Jump to content

toon

Members
  • Content Count

    496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

199 Excellent

1 Follower

About toon

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,552 profile views
  1. In a way like when people come up to you to compliment the talk that you just gave in sacrament meeting, when you know that you threw it together at the last minute and that it really wasn't that good. It's the polite thing to say, but typically the only meaning behind it is that they care for you and are trying to be nice.
  2. I don't disagree. The problem, however, is that many in the Church still do -- that if you're not a particular type of x son/daughter of God, you somehow count for less. Coming out and identifying with the qualifier can help dispel that notion. At a minimum, and so long as that notion exists, this act may help those who also identify as x feel that they are welcome, or at least welcome among a few.
  3. I'll have to look it up, but I vaguely remember reports of instances where a child of a divorced couple with joint custody, one parent being a faithful member and the other in a same-sex relationship, was either prevented from baptism or had the baptism delayed. I suspect that was the most likely and most obvious situation where a child of a same-sex couple would like to be baptized, but surprisingly, it appears not to have been one of the "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios" considered, through fasting and prayer and the seeking of the Lord's guidance. I also remember the Church issuing some after-the-fact clarification that the policy didn't apply to those situations, but they never formally changed the policy (so a local leader reading the policy would have to have been aware of the news release. If not, there was still a risk that the local leader would strictly apply the policy.) I get that there have been reversals in the past on policy that was presented as doctrine or as having been implemented through revelation. But has there ever been one reversed so quickly? Does God really say, "Oops! My bad."
  4. I'm not sure that would get them off the hook. It would seem odd that you could avoid disclosing an otherwise record that was otherwise subject to disclosure under an open records law simply by disbanding. If that record was created at a time when it was subject to disclosure, then it should still be disclosable. I understand BYUPD's argument with regard to GRAMA, but assuming GRAMA applies, my guess is that it would still apply. Regardless of what happens, during the time in question, there was a police department with officers granted certain powers and authority by the state. The public and especially impacted individuals need to be able to evaluate how those powers and authority were used, and that need doesn't go away simply because the department no longer exists.
  5. Will there still be fast and testimony meeting the first Sunday of each month? In the past, nearly every ward that I had been in struggled to finish F&T meeting on time. Seems a good percentage of the time (less than 50% but still significant), we went over. With sacrament meeting now 15 minutes shorter, will there be more pressure to extend in order to accommodate likely the same amount of people each week who will want to share their testimonies?
×
×
  • Create New...