The Church knows EXACTLY what it's doing with the new policy

[_cwald]

I hope you are incorrect, Dr. Shades.

[_ludwigm]

I hope you are incorrect, Dr. Shades.

Yes.

I am gracious enough to think that "those" (be he or they any of the High Fifteen), yes, those, are only stupid and not malevolent.

Time will prove this or that.
Up to now, stupidity has ruled...

[_Dr. Shades]

Do you find it at all amusing that on one hand, citizens of this board love to promulgate the notion of church leaders being old, decrepit, and unable to perform the simplest of tasks like speaking at a podium, while on the other hand saying things like your quote above?

No, I don't find it amusing at all. NEWSFLASH: It's possible to be physically old, decrepit, and unable to perform the simplest of tasks like speaking at a podium WHILE AT THE SAME TIME being mentally alert and lucid.

Besides, who among the big 15 is rumored to be going senile besides President Monson?

I don't think you're correct on this one (perhaps I am dead wrong and you are?)

I think they made a huge boo-boo and it will be costly.

Just because it was a boo-boo doesn't mean it wasn't a cognizant, calculated choice. Do you disagree?

I think they are gravely mistaken, though, if they think this new policy change will be of net benefit to the Church. I think it is potentially one of the most damaging actions to that institution they could have taken.

Maybe. But I think it's entirely possible that they simply didn't foresee that a policy hidden within an off-limits "for your eyes only" handbook would scatter to the four winds so darn soon.

[_Symmachus]

Do you find it at all amusing that on one hand, citizens of this board love to promulgate the notion of church leaders being old, decrepit, and unable to perform the simplest of tasks like speaking at a podium, while on the other hand saying things like your quote above?

So, in your view, Dr. Shades, AmyJo, and I Have a Question (to whom you link here) are just different avatars of the same underlying MormonDiscussions Meta-Mind? Or are they indeed the same person?

In other words, rather than being a short-sighted, boneheaded policy, it is a shrewd and calculated move to achieve a specific long-term goal.

Certainly, anything that needs unanimous approval before enshrinement in what is basically the Church's law code requires calculation and is probably done with some appeal to foresight. I tend to agree with Prester John that they are not that shrewd, however, nor do they possess that much foresight.

For example:

But I think it's entirely possible that they simply didn't foresee that a policy hidden within an off-limits "for your eyes only" handbook would scatter to the four winds so darn soon.

[_harmony]

Of the two people I've talked to about this (hubby and daughter), one doesn't believe it and wont believe it until it comes across the pulpit in GC, and the other thinks it will help the kids by taking away a source of conflict, and they don't believe it will have any effect on kids such as Jesse's son... can't imagine the church taking away anything from a baptized member.

Sigh. I think I live in hell.

[_RockSlider]

If Shades is right (along with the guy on Mormon stories), I'm super depressed ... my hopes for my grandchildren have been in a continually liberalization.

[_Symmachus]

If Shades is right (along with the guy on Mormon stories), I'm super depressed ... my hopes for my grandchildren have been in a continually liberalization.

I really am curious about this: what were the indications that you have received since 2008 from the Church that they were liberalizing in any way whatsoever? I am baffled why so many people have had this sense of coming liberalization, because it seems baseless to me. I just don't get it, but maybe I am missing significant parts of the picture.

[Guest]

I honestly think it's just stupidity. I imagine the case of gay parents consenting to baptism is pretty rare. So why cover the niche case? I'd guess because some jackass probably thought they should have the same policy for kids of gay parents as they do for kids of polygamist parents.

[_Abaddon]

I think they did what they did because they wanted to achieve the goals you mentioned of a more "one heart, one mind" church with less dissension in the ranks. What better way to do that then create this divisive policy?

But while they shrewdly created it, and probably bizarrely believe it inspired because of their real lack of discernment and fake god, I think it's absolutely believable that because they believe it inspired they had no clue the backlash it was going to cause (which is why you got that rushed, pathetic attempt at a response to help mitigate the backlash by Christopherson)

And this goes back to my thread about "this being the issue that's driving more of you away" yet everything, combined, on Mormon Think wasn't enough? I mean damn; with a history like they have did you really expect they were going to improve??

That famous couplet comes to mind:

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

I think a lot of members that are mad about this policy got completely punked. What did you think was going to happen from a man-made church that thinks they're divine?

[_Abaddon]

TL:DR my previous post. This will sum it up:

"I think a lot of members that are mad about this policy got completely punked. What did you think was going to happen from a man-made church that thinks they're divine?"