Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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

 

Obviously no one is going to be persuaded one way or the other. 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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).

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 nearly 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.”

He also said this (same link):

Quote

He said the changes were necessary because the Church regards “same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline.”

“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.”

And this (same link):

Quote

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.”

“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,” Elder Christofferson explained. “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.”

And this (same link):

Quote

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 this (same link):

Quote

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.”

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• 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 harms as well (I can think of a few).

Quote

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

I can appreciate that viewpoint.  Hence the value of having access to a much broader - and revelatory - viewpoint from prophets, seers and revelators.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

-Smac

It's more of a commentary on what we call revelation.  Everything is revelation in some sense and in another only some things are.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Obviously no one is going to be persuaded one way or the other. 

Oh, I think a lot of this goes beyond mere attempts at persuasion...for some, it appears to be a relished sort of combat, for others, it seems to be intentional efforts to inflame.  I can appreciate the desire to inform and/or refute outright falsehood, but for some here it seems to be nothing more than sport.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's more of a commentary on what we call revelation.  Everything is revelation in some sense and in another only some things are.

I see your point.  However, I think it's more of an effort to provide a pretext for discounting or sidestepping or ignoring Pres. Nelson's remarks, and to continue with accusatory claims about the policy that are rebutted by his remarks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Oh, I think a lot of this goes beyond mere attempts at persuasion...for some, it appears to be a relished sort of combat, for others, it seems to be intentional efforts to inflame.  I can appreciate the desire to inform and/or refute outright falsehood, but for some here it seems to be nothing more than sport.

I have no idea what motivates others. I was asked my reasons for disagreement, and I’ve given them. I’m not persuaded that hypotheticals outweigh the known outcomes. 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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 was not aware this was taking place and from my experience, is wasn't (I can only speak from my own experience on that, but I have heard from many and also personally know gay members of the church).  Such an extreme policy for something that was rarely happening (if at all) that has caused so many more to experience pain, confusion and even leave the church really makes no sense to me.  Of course I do not have the perspective that the Prophet has on this, but once again, why did he not announce he'd received a revelation and give some words of comfort and help for members to understand it?  If there was "real harm" taking place, why not address that and relate how he'd received a revelation from God to correct it?

 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can appreciate that viewpoint.  Hence the value of having access to a much broader - and revelatory - viewpoint from prophets, seers and revelators.

Which I have not seen ("a much broader - and revelatory - viewpoint from prophets, seers and revelators").   IMO, that has not happened regarding this policy.  Maybe more expressions will take place in the future regarding it, but my hope is that it will simply be removed.  Time will tell of course....

Edited October 26, 2017 by ALarson

[ttribe]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I have no idea what motivates others. I was asked my reasons for disagreement, and I’ve given them. I’m not persuaded that hypotheticals outweigh the known outcomes. 

For the record, none of my characterizations were aimed at you.

[Jeanne]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

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?

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

Maybe real harm was going to happen no matter what..that I may agree on..but the policy was so "in your face" and it gave an arrogance of some moral superiority that was so unnecessary.  The bottom line seems to be that anyone who grows up mormon is proud to be in an all inclusive church...and  it. is. not.  This is where you lost and/or confused the real covenant makers.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

For the record, none of my characterizations were aimed at you.

I didn’t think they were. You already know I’m trying to destroy the church, one testimony at a time. 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you agree with me that the policy doesn’t mitigate conflict in families. 

I would say that regardless of the policy, if a child of such a family (SSM, polygamy) is participating in church activities (you don't have to be a member to come to church, etc), then conflicts may arise and simply possessing a membership record would not magically resolve the conflict of values.

A minor child with a membership record would then put church leaders in the middle of this conflict.  "Those evil Mormons won't allow us to raise our son the way we want.  They teach him intolerance, et et etc"

Thanks, but no thanks.  Look, be honest.  This is not really about fairness to the child, but as a tool to attack the sponsor of Prop 8,  to advance the gay agenda.

Edited October 26, 2017 by cdowis

[jkwilliams]

Just now, cdowis said:

I would say that regardless of the policy, if a child of such a family is participating in church activities (you don't have to be a member to come to church, etc), conflicts may be present and simply having a membership record would have no effect on that situation.

Agreed. That was my point. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, I think a lot of this goes beyond mere attempts at persuasion...for some, it appears to be a relished sort of combat,

Not me.  I don't particularly enjoy defending the Church and its teachings/leaders/members from false accusations, inflammatory rhetoric, and so on.

But I do it.  I do it poorly sometimes, well at others.  I believe the Church is what it claims to be.  It is good.  It is decent.  I also sustain its leaders.  They are good and decent and sincere and experienced and intelligent and receptive.  They are fallible, to be sure, but in they main they are doing their jobs well and in good faith.  

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

for others, it seems to be intentional efforts to inflame.  I can appreciate the desire to inform and/or refute outright falsehood, but for some here it seems to be nothing more than sport.

If you're referring to me . . . nope.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I see your point.  However, I think it's more of an effort to provide a pretext for discounting or sidestepping or ignoring Pres. Nelson's remarks, and to continue with accusatory claims about the policy that are rebutted by his remarks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Disagreeing with the way Pres Nelson framed it does not do much but disagree.  it is not pretext for some other ulterior motive nor is it discounting or sidestepping.  There are tons of people involved and many perspectives to consider to come to any conclusion. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was not aware this was taking place and from my experience, is wasn't (I can only speak from my own experience on that, but I have heard from many and also personally know gay members of the church). 

Okay.  Your limited experience is not a reason to discount the perspective and reasoning of the Brethren (who may have a much broader viewpoint, and more information to work with).

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Such an extreme policy for something that was rarely happening (if at all) that has caused so many more to experience pain, confusion and even leave the church really makes no sense to me. 

Again, the real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren include:

• 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 harms as well (I can think of a few).

So if things aren't making sense to you, perhaps some further consideration of available information is worthwhile.

Moreover, this so-called "extreme" policy was patterned after a policy that the Church has had in place for decades, with very little controversy.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course I do not have the perspective that the Prophet has on this, but once again, why did he not announce he'd received a revelation and give some words of comfort and help for members to understand it? 

I don't know.  I think the Brethren receive revelatory guidance like this all the time.  After-the-fact armchair quarterbacking like this ("Why did he not announce he'd received a revelation...") doesn't seem to be useful.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If there was "real harm" taking place, why not address that and relate how he'd received a revelation from God to correct it?

Elder Christofferson provided clarification a few weeks later.

And Pres. Nelson provided even more clarification a few weeks after that.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Which I have not seen ("a much broader - and revelatory - viewpoint from prophets, seers and revelators").   IMO, that has not happened regarding this policy.  Maybe more expressions will take place in the future regarding it, but my hope is that it will simply be removed.  Time will tell of course....

Again, Elder Christofferson provided clarification a few weeks later.  And Pres. Nelson provided even more clarification a few weeks after that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

I'm fine with a loose interpretation of what one means by revelation, but as you point out, if we're going to use the word, what do we mean by it?  That seems like a fair question. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Disagreeing with the way Pres Nelson framed it does not do much but disagree. 

I disagree.  It provides a pretext for ignoring or discounting or sidestepping what he said.

Quote

it is not pretext for some other ulterior motive nor is it discounting or sidestepping. 

Yes, it is (can be).

Quote

There are tons of people involved and many perspectives to consider to come to any conclusion. 

There were fifteen people involved.  And Pres. Nelson spoke on behalf of all of them (as did Elder Christofferson before him).

Queue the "No, Pres. Nelson went rogue . . ."-style equivocations in 5...4...3...2...

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

Exactly.  

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Your limited experience is not a reason to discount the perspective and reasoning of the Brethren (who may have a much broader viewpoint, and more information to work with).

Again, the real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren include:

• 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 harms as well (I can think of a few).

So if things aren't making sense to you, perhaps some further consideration of available information is worthwhile.

Moreover, this so-called "extreme" policy was patterned after a policy that the Church has had in place for decades, with very little controversy.

I don't know.  I think the Brethren receive revelatory guidance like this all the time.  After-the-fact armchair quarterbacking like this ("Why did he not announce he'd received a revelation...") doesn't seem to be useful.

Elder Christofferson provided clarification a few weeks later.

And Pres. Nelson provided even more clarification a few weeks after that.

Again, Elder Christofferson provided clarification a few weeks later.  And Pres. Nelson provided even more clarification a few weeks after that.

Thanks,

-Smac

All of this rings pretty hollow for many members (all this "clarification a few weeks later") who are experiencing real pain over this now.  I'm just being honest and relating what I am seeing with many church members.

Can you name one instance where there was a case of "real harm" taking place or do you just believe there were "potential harms"?   Has our Prophet or any leaders given any specific examples of real members who were experiencing "real harm" that made it necessary to implement this new policy?  

Edited October 26, 2017 by ALarson

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

Indeed.

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

To take your position that denying a child baptism is not hurtful for a child, then you would have to believe that baptism is not a blessing and that there is no value to being baptized.  Perhaps if you listed all the reasons why it is important for a child to be baptized when they reach the age of 8 and then looked at that list and asked yourself if denying a child any of the blessings would be harmful to a child.  

If denying baptism has no negative or positive blessings attached to it, then why baptize any child?

What are the reasons to be baptized at eight?

Glenn

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

All of this rings pretty hollow for many members (all this "clarification a few weeks later") who are experiencing real pain over this now. 

I understand that.

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm just being honest and relating what I am seeing with many church members.

A big part of the problem is the overheated rhetoric and vitriol about this topic.  

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Can you name one instance where there was a case of "real harm" taking place or do you just believe there were "potential harms"?  

I'll defer to the explanation from the Brethren.  None of us are situated to provide anything other than isolated anecdotes, which can just as easily be dismissed as "ring{ing} pretty hollow."

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Has our Prophet or any leaders given any specific examples of real members who were experiencing "real harm" that made it necessary to implement this new policy?  

Moving the goalposts, I see.

Elder Christofferson has provided quite a bit of clarification and explanation.  Not good enough.

Pres. Nelson thereafter provided further clarification and explanation.  Still not good enough.

Now you want "specific examples," which can then immediately be discounted as mere anecdotes.  Still not good enough.

There is no end to this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I would say that regardless of the policy, if a child of such a family (SSM, polygamy) is participating in church activities (you don't have to be a member to come to church, etc), then conflicts may arise and simply possessing a membership record would not magically resolve the conflict of values.

A minor child with a membership record would then put church leaders in the middle of this conflict.  "Those evil Mormons won't allow us to raise our son the way we want.  They teach him intolerance, et et etc"

Thanks, but no thanks.  Look, be honest.  This is not really about fairness to the child, but as a tool to attack the sponsor of Prop 8,  to advance the gay agenda.

The policy is to sever the point of conflict (the subject of marriage and family, the center core and most sacred institution of the Church) that can spill over from the parents. This is done by postponing the child's membership until he is of age and no longer having claim to them for temporal and spiritual maintenance.  The parent's realized idea of the family construct prevails for the child; no contest.

There will be situations where children are exposed to their parents’ negative reactions to the policy, but the policy is not about controlling how parents raise their children or what they expose them to. And for those that hold to it, the doctrine of the Holy Ghost also helps prevent, reconcile and resolve such conflicts in a constructive manner.

Attending as a friend or guest is different than attending as a member because there is no implied expectation or responsibility that the Church help the parents realize the center core and most sacred institution of the Church in their homes.

Edited October 26, 2017 by CV75

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll defer to the explanation from the Brethren.  None of us are situated to provide anything other than isolated anecdotes, which can just as easily be dismissed as "ring{ing} pretty hollow."

I disagree that "none of us are situated to provide anything other than isolated anecdotes".  Many even here have personally experienced pain from this new policy.  Do you doubt their word?

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Moving the goalposts, I see

Not at all.  You are the one who is claiming this policy was implemented due to "real harm" taking place.  I'm asking you if any specific cases have been named where this was happening causing a need for this policy.  I am personally not aware of any, so that's why I ask.  I have also not heard of any given from the leaders other than to speak in generalities or relating what "might happen".

Edited October 26, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  It provides a pretext for ignoring or discounting or sidestepping what he said.

Yes, it is (can be).

There were fifteen people involved.  And Pres. Nelson spoke on behalf of all of them (as did Elder Christofferson before him).

Queue the "No, Pres. Nelson went rogue . . ."-style equivocations in 5...4...3...2...

Thanks,

-Smac

It sounds to me like President Nelson only refers to that which came out as the policy, in the handbook.  He did not mention the clarifications as being a result of the prophetic process, correct?