Reports of new church policies re: same sex couples and children

[AnnieCarvalho]

Honesty had you not just recently start a thread on bullying and the need for us to be more careful about how we treat each other I would not have cared.  But for you to complain about a set a behavior and then turn around and engage in that exact same set of behavior, triggers just about every button I have.  Given that whole point of my post that you criticized was an attempt keep the discussion civil did not help any.

 

I'm not sure what my thread on bullying had to do with it.

As I said, I was just expressing my disagreement.

I'm still a little confused about that distinction, but I'm going to try to be more careful

and I'll continue trying to take my cues from the rest of the core group here.

 

I do see it triggered your buttons.

[Vort]

Two of the men on our board are sisters?

 

The things you learn on lds.net. Sister Vort won't be happy.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Nope. #268 was snarky, but only in a light-hearted, silly way, an attempt to blunt a sharp and angry attack. The last sentence of #270 was snarky, because of course it was I who wrote the sentences that carlimac was trying to throw back in my face -- but again, done for a laugh, not cuttingly. And of course, there was #241, more or less pure silliness. Other than those, I do not believe I have snarked at all on this thread. If I have, I don't remember it. Pretty much everything I have written has been on the level.

 

Whence Annie's vituperative tone, I'm not sure, but it does seem to be a permanent fixture at this point.

 

I wasn't being vituperative (I had to look that word up!)

 

I was just being silly! 

[AnnieCarvalho]

The things you learn on lds.net. Sister Vort won't be happy.

 

I know, huh.

She might should read that handbook we're talking about.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I wasn't being vituperative (I had to look that word up!)

 

I was just being silly! 

 

That was how I took it.  That happens a lot around here...people start making jokes and turn serious threads into jokes.  

[AnnieCarvalho]

That was how I took it.  That happens a lot around here...people start making jokes and turn serious threads into jokes.  

 

Yeah, I've noticed that.

That can be a bummer too.

I think it's contagious.

[estradling75]

I'm not sure what my thread on bullying had to do with it.

As I said, I was just expressing my disagreement.

I'm still a little confused about that distinction, but I'm going to try to be more careful

and I'll continue trying to take my cues from the rest of the core group here.

 

I do see it triggered your buttons.

 

You thread on bullying was how people felt attacked, poorly treated, etc by other members.  And how we all need to make a better effort to understand one other.

 

Then I post here trying to keep things keep/bring it back (depending on a persons view point)

 

Then you attack me (or whatever fancy term you want to use) because you made the "assumption" that I was defending Vort.  Thus I felt attacked and poorly treated all because it seemed you were more interested in making your point then reading and understanding what I wrote.  

[yjacket]

 If a gay parent grew up in the church, or even if he/she didn't but would simply feel comfort from having his or her child blessed by a priesthood holding  grandfather, uncle or friend, there is nothing wrong with that either as long as a membership record isn't generated and all are in agreement and aware of that.  The person giving the blessing can even mention that this child will be named "Vort" if the parents want it mentioned in the prayer. 

carlimac, If I may. I completely understand how a naming and blessing done at your home was extremely beneficial. And I agree, a naming and blessing can be done at home. A fun fact, a worthy priesthood father has the authority to give a child their patriarchal blessing-but it is not recorded in the church. I think the point Vort is trying to make is the following from the Handbook:

"Performance of a saving ordinance requires authorization from a priesthood leader who holds the appropriate keys or who functions under the direction of a person who holds those keys. Such authorization is also required for naming and blessing a child"

 

 If a gay parent grew up in the church, or even if he/she didn't but would simply feel comfort from having his or her child blessed by a priesthood holding  grandfather, uncle or friend, there is nothing wrong with that either as long as a membership record isn't generated and all are in agreement and aware of that.  The person giving the blessing can even mention that this child will be named "Vort" if the parents want it mentioned in the prayer. 

This is incorrect. Without the proper authorization from a Bishop, it is not a naming and blessing of a child. What you are suggesting is a way to skirt around the rules. One could give the child a blessing-but it cannot be considered a naming and a blessing. In other words if a priesthood holder did this: 

"The person who gives the blessing:

1. 1. 

   Addresses Heavenly Father.

2. 2. 

   States that the blessing is given by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

3. 3. 

   Gives the child a name.

4. 4. 

   Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs.

5. 5. 

   Closes in the name of Jesus Christ."

without the authorization of the Bishop, it would be incorrect to do this.

[yjacket]

That was how I took it.  That happens a lot around here...people start making jokes and turn serious threads into jokes.  

And sometimes the opposite happens, people make nasty comments and then claim, "I was only joking".

[AnnieCarvalho]

You thread on bullying was how people felt attacked, poorly treated, etc by other members.  And how we all need to make a better effort to understand one other.

 

Then I post here trying to keep things keep/bring it back (depending on a persons view point)

 

Then you attack me (or whatever fancy term you want to use) because you made the "assumption" that I was defending Vort.  Thus I felt attacked and poorly treated all because it seemed you were more interested in making your point then reading and understanding what I wrote.  

 

I see.

Well, I"m sorry if my post made you feel attacked and poorly treated.

I know how that feels and I sure don't want to do it to other people.

I'll try to do better   :)

[The Folk Prophet]

I guess I just don't understand the difference.

 

This is obvious.

[estradling75]

"The person who gives the blessing:

1. 1. 

   Addresses Heavenly Father.

2. 2. 

   States that the blessing is given by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

3. 3. 

   Gives the child a name.

4. 4. 

   Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs.

5. 5. 

   Closes in the name of Jesus Christ."

without the authorization of the Bishop, it would be incorrect to do this.

 

Interesting thing to note is that the Naming and Blessing of Children is the only Priesthood Blessing (given to a person not counting dedications and whatnot) that does not begin with the person's name.

 

Therefore and regular priesthood blessing of confort would be some variations of

 

1. Call the person by name.

 

2. States the blessing is given by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood

 

3. Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs.

 

4. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ

 

Note the differences

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

And sometimes the opposite happens, people make nasty comments and then claim, "I was only joking".

 

I see that happen with people in real life, but here on the board, I think most own up to it when they are snarky.   :)

Edited November 11, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest]

Vort,

 

Look at the post prior.  I said I wasn't getting into that one.  I only mentioned it in passing.  Then you pressed the issue for a more lengthy explanation.

[carlimac]

carlimac, If I may. I completely understand how a naming and blessing done at your home was extremely beneficial. And I agree, a naming and blessing can be done at home. A fun fact, a worthy priesthood father has the authority to give a child their patriarchal blessing-but it is not recorded in the church. I think the point Vort is trying to make is the following from the Handbook:

"Performance of a saving ordinance requires authorization from a priesthood leader who holds the appropriate keys or who functions under the direction of a person who holds those keys. Such authorization is also required for naming and blessing a child"

 

 

This is incorrect. Without the proper authorization from a Bishop, it is not a naming and blessing of a child. What you are suggesting is a way to skirt around the rules. One could give the child a blessing-but it cannot be considered a naming and a blessing. In other words if a priesthood holder did this: 

"The person who gives the blessing:

1. 1. 

   Addresses Heavenly Father.

2. 2. 

   States that the blessing is given by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

3. 3. 

   Gives the child a name.

4. 4. 

   Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs.

5. 5. 

   Closes in the name of Jesus Christ."

without the authorization of the Bishop, it would be incorrect to do this.

What is incorrect about it?  If it isn't recorded on church records, a priesthood holder may bless the child in any way he sees fit ( as you say- as the Spirit directs).  OK then ask the bishop, but the parents nor the child are members of the church so I don't think it matters if approval is given or not.  It's simply a priesthood holder blessing a person in need.  If it brings comfort to the parents, why would it be denied? Didn't someone say it's NOT a saving ordinance? How many people never got a baby blessing?  I just don't see it as skirting the rules. I see it exactly as Elder Cristofferson described. They can even leave out the parts about being a missionary and getting married in the temple if that would be perceived as inappropriate. (By the way, my husband didn't bless even one of my 7 kids with either of those things. )

Edited November 13, 2015 by carlimac

[yjacket]

Note the differences

Good catch; I hadn't noticed that in this context until you mentioned it.

[yjacket]

What is incorrect about it?  If it isn't recorded on church records, a priesthood holder may bless the child in any way he sees fit ( as you say- as the Spirit directs).  OK then ask the bishop, but the parents nor the child are members of the church so I don't think it if approval is given or not.  it's simply a priesthood holder blessing a person in need.  If it brings comfort to the parents, why would it be denied. Didn't someone say it's NOT a saving ordinance? How many people never got a baby blessing?  I just don't see it as skirting the rules.

No he may not-as stipulated in the Priesthood handbook, blessings follow a set format and the naming and blessing is a different format than a blessing of comfort. It would be denied because the Church said so, that's why. If people don't want it to be denied, then tell the parents not to be in a homosexual relationship-it is really that simple.

 

It is skirting the rules.  The new policy stipulates that as a cause of homosexual relationships babies are not to be giving the naming and a blessing. Having a priesthood holder do it outside the church at home without Bishop authorization then claiming it is done just as a blessing is skirting the rules-no ifs ands or buts.

Edited November 11, 2015 by yjacket

[carlimac]

Interesting thing to note is that the Naming and Blessing of Children is the only Priesthood Blessing (given to a person not counting dedications and whatnot) that does not begin with the person's name.

 

Therefore and regular priesthood blessing of confort would be some variations of

 

1. Call the person by name.

 

2. States the blessing is given by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood

 

3. Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs.

 

4. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ

 

Note the differences

 

As my husband would say, we're in violent agreement here. The second blessing is exactly the kind I'm trying to describe as being totally legit and unnecessary to get bishops approval for.  This is the kind of misunderstanding I think that is tripping up those opposed to the policy. I don't think many would even know the difference between the wordage of an official baby blessing, sanctioned by the Church and generating a membership record with paper certificate and all, and one that simply blesses the child (and parents vicariously). They think their beloved baby is being denied any blessing at all from the Church ( priesthood holders). We have to recognize this gap in understanding and reassure them that YES! your child can be blessed if you so wish. The Lord would never deny that to anyone who requests it sincerely.   

 

And on to the baptizing a kid in the pool. I hope you were kidding. You really think I'd approve of something like that?

[carlimac]

No he may not-as stipulated in the Priesthood handbook, blessings follow a set format and the naming and blessing is a different format than a blessing of comfort. It would be denied because the Church said so, that's why. If people don't want it to be denied, then tell the parents not to be in a homosexual relationship-it is really that simple.

 

It is skirting the rules.  The new policy stipulates that as a cause of homosexual relationships babies are not to be giving the naming and a blessing. Having a priesthood holder do it outside the church at home without Bishop authorization then claiming it is done just as a blessing is skirting the rules-no ifs ands or buts.

 I'm talking about a blessing of comfort. See above post. 

Edited November 11, 2015 by carlimac

[estradling75]

As my husband would say, we're in violent agreement here. The second blessing is exactly the kind I'm trying to describe as being totally legit and unnecessary to get bishops approval for.  This is the kind of misunderstanding I think that is tripping up those opposed to the policy. I don't think many would even know the difference between the wordage of an official baby blessing, sanctioned by the Church and generating a membership record with paper certificate and all, and one that simply blesses the child (and parents vicariously). They think their beloved baby is being denied any blessing at all from the Church ( priesthood holders). We have to recognize this gap in understanding and reassure them that YES! your child can be blessed if you so wish. The Lord would never deny that to anyone who requests it sincerely.   

 

And on to the baptizing a kid in the pool. I hope you were kidding. You really think I'd approve of something like that?

 

We are not in disagreement...  yjacket posted the one you need permission for... I posted the one that you do not...  Compare and contrast the two and you  see if you are breaking the rules or not. Priesthood holders should have been taught or at least have access to the outlines for all the priesthood blessings so that they can know what they are doing.

 

That being said your point about other not understanding the difference is exactly why I addressed the danger of people seeing you bless your grandkid assuming you did something you weren't allowed and pushing for doing more things you should not do (thinking you already crossed that line)

[yjacket]

 I'm talking about a blessing of comfort. See above post. 

Yes, I just realized that. There is absolutely no problem giving a blessing of comfort.  However, if one used a blessing of comfort to then give a naming and a "life" blessing then that would not be acceptable. The deference being that a blessing of comfort is more for specific circumstances, whereas a naming and blessing is more of a "life" blessing.

 

Even a Father's blessing is used for more specific circumstances relative to what is occurring in the person's life rather than a life-long blessing.

[AnnieCarvalho]

This is obvious.

 

Goodnight Prophet

Edited November 11, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[Guest]

I'm not sure what my thread on bullying had to do with it.

As I said, I was just expressing my disagreement.

I'm still a little confused about that distinction, but I'm going to try to be more careful

and I'll continue trying to take my cues from the rest of the core group here.

 

I do see it triggered your buttons.

 

Annie,

 

This is a PERFECT case in point.  It's so perfect, it could make it to celestial glory.

 

You see here, you wrote something you thought was completely just a normal expression of disagreement.  And behold - somebody you directed it to felt it as Bullying.

 

Do you see now how this happens?

 

This has been all your interactions on lds.net that you felt you were getting bullied (at least the ones I have read).

 

Now, this happens pretty regularly on lds.net.  You see carlimac and Vort here on this particular thread having a conflict.  TFP and I went at it for a while.  Yjacket and I went at it for a while.  Traveler and I had a few rounds.

 

And yes, there are times when I feel it's gotten personal.  But, instead of being passive aggressive about it, I ask straight out - "I feel you are being rude, are you mad at me or something?".  And when they say, no, I'm not trying to be rude, I simply disagree... then I take their word for it!  I don't act like their mother and call them out for discipline.  Well, okay, there was a time when some folks here attacked a Catholic - that's my hot button issue, so I did get on mother bear mode "whipping the kids".  But then, I just ended up walking away from that thread.

 

So yeah, when people tell you they're not trying to be rude, I suggest you take their word for it.  Just like estradling would take your word that you weren't trying to be a bully here.

 

Make sense?

Edited November 11, 2015 by anatess

[Crypto]

Nope. #268 was snarky, but only in a light-hearted, silly way, an attempt to blunt a sharp and angry attack. The last sentence of #270 was snarky, because of course it was I who wrote the sentences that carlimac was trying to throw back in my face -- but again, done for a laugh, not cuttingly. And of course, there was #241, more or less pure silliness. Other than those, I do not believe I have snarked at all on this thread. If I have, I don't remember it. Pretty much everything I have written has been on the level.

 

Whence Annie's vituperative tone, I'm not sure, but it does seem to be a permanent fixture at this point.

#268 is largely what I was referring to. I also didn't mean it in any condescending way.

[Crypto]

 

Goodnight Prophet

 

Just to warn you. The whole when people say "Goodnight [name]" or more bluntly "Go to bed [name]" in context of a discussion with disagreement, and perceived by me as passive aggressive, is probably one of my biggest pet peeves.

It really makes me angry(Almost spoke in pirate too 0.o), because it is like couching "shut up" in...well a passive aggressive manner. It is dismissive.

I know that may not be how it was intended....but i'm just going to put this out there.