Another LDS clusterf-ck

[afleitch]

http://kutv.com/news/local/family-wonders-what-is-next-for-faithful-same-sex-marriage

One 7-year-old girl, is one month away from baptism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and her father is in a same-sex marriage, what happens now?

That's the question one gay couple is asking after the LDS church came out with a policy regarding the children of same-sex parents.

According to the policy the children with "a parent living in a same-gender relationship," can't be blessed, baptized, confirmed, ordained or recommended for a mission until they are 18-years-old.

"It's not fair to ask anybody to choose sides," said Randon Spackman, 36. Randon is married to his partner Ben Christensen, 36, and has a daughter who is turning 8-years-old next month. Spackman says she's very active in the LDS church and is excited about her baptism.

"She's been expecting to be baptized for the longest time and then all of a sudden, just a month before policy changes, and she may not be eligible anymore," said Spackman. "They are treating her differently, not because of anything she's done but because of what I've done."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK but why is she a Mormon in the first place? She's only 7 so she clearly didn't convert on her own...meaning her gay parents must've raised her that way--why would any gay couple raise their kid as a Mormon?!

[DavidB.]

OK but why is she a Mormon in the first place? She's only 7 so she clearly didn't convert on her own...meaning her gay parents must've raised her that way--why would any gay couple raise their kid as a Mormon?!

Her mother might be a Mormon and her parents might have divorced (her father, afterwards, marrying a guy).

[afleitch]

OK but why is she a Mormon in the first place? She's only 7 so she clearly didn't convert on her own...meaning her gay parents must've raised her that way--why would any gay couple raise their kid as a Mormon?!

Quite frankly, why would any gay couple raise their child to be Christian. BUT. That's not the issue here. This is not a matter of yours or my personal preference here. People do raise their children in a religion that hurts them as individuals because sometimes people can rise above whatever is thrown their way, and yet in some cases the obsession religious bodies have over what their parents are is so venomous they even wish to poison their children by association.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK but why is she a Mormon in the first place? She's only 7 so she clearly didn't convert on her own...meaning her gay parents must've raised her that way--why would any gay couple raise their kid as a Mormon?!

Quite frankly, why would any gay couple raise their child to be Christian. BUT. That's not the issue here. This is not a matter of yours or my personal preference here. People do raise their children in a religion that hurts them as individuals because sometimes people can rise above whatever is thrown their way, and yet in some cases the obsession religious bodies have over what their parents are is so venomous they even wish to poison their children by association.

Except the fact that these sort of rituals when done for children are almost always actually for the parents. If she was an adult and was clearly wishing to be baptized of her own free will then yeah that'd be really different, but as noted the policy doesn't extend to those 18 and over. If she was something like 16 then I'd probably agree that's old enough where it's clear one is doing it for themselves and not the parents. But 7? Nuh uh. Plus getting baptized in the LDS church and growing up with gay parents IS going to result in conflicting messages that I have no clue why anyone would ever want to bestow on a kid and that a 7-year old doesn't understand at this point.

Weirdly enough I think you'd actually AGREE with my position against this type of indoctrination against people too young to understand it. This is the sort of choice people should make for themselves when they are old enough. A 7-year old who grows up with gay parents and turns out liberal at 18 is likely to be horrified and disgusted with the LDS church and want nothing to do with it, so it's unfair to put them in it in the first place at an age where they can not truly consent. I'm sure there's plenty of adult atheists around Utah who sure wish they had never been baptized in the LDS church.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'm sure there's plenty of adult atheists around Utah who sure wish they had never been baptized in the LDS church.

If you are an atheist, why would it bother you that someone tossed water on you as a child? What an emotionally scarring experience!! Pathetic!

[Zioneer]

What frustrates me as a pro-LGBT Mormon is that this change comes after a year of the church seeming to slowly inch towards a semblance of tolerance. Take the anti-discrimination law in Utah, for example; yes it was partially designed to ensure that the church would be able to keep their rules about LGBT people, but it did create at least some protections where none had existed. And church leader (and likely future church president) Dallin H. Oaks remarking that Kim Davis was in the wrong. And the recent news that 36% of church members are fine with marriage equality (up from 24% in 2007). All in all, it looked like the church was at least trying to make peace with the LGBT community.

And then this happens, a slap in the face to LGBT people and the not-insignificant number of LGBT former Mormons who have positive memories in the church. That latter group don't have any special animus towards the church, and would let their kids join the church if they wanted to, but this policy just hurts them and all other LGBT people who expected a "peace treaty" mentality from the church.

And what's worse that's not mentioned in this article is that despite a church apostle mentioning a few months ago that church members can support "same-sex marriage" on social media and so forth (basically allowing it unless you try to convince other church members or the church itself to embrace same-sex marriage), now those children of same-sex parents need to specifically reject all same-sex marriages, including that of their parents.

Adult members themselves who are in same-sex marriages are now automatically considered to have apostatized, and are up for either disciplinary councils or straight-up (pardon the pun) excommunication. That's mandatory. Oh, and the excommunication? Not mandatory for rapists and attempted murderers, though I would imagine that in 99% of cases, the excommunication would happen anyway, and I think does happen automatically if a member is proven to have murdered someone else.

It's a very heartless new policy, and many members who were on the fence about their membership are resigning. Protests are being held near Temple Square (where the church has its headquarters). Basically, the LDS Church really, really underestimated the reaction to this (though considering it was leaked from an instruction handbook for bishops, they probably didn't anticipate it being known at all).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Basically, the LDS Church really, really underestimated the reaction to this (though considering it was leaked from an instruction handbook for bishops, they probably didn't anticipate it being known at all).

Then they were being dumb. In this day and age, everything potentially disputable will be leaked sooner or later, and with over a myriad of bishops in the U.S. alone, it was bound to happen sooner.

[Zioneer]

Basically, the LDS Church really, really underestimated the reaction to this (though considering it was leaked from an instruction handbook for bishops, they probably didn't anticipate it being known at all).

Then they were being dumb. In this day and age, everything potentially disputable will be leaked sooner or later, and with over a myriad of bishops in the U.S. alone, it was bound to happen sooner.

Considering the average age of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency (the leaders at the very top) is about 80, or was before the deaths of three apostles this year and their replacement by leaders in their mid 50s, yeah, they probably didn't consider that it would be leaked, even though it's sent as an electronic copy to bishops.

Since they come from a time where bishops and other low-level leaders were 100% loyal, they probably also didn't consider the idea that a non-believing bishop staying in his position simply to leak things could do this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why would the leaker have to be a non-believer?

[Zioneer]

Why would the leaker have to be a non-believer?

Because the handbook is kept pretty quiet, non-bishops are not supposed to see it at all. It's not specifically touchy to talk about like temple ordinances, but it's not supposed to be seen by just any member of the church. It's for bishops to consult when they make a major decision, or do a bishop's interview (basically talk to members about how their life is going and making sure they're living according to church doctrine), or etc. Not sure how else to explain it.

But in any case, a believing bishop would know not to leak it, and you'd have to be pretty bad at technology to "accidentally" leak it. Specifically, to "accidentally" leak it to John Dehlin, a former (excommunicated, actually) church member and prominent church critic who immediately then leaked it to the media. Dehlin kind of has a grudge against the church (he was excommunicated for publicly trying to advocate positions and views of history contrary to the church's view, such as a more negative view of Joseph Smith). So this leak was no accident, whoever did it knew what they were doing.

[afleitch]

Why would the leaker have to be a non-believer?

Because the handbook is kept pretty quiet, non-bishops are not supposed to see it at all. It's not specifically touchy to talk about like temple ordinances, but it's not supposed to be seen by just any member of the church. It's for bishops to consult when they make a major decision, or do a bishop's interview (basically talk to members about how their life is going and making sure they're living according to church doctrine), or etc. Not sure how else to explain it.

But in any case, a believing bishop would know not to leak it, and you'd have to be pretty bad at technology to "accidentally" leak it. Specifically, to "accidentally" leak it to John Dehlin, a former (excommunicated, actually) church member and prominent church critic who immediately then leaked it to the media. Dehlin kind of has a grudge against the church (he was excommunicated for publicly trying to advocate positions and views of history contrary to the church's view, such as a more negative view of Joseph Smith). So this leak was no accident, whoever did it knew what they were doing.

A believeing bishop might know not to leak it. But they still might because of the contents, I think as a matter of conscience.

[Zioneer]

Why would the leaker have to be a non-believer?

Because the handbook is kept pretty quiet, non-bishops are not supposed to see it at all. It's not specifically touchy to talk about like temple ordinances, but it's not supposed to be seen by just any member of the church. It's for bishops to consult when they make a major decision, or do a bishop's interview (basically talk to members about how their life is going and making sure they're living according to church doctrine), or etc. Not sure how else to explain it.

But in any case, a believing bishop would know not to leak it, and you'd have to be pretty bad at technology to "accidentally" leak it. Specifically, to "accidentally" leak it to John Dehlin, a former (excommunicated, actually) church member and prominent church critic who immediately then leaked it to the media. Dehlin kind of has a grudge against the church (he was excommunicated for publicly trying to advocate positions and views of history contrary to the church's view, such as a more negative view of Joseph Smith). So this leak was no accident, whoever did it knew what they were doing.

A believeing bishop might know not to leak it. But they still might because of the contents, I think as a matter of conscience.

Any bishop that would be that troubled by the new policy probably would be less believing than the average bishop.

But there is another possibility, raised by my former member dad. He pointed out to me that bishops not only have two counselors (forming a ward/congregation "bishopric"), but they also have ward executive secretaries, who take care of ward records and who also have access to the bishop's handbook. Additionally, due to having access to records, they tend to be more likely to be secretly transitioning their faith away from the church, and thus "non-believers". So the most likely scenario is that a ward executive secretary leaked it to John Dehlin, who then leaked it to the media.

In any case, there's been a lot of protest about the new policy from both church members (LGBT or straight) and LGBT non-members. This is backlash unlike anything since Prop 8. So perhaps the church will shift gears like they temporarily tried to do after Prop 8.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

If the girl is seeking it of her own free will, who are they to deny her? But her dad should be diciplined for his abandonment of church teachings on matters of the family.

Then again I have serious issues with the LDS on several levels.

[Famous Mortimer]

Terrible PR will cause The Prophets to have a Revelation very soon that gays are just fine.

[afleitch]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3391057-155/lds-gay-policy-came-from-god

It 'came from God' after all.