The obvious question

[_mentalgymnast]

I think we all need to cut Mentalgymnast some slack as he, like any of us, struggles to make sense of all this without Teryl, peace be upon him, telling us what's what.

You do have a fixation this guy. by the way, it's Terryl.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

What happens to a child in a situation where a mother and father divorce and the mother goes into a lesbian SSM. Or visa versa...dad goes into a SSM relationship. Child goes with mom and she either does or doesn't remarry a straight man. What about the child? Or on the other side, the child goes with the two daddies and mom works out a joint custody agreement with dad. Her wishes? Or simple straight line policy?

"Effective immediately, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a new policy related to the children of gay couples, married or unmarried:
"Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:
A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:
1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.
2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

I'm not seeing any grey, only black and white.
What am I missing?

[_Darth J]

I think we all need to cut Mentalgymnast some slack as he, like any of us, struggles to make sense of all this without Teryl, peace be upon him, telling us what's what.

You do have a fixation this guy. by the way, it's Terryl.

search.php?keywords=givens&terms=all&author=mentalgymnast&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

[_zeezrom]

The only thing that could slightly make sense to me is that the church does not want to make records where both parents are male/female.

Yeah I think this is definitely the reason. Perhaps they foresee a potential lawsuit as well. I'm sure this is being discussed somewhere... I just don't have time to search for it right now...

I just wanted to clarify that I think maybe the church felt they would get sued if children on the records couldn't include their parents on the records. To prevent the lawsuit, they did this thing to the kids knowing there would be a backlash. They carefully weighed the options. Either risk getting sued and having their finances scrutinized or lose a few thousand members. They chose the latter.

[Guest]

maybe the church felt they would get sued if children on the records couldn't include their parents on the records.

It's impossible to sue a religious organization for that. Under the First Amendment, judges can't evaluate or gainsay internal ecclesiastical policies.

Franco v. LDS Church (Utah Supreme Court 2001) (yes, I know I am not doing the correct citation here for a case)

[I]t is well settled that civil tort claims against clerics that require the courts to review and interpret church law, policies, or practices in the determination of the claims are barred by the First Amendment under the entanglement doctrine.   See Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 709-10, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976);  Dausch, 52 F.3d at 1432;  L.L.N., 563 N.W.2d at 440.   For, as the Supreme Court stated in Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952), churches must have “power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.”  Id. at 116, 73 S.Ct. 143.

[_mentalgymnast]

...it didn't occur to them to address obvious contingencies in the official handbook that tells local leaders what to do.

Are the contingencies for everything spelled out throughout the whole Handbook of Instructions? Are there some things that are left to the individual revelation/inspiration of leaders? If so, then would we not expect that on the first 'run' of this policy we might expect that there are some things remaining to be fleshed out? Now we're finding out some of the conundrums and problems that may apply across the board to many leaders all over the church. It is those...fill in the blanks/details...that I'm hoping to see further light and knowledge on. Even then, I think there will still be a bit of latitude in how leaders deal with individual cases. And like I said before, we can only hope that all things will be done in mercy rather than an overload of what one individual leader may consider to be justice.

There is always going to be the leader roulette problem. I don't see any way around that unless EVERYTHING was spelled out to the letter. But it's not. We find ourselves in a position of the Book of Mormon doctrine of "acting and being acted upon" coming into play. And as I've already mentioned also, we are going to find collateral damage on both sides of the tracks. I'm hoping that the brethren have...not being stupid, of course ...looked at all the possible ramifications that are coming out of this policy change and looking for inspiration that leads them to a place of least possible collateral damage.

It's a hard row to hoe for them. I think we can at least agree on that.

Do you think that church leaders are doing what they are doing with the sole purpose of hurting and/or inflicting damage to people?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

search.php?keywords=givens&terms=all&author=mentalgymnast&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

Yep, I've quoted him and brought his ideas into the discussion before. I'm doing all my own thinking on this thread though!

For better or for worse.

I'm assuming that all the thinking has NOT been done. I'm assuming that others here are taking that same approach??

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

It's unreasonable to expect wise men with a Batphone to God and legions of advisors to have thought this through for a long time but not spelled out unclear contingencies that were obvious to me as a rank-and-file Mormon

It's a hard row to hoe for them. I think we can at least agree on that.

No, it's really not hard to figure out that under Mormonism's own terms and LDS policies in every other situation, this policy was unnecessary. It's only necessary if you assume those faggots playing house are so vile and loathsome that a kid can't be expected to understand the gospel in that environment, even though a kid raised by two unmarried atheists can (since the latter can consent to a minor being baptized).

Do you think that church leaders are doing what they are doing with the sole purpose of hurting and/or inflicting damage to people?

No, I think they are doing what they are doing because for the last two decades in particular they have been obsessed with marginalizing gay people and it doesn't even register to them that this will hurt people. and more particularly that it will hurt little kids who are told Jesus doesn't want them because their parents are gross. Christofferson made that crystal clear that's where they're coming from.

[_I have a question]

Do you think that church leaders are doing what they are doing with the sole purpose of hurting and/or inflicting damage to people?

Regards,
MG

Let's consider the other options.

1. They considered and fully understood the potential for hurt and inflicting damage to people, but went ahead anyway.
2. They didn't consider the potential for hurt and inflicting damage to people.
3. They considered but completely misunderstood the potential for hurt and inflicting damage to people.

I don't know that any of those improves the perception people have of Church leaders right now.
Which one do you think is best?

[_mentalgymnast]

Do you think that church leaders are doing what they are doing with the sole purpose of hurting and/or inflicting damage to people?

Regards,
MG

Let's consider the other options.

1. They considered and fully understood the potential for hurt and inflicting damage to people, but went ahead anyway.
2. They didn't consider the potential for hurt and inflicting damage to people.
3. They considered but completely misunderstood the potential for hurt and inflicting damage to people.

I don't know that any of those improves the perception people have of Church leaders right now.
Which one do you think is best?

Number one. Although I'd rephrase it. Inflicting damage to SOME people. I've been saying this all along. Go back and read my posts on "collateral damage". I don't want to repeat myself.

Collateral damage is a difficult thing to deal with. I know that. Please don't paint me as 'heartless', howver.

I'm not.

Just trying like everyone else to navigate myself through this policy change...from a faithful perspective...and without checking in or disposing with my integrity.

Regards,
MG