sock puppet wrote:I wonder then why they want to damn the children of hetero-only parents to being responsible for their own mortality sins, from the age of 8 no less.
I know the Church is true and we have modern Day Prophets and Jesus is the head of this church and I only wish you could feel the spirit with me. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ Amen.
RockSlider wrote: I know the Church is true and we have modern Day Prophets and Jesus is the head of this church and I only wish you could feel the spirit with me. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ Amen.
You forgot ..." I love my mommy and daddy"...maybe that is why they made the policy, they did not want little kids to say..." I love my daddy and daddy, I know the church is true.................. ?"
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Markk wrote: You forgot ..." I love my mommy and daddy"...maybe that is why they made the policy, they did not want little kids to say..." I love my daddy and daddy, I know the church is true.................. ?"
Out of the mouths of babes.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
I have a question wrote: Please can you quote the parts of the policy that you see as 'ambiguous'?
The policy itself is rather black and white, the ambiguity is found in between the lines. In the gray areas that have been brought up one by one over the last week. That is what I'm referring to. It is the gray areas that I think the clarification will deal with. The actual policy as it stands will stay in place, I would guess. To backtrack on that would open a can of worms in regards to where the 'revelation' came from.
I have a question wrote: Please can you quote the parts of the policy that you see as 'ambiguous'?
The policy itself is rather black and white, the ambiguity is found in between the lines. In the gray areas that have been brought up one by one over the last week. That is what I'm referring to. It is the gray areas that I think the clarification will deal with. The actual policy as it stands will stay in place, I would guess. To backtrack on that would open a can of worms in regards to where the 'revelation' came from.
Regards, MG
Please can you quote an example of a between-the-lines grey area that will need clarifying?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
mentalgymnast wrote:Perhaps they are a group of sociopaths in suits, neither stupid nor credulous.
MG: You're serious?
Equality: I am just following the evidence, which strongly suggests the possibility.
Are you saying that they are sociopaths because they seem to all be speaking as one voice...and that one voice appears to be treating children as objects rather than people?
sock puppet wrote:...there is a vast gray area now in LDS thinking...
I think that this is true. But I'm not sure that I agree with you in thinking that the GA's are not aware of that. I go back to what I said before. They may be in a position where they believe/feel that they have little choice in the policy change...due to what they see in social/political structure in regards to SSM. The line has to be a bright line where all members...including those in the gray area...will have to sink or swim in regards to their continued faith and participation in the LDS faith community.
