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

[Vort]

 

"Having your child's naming blessing given at home strikes me as next to useless"   

 

 This doesn't strike you as the tiniest bit judgmental and conceited?

 

What? So I'm not allowed to express an opinion that you disagree with, lest you have your feelings hurt?

 

I'm truly in awe of your high opinion of yourself.  " Beware of pride. It will be your downfall." 

 

Wise words, indeed. i'd like to shake the hand of the fellow who wrote them.

[Guest]

Vort,

 

I believe you missed the point on both counts.  But one of them was because Carlimac missed one of them first.

 

You said the blessing was next to useless.  Carlimac failed to consider that it was in the context of the "naming and blessing" of a non-member child.  He took it to mean ANY "name and blessing".

 

On the accusation of pride -- I don't have a dog in the fight, so I'm not going to get into that one.

[Vort]

I believe you missed the point on both counts.

 

Sorry, but I have no idea which two counts you're talking about. Not being intentionally obtuse; I really don't know what you're talking about.

[Guest]

In post #270 you had two sets of quotes to which you gave two separate replies.  Those two points.

 

1) You spoke about the name and blessing being useless.  Carlimac rebutted with his personal example where your statement was incorrect. 

 

2) He used that point to drive home the fact that when you took such an adamant position "useless", that showed you were prideful.

[Vort]

In post #270 you had two sets of quotes to which you gave two separate replies.  Those two points.

 

1) You spoke about the name and blessing being useless.  Carlimac rebutted with his personal example where your statement was incorrect. 

 

2) He used that point to drive home the fact that when you took such an adamant position "useless", that showed you were prideful.

 

So you think I missed Point #1 because there are times when a non-congregational baby blessing is not useless, and you think I missed Point #2 because...?

[Crypto]

So you think I missed Point #1 because there are times when a non-congregational baby blessing is not useless, and you think I missed Point #2 because...?

I think in a few of these posts Vort is being snarky, and perfectly well understands where the other person is coming from, while still expressing Vort's disagreement.

[estradling75]

Celebrating the birth of a child is generally a good thing.

 

Presenting the baby before God and the church (symbolically at least) is also generally a good thing.

 

They also usually go together hand and and and this is also generally a good thing.

 

The policy change means for a small number people of they no longer happen together (or in the case of the blessing at all).

 

For faithful members the correct response is to abide the instructions given by the Lord's anointed.  While understanding would be nice, it is not required.  Only sufficient faith to trust the Lord is. 

 

While it is technically possible for a family to gather at the birth of a child and for that child  to be given a priesthood blessing of comfort...  However it walks a very dangerous line.

 

That line is the appearance of exercising priesthood without authorization.  For those members and non members in attendance they might be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two.  And as that thought gets planted and burrows deep...  Its starts small and builds into the idea that Church permission is not necessary if you can find a priesthood holder willing to do so.  To the point that 8 years from the baby "blessing" they are asking why grampa simply can't baptize the kid in the pool?

 

Now maybe carlimac can avoid this whole issue and do it without problem.  Such cases are highly individualized after all...  However seeing the beginning of a path that leads to "having the forms of Godliness but denying the power thereof.." you can't really expect not to get warnings and council against when the idea is presented for opinions and thoughts on an LDS forum

Edited November 11, 2015 by estradling75

[AnnieCarvalho]

I think in a few of these posts Vort is being snarky, and perfectly well understands where the other person is coming from, while still expressing Vort's disagreement.

 

I agree,

And such snarkiness sure does not translate to me as "warnings and council" from anyone I'd have respect for.

 

I can't believe the mod said that. 

I really can't.

I'm floored.

Whoah.

 

To me, literalists walk a thin line, and I"m so thankful for Church Leaders who take the time to pray and consider special circumstances, such as a dying mother. 

 

::walks away shaking her head in disbelief:::    

 

Vort.. you are tripping me out.

Mod... I am sure you'll be happy because I am speechless.

Un-freaking-believable...

 

Edited November 11, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[The Folk Prophet]

And such snarkiness sure does not translate to me as "warnings and council" from anyone I'd have respect for.

She says snarkilly.

[AnnieCarvalho]

She says snarkilly.

 

Nope. 

I'm being serious.

I'm in disbelief.

 

:::::Edited for a REALLY snarky comment I wanted to make but thought better of::::

Edited November 11, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[yjacket]

If I was being snarky, I'd ask,

"Are you and Vort sisters?"

Says the one who complains about bullying . . .

Hmm, sometimes the largest complainers are the worst offenders.

[Vort]

I think in a few of these posts Vort is being snarky, and perfectly well understands where the other person is coming from, while still expressing Vort's disagreement.

 

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.

[Guest]

I'm lost. What shocking things did a mod say? Two of the men on our board are sisters? What?

[yjacket]

 

vituperative

 

Nice word; I'm going to have to remember that one.

[AnnieCarvalho]

 

 

 

Nice word; I'm going to have to remember that one.

 

 

Me too. 

[Vort]

If I was being snarky, I'd ask,

"Are you and Vort sisters?"

I"m just wondering because you both remind me of those mean girls that used to hang out up by the big tree in high school. The ones who always had to stop and look at themselves in the mirror and smooth down their hair. The ones who made fun of the kids with old shoes. You know the ones I'm talking about?

 

Dang. Annie has me pegged. One of the mean girls, smoothing down my hair in front of a mirror.

 

How did she know?

 

In any case, it's nice to have Annie here to inform me of these things. estradling, it looks like you and I should be taking "nice girl" lessons from Annie. Now quit smoothing down your hair and pay attention.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Says the one who complains about bullying . . .

Hmm, sometimes the largest complainers are the worst offenders.

Gosh yjacket, I was so sorry for saying what I said that I took a cue from one of the people on this board, and I edited it.

 

You must really be following me close to have seen it because I type pretty fast. 

 

I'm flattered  

[AnnieCarvalho]

Dang. Annie has me pegged. One of the mean girls, smoothing down my hair in front of a mirror.

 

How did she know?

 

In any case, it's nice to have Annie here to inform me of these things. estradling, it looks like you and I should be taking "nice girl" lessons from Annie. Now quit smoothing down your hair and pay attention.

 

This had me laughing.

 

Oh gosh...

 

I'm so sorry if I offended you ::trying to type while she's laughing:::

No, really...

 

You're both just almost too much.

Two peas in a pod.

 

Well, at least you like each other.

 

Oh, your hair is up in the back ::laughing:::

[estradling75]

I agree,

And such snarkiness sure does not translate to me as "warnings and council" from anyone I'd have respect for.

 

I can't believe the mod said that. 

I really can't.

I'm floored.

Whoah.

 

To me, literalists walk a thin line, and I"m so thankful for Church Leaders who take the time to pray and consider special circumstances, such as a dying mother. 

 

::walks away shaking her head in disbelief:::    

 

Vort.. you are tripping me out.

Mod... I am sure you'll be happy because I am speechless.

Un-freaking-believable...

 

 

Quit bullying me..  You misunderstood me... You attack me... and then you blame others for the tone of the forum. You just caused it.  So stop it right now.

 

You misunderstand me if you think Vort is the only one to offer carlimac advise and thought on her dilemma (and there for the only person I could possibly be referring to).  Go re-read the thread and count them.  Then I want an apology to me and all the forum members for your part in degrading the quality of this forum.

 

Unlike the last time you can now be assured that you are seeing me angry (And you didn't acknowledge your mistake then either)

Edited November 11, 2015 by estradling75

[yjacket]

Gosh yjacket, I was so sorry for saying what I said that I took a cue from one of the people on this board, and I edited it.

 

You must really be following me close to have seen it because I type pretty fast. 

 

I'm flattered  

Hey, you know just keeping you honest.  Listening to bloviating politicians, provides a little extra time to be on my toes.

[Guest]

 

 

you are seeing me anger 

 

You know he (she?) is REALLY mad when the pirate voice comes out. 

 

(Just funning with you, "sister".)

[AnnieCarvalho]

I am sorry you feel like I'm bullying you, moderator.

 

I'm so sorry if you feel I misunderstood you.

 

And I'm so sorry if you feel I attacked you.

I was just expressing my disagreement.

From what a lot of people on this forum have TOLD me, expressing our disagreement is ok.

I'm so surprised that when I express MY disagreement, it's considered degrading the quality of this forum.

 

I guess I just don't understand the difference.

 

Actually, I'm feeling VERY bullied by your response right now.

 

If people in this forum are feeling I have degraded the experience of it for them, I would like them to PM me private, and I will be happy to apologize to each and every one.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Then I want an apology to me and all the forum members for your part in degrading the quality of this forum.

I'm confused, what would this apology be for?

[estradling75]

I am sorry you feel like I'm bullying you, moderator.

 

I'm so sorry if you feel I misunderstood you.

 

And I'm so sorry if you feel I attacked you.

I was just expressing my disagreement.

From what a lot of people on this forum have TOLD me, expressing our disagreement is ok.

I'm so surprised that when I express MY disagreement, it's considered degrading the quality of this forum.

 

I guess I just don't understand the difference.

 

Actually, I'm feeling VERY bullied by your response right now.

 

If people in this forum are feeling I have degraded the experience of it for them, I would like them to PM me private, and I will be happy to apologize to each and every one.

 

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.

[carlimac]

 

 

 

I am gratified that people are finally beginning to realize this.

 

 

That's wonderul. Not sure why you feel so threatened by my opinion, but I am happy to see you're trying to conform.

 

 I'm still unbelieving that you just don't get why I might just be a little put off by your post.   Let me explain. This is how it came across to me.  First you take MY post about baby blessings- quote three parts of it right in a row. So you were talking to me or at least referring to MY words right? You quote the part which is the most personal and specific to my own experience and THEN proceed to tell me why what we did was "next to useless" and THEN make sure we all know that YOU did it the proper way, with grandfathers and home teachers, etc....  Then you totally ignore my calling out of your insensitivity to the REASON we did it at home. Which was because my mother was next to death.  It was approved by our bishop, a member of the bishopric was in attendance, a membership number was generated,  my son was blessed by his worthy priesthood holding father- my husband (take note Crypto- I'm a woman married to a man but I forgive you for not realizing that). It was one of the sweetest and most spiritual experiences of my life. And you proceed to ignore all that and not only NOT apologize but continue to try to be funny about it. Did you even read what I wrote?   It would less offensive if you had been only the first to gripe about home blessings but you are the third in this thread. There is NOTHING wrong with blessing a child at home if done properly! There are many, many personal reasons why it isn't always done in Lion King fashion at church. And who are you to make a judgement about that? One way is not better than another.

 

Now as for blessings of babies with gay parents- 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. I would think approval from the bishop wouldn't even be needed if it has nothing to do with record keeping. It's just a personal favor and a nice thing to do if they want it.  The person giving the blessing can even mention that this child will be named "Vort" if the parents want it mentioned in the prayer.  It does NO harm. It doesn't break any rules.

 

As per the interview with Elder Cristofferson:

 

Elder Christofferson: When we are talking about blessings, priesthood blessings, given to those who are ill or want a blessing of comfort or guidance, that's open to all. We would expect that to be done throughout their lifetime, from infancy on as long as that's the desire of the parents and of the child. That's something we are anxious to provide.

Michael Otterson: So if there was a grandfather, for example, who, with the permission of the parents wanted to bless a grandchild, that would be permissible, in terms of a healing blessing or blessing for sickness?

Elder Christofferson: Certainly. Certainly. Where there is any kind of need for blessing, for counsel, for help of whatever kind, that can be offered; we want to do that.

Edited November 11, 2015 by carlimac