Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[omni]

9 hours 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.

You've stated this a number of times.  Is this your own reasoning or has the Church actually stated this?

If there were no policy, I would think it would be extremely rare for a gay married couple to repent and eventually divorce all because their child was baptized.  Yet, this is apparently what Church leaders are worried about?

If a married gay couple wanted to get baptized, the Church would require them to first divorce.  Shouldn't Church leaders be equally concerned about the cost to the family's existence in these situations?

[ERMD]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

The right amount of training that is required to earn the title of "doctor".   "Doctor" is an educational title, "physician" is an occupational title. 

Sure, MDs are required to have more clinical experience.  That doesn't however make a DNP any less of a doctor - it just makes them less of a physician. 

A DNP who has 10 years clinical experience will have for more training and experience than a brand new general practitioner MD fresh out of residency.  I would personally trust the DNP over the MD in that scenario most of the time. 

 

 

You're avoiding the question.

When things go south and the patient is crashing, I guarantee the staff isn't yelling, "DNP!! GET IN HERE NOW!!"

:-)

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, omni said:

You've stated this a number of times.  Is this your own reasoning or has the Church actually stated this?

Elder Christofferson said this back in 2015 (emphases added):

Quote

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 said the Church policy is analogous to policy for children born to polygamist families.

Just as has been Church policy regarding polygamist families, children of parents in a same-sex relationship will need to assent to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage before entering Church membership or missionary service, he said. They are “not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice,” he emphasized.

I think concern about the overall welfare of these families - both polygamous and same-sex parents - is baked into the policy.

As for whether the Church has specifically addressed this point, to be honest, I'm not sure.  I've encountered that bit of reasoning quite a few times (it certainly did not originate with me), and it seems quite sound.  But I can't account for its precise origins.

Quote

If there were no policy, I would think it would be extremely rare for a gay married couple to repent and eventually divorce all because their child was baptized.  

I agree.  That would not happen often.  So the child would remain in a potentially very conflicted circumstance, in which she may feel pressure to choose one set of loyalties over the other (the Church or her parents).  The policy alleviates that issue, or at least postpones it until she is older and more capable of finding ways to maintain both relationships.

Quote

Yet, this is apparently what Church leaders are worried about?

The Church leaders were and are worried about a number of different things.  Some of these (though, perhaps, not all) were laid out by Elder Christofferson two years ago.  I reviewed them here:

Quote

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.'").

 

Quote

If a married gay couple wanted to get baptized, the Church would require them to first divorce.  

Correct.  Corrective measures would also be required of cohabitating couples, and also those in a polygamous marriage.

Quote

Shouldn't Church leaders be equally concerned about the cost to the family's existence in these situations?

I think the Church has been concerned.  Hence its efforts regarding Prop 8.  Hence the November 15 policy changes (see above).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[sunstoned]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

So you must also advocate the Church's baptism of children over the objections of the child's parents.  Right?  No qualifiers in Matthew, and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, a straw man argument.  In your scenario it would be the parents who are forbidding their child to come unto Christ.  In the topic we are discussion it is the church who is doing the forbidding.   I am not trying to be argumentative,  and I know this policy is hard for many members.  

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Again, a straw man argument.

Again, a dodge.

You presented an absolutist assertion.  I presented an untenable application of that absolutism.

16 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

In your scenario it would be the parents who are forbidding their child to come unto Christ.

It's the Church that administers the baptismal ordinance, the acceptance of which you are equating with "coming unto" Christ.

16 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

In the topic we are discussion it is the church who is doing the forbidding.   

Yes.  The Church forbids minor children from being baptized without their parents' permission.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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? 

 

It is true that the clarifications were not canonized as scripture.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

What are the reasons to be baptized at eight?

Glenn

Evidently nothing important.  I guess having the gift of the Holy Ghost is just not that big of deal.  I mean why would a teenager possibly need the Holy Ghost to be with them.

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Evidently nothing important.  I guess having the gift of the Holy Ghost is just not that big of deal.  I mean why would a teenager possibly need the Holy Ghost to be with them.

Why is it you can’t understand the leaders of the Church simply don’t want to push the children of gay parents to have to make a decision about whether or not to reject their parents’ values at such a and tender young age? I don’t get why people don’t see this?

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Evidently nothing important.  I guess having the gift of the Holy Ghost is just not that big of deal.  I mean why would a teenager possibly need the Holy Ghost to be with them.

So, no problem, correct?

 

[CV75]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Evidently nothing important.  I guess having the gift of the Holy Ghost is just not that big of deal.  I mean why would a teenager possibly need the Holy Ghost to be with them.

I was a teenager without the gift of the Holy Ghost. I received a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost when I was 13 but I had to wait until I was of age to get baptized. Was not allowed to have contact with the Church during that time.  No harm, no foul. To paraphrase Elder Christofferson, nothing was lost to me in the end.

Are you now going to insist that I suffered an irredeemable injustice or that my life is defective because I had to wait? That I'm lagging behind in my eternal progress? That the Lord wasn't waiting with me all those years, and I was nothing to Him because I wasn't a member of His Church? Was I like other children and teens, or was I just lucky?

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Why is it you can’t understand the leaders of the Church simply don’t want to push the children of gay parents to have to make a decision about whether or not to reject their parents’ values at such a and tender young age? I don’t get why people don’t see this?

I have had these same thoughts, though your response is framed much better than the one I had in mind.

I suspect we'll now see some sort of parry ("Yeah, but what about children being raised by unmarried parents?") and thrust ("The LDS Church hates gay people!").

Meanwhile, the wisdom of the policy seems to be getting more apparent as time goes on.  As reasoned discourse prevails over false accusations and bitterness.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Brother Bear]

40 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

So, no problem, correct?

 

This is interesting. So when my child turns eight and has a baptismal interview with the bishop, I can attend and tell the bishop that I have decided that my child can't be baptized and confirmed until the age of eighteen, my bishop should just say, "no problem." Is that right? When I come in for a temple recommend interview later or am considered for a calling, my prohibition on underage baptism should be "no problem." Is this right? How could I be accused of doing anything wrong as a parent if my child is not losing out on anything?

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have had these same thoughts, though your response is framed much better than the one I had in mind.

I suspect we'll now see some sort of parry ("Yeah, but what about children being raised by unmarried parents?") and thrust ("The LDS Church hates gay people!").

Meanwhile, the wisdom of the policy seems to be getting more apparent as time goes on.  As reasoned discourse prevails over false accusations and bitterness.

Thanks,

-Smac

Please, stop doing this. This thread has many examples of reasoned discourse on both sides, and labeling the other side as "false accusations and bitterness" is just an attempt to shut down discussion. 

I wish I could see the wisdom of the policy, but I don't. The best I can say is that I understand the reasoning behind it, which is what Bobbieaware said (at least the church has said that's part of the reasoning). As I said, I don't think the policy alleviates the underlying issue (conflict over values in a family) but instead inserts the church into matters of custody and child-rearing in an unhelpful way. Go ahead and dismiss the concerns of others, but please stop saying there are no reasonable grounds for disagreeing with the policy. It's entirely possible to disagree without saying the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever. Good people can make poor decisions, even as a group, and saying so is not demonizing them.

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

This is interesting. So when my child turns eight and has a baptismal interview with the bishop, I can attend and tell the bishop that I have decided that my child can't be baptized and confirmed until the age of eighteen, my bishop should just say, "no problem." Is that right? When I come in for a temple recommend interview later or am considered for a calling, my prohibition on underage baptism should be "no problem." Is this right? How could I be accused of doing anything wrong as a parent if my child is not losing out on anything?

This speaks volumes...thank you. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Why is it you can’t understand the leaders of the Church simply don’t want to push the children of gay parents to have to make a decision about whether or not to reject their parents’ values at such a and tender young age? I don’t get why people don’t see this?

Why don't they hold the same standard for allowing children living with parents who are not married?  If the parents give consent, these children are baptized and don't have to wait until they're 18 years old.  Won't they be taught to reject their parents' lifestyle and values?

It's the singling out the children of gay couples that many disagree with from what I have seen and heard.

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, the wisdom of the policy seems to be getting more apparent as time goes on. 

Really?  What evidence do you have that this is happening?

I am seeing just the opposite.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Why don't they hold the same standard for allowing children living with parents who are not married?  If the parents give consent, these children are baptized and don't have to wait until they're 18 years old.  Won't they be taught to reject their parents' lifestyle and values?

It's the singling out the children of gay couples that many disagree with from what I have seen and heard.

Yup. By Bobbie's reasoning, no child should be baptized if his or her parents' lifestyle conflicts with the church's teachings.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Why is it you can’t understand the leaders of the Church simply don’t want to push the children of gay parents to have to make a decision about whether or not to reject their parents’ values at such a and tender young age? I don’t get why people don’t see this?

Because it is not consistent with actions the church takes in every other situation.  Gays and polygamists are the only families the church takes this stand.  As has been pointed out numerous times, the church does not require any other parents to repent of their sins in order for their children to be baptized.  Living together in sin is just as morally wrong, according to church doctrine, as a married gay couple.  

For married gay couples, the church requires divorce before allowing children to be baptized.  The justification being that the child should not live in a home where the parents aren't living the church standards and it puts them in conflict.  Yet a child living in a home where parents are not married are equally living in a home that conflicts with church teachings.  If this is such an important issue.  If putting a child in conflict with the actions of the parents is such a real issue, why doesn't the church require those parents to first get married before allowing the child to be baptized.  THEY DON'T.  So the whole justification is either based on extreme prejudice of gay and polygamist families or the church doesn't think that not marrying doesn't put the child in conflict with church teachings.  If that is the case, then living together is not all that big of sin.  Does this sound true?  

And this is only half of the equasion.  How does not baptizing the child take them out of conflict with church teachings and the parents actions.  Is there some magical thing that happens?  Wouldn't the child be JUST as conflicted when they attend church every week whether they are baptized or not?

And how about all the other children?  A parent who drinks.  Or a parent who does drugs.  Or a parent who beats his wife.  No conflict?  It is an absurd statement that people just don't believe.  The whole basis for this policy doesn't stand up to logic.  And if the reason for having the policy fails, then what the heck is this all about?

Can you explain to me why the church does not require parents living in sin to first marry before allowing their children to be baptized?  Why putting the child in conflict in those situations is perfectly fine, but if the parents are gay then such strong action has to be taken where the child is denied baptism?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

So, no problem, correct?

 

No problem for me.  The church can do whatever it wants.  If they truly believe they are following the will of God then how could they do anything else.  Of course to believe that, you also have to believe that God wants the church to suffer more than gay couples and their families.  Because the result of this policy has been to cause much more pain and suffering among the members of the church then it has gay families.  Everything about this policy points to a bad decision by church leaders, not a revelation from God. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I was a teenager without the gift of the Holy Ghost. I received a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost when I was 13 but I had to wait until I was of age to get baptized. Was not allowed to have contact with the Church during that time.  No harm, no foul. To paraphrase Elder Christofferson, nothing was lost to me in the end.

Are you now going to insist that I suffered an irredeemable injustice or that my life is defective because I had to wait? That I'm lagging behind in my eternal progress? That the Lord wasn't waiting with me all those years, and I was nothing to Him because I wasn't a member of His Church? Was I like other children and teens, or was I just lucky?

Well there you go.  A testimony from a faithful member that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not that big of deal.  Never thought I would hear that argument.  But hey, this policy brings out the best arguments that completely go against Mormon belief in order to justify it.  This is jus another example.

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Please, stop doing this. This thread has many examples of reasoned discourse on both sides, and labeling the other side as "false accusations and bitterness" is just an attempt to shut down discussion. 

I wish I could see the wisdom of the policy, but I don't. The best I can say is that I understand the reasoning behind it, which is what Bobbieaware said (at least the church has said that's part of the reasoning). As I said, I don't think the policy alleviates the underlying issue (conflict over values in a family) but instead inserts the church into matters of custody and child-rearing in an unhelpful way. Go ahead and dismiss the concerns of others, but please stop saying there are no reasonable grounds for disagreeing with the policy. It's entirely possible to disagree without saying the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever. Good people can make poor decisions, even as a group, and saying so is not demonizing them.

This policy 

 

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yup. By Bobbie's reasoning, no child should be baptized if his or her parents' lifestyle conflicts with the church's teachings.

It is not Bobbie's reasoning, it is the church's reason.  That is the whole point of the policy.  The church has taken the responsibility away from the parents to decide what is best for their OWN children.  Now it is the church that is not suggesting or guiding parents on how to raise their children, church leaders are going to make those decisions for them.  The parents are obviously not in a good position to decide what is best for their child.

Edited October 27, 2017 by california boy

[Jeanne]

To me...active, inactive..policy...no policy...what church would ever...EVER...reject a child for any reason??  Parents are key in those decisions..and if they can deal with it..the church should welcome children with open arms.  Period.  Of course, this is Jeanne's reasoning.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I was a teenager without the gift of the Holy Ghost. I received a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost when I was 13 but I had to wait until I was of age to get baptized. Was not allowed to have contact with the Church during that time.  No harm, no foul. To paraphrase Elder Christofferson, nothing was lost to me in the end.

Thank you for sharing this.

Quote

Are you now going to insist that I suffered an irredeemable injustice or that my life is defective because I had to wait?

Yep.  The rhetoric about the policy is way overblown.  There is no "irredeemable injustice" in view.  None.  Frankly, it has been rather bizarre to see opponents of the Church, in essence, say "We despise the Mormon Church and its teachings!  And how dare you not let some children get baptized into it until they are adults!"  The opponents of the Church have a rather incoherent message, to be sure.

There is also a not-insignificant measure of incoherence in the position taken by some Latter-day Saints who are up-in-arms about the policy.  "I think the policy is horrible!  It does not reflect God's will!  So I am going to publicly excoriate and oppose the Church and its leaders!  'Cuz nothing better demonstrates fealty to God's will than publicly ripping apart His prophets and apostles, and His Church!  And even though we have a very clear and reasonable explanation about the origins of the policy from Pres. Nelson, who was a percipient witness as to those origins, and even though he publicly and emphatically attributed the policy to revelation to Pres. Monson, and even though Pres. Monson's decision was sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I feel totally at liberty to ignore his remarks, and to baselessly question his honesty and/or mental competency.  He went rogue.  He lied.  He was deluded.  But no worries!  I won't actually say these things.  Instead, I'll resort to hamfisted innuendo that anyone with an IQ above 20 would understand as an attack on Pres. Nelson's integrity.  Meanwhile, I will give absurd amounts of credence to anonymous and potentially multiple hearsay gossip purveyed by Greg Prince about sinister goings-on amongst the Brethren.  Yep.  Anonymous hearsay trumps the public declaration of the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Don't ask why.  And don't you dare ask me about why I am indifferent to nearly identical policy affecting children in polygamous families, either.  That's just a non sequitur, even though Elder Christofferson specifically cited that older policy as an analog to the newer one.  In any event, I don't want to talk about the challenges arising from that nearly identical policy, even though it has been in place for nearly a century, because . . . I don't know those kids.  I do not care about their welfare.  And they are simply not popular enough to warrant me linking arms with the critics against the Brethren when it comes to the policy that affects kids from polygamous homes.  You see, a policy of the Church is only immoral if it affects people I know personally, or who otherwise are presently popular on social media and in pop culture generally.  And as we all know, the best way for the Church to address broad and complex and difficult moral issues is to subject them to random popularity contests."

I have seen all of these arguments/positions, or variations thereof, promulgated by Latter-day Saints (many of them in this very thread).  Not very coherent, IMO.

Quote

That I'm lagging behind in my eternal progress? That the Lord wasn't waiting with me all those years, and I was nothing to Him because I wasn't a member of His Church? Was I like other children and teens, or was I just lucky?

I would hope that conversant Latter-day Saints, at least, would stay their hands and control their emotions long enough to give this topic a bit of study.  And thought.  And faith.  And application of gospel principles.  Three of these immediately come to mind.

First, we have received assurances that the Church will not be led astray.  Consider these remarks from then-Elder Faust:

Quote

A very encouraging portion of the ninth article of faith we have been considering is its conclusion, “We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” Elder Boyd K. Packer stated: “Revelation is a continuous principle in the Church. In one sense the Church is still being organized. As light and knowledge are given, as prophecies are fulfilled and more intelligence is received, another step forward can be taken.” (The Holy Temple, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980, p. 137.)

This Church constantly needs the guidance of its head, the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This was well taught by President George Q. Cannon: “We have the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; but all these books, without the living oracles and a constant stream of revelation from the Lord, would not lead any people into the Celestial Kingdom. … This may seem a strange declaration to make, but strange as it may sound, it is nevertheless true.

“Of course, these records are all of infinite value. They cannot be too highly prized, nor can they be too closely studied. But in and of themselves, with all the light that they give, they are insufficient to guide the children of men and to lead them into the presence of God. To be thus led requires a living Priesthood and constant revelation from God to the people according to the circumstances in which they may be placed.” (Gospel Truth, Classics in Mormon Literature Series, 2 vols. in one, sel. Jerreld L. Newquist, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987, p. 252.)

When will this promised revelation come? Only God knows when. It will come as needed. To whom will it come? To obtain the answer to this, we must go back to the words of Amos: “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7.) This continuous revelation will not and cannot be forced by outside pressure from people and events. It is not the so-called “revelation of social progress.” It does not originate with the prophets; it comes from God. The Church is governed by the prophet under the guidance and direction of God.

...

We have been promised that the President of the Church will receive guidance for all of us as the revelator for the Church. Our safety lies in paying heed to that which he says and following his counsel.

The doctrine of this church was stated by Elder Stephen L Richards: “They [the Presidency] are the supreme court here on earth in the interpretation of God’s law.

“In the exercise of their functions and delegated powers they are controlled by a constitution, a part of which is written and a part of which is not. The written part consists in authenticated scripture, ancient and modern, and in the recorded utterances of our latter-day prophets. The unwritten part is the spirit of revelation and divine inspiration which are appertinent to their calling.

“In formulating their interpretations and decisions they always confer with the Council of the Twelve Apostles who by revelation are appointed to assist and act with them in the government of the Church. When, therefore, a judgment is reached and proclaimed by these officers it becomes binding upon all members of the Church, individual views to the contrary notwithstanding. God’s Kingdom is a kingdom of law and order.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1938, pp. 115–16.)

How can we be so sure that, as promised, the prophets, seers, and revelators will never lead this people astray? (See Joseph Fielding Smith, Ensign, July 1972, p. 88.) One answer is contained in the grand principle found in the 107th section of the Doctrine and Covenants: “And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same.” (D&C 107:27.) This requirement of unanimity provides a check on bias and personal idiosyncrasies. It ensures that God rules through the Spirit, not man through majority or compromise. It ensures that the best wisdom and experience is focused on an issue before the deep, unassailable impressions of revealed direction are received. It guards against the foibles of man.

I think some of our fellow Latter-day Saints have forgotten these things.

Second, there is the general obligation to sustain the Brethren.  I have been, frankly, surprised to see friends and acquaintances whom I have known for years to, it seems, almost instantly drop any semblance of maintaining that principle, and who have instead joined with critics and opponents of the Church in publicly denouncing the Brethren (and/or ignoring them) as regarding this policy.  I think this is a profoundly wrong course of action.  If the Brethren were wrong in promulgating the policy, then there are mechanisms to voice concern about that, mechanisms that do not entail evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.  Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (from 1987 so this counsel has been out there for a long time):

Quote

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom. In the political world, critical evaluation inevitably accompanies any knowledgeable exercise of the cherished freedoms of speech and of the press. In the private world, we have a right to expect critical evaluation of anything that is put into the marketplace or the public domain. Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. The Bible commands us to avoid “evil speakings.” (See 1 Pet. 2:1.) It tells us to “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you.” (Eph. 4:31.) Modern revelations direct us to avoid “backbiting,” “evil speaking,” and “find[ing] fault one with another.” (See D&C 20:53–54; D&C 42:27; D&C 88:124; and D&C 136:23.)

We are given these commandments for a reason. The Apostle Paul advised the Saints to “grieve not the holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30) by evil speaking. Of faultfinders, President Brigham Young said, “The Spirit of God has no place in [such] persons.” (Journal of Discourses, 8:13.) The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize.

...

President Gordon B. Hinckley said: “I am not asking that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction. Strength comes of repentance. Wise is the man who can acknowledge mistakes pointed out by others and change his course.

“What I am suggesting is that each of us turn from the negativism that so permeates our society and look for the remarkable good among those with whom we associate, that we speak of one another’s virtues more than we speak of one another’s faults.” (Ensign, Apr. 1986, pp. 3–4.)

Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn’t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that “the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.” A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as “contempt for the truth.” (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is “a time to speak,” and there is also “a time to keep silence.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

...

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. For example, it is wrong to make statements of fact out of an evil motive, even if the statements are true. It is wrong to threaten to reveal embarrassing facts unless money is paid, even if the facts are true. We call that crime blackmail. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are forbidden to reveal facts they have received in confidence, even though those facts are true.

...

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)

Church leaders need this consideration, since the responsibilities of Church leadership include the correction of others. That function is not popular. As the Lamanite prophet Samuel taught, when a prophet comes among us and speaks of our iniquities, we are made angry. We call him a false prophet and “cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him.” (See Hel. 13:26.) But if a man comes among us and speaks flattering words about our behavior and tells us that it is all right to “walk after the pride of [our] own hearts … and do whatsoever [our] heart desire{s}, 

,” “we will not find fault with him.” (See Hel. 13:27, 28.) We will call him a prophet and reward him.

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

...

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

...

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

The article is quite long, but it is definitely worth a read.  Particularly for those of our brothers and sisters who have chosen to publicly speak against and criticize the Brethren.

The third principle arises from and pertains to "at the end of it all / when all is said and done"-type questions.  If the policy results in a child not joining the Church, is that child going to face eternal consequences?  For failing to make a choice he was not even allowed to make?  Of course not.  Consider these verses from D&C 137:

Quote

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

I think the policy makes sense.  It's a hard one, to be sure, but it's addressing hard challenges.  But even if we assume that the policy is inherently wrong, then the Restored Gospel has precepts that account for that.  If a person is deprived of Church membership because of this policy, and if they "would have received it with all their hearts" had they been given the opportunity, then they "shall be heirs."  So the children affected by the new policy are situated pretty much like those who never get a chance to accept the Restored Gospel at all in this life.  They are covered.  The Plan of Salvation covers them.  The Atonement covers them.  As Elder Christofferson so aptly put it, “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.”

Amen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Please, stop doing this. This thread has many examples of reasoned discourse on both sides, and labeling the other side as "false accusations and bitterness" is just an attempt to shut down discussion. 

No, it's not.  I am not criticizing all discourse critical of the policy.  I am criticizing those arguments and bits of rhetoric I find problematic.

56 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wish I could see the wisdom of the policy, but I don't. The best I can say is that I understand the reasoning behind it, which is what Bobbieaware said (at least the church has said that's part of the reasoning). As I said, I don't think the policy alleviates the underlying issue (conflict over values in a family) but instead inserts the church into matters of custody and child-rearing in an unhelpful way.

The Church "inserts {itself} into matters of custody and child-rearing" by not having the affected child be baptized?  

If the policy had not been implemented, then the exact same criticism could be leveled, namely, that the Church "inserts {itself} into matters of custody and child-rearing" by having the affected child be baptized.

Your reasoning eludes me.  Your criticism is applicable to the Church no matter which way it goes re: the policy.  The Church loses and is faulted either way.  That, to me, suggests a flaw in the criticism.

56 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Go ahead and dismiss the concerns of others,

I have posted dozens of responses in this thread.  I am specifically and at some length acknowledging and responding to those concerns.

There are aspects of the arguments made in justifying those concerns which I have found problematic, and I have explained why.  But even that does not seem to be "dismissive."  I am, after all, engaging those arguments.

56 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

but please stop saying there are no reasonable grounds for disagreeing with the policy.

I have not said that.  I have, in fact, said quite the opposite.

56 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's entirely possible to disagree without saying the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever.

I quite agree.  I have made this point several times.  In this very thread.

However, there are people who are disagreeing with the policy by asserting things like "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever."  It is those arguments I find problematic.

As the old saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it."  The shoe does not seem to fit in your case.  So stop trying to wear it (or claim that I am asking you to).

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

I haven't said much during this entire thread because I think it is pointless.  I have now decided to post several responses to what has been going on for the past 20 pages which I now have done.  I want to comment on just one more part of this discussion.  

Smac has gone on forever about the assertion that Elder Nelson has declared that this policy is a revelation from God.  And that anyone who questions that assertion is calling Elder Nelson a liar.  This church policy is now a revelation from God that will stand the test of time.  It is now an eternal principle that the church will follow the will of God and forbid all children of gay couples from being baptized.  I only have one wish.  I wish that the President of the church would also declare this to be a revelation from God.  I wish that every single apostle would declare this a revelation from God.  I wish that there would be complete agreement that this is a revelation from God.  Why is everyone else so shy to step up to the plate on this revelation.  Let's get it out there.  Put it under the signature of the first presidency.  Make it perfectly clear that this policy came from God Himself.  No need to put this all on President Nelson.  If he is indeed speaking in his capacity as president of the Quorum of the Twelve, then let's make it perfectly clear that every other apostle is behind him 100 percent.  Declare to all the world that no gay married children of God will ever hold the priesthood until all the straight sons of Able have that opportunity.  Because the truthfulness of this policy all rests on whether this was indeed a revelation from God.

And why do I sincerely wish this would happen?  Because this is not my first trip to the Mormon rodeo.  In 10 years or 20 years or 50 years if this policy is reversed, I don't want to hear members of the church saying that Elder Nelson was speaking from personal opinion.  I don't want to hear that the 12 never claimed it to be a revelation.  I don't want to hear that Elder Nelson was just fallible man and that obviously he was the only one present when this policy was instituted that thought it was a revelation from God.  I don't want to hear that Elder Nelson doesn't speak for the prophet or that he was only speaking for himself or that he went rouge, or that it was never officially called a revelation.  This strategy happens way too often when the church reverses revelation.