Letter sent to SP's - damage control.

[_just me]

When they come out with a clarification, they could call it Official Policy Declaration #2.

[Guest]

deleted.

[Guest]

deleted

[Anonymous]

The most fascinating piece of the clarification that has already been offered is when Christofferson said this:

When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender.

The explicit purpose of the policy is to tell kids that it is inappropriate for them to be indoctrinated in the Church. If a believing parent hears this, what she should tell her children is something like this:

For reasons I don't fully comprehend, God's apostles don't want you to learn about God's True Church until after you are grown up; they think it would be inappropriate for you to learn their thoughts about your dad and step-dad. So, you get a hall-pass until you are 18.

If I would have heard that, I might have felt a little bit rejected and would have tried to appear really somber about it, but it's an 18-year hall pass to get out of thousands of hours of really boring and patronizing meetings. I wouldn't have been able to help but smile at the news.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3162004-1 ... ne-program

[_Darth J]

"The Church is overreacting to same-sex marriage at the moment. Much better to take a deep breath and let the dust settle. But of course, quite a few members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 flew off the handle, willingly trashing gay families without seeing just how the policy will go into effect."

That's what you meant to say, isn't it, Why Me?

[_why me]

Wait. You defend a church you don't have a testimony of? You're straight up an apostate/heretic and you're defending the church?

This is the most bizarre MDB position I've seen. It's akin to a socialist Democrat defending a free-market Republican because he doesn't think the Republican's position is a big deal.

I thought you were an idiot yesterday, and that you couldn't possibly post something more misinformed and stupid over yesterday's posts... And yet, here we are today. You just posted something dumber. At this point I'm not sure how you even breathe without choking on your own tongue.

- Doc

I didn't say that I don't have a testimony. I do. But I choose to live my life in a different way. It is called free agency. And I take responsibility for it. I do attend church but not all the meetings. I tend to live my life in my own way.

However, I can still defend the LDS church. My children are active and I support them in their activity.

[_Darth J]

But I choose to live my life in a different way. It is called free agency. And I take responsibility for it. I do attend church but not all the meetings. I tend to live my life in my own way.

However, I can still defend the LDS church. My children are active and I support them in their activity.

How cruel for you to make your children choose between loyalty to you and their church. Much better for them to have to disavow your apostate lifestyle if they want to remain members.

[_why me]

"The Church is overreacting to same-sex marriage at the moment. Much better to take a deep breath and let the dust settle. But of course, quite a few members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 flew off the handle, willingly trashing gay families without seeing just how the policy will go into effect."

That's what you meant to say, isn't it, Why Me?

No. However, you must agree that people immediately flew off the handle and began to make hay of it. Why the overreaction? Much better to wait and see just what happens before claiming that the church is witholding blessings etc. Allow the church to explain the policy and reflect on it.

But what do we have? A bunch of yahoos howling and screaming about a policy almost immediately that it came out.

[_Darth J]

I didn't say that I don't have a testimony. I do. But I choose to live my life in a different way. It is called free agency.

So you'll of course agree that gay people in a same-sex relationship can also have a testimony.

[_why me]

But I choose to live my life in a different way. It is called free agency. And I take responsibility for it. I do attend church but not all the meetings. I tend to live my life in my own way.

However, I can still defend the LDS church. My children are active and I support them in their activity.

How cruel for you to make your children choose between loyalty to you and their church. Much better for them to have to disavow your apostate lifestyle if they want to remain members.

I have an open and honest relationship with them. From the time when they were small, they knew that daddy always took a walk after sacrament. No problem. Of course this was many years ago. But not much has changed.