Tags
faith, GLBT, Heathen, john halstead, mormon, mormon church, Pagan, Religion
So Halstead decided that Polytheists weren’t fun, it was time to go after people who had never heard of him, the Mormons. This is in response to the Mormon Church coming out and saying that children of LGBT parents cannot be baptized until they are 18, leave home, and “disavow” their LGBT parent(s).
2. The Mormon church leadership has an outdated conception of “family.”
The fact that the Mormon leadership did not at first consider the situation of children of divorced parents shows how out of touch they are with the reality of contemporary families. But even the “clarification” reveals their ignorance of how complex and fluid custodial arrangements can be. The limitation of the policy to children whose “primary residence” is with the same-sex couple is not, in fact, much of a clarification at all. In a society where over half of marriages end in divorce, and shared physical custody arrangements are becoming increasingly common, determining what is a child’s “primary residence” may be very difficult in many cases.
Oh boy.
Just from reading Halstead’s post up to this point (without having read the Mormon stuff he’s linked too) I think Halstead has forgotten some of the stuff he’s relayed. The Mormon Church has considered the situation of children of divorced parents and said “no, sorry, not allowed.”
You can dress it up in fluid dynamics of the Judicual Custodial System, a system which is labyrinthine in nature and Lovecraftian in intent, but the truth is there is not going to be any way to clarify this situation properly. As Halstead says, “primary residence” could be difficult to determine, hence why the basically blanket statement.
But the fact that the Mormon church’s definition of “family” is different from say Halstead or the Legal system’s definition, does this automatically invalidate the Mormon position? In this case, the Mormons are not changing the definition of the word to suit their own interests, they just may be holding to an older status of what a family is/was.
Except that they’re completely acknowledging custodial issues here. Where they’re saying primary residence, I suspect they were trying to say “whoever the primary parent is.” If it is the straight Mormon parent, kid’s good to go because there’s not likely to be protracted battles of the child’s religious practices. If it is the GLBT parent, then the kid is likely to get shit from that parent for practicing a “homophobic faith” and the parent could even attempt to interfere with Mormon religious practices they didn’t like.
I am a lawyer and this is an issue I have litigated in the context of the interpretation of insurance policies. Even the courts have difficulty interpreting insurance policies which bar coverage for “residents” in cases where the physical custody of a child is split between the two parents. In these cases, the child may have a bedroom at each parent’s house. They may keep clothing and other personal belongings at both houses. They may spend roughly the same amount of time at each residence. They may use one mailing address for child’s school and the other for the child’s doctor.
Halstead’s a lawyer.
Huh.
On the one hand, I so very much want to make some lawyer jokes here. I mean, we’re talking about a profession I eschewed going into for moral reasons when I was publicly and privately living as a Neutral Evil individual rather than a Neutral Lawful one like I am today. For those not in the rpg area, Neutral Evil is considered the most Evil because it isn’t bound by laws or driven by a mad desire to commit harm, it is a calculated, uninhibited thing willing to use any methods to sate its desires. I was exactly such a thing, I looked at the legal profession and said….
“Shit, I’ve got too many morals for that. I may be a monster, but I merely want to murder all of humanity, not despoil them in such a horrific manner as that!”
On the other hand, I can’t stop laughing over the fact that I have managed to repeatedly out argue, out reason, and out perform a mother fucking lawyer in this state of theological debating. Holy shit, this guy gets paid to argue and I beat him. This has to be like some random dude off the street beating Jean Claude Van Damme or something. No wonder Halstead has gotten so pissed at me. I’ve beaten him at his own profession (debate)*, and I’m not even supposed to be a contender.
All humor aside though, he is pretty accurate on the legal issues in this paragraph.
How is the lay leader of a local Mormon congregation to make this determination when courts and lawyers find it challenging? Does the Mormon church leadership intend the local Mormon bishops (the Mormon term for “pastor”) to try to calculate the days or hours that a child lives with each parent in order to determine whether or not they may by baptized? And will one extra day spent with the homosexual parent really bar them from bar them from the holy sacraments?
I’m going to go with the solution is “ask God, err on the side of caution.”
Look, I know Mormons are considered odd by most Christians and down right…insane by everyone else, but frankly, this is just sounding petty on the part of Halstead.
I’m not saying “how will they choose when lawyers can’t” isn’t a good question, but really, he’s taking it to absurd levels. It’s their religion, it’s their choice, their decision, and they will come up with their own judgements. Frankly where does Halstead even have a leg to stand on in this conversation. At least when he went after Polytheists he was technically in the same religious grouping as us, but Mormans are about as close to Paganism as, well, Jews. Not very. And this isn’t even like me with Islamists, because at least Islamist practices can end up presenting a very real danger to my existence and my religion. But I can’t ever recall hearing how Mormon were insisting on the killing of witches in modern times, nor that they were really into anything except playing off in the corner by themselves because they don’t get other people and other people don’t get them.
holy crap, does that make Mormon’s the “autistic kid” in religious circles? Damn, no wonder I feel kinda sorry for them here.
So really, unless Halstead wants to come out as a gay Mormon…what in here is really his business? This is starting to feel less like a critic on Mormon positions regarding GLBT matters and more like a round of misplace aggression. He couldn’t beat up the polytheists in Paganism, got his ass handed back to him instead, and so now he’s going after the one group of Christians no one really cares about and thinks is weird. He’s spitting fire and brimstone about this, without even addressing any of the moral issues at all.
He’s…just being hateful. He’s not presenting a counter argument to why GLBT should be morally acceptable in regards to his own religion. He’s not even arguing from inside Mormonism about why GLBT should be acceptable in that religion. He’s just screaming “how dare you burden these children” without any understanding of Mormon thought or views. Hel, I doubt he expects much of a response from any of the Mormons.
But I mean, really, if he wanted to talk about a religion whose practices are a burden or harmful to GLBT people and their children…Mormons? Why not Islam, where in even the moderate forms of the religion practiced in moderate Islamic countries, gay people are put to death? Frankly, as something of a supporter of GLBT rights myself, I would rather go after the religion dictating these people be killed more than I would a religion that says “you have to be a legal adult before you get baptized.”
So how about it, Halstead, wanna right an article or two about the present Islamic rulings about GLBT people?
And what impact will this policy have on custody battles where one parent is LGBT? It is easy to imagine a disparate impact on the LGBT parent where the heterosexual parent argues that sole physical custody should be granted to them to avoid the child’s exclusion from full participation in their church.
And the LGBT Parent will scream to high heaven before the court, the media, and anyone who will listen that the Mormon church is an organized hate group trying to ruin their lives because they’re a bunch of homophobic bigots who hate love and don’t want people to be happy and how their trying to “take the child away from gay people” so “the gay parent should obviously get primary custody to protect the child from hateful bigots”
And the Mormon church will shake it’s head sadly, watch the child be dragged off, and say “this is why we say 18 years old and they have to disavow their gay parent.”
Because if they didn’t, even if the Mormon parent got primary or full custody, you can bet there would be all kinds of state observers and child care workers constantly monitoring every single thing that happens to “protect” the child from bigots and homophobes. And if you think being denied the sacraments would be bad, think about how bad a kid would feel being constantly eagle-eyed during the sacraments, knowing that the pastor couldn’t preach the faith properly lest the entire church suffer the wrath of government sanctions for hate speech and cause deep harm to their Mormon parent for any tiny thing the most likely non-Mormon observers would judge as “Bad.”
You know, for a lawyer, Halstead isn’t really putting much thought into the outcomes here.
3. The policy will continue to test the faith of many members of the Mormon church.
The new policy also re-categorizes “same gender marriage” as a form of “apostasy,” in contrast to same gender cohabitation, which is categorized as a “serious transgression.” Other “serious transgressions” include attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, and deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities. While non-married homosexuals continue to be grouped with rapists and child molesters, the Mormon church now considers married homosexuals to be “apostates,” worse than rapists and child molesters. Married LGBT Mormons will now be subject to automatic church discipline — not for being gay, but for being married.
There is an expression, “Passed the Rubicon” that comes to mind here. “Beyond the Pale”
My Gay Mormon Coworker (wow that sounds like a 90’s show) is in fact getting married. Much joy is to be had by this, and while they are happy I have also sensed that there is a sorrow in them. They are pretty devout in their faith, if not always capable of the practice.
But here we’re finally getting to why Halstead is so pissed about all this. Mormons consider Homosexuality a Sin. Morally wrong, equivalent to attempting murder, rape, abusing one’s spouse, etc. And of course, Halstead doesn’t like this, not one bit. It’s not his religion, it’s not his morals, and it is clearly, clearly bad. Probably even automatically bad. Sadly, Halstead doesn’t give us his personal reasoning on why GLBT relationships are good, so we cannot judge his foundations against those of the Mormons, but clearly he is displeased that they would consider the act of same sex…sex (and relationships) to be morally objectionable.
Now marriage is a very special thing. Pretty much always has been. It’s found in every civilization that I know of among humans, it’s even found in the animal kingdoms. Religiously, Marriage is the generally second holiest vow you can take in most religions (especially the Christian ones, where in Baptism is the holiest). Even in most Paganisms, Marriage is pretty damn holy. In fact, Marriage is universally viewed as so special that the GLBT community insisted they be able to have legally recognized marriages, despite the fact that they could have the full rights and privileges as partners via civil unions or with a bit of other legal paperwork. But rights and privileges were not enough, Marriage itself must be had.
So marriage is a pretty damn important thing.
So let’s slip from our mortal shells for a moment, our Pagan thoughts and Pagan ways, and look at it like this, objectively.
Same sex relationships and carnal activities are morally abhorrent to the same level as trying to murder someone or beating your spouse for Mormons. We can mostly agree that these things are indeed, morally abhorrent (and displeasing to most of our Gods as well). So marriage, the ultimate expression of sacred romance and trust, then being used to consecrate and consummate such a relationship would have to be like beating your spouse to death, possibly after having raped them.
Which, I think, might actually help us view this. Imagine if (like say happened in Old Testament Judaism, or even some Modern Day Islam) a woman was forced to marry her rapist, condemning her to a lifetime of repeated rape at the hands of her husband. Would we view this as a morally good thing, respecting of the sexual desires and natures of at least one of the people involved…or would we view this as a blasphemy against everything we believe marriage is supposed to be?
If beating your spouse is the Rubicon, then killing your spouse would be passing the Rubicon, The point of no return, you have violated the sacred so horrifically. It would be like shitting on communion wafers or, in Pagan terms, chopping down a sacred grove so you could wipe your ass on the leaves. Or digging up your grandma to fuck the corpse.
That’s how the Mormon’s view this thing.
Now, we Pagans may have different views on GLBT relationships. I myself, though dissenting from the Supreme Courts decision, do support Gay marriage. But I know that my peoples, both Germanic and Roman, have many moral practices and views that are as abhorrent to others as the Mormon view of GLBT relationships and marriages is to Halstead. So I’m really not of a mind to look down on their beliefs and cultures when I know mine are not “universally perfect” either.
And let’s face it, apostasy from the Mormon church is a far cry from apostasy from say Islam, a religion which puts you to death both for apostasy and for being gay. Once again, the Mormons are kooky, but fairly harmless.
But Halstead seems to view this as some sort of hypocrisy on the part of the Mormon church, that the thing worthy of being punished is the act of getting married rather than the state of being gay.
Frankly though, I find this a bit enlightened. If it’s true that one is “born gay” then one cannot help it. It’s like being born left handed or with a hearing problem. But the point with religions like those that are christian is that it’s not about what you are but what you do. You can be gay and Catholic, for example, and as long as you do not practice gay sex, you are not in trouble. The sin is in the action, not in the person. Hate the sin, love the sinner, as I believe Christ is supposed to have said.
What some people may not realize is that there are, in fact, LGBT Mormons, members of the Mormon church who are active in the church life, who have faith in Jesus Christ and the Mormon Restoration, and who happen to be gay. Just imagine the dedication one must have to Mormonism in order to remain a faithful Mormon as an LGBT person. And now imagine how this policy will affect their faith.
I don’t know if we’re meeting irony again, but hey, I know one of those LGBT Mormons. And yeah, this shit’s hard for them. Though we haven’t talked about it much, their faith is very, very important to them. To the point where they were just going to live a straight life rather than give into their desires.
And while they are happy to be living their orientation and getting married, I can tell how heavy it weighs on them. As a Theistic Pagan, I think I can understand their pain in a way that someone like Halstead, atheist that he is, never could. He sings lip service to pain, but it is not a pain he will ever understand in the slightest. Except perhaps if he were torn away from his precious earth and made to live on a space station for the rest of his life, ever looking down, but never again touching Terra.
I don’t have to imagine how this will affect their faith or the dedication they have to that faith. I have seen it in them. I hope every day that the one they love is worth it to them, the pain in this life. And given a theistic interpretation of the Mormon church’s position, the pain inevitable in the damnation that likely is to follow such a life.
These policy changes have been deeply upsetting to many non-LGBT members of the Mormon church as well, even some who are not previously bothered by the Church’s stance of same-sex marriage. Some of those who are most disturbed by the policy change are the Sunday School leaders and teachers, those who interact on a weekly basis with the children who will be affected. The policy will also continue to test the faith of Mormons who have LGBT family members. Even if the children do not fall within the scope of the policy for some reason, the change nevertheless sends a message that LGBTs and their children are not welcome in the Mormon pews. In a faith that places such emphasis on the importance of family, this policy sends a mixed message, so say the least.
Moral laws are always hard. There is no denying this. A hard line on moral issues can be both helpful or harmful.
But what if we weren’t talking about something viewed as harmless like GLBT and Marriage. What if we were talking about say Pedophilia?
What if the whole of the USA, or the World, started saying that fucking under aged children was not only perfectly okay, but socially desirable. That it wasn’t an act of rape, but an act of love, between adult and child. Pure, joyous love, and love is never bad or evil!
Now what if say Heathens refused to agree? What if heathens took a moral hard-line on the issue of kiddy fucking. What if say the Asatru Folk Assembly stood up and said “we do not believe that fucking children is morally acceptable, and that those children who live in such families must leave such beliefs and the practitioners of those beliefs behind if they wish to join in with our Folk and engage in our rituals.”
Would we be angry? Would be be horrified? Would we call them bigots? In such a pedophilic friendly world, those words would most certainly be fired off. Would not those who defend a friendly view of pedo relationships also cry out “think of the children!”
This is the problem with debating moral issues. There are those who believe something is acceptable, and those who believe something is not acceptable, and that something will be the same thing. Eating bacon, fucking a dude when you’re a dude, fucking a child, working on Saturdays, having a god, having no god, having a multiplicity of gods, thinking the gods are individuals, thinking the gods are things in your heads, murdering people, etc, etc, etc.
Let’s look back at that list of things the Mormon church finds as serious transgression. Beating your spouse, raping someone, attempting to murder someone, etc. Now if a church popped up and said “we don’t let spousal abusers into our church, and a child must disavow their abusive parent(s) before we allow them to seek salvation” would we really be objecting or would we be applauding them for standing up against spousal abuse? What about if they said “no rapists, etc”? “If your parent goes around attempting to murder people, you must renounce such things before you can find salvation”?
Geez, that sounds completely horrible and morally reprehensible. How dare we ask children to disavow the practices of spousal abuse, attempted murder, and rape before they seek their salvation. Clearly, these Mormons are nothing more than dogmatic bigots to divergent lifestyles who only want to be moral fudydudies and ruin everyone’s fun.
And then there are the children themselves. Imagine telling an eight year old boy or girl who has been raised in the Mormon church that they cannot be baptized with their same-aged step-sibling because their father or mother is gay. One Mormon mother of both gay and straight children wrote to me describing the policy as “a very harsh, almost Old Testament type sacrificing of innocent children over what is perceived to be the sinful lifestyle of their parents.”
Well, the Mormons are a fairly Old Testament people, from what I’ve gathered.
But does this sacrifice children for the sinful lifestyles of their parents?
Even after only reading the edited content Halstead has allowed in his post to make the point he desires…I don’t think so. It does burden these children, something awful, but it doesn’t sacrifice them. Sacrificing them would be saying “you may never have these sacred things because of your gay parent.”
It merely says “wait a bit, wait until you are an adult and you are free to leave such sinful, harmful, evil behaviors behind you forever, when you can renounce such sins without fear of reprisals, and you will be welcomed with open arms to the full rights and privileges of the Church.”
In the Cultus Deorum, there is a concept called “spiritual pollution.” It’s not unlike the concept of being “unclean” in Judaism. I find it fits well here, looking at the ruling of the Mormon church. Given the severity of homosexual marriage and acts in their moral framework, the child could only be polluted spiritually from being surrounded in such things. It would wear on their mind, their soul, every part of them that such things were wrong, but they were forced to live in them anyways. And not only live in them, but essentially support these sinful acts because they rely on their parent to live.
I imagine it would be like a Buddhist child forced to make landmines all day. Such an antithesis of what they believe is good, yet they are forced to engage in acts that support something they view as evil. You don’t have to be a psychology doctorate holder to know what that would do to a child, or an adult.
And what would that look like to the God you swore to obey, if you swore an oath against such things, but then aided in them. If it were merely mortal concerns, such a thing would be treason. And this “treason” would create a spiritual pollution in the child, harming them greatly.
So really, better then that they not be able to make that oath until such time as they would be free to act upon it.
And really, I know this sucks to say, but if anyone is sacrificing the child it would be the gay parent. They’re the ones making the situation “pick me or your faith. Support my sin, committed for my personal gratification at the cost of your soul, or deny your blood family and be a homophobic bigot.”
Frankly, if that was my choice I’d be tempted to just eat a gun. I imagine there are those who were behind this ruling who looked at it the same way, with the same understanding, and decided “the poor child is damned either way, we might as well pick the least damning thing we can.”
Which, frankly…is the choice they have presented. Stay with your parent, be with your family, because you need them. But as soon as you can, reject such moral horrors and we will accept you.
We’ll wrap this up with Part 3
Hela Bless
*Huh, he’s a lawyer, whose profession it is to debate the Law, and yet Halstead insists that debate is something that ruins civilization.
I do believe this is Irony.
Son of Hel 
I’ve been doing some research into this situation, and what I am finding morally reprehensible is that the Mormon church had been growing more tolerant – according to one article I read, the Mormon church had been showing increasing tolerance to the GLBT community, and this policy change blindsided a lot of practitioners. Here’s the link: https://medium.com/@jellistx/why-are-the-children-of-gay-parents-newly-unwelcome-in-the-mormon-church-67161add297a#.ryvrvaio3
I also can’t understand why any religion would paint homosexuality as a sin when science has already shown that there is no choice involved in sexuality – our attraction to one gender over another is hardwired into us. This is something I have to take a hard stance on because there is nothing in me that can support denying someone access to a faith because of the way they were born.
You made the comparison with spousal abusers – imagining this policy as if it were directed towards children whose parents abused one another and then denied them access to the church. The children don’t make the decision for their parents to be abusive towards one another – it’s ridiculous to tell a child that they can’t be part of the church because their parents beat each other up, or that they can’t be part of the church because their parents are gay.
At the same time, in the comparison with spousal abuse – abuse is a choice. A person may be more inclined towards being abusive due to the way they were raised, but a person can always decide whether or not to be an abuser. There is choice involved. There is no choice involved in being gay.
I think a better comparison here would be to parents who were born disabled. It’s like the church telling kids who have disabled parents that they can’t be part of the church until they disavow the parent with the disability. This policy promotes discrimination, hatred, and alienation. It promotes separatism and exclusivity, and that is everything I hate about monotheistic faiths.
The only good – the absolute only piece of good I can see in this – is the concept of having people wait until they are 18 to get baptized. But I think it’s a policy that should apply to all children, not only those of same sex couples, and no disavowal should be included.
Making a child wait until they are 18 to get baptized says – learn about this faith, really consider what you are getting into, and make a decision based on all of the facts. That, I can support.
The discrimination, however, I cannot abide and refuse to accept. Using religion as a basis for discrimination is evil. It is the reason I can’t stand Isil; they are using religion as a reason to promote hatred. While this doctrine is not as extreme, since Mormons aren’t going out and killing people who are involved in same sex relationships, it promotes the same type of extremist mindset. It promotes an us vs. them mentality, and it dehumanizes a large portion of humanity, and it is the lack of humanity in the policy that causes me to recoil.
LikeLike
You raise many good points, and I am in agreement with you on most of them.
Most of what this post trio is about is attempting to a) understand things from the Mormon perspective and b) try to engage in a little tolerance of different views from my own. Now, understanding and tolerating do not by any means translate to agreeing or supporting. I’m not sure that’s gotten clearly put, but that’s probably my fault as the author.
The argument you mention though, about “gay people not having a choice” with thing is…troubling to me. Many in the pro-pedo community are pushing “you can’t help who you’re attracted to, there is no choice involved.” And yes….okay. Maybe that’s how it works for most people, you don’t have a choice as to what your “type” is. But there is a difference in having no choice in what you like, and no choice in what you do.
I have no choice in what foods I do or do not like. But I do have a choice in what foods I eat, regardless of if I like them or not. The Gay Mormon coworker I mentioned cannot help that they are gay…but they were going to choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle (up until events made them decide otherwise). That I think, was the whole point behind the “Apostasy” thing being the getting married. you can’t help it if you’re gay but you can choose not to get married.
A pedo can’t help that they’re attracted to children, but they can choose not to have sex with a child, and we as a society chose to consider it morally wrong for them to do so. Same thing goes for abusers, there’s been arguments made that they can’t help it (some people are just born sadists or have suffered so much emotional trauma, etc), or rapists, or killers, or kleptomaniacs, etc. But we still consider these things wrong even though it is entirely possible that the enactor didn’t choose to be those things, even if they did chose to do them.
Look, I know I’m probably doing a terrible job to convey my point here. But in a way, I can see why a religion would paint an act as a sin even if the person didn’t have a choice about wanting to commit that sin. Especially in a Christian religion where it’s all about everyone having original sin and wanting to do those things, but choosing not to because they wish to follow their god’s will.
Do I agree with this position? No. If I did, I would be a Morman rather than a Cultus Deorum Germanica. There are a number of issues I have with Christian theology regardless of sect. There are a number of theological issues I have with their God, a god who says homosexuality is wrong but pedophilia is okay. But I still want to understand where they’re coming from, both for the sake of peace and of war.
That’s also why the “Disabled” argument, while reasonable, doesn’t fit the mentality here as I understand it. A disabled person cannot choose to act in a non-disabled manner. Now, if gay people could not help having gay sex with other gay people, you would be right. But I have seen a number of examples of gay people choosing to either be celibate or engage in heterosexuality. And it’s an argument that becomes very dangerous outside of this. Pedoes cannot help but be pedoes, so they would be disabled, but then that would also mean they have no choice but to engage in pedophilic sex. And thus we have no right to judge or ostracize them.
Does this position by the Mormon church promote separatism, exclusivity, and all that other stuff? Absolutely, hell yes. And I do not agree with them doing that. But I also know that I and everyone else do the exact same thing to pedoes, kleptomaniacs, and other people who are born pre-disposed to doing or being something that violates the moral laws of my/our faiths and the legal laws of my/our countries. That, and the fact that they are saying simply that “you can’t do this here, but you can do it elsewhere” is the only reasons I’ve given as much slack to this as I have. If the Mormons were going all ISIL and saying “we must kill people who enter into homosexual marriages” I would be ripping them apart without mercy.
But each community is going to have it’s own ideas of moral behavior. And sometimes, these standards are going to be unfair by the views of other people. They’re going to punish the children for the sins of the fathers and ban behaviors we think are acceptable. At which point we have two options. We can live in our communities by our standards, and open them up to people who fit our morals that have been rejected by others, or we can literally start to crusade against the infidel who doesn’t believe as we do. In which case…how are we better than the Christians and Muslims who have done that shit for centuries. We would then also be promoting alienation, hatred, discrimination, separatism and exclusivity based on our moral codes. We would then be imposing our morals on people who believe differently from us, and committing the same theological and social sins that they are.
And to me..that would be the worse crime. Demanding everyone tolerate me and my differences, while insisting that everyone ultimately just believe, act, and live as I do? That’s the exact same attitude I have ripped into Halstead and others for having countless times. If I have to tolerate the existence of things I don’t like just so that I can stand firmly on the ground that people should tolerate the things about me they don’t like, and make it so no one is getting killed over the difference…then I guess that’s a price I’m willing to pay. So long as there is no physical violence.
And the best I can do is offer a friendly hearth to those who find themselves outside the moral laws of their former communities, but within the moral laws of mine.
LikeLike
Okay, so I can get where you are coming from with the “I can’t choose what I like but I can choose what I do.” Going from that, it is reasonable (even tho I morally disagree with doing this) for the Mormon Church to say that adults engaging in homosexuality aren’t allowed to attend or participate in the church. It’s reasonable to say everyone needs to be 18 before baptism. What’s not reasonable is telling a child that because their parents are gay that they have to wait to be baptised while a child with straight parents doesn’t have to wait. The one thing none of us can choose is the family we are born into. That is the discrimination that concerns me. If the moral breach is created by the parent, let the parent reap the consequences. Not 8 year old children who have absolutely no choice or say in the conduct of their parents.
LikeLike
Here again, I am in much agreement with you. Children should not suffer for the deeds of their parents.
But they will anyways.
And I can only stress the point I made above as to why I think the Mormons did this. If the child is baptized, they enter a contract with the Mormon’s god. That god says “do not do this thing, because it is very bad” and then the kid has to go home with their gay parent living in a gay marriage, the very bad thing you promised not to do, support, or aid…and have to agree with, support, and aid said marriage. Because if the child was keep to their oath, they would raise holy hell against this “evil” thing…which in turn would bring massive amounts of suffering on the child in question from their married gay parents. Allegations and even lawsuits would be leveled against the child’s church, the mormon community, and so forth, not to mention behaviors that would likely become abusive over time towards the child in question in order to “instruct” them not to be “homophobic” if that child refused to change their behavior.
Which is why, as much as I really, really do not like their position, I have to give that the mormon church has come up with the only theological and metaphysical “Get out of jail” card they could. Yes, it is horrible and discriminatory to deny the child free and total practice, but the other option is for the child to potentially undergo a decade or so of abuse, spiritual pollution, horrific guilt, and various mental and physical ills as every day they were with their gay family they would be violating everything they believed in.
Unfortunately, there is no right solution here.Because in either case, the child is very likely to be discriminated against. So it can either be by the church, denying them full rights of practice because they have a married gay parent(s)…or it can be by their GLBT family members who punish them for a “homophobic” practice/belief. So which is worse a decade of not being baptized or a decade where every time you’re home you get screamed at and punished for believing something your parents do not?
And sure, not all GLBT parents would do that to their kid. The hope is, of course, that familial love would win out over political/moral ideologies. But enough would become abusive towards their child/ren and the churches those kids went to. We are talking about a community which will shut down businesses purely because they do not like the moral position of the business’s owner.
And yes, the Mormon church could do the equal thing and say no child can be baptized until 18, but that would mean changing their very foundations in order to accommodate people who violate everything mormons believe in. Not, exactly, a fair thing to ask them to do simply because to do otherwise invalidates our views of morally correct action. Which in turn leads us back to doing the very things we’re not happy about the mormons doing. Dictating other people’s lives because of differing morals.
LikeLike
I really appreciate your ability to deconstruct Mr Halstead’s arguments, but since your strength is logic rather than investigation, I think you should stick to that. Mr Halstead was a Mormon, so his post does not come from nowhere.
LikeLike
actually, my investigation skills are pretty strong. I just did this as a bit to respond with some thoughts. As I said, I didn’t go read the mormon article. I could have, but I wanted to look at Halstead’s position base on his argument alone, unbiased by other sources. Course, knowing me, I may go look at the mormon article he’s talking about because I like to write.
It would have really been helpful if Halstead had mentioned his former Mormonism in this article. Would have also given him a stronger position to comment. Most people would be going into this article as I did, assuming that here’s an atheist pagan just ripping on a christian religion he doesn’t like for doing something he doesn’t agree with. Had he said anywhere in the article “i’m a former mormon” then I would have given it a bit more respect on his end. It would be like me talking about Judaism, some inside expertise is hence known. Otherwise, many are left with the impression I was when I wrote this.
LikeLike
I wonder, does Halstead express any consternation concerning baptizing children?
LikeLike
Wish I knew. He certainly bashes Christianity a lot…and yet here he’s bashing Christians for not baptizing kids. Maybe there’s no pleasing him.
LikeLike
Agreed, he does seem like the type of person who can find the negative in any argument. I think he likes the drama. That’s the main problem with our society these days, drama addiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But here’s the thing. Mormons don’t even stand by their own stance on spousal abuse etc. I work in an area that is heavily Mormon and I can assure you of two things: 1. they have a different standard for dealing with fellow Mormons than they do with “gentiles” as they call them and 2. They are incredibly corrupt. And they will lie to protect their own. Without compunction. And 3. If a wife is being abused and the husband gives a lot of money to the church she may as well deal. Cuz they’re not going to talk to him out of fear he’ll quit giving.
If they were living their faith I might give more credence to your argument. But they don’t, at least none of the Mormons I know. And I know a lot.
LikeLike
well, it was about the argument more than the reality, lol.
I’ve been peripherally aware of the problems with Mormons for years now, and you’ve been an honorable person on this forum so I shall take thy word as true. By no means do I consider them on any real moral high ground. I figured they’re like most Christian sects, or even more things involving people, good on the surface and failing on the background.
I just figured the theology was a bit sounder than Halstead was giving them credit for. Now, actually believing and following through on it is a completely different matter and even I am interested to see how the Mormons will succeed and fail vs this position.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yikes, where do I start. One – you have a go at John Halstead about why he’s chosen to post about the Mormons. Well if you bothered to read his posts, you’d know he used to be a Mormon so he takes a special interest in that particular church.
Next, so far your articles have misrepresented the views of John Halstead on polytheism by claiming he is trying to attack it or push polytheists out – which he is not! then you write articles which will fuel the growing violent backlash against innocent Muslims in the west, and finally you claim to be pro gay but have become an apologist for the Mormon church’s insistence that children should have to disown their own parents if they want to be part of the church anymore. This blog is turning into a column Rupert Murdoch’s far right wing propoganda newspapers would welcome.
Third, NO! Jesus never said anything like “love the sinner, hate the sin” that is later Christian hogwash. He said “don’t judge” and “love your enemies”. There was no qualification about hating their actions too.
LikeLike
Okay, in regards to Halstead and the Mormon thing, I’d not seen him write anything about mormons before. But, full cop, someone already mentioned this and I admit I could have gone through Halstead’s entire archive to find some mention of it and I didn’t. Now I know, and can go forwards from there.
I have not misrepresented Halstead’s views on polytheism. I have quoted his articles in their entirety in my posts responding to them, representing them in full. Given that I am far from the only one who has read his articles with that conclusion being reached on both sides, and he is even quoted that any paganism which does not meet his definitions is “a paganism he does not recognize” I do not see any misrepresentation there. I have merely presented counter arguments to his articles.
But since you wish to state that I’m being an “anti-GLBT apologist for the mormons,” might I just rightly point out that you are in turn being an apologist for the Muslims with your statement. Because when it gets right down to it, Islam, regardless of moderate or extreme, is a religion so violently anti-GLBT that they imprison and/or execute their gay people in even the moderate countries. Have I posted articles talking about the bad things done in Islam and by some Muslims? Yes. Have I pointed out the theological and moral issues present in much of Islamic practice? Yes.
Is that supposed to make me a bad person?
Did I ever state that I agreed with or supported the mormon position? No. I said I could understand why they were doing it. I have stated it is not my place to go attack a non-violent religion’s non-violent attempts to uphold its standards and practices. I have said multiple times here that I do not agree with their position. But that doesn’t mean I can’t try to understand it. If that is being an apologist, then fine.
So if calling out a violently religions whose moderate forms are violently anti-gay, anti-pagan, anti-women, and anti-equality while attempting to understand a non-violent religions position towards homosexuality (even thought I do not support their position), and calling out an authoritarian atheist who has literally dismissed the paganisms of other people means I’m some right-wing nutjob who could get publish by some guy named Murdock, then whatever. I will call out violence, I will call out intolerance, and I will always try to understand those who think differently from me rather than simply beat them into the ground. I’m sorry you couldn’t handle a theological thought experiment that was attempting to understand why the mormons would do such a thing. Because sometimes I forget to bash the “correct” people that it’s okay to attack, and just go after people doing bad things regardless of who they are. Maybe I should just bash the “right” people without attempting to ever understand them, perhaps then I can get published in the HuffPost like Halstead is.
LikeLike
Rupert Murdoch is the owner of most of the big press groups in the western world – the sun, the times, sky e.t.c.
I’m gay, I’m also well aware of how islam feels about gay people and their horrific punishments for us. BUT i don’t live in those countries, my home is in the west – in countries where there are muslims who live down the street and who are now in fear and quite likely to end up beaten up or worse because of the fear that is being whipped up by people.
finally – nowhere has john ever said he thinks polytheists should not be part of paganism or that he wanted them to be chucked out, like some of your posts suggested his motive was. His concern from what I interpret, respect for nature should be an important, maybe even the most important, aspect of paganism. He was making that argument and people have twisted his words to claim that he wants to get rid of polytheists which is complete rubbish!
LikeLike