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

[_Dr. Shades]

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?

[_RockSlider]

all those upcoming wolves/fifth columnist ... indeed you may be onto something here Shades.

The old "Cafeteria Mormons" have now evolved into several threatening more specialized Mormonism.

It well could be they are drawing a line in the sand as it were.

[_grindael]

What if the child wants to go to church, attend primary, be baptized, etc. and that is ok with the homosexual parents? What kind of damage will that do to the child? I don't see how this will work. They liken this to the same policy regarding the children in polygamous households. But the culture of polygamy is different. They stay isolated (in the majority of cases). They don't want their kids going to the Mormon Church, etc. They don't feel they have authority to baptize, etc. How can they apply that criteria to the same sex marriage families? I just think the church wants to wash its hands against any controversy, and really doesn't care if those kids stay in the Church at all. It's just easier for them to ignore and shun them.

[_Yong Xi]

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 this, but will take it one step further. I believe the Church is telling the gay parents to stay away. Don't come to Church. Don't believe you can make inroads and be accepted. Don't hold hands in the presence of our members.

The Church, having got what it wanted to protect its "Religious Freedom", is now excising gayness from the Church.

[_Dr. Shades]

What if the child wants to go to church, attend primary, be baptized, etc. and that is ok with the homosexual parents?

That's just it: The church doesn't want such kids around, because chances are the kid will grow up to be a member who is resistant to future anti-gay measures. The church doesn't care about the parents.

What kind of damage will that do to the child?

You're missing my point: The church doesn't care about the damage it'll do to the child. It WANTS the child to be damaged enough to leave.

I don't see how this will work.

It will get such kids to leave on their own, which is precisely the effect the church is going for.

I just think the church wants to wash its hands against any controversy, and really doesn't care if those kids stay in the Church at all. It's just easier for them to ignore and shun them.

Ignore and shun the kids? I think the church is being a little more proactive than that. I think it's actively pushing the kids toward the door.

[_Prester John]

it is a shrewd and calculated move to achieve a specific long-term goal.

Your thoughts?

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?

I mean, who are these sinister villains who always seem to know "exactly what they're doing," and who make "shrewd and calculated move[s]," while at the same time suffering from dementia, and not fit enough to meet the President of the United States? (The list goes on.)

[Guest]

Dr. Shades, I hadn't thought of it in quite that way before, but your hypothesis makes more sense to me the more I think about it. 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. I think that a just and reasonable God (if there is any such thing) would disavow the Church over this, if he/she has not already done so.

[_RockSlider]

I mean, who are these sinister villains who always seem to know "exactly what they're doing," and who make "shrewd and calculated move[s]," while at the same time suffering from dementia, and not fit enough to meet the President of the United States? (The list goes on.)

The puppet masters behind the great wizards ... its a combination of president news room, law firms and business/land managers.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Shades!

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.

v
v
v
v
v
v


Sup Gunnar!

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.

I agree!

It could be extremely damaging - and on many levels.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Prester John]

The puppet masters behind the great wizards

Who?

... its a combination of president news room,

Not a real person.

law firms and business/land managers.

Which ones? Who is hiring them?