The obvious question

[_mentalgymnast]

How does the parent's sex partner's gender have anything to do with the child's need for salvation? How does that bear on the child's worthiness?

As a matter fact there isn't any direct correlation/connection. The child will need and/or be eligible to have the opportunity, just like everyone else, for salvation. If the child is 'worthy' one would think that they will choose to be baptized and partake of salvation.

The interesting thing that's coming out during this conversation in the last week or so is that the critics suddenly think that there is some kind of a rush to get folks baptized. Can't get them dunked fast enough.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

You admit this hurts some people. Which people does it help? In which ways? How does that outweigh the 'collateral damage' to the children of gay cohabiting parent(s)?

Weren't you the one that said it was a cost/benefit risk analysis?

I've already given my opinion/input on these questions earlier in the thread.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Hey MG!

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.

Perhaps I am in the minority here (I don't know?) but I am rather impressed by this post of yours.

You, MG, as well as boat-loads of other good and decent people who just happen to be Mormons, have been put in a very, very difficult position.

Tough road, friend.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Thanks for your kind words.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

The interesting thing that's coming out during this conversation in the last week or so is that the critics suddenly think that there is some kind of a rush to get folks baptized. Can't get them dunked fast enough.

Regards,
MG

Not at all. Many critics have joked that 18 should be the new standard. It's the consistency of the policy that is being criticized. That one group is being treated differently then all the others, for someone they have no control over.
Because seriously, by all means, move the age for everyone to 18. Let's just see how that works out for the church.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Chap!

Perhaps I am in the minority here (I don't know?) but I am rather impressed by this post of yours.

You, MG, as well as boat-loads of other good and decent people who just happen to be Mormons, have been put in a very, very difficult position.

But unfortunately

"But unfortunately".......nothing.

I stand on my post and remain impressed.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Analytics]

Sure. I'm sure boundary maintenance is playing a part in this decision to tighten things up. But to think that they didn't think about the possible implications? That puts them back into "stupid" mode. And I am not convinced that they are stupid.

How much do you know about groupthink? It's a well-studied, well-understood process that predictably causes a collection of intelligent individuals to become a stupid group.

Imagine if you were in the Joseph Smith Memorial building in the finest room, sitting around a huge, lavish boardroom table with 14 apostles, including the Prophet. Everyone is really busy, and there are 20 items on the agenda in a 90-minute meeting. An issue is raised, and a senior apostle says he has an idea--he says, "Just as we have to be clear on our boundaries regarding polygamy, we have to be clear about our boundaries regarding same-sex marriage. It's exactly the same issue. We already have a policy that is proven to maintain the boundary with polygamists, so it makes total sense to implement the same policy with gays."

You have some reservations about the idea, but nobody else speaks up. Everybody seems to want to defer to the senior apostle's judgment and move on. If you were in that room and saw 14 prophets and apostles that all seemed to be in agreement on this and all wanted to move on to the next item on the agenda, would you stick your neck out and tell them you thought they were all wrong? Or would you keep your mouth shut and defer to their collective judgment?

[_Runtu]

How much do you know about groupthink? It's a well-studied, well-understood process that predictably causes a collection of intelligent individuals to become a stupid group.

Imagine if you were in the Joseph Smith Memorial building in the finest room, sitting around a huge, lavish boardroom table with 14 apostles, including the Prophet. Everyone is really busy, and there are 20 items on the agenda in a 90-minute meeting. An issue is raised, and a senior apostle says he has an idea--he says, "Just as we have to be clear on our boundaries regarding polygamy, we have to be clear about our boundaries regarding same-sex marriage. It's exactly the same issue. We already have a policy that is proven to maintain the boundary with polygamists, so it makes total sense to implement the same policy with gays."

You have some reservations about the idea, but nobody else speaks up. Everybody seems to want to defer to the senior apostle's judgment and move on. If you were in that room and saw 14 prophets and apostles that all seemed to be in agreement on this and all wanted to move on to the next item on the agenda, would you stick your neck out and tell them you thought they were all wrong? Or would you keep your mouth shut and defer to their collective judgment?

Not to be pedantic, but such meetings would be held in the Church Administration Building or the temple, not in the JSMB.

I have given up trying to understand what they were thinking. It may well just be boundary maintenance and prophylaxis, as maklelan said, or there maybe something much more. There's no legal reason for it, and the stuff about sparing children the conflict between parents and church is transparent nonsense. So, I don't know what the reason is.

Either way, it's a terrible policy that hurts people, and I doubt very much that the brethren didn't understand what effects the policy would have. And I also doubt they are in the least surprised at the reaction among members. My guess is that they figured the loss of members was an acceptable cost of implementing the policy. And anyone who thinks the church is going to back off from something they have written into the handbook is delusional, in my opinion.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

I think that when the brethren sit in council they are looking at their position in light of each one of them having been ordained to be a "prophet, seer, and revelator"...rather than sitting in a group of theologians.

Regards,
MG

In other words, my council can beat up your council.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Runtu!

And anyone who thinks the church is going to back off from something they have written into the handbook is delusional, in my opinion.

While I am certain that you know more about the LDS church than I will ever know, something is telling me that this may not be correct.

I think that, depending on how this all transpires over the next several months, "backing off" might be exactly what we see the church do.

We shall see?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_The CCC]

How does the parent's sex partner's gender have anything to do with the child's need for salvation? How does that bear on the child's worthiness?

As a matter fact there isn't any direct correlation/connection. The child will need and/or be eligible to have the opportunity, just like everyone else, for salvation. If the child is 'worthy' one would think that they will choose to be baptized and partake of salvation.

The interesting thing that's coming out during this conversation in the last week or so is that the critics suddenly think that there is some kind of a rush to get folks baptized. Can't get them dunked fast enough.

Regards,
MG

It doesn't. But that isn't the issue, parents have legal responsibility for their minor children. No one can even talk to your minor children without your consent.