Really, Bill. A copy-paste? Good grief. Still, I'm glad you did. Because it's easy to show how bad your reasoning is.
This policy change diminishes agency.
Wrong. This logic completely adulterates the term "agency." Agency is the ability to choose. Agency is NOT the opportunity to choose. Further, as Elder Christofferson said, no one will lack for the policy. As is the same for any other of situations where people cannot accept baptism (as in most of the world's population), all will be given the opportunity to accept or reject. Thus, the policy does not diminish agency because all will have both the ability and opportunity to choose.
This policy diminishes the importance of the Holy Ghost
Wrong. This has nothing to do with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is going to respect the God-given obligation for parents to act as stewards over their children. Further, to the extent that the Hold Ghost tells a child that their parents and family structure are sinful, that places an enormous and near unnavigable burden on the child. That, in fact, would take away a child's agency because such child, truly, doesn't have the ability to choose a different family structure.
This violates the scripture in D&C 68:27 which calls for all 8 year old children within the stakes of Zion to be baptized and confirmed
D&C68:27 – “26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized. 27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.”
· Wrong. This is a commandment to those of the stake of Zion. Those in a homosexual relationship are not members of the church and, therefore, not members of a stake. The command does not apply to “their children" -- being those adults in a homosexual relationship.
This policy diminishes the value of ordinances such as baptism.
This is just nonsense, unfounded, subjective speculation that completely contradicts and undermines baptism, including vicarious baptism for those that were not otherwise given the opportunity to receive it in life.
This policy seems to run contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.
What “seems” to be is irrelevant.
This policy leaves so many harming possibilities.
Irrelevant. The only material comparison is the net effect. There is no support for the notion that the perceived and speculative harm outweighs the benefits, namely, not creating tension between the family structure and the church.
This policy seems to contradict Article of Faith #2
· What “seems” to be is irrelevant.
It seems deceptive to claim the letter sent out a week later was a clarification of the original intent.
· What “seems” to be is irrelevant.
There was already a policy that would have covered in all likelihood most all of these situations.
This policy creates a litmus test where Elder Christofferson just a few months ago said there was none.
Illogical. Supporting is wholly distinct from living in a same sex relationship. You are drawing the untenable similarity that is in fact further removed than even inchoate offenses.
This policy encourages promiscuous homosexual sex over committed legal loving homosexual relationships.
This doesn’t even make sense. I mean, if we are playing absurd, why not say it encourages gays to murder their spouses so they are no longer in a gay marriage? Your logic is inflammatorily intolerable.
This motive of protecting children from confusion is implausible.
· CFR. That’s not what the motive was. And, how does the plausibility of the motive make it a bad policy? In fact, there is no relationship whatsoever.
This “modification” has not yet been added to the online handbook.
Who cares? And, so what?
The policy contradicts Book of Mormon’theology that teaches if ye have a desire to be baptized and are worthy, you are encouraged to do so.
Non sequitur. Being encouraged to do something is not the same as being permitted to do something.