I asked my wife about the article I saw in the NY Times.
I got a disheartening response - highlights below:

Protect the children
Can't have different values at home vs. church
Doubt your doubts
Strong proponent of LGBT rights
Catholics are so much worse
Nobody is really affected
Quitters weren't really believers
Nobody is being forced out
Ask the Bishop
Policy is old
Bishop will share the whole truth
Was this on the internet? Never trust the internet
Thank Heavenly Father for a living prophet
How does this affect you?
Why are you so Anti?
Can't trust the internet
Here is the clarification (on the internet of course) so it's OK

And I thought she was progressive enough to see the harm, the hatred, the division. Maybe she's too close to it. Maybe I'm just lost in outer darkness, and God really does lead the church.

"Maybe she's too close to it." I choose this one.

That old saying, "Can't see the forest for the trees," carries a lot of wisdom.

You aren't lost in outer darkness-Monson and his cronies are.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. It makes me so angry to

see those responses. I know thousands are using the same

excuses for remaining in the church and looking the other

way. I just can't stand it.

It affects no one? I've been inactive/resigned for over 20 years and it still affects me. My daughter is TBM and is the daughter of someone gay. I busted my ass so they could have a good relationship with their father and then the church does this? I don't even know what she thinks as we haven't discussed it. I may get a clue in 2 weeks as we are meeting in Disneyland for a week . . . even my so-so TBM sister was upset about how it would effect my daughter, but NOT my ex's sister. No my ex's sister thought it was great.

We weren't really believers? My parents argued over who caused ME to leave the church as they never worried I'd ever leave, never even crossed their mind. I was SO DEVOUT. Most of the exmos I know were the most devout.

Of course, as long as it doesn't affect her, then the rest of us don't count? I cut off a 30 year friendship over statements like she just made.

I keep thinking about your post for some reason.

I really feel for the position you are in Lost on a beach. This is what I get from my family--just a regurgitation rather than well thought out and reasoned statements by the person making them.

I only have to talk to my family on the phone now and then. I can't imagine how hard it must be to get this from a significant other. Just, hang in there and good luck.

Just as the racist policies of the church in the 1970s stigmatized blacks, the current policies stigmatize gays.

Mormonism is one of the strongest bastions of homophobia in America. Declaring a loving couple "apostates" for getting married is the height of bigotry. Attacking their children is just downright mean.

I'm sorry your wife still buys into it. It is hard to turn on the faith of your youth. That's why when the wall breaks, exmos release years of pent up frustrations against the church. She may or may not let go, but when she does, look out!

Did you ask her how it protects the children? If the policy is about avoiding conflicts, the children shouldn't be able to attend at all until they turn 18. That's not the case. They can still attend, participate, receive blessings, etc... They get all the conflicts, just no imaginary Holy Ghost to help them. Any sane person should be able to see that this is inconsistent with Christian doctrine and that this policy does nothing to "protect the children". Anyone who claims this is just a parrot...they haven't given it any thought.

On the same note the kids who still attend church will now get plenty of conflict from there. It seems to me that even though they say the kids can still attend, but not be baptized, etc., the kids will get the most problem from just being at the church itself. Why would the act of baptism cause more conflict than actually attending a church? NOT getting baptized causes the separation and conflict, from my admittedly limited outside view. How could attending a church be LESS conflicting than the one act of baptism?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2015 01:38PM by KiNeverMo.

Pretty much the same messages DW got from TBM DD.

The main memes they are pushing are the first two you listed: "Protect the children & Can't have different values at home vs. church"

But how does that wash with baptising those under 18 who live in homes with true believing Catholics, Muslims, or anything else. Doesn't that have the children having "different values at home vs. church"? And of course it does. Yet there is no prohibition on those baptisms, or requiring the children to be 18 and disavowing the practices of their parents.

They lost their fight with SSM, and now they are lashing out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2015 12:42PM by left4good.

I was a member before and after the Priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. Looking at British TBM on facebook their arguments and discussions remind me absolutely of the mental gymnastics TBM used to justify the priesthood ban! They know the new handbook instructions are homophobic rubbish, but they are desperate to support the church! Will they never learn!

The policy IS NOT about protecting children.

The policy IS about preventing disclosure of church financials via a law suit.

Why wait to get baptized at 18? Why wait to have the confirmation of "The Gift of the Holy Ghost"?

There are hundreds of talks about how precious this HG gift is to guide the young 8 year old through his/her life. It's how God will guide and protect you. This thinking process is indoctrinated into the primary age kids starting with the 3-year old sunbeams. By the time they are 8 they are convinced they need the HG to help them and that this is a way God shows how much he loves and wants to guide us.

So I ask again, why the new policy and waiting till 18 when the individual must disavow their SSM parents?

And why does it take at that point to have baptism permission granted by the First Presidency? The three guys who just happen to know the actual financials of the worldwide institution? Who know about all the millions of dollars spent on legal settlements here and there? Who don't move on anything until church approved legal representation has okayed their decisions?

ANSWER:

There's been ZERO comments on RFM about what it will take to 'get permission' from the FP. Ask yourself this:

- What does the 18 year old have to agree to?
- Does he/she have to sign a document?
- What terms will the FP demand you agree to?
- Will there be a confidential form to fill out?
- What will be on that form?
- In order for TSCC to be protected from a future law suit, that form will be written by the lawyers.
- Then, and only then, with the signature of the ADULT 18+year old can they get baptized.

- Now, its impossible to sue TSCC for any emotional harm or problems that baptism creates within the SSM family unit.

- Now, the baptism is the 'free will' of the adult who has agreed to THE TERMS of TSCC. If for any reason in the future that individual doesn't like THE TERMS, he can't do any legal or financial harm (law suit) to TSCC.

-----
Remember:

The current missionaries must sign and accept their mission calls by AGREEING to THE TERMS that are laid out in the mission call paperwork. This is to protect TSCC from any/all law suits - plain and simple.

The new baptism policy change toward children of SSM parents is produced solely for LEGAL REASONS to protect the church's financials from being disclosed in a possible law suit.

ETA: TSCC must not allow the rising generation to see SSM parents or their children as being GREAT people, WONDERFUL people, LOVING people, etc. N-O-P-E !!! Can't have that. Can't have the sheep in the pews coming to the conclusion that we're bigots.

I know I'm right!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2015 01:54PM by jiminycricket.