Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the policy pertaining to polygamist families has presented real and actual challenges to those directly affected by it.  The difference, however, is that . . . nobody cares about those kids.  There is no sustained campaign against the Church about it.  There is not nonstop fanning of the flames of controversy by critics and opponents of the Church.  There has been no horrible rhetoric deployed, no nonstop scare tactics, no critics presuming to speak for the Church, no false assertions that the Church hates polygamists and their children.

Polygamy is very much a regional issue. There are no polygamists that I know of in Michigan (at least in the Mormon related populations). The last Mormon related polygamy we had ended when the Strangites went away. But in my branch, we have at least three families (that I know of) with gay children. And a District President who spent a good half hour in our last District Conference going over the Church's policy towards same-sex marriage. And I don't expect that this is that unusual, where polygamy is quite unusual in the context of the larger Church.

To put it in another way, the first time I had ever seen polygamists in person, was on the family road trip last summer to the FairMormon conference. We drove to the Grand Canyon (north side) after leaving Provo, taking us through Manti, and saw a polygamist family at a gas station. Most people don't know any polygamists. They don't encounter them on a daily basis. Gay people are an entirely different group. Lots of people know someone who is gay (personally). Many people know someone who is in a same-sex relationship (or even a married gay couple). I know quite a few. I even have a nurse at my place of work that I interact with regularly who had a gender reassignment surgery a few years back. These issues are much more up front and center to most Americans than the question of polygamy - because outside of Utah, polygamy doesn't really register for us. So I don't think that the comparison sets you up to draw appropriate conclusions.

[CA Steve]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the policy pertaining to polygamist families has presented real and actual challenges to those directly affected by it.  The difference, however, is that . . . nobody cares about those kids.  There is no sustained campaign against the Church about it.  There is not nonstop fanning of the flames of controversy by critics and opponents of the Church.  There has been no horrible rhetoric deployed, no nonstop scare tactics, no critics presuming to speak for the Church, no false assertions that the Church hates polygamists and their children.

But all of these things have been happening as pertaining to the November 2015 policy.  And they have been ongoing since November 2015.

Which is why I think most of the acrimony and controversy, and even much (most?) of the pain caused by the new policy is attributable to the overwrought antics of the critics and opponents of the Church, rather than by the actual enactment of the policy itself.

Which kinda makes me wonder why, if the critics and opponents are so concerned about the welfare of children, are they resorting to rhetoric and tactics which appear calculated to instill fear and suspicion and anger in those children?  And to alienate those children from the Church?  I thought the new policy was supposed to be bad because it is divisive.  But it seems that the critics and opponents are fomenting and facilitating as much, if not more, divisiveness than the policy ever could.

Thanks,

-Smac

You keep repeating this and do it  with as much inflammatory rhetoric as possible.  

The answer here is simple and personal.

Everyone I know, including myself, know people who are openly gay and many of us have personally seen the affects of this policy. That cannot be said of a similar issue with polygamous families. There is not the same level of concern for the polygamous side of this issue simply because it is not personal to as many people, no other conclusion can be drawn from that lack of discussion.

Your argument is simply a tu quoque fallacy. 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by CA Steve

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

Fully vetted meaning presented to the quorum for discussion and sustaining. Apparently that didn't happen.

Pres. Nelson said it did.

Again, why should we privilege (multiple?) anonymous hearsay claims over the public statements of a percipient witness?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Quote

Since you weren't there, you don't know that for sure. And you don't know if his recollections are accurate. I'm just trying to apply the same standards to both sources here.

No, you're not.  You are privileging (multiple?) anonymous hearsay claims over the public statements of a percipient witness.

That makes no sense at all, unless . . . 

Quote

Quote

Right.  So Pres. Nelson lied.  That's where this line of argument always ends up.

That's not my argument.

Yes, it is.  Either that, or he is insane/deluded.

Deceit or mental incapacity are baked into what you are saying.  And you are relying on insinuation and innuendo because, well . . . 

Quote

But his perception of what happened could be in error.

Right.  He either lied or was mentally infirm which he spoke in January 2016.  In the video of his remarks he seems fairly lucid.  And I don't think anyone has claimed to have any information as to Pres. Nelson's medical history, so his mental capacity does not seem to be in dispute.

That leaves . . . lying.

In any event, what does "his perception of what happened could be in error" mean?  Here is what he said:

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

So we have at least the following factual statements from Pres. Nelson:

• The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles "wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter."
• They "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."
• They "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration."
• They "sustain{ed}" Pres. Monson's determination of how to proceed.

These are recitations of events.  Which of them are you claiming did not happen?

Quote

No accusation.

But plenty of insinuation and innuendo.  Plausible deniability, and all that.

Quote

But you know how things work in the church - true principles are not hard to find - they're taught by many church leaders. So far only Pres. Nelson has offered up this interpretation of the process.

Right.  But corroborative statements from other percipient witnesses wouldn't resolve that issue, anyway, right?  'Cuz we're relying on anonymous hearsay from Greg Prince over Pres. Nelson.  We'll do the same with any other percipient witnesses, too.  And we'll do that because . . . well . . . 

Quote

Back to my point - your point that this policy was received by revelation unanimously approved by the FP and 15 is disputed.

It's disputed by a non-percipient witness.  I dispute his dispute.  So my say-so as a non-percipient witness cancels out his (unless, of course, you fabricate some other ad hoc special rule . . . I await with bated breath).

Quote

Its origins are unclear, and its implementation was chaotic and disorganized.

Its origins are, in the end, a matter of faith.  You are discounting the statement from the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who made that statement publicly in his official capacity and on behalf of both that quorum and the First Presidency.  

You and yours are stacking the deck.  If and when another apostle were to make a corroborative statement, you could discount that as well ("Well, only two of fifteen have said anything, so the origins of the policy are still unclear...").  If they all jointly issued a published statement about the origins of the policy, you could discount that as well ("We don't really know if the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are all on board.  Some of them could be going rogue, like Pres. Nelson did, so the origins of the policy are still unclear...").

And one we go on that absurd merry-go-round.  Any percipient testimony from prophets, seers and revelators would be discounted and subordinated to . . . well, pretty much any statement from anyone else on the planet.

And this, we are told, is how "critical thinking" works.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[ERMD]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

You have an MD!  but you can also get a Doctorate as well. We had two members of our stake who each had one, That's a TON of time in University! Pres. Nelson has a P.H. D. in Medicine. The two brethren in our Stake their specialities were pediatric nephrology? and the other does "Surgical & Cytopathologist"-whatever that means!

Pres. Nelson is an MD, not a Ph.D.  There are some MD, Ph.Ds out there, but not many.  If a physician is seeing and treating patients, he/she must be an MD (or DO).  Ph.Ds without an MD/DO can see patients as counselors, but they cannot perform surgery or write prescriptions.  

The path to MD is 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, and 3-8 years of residency training.  Ph.D programs are typically 4 years of college and then 5-7 years of graduate school.  MD, PhD programs are typically 6 years of medical school/grad school combined, followed by 3-8 years of residency training.

Edited October 26, 2017 by ERMD

[smac97]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

You keep repeating this and do it  with as much inflammatory rhetoric as possible.  

This is hilarious.  Where have you and your board nannying been for the last two years of rhetoric from critics and opponents of the Church regarding the policy?

Quote

The answer here is simple and personal.

Everyone I know, including myself, know people who are openly gay and many of us have personally seen the affects of this policy.

So the policy is bad because it has resulted in adverse consequences to some people.

But then, so do many other policies in the Church.  Regulating behavior will always bump up against someone's actions and feelings.

The same goes for secular laws that regulate behavior in civil society.  A man goes to jail for committing a crime.  His wife and children suffer adverse consequences as a result.  So we as a society . . . are supposed to repeal all criminal statutes?

Quote

That cannot be said of a similar issue with polygamous families.

So you distinguish the two policies because you have not been affected by, and do not care about, what happens to children from polygamous families?

A policy is immoral if it results in something bad happening to you and yours, but a nearly identical policy is not immoral for its effects on others because . . . you don't care about those others?  They aren't on your radar, so their welfare doesn't matter?

Quote

There is not the same level of concern for the polygamous side of this issue simply because it is not personal to as many people...

That the distinction being drawn between the two policies is based on the personal experiences or lack thereof by members of the Church, that surmises about the policy change are predicated on popular opinion/pressure ("I too am certain this policy will change if for no other reason than Mormons will no longer be welcomed in the national political arena..." "Everyone I know ... know people who are openly gay and many of us have personally seen the affects of this policy ... That cannot be said of a similar issue with polygamous families...), that there is essentially no treatment in view of Pres. Nelson's remarks, or the Church's other explanations about the policy (or worse, I have repeatedly read accusations that Pres. Nelson "went rogue," and can therefore be ignored altogether), and so on all suggests to me that the current vitriol about the newer policy is more a matter of popularity/unpopularity than right/wrong or moral/immoral.

As you say: "There is not the same level of concern . . . because it is not personal to as many people."

Quote

Your argument is simply a tu quoque fallacy. 

Not at all.  I am not drawing an arbitrary distinction between the two policies.  You are.  I am simply pointing out the logical incoherence of that distinction.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't believe so.  But the opportunity for repentance is there.  And that opportunity would not come at the cost of the family's existence.

In contrast, the opportunity for repentance is also there for same-sex couples, but that opportunity would come at the cost of the family's existence.  The Church's policy alleviates that problem.

Of course, the policy creates other problems.  I acknowledge that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am rather ambivalent about the policy, but I like to err on the side of sustaining the brethren in it, but I do have to ask a question however. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are saying that the Church's policy is set up to preserve gay family units.

When you say that "the church's policy alleviates that problem",  are you suggesting that a same sex couple who repents at the cost of their families existence is a problem in the church's view?

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Nelson said it did.

Again, why should we privilege (multiple?) anonymous hearsay claims over the public statements of a percipient witness?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Because Greg Prince's source better accounts for the chaotic implementation of the policy and subsequent hasty revisions.

 

Quote

No, you're not.  You are privileging (multiple?) anonymous hearsay claims over the public statements of a percipient witness.

That makes no sense at all, unless . . . 

Because Greg Prince's source better accounts for the chaotic implementation of the policy and subsequent hasty revisions.

 

Quote

Yes, it is.  Either that, or he is insane/deluded.

None of those conclusions follow. As you're no doubt aware, even first hand testimony is easily colored by bias and false memory.

 

Quote

Deceit or mental incapacity are baked into what you are saying.  And you are relying on insinuation and innuendo because, well . . . 

 

None of those conclusions follow. As you're no doubt aware, even first hand testimony is easily colored by bias and false memory.

 

Quote

Right.  He either lied or was mentally infirm which he spoke in January 2016.  In the video of his remarks he seems fairly lucid.  And I don't think anyone has claimed to have any information as to Pres. Nelson's medical history, so his mental capacity does not seem to be in dispute.

That leaves . . . lying.

None of those conclusions follow. As you're no doubt aware, even first hand testimony is easily colored by bias and false memory.

 

Quote

In any event, what does "his perception of what happened could be in error" mean?  Here is what he said:

So we have at least the following factual statements from Pres. Nelson:

• The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles "wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter."
• They "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."
• They "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration."
• They "sustain{ed}" Pres. Monson's determination of how to proceed.

These are recitations of events.  Which of them are you claiming did not happen?

President Nelson's recollections (so far not shared by any of his peers) don't seem to  account for the chaotic implementation of the policy and subsequent hasty revisions.

 

Quote

But plenty of insinuation and innuendo.  Plausible deniability, and all that.

Right.  But corroborative statements from other percipient witnesses wouldn't resolve that issue, anyway, right?  'Cuz we're relying on anonymous hearsay from Greg Prince over Pres. Nelson.  We'll do the same with any other percipient witnesses, too.  And we'll do that because . . . well . . . 

It's disputed by a non-percipient witness.  I dispute his dispute.  So my say-so as a non-percipient witness cancels out his (unless, of course, you fabricate some other ad hoc special rule . . . I await with bated breath).

You're assuming that Greg Prince's source is a non-percipient witness. But his source better accounts for the evidence.

 

Quote

Its origins are, in the end, a matter of faith.  You are discounting the statement from the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who made that statement publicly in his official capacity and on behalf of both that quorum and the First Presidency.  

Even from a faith-based perspective, President Nelson's lone perspective isn't enough, on it's own, to establish anything.

 

Quote

You and yours are stacking the deck.  If and when another apostle were to make a corroborative statement, you could discount that as well ("Well, only two of fifteen have said anything, so the origins of the policy are still unclear...").  If they all jointly issued a published statement about the origins of the policy, you could discount that as well ("We don't really know if the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are all on board.  Some of them could be going rogue, like Pres. Nelson did, so the origins of the policy are still unclear...").

I'm not sure I see the relevance of your speculations about what you think I might argue in the future given events that have not occurred. You were saying something earlier about making reasoned arguments - what happened to that?

 

Quote

And one we go on that absurd merry-go-round.  Any percipient testimony from prophets, seers and revelators would be discounted and subordinated to . . . well, pretty much any statement from anyone else on the planet.

And this, we are told, is how "critical thinking" works.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm comparing Pres Nelson's lone perspective against the chaotic and contradictory messages from the church in the early days after this was leaked. Given that evidence, I find that Prince's source better accounts for the evidence than President Nelson's retrospective statement. And yes, that is how critical thinking works.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Gray

[stemelbow]

Isn't the finest reveal of Gregory Prince's interview and coming book that the Church's policy in Nov 2015 was a response to the loss of the Obergfell case?  How would he possibly get away with such a claim if it weren't rue, the interviewer and Prince reason. 

It really makes sense in another light too.  The policy was clumsily done.  Once it was questioned and people made a fuss, they essentially did a re-write in order to save some face.  As the fuss died down, as it tends to in time, one of the leaders decided to call it revelation--God's own retribution. 

It was my guess that the Nov 2015 policy (a completely unworkable, as later clarification suggests, and unreasonable change in policy) was merely a response to the breadth and width of the SSM acceptance, as it moved and proved insurmountable.  His work helps me hold my guesswork out as likely true. 

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Polygamy is very much a regional issue.

I acknowledge that.

26 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There are no polygamists that I know of in Michigan (at least in the Mormon related populations). The last Mormon related polygamy we had ended when the Strangites went away. But in my branch, we have at least three families (that I know of) with gay children. And a District President who spent a good half hour in our last District Conference going over the Church's policy towards same-sex marriage. And I don't expect that this is that unusual, where polygamy is quite unusual in the context of the larger Church.

I acknowledge that, too.

The struggles faced by children from polygamous groups can be safely ignored.  They are not popular enough.  The newer policy is immoral and wrong because it adversely affects you and yours.  The older, though nearly identical, policy . . . meh.  Who cares.  

I will clarify here that I think both policies address very challenging situations, but they reflect the efforts of the Church to mitigate the negative consequences arising from those very challenging situations.  

I do not think either policy is innately immoral or wrong.  I do not think either policy is borne of malice or bigotry.  These are the accusations being thrown around.  Lots of acrimony.  Lots of horrible assumptions (witness Gray's privileging anonymous hearsay over the public statement by Pres. Nelson as a means of insinuating that Pres. Nelson's statement is not reliable because . . . well, you know). 

I've seen lots of vitriol, and very little dispassionate reasoning.

This is why the older policy, and the remarkable lack of popular grievance-mongering about it, is so illuminating to me.  That policy is ignored not because it is substantively different from the newer one (they are, in fact, nearly identical), but because it affects a group of people who are not particularly popular, and who therefore do not have means or inclination to incite acrimony and anger against the Church, which is what we are seeing with the newer policy.

26 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

To put it in another way, the first time I had ever seen polygamists in person, was on the family road trip last summer to the FairMormon conference. We drove to the Grand Canyon (north side) after leaving Provo, taking us through Manti, and saw a polygamist family at a gas station. Most people don't know any polygamists. They don't encounter them on a daily basis. Gay people are an entirely different group. Lots of people know someone who is gay (personally). Many people know someone who is in a same-sex relationship (or even a married gay couple). I know quite a few. I even have a nurse at my place of work that I interact with regularly who had a gender reassignment surgery a few years back. These issues are much more up front and center to most Americans than the question of polygamy - because outside of Utah, polygamy doesn't really register for us. So I don't think that the comparison sets you up to draw appropriate conclusions.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  

Policy that affects a socially prominent and popular group (gay folks and their children)?  Horrible!  Hateful!  Bigoted!  Immoral!

Nearly-identical policy that affects a socially not-prominent and unpopular group (polygamous families and their children)?  Meh.  Yawn.  I don't know 'em.  Not my problem.

I think this incongruity is illuminating.  I am frankly surprised that you don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am rather ambivalent about the policy, but I like to err on the side of sustaining the brethren in it,

Same here.  I have been surprised at how quickly lifelong members of the Church can blow off the notion of sustaining the Brethren, and provide strangled convoluted rationalizations for it ("Pres. Nelson's remarks have not been corroborated.  He went rogue.  He lied.  Or he is insane.  Meanwhile, Greg Prince is giving us anonymous hearsay that is telling me what I want to hear, so I'll go with that stuff instead...").

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

but I do have to ask a question however. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are saying that the Church's policy is set up to preserve gay family units.

That is one of the objectives, yes.

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

When you say that "the church's policy alleviates that problem",  are you suggesting that a same sex couple who repents at the cost of their families existence is a problem in the church's view?

Pretty much.  The policy is designed to minimize situations where a child feels like he has to choose between seemingly divided and unreconcilable loyalties: The Church and God, or their parents.

I think those loyalties can be reconciled.  Later.  When the child reaches majority, and when he has improved coping and reasoning skills to address that very challenging question.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Isn't the finest reveal of Gregory Prince's interview and coming book that the Church's policy in Nov 2015 was a response to the loss of the Obergfell case?  How would he possibly get away with such a claim if it weren't rue, the interviewer and Prince reason. 

It really makes sense in another light too.  The policy was clumsily done.  Once it was questioned and people made a fuss, they essentially did a re-write in order to save some face.  As the fuss died down, as it tends to in time, one of the leaders decided to call it revelation--God's own retribution. 

It was my guess that the Nov 2015 policy (a completely unworkable, as later clarification suggests, and unreasonable change in policy) was merely a response to the breadth and width of the SSM acceptance, as it moved and proved insurmountable.  His work helps me hold my guesswork out as likely true. 

duh that's so last year (2 years) https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-updated-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html

"The changes to a church handbook released Thursday mandate church discipline for same-sex couples who marry and grew out of questions that came from different parts of the world and the United States, Elder Christofferson said in a video posted on the Mormon Newsroom website.

"We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries," he said, "and that people have the right if they choose to enter into those, and we understand that, but that's not a right that exists in the church. That's the clarification."

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Ph.Ds without an MD/DO can see patients as counselors, but they cannot perform surgery or write prescriptions.  

That is not always the case.  Nurse practitioners can write prescriptions with a masters degree, many go on to get their doctorate degrees.  Of course physicians have a tizzie fit if a nurse with a "doctorate" degree wants to be called a "doctor"  Any other PhD has earned the title of doctor, but apparently nurses don't deserve the title...Lame!

The argument that MDs make, "it is confusing for patients".  Like it is hard to clarify that they are doctors of nursing!  Get over yourselves MDs, nurse doctors are here to stay, and they are dang good, and dang qualified at what they do!  

Sorry, that is my rant for the day.  I don't know where you stand on that debate ERMD, but I think I have made my position clear 

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Good heavens. The OP was about fallout from the policy. Far from fanning any flames, I refrained from discussing my reasons for disagreeing with the policy until you specifically asked me to discuss them. I hadn’t thought about this subject in quite some time.

I was not referring to the OP.  I should have clarified that.  My apologies.

53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And it’s absurd to say that the family conflicts triggered by the policy are attributable to those flame-fanning critics. Conflict has arisen because the policy adds another level of complexity to already difficult issues. 

It can just as readily (and accurately) be said that the policy alleviates problems.  But that doesn't fit the popular narrative. 

The policy is bad, and the Brethren are haters and an embarrassment.  That's the sort of rhetoric I have seen constantly for nearly two years.  That is what I find problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Isn't the finest reveal of Gregory Prince's interview and coming book that the Church's policy in Nov 2015 was a response to the loss of the Obergfell case?  How would he possibly get away with such a claim if it weren't rue, the interviewer and Prince reason. 

It really makes sense in another light too.  The policy was clumsily done.  Once it was questioned and people made a fuss, they essentially did a re-write in order to save some face.  As the fuss died down, as it tends to in time, one of the leaders decided to call it revelation--God's own retribution. 

The way the policy came out was a cluster, IMO.  If I'm remembering correctly, it was leaked and one has to wonder if the leaders would have ever announced it to the members.  There seemed to be a whole lot of scrambling, explaining, changing and attempts to clarify that followed the leak too from what I remember

If this truly was a revelation from God that our living Prophet received, why did he not stand and declare it as such and announce it to the church membership?  It all just felt odd and like you stated above, clumsy.  

Edited October 26, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I was not referring to the OP.  I should have clarified that.  My apologies.

It can just as readily (and accurately) be said that the policy alleviates problems.  But that doesn't fit the popular narrative. 

The policy is bad, and the Brethren are haters and an embarrassment.  That's the sort of rhetoric I have seen constantly for nearly two years.  That is what I find problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

No one has said that here. Again, I am unaware of any family who has experienced alleviation of problems because of the policy. What I see is real harm done while people talk about possible future problems being avoided. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

duh that's so last year (2 years) https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-updated-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html

"The changes to a church handbook released Thursday mandate church discipline for same-sex couples who marry and grew out of questions that came from different parts of the world and the United States, Elder Christofferson said in a video posted on the Mormon Newsroom website.

"We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries," he said, "and that people have the right if they choose to enter into those, and we understand that, but that's not a right that exists in the church. That's the clarification."

Yes, it was a huge effort to slap a whole community in the face.  But, what was not anticipated, it seems, was the lasting reverberating negative effect the policy has had. 

Much like ALarsen points out after your post, how could it be considered a revelation if it was just an effort to clarify?  Oddly, I don't think anyone questioned that the Church was going to say gay marriage was acceptable in the Church.  I mean someday it'll probably happen...but not then. 

[ERMD]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is not always the case.  Nurse practitioners can write prescriptions with a masters degree, many go on to get their doctorate degrees.  Of course physicians have a tizzie fit if a nurse with a "doctorate" degree wants to be called a "doctor"  Any other PhD has earned the title of doctor, but apparently nurses don't deserve the title...Lame!

The argument that MDs make, "it is confusing for patients".  Like it is hard to clarify that they are doctors of nursing!  Get over yourselves MDs, nurse doctors are here to stay, and they are dang good, and dang qualified at what they do!  

Sorry, that is my rant for the day.  I don't know where you stand on that debate ERMD, but I think I have made my position clear 

I was thinking along the terms of Ph.Ds in academic environments.

Please delineate the amount of training required to become a DNP.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No one has said that here. Again, I am unaware of any family who has experienced alleviation of problems because of the policy. What I see is real harm done while people talk about possible future problems being avoided. 

My own view has it that since the policy, families who have members of the Church and others who are gay, the separation and difficulties between them has only gotten worse.  I too have not seen any experience alleviation of problems because of the policy.  I might say the policy continues to help fulfill the NT notion that families will turn against each other.    But that's just encouragement for those who love the policy change. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No one has said that here.

Again, it's the sort of rhetoric I have seen constantly for nearly two years.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I am unaware of any family who has experienced alleviation of problems because of the policy.

It's all suppositional, I guess.  A problem avoided is a problem alleviated, but it's not necessarily noticed.

That said, we have these remarks from "Melissa," who spoke from personal experience about the adverse consequences about the corollary polygamy-related policy not being applied to her.

Quote

Melissa, who asked 2News to not use her real name, is 37 years old and lives in West Jordan.

Melissa was baptized into the LDS Church at age 18. After that, she said, she struggled with figuring out how to have a relationship with her parents who were members of the Apostolic United Brethren based in Bluffdale.

"[I wasn't sure] how to love them, despite what I was choosing to do," she said.

Looking back, Melissa said she feels getting baptized made her feel she was better than her parents because "what they did was wrong, and what I was doing was right. I was going to go to heaven, and they were not."

She now feels the policy creates an elitist, "us vs. them" mentality for members of the church. She worries the new policy regarding same-sex families will have the same effect.

I sympathize with Melissa.  And I share her concern about the risk of an "us vs. them" mentality.  Avoiding or minimizing those types of conflict appears to be one of the objectives of the new policy.  Melissa said she felt "she was better than her parents" because she had been baptized.  The current policy reduces the risk of that sort of problem happening to children in same-sex parent households because the policy requires them to wait.  The family relationship is therefore faced with a reduced risk of such problems arising between children and parents.  Isn't that a potentially good thing?

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What I see is real harm done while people talk about possible future problems being avoided. 

Real harm was going to be done, with or without the policy.  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.  Moreover, much 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

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes, it was a huge effort to slap a whole community in the face.  But, what was not anticipated, it seems, was the lasting reverberating negative effect the policy has had. 

Much like ALarsen points out after your post, how could it be considered a revelation if it was just an effort to clarify?  Oddly, I don't think anyone questioned that the Church was going to say gay marriage was acceptable in the Church.  I mean someday it'll probably happen...but not then. 

(smearing off the rhetoric and polemics here... ugh... ugh... my, what's that?) Oh yes, your question: Revelations do tend to clarify, and come in many ways and forms.

[ttribe]

I feel like these timely Dilbert comic strips apply here, somewhere:

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by ttribe

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Real harm was going to be done, with or without the policy.

What "real harm" are you referring to here?  What "real harm" was taking place that needed to be corrected? (Honest questions as I'm not sure what you mean here).

From what I have seen, the policy has had exactly zero positive results in member's lives who have a family member who is gay or who they themselves are involved with children.  I have only seen negative impact, more hurt and more pain (and this includes other members as well and how they view the policy).

In my ward I know of many who are struggling with this policy and as time goes on, that's not going to change but only worsen, IMO.  The questions we've been asked many times (bishopric and also the bishop from members) is "Why nothing from our living Prophet if this policy is truly a revelation?  Why have we not heard from him regarding this policy and how he was inspired through a revelation to implement it?  There have been no words of comfort or help from him."

Edited October 26, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Isn't the finest reveal of Gregory Prince's interview and coming book that the Church's policy in Nov 2015 was a response to the loss of the Obergfell case?  How would he possibly get away with such a claim if it weren't rue, the interviewer and Prince reason. 

It really makes sense in another light too.  The policy was clumsily done.  Once it was questioned and people made a fuss, they essentially did a re-write in order to save some face.  As the fuss died down, as it tends to in time, one of the leaders decided to call it revelation--God's own retribution. 

Yet another oblique (though not very) accusation that Pres. Nelson lied.

Ah!  I love the smell of innuendo in the morning!

-Smac

[Duncan]

58 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Pres. Nelson is an MD, not a Ph.D.  There are some MD, Ph.Ds out there, but not many.  If a physician is seeing and treating patients, he/she must be an MD (or DO).  Ph.Ds without an MD/DO can see patients as counselors, but they cannot perform surgery or write prescriptions.  

The path to MD is 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, and 3-8 years of residency training.  Ph.D programs are typically 4 years of college and then 5-7 years of graduate school.  MD, PhD programs are typically 6 years of medical school/grad school combined, followed by 3-8 years of residency training.

hmmm, according to his biography Pres. Nelson got his PH.D. from the U of Minnesota. Yeah these brethren that had their MDs and PH.D.s are probably the most educated people i've ever known!  They are both Profs at the Med. School in their respective areas. I would link to their university profile pages but I don't know if they would want that

https://www.lds.org/church/leader/russell-m-nelson?lang=eng

Edited October 26, 2017 by Duncan

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Much like ALarsen points out after your post, how could it be considered a revelation if it was just an effort to clarify?

Well, and which one was the revelation? The original policy quietly put in the handbook? The first clarification? The second clarification?