So Now For Something *Totally* Unexpected...

[smac97]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

POX is short for Policy of eXclusion. It's simply faster to type

So it's not intended to be any sort of allusion to "pox" as a word?

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, smac97 said:

So it's not intended to be any sort of allusion to "pox" as a word?

Thanks,

-Smac

It's definitely intended to be negative, so that fits as well. People who refer to the POX are very unlikely to be fans of the policy of exclusion.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

So it's not intended to be any sort of allusion to "pox" as a word?

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, I think it's more than obvious that it is.

[california boy]

We have had this discussion many times before.  I think some of you are just going to have to accept the fact that gay families and their children are not welcome in the church you belong to.  It is that simple.  Evidently it is ok for a gay man to conduct the MoTab.  But baptism?  Nope. Not going to happen.  You are looking for logic and fairness when the decision is not based on logic nor what is fair.  It is a policy of exclusion.

Edited June 26, 2018 by california boy

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's definitely intended to be negative, so that fits as well. People who refer to the POX are very unlikely to be fans of the policy of exclusion.

So it's not just "simply faster to type."  It's intended to be pejorative.  Insulting.  Caustic.

I hope we don't import loaded terms into this board (let alone this thread).  Donald Trump thinks he scores points by using belittling, calculated-to-offend-and-provoke terminology.  I would hope that you would not emulate such crass behavior.

Particularly in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

We have had this discussion many times before.  I think some of you are just going to have to accept the fact that gay families and their children are not welcome in the church you belong to.  It is that simple.  Evidently it is ok for a gay man to conduct the MoTab.  But baptism?  Nope. Not going to happen.  You are looking for logic when the decision is not based on logic.

Can we put aside arguments?  Please?  Just for this thread?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's definitely intended to be negative, so that fits as well. People who refer to the POX are very unlikely to be fans of the policy of exclusion.

It's a horrible policy and one that I truly believe will be changed (hopefully sooner rather than later).  I know of so many members (including my Bishop and SP) who are adamantly opposed to it, but of course have to not speak publicly about their opposition.  I think that's more likely the case with many members who disagreed with it from the beginning rather than Scott's belief that:   "upon reflection, study and an infusion of knowledge, they gained further light and understanding" (although that may have happened with some too....however, I see that even many of those are still just tentatively or tepidly supportive of it and hope to see it removed if they're really able to be open and honest about it).

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by ALarson

[JAHS]

32 minutes ago, JulieM said:

43 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No but those parents are going to understand, according to scripture,  that they are not living in a relationship that is right  with god (it's called adultery or fornication) and therefore will not actively interfere in the things the child learns at church. 

How do you know that?  You can’t possibly make that judgement in advance (not for gay parents and not for other parents “living in sin”). What an unfair, blanket pre-judgement!!

Here's my main question with the entire subject. Quoting Grouch Marx "I Don’t Want to Belong to Any Club That Will Accept Me as a Member"
What parent would want their child to be a member of a church that does not accept them as members? Dose anyone know how often this has actually happened?
As someone else mentioned exceptions can be granted for some situations.
For example, not all Children who have unmarried parents living together are automatically allowed to be baptized without making sure there would be no conflict in the home with what the child will be taught.
Sometimes the child is asked to wait until a better time or until they are 18 yrs. 
At least in the home with unmarried parents there is the potential that they could be married and there is both the mother and father role models available to the child. 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So it's not just "simply faster to type."  It's intended to be pejorative.  Insulting.  Caustic.

I hope we don't import loaded terms into this board (let alone this thread).  Donald Trump thinks he scores points by using belittling, calculated-to-offend-and-provoke terminology.  I would hope that you would not emulate such crass behavior.

Particularly in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

I use it because it's simply faster to type. I've never really thought about the other use, but it fits, and I admitted that. What's the problem? Policy of Exclusion is descriptive and apt. It fits. I'm sorry if you don't like that it is connotes a negative opinion of the policy. We sure wouldn't want anything negative on this board  

I guess I missed what's so special about this thread that criticism isn't allowed. You calling a "POX" insulting and caustic is a criticism and I'm ok with that.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This still doesn't make sense. If it's about "apostasy" then wouldn't every child of apostate parents also be restricted from baptism? Of course the church can change their definition of apostasy to whatever they like (as they did in the case of calling SSM apostasy), but this could include a child of any parent who has had their name removed from church records, or been excommunicated for apostasy, etc.

The church seems to be calling those who engage in SSM "apostate" because they are choosing to live contrary to the church's teaching on that subject. Yet many people, even active people, choose to live contrary to the church's teachings on other subjects, yet they aren't apostate. Parents who live together without being married, thus choosing to live contrary to the church's teachings on marriage, are not apostate. Children of totally inactive parents are often sought after to be baptized. But the church treats every group (except polygamists, likely because they're embarrassed by the association with early church teachings/practices) differently than they do gay people.

It seems to me that the parent-child relationship is at the core, entailing a family structure the Church recognizes as ordained of God, and when that structure is deemed apostate, the Church cannot have a full (baptism-to-sealing) working relationship with the parents. She cannot reach in and get the children onto a path from which the parents have apostatized any more than she can countermand parents who do not wish their children to enter the covenant path by baptism.

As to the rationale behind those who have the keys to determine that same gender marriage an apostate act, I think the Church simply has to keep up with the times vis-à-vis her ordinances.

Apostasy entails more than simply living contrary to Church teachings, covenants and ordinances (it can be said that no one lives them perfectly). I think it has to have the same degree of negative variance as the other four references, but takes someone with the keys to make that determination.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Here's my main question with the entire subject. Quoting Grouch Marx "I Don’t Want to Belong to Any Club That Will Accept Me as a Member"
What parent would want their child to be a member of a church that does not accept them as members? Dose anyone know how often this has actually happened?
As someone else mentioned exceptions can be granted for some situations.
For example, not all Children who have unmarried parents living together are automatically allowed to be baptized without making sure there would be no conflict in the home with what the child will be taught.
Sometimes the child is asked to wait until a better time or until they are 18 yrs. 
At least in the home with unmarried parents there is the potential that they could be married and there is both the mother and father role models available to the child. 

You don't know anyone who has been excommunicated yet still wants their child to be baptized? It's not hard to conceive of many situations in which a parent, even a gay parent, may want to have their child receive saving ordinances.

What I haven't heard of is a child being refused baptism because his unmarried parents live together. I'd like to see some examples of that one.

Imagine a single mom who was excommunicated for adultery. There is not a mother and father role model available to the child. Marriage is unlikely with any of the men who visit the home. The mother wants her child to be baptized even though the church won't allow the mother to be a member. Will the church refuse to allow the child to be baptized? I can't see it. In fact I've seen this exact example where the child was baptized. It wasn't even a question about refusing baptism.

Every example you come up with for why it makes sense is easily shot down with examples from my own lived experience.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me that the parent-child relationship is at the core, entailing a family structure the Church recognizes as ordained of God, and when that structure is deemed apostate, the Church cannot have a full (baptism-to-sealing) working relationship with the parents. She cannot reach in and get the children onto a path from which the parents have apostatized any more than she can countermand parents who do not wish their children to enter the covenant path by baptism.

As to the rationale behind those who have the keys to determine that same gender marriage an apostate act, I think the Church simply has to keep up with the times vis-à-vis her ordinances.

Apostasy entails more than simply living contrary to Church teachings, covenants and ordinances (it can be said that no one lives them perfectly). I think it has to have the same degree of negative variance as the other four references, but takes someone with the keys to make that determination.

So if it doesn't seem likely that the parents can be sealed and thus achieve the highest level of the celestial kingdom a child shouldn't even receive the saving ordinance of baptism? Yikes.

No one is talking about children of parents who don't want their child to be baptized. The church would already honor the parents wishes not to baptize, as they should. This is about a child who wants to be baptized and parents who want the child to be baptized, being refused.

 

[pogi]

The thing that I found strange about all this is that a homosexual choir even exists.  Seems rather strange to base a choir on sexual orientation.   

Imagine if there was a chorus called the Heterosexual's Only Choir...they would be vilified, called bigots, and accused of discrimination.  Such is the world we live in.  Sometimes we swing too far the other way when correcting societal ills. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I use it because it's simply faster to type. I've never really thought about the other use, but it fits, and I admitted that. What's the problem? Policy of Exclusion is descriptive and apt. It fits. I'm sorry if you don't like that it is connotes a negative opinion of the policy. We sure wouldn't want anything negative on this board  

I guess I missed what's so special about this thread that criticism isn't allowed. You calling a "POX" insulting and caustic is a criticism and I'm ok with that.

Smac was the one who started the thread.  His intent for the thread (a discussion about the event, not a debate about policy, etc) probably carries weight with mods, if not with many posters (all opening posters can ask discussions to be limited in various ways).

Edited June 26, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

The thing that I found strange about all this is that a homosexual choir even exists.  Seems rather strange to base a choir on sexual orientation.   

Imagine if there was a chorus called the Heterosexual's Only Choir...they would be vilified, called bigots, and accused of discrimination.  Such is the world we live in.  Sometimes we swing too far the other way when correcting societal ills. 

I don't think it's strange at all. Communities often have special activities. It's no different than having a ward choir or MoTab? Are we saying only Mormons can be a part of MoTab? Well, yes. It's a choir that represents a Mormon community. It would be very different if a choir was created that allowed everyone EXCEPT a minority group, be it gays or Mormons.

If heterosexuals were a minority instead of the vast majority, it would seem very acceptable to have a choir like that because it would be build on a community identity and not excluding a minority. Does that make sense?

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't know anyone who has been excommunicated yet still wants their child to be baptized? It's not hard to conceive of many situations in which a parent, even a gay parent, may want to have their child receive saving ordinances.

What I haven't heard of is a child being refused baptism because his unmarried parents live together. I'd like to see some examples of that one.

Imagine a single mom who was excommunicated for adultery. There is not a mother and father role model available to the child. Marriage is unlikely with any of the men who visit the home. The mother wants her child to be baptized even though the church won't allow the mother to be a member. Will the church refuse to allow the child to be baptized? I can't see it. In fact I've seen this exact example where the child was baptized. It wasn't even a question about refusing baptism.

Every example you come up with for why it makes sense is easily shot down with examples from my own lived experience.

I think the main difference is that people who have made mistakes and committed sins of adultery or just live together, for examples, are mostly done out of weakness and not intentional rebellion against God. Same sex couples  actually going through the motions of getting married to each other are deliberate acts of rebellion against the church doctrine, and the true definition of marriage.  

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think the main difference is that people who have made mistakes and committed sins of adultery or just live together, for examples, are mostly done out of weakness and not intentional rebellion against God. Same sex couples  actually going through the motions of getting married to each other are deliberate acts of rebellion against the church doctrine, and the true definition of marriage.  

It's ironic that for heterosexuals rebellion would include living together without being married, but for homosexuals rebellion is actually the getting married part.

Marriage = rebellion.  That's an argument I wouldn't want to make, especially in a church that has so famously challenged societal norms of marriage.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's ironic that for heterosexuals rebellion would include living together without being married, but for homosexuals rebellion is actually the getting married part.

Marriage = rebellion.  That's an argument I wouldn't want to make, especially in a church that has so famously challenged societal norms of marriage.

I'd like to take this debate out of this thread.  Please.

[JAHS]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to take this debate out of this thread.  Please.

I'm OK with that. Every time this subject comes up the same people say the same old things over and over, including me.

 

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if it doesn't seem likely that the parents can be sealed and thus achieve the highest level of the celestial kingdom a child shouldn't even receive the saving ordinance of baptism? Yikes.

No one is talking about children of parents who don't want their child to be baptized. The church would already honor the parents wishes not to baptize, as they should. This is about a child who wants to be baptized and parents who want the child to be baptized, being refused.

 

Thanks for bolding that. To be clearer, it should read, the Church cannot have a full (baptism-to-sealing) working relationship with the parents in the maintenance of their children in receiving these ordinances.

Even without the editing, it’s not about the likelihood of parents being sealed, it’s about their actual apostasy. Baptism isn’t the ultimate goal, it is only the first step leading to the highest ordinance(s), a path and a vision that requires the type of parental support that is antithetical to apostasy. Where same-gender marriage (or polygamy) is the point of apostasy, other types of parental arrangements and sins qualify for that type of support the Church can appropriately be invited into.

Note that everything I say can have an exception for special circumstances under proper priesthood authority.

And yes, we need to include a discussion about parents who don’t want their children baptized if we are to talk about the Church’s proper role with parents (whether apostate or not) who do. The relationship entails the same appropriate boundaries between the parents and the Church in behalf of the child whether they want baptism or not.

[Walden]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The thing that I found strange about all this is that a homosexual choir even exists.  Seems rather strange to base a choir on sexual orientation.   

Imagine if there was a chorus called the Heterosexual's Only Choir...they would be vilified, called bigots, and accused of discrimination.  Such is the world we live in.  Sometimes we swing too far the other way when correcting societal ills. 

What? There are all kinds of clubs, associations, groups, etc. that self-identify based on all sorts of things such as race, culture, sex, profession, etc. You seem to only take offense at a group that self-identifies as homosexual? Interesting....and telling.  

[Tacenda]

deleted to stay on topic

[pogi]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's strange at all. Communities often have special activities. It's no different than having a ward choir or MoTab? Are we saying only Mormons can be a part of MoTab? Well, yes. It's a choir that represents a Mormon community. It would be very different if a choir was created that allowed everyone EXCEPT a minority group, be it gays or Mormons.

If heterosexuals were a minority instead of the vast majority, it would seem very acceptable to have a choir like that because it would be build on a community identity and not excluding a minority. Does that make sense?

You asked if that makes sense - yes and no.  I get that communities like to have special activities and interest groups, but 1) I don't get why its okay for a minority community to have those exclusive groups but that it is not okay for a majority community to have those same exclusive groups; 2) it is also a pet-peeve of mine when on one hand people demand blindness in regards to color, sexual orientation, etc., insisting that we all be one people, yet on the other hand they form exclusive groups based on color, sexual orientation, etc. 

I am less opposed to the idea of special interest groups, and more annoyed at the double standard of being blind to differences while at the same time forming exclusive communities based on those differences.   If black pride is okay, so is white pride.  I recognize that white-pride is associated with hate groups, but it doesn't need to be. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your white heritage, just as there is nothing wrong with taking pride in your black heritage.  On the same note, if there is nothing wrong with gay choirs, then there should be nothing wrong with heterosexual choirs.  My point is that people can't have it both ways - we can't be blind and have exclusive communities based on race/sexual orientation/religion.  My second point is that if it is okay for a minority community, it needs to be okay for a majority community - THAT is equality! 

Edited June 26, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Walden said:

What? There are all kinds of clubs, associations, groups, etc. that self-identify based on all sorts of things such as race, culture, sex, profession, etc. You seem to only take offense at a group that self-identifies as homosexual? Interesting....and telling.  

See my response to Happy above.  I think you will find it less "telling" then you originally thought. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

You asked if that makes sense - yes and no.  I get that communities like to have special activities and interest groups, but 1) I don't get why its okay for a minority community to have those exclusive groups but that it is not okay for a majority community to have those same exclusive groups; 2) it is also a pet-peeve of mine when on one hand minority groups demand blindness in regards to color, sexual orientation, etc., insisting that we all be one people, yet on the other hand they form exclusive groups based on color, sexual orientation, etc. 

I am less opposed to the idea of special interest groups, and more annoyed at the double standard of being blind to differences while at the same time forming exclusive communities based on those differences.   If black pride is okay, so is white pride.  I recognize that white-pride is associated with hate groups, but it doesn't need to be. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your white heritage, just as there is nothing wrong with taking pride in your black heritage.  On the same note, if there is nothing wrong with gay choirs, then there should be nothing wrong with heterosexual choirs.  My point is that people can't have it both ways - we can't be blind and have exclusive communities based on race/sexual orientation/religion.  My second point is that if it is okay for a minority community, it needs to be okay for a majority community - THAT is equality! 

I hear the point you are making but I think it's different for minority groups or groups that have traditionally been under represented in power structures.

For example, there are numerous business associations dedicated for women. I don't recall seeing any for males only. Is this sexist? In the purest sense of the word it probably is, BUT it is necessary because women have been under represented in the leadership of many industries for so long. The groups are necessary because they help to overcome institutiona/cultural bias that is present. I would suggest that it is similar for gays or racial minorities (says the white, straight guy).

If a majority group (straight white guys) create a group only for straight white guys then it discriminates against minorities who may not be privileged in the same socio/economic ways. There are more women as business leaders today than there were 20 or 50 years ago. There are more people of color in leadership positions. This isn't because of a reverse discrimination, but simply allowing minorities to associate and build communities that can support and uplift them is part of the reason.

White pride in a community where there is 90% white doesn't uplift the 90%, it denigrates the 10% that is different. It alienates the minority that may have culturally/institutionally been held back.

I understand your point, but I'm not bothered by minority groups banding together to help themselves thrive amongst the other majority groups. I am bothered by majority groups that band together at the expense of the minority.