may be, are innocent in the sight of heaven, and they should be received as such and blessed as such.”
The Editor [George Q. Cannon], “Topics of the Times,” Juvenile Instructor 34 (March 1, 1899): 137-138. Reprinted in Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 61 (March 30, 1899), 198-199; Latter-day Satins Southern Star 1 (April 29, 1899): 170.

[TripletDaddy]

By Common Consent has been spot on with this issue. They've had some good posts. This new policy is, as a matter of doctrine, off the rails and false. The below quote is from one of BCC's posts:


“In some minds there seems to be an idea that there should be a different form of blessing for children born of non-members and for those who are identified with the Church; and it is from such sources that in the case of children belonging to members of the Church ‘the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ and all the attendant favors are frequently conferred upon the child. This is all wrong. If we take the example of our Lord and Redeemer, who is our pattern and whose example we cannot too closely follow, we find that He blessed all who were brought to Him. We have no hint that He asked whose children they were, or the standing or faith of their parents. His remark was, ‘Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven;’ and He laid His hands upon them and blessed them. All little children, no matter what their parentage may be, are innocent in the sight of heaven, and they should be received as such and blessed as such.”
The Editor [George Q. Cannon], “Topics of the Times,” Juvenile Instructor 34 (March 1, 1899): 137-138. Reprinted in Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 61 (March 30, 1899), 198-199; Latter-day Satins Southern Star 1 (April 29, 1899): 170.

save this for day 3.