The Two-Faced LDS Church (Same-Gender Policy)

[_consiglieri]

One of the things I find most reprehensible about this new policy is not only how abhorrent it is, but that the attempt was made to stick it in the super-secret manual without anybody's knowing, and in complete contradiction to the statements being made by the church during the past year about how inclusive and tolerant the church was becoming toward homosexuals.

This new policy did not appear overnight, but is the result of a long process of formulation and revision.

In other words, this policy does not reflect a change in direction of the LDS Church, but a dropping of the mask of inclusivity the Church was showing to the world and to their own members.

This is disturbing, indeed.

And Elder Christofferson should be ashamed of himself to state publicly last January that support of same-sex marriage was not a litmus test to membership in the Church; and then be trotted out in front of the cameras last Friday to support the new policy which not only makes it a litmus test, it makes disavowal of the practice by one's own parents a requirement for baptism . . . 10-years later than everybody else, of course.

No wonder Elder Christofferson looked positively ill throughout that interview.

If anybody needed proof the LDS Church can be completely duplicitous in its dealings, this is it.

And not 150-years ago, but in the here and now.

[_sock puppet]

Yes, and perhaps this was what Oaks had in mind all along with his two-pronged legislative proposal last winter--nondiscrimination in housing and employment, and freedom for religions to discriminate against gays/lesbians.

[_consiglieri]

Whoa!

There may be some truth in that.

Nice catch.

[_I have a question]

If anybody needed proof the LDS Church can be completely duplicitous in its dealings, this is it.

And not 150-years ago, but in the here and now.

Can you think of a time or a topic where the Church hasn't been primarily secretive or duplicitous?

[_consiglieri]

These things are by their nature difficult to prove conclusively, though I think there are exceptions.

But here we have a case-in-point, eminently demonstrable, occurring before our eyes in real time.

It is a remarkable thing.

[_I have a question]

These things are by their nature difficult to prove conclusively, though I think there are exceptions.

But here we have a case-in-point, eminently demonstrable, occurring before our eyes in real time.

It is a remarkable thing.

So what?
The Church has done as bad, or worse previously and will do as bad or worse again.
The bad PR will wane, some members will leave over it, most won't.
In the metrics important to the COB this will have little to no impact.

The important impact is in how it changes you.

The Church is an abusive spouse who will keep abusing you for as long as you remain in the relationship. The abused spouse will keep thinking it will get better, or the abuse is offset by other, better aspects. But it's not and the abuse never stops. The abusive spouse keeps on hitting whilst there's someone there to hit.

[_consiglieri]

But many abused spouses finally split the scene when the abuse spills over onto the children.

[_I have a question]

But many abused spouses finally split the scene when the abuse spills over onto the children.

We shall see. I'm willing to bet that 'mentalgymnast' can roll with this punch.
Is there anywhere where children with Mormon parents have to disavow them before they can join?

[_consiglieri]

It appears the new policy sets the place as the Office of the First Presidency.


This is the place!

[_Doctor Steuss]

I’m guessing that while the Church is going to protect these children by denying them the blessings of baptized and the gift of the Holy Ghost, it will similarly protect them by denying them the gift of paying tithing? I wonder why that was failed to be mentioned in the new policy...