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


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

What in the heck happened to this thread? I can't tell what is sarcasm and what is gut ripping nastiness.

Is this thing in need of being closed or is everyone joking around and I missed it?

I think several people are confused, I will admit, I am by some of it, and I think some others alluded to that in their own posts. I also think there is A LOT of miscommunication going on, and some personality conflicts as well.

Time for some group therapy  :D  :soon:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because its is not an act of apostasy...

 

Let me put it this way...  For all the talk about "think of the Child" and how they will feel...  It second problem a child will face seems to be starkly absent from their calculations.  The first problem has been hashed to death... The child might feel excluded has be repeated endlessly.  However as bad as exclusion is it is a rather common childhood trauma.  The missing question is how are they going to feel when they learn that momma or Dadda (as the case might be) is an unrepentant sinner and is going to end up in hell unless they repent and break up with lover/spouse?

 

No one really wants to talk about how much trauma will come when that happens, nor do they want to consider if they are the active parent figure how they will "answer" that question.  This is not a common childhood issue.  And given how much a young child might identify with their parent, it is really a question in which you hope the child will not ask until they are much more mature.

 

So for those saying "think of a child's pain and suffering?" of the two questions, which one do you think is more important to avoid in the younger years?  The church has made its choice.  A choice undoubtedly informed through its interactions with polygamist households. 

 

As for those married to non members...  A man and woman being married to each other is not a sin.  While everyone need to repent that repentance doesn't include the destruction of the marriage or even the relationship

 

For sure when I first read about the new policy I had a knee-jerk reaction (based no doubt in subjective experience) about how it may hurt little children who may be refused baptism even if they express a desire for it. After Pam posted Elder Christoffersen's interview I gained a more objective understanding of the context and reasons underlying the policy. Literate Parakeet was spot on when she said that ultimately this needs to be made a matter of prayer, as well as studying it out in our minds. 

 

I certainly don't believe my marriage is sinful (although it's obviously not all I would want as far as being in a temple marriage).  I had not heard that comment about marrying outside of the church being apostasy, but I suppose in a loose sense it could be considered as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not.  But it does bar you from temple sealing, and make church logistics more complicated (like sitting in Sacrament meeting always solo parenting the kids).

 

I'm always in such diverse wards that being a woman on her own with kids is pretty common place in church, I like to pretend that I don't stand out :rolleyes:   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi lagarthaaz,

 

I haven't read any of the previous pages of post so I may have missed the context of this particular one.

 

Catholics believe in Transubstantiation - that is, the white wafer that you put in your mouth is not just a plain wafer but is literally the body of Christ.  Therefore, only those who are in communion with the church body through and is baptized can partake of this sacrament.  Anybody else partaking of such a sacred sacrament is a mockery of it.  The LDS Church is not in communion with the body of Christ simply by the fact that they do not believe in the same substance of God.  So, they shouldn't partake of this deeply sacred Catholic sacrament.

 

But, because I haven't read the entire thread, I'm not sure what your point was about the child feeling punished.  Are you saying that the Church shouldn't make policies that make a child feel punished?  Like - Catholics should allow those not in communion with the body of Christ to take his body and drink his blood so they won't feel like they're punished?

 

Hi Anatess, don't worry about the 'punishment' comment - it's mostly resolved at this point (if you can be bothered wading through the entire thread you'll see that I had concerns but am mostly ok now I've had some time to think, study and pray). 

 

Thanks for the info about taking Communion, it's been a long time since I thought much about Catholicism but I do remember the belief in transubstantiation.

 

I was earlier in the thread, simply recalling my feelings as a young child who had friends who were Catholic, taking First Holy Communion and attending Mass...and how I wanted to be part of it but was told I couldn't because I had not been baptised as an infant into the Catholic faith.  I carried that feeling of ostracism around with me for years as a youngster - mostly because of what other children told me.

 

When I read of the new policy my first reaction was that children of gay parents may feel similarly rejected by a religious system they may want to be part of. I suspect this may not be an unusual scenario in the case less-active gay parents who are embraced by their LDS family  and may allow their children to attend church, primary and youth activities with extended family members such as grandparents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I certainly don't believe my marriage is sinful (although it's obviously not all I would want as far as being in a temple marriage).  I had not heard that comment about marrying outside of the church being apostasy, but I suppose in a loose sense it could be considered as such.

 

It is not...  It is not inherently sinful.  Now individual within the marriage can act to make it better or worse, good or bad, but the act of marriage even to non members or exe members, between and man and a woman is not inherently sinful, in fact just he opposite really.

 

Now being unequally yoked as to faith does tend to make things harder when it comes to living the gospel, which is why it is generally cautioned against.   But that caution is not a condemnation.

 

As for kids I think everyone of us can pull up a personal experience of feeling shunned or left out or ostracism and to this day feel a be of pain from it.  It seems to be a common childhood trauma that we experience and hopefully grow stronger from.  However I think it is a very rare and unusual experience for a child realize that their beloved mother (or father as the case might be) is an unrepentant sinner and going to go to hell unless they break up with their current spouse.  Very likely this will cause the child to rebel completely from either the Church (most likely) or the parent(less likely) unless they have matured enough to handle such a heavy and sorrowful understanding.

 

As a parent I don't like having to deal with my kids feeling shunned, but I would much rather deal with that then my kid feeling that he has to choose between a parent or the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not...  It is not inherently sinful.  Now individual within the marriage can act to make it better or worse, good or bad, but the act of marriage even to non members or exe members, between and man and a woman is not inherently sinful, in fact just he opposite really.

 

Now being unequally yoked as to faith does tend to make things harder when it comes to living the gospel, which is why it is generally cautioned against.   But that caution is not a condemnation.

 

As a parent I don't like having to deal with my kids feeling shunned, but I would much rather deal with that then my kid feeling that he has to choose between a parent or the church.

 

Yep, there are challenges being married to a non-member, but that's the least of our problems really.

 

I agree too that children shouldn't have to feel they need to choose between their parents and the church, but I suspect this is exactly what's going to happen in some situations where the child of gay parents is allowed to attend church with relatives.

 

What a world we are living in where this is even an issue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, there are challenges being married to a non-member, but that's the least of our problems really.

 

I agree too that children shouldn't have to feel they need to choose between their parents and the church, but I suspect this is exactly what's going to happen in some situations where the child of gay parents is allowed to attend church with relatives.

 

What a world we are living in where this is even an issue!

 

Its a world were people are turning there backs on God to follow the lusts of their hearts... And then turn around and blame God when that does not work out for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now back from our regularly scheduled thread jack...

 

I believe this issue, more than any other of our time, will open the floodgates to persecution of the saints as well as much of Christianity.  It will not be long (within the next five years) when law suits will begin against formal religious organizations.  They will be sued for their positions on homosexuality and/or gay marriage.  Some courts will order men of the cloth to perform gay marriages against their will or face financial penalties or jail time.

 

If I'm wrong, I'm just a voice in the wind.  And you'll win the rights to mercilessly mock me for my infantile powers of prognostication.

 

If I'm right, how many of those complaining about this new policy will then realize that this is the issue that will be used to attack religion more than any other?  How many of you will continue to support gay marriage then?  How many of you already believe that religions should be forced to accept homosexual activity and stop calling it a sin?

 

If you believe gay marriage should be fully accepted, what is your basis?  The philosophies of men?  The logic of a fallible mortal?  Or do you claim inspiration or revelation?  Do you even have scriptural basis to say that gay marriage is a blessing?  How about a past statement by any general authority that says homosexuality is not a sin?

 

If you cannot claim any revelatory basis for your position, you do not have a credible claim to say that the recent policy changes are wrong.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I'm a bit of a maverik on this one, I suppose.  If the Spirit constrains me to pronounce a blessing, I'm not going to cross-check its whisperings to make sure that the blessing is indeed of limited duration or of an ad hoc nature.  

 

And, more to the point--if a gay couple asks me to give their child a blessing (or even a "name"), I don't see any prohibition on my doing so as long as 

a) I am not doing it before the congregation (because the Church has already stated that LDS wards cannot assume responsibility for the spiritual upbringing of these children);

b) I do not thereafter seek to have that blessing recorded by the Church; and

c) the couple is aware of a) and b).

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a world were people are turning there backs on God to follow the lusts of their hearts... And then turn around and blame God when that does not work out for them.

 

I do not believe it is "the world" but rather a culture shift we are experiencing in our country - and certain others.  Though I am concerned with the current culture shift - I am more concerned with where the trend (current) is taking us.  As an experienced white water rafting guide - these kind of turbulence  at the surface are an indication of something much deeper and push the limits of my personal capabilities to safely navigate.  I am concerned that the trend is towards even more dangerous turbulent waters.

 

I am well aware that when panic challenges the brave and experienced when our vessels of safety are overturned we begin to realize that our life vests are not safe enough to preserve us and we are at the mercy of the turbulence - and we pray that the din on the horizon is not a waterfall into rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

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.

That's different than how I would take it. (Another example of how communication is complicated). If I said Good night to someone it would mean: I'm done. I'm going to bed. Yes it would likely mean I'm frustrated or annoyed with the conversation, but still it means I'm out.

I think that is almost opposite of telling someone else to shut up.

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's different than how I would take it. (Another example of how communication is complicated). If I said Good night to someone it would mean: I'm done. I'm going to bed. Yes it would likely mean I'm frustrated or annoyed with the conversation, but still it means I'm out.

I think that is almost opposite of telling someone else to shut up.

 

I have a different impression of that particular post.

 

If she would have said, Good Night address to all, then I would interpret that as "I'm out" - regardless of being frustrated or annoyed or not.

 

But she said, Good Night, Vort - addressed specifically to Vort ... which I interpret as... Go to bed, Vort.  Because, why else would she say Good Night just to one person and not to everyone else joining in on the conversation?

 

But, that's just me.  I guess Annie will clarify this later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I have a different impression of that particular post.

 

If she would have said, Good Night address to all, then I would interpret that as "I'm out" - regardless of being frustrated or annoyed or not.

 

But she said, Good Night, Vort - addressed specifically to Vort ... which I interpret as... Go to bed, Vort.  Because, why else would she say Good Night just to one person and not to everyone else joining in on the conversation?

 

But, that's just me.  I guess Annie will clarify this later.

 

Actually she said, Goodnight Prophet.

 

She was responding to TFP.  (I would surmise they were both annoyed with one another at that point.)  I interpreted that the same way I did Estradling telling me he was done with a a conversation that he and I had recently.  He wasn't telling me to shut up, he was saying he was done...out.  Not leaving the board (even just for the night), maybe not even leaving that thread, but done talking to me in particular about that particular point because in his opinion I was being unreasonable.  I don't see any difference between the two.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was responding to TFP.  (I would surmise they were both annoyed with one another at that point.)  I interpreted that the same way I did Estradling telling me he was done with a a conversation that he and I had recently.  He wasn't telling me to shut up, he was saying he was done...out.  Not leaving the board (even just for the night), maybe not even leaving that thread, but done talking to me in particular about that particular point because in his opinion I was being unreasonable.  I don't see any difference between the two.  

 

And I am still debating on which is less rude... To inform someone you are done (So they know) or to simply leave and thus leave them questioning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TFP is my sock puppet. Or I'm his sock puppet; I always forget.

 

You mean you're sisters too... with estradling.  You could be like... Destiny's Child.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's different than how I would take it. (Another example of how communication is complicated). If I said Good night to someone it would mean: I'm done. I'm going to bed. Yes it would likely mean I'm frustrated or annoyed with the conversation, but still it means I'm out.

I think that is almost opposite of telling someone else to shut up.

It's not the frustration that gets to me, leaving a frustrating conversation can be right.

This does go to show some big differences in communication.

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I am still debating on which is less rude... To inform someone you are done (So they know) or to simply leave and thus leave them questioning

 
I don't consider my saying "Goodnight" rude.
The conversation appeared to be over.
 
 
I didn't see that he had asked a question.
 
Did you see one that I didn't answer? 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 
I don't consider my saying "Goodnight" rude.
The conversation appeared to be over.
 
 
I didn't see that he had asked a question.
 
Did you see one that I didn't answer? 

 

 

You appear to be taking personally an introspective comment I made.  Which was triggered by LiterateParakeet comment about me leaving a subject...  Namely when I made the choice to stop responding I had a choice on how to convey that decision.  I could saying something but that could be taken as rude, Or I could say nothing, which could be taken as rude...  I wasn't sure which was was least rude (I am still not) I ultimately went with saying something.  It appears that LiterateParakeet seems to have understood it the way I intended... so maybe it was the right choice... or maybe it was a lucky choice.

 

But the the only real connection it has to your actions and posts...  Is that I could see a such a sign off as going either way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Anatess, don't worry about the 'punishment' comment - it's mostly resolved at this point (if you can be bothered wading through the entire thread you'll see that I had concerns but am mostly ok now I've had some time to think, study and pray). 

 

Thanks for the info about taking Communion, it's been a long time since I thought much about Catholicism but I do remember the belief in transubstantiation.

 

I was earlier in the thread, simply recalling my feelings as a young child who had friends who were Catholic, taking First Holy Communion and attending Mass...and how I wanted to be part of it but was told I couldn't because I had not been baptised as an infant into the Catholic faith.  I carried that feeling of ostracism around with me for years as a youngster - mostly because of what other children told me.

 

When I read of the new policy my first reaction was that children of gay parents may feel similarly rejected by a religious system they may want to be part of. I suspect this may not be an unusual scenario in the case less-active gay parents who are embraced by their LDS family  and may allow their children to attend church, primary and youth activities with extended family members such as grandparents.

FWIW, Catholic children/youth are confirmed and receive their first communion between the ages of 7 and 15 or 16. It is up to the Bishop, really, who accepts the child's petition to receive these two sacraments. Here in the diocese of Salt Lake, it is age 8, because the majority of children here, who are LDS, are baptized at age 8. This helps to make Catholic children not feel left out or ostracized from the larger community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You appear to be taking personally an introspective comment I made.  Which was triggered by LiterateParakeet comment about me leaving a subject...  Namely when I made the choice to stop responding I had a choice on how to convey that decision.  I could saying something but that could be taken as rude, Or I could say nothing, which could be taken as rude...  I wasn't sure which was was least rude (I am still not) I ultimately went with saying something.  It appears that LiterateParakeet seems to have understood it the way I intended... so maybe it was the right choice... or maybe it was a lucky choice.

 

But the the only real connection it has to your actions and posts...  Is that I could see a such a sign off as going either way

 

You're right.

I took it personally because you were talking about me.

 

I have no idea what you just said, by the way.

Nor do I see any reason to try to continue on this forum.

 

It's been interesting.

 

God bless you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right.

I took it personally because you were talking about me.

 

I have no idea what you just said, by the way.

Nor do I see any reason to try to continue on this forum.

 

It's been interesting.

 

God bless you all.

 

AHH ANNIE!  I don't know why we're always having a miscommunication with you!  Estradling was not talking about you.  AT ALL.  He was talking about his conversation with LiterateParakeet where estradling left the conversation.

 

Okay, see if you can follow along.  I'm going to post every single piece of conversation that led up to it:

 

So, first you said this:

 

 

Goodnight Prophet

 

 

 

So Crypto, responded with this.  Crypto pointed this out as one of those examples that could be easily misinterpreted as Bullying - which is a reference to your Bullying post on another thread:

 

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.

 

 

So, LiterateParakeet chimed in, giving a different interpretation of your comment to Prophet:

That's different than how I would take it. (Another example of how communication is complicated). If I said Good night to someone it would mean: I'm done. I'm going to bed. Yes it would likely mean I'm frustrated or annoyed with the conversation, but still it means I'm out.

I think that is almost opposite of telling someone else to shut up.

 

 

And I chimed in with my own interpretation of the comment... illustrating that we can all have a different understanding of what you just said, so the only way we can really know what you said is if YOU tell us what you meant. 

I have a different impression of that particular post.

 

If she would have said, Good Night address to all, then I would interpret that as "I'm out" - regardless of being frustrated or annoyed or not.

 

But she said, Good Night, Vort - addressed specifically to Vort ... which I interpret as... Go to bed, Vort.  Because, why else would she say Good Night just to one person and not to everyone else joining in on the conversation?

 

But, that's just me.  I guess Annie will clarify this later.

 

 

But, I mistakenly referred Vort instead of Prophet, so LiterateParakeet corrected me and then explained farther why she took her interpretation of what you said.  She referred to a similar conversation she had with Estradling where Estradling told her he was leaving the conversation when it appeared they were not going to get an agreement on it.

Actually she said, Goodnight Prophet.

 

She was responding to TFP.  (I would surmise they were both annoyed with one another at that point.)  I interpreted that the same way I did Estradling telling me he was done with a a conversation that he and I had recently.  He wasn't telling me to shut up, he was saying he was done...out.  Not leaving the board (even just for the night), maybe not even leaving that thread, but done talking to me in particular about that particular point because in his opinion I was being unreasonable.  I don't see any difference between the two.  

 

 

So then estradling chimed in that he wasn't sure if telling LP he was leaving was more rude than if he would have just left his conversation with LP without saying anything:

And I am still debating on which is less rude... To inform someone you are done (So they know) or to simply leave and thus leave them questioning

 

 

So then you chimed in, completely misunderstanding estradling's comment to be about you instead of about his previous experience on a conversation with LP:

 

 
I don't consider my saying "Goodnight" rude.
The conversation appeared to be over.
 
 
I didn't see that he had asked a question.
 
Did you see one that I didn't answer? 

 

 

 

So estradling told you you misunderstood everything he said assigning his comment to your Goodnight Prophet post instead of his conversation with LP:

You appear to be taking personally an introspective comment I made.  Which was triggered by LiterateParakeet comment about me leaving a subject...  Namely when I made the choice to stop responding I had a choice on how to convey that decision.  I could saying something but that could be taken as rude, Or I could say nothing, which could be taken as rude...  I wasn't sure which was was least rude (I am still not) I ultimately went with saying something.  It appears that LiterateParakeet seems to have understood it the way I intended... so maybe it was the right choice... or maybe it was a lucky choice.

 

But the the only real connection it has to your actions and posts...  Is that I could see a such a sign off as going either way

 

 

 

And then you go taking your ball and walking out of the playground...

 

 

Annie, you have to do your part to promote understanding around here.  You can't just go off all offended and then accuse people of being bullies when you haven't given effort to try to understand what we're saying.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my overall response to the turn this thread has taken, which apparently largely involves something about me and sock puppets.  :huh:

 

Okay...here's the response:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share