The Church knows EXACTLY what it's doing with the new policy

[_Maksutov]

Well, that takes care of the gays. Now what are we going to do about those dern feminists and intellectuals? If there are any left...

[Guest]

If Shades is right (along with the guy on Mormon stories), I'm super depressed ... my hopes for my grandchildren have been in a continually liberalization.

I really am curious about this: what were the indications that you have received since 2008 from the Church that they were liberalizing in any way whatsoever? I am baffled why so many people have had this sense of coming liberalization, because it seems baseless to me. I just don't get it, but maybe I am missing significant parts of the picture.

Symmachus comments certainly make sense to me. I see no indication of liberalization. The church 50 years ago that I knew seems to have been a bit more liberal than what I hear about now.
////
and adding,
I think Shades opening observations are correct. Consider Dr W thread on the Naked Communist on the need to protect against mind controlling evil from satan and the communists.

[_just me]

Honestly, I believe the church calculated potential lost tithing revenue and figured it won't be significant.
Why should they care if non-tithers leave?

[_Prester John]

No, I don't find it amusing at all. NEWSFLASH: It's possible to be physically old, decrepit, and unable to perform the simplest of tasks like speaking at a podium WHILE AT THE SAME TIME being mentally alert and lucid.

Besides, who among the big 15 is rumored to be going senile besides President Monson?

For a bunch of out-of-touch, senile, old white dodos, they sure are good at creating calculated, complex, and shrewd policies, wouldn't you say?

So, in your view, Dr. Shades, AmyJo, and I Have a Question (to whom you link here) are just different avatars of the same underlying MormonDiscussions Meta-Mind? Or are they indeed the same person?

Surely you notice the common threads of thought--of which I only sampled--that exist on this board. Aside from the outliers of, say, ldsfaqs, there does seem to be a meta-mind of contempt for the Mormon church.

As for Prester John's usual red herrings, it is perfectly possible for the 15 apostles and their lawyers to come up with complex and canny strategies regardless of President Monson's mental health. There is no contradiction, and the decision is nevertheless so doctrinally wrongheaded that I think the argument can be made that the leadership LDS Church, and anyone who supports this policy, has entered into apostasy.

I was merely pointing out the egregious contradiction of Dr. Shades's convenient belief about this policy with his (and his board's) usual beliefs about the church and its policies.

But for the record. I hate this policy. I do not think it comes from any loving god; at least not any loving god I've ever heard of.

[_Philo Sofee]

Many people have called the church's new policy vis-à-vis withholding ordinances for children of gay people in committed relationships as being a short-sighted, bone-headed move.

They say that it will cause members whose children are affected by this to leave. And/or that it will drive a wedge between the church and those children. And/or that children will be hurt or harmed. Witness Jesse Pinkman's recent thread for a case in point.

I have a different take on it: I think the church WANTS to drive the children of people in such relationships away. I think the church WANTS these children to be emotionally wounded to the point that they leave.

Why would this be, you ask? In my opinion, it's because of the hard lessons the church learned from the Proposition 8 fiasco. It got fed up, sick, and tired from all the internal dissension. Therefore, it wants to prevent any future dissension by culling anyone who will grow up with positive relationships with gay relatives and gay people in general. If none of its membership has any deep or lasting ties to actual, real gay people, then there won't be any internal backlash when they implement their next anti-gay policy, whatever it might be.

Either that, or they want to ensure that the children choose them 100% instead of straddling the fence over split loyalty to the gay parent(s). The church wins in that scenario, too.

So, if you're complaining that this policy will hurt children--and I won't argue with you--guess what? My take is that the whole point is to hurt children enough that they leave, thus clearing the way for a more homogeneous, and acquiescent, next generation.

In other words, rather than being a short-sighted, boneheaded policy, it is a shrewd and calculated move to achieve a specific long-term goal.

Your thoughts?

This is precisely what I have been saying as well.......

[_Kishkumen]

I was merely pointing out the egregious contradiction of Dr. Shades's convenient belief about this policy with his (and his board's) usual beliefs about the church and its policies.

But for the record. I hate this policy. I do not think it comes from any loving god; at least not any loving god I've ever heard of.

It is a worthwhile observation. There is undoubtedly a surfeit of ageism in the board's criticisms of LDS leaders. Suffice it to say that they were too clever by half here, and the result is that the Church is in a state of apostasy.

[_Gadianton]

I think the church WANTS to drive the children of people in such relationships away. I think the church WANTS these children to be emotionally wounded to the point that they leave.

Maybe this rule is to dissuade SS couples and they are hoping it works so they don't have to resort to more direct methods. Here's the problem I see. Suppose Shulem, for example, decides to show his SO the Church he was raised in, and they go to church together and sit together on the front row. Anyone is welcome to come to church, correct? Even if they don't innocently hold hands, as other couples, what happens when gays feel home enough among their LDS friends that they show up to church together? For all I know this is already happening. And hey, they could certainly show up with their adopted child. Even if the parents aren't members, what's to stop them from feeling some kind of kinship with members, or hope from reading the Book of Mormon, such that they feel as if they belong at a Mormon church on Sundays? Perhaps even their child could be blessed by one of their friends? Just as blacks couldn't hold the priesthood, they could believe strongly in some part of the message, and hope the Church will one day change its policy, but until then, be active non-members with compassion for the institution.

The Church and gays certainly have an interesting relationship. If gays are so determined to live in SLC, I have to think there must be more than just a contrarian motivation. I certainly wouldn't move to the DPRK just because I think it's a great example of oppression. Maybe Mike Quinn was right. After all the persecution of Christians, the Church of Rome sure took an interesting turn.

[_Dr. Shades]

For a bunch of out-of-touch, senile, old white dodos, they sure are good at creating calculated, complex, and shrewd policies, wouldn't you say?

Yes.

But the harmonization is that they make these policies within the mindset that they've always known. They grew up in a world without the Internet and without social media. They're used to doing anything they want and getting away with it 100% of the time. Therefore, it's out-of-touch and boneheaded to be surprised at the public backlash that comes from implementing calculated, complex, and shrewd policies nowadays.

Does that make more sense?

[_Jersey Girl]

For a bunch of out-of-touch, senile, old white dodos, they sure are good at creating calculated, complex, and shrewd policies, wouldn't you say?

Yes.

But the harmonization is that they make these policies within the mindset that they've always known. They grew up in a world without the Internet and without social media. They're used to doing anything they want and getting away with it 100% of the time. Therefore, it's out-of-touch and boneheaded to be surprised at the public backlash that comes from implementing calculated, complex, and shrewd policies nowadays.

Does that make more sense?

I think you are exactly correct about them not taking into account, what the Internet does and is capable of. Several years ago, a church that I worked for put my full name and photo on their website without my permission and they couldn't understand why they should have cleared it with me first.

[_Equality]

This "church" has got not a thing to do with Christianity. It hasn't got a thing to do with the teachings of Jesus. It's engaging in spiritual extortion and blackmail.

Just like Joseph freaking Smith Jr.

Indeed, the LDS church makes a lot more sense once one realizes that it started as a sex cult and morphed into a corporation masquerading as a religion. The "church" is a trademark owned by a multinational hydra-like megacorporation. The 15 white guys in $1000 suits (well, for Bednar, maybe $2500 suits) make every decision based on the bottom line. Unlike most publicly traded companies, they aren't focused on the impact of their decisions on the short-term stock price; they are making their decisions with a longer view--but it's still only the bottom line they are looking at.