No married gays or their children. Why?

Before I freak out on the topic at hand, let me reaffirm my stance, in a brief rant, that the Deseret News is stuck in the mud. Once again there was a story to be published in a way that an unsavory moment or series of moments for the LDS church could have been avoided or at least tamed -- and they let other news agencies not do their job for them. Sad. Shame on the DNews.

Now the story. KUTV news reported about two hours ago that the LDS church has clarified to its leaders in the official Handbook (Number 1) for leaders to use in administering in the church, that being in a same-sex 
marriage is considered a form of apostasy.

Usually, this handbook is available only to bishops and stake presidents and other leaders of the church in higher positions, and I respect that. However, this is 2015 and info is readily available to all -- and we all know this. Where is the PR department of the church when it is needed, and why can't pro-activity be the new norm?  I digress.

Screen shots posted this afternoon were confirmed to be an accurate representation of the document by a spokesperson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

"Church handbooks are policy and procedural guides for lay leaders who must administer the Church in many varied circumstances throughout the world. The Church has long been on record as opposing same-sex marriages," wrote LDS Church spokesman Eric Hawkins on Thursday - about two hours ago -- and I quote from the KUTV news article listed below.

"While it respects the law of the land, and acknowledges the right of others to think and act differently, (the church) does not perform or accept same-sex marriage within its membership."

In a related major policy announcement, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says that children who are living in a same-sex household may not be blessed as babies or be baptized as members. 

"A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing," the recent (an hour ago) policy reads.

"Natural or adopted children living in a same-sex household will only be allowed to be baptized once they are 18, disavow the practice of same-sex cohabitation or marriage, and stop living within the household, according to the policy. Such baptism would still require the approval of the church's governing First Presidency."

So what is the big deal? Nothing if you are not gay, I suppose. Or if you do not love anyone who is gay. Or you are not a father or a mother. But if you are or if you do, this looks and feels ... I can't even find the words. 

This latest version of the handbook declares that members who "are in a same-gender marriage" should be considered apostates. And church leaders are expected to pursue church discipline for anyone who is determined to be an apostate.

So much for my saying that gay people are welcome into the church.

As you know, dear reader, our countries legalization of same-sex marriage gave many the idea that the church would allow gays of all sorts to be part of the church in some way. After all, there are monogamous, legal, gay couples who attend church as believing members. I know several. Are they going to affiliate with the church with their new status as apostates? Yes, we know that they can't use church facilities for their weddings or receptions. How many more doors need to be shut to them?

I still welcome gay people into the church -- and their children. And I am still a TB Mormon. I am a gay welcoming, TB Mormon who is trying to figure this one out. There is a reason for this -- like there is a reason for every challenge placed before us, and I will find out what it is.  

My faith is not shaken. Not even stirred. And yet, I have some homework to do. I am thinking of stepping stones.  Things got better for and in the church after what I call the disaster of Prop. 8. Maybe this is a step toward better things.  


http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-membership

Frozen opinions -- a Gay Mormon rant

I am as weary of straight people attributing political agendas to the left as I am of the gay world feeling continually persecuted from the right.  Lately, presenting the Walt Disney, Co as the homosexual flagship makes me roll my eyes and break out into song. Almost.

No, dear friends of the homosexual and/or Mormon persuasion, The Little Mermaid does not promote the harvesting and raping of the seas, nor does Beauty and the Beast suggest all mental health specialists are inherently evil, or encourage animal husbandry.

The animated feature Snow White does not present satanism to our children, nor does it advocate taking the law into our own dwarfish hands.

Rapunzel is not a spokesperson for extreme hairstyles and her "friend" Eugene would not rather hang out with boys and steal valuable heirlooms that represent the family unit.

Aladdin does not uniquely puts his faith in something other than the Lord, and the Princess Jasmin does not want the priesthood, nor is she running from personal responsibility and the mantle of womanhood.

Recently read an 80 page blog on how Frozen is promoting the gay agenda.  However the only kissing I see in between a girl and a snowman, and a girl and an ice man. and a girl and a reindeer.

Read up all you gay people.  Take head straighties. Frozen is not a show that pushes the gay agenda.  Frozen is a show that pushes the make some money agenda and the musical theater agenda.

It is a film that suggests that, rather than face your problems head on, one should take time out to put your troubles to music.  Also, the more dance positions you know, the better your life will be.

That's the musical theater agenda. Musical theater folk would rather perform than..., well, perform.

It crossed my mind when I saw Frozen that there would be some that would use the show to their political benefit.  And by "some", I mean both screaming gays and blatant hetros.  I do not believe Frozen was written to promote any agenda but this one: that there is a time and a place place to be in control, a time and a place to let loose, and that, when in doubt, sing.  

And be nice to snowmen. 

And that princes wearing white socks should not be trusted.

Be aware, folks, that it is not just the loopy left that can be misguided.  The wacked right is also to blame.Read this which is directly from a Mormon Mommy Blog:

If you are seriously clueless as to what I'm talking about then it is imperative, particularly for morally minded parents, that you read this post and open your eyes to the homosexual agenda, and the principles advanced to promote it, that undergird (sic) Frozen, which is why it was written for Broadway* and will indubitably** be a hit - mark my words!***

* It was not Written for the broadway stage
** Impressive use of "indubitably" - last known use in the movie "Mary Poppins"
*** Love the drama, but this would be much better put to music.

Personally, I would love for Elsa to create a place for me to ice skate with my family and friends and I would like her to strengthen my ankles while she is at it.  I don't care that she has sheer sleeves and doesn't have any food storage.  

And I an not weeping that Idna is getting all the popularity while a talented Kristin Chenoweth is relegated to "normal" musicals with people in them who ride trains and singing operetta.

Socks and priesthood men

Here is a little something for you to do in General Priesthood meeting -- for those of you that go to the meeting at the Conference Center in Salt Lake, or at your local stake center. This game is a little like conference bingo.

-- Watch the ankles of the men.  The older the man is, the higher the socks will be.

It's true.  My socks are about to my knees.  I've seen a few support socks that I am salivating over. My sons socks are barely seen, and the hair on his legs threatens to take over the bench. My fathers socks wrap around his thighs and fasten onto his belt.

I'm guessing 27 to 29 by his socks and wrinkled jacket.

There will be a few colored and patterned socks paired with nice and expensive brown leather shoes.  I used to fall into this category.  I used to match my belt and shoes as well. And iron my shirt.

-- Also, watch for the "sleep stance".  The teens and younger men will lean over, forehead almost touching the pew in front of them, put their elbows on their knees and sleep in that pose.  Older men will just fall asleep where they stand.  Or sit.

-- Some will snort.  I am a snorter. A large snort doesn't come out of the blue.  Apparently I work up to the grand snort that wakes me up and makes everyone giggle.  When I do it in priesthood meeting, everyone around me pats me on the back in congratulations.

Others will nod and jerk.  I don't do that.  It would give me a headache.

-- Are you a white shirt-er?  Most everyone will be. There will be nicely laundered and pressed shirts, shirts thin enough to see a guys G's, button collar and pointy. There will be the occasional light blue shirt and, depending on the area, there may be a pink one.

The pink will not be some single guy who neglected to extract his new red Utes tee shirt from his whites.  He will be wearing the pink button-down by choice.  Who knows what he was thinking.  Due to the errant Utes shirt, one can guesstimate that he is a rebel. Or that he has no taste.  (Pink is fine, but Utah?)

Bottom line is that there is room for everyone, regardless of the style. The white shirt and black suit uniform is not mandatory.  It is more important how you live your life and what kind of person you are trying to be.

Hover, please rethink anything having to do with the U of U. Talk about tacky.