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

[Guest]

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.

Certainly! But I don't think those two possibilities are mutually exclusive.

[_cwald]

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?

That is s scathing indictment of people like me...but damnit, i can't argue with you. It's pretty solid.

[_Gunnar]

I imagine that at least some, if not all of the FP/12 are already deeply chagrined by how stupid and bigoted they now appear in the eyes of much of the world and are beginning to realize just how stupid and self-destructive this change in policy really is, whether they have the honesty and wit to acknowledge that or not.

[_Jersey Girl]

Many people have called the church's new policy vis-à-vis withholding ordinances for children of gay people in committed relationships as being a short-sighted, bone-headed move.

They say that it will cause members whose children are affected by this to leave. And/or that it will drive a wedge between the church and those children. And/or that children will be hurt or harmed. Witness Jesse Pinkman's recent thread for a case in point.

I have a different take on it: I think the church WANTS to drive the children of people in such relationships away. I think the church WANTS these children to be emotionally wounded to the point that they leave.

Why would this be, you ask? In my opinion, it's because of the hard lessons the church learned from the Proposition 8 fiasco. It got fed up, sick, and tired from all the internal dissension. Therefore, it wants to prevent any future dissension by culling anyone who will grow up with positive relationships with gay relatives and gay people in general. If none of its membership has any deep or lasting ties to actual, real gay people, then there won't be any internal backlash when they implement their next anti-gay policy, whatever it might be.

Either that, or they want to ensure that the children choose them 100% instead of straddling the fence over split loyalty to the gay parent(s). The church wins in that scenario, too.

So, if you're complaining that this policy will hurt children--and I won't argue with you--guess what? My take is that the whole point is to hurt children enough that they leave, thus clearing the way for a more homogeneous, and acquiescent, next generation.

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.

Your thoughts?

I agree with you that the church wants to clear out gay members and their families for the very purposes you state. The only thing I would say differently is that the church is threatening to hurt children in the hopes that they scare off them and their families.

I just want to know how anyone can be part of this church when the leadership is so freaking manipulative, misguided, stupid, uncaring, lacking in compassion and to the point that it would outright threaten children. Someone tell me how anyone can swallow this and stay in this church and why in hell would anyone really want to?

How many parents are awake tonight who feel strongly opposed to this (regardless of their sexual orientation) and feel compelled to leave the church and are afraid to the bone to do it out of fear of losing their family, that their children will want to continue in the church and they will be the ones on the outside looking in (not) when their children are sealed?

Part of what this so-called church is doing is making liars out of it's own members. People will hide their true feelings (they already do), they'll deny their sexual orientation publicly, they'll live a lie (hetero marriage/family) just to stay in the religion, they'll turn their backs on family members and damn if I'm not right back where I started when I first hit the Internet to further investigate Mormonism all of 16 years ago.

Damn.

This "church" has got not a thing to do with Christianity. It hasn't got a thing to do with the teachings of Jesus. It's engaging in spiritual extortion and blackmail.

Just like Joseph freaking Smith Jr.

And if anyone wants to debate that, you know what, do it yourself, because I'm fresh out of "F"s to give.

I need to stop posting about this. Honestly, it pisses me off.

[_moksha]

Hmmm, a desire for a more homogeneous membership by simply shooting itself in the foot. No. It doesn't make sense.

Here is a better scenario...

Just think what it must have been like reconvening the Brethren with three new apostles. They may have looked around at each other and said, "let's do something great!". After a very long silence, they realized they could not think of anything. Elder Rasband most likely asked, "what have we been good at in the past?"

Elders Oaks and Holland probably look at each other and exclaimed, "We have waged a decades long war against the gays. We sure knew how to get things done in a clandestine political way". Elder Oaks added that no matter how divisive the outcome was, the Church had no need to ever apologize. He paused and said, "Boyd would want us to hit them harder than ever". Elder Bednar being the youngest was able to stand and shout, "Hear, hear we can do something diabolical".

As if on cue after hearing the word diabolical, Elder Cook interjected and said it would be a good idea to hit them where they least expect it. "Let's do something that will show the world what we are made of, let's go after their children". Elder Ballard added, "Not like those Catholics who don't know which side God is buttered on". Elder Oaks had a big smile, much like the Cheshire Cat, "Elder Cook, you think like a lawyer. You're my kind of Apostle".

So the plan was drawn up and run past the Inquisitional Steering Committee, which gave it the highest inverted pentagram rating possible. The Brethren knew this would truly make a statement to the world. No more Mr. Nice Guy to push around. The Church would come out of the chute with barbed tail and trident flashing. It will make a statement not to mess with Mormons after we are through kicking around the children of same-sex married couples.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Children paying for the "sins" of their father(s) and mothers(s).

Well, at least the homosexual ones.

Homophobia has a new capital in Salt Lake City.

[Guest]

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.

The Gray Fox, BKP's death, the approaching death of even more, early statements about being ok to privately support gays ... going way back ... the track record of correlation, the liberalization, almost losing of any/all Mormon Doctrine, including throwing BRM under that bus, GBH's Mainstreaming of the church etc. etc.

eta:

I think rumors of some at BYU/MI accepting a non-historical Book of Mormon is/was likely my biggest hope.

[_RockSlider]

....

Yes, and image the shock and horror of the three new guys upon realizing what they have signed their souls for, without even being able to consult their wives. Poor bastards

[_sock puppet]

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.

Point the one who doubts the new policy was included in the Handbook to the Christofferson-Otterson Q&A video. If he or she won't believe Christofferson, then I would say you live in hell.

[_sock puppet]

I imagine that at least some, if not all of the FP/12 are already deeply chagrined by how stupid and bigoted they now appear in the eyes of much of the world and are beginning to realize just how stupid and self-destructive this change in policy really is, whether they have the honesty and wit to acknowledge that or not.

I wonder how the 3 newbies feel this weekend? Just a month into their new gigs and already at the epicenter of a huge PR boner.