Lesbian Couple Divorce to Join the Church

[BlueDreams]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We lack a common definition of "abuse," apparently.  Now  ...  please note subjunctive mood in the following  ...  IF the Church were to announce an always applicable policy requiring those in homosexual marriages to divorce as a condition of baptism and IF that policy were applicable in all instances, including IF a couple had children, brought into the relationship or adopted or conceived in a petri dish, THEN one COULD conclude as a logical extrapolation from the Proclamation on the Family, Scripture, and prior declarations by general authorities, that the homosexual marriage relationship is in itself abusive of children.  And such an extrapolation would be neither irrational or unkind, since the welfare of the children is of such great importance.

No you can't. You just hamstringed the common definition of abuse. You can find that available in any DSM for a clinical definition or google. Having different structured families is not automatically abusive....that is in no way logical.

Plus, the policy and its reasoning for it, as has been quoted here several times by people like BB and Calm, would be negated if this were the case. It was about keeping conflicting feelings and views OUT of these families to keep division OUT of the home and to give priority to the family over a baptism. I have seen no evidence for what you're stating is a "logical extrapolation." To me it takes a suspense in logic with a lapse in compassion to reach it. 

 

With luv,

BD

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Here's what you said:

CFR that I have ever "expressed malice, judgment, uncharity, and sanctimony towards...servants in the Church."

Start from there.

From my experience with USU, he's not very responsive when it comes to CFRs....just saying....

I hope he answers your's though.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I never questioned your sincerity.  But I do have to understand your question and the context of how you view other similar situations.

Thanks, but that's not what I'm interested in. What I think has nothing to do with my questions.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

But he is not the only one that's been confused by your statement.

Others have asked, but can you clarify if you're speaking of adoptions within a SSM?  If not, can you state what you mean more clearly if you want answers?

Thanks.

Once again, read my original post. It describes a very specific situation and asks specific questions. 

There's nothing hard or complicated, no hidden agendas, no masked phobias.

i'll repost it for your convenience.

Quote

I have a friend in ssm who has a child from a donor. Her partner also has a child, but from another donor. This is not the same a a husband and wife bringing children to marriage from a previous spouse. [EDIT: Nor is it the same as a married couple adopting children into an existing marriage.] How are their children related to each other, to their fathers, and to their mother's partner? Should each partner adopt the other's child? Were they to be sealed, what would that look like? 

Spouse A + Donor A = Child X

Spouse B + Donor B = Child Y

How is child X related to Spouse B, etc.? For example, if Spouses A and B divorce, are there legal parental issues regarding the other spouse's child?

Edited August 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Can you provide a statement by church leaders regarding being "very clear" that sometime "divorce is preferable"?  

From Elde Oaks' 2004 Conference address....

Quote

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng

There are many good Church members who have been divorced. I speak first to them. We know that many of you are innocent victims—members whose former spouses persistently betrayed sacred covenants or abandoned or refused to perform marriage responsibilities for an extended period. Members who have experienced such abuse have firsthand knowledge of circumstances worse than divorce.

When a marriage is dead and beyond hope of resuscitation, it is needful to have a means to end it....

Do needful and preferable require parsing? Of the two words, the former is the more powerful.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

USU... I strive to be respectful in all of my interactions and characterizations, both with you, with my beloved LDS family member, neighbors, friends, coworkers, and all with whom I come in contact, whether they agree with me or not, and both in Real Life or here on this very Board.

Regarding my former LDS leaders: I am on record MULTIPLE times as saying that I hold no ill-will or malice towards my church leaders who offered me what I originally believed was good advice (when I was a devout Latter-day Saint), but have subsequently believed to be ill-advised advice, but I have also continually said that I don't hold it against them because they were genuinely, sincerely only doing the best they know how to, with the knowledge and experience they had.

I'm confused at your accusation that I've "expressed malice, judgement, uncharity, and sanctimony" towards volunteers in the Church. 

I have no idea what you're referring to when you accuse me of lying.

Are you confusing me with someone else...? 

If not, please provide evidence of your personal accusations toward me.  Consider that a hard CFR.  My hope is that you will abandon the false accusations and we can respectfully focus on the issue and avoid having a productive and informative thread shut down. 

And thus I elaborate who preferred not to.  {sigh}  J'accuse on four points:  "expressed malice, judgment, uncharity and sanctimony.'

1. Malice:  If one falsely accuses another of lying, and knows or has reason to know the person so accused is not lying, one is malicious.  This is the legal definition.  CB has been serially making this accusation against his local leaders for years.

2. Judgment:  If one judges another and applies unrighteous judgment, using unfair criteria, one is being judgmental.  CB has been serially making this accusation against his local leaders for years.

3.  Uncharity:  Calling another a liar when he may simply have been mistaken is uncharitable.  Charity would "translate" the mistake into the loving advice intended by the, at worst, mistaken volunteer doing the best he can with the resources at his disposal.  CB does this all the time and for a long time.

4. Sanctimony:  CB's "righteous indignation" about the alleged lies by his local leaders while himself malicious speaking falsehoods, calling someone who at worst was mistaken a liar, is the height of sanctimony and hypocrisy.  

Now can I please leave this conversation?  I'm getting nauseous.  The fish are calling.  And I've got a plane to pack for.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

No you can't. You just hamstringed the common definition of abuse. You can find that available in any DSM for a clinical definition or google. Having different structured families is not automatically abusive....that is in no way logical.

Plus, the policy and its reasoning for it, as has been quoted here several times by people like BB and Calm, would be negated if this were the case. It was about keeping conflicting feelings and views OUT of these families to keep division OUT of the home and to give priority to the family over a baptism. I have seen no evidence for what you're stating is a "logical extrapolation." To me it takes a suspense in logic with a lapse in compassion to reach it. 

 

With luv,

BD

Sorry.  Won't be able to respond.  Notimegottagosorry.

[Daniel2]

52 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And thus I elaborate who preferred not to.  {sigh}  J'accuse on four points:  "expressed malice, judgment, uncharity and sanctimony.'

1. Malice:  If one falsely accuses another of lying, and knows or has reason to know the person so accused is not lying, one is malicious.  This is the legal definition.  CB has been serially making this accusation against his local leaders for years.

2. Judgment:  If one judges another and applies unrighteous judgment, using unfair criteria, one is being judgmental.  CB has been serially making this accusation against his local leaders for years.

3.  Uncharity:  Calling another a liar when he may simply have been mistaken is uncharitable.  Charity would "translate" the mistake into the loving advice intended by the, at worst, mistaken volunteer doing the best he can with the resources at his disposal.  CB does this all the time and for a long time.

4. Sanctimony:  CB's "righteous indignation" about the alleged lies by his local leaders while himself malicious speaking falsehoods, calling someone who at worst was mistaken a liar, is the height of sanctimony and hypocrisy.  

Now can I please leave this conversation?  I'm getting nauseous.  The fish are calling.  And I've got a plane to pack for.

USU, you DO realize that I'm Daniel2, not CB, right....?  And we're not the same person? 

Until your return, enjoy the fishin'--hope they're bitting for you, and fly safe. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Daniel2

[Calm]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

And thus I elaborate who preferred not to.  {sigh}  J'accuse on four points:  "expressed malice, judgment, uncharity and sanctimony.'

1. Malice:  If one falsely accuses another of lying, and knows or has reason to know the person so accused is not lying, one is malicious.  This is the legal definition.  CB has been serially making this accusation against his local leaders for years.

2. Judgment:  If one judges another and applies unrighteous judgment, using unfair criteria, one is being judgmental.  CB has been serially making this accusation against his local leaders for years.

3.  Uncharity:  Calling another a liar when he may simply have been mistaken is uncharitable.  Charity would "translate" the mistake into the loving advice intended by the, at worst, mistaken volunteer doing the best he can with the resources at his disposal.  CB does this all the time and for a long time.

4. Sanctimony:  CB's "righteous indignation" about the alleged lies by his local leaders while himself malicious speaking falsehoods, calling someone who at worst was mistaken a liar, is the height of sanctimony and hypocrisy.  

Now can I please leave this conversation?  I'm getting nauseous.  The fish are calling.  And I've got a plane to pack for.

Daniel2 is not Californiaboy,  you can't use California Boy's behaviour to justify accusations you have made about Daniel.