Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Putting aside the repellant amount of sheer spitefulness and contempt that is so obvious is this statement, I would like to clear one thing up...

In your view, the affirmative act of resigning one's membership in the Church is, in your view, equivalent to the passive event of being "purged from the church?"  

Thanks,

-Smac

And here I thought I was making a positive comment.  Geez. My comment was alluding to the possibility that the recent slowing of church growth was possibly being artificially impacted by a one time resignation surge...which like the missionary surge, has come and gone and that now church grown can resume its projected growth trends unencumbered by this one time mass resignations event.  How exactly could this be taken as a repellant, spiteful contemptuous comment smac?  Dude,  give me a break and cut me some slack ok

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd think it's probably true that if 60,000 did resign as a result of the 2015 policy (I know a handful of members--only a couple were considered active in some sense) they were members of record only.  But it's quite a statement to make it official due to the policy, rather than saying "ya' know, this isn't working for me anymore' and then quietly leaving. 

But why?  How is it "quite a statement" to resign from a group you are not participating in, not supporting in any way, are indifferent to, etc.?

Moreover, how is it "quite a statement" when the only people who will know are the individual and the Church (including the individual's bishop and stake president)?  It seems that, at most, the bishop will get a letter from the Church indicating that "Brother So-and-So has requested that his names be removed from the records of the Church."  That bishop will probably know Brother So-and-So, including whether he was a "member of record only" (aka "MINO" - "Mormon In Name Only").  So the impact on the bishop would not seem to be significant.  He could still be concerned about the individual, but actually being surprised that he left, that he made "quite a statement," would seem to be unusual.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I notice many members want it both ways--"we have 15 million members" and then turn around and accuse those who aren't active or in complete agreement of not really being members because they aren't active, hold a calling, carry a recommend etc. 

I think we should be kind to those who "aren't active, hold a calling, carry a recommend, etc."  

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

if you take the number of members the year previous (according to the Statistical report given out in April) add to that the number of converts and children of record added, and then take the difference of that sum with the number of members reported the next year, you get a figure that represents those lost (assumed to be those who died, were ex'd or had their name removed).

that number the past few years (percent is percent of total membership):

2012            53,476      .36%

2013            98,876       .66%

2014           122,903      .8%

2015            110,090     .7%

2016            101,159     .64%

I'm not sure a claim of 60,000 fits.  But then again, maybe those who request their names be removed remain as members on record for some odd reason.

I think this 60,000 figure is way, way too speculative.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

So hey let's try to change eternal laws because 60k people don't like it.  We don't care what God wants,  what the will of the Father or Son is.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But why?  How is it "quite a statement" to resign from a group you are not participating in, not supporting in any way, are indifferent to, etc.?

I talk to members who don't go all the time.  Many who don't believe still consider themselves Mormon and want to remain in touch.  So, I was viewing it from that perspective.  To me it's quite a statement because of that. 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, how is it "quite a statement" when the only people who will know are the individual and the Church (including the individual's bishop and stake president)?  It seems that, at most, the bishop will get a letter from the Church indicating that "Brother So-and-So has requested that his names be removed from the records of the Church."  That bishop will probably know Brother So-and-So, including whether he was a "member of record only" (aka "MINO" - "Mormon In Name Only").  So the impact on the bishop would not seem to be significant.  He could still be concerned about the individual, but actually being surprised that he left, that he made "quite a statement," would seem to be unusual.

I think we should be kind to those who "aren't active, hold a calling, carry a recommend, etc."  

I think this 60,000 figure is way, way too speculative.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree the 60,000 figure to be speculative.  I don't really think it fits with what we do know (see my previous post wherein a pointed out the difference between 2015 and 16 is just over 100,000, less than the year before.  60,000 really doesn't fit. 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

So hey let's try to change eternal laws because 60k people don't like it.  We don't care what God wants,  what the will of the Father or Son is.

Assuming, of course, that the policy reflects the will of God. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

So hey let's try to change eternal laws because 60k people don't like it.  We don't care what God wants,  what the will of the Father or Son is.

The Nov 2105 policy is an eternal law?  I didn't even think the Church leaders saw it that way.  Sounded like their effort to draw boundaries for us lowly folks. 

[Maureen]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It could also be that most who think they are resigning by having their names blotted out, don't really have their names blotted out.  If 60,000 in one year resigned it would surely show up, no? 

What about members who pass away? My MIL passed away in 1995, would she have been taken off the membership rolls in 1996, or is she still counted until the year she would have turned 110? Just asking.

M.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

What about members who pass away? My MIL passed away in 1995, would she have been taken off the membership rolls in 1996, or is she still counted until the year she would have turned 110? Just asking.

M.

I think the 110 year old rule is in place for those they can't locate.  If it's a member that is known about, particularly ones whose funerals go through a bishop or other leader, I think they make note of it. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Who knows? I suspect the policy change was the proverbial last straw for people who were on their way out, anyway.

Agreed.  But there were probably also some faithful/observant members who resigned as well.

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But I do know a lot of faithful members who have had their worlds turned upside down by the policy change.

I would dispute that somewhat.  The policy change itself applies to an very small number of people.  Rather, I think it is more about the controversy about it in the abstract, whipped into a frenzy by critics and enemies of the Church, that has been disturbing.

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I do know a few people who were thrilled by the policy from the start, but then they are the kind of people I would expect to be thrilled about it.

Hmm.  I don't know a single person who has been "thrilled by the policy."  It's a tough call to make, and I am at peace with it, and am satisfied that the Brethren were correct in promulgating it (though the roll-out was poor).

The Church has many divine mandates that are, on their face, bright and beautiful and uplifting and joyful.  However, the Church also has some divine mandates that are necessary, but unpleasant.   Necessary, but difficult to carry out.  Necessary, but susceptible to alarmism and histrionics from the Church's critics and opponents (both in and out of it).  As I said previously regarding the policy change:

Quote

In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and are themselves revelatory.

Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to inspired/revelatory counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when doing so is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

I work as an attorney in real estate law.  That involves foreclosures and evictions.  Pretty unpleasant stuff.  Unpleasant, but still necessary. 

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Everyone else I know has struggled to one degree or another with it.

I have known plenty of people who find the policy sensible and understandable.  They haven't "struggled" with it, but they are not "thrilled" with it, either.

I have also known a fair number of folks who, as you put it, "{have} struggled to one degree or another with it" (or, to be more precise, have been perturbed by the hue and cry and the controversy about it, since the policy itself has very, very limited actual application).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I talk to members who don't go all the time.  Many who don't believe still consider themselves Mormon and want to remain in touch.  So, I was viewing it from that perspective.  To me it's quite a statement because of that. 

Okay.  That makes sense.  Thank you for your clarification.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Agreed.  But there were probably also some faithful/observant members who resigned as well.

I would dispute that somewhat.  The policy change itself applies to an very small number of people.  Rather, I think it is more about the controversy about it in the abstract, whipped into a frenzy by critics and enemies of the Church, that has been disturbing.

Hmm.  I don't know a single person who has been "thrilled by the policy."  It's a tough call to make, and I am at peace with it, and am satisfied that the Brethren were correct in promulgating it (though the roll-out was poor).

The Church has many divine mandates that are, on their face, bright and beautiful and uplifting and joyful.  However, the Church also has some divine mandates that are necessary, but unpleasant.   Necessary, but difficult to carry out.  Necessary, but susceptible to alarmism and histrionics from the Church's critics and opponents (both in and out of it).  As I said previously regarding the policy change:

I work as an attorney in real estate law.  That involves foreclosures and evictions.  Pretty unpleasant stuff.  Unpleasant, but still necessary. 

I have known plenty of people who find the policy sensible and understandable.  They haven't "struggled" with it, but they are not "thrilled" with it, either.

I have also known a fair number of folks who, as you put it, "{have} struggled to one degree or another with it" (or, to be more precise, have been perturbed by the hue and cry and the controversy about it, since the policy itself has very, very limited actual application).

Thanks,

-Smac

For the record, I don't know any faithful members who were influenced by a "hue and cry" from any side. Certainly my family member is not someone who pays attention to church critics. The number of people affected by the policy is irrelevant to its justice and righteousness. It either is just and righteous, or it is not. 

I know people who have become "at peace" with it, as you say, but I don't know very many people who were "thrilled" by the policy. Those I know (can't speak for you, obviously) who are at peace with it arrived at that peace despite not being comfortable with the policy to begin with; perhaps "struggled" is too broad to apply to a lot of people. I totally respect that. But yes, I have known a number of people who were happy with the policy, thrilled even. One church member I know described it as a "middle finger" to gays and their supporters.

I'm glad I don't have to defend the policy. It is definitely unpleasant, but also unnecessary, IMO. I've said before that I thought it was a joke when I first heard of it, and my LDS father didn't believe the church would do something like that when he heard about it. I'm with my family member in hoping that someday the policy will be abandoned.

[Maureen]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

...Hmm.  I don't know a single person who has been "thrilled by the policy."  It's a tough call to make, and I am at peace with it, and am satisfied that the Brethren were correct in promulgating it (though the roll-out was poor)...

I think the roll out was poor because it's a Handbook 1 policy, only given to leaders. I don't think the LDS Church had been planning on informing the rank-and-file at the time. The policy was leaked, so they had no choice but to explain it.

M.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the 110 year old rule is in place for those they can't locate.  If it's a member that is known about, particularly ones whose funerals go through a bishop or other leader, I think they make note of it. 

Yes, this is how it was handled by my husband when ward clerk as well as what we were told when my dad died (we couldn't access his online account pretty much immediately).

Edited October 24, 2017 by Calm

[Jeanne]

55 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

So hey let's try to change eternal laws because 60k people don't like it.  We don't care what God wants,  what the will of the Father or Son is.

But one of the first questions a devout mormon might ask in this..is ..is this what God wants????

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I think the roll out was poor because it's a Handbook 1 policy, only given to leaders. I don't think the LDS Church had been planning on informing the rank-and-file at the time. The policy was leaked, so they had no choice but to explain it.

M.

Which begs the question on how this suddenly became a revelation.  I do agree with your assessment.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Jeanne

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

For the vast majority of active members, the November policy was like water on the back of a duck...

I can tell you from my interactions with family and friends that are orthodox members that this did register as an issue.   Some more than others, but I was surprised at the number of private messages I received from people I wouldn't have expected to hear anything from.  This registered with many active members in a way that I can't recall any other news even registering. 

What are the long term effects, I think we'll have to wait and see.  

[mnn727]

His evidence is hearsay in both cases. Frankly I doubt its truthfulness.  

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the 110 year old rule is in place for those they can't locate.  If it's a member that is known about, particularly ones whose funerals go through a bishop or other leader, I think they make note of it. 

Didn't the prophets in the OT live to 900+ years?  I think they need to change this 110yr rule to the 999yr rule.  Theologically speaking a person can't live longer than 999 years, but since we have clear evidence in the bible that people lived in their 900+ years then we ought to account for that possibility.  

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Which begs the question on how this suddenly became a revelation.  I do agree with your assessment.

Sounds like an interesting study, how does something become revelation?  Equally interesting, how does something that is revelation become a disavowed theory and/or heretical.  A study in human nature and religious evolution.  

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

For the record, I don't know any faithful members who were influenced by a "hue and cry" from any side.

The "hue and cry" is the only way the general public heard about this issue.

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Certainly my family member is not someone who pays attention to church critics. The number of people affected by the policy is irrelevant to its justice and righteousness. It either is just and righteous, or it is not. 

I think the controversy far outstrips the actual impact of the policy.  The controversy has overshadowed the intended and actual impact of the policy.  Critics and opponents of the Church have worked very, very hard to foment as much acrimony and strife about the policy as possible. 

The authors and advocates of the controversy have presupposed that the policy is horrible and bigoted and hateful, and that Mormons and their Church are therefore also horrible and bigoted and hateful.  

I do not doubt that some folks have dispassionately reviewed the policy and have come away with concerns about it.  I can understand and respect that.  But let's not kid ourselves.  The Church has been raked over the coals about this policy.  The Church's position on the policy has not been given a fair shake.  At all.  It has been critics and opponents of the Church ginning up hysterics and ranting and raving and fomenting ill will against the Church and its members from the moment John Dehlin scooped the Church's roll-out.  In other words, emotions - negative, judgmental emotions - have predominated the popular discussion about the policy.

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know people who have become "at peace" with it, as you say, but I don't know very many people who were "thrilled" by the policy.

And I don't know anyone who was "thrilled " by it.

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Those I know (can't speak for you, obviously) who are at peace with it arrived at that peace despite not being comfortable with the policy to begin with;

Yes.  That is often the way things shake out when we deal with tough choices.  I am a real estate attorney.  I do a lot of work in foreclosures and evictions.  Rather unpleasant work, but necessary work.  I am never "thrilled" with foreclosing on or evicting someone.  But I do my job and I do it vigorously because it's a job that needs to be done.

I am "at peace" with my line of work because foreclosures and evictions, while unpleasant, are nevertheless necessary.  And appropriate.  And - to borrow your term - "just."  

I am also "at peace" with the Church's November 2015 policy changes because those changes, while unpleasant, were nevertheless necessary.  And appropriate.  And - to borrow your term - "just."  That is an eminently dispassionate and reasoned assessment.  In contrast, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

perhaps "struggled" is too broad to apply to a lot of people. I totally respect that. But yes, I have known a number of people who were happy with the policy, thrilled even. One church member I know described it as a "middle finger" to gays and their supporters.

That is a horrible thing to say, particularly from a Latter-day Saint.  "Gays" are our brothers and sisters.  I think the General Authorities would be appalled at the notion of the policy change being mischaracterized in such a way by a member of the Church.

FWIW, I have not seen a single instance of Latter-day Saints being anything like "thrilled" about the policy changes, nor have I seen any church members responding in the way you attribute to the one example above.

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm glad I don't have to defend the policy.

But for the largely fabricated controversy, I don't think the policy would need much defending.

After all, the Church has had a nearly identical policy for children from polygamous families, but has that policy needed "defending?"  Nope.  Why?  Because critics and opponents of the Church have not been interested in stoking animosity and resentment against the Church by using that policy has a pretext to at once find fault with the Church and deeming themselves morally superior.

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It is definitely unpleasant, but also unnecessary, IMO. I've said before that I thought it was a joke when I first heard of it, and my LDS father didn't believe the church would do something like that when he heard about it. I'm with my family member in hoping that someday the policy will be abandoned.

Do you likewise hope that the Church's policy regarding children growing up in polygamous households "will be abandoned?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "hue and cry" is the only way the general public heard about this issue.

I think the controversy far outstrips the actual impact of the policy.  The controversy has overshadowed the intended and actual impact of the policy.  Critics and opponents of the Church have worked very, very hard to foment as much acrimony and strife about the policy as possible. 

The authors and advocates of the controversy have presupposed that the policy is horrible and bigoted and hateful, and that Mormons and their Church are therefore also horrible and bigoted and hateful.  

I do not doubt that some folks have dispassionately reviewed the policy and have come away with concerns about it.  I can understand and respect that.  But let's not kid ourselves.  The Church has been raked over the coals about this policy.  The Church's position on the policy has not been given a fair shake.  At all.  It has been critics and opponents of the Church ginning up hysterics and ranting and raving and fomenting ill will against the Church and its members from the moment John Dehlin scooped the Church's roll-out.  In other words, emotions - negative, judgmental emotions - have predominated the popular discussion about the policy.

And I don't know anyone who was "thrilled " by it.

Yes.  That is often the way things shake out when we deal with tough choices.  I am a real estate attorney.  I do a lot of work in foreclosures and evictions.  Rather unpleasant work, but necessary work.  I am never "thrilled" with foreclosing on or evicting someone.  But I do my job and I do it vigorously because it's a job that needs to be done.

I am "at peace" with my line of work because foreclosures and evictions, while unpleasant, are nevertheless necessary.  And appropriate.  And - to borrow your term - "just."  

I am also "at peace" with the Church's November 2015 policy changes because those changes, while unpleasant, were nevertheless necessary.  And appropriate.  And - to borrow your term - "just."  That is an eminently dispassionate and reasoned assessment.  In contrast, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

That is a horrible thing to say, particularly from a Latter-day Saint.  "Gays" are our brothers and sisters.  I think the General Authorities would be appalled at the notion of the policy change being mischaracterized in such a way by a member of the Church.

FWIW, I have not seen a single instance of Latter-day Saints being anything like "thrilled" about the policy changes, nor have I seen any church members responding in the way you attribute to the one example above.

But for the largely fabricated controversy, I don't think the policy would need much defending.

After all, the Church has had a nearly identical policy for children from polygamous families, but has that policy needed "defending?"  Nope.  Why?  Because critics and opponents of the Church have not been interested in stoking animosity and resentment against the Church by using that policy has a pretext to at once find fault with the Church and deeming themselves morally superior.

Do you likewise hope that the Church's policy regarding children growing up in polygamous households "will be abandoned?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I was unaware of the policy regarding children of polygamists, but yes, I do hope the church abandons policies that deny membership to children for the actions of their parents. 

Maybe you and I read from different sources. I learned about the policy from an LDS friend, who wanted to know what I thought. I genuinely thought it was a parody. 

[phaedrus ut]

In my previous 4 decades in the church I only knew 1 or 2 members that resigned on their own.  Since the policy change that number is in the 20-30 range.  Most like me were non-believers. However I know 2 separate families that had married gay children and the parents and many of the siblings resigned because of the policy change.  I know the QuitMormon twitter account posts updates on processed resignations and it is currently above 10,000 processed.  

Last I had heard Greg Prince was still active LDS and a respected academic.  Even though I was surprised at the 60k number I have no reason to doubt his credibility. 

 

Phaedrus 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was unaware of the policy regarding children of polygamists, but yes, I do hope the church abandons policies that deny membership to children for the actions of their parents. 

Have you reviewed the Church's reasoning and explanation for its policies regarding children of polygamists (and, more recently, children being raised in a same-sex parent household)?  If so, what is your assessment of that?

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe you and I read from different sources. I learned about the policy from an LDS friend, who wanted to know what I thought. I genuinely thought it was a parody. 

Our ward's bishop received an email about the policy change on the same day John Dehlin scooped the story.  That's how I found out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Have you reviewed the Church's reasoning and explanation for its policies regarding children of polygamists (and, more recently, children being raised in a same-sex parent household)?  If so, what is your assessment of that?

Our ward's bishop received an email about the policy change on the same day John Dehlin scooped the story.  That's how I found out.

Thanks,

-Smac

I feel the same way about both policies. And no, I’m not persuaded by the church’s stated reasoning. 

[Bob Crockett]

And then there's my gay friend who hasn't been active in the church since the age of 13, who wants to keep his name on the records even though he's married to another man.  He likes his home teachers and he likes the church except for the marriage issue.