LDS Church Donates $25K to Affirmation (Re: Suicide Prevention Training)

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Do you really think this about me trying to disagree with you? My opinions are independent of yours. The only reason I brought up professional training is that you used an appeal to authority to bolster your claim that truly loving someone means not judging their behavior or beliefs. That appeal to authority (my profession) didn't set well with me. 

It is analogous to arguing with a doctor that any medical professional could recognize that vaccines cause autism. 

In calling out a fallacious appeal to authority, I am absolutely not trying to invalidate your opinion or understanding of love. You have every right to hold that position. I honor your journey of personal and spiritual development. 

I wasn't intending an appeal to authority with my comment that I think relationship experts would come to a similar conclusion.  Looking back at my statement I can see how you'd get that impression, but let me set that record straight.  I don't have any training, nor do I have any studies to backup my hypothetical example, and I was never intending to imply otherwise.  Just sharing my opinion that I think makes reasonable sense and I think would be compatible with expertise in that field.  

[kllindley]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

When somebody develops suicidal ideation, he/she is suffering from mental dysfunction or disease.

When somebody acts on that ideation, h/she generally has been triggered by some event.

The event doesn't cause the trigger or the acting out.

The mental dysfunction or disease both creates the trigger and causes the acting out.

Triggering events are not causes.

It is dishonest to accuse people or events of having caused suicides, suicide attempts, or suicidal ideation.

That's why accusing the Church and Mormons of causing suicides is slanderous.

This is supported by scholarly consensus on suicide causes and prevention.

Further, not only are such accusations factually wrong, they have also been proven to increase the risk of additional suicide. Not cause. But contribute to. 

[kllindley]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I wasn't intending an appeal to authority with my comment that I think relationship experts would come to a similar conclusion.  Looking back at my statement I can see how you'd get that impression, but let me set that record straight.  I don't have any training, nor do I have any studies to backup my hypothetical example, and I was never intending to imply otherwise.  Just sharing my opinion that I think makes reasonable sense and I think would be compatible with expertise in that field.  

Thank you for clarifying. 

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

No.  I think the Church's position was not, and still has not been, given a fair hearing.  Instead, we've gotten a lot of overheated, knee-jerk, emotionalistic, borne-of-ignorance-and/or-hostility rhetoric.  For years now.

And some people simply believe the policy is antithetical to the gospel of Christ and have seen firsthand the conflict this policy has introduced into families. 

I get that some people dislike the policy.  I have yet to see any coherent, non-knee-jerk, non-emotionalistic explanation as to it being "antithetical to the gospel of Christ," though.  

As for the policy introducing "conflict," I'm not sure about that either.  The policy was reactive to behaviors that are incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  It is those behaviors, I think, that are the core problem.

This sort of thing can happen.  Conflict can arise in relation to correct principles.  The Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon as recorded in John 6 is a good example of this:

Quote

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
...
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
...
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
...
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
...
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
...
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Here the Savior created conflict.  He made people unhappy.  And yet He continued preaching.  People became more upset, even to the point that "many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."  Yet none of us would presume to lecture Jesus Christ about "the conflict [his sermon] has introduced to families."  I think this is because His message was correct and true, and was not made otherwise simply because some people reacted poorly to it.

Isn't it possible, then, that the same could be said for the policy changes?

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm sure you're antiquated with many people that are extremely offended by this.  Why would you personally try to defend this comparison between illegal drug abuse and sexual orientation?  Do you really think its a good comparison.  

I will again reject the false characterization of the comparison as between drug abuse (behavior) and sexual orientation (not behavior).  Please stop claiming that is what the comparison is or has ever been about. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I get that some people dislike the policy.  I have yet to see any coherent, non-knee-jerk, non-emotionalistic explanation as to it being "antithetical to the gospel of Christ," though.  

As for the policy introducing "conflict," I'm not sure about that either.  The policy was reactive to behaviors that are incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  It is those behaviors, I think, that are the core problem.

This sort of thing can happen.  Conflict can arise in relation to correct principles.  The Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon as recorded in John 6 is a good example of this:

Here the Savior created conflict.  He made people unhappy.  And yet He continued preaching.  People became more upset, even to the point that "many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."  Yet none of us would presume to lecture Jesus Christ about "the conflict [his sermon] has introduced to families."  I think this is because His message was correct and true, and was not made otherwise simply because some people reacted poorly to it.

Isn't it possible, then, that the same could be said for the policy changes?

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough, but that wasn't my point. The stated reason for the policy was to mitigate family conflict, and yet anyone could have predicted it would do the opposite. And indeed it has. I'm not saying the Brethren were being dishonest when they said that they were "ever mindful" of the children in these situations who might be put into conflict, just that the reason people disagree with the policy is not about attacking the church for mitigating conflict.

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, what is the church's side of things? 

I think Elder Christofferson's November 2015 interview would be a good place to start.

Reviewing Pres. Nelson's January 2016 devotional message would also be helpful.

Reviewing the First Presidency's June 29, 2015 letter would also be good.  And the letters sent out in relation to the actual policy changes (I don't have a link at the moment).

52 minutes ago, Exiled said:

In my view, the church wanted to restate its position in light of their loss with the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage. 

The Church wanted to address the profound shift in society arising from the SCOTUS decision, yes.  That shift was going to impact the Church.  Sooner or later (probably sooner) a same-sex couple was going to ask for a solemnization, either in a chapel or in the temple.  Other issues were going to come up, too (see Pres. Nelson's 2016 message above).  So the Brethren sought and received guidance from God about how to proceed. 

52 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Prohibiting baptism of children of same-sex couples seemed to be a logical step given their position. 

But it's not a matter of merely "logic" or "their position."  Again, I encourage you to read Pres. Nelson's 2016 address and Elder Christofferson's remarks.  The policy changes were revelatory.

52 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Surely, they cannot be surprised at the reaction from the public given the public's views on same-sex marriage. 

I think they had a different rollout plan.  I don't think they anticipated being immediately (as in minutes) preempted by John Dehlin.

Alas, they could have done a better job with the rollout.  But I think the reaction was going to be a bit hysterical no matter what.  And indeed it was.

52 minutes ago, Exiled said:

How should the public have viewed the church's actions?

With respect.  And patience.  And understanding.  And study.

Instead, we got vitriol.  Raw emotion.  Overwrought emotionalisms.  False/misleading characterizations.  Vilification.

I wrote a fairly long post about this topic back in January.  Here's a link.  It's a long post, so I won't quote it except to excerpt its main points:

Quote

My thoughts (this is longish, so settle in...):

1. The Policy Changes are Largely Preventative Medicine: I have never characterized the policy changes as pleasant and joyful.  To the contrary, they are akin to the Church's doctrines and policies pertaining to discipline, up to and including excommunication.  These things are unpleasant, but also necessary.  It appears they were implemented to minimize or avoid harm, both to individuals and families and to the Church.  

...

2. The Policy Changes are Revelatory: The bottom line is that that policy was enacted by the Presiding High Priest, through revelation, after extensive thought and discussion and prayer, and sustained as such by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  So accepting and following revelatory guidance is meritorious.

3. The Policies are Congruent, in Form and Function. with the Policies re: Polygamist Families: I again point to the Church's longstanding and nearly identical policy for children from polygamous families.  That policy has been in place and functioning since, according to this article, the 1920s.  

...

4. The Policies Were Needed: Real harm was going to be done, with or without the policy.  With the introduction of the innovation of same-sex marriate into society, the Brethren had to act.  To not act would have been a dereliction of their duties.  Absent guidance from the Brethren, the Church's mandates and moral cohesion would have faltered or failed, and confusion would have prevailed in Israel.  I don't think any of us are in a position to say that the lack of the policy would yield better results.  It's too speculative. 

...

5. Most of the Acrimony is not Arising from the Policies, but from Over-the-Top Reactions Thereto: As I have said many times, much (most?  virtually all?) of the acrimony about the policy is being fomented and maintained by critics and opponents of the Church.  That acrimony is also causing "real harm."

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

35 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I just call it obedience PERIOD. It isn't blind if you study out the issue and their reasoning for what they do and then confirm it yourself between you and God. 

You mean you don't enjoy having your principled, studied façon de faire les choses judged by people making ignorant assumptions?

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Fair enough, but that wasn't my point. The stated reason for the policy was to mitigate family conflict,

That was one of the reasons, yes.

And we'll never really know if it worked, since the policy changes were implemented so soon after the legalization of SSM.  SSM never had a chance to make any inroads in the Church, and hence the conflict that could have arose from those inroads never materialized. 

Nevertheless, I think the Brethren had a pretty good idea about what was likely to happen if they had not acted to implement policy changes.  For example, children growing up in same-sex parent households feeling conflicted, that they have to choose one side or the other.  Loyalty to the Church and to God, or to their parents.  I don't think that choice is necessary, but I think minor children could easily think so.  And they would not be well-equipped to handle it.  This issue was explained by Elder Christofferson more than two years ago:

Quote

Speaking not only as an Apostle, but also as a husband, father, and grandfather, Elder Christofferson said the new policy originates out of compassion. “It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.”

For example, Elder Christofferson explained that a baby blessing in the Church places a child’s name on the records of the Church and triggers many things—including the assignment of home and visiting teachers and the expectation that the child will attend Primary and other Church-sponsored activities. “That is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting, where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple.”

After the child reaches maturity, he or she can make an informed and conscious decision about their own Church membership, said Elder Christofferson. “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.”

Elder Christofferson has presented the most comprehensive exposition to date regarding the need for the new policies.  From his remarks we can glean the following real or potential harms and other factors which the Brethren identified:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential factors as well (I can think of a few).  In any event, the points raised by Elder Christofferson are, in my view, meritorious.

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

and yet anyone could have predicted it would do the opposite. And indeed it has.

Oh, I don't know.  I think "family conflict" was going to arise either way.  Moreover, much of the "family conflict" has been, in a word, fabricated.  As I noted here:

Quote

Most of the Acrimony is not Arising from the Policies, but from Over-the-Top Reactions Thereto: As I have said many times, much (most?  virtually all?) of the acrimony about the policy is being fomented and maintained by critics and opponents of the Church.  That acrimony is also causing "real harm."

I have no "old paradigms" to reorient as to the issue of children of same-sex couples getting baptized.  I had not given the matter much, if any, thought prior to November 2015.  But then the policy changes came.  And a lot of vitriol with them.  Against men whom I trust to be good and decent, and experienced in seeking and obtaining revelatory guidance from God.  And then the vitriol continued.  And continues to this day.  And it calls for Latter-day Saints to pre-suppose certain things that are (or, in my mind, should be) pretty hard to pre-suppose.

There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases."  A legal scholar,  Glanville Williams questioned this adage's usage in 1957, writing, "It used to be said that 'hard cases make bad law'—a proposition that our less pedantic age regards as doubtful. What is certain is that cases in which the moral indignation of the judge is aroused frequently make bad law."

I think the Brethren are looking at this policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way.  In other words, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it.  But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change.

At present, I remain convinced that most of the "hurt" stems not from the policy itself (which has fairly narrow application), but from public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy.  By way of evidence, I point - again - to the remarkable lack of popular "moral indignation" regarding the Church's longstanding and nearly-identical policy as to children from polygamous families.

I acknowledge that the policy changes have resulted in some very real difficulties to some very good people.  However, the same can be said for many, many situations.  As long as the children of men sin, there will be consequences that follow.  And as long as those consequences follow, they will land, partially, on innocent parties.  My hope and faith is that such things will be sorted out by God in the end.  Meanwhile, we do the best we can with what we've got.  And what we've got is prophetic authority being exercised by good and decent men in very difficult circumstances.  I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

In the wise words of Evette Carter (see my sig line): "'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." 

The Brethren didn't conform.  They did not knuckle under.  They did what they thought was right, regardless ofwhat everybody else is doing.  And for that I honor and sustain them.

I still think this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Fair enough, but that wasn't my point. The stated reason for the policy was to mitigate family conflict, and yet anyone could have predicted it would do the opposite. And indeed it has. I'm not saying the Brethren were being dishonest when they said that they were "ever mindful" of the children in these situations who might be put into conflict, just that the reason people disagree with the policy is not about attacking the church for mitigating conflict.

The reason "anyone could have predicted" that conflict would ensue was that conflict predated the adoption of the policy, and could reasonably be predicted to continue following adoption of the policy, is that the very persons who created the conflict created the conflict's continuation notwithstanding the adoption of a policy that, at least arguably, ameliorated at least one species of conflict and potential conflict.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I see a lot of change in the above issues from my reading of church history. 

Not really.  When has extra-marital sex ever been permitted in the Church?  Even now, 50 years into the Sexual Revolution, it's still prohibited.

When was marijuana permitted?  Same-sex marriage?  Elective abortion?

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

I consider polygamy extra marital in some situations, it depends if the person is living together with the person they are married to or not for it to count as a marriage in practical terms.  

I'm not too familiar with marijuana history in the church.  I do recall reading that James Talmage was experimenting with it.  Not sure when the church started to preach about the evils of it though.  

Same-sex marriage they have been against but thats a fairly new issue, but on the broader topic of LGBT they have shown a lot of evolution.  

Abortion, I haven't really studied, so not sure if we've seen any significant evolution on that topic.  

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

But if the underlying assumption is that everything the church has done has the imprimatur of revelation, then there is no logical argument that can combat that position.  

I'm not saying that "everything the church has done has the imprimatur of revelation."

As to matters of doctrine, the Brethren are guided by A) revelation/scripture, and B) principled and reasoned exercise of their discretionary authority pursuant to D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant").  I'm not saying they get every detail of every decision right every time.  But in broad strokes, I think they are getting things right.

In the end, though, you have a point.  Buying into the LDS paradigm is ultimately an exercise in faith.  Basic notions of "logic" certainly have their place in and inform decision-making processes, but at the end following the counsel of prophets and apostles is an exercise in faith and the Spirit.

Are you saying that you don't start with an assumption that church leaders are guided by revelation?  

Your last point that this is based on faith I think is correct.  I made a comment to another poster that I think this position is essentially equivalent to a blind faith, but I recognize that term has some negative implications, and I'm not trying to get people on the defensive, I just don't see how its not essentially true.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Sure, polygamy, race, biological evolution, mental healthcare, gender equality, sexual orientation, biblical scholarship. 

This doesn't help.  How is the Church "behind the rest of the societal curve" on these things?

Its behind in the timing of how quickly they adjust to new information and an overarching incorporation of that new information which includes adjusting paradigms and theology to accommodate the information.  Another way of putting this is just to say that the church is very conservative and slow to change.  Which are good qualities for certain applications, so I'm not saying its all bad.  

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  So it is, I think, with the Church.  We love each other enough to hold each other accountable "to certain standards of conduct."  We are doing so in ever-improving ways, too.

But in the end, homosexual behavior is outside the "standards of conduct" that are found in the LDS Church.  This isn't a matter of submitting to worldly opinions, to conforming to "the societal curve."  It's a matter of faith.

The disagreement is with respect to how the church characterizes "homosexual behavior".  The standard is not only incompatible with what science has taught us about sexual orientation, but its also incompatible with some core principles of the gospel that I have articulated in other posts.  

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can respect that.  I hope you can reciprocate the sentiment for those who prioritize their relationship with God.

I have been married for 21 years.  I have six children.  I work every day to support them financially, socially, emotionally, etc.  I would put my life on the line for them.  I feel this way precisely because I prioritize my relationship with God over them.  Obedience to the Gospel predominates over my personal preferences/opinions.  I'm far more likely to succeed at "getting it right" when I teach my children the principles of the Restored Gospel, and when I am an example to them in following those principles.

I absolutely try to show respect towards people that believe the current church policies are God's will.  I have many family members and friends in this category.  

Its interesting, a few years ago as an orthodox believer I had a very similar belief as you just articulated about your role as father and your love for your family and your commitment to God.  I don't think my love for my family or my willingness to sacrifice has substantively changes today.  Its very similar and you could consider me an agnostic on the question of God.  My values and love for my family are at least as strong as they were before when I thought it was my love for God that enhanced these feelings, and now that I don't really believe God exists, I still have that same love and loyalty to them.  

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can respect a couple's relationship, whatever it is, without agreeing with it.  As I said before: "If Y and Z have a loving and healthy relationship, but they are unmarried, then X can respect those good aspects of the relationship while not feeling obligated to endorse the inappropriate/immoral aspects of it."

I'm not sure what you mean by "honoring" what is, by definition, an immoral relationship.  

I would challenge your below statement.  I don't see anything that "by definition" is an "immoral relationship".  

To honor someone's relationship seems pretty straight forward.  You respect them, and you show that respect through your actions.  You don't call their sacred relationships immoral.  This is disrespectful.  Mormons from my experience can be some of the nicest people on one hand and some of the most disrespectful and smug people on the other.  

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I will again reject the false characterization of the comparison as between drug abuse (behavior) and sexual orientation (not behavior).  Please stop claiming that is what the comparison is or has ever been about. 

If SMAC wants to clarify that would probably help.  That is how I read his story.  If he didn't mean to compare the drug abuser to someone in a same sex relationship as essentially the same thing, then he'll need to correct the record.  

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You mean you don't enjoy having your principled, studied façon de faire les choses judged by people making ignorant assumptions?

Well I don't speak French but ............right.

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That was one of the reasons, yes.

And we'll never really know if it worked, since the policy changes were implemented so soon after the legalization of SSM.  SSM never had a chance to make any inroads in the Church, and hence the conflict that could have arose from those inroads never materialized. 

Nevertheless, I think the Brethren had a pretty good idea about what was likely to happen if they had not acted to implement policy changes.  For example, children growing up in same-sex parent households feeling conflicted, that they have to choose one side or the other.  Loyalty to the Church and to God, or to their parents.  I don't think that choice is necessary, but I think minor children could easily think so.  And they would not be well-equipped to handle it.  This issue was explained by Elder Christofferson more than two years ago:

Elder Christofferson has presented the most comprehensive exposition to date regarding the need for the new policies.  From his remarks we can glean the following real or potential harms and other factors which the Brethren identified:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential factors as well (I can think of a few).  In any event, the points raised by Elder Christofferson are, in my view, meritorious.

Oh, I don't know.  I think "family conflict" was going to arise either way.  Moreover, much of the "family conflict" has been, in a word, fabricated.  As I noted here:

I still think this.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not going to reargue this, as we've discussed this ad nauseam. I will just say again that I am personally aware of several families (including my own extended family) where this policy has introduced conflict into what had been amicable relationships. If you want to claim my experience is fabricated, that is your prerogative. 

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The reason "anyone could have predicted" that conflict would ensue was that conflict predated the adoption of the policy, and could reasonably be predicted to continue following adoption of the policy, is that the very persons who created the conflict created the conflict's continuation notwithstanding the adoption of a policy that, at least arguably, ameliorated at least one species of conflict and potential conflict.

As I said, I'm talking about situations that had been resolved amicably prior to the policy change. The new policy introduced new and rather charged factors into these situations, with predictable results. 

But, enough said. My opinion about the policy is pretty well-known around here. 

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, I'm talking about situations that had been resolved amicably prior to the policy change. The new policy introduced new and rather charged factors into these situations, with predictable results. 

But, enough said. My opinion about the policy is pretty well-known around here. 

If you want to drop off, that's fine.  What I think you fail to consider, however, is how well-organized the hysteria ensuing from the policy's adoption was.  And how a Utah attorney just happened to be prepared with fill-in-the-blanks membership resignation letters within about a day of the announcement.  And how that Utah attorney just happened to have a website, together with pre-purchased URLs directing people to it, where people could print up a letter, along with instructions on how to submit it.

That, my friend, is far better evidence that, despite your claim that "situations  ...  had been resolved amicably prior to the policy change," there was conflict, and those prepared to continue the conflict regardless what policy was or wasn't adopted.

I rather think you're not that naive.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If you want to drop off, that's fine.  What I think you fail to consider, however, is how well-organized the hysteria ensuing from the policy's adoption was.  And how a Utah attorney just happened to be prepared with fill-in-the-blanks membership resignation letters within about a day of the announcement.  And how that Utah attorney just happened to have a website, together with pre-purchased URLs directing people to it, where people could print up a letter, along with instructions on how to submit it.

That, my friend, is far better evidence that, despite your claim that "situations  ...  had been resolved amicably prior to the policy change," there was conflict, and those prepared to continue the conflict regardless what policy was or wasn't adopted.

I rather think you're not that naive.

I'm talking about family relationships, not people leaving the church. I have no idea why you think the attorney's actions are remotely relevant to what I saw and continue to see in a number of affected families. 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm talking about family relationships, not people leaving the church. I have no idea why you think the attorney's actions are remotely relevant to what I saw and continue to see in a number of affected families. 

The fact that an intended outcome was predetermined is not relevant?

I guess I'm confused.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

The fact that an intended outcome was predetermined is not relevant?

I guess I'm confused.

What intended outcome was predetermined for the families I know?

You’re not the only one who is confused. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you saying that you don't start with an assumption that church leaders are guided by revelation?  

I start with a (rebuttable) presumption that the Brethren are acting in good faith, and that they are guided by revelation.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Your last point that this is based on faith I think is correct.  I made a comment to another poster that I think this position is essentially equivalent to a blind faith, but I recognize that term has some negative implications, and I'm not trying to get people on the defensive, I just don't see how its not essentially true.  

It's not even remotely true (as pertaining to what I said, anyway).  "Blind faith," in my view, is devoid of thought, analysis, study, research, experience, and so on.  I have never advocated that, nor has the Church.  See, e.g., these remarks by Elder Andersen:

Quote

We embrace President Nelson as we would have embraced Peter or Moses if we had lived in their day. God told Moses, “I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.”7 We listen to the Lord’s prophet with the faith that his words are “from [the Lord’s] own mouth.”

Is this blind faith? No, it is not. We each have a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Or these remarks by Elder Abrea:

Quote

I’m sure that many questions have come to your mind. The truth is that you will not be condemned for wondering or questioning if you make a sincere effort to find the answer. Our mental powers have been given to us to use. Faith based on personal prayer, study, and obedience is more lasting than blind faith; it is more rewarding, and for sure it is better grounded.

And D&C 109:

Quote

7 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;

8 Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing, and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God;

9 That your incomings may be in the name of the Lord, that your outgoings may be in the name of the Lord, that all your salutations may be in the name of the Lord, with uplifted hands unto the Most High—

...

14 And do thou grant, Holy Father, that all those who shall worship in this house may be taught words of wisdom out of the best books, and that they may seek learning even by study, and also by faith, as thou hast said;

And D&C 88:

Quote

118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

That the ultimate basis for my testimony is faith borne of the Spirit does not mean that faith is the only basis for my testimony (blind faith).

I have been on this board for 14 years.  I have well over 6,000 posts here.  Many of my posts are fairly substantive.  "Blind faith" would not support such efforts.  It's just not enough.  So I have studied.  And thought.  And pondered.  And prayed.  And discussed.  And argued.  And revised my thoughts and opinions and thinking.  

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Its behind in the timing of how quickly they adjust to new information and an overarching incorporation of that new information which includes adjusting paradigms and theology to accommodate the information. 

As to matters of race (namely, racial animus), I think there is some merit to this criticism.  But only "some."  Fortunately, the Church is doing extremely well on such issues now.

As to matters of homosexuality, again there is some merit to this criticism.  Again, the Church is doing much better on these issues.

As to matters of, how shall I put it, "condescending paternalism" expressed toward women, and addressing the role of women in the Church, I think there is some merit to this criticism.  Again, the Church is doing much better on these issues.

Still room to improve, I think, but isn't that always the case?

But as to many, many other matters, the Church has not really needed to "adjust to new information."  The Word of Wisdom has allowed the Saints to sidestep many problems with substance abuse.  The Church was way ahead of the "societal curve" on this, and remains so to this day.  (I would like to see more emphasis/guidance on A) abuse of prescribed medications, and B) the opioid epidemic in general.)

The Church's emphasis on the importance of the family has been excellent.  And the vital roles played by both mothers and fathers.

The Church's position on abortion is clear, and yet a bit nuanced.  Very good, IMO.

The Church's position on immigration is compassionate and humanitarian, while not straying into extremist "abolish the borders" nonsense.

The Church's position on education is excellent.

The Church's position on avoiding/minimized debt is excellent.

The Church's position on self-reliance is excellent.

The Church's position on emergency preparedness is excellent.

The Church's position on medical and mental health care is excellent.

The Church's position on the ills of pornography is excellent.

The Church's position condemning physical/sexual/emotional abuse is excellent.

The Church's position on facilitating the reporting of abuse by priesthood leaders to law enforcement is excellent.

And on and on and on.  I think the Church is, in the main, doing an excellent job of providing moral and spiritual guidance to its members.  

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

The disagreement is with respect to how the church characterizes "homosexual behavior".  The standard is not only incompatible with what science has taught us about sexual orientation, but its also incompatible with some core principles of the gospel that I have articulated in other posts.  

I disagree.  I see no incompatibility with either "science" or "core principles of the gospel."

The Church's teachings regarding the Law of Chastity are substantively unchanged.  The Scriptures authorize sexual behavior between a husband and wife, and otherwise prohibits it.  You and yours are the ones that are deviating from thousands of years of precedent.

And it's not really about "what science has taught us."  The Sexual Revolution wasn't based on "science" (though The Pill certainly played a part).

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I would challenge your below statement.  I don't see anything that "by definition" is an "immoral relationship".  

I was speaking from within the LDS paradigm.  Homosexual behavior, among other things, is unequivocally "immoral" within that paradigm.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

To honor someone's relationship seems pretty straight forward.  You respect them, and you show that respect through your actions. 

I can "respect" something without endorsing or agreeing with it.  Same-sex marriage falls into that category.

If (when, really) I have a friend or family member who enters into a same-sex marriage, I would politely and tactfully abstain from participating in the ceremony.  However, I would therefore demonstrate all courtesy and respect to the couple.  No shunning.  No abuse.  No neglect.  Just love and respect to the best of my ability.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

You don't call their sacred relationships immoral.  This is disrespectful. 

It's not really a matter of "respect."  It's a matter of truth.  I think Elder Christofferson's remarks from 2015 (about the policy changes) are helpful (emphasis added):

Quote

Michael Otterson: So in the last couple of years there’s been a tone from the Church of understanding and acceptance of those people who experience same-sex attraction, and this policy seemed to be rather abrupt. What actually prompted this handbook change?

Elder Christofferson: To some degree it came from questions that have surfaced in different parts of the world and the United States. With the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord and how we respond to that. So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt. We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that. We’re not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know sin does not. And so we’re going to stand firm there because we don’t want to mislead people. There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ.

That is what I am trying to do here.  

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Mormons from my experience can be some of the nicest people on one hand and some of the most disrespectful and smug people on the other.  

So can our critics.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If SMAC wants to clarify that would probably help.  That is how I read his story.  If he didn't mean to compare the drug abuser to someone in a same sex relationship as essentially the same thing, then he'll need to correct the record.  

I already did here:

Quote

I'm comparing behaviors.  I'm presenting the Church's "standards of conduct," whether it's the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity.  I'm comparing situations where Person X can love Person Y while still disagreeing with their behaviors that deviate from "standards of conduct" which have been agreed to under sacred covenants.

...

Disobedience to the Word of Wisdom, in the LDS paradigm, means that repentance is in order.  Disobedience to the Law of Chastity (homosexual behavior), in the LDS paradigm, means that repentance is in order.  

You have agreed that my grandmother loved her grandchild enough to hold him accountable to certain standards of conduct.  Can you likewise grant that same concession to the LDS Church?

I also said this earlier in this thread (to you):

Quote

I said: "Our society is a bit too eager to create blame in vague ways such as this.  Maintaining standards of conduct in a society will always be susceptible to such characterizations."  I then gave a few examples of "standards of conduct" which are in and of themselves morally neutral or beneficial, but which can nevertheless "be vaguely and abstractedly characterized as having created difficulty for someone, somewhere."

Getting good grades, for example.  In and of itself, grades are intended to foster learning and intellectual growth.  However, a particular individual may react poorly to incentives or pressures to get good grades.  That is unfortunate, but that reaction is hardly an indictment on the concept of grading scholastic performance.

Nothing in the foregoing analogy "paint{s} LGBT people in very uncharitable ways."

Surely you recognize that analogies are, by definition, "a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification?"  That they are "a correspondence or partial similarity?"

An analogy is a comparison of two things which share a common trait, but which are otherwise dissimilar.  When Jesus in Matthew 23:37 compared Jerusalem to chicks and Himself to a hen, that was analogy.  He was not comparing His intellect or physical strength to that of a hen.  He was analogizing His compassion.  "As a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings."

I've said nothing to disparage LGBT people.

And I've still said nothing to disparage LGBT people.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not going to reargue this, as we've discussed this ad nauseam. I will just say again that I am personally aware of several families (including my own extended family) where this policy has introduced conflict into what had been amicable relationships. If you want to claim my experience is fabricated, that is your prerogative. 

I'm not saying the experience is fabricated.  I'm suggesting that the lopsided allocation of blame is incorrect.  As I have said many times, much (most?  virtually all?) of the acrimony about the policy is being fomented and maintained by critics and opponents of the Church.  That acrimony is also causing "real harm."

As long as you and yours persist in presenting what I see as a substantially incorrect/unfair narrative about the why and how of the Church's policies "harming" families, I will persist in rebutting those characterizations I think are incorrect/unfair.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not saying the experience is fabricated.  I'm suggesting that the lopsided allocation of blame is incorrect.  As I have said many times, much (most?  virtually all?) of the acrimony about the policy is being fomented and maintained by critics and opponents of the Church.  That acrimony is also causing "real harm."

As long as you and yours persist in presenting what I see as a substantially incorrect/unfair narrative about the why and how of the Church's policies "harming" families, I will persist in rebutting those characterizations I think are incorrect/unfair.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, you think the conflict that arose after the policy change is being unfairly “blamed” on the policy? Again, what you see as me and mine (whatever that means) peddling an unfair narrative is me simply saying these are predictable results of the policy. Why it gets conflated with me and mine being part of some organized effort to slander the church is beyond my comprehension. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm sure you're antiquated with many people that are extremely offended by this. 

By what?  

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Why would you personally try to defend this comparison between illegal drug abuse and sexual orientation? 

Nobody has done this.  Certainly not me.  I invite you consider the difference between "sexual orientation" and "sexual behavior."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you think the conflict that arose after the policy change is being unfairly “blamed” on the policy?

I'm saying that much of the "conflict" has been based more on vitriolic and caustic reactions to the policies, as compared to the operation of the policies themselves.

By way of evidence, I will point, once again, to the near-total lack of "conflict" as pertaining to the Church's nearly identical and longstanding policy regarding the children of polygamous families.  No overwrought rhetoric.  No mass media coverage.  No histrionics.  Nothing.  And this policy has worked well for decades.

Critics of the Church, though, have insisted on whipping up and maintaining a frenzied emotional reaction to the policies enacted in 2015.  We'll never know how effective those policies could have been, and how much acrimony and angst and conflict could have been avoided, because critics and opponents of the Church have insisted on fomenting discord and ill will and hard feelings about those policies.  For years now.

Quote

Again, what you see as me and mine (whatever that means) peddling an unfair narrative is me simply saying these are predictable results of the policy.

We'll never really know, I think, because the critics of the Church have never given the 2015 policies a chance to be appropriately implemented (as the Church has done for nearly a century with the nearly-identical policy for children from polygamous families).

Quote

Why it gets conflated with me and mine being part of some organized effort to slander the church is beyond my comprehension. 

I'm not sure how "organized" the efforts to foment ill will and anger and anxiety and stress and fear and resentment against the Church's policies have been.  But those efforts have been in place and ongoing since 2015, and continue to this day.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2018 by smac97