If this new policy was implemented to "protect children," why wasn't it implemented in other countries when gay marriage was made legal.

Does the church only care about and want to protect children who are Americans? Gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005. What about the Canadian children? Aren't they worthy of "protection?"

It's my view that this policy is world wide where same sex marriage is legal which is in 20 countries besides the US. Married or cohabiting same sex couples are automatic apostates and their full custody children cannot join until they are adults (age 18) and disavow their parents marriage.

I believe that you missed Abigail's point. That point is that kids of gay marriage, in Canada, have been allowed to participate in church activities for the past 10 years. Why the sudden change now?

StillAnon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe that you missed Abigail's point. That
> point is that kids of gay marriage, in Canada,
> have been allowed to participate in church
> activities for the past 10 years. Why the sudden
> change now?


I am unfamiliar with Canada and how the LDS Church has treated the children of same sex marriage. I'd be interested in knowing how this has been handled in other countries in the recent past.

I don't know how many same sex couples and their children are or have been interested in being members of the Mormon church as it is so incompatible with it's teachings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2015 03:58PM by SusieQ#1.

The ones most impacted by this are people who believed and followed the counsel of their priesthood leaders and married heterosexual with the false promise that they would be cured. It didn't work. Now their children will suffer too.

I think the original poster meant if this policy is in light of legalized ssm in the us why didn't they implement the policy when ssm was legalized in Canada 10 years ago (you know, since there are members there too)... as in pointing out how selfish and narrow-minded the church is.

It's just one more logical thought that shows how ridiculous the new policy and it's "reasons" are.

Of course it's world wide now. But gay marriage has been legal in other countries for 10 years or more. I'm talking about those children in those counties in the years previous to this new policy.

Maybe I'm not saying it clearly.

IMO, you were crystal clear, and you make an excellent point about the excuse the brethern are using to justify their latest bout of bullsh*t. Whether intentional or not, some posters use this tactic to derail a thread and attempt to minimize the harm caused by the church's homo-hate. It was rampant on Prop 8 threads.

My point is that your writing is not the problem.

Perhaps it's because President Antionette and his courtiers paid not attention to the revolting peasants until they were outside the castle gates.

Where can I get some cake?

Good question.

The Q15 are always late to respond to social issues (i.e. civil rights and the blacks). It takes time for problems to manifest themselves and for legal ramifications to roost their nasty head that might affect the TBM's, the leader's abilities to control their indoctrination, and most of all - to protect their financials from being opened in a court proceeding.

LDS Inc. has been trying to defeat SSM in legal and deceptive maneuvers for several years. Their efforts have failed. Once the U.S. legalized SSM they have run out of ways to "get their way on this issue." Then it's on to getting legislation for 'religious liberty' and all that bs.

The lawyers for the Q15 are probably advising there are few options left "to getting our way." Hence, now that they've lost the civil/legal war they have had to concoct a policy which effectively gives them a religious protected privilege to effectuate this new anti-gay, anti-gaybie policy.

Simply put, LDS Inc. ran out of options to 'get their way.' And frankly, they don't give a damn at this point how anti-Christ it might look. That's why they have to send out Q12 members to rationalize their decision - rationalizations that don't compute with the scriptures or the Articles of Faith.

The Q15 have lost their holy war. And sadly, they've just started a new one.

Praise Geebus.

IIRC, Kristofferson said something about it in his interview. Something along the lines of "Once same sex marriage became legal in the United States, we started to realize how many children this might be affecting..."

I'm paraphrasing, but I know he said something along that line.

Shouldn't they have realized this previously because God speaks to them. Or does God only care about American children also?

That's what happens when the prophet and apostles read the words from a rock in a hat while in Salt Lake City. They should take the seer stone to other countries and read from it there to get better revelations.

Note that the rule does not even require SSM but includes things like cohabitation or by civil contract such as a "Civil Union", etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2015 05:19PM by rhgc.

It sounds to me like they have this policy for self-protection, not child protection. Somehow I guess they could be vulnerable to lawsuits from American families if they don't implement this policy. I don't know, I'm just guessing... but maybe other countries don't have laws making it so easy to sue the church? Anybody know how the U.S. compares in that regard?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2015 06:14PM by alyssum.

The church suddenly realized that they couldn't disparage SSM without getting sued in parental alienation cases that would come up. Given the choice of either being prevented from disparaging SSM to children in their own congregations or preventing children from SSM households from being members of those congregations, they chose to exclude those children so they could keep their disparagement machine in-tact and running 24/7. It's the same thing they did to blacks and the priesthood. If you deny them full participation in the church, they will go away, problem solved (for the church). Children is SSM families have (in most cases) no more control of their parents choices than one has over the color of their skin.

One might be able to perceive some moral credibility to the church's arguements if they did the same thing involving the cohabitation of unmarried couples in hetrosexual relationships too. The children in those households are supposedly exposed to sinful relationships involving their parents too. It is my understanding that these new rules only exclude children from SSM homes.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2015 09:57PM by azsteve.

I'm glad to hear that the LDS corporation hasn't been discriminating against children in Canada since 2006, but not so glad to hear that they don't "care" about our children as much as American ones.

What a crock of shite!

The C*NT (I mean CULT) picks and chooses who is worthy and not worthy according to their whims. Like their doctrine, it changes whenever.....

I think that it's a very good point, Abigail. It's just one more thing to show how hypocritical and out of touch the leaders of the Mormon church are. And, I suspect, it points up the fact that all of the stuff that the leaders are saying now is just a sloppy attempt at damage control. When you do something wrong, and then try to cover it up with a quick lie, it's so hard to think of all of the ramifications.

They never stop to think about the effects of what they do. If it scratches some mental itch that they have, they go for it. Then, later, they try to pretend that it was either meant as a loving gesture (if whoever said/did it is still alive) or that it was an imperfect human speaking as a man (if the culprit is dead). All the while counting on the members to give up rational thought and to be obedient, no matter what.

Very interesting point.

I just wish my dear S. Alberta family and friends would pick up on it. They haven't and likely won't.


When I was TBM (resigned 15 years ago) many Mormons took pride in trying to understand doctrine, scriptures, "the gospel", and church policy. Today it seems most Mormons I know do their best to NOT know there religion. Who can blame them, though?

I was wondering this same thing. So, when gay marriage was legalized in other countries, the church didn't come out with this policy then. As if things that happen in foreign countries have no impact on the Mormon church. But hey, it gets legalized in the USA and they are all of a sudden all over that with a new hateful policy. I guess gay marriage in Denmark is not so evil as it is in America. Or children in foreign countries do not need as much protection as American children. It shows the church to be so American-centric and unaware of anything going on outside of SLC.

Help me understand this.
Is this correct?
Same sex unions (cohabiting or legally married) are now excommunicated and become apostates.
Also the children of these unions with full custody are not eligible to become a member of the LDS Church until age 18 and only if they disavow their same sex parentage.

(How likely is it that a same sex marriage with bio or adopted children want to be members of the LDS Church?)

All those that are gay or lesbian (that may or may not have "come out", that married and have straight spouses and have children are still members in good standing.

Divorced parents with one parent TBM and the other gay or lesbian cohabiting or legally married with joint custody can still have the children blessed, baptized and receive all ordinances.

What did I miss?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2015 02:09PM by SusieQ#1.

Because no matter how much they like to claim they are an "international" church, their thinking is still Utah central. That's where the bulk of their "real" members [read BIG tithers are]. The importance of members is:

1. Members in Utah
2. Members in the Morridor
3. Members in the U.S. outside of the Morridor
4. Members outside the U.S.

They are nothing but a small cult, centered in Utah.

....I think you have a real point about members in Utah Central and the Morridor mattering the most. But where growth is (still!) occurring through conversion, it tends to be in conservative cultures that are not known for being exactly gay-friendly.