Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[jkwilliams]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know how to link to specific posts, but he is quoting jkwilliams. Go back one screen before this, and you will see.

Edited to add:

jkwilliams had said in a post:

It was that post to which smac97 was responding.

If you go back, you’ll find he was responding to Bobbieaware. I’m not sure how it can be attributed to me. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Nope.  ALarsen is correct.  No one said "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots".  JkWilliams said no one said that and then Smac said people are saying that. 

Quoth Brother Bear: "To me the policy, combined with the redefining of same-sex as apostasy, is the church's way of giving the middle finger to the gay community."

I could, upon request, provide a very lengthy list of similarly horrible characterizations of the Church.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This often happens on this topic, the defense tends to hyperventilate and argue against that which is not being said. 

Except that Brother Bear . . . just said it.  He resorted to the sort of overheated and vicious rhetoric which I have found to be, and described as, "problematic."

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There is rarely if ever an attempt by the defense to address this topic in a dispassionate and reasonable way. 

Quite so.  The problem, though, is that virtually all of the overheated rhetoric is coming from folks who dislike the policy.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But it was odd when smac was saying the opposite while tending to try and tell everyone what their intentions were, in a passionate and unreasonable way. 

I wasn't presuming to dictate intentions.  I was paraphrasing vitriolic statements I have seen published to the world.  Many times over.  During the last two years.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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. 

You are correct that it is not a problem for you as you no longer profess to believe in the truth claims of the church. However the angst among some members of the church is of their own making. I understand the emotional reactions of some who have loved ones who may be caught in this situation, but they are missing the point of the policy. No child that is caught in that situation will be harmed by the policy. If anything happens to them between the age of eight and eighteen the problem would be upon the heads of the parents who are tasked with the duty to teach their children correct principles.

Glenn

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the difficulty in these discussions is introducing things that aren't being said

But the horrible, overwrought rhetoric is being said.  That's my problem with it.  See, e.g., Brother Bear's recent remark: "To me the policy, combined with the redefining of same-sex as apostasy, is the church's way of giving the middle finger to the gay community."

Let's take a looksee at the Wikipidia article about what Brother Bear is referencing here:

Quote

In Western culture, the finger or the middle finger (as in giving someone the (middle) finger or the bird^[1] or flipping someone off^[1]) is an obscene hand gesture. The gesture communicates moderate to extreme contempt, and is roughly equivalent in meaning to "f**k off," "**** you," "shove it up your a**," "up yours," or "go f**k yourself." It is performed by showing the back of a hand that has only the middle fingerextended upwards, though in some locales, the thumb is extended. Extending the finger is considered a symbol of contempt in several cultures, especially in the West. Many cultures use similar gestures to display their disrespect, although others use it to express pointing without intentional disrespect toward other cultures. The gesture is usually used to express contempt but can also be used humorously or playfully.

The gesture dates back to Ancient Greece and it was also used in Ancient Rome. Historically, it represented the phallus. In some modern cultures, it has gained increasing recognition as a sign of disrespect, and has been used by music artists (notably more common among hardcore punk bands and rappers), actors, celebrities, athletes, and politicians. Most still view the gesture as obscene. The index finger and ring fingerbesides the middle finger in more contemporary periods has been likened to represent the testicles.

Brother Bear has just now publicly accused the Church (or, more to the point, he has accused men whom many people on this board honor and sustain and apostles of Jesus Christ) of using this incredibly profane and obscene and hateful and disresepectful and vulgar and contemptuous gesture (metaphorically, though certainly no less offensively) against the entirety of "the gay community."  That is, against every single gay person alive.  

Can you see, perhaps, why I find such rhetoric problematic?

Quote

and presenting a defense or argument against that, particularly when the foreign comments put in quotations marks as if someone is saying it are words describing emotion (in essence it is throwing out a dispassionate and reasonable discourse and introducing an unfriendly emotional lashing out). 

You raise a very valid point.  I stand corrected.  Thank you.

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Nope.  ALarsen is correct.  No one said "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots".  JkWilliams said no one said that and then Smac said people are saying that.  This often happens on this topic, the defense tends to hyperventilate and argue against that which is not being said.  There is rarely if ever an attempt by the defense to address this topic in a dispassionate and reasonable way.  But it was odd when smac was saying the opposite while tending to try and tell everyone what their intentions were, in a passionate and unreasonable way. 

 

smac is not hyperventilating in this case. He is summarizing the vitriol and hostility that has come from those opposing the policy, and he has offered to track down examples from a widespread field.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, that's what we've been discussing for 21 pages now.  My opinion is based on the plausibility of the reasoning and explanation proffered by the Brethren (particularly by Elder Christofferson and Pres Nelson), in particular the unanimous sustaining vote from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. 

And by the glaringly obvious efforts to sidestep or twist or ignore or outright reject the remarks of Elder Christofferson and Pres Nelson. 

And by the general failure to to meaningfully engage these remarks and give them a fair shake. 

And by the ongoing faith I have that the Lord is leading this Church, and that the efforts described by Pres. Nelson to reach a decision about the policy are designed to facilitate decisionmaking borne of revelation rather than personal preferences.  

And by my scrutiny of the ramifications of the policy, both actual (as applied) and theoretical (what would have happened had it not been implemented). 

And by the "track record" of the Church's corollary policy pertaining to children from polygamous families. 

And by the relative lack of sufficiently persuasive critical arguments against the policy. 

And by the general lack of probative value I find in opposition to the policy that is based on raw, negative emotions and/or anecdotal experiences and/or "I oppose the policy because it has been adversely affected someone I care about"-style complaints (as I have noted, I have a friend whose violation of a criminal law and subsequent incarceration has created substantial hardship for his wife and children.  But I don't think the remedy is to decriminalize his conduct or refuse to enforce a necessary and important law.).  And by the seeming overabundance of these sorts of arguments.

I could go on, but that's probably good for now.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, it's your "opinion" or "feelings" regarding what has taken place since the policy was leaked?  You have no actual examples of how this policy has had a positive effect in any member's life?  You stated that "the wisdom of the policy seems to be getting more apparent as time goes on".  What has taken place recently to make you feel this way ?

Why is it that you think your own feelings trump other's here on this topic?  Many actually do have examples of how this policy has caused pain and had a negative effect in their lives.  They've posted about them here.  Why discount these?

I would imagine that members had the same faith in the statements made by leaders back when they taught that gays could be cured or should fix their homosexuality by marrying the same sex.  Those have been proven to me incorrect and are no longer taught.  What makes you think the same couldn't happen regarding this policy?

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

smac is not hyperventilating in this case. He is summarizing the vitriol and hostility that has come from those opposing the policy, and he has offered to track down examples from a widespread field.

But cannot quote anyone who has expressed what he's accused others of doing here.  He could only quote someone who was stating the opposite.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see that this fairly characterizes smac97's position.

What is the basis of your assumption that he does not have their support? Why do you insinuate dishonesty on his part?

 

All I have observed of the Brethren as pertaining to this policy is that they are at peace with it and the understanding that it has divine approbation. What indication do you have that they are not?

And apart from the faultfinding emanating from a very noisy and vitriolic faction, I don't concede that the policy is "ripping up the Church" from within. The situation strikes me as steady-as-she-goes with regard to the work of the Church in the fulfillment of its mission. To invoke the words of Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "the caravan moves on."

As for the social media on the outside, the Church of Jesus Christ has always had its vocal opponents and antagonists and I suppose it always will up until the day when He whose right it is to rule returns to the earth in glory.

 

We’ve had long-time posters who are faithful LDS recount how this has torn their families apart and caused tremendous pain. Are you really suggesting they are noisy and vitriolic faultfinders?

I will never understand why some people equate disagreement with church policy to murmuring and nascent apostasy. Maybe it’s that my father taught us it was okay, even good, to question church leaders because, unlike God, they are fallible humans. 

Edited October 27, 2017 by jkwilliams

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quoth Brother Bear: "To me the policy, combined with the redefining of same-sex as apostasy, is the church's way of giving the middle finger to the gay community."

I could, upon request, provide a very lengthy list of similarly horrible characterizations of the Church.

Except that Brother Bear . . . just said it.  He resorted to the sort of overheated and vicious rhetoric which I have found to be, and described as, "problematic."

Quite so.  The problem, though, is that virtually all of the overheated rhetoric is coming from folks who dislike the policy.

I wasn't presuming to dictate intentions.  I was paraphrasing vitriolic statements I have seen published to the world.  Many times over.  During the last two years.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you saying you quoted Brother bear when you put that phrase in quotation marks suggesting people are saying it?  If so, cool.  If not, then I don't know what you are saying.  Because another poster said something that introduced such language I don't know that it's a good practice to bring it up in a less emotional discussion with another suggesting people are saying something. 

But do as you wish, I suppose. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If you go back, you’ll find he was responding to Bobbieaware. I’m not sure how it can be attributed to me. 

Didn't you make this remark?

Quote

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

I was saying that smac was referencing your words when responding to you.

 

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Leaving the decision to baptize a child up to the family means the church is not inserting itself into matters of custody and child-rearing. Responsibility for how a child is raised and by whom would be left with the parents, as it should be. This isn't a difficult concept. And it's annoying that you suggest that critics like me would be finding fault with the church "either way." If it's too much to expect for you to acknowledge that opposing conclusions are considered and reasonable and not motivated by a desire to criticize the church either way, I can't see how discussion is possible.

I stand by what I said about your attempts to shut down discussion. Your post explicitly suggested that reasoned discourse was coming from one side, and it was prevailing against the false accusations and bitterness of the other side. If that hadn't been enough, you suggested a couple of straw men as anticipated responses from the irrational side of things. 

I'm not wearing this shoe, as it were. I'm just trying to have a discussion, and you seem intent on attributing the worst to the other side. If anything, your spinning reasoned disagreement as overt hostility undermines your own arguments, as they can likewise be dismissed as reflexive defense of the church, "either way."

Quote

Leaving the decision to baptize a child up to the family means the church is not inserting itself into matters of custody and child-rearing.

Ultimately, it is the Church which dictates conditions for membership.  To criticize the Church for excluding certain children from baptism (why eight? why not seven?), including children in polygamous and married-gay households is to infringe directly upon a plain prerogative that is the Church's only.  Why not condemn the Jews for circumcision?  Why not tell the Jews that circumcision should not be performed until the person is old enough to consent?  Why not condemn the Seventh Day Adventists for vegetarianism?  Why, really, do you waste your time on a topic that is the Church's decision alone, no matter how arbitrary.  

Quote

And it's annoying that you suggest that critics like me would be finding fault with the church "either way."

I think that it is fairly easy to see that you take a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" view of the Church.  I mean, you have said plenty of time that you're not a believer.  Has that changed?  Why would you or any other non-believer give a hoot about baptismal requirements for children?  I know a lot of people seemed to be annoyed with that position, but where were they when this policy was announced in the 1920s for the children of polygamous households.  The Church has lots of experience with dealing with the children of parents who have directly challenged the Church on its marriage policies.  The Church doesn't care if two gays are raising children and the children want to be baptized.  The Church cares if two gays get married -- that is a direct affront, like a polygamous marriage, to one of the Church's most sacred rites.  

Quote

I'm not wearing this shoe, as it were. I'm just trying to have a discussion, and you seem intent on attributing the worst to the other side. If anything, your spinning reasoned disagreement as overt hostility undermines your own arguments, as they can likewise be dismissed as reflexive defense of the church, "either way."

You have a passive aggressive style of discussion, it seems to me.  "I'm a high priest in good standing" is a good start for that.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

smac is not hyperventilating in this case. He is summarizing the vitriol and hostility that has come from those opposing the policy, and he has offered to track down examples from a widespread field.

My problem in this thread started early on.  It was when smac and others tried to tell us other people's intentions.  I'd say the discussion hasn't been very productive since. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But the horrible, overwrought rhetoric is being said.  That's my problem with it.

You raise a very valid point.  I stand corrected.  Thank you.

-Smac

Thanks, Smac.  I know you to be fair and reasonable.  Sorry for getting all upset this morning.  I just want to see this go forward in a productive manner. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

"I'm a high priest in good standing" is a good start for that.

As am I and I agree with jkwilliam's views on this policy (as do other active members here).  This has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a believer or "not a believer".  Last I checked, we are taught that church leaders are not infallible.  Do you believe that doesn't apply to the fact that this policy could have been put in place by men who may be mistaken and that it may not be corrected in the future just as numerous other errors made by past leaders have been corrected?

Edited October 27, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, it's your "opinion" or "feelings" regarding what has taken place since the policy was leaked? 

And prior to.  

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You have no actual examples of how this policy has had a positive effect in any member's life? 

First, I am not sure the policy is intended to have "positive effect{s}."  Rather, I this its purpose is to mitigate harmful effects.

Second, to the extent there are "positive effect{s}," they would often be manifested by what does not happen.  That is, the policy is in place, hence the child in a same-sex parent household is not baptized, hence there is no conflict (or else less conflict is) introduced into the child's life.

Third, I don't think anecdotal experiences are a very useful form of evidence.  That is because an experience that is anecdotal, by definition, is something that is "not necessarily true or reliable, because {it is} based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You stated that "the wisdom of the policy seems to be getting more apparent as time goes on".  What has taken place recently to make you feel this way ?

Asked and answered.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why is it that you think your own feelings trump other's here on this topic? 

I prefer not to answer.  You are trying to personalize this thread, which is not about me.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many actually do have examples of how this policy has caused pain and had a negative effect in their lives. 

I acknowledge that.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They've posted about them here.  Why discount these?

I do not.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I would imagine that members had the same faith in the statements made by leaders back when they taught that gays could be cured or should fix their homosexuality by marrying the same sex.  Those have been proven to me incorrect and are no longer taught.  What makes you think the same couldn't happen regarding this policy?

It's possible, I suppose.  Rather unlikely, I suppose, but theoretically possible, yes.

While we're at it, I'll present a CFR to you as regarding "statements made by leaders back when they taught that gays could be cured or should fix their homosexuality by marrying the same sex."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

What I'm struggling with here is that you seem to suggest that since a child theoretically loses out on nothing in the end the church's actions are justified (it has no blood on its hands). Yet if I do the same thing you claim I do have a problem. Why? 

It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children correct principles and then let them be baptized if they should so desire when they reach the age of accountability. If the parent shirks that responsibility, then the problem is laid on the heads of the parents, not the child. That is what would happen should you do as you suggested. The same situation will exist with SSM parents. I do not envision any such parents teaching their children that the LDS church is true yet in error about SSM and asking that they be baptized. This is an emotional issue more than anything else. I actually regret chiming in on this subject because of that. As one poster has already pointed out, there was already a similar policy in regards to children living in polygamous homes which has not caused nearly the level of rhetoric that this issue has.

Glenn

[Bob Crockett]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My problem in this thread started early on.  It was when smac and others tried to tell us other people's intentions.  I'd say the discussion hasn't been very productive since. 

Weak response.    Trying to understand and restate what somebody else is thinking or intending is commonplace.  It is not a logical fallacy.  

[Bob Crockett]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As am I and I agree with jkwilliam's views on this policy (as do other active members here).  This has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a believer or "not a believer".  Last I checked, we are taught that church leaders are not infallible.  Do you believe that doesn't apply to the fact that this policy could have been put in place by men who may be mistaken and that it may not be corrected in the future just as numerous other errors made by past leaders have been corrected?

it isn't a "mistake" to say that children can't be baptized at seven but can be baptized at eight.   In my stake, it isn't a "mistake" to say that children should be baptized at a stake baptism rather than a private baptism.  

You and others want to attribute mean-spirited mistakes to what is nothing more than a simple administrative policy which is the Church's prerogative alone to set.  The reason, it appears, you do so is to carp.  Right?

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are you saying you quoted Brother bear when you put that phrase in quotation marks suggesting people are saying it?  If so, cool.  If not, then I don't know what you are saying. 

I was paraphrasing remarks similar to Brother Bear's which I have been encountering for the last two years.

Quote

Because another poster said something that introduced such language I don't know that it's a good practice to bring it up in a less emotional discussion with another suggesting people are saying something. 

I was speaking of rhetoric published over the last two years in various venues.  Not just this thread.

Brother Bear just happened to have come along at just the right moment to demonstrate my point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Weak response.    Trying to understand and restate what somebody else is thinking or intending is commonplace.  It is not a logical fallacy.  

I'd agree with your second sentence.  That wasn't the issue I identified early on in this thread.  I think my point/concern still stands.  Since the discussion, in my eyes, got nowhere. 

[stemelbow]

Just now, smac97 said:

I was paraphrasing remarks similar to Brother Bear's which I have been encountering for the last two years.

I was speaking of rhetoric published over the last two years in various venues.  Not just this thread.

Brother Bear just happened to have come along at just the right moment to demonstrate my point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I hiatus-ed (because it was going nowhere it felt like) and then came back and missed some.  But I was surprised to see you bringing it up to JkWilliams.  It didn't seem to fit what he was driving at. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well I hiatus-ed (because it was going nowhere it felt like) and then came back and missed some.  But I was surprised to see you bringing it up to JkWilliams.  It didn't seem to fit what he was driving at. 

Yes, I should have been more clear.  I can see how some of my remarks could be construed as being intended as responsive to him (when I was instead referencing more generalized reactions to and treatments of the policy).

I apologize to you, and to JK, for any confusion I have caused or offense given.

Thank you,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Ultimately, it is the Church which dictates conditions for membership.  To criticize the Church for excluding certain children from baptism (why eight? why not seven?), including children in polygamous and married-gay households is to infringe directly upon a plain prerogative that is the Church's only.  Why not condemn the Jews for circumcision?  Why not tell the Jews that circumcision should not be performed until the person is old enough to consent?  Why not condemn the Seventh Day Adventists for vegetarianism?  Why, really, do you waste your time on a topic that is the Church's decision alone, no matter how arbitrary.  

I think that it is fairly easy to see that you take a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" view of the Church.  I mean, you have said plenty of time that you're not a believer.  Has that changed?  Why would you or any other non-believer give a hoot about baptismal requirements for children?

You have a passive aggressive style of discussion, it seems to me.  "I'm a high priest in good standing" is a good start for that.

 

I’ll try to do better with my posting style. As I said, the only reason I’ve expressed an opinion about the policy is that smac97 repeatedly asked me to do so. Obviously my opinion is mine alone, but I don’t apologize for having an opinion. 

As far as my membership status, what you call passive-aggressive was simply a response to your statement that I have no standing, which is not the case. If you feel I should not be in good standing in the church, feel free to contact my priesthood leaders. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

While we're at it, I'll present a CFR to you as regarding "statements made by leaders back when they taught that gays could be cured or should fix their homosexuality by marrying the same sex."

Here are a few:

Quote

 

"The entrenched homosexual has generally and gradually moved all of his interests and affections to those of his own sex rather than to the opposite sex and herein is another step. When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and gradually move his life toward the normal.  If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong.

Homosexuality CAN be cured."

 

 - Pamphlet published in 1970 by the LDS church for church leaders, entitled Hope For Transgressors

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors

 

Quote

 

'"Homosexuality can be cured if the battle is well organized and pursued vigorously and continuously."

- Dallin H. Oaks, "Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals,"

 

Quote

 

From the Pamphlet for church leaders, entitled Hope For Transgressors (1970) ;

 "In the event that you have members who have homosexual tendencies or activities, it will be your privilege and responsibility to assist them to effect a cure and bring their lives back into total normalcy."

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors

 

Quote

 

The cause of this disorder has remained hidden for so long because we have been looking for it in the wrong place. When the cause is discovered, it may be nothing so mysterious after all. It may be hidden because it is so obvious. Have you explored the possibility that the cause when found, will turn out to be a very typical form of selfishness - selfishness in a very subtle form? Now - and understand this - 1 do not think for a minute that the form of selfishness at the root of perversion is a conscious one, at least not to begin with. I am sure it is quite the opposite. Selfishness can attach itself to an individual without his being aware that he is afflicted with it. It can become imbedded so deeply and disguised so artfully as to be almost indistinguishable. It is hard to believe that any individual would, by a clear, conscious decision or by a pattern of them, choose a course of deviation. It is much more subtle than that. If one could even experiment with the possibility that selfishness of a very subtle nature may be the cause of this disorder, that quickly clarifies many things. It opens the possibility of putting some very sick things in order... When one has the humility to admit that a spiritual disorder is tied to perversion and that selfishness rests at the root of it, already the way is open to the treatment of the condition. It is a painful admission indeed that selfishness may be at the root of it, but we do not have much evidence that one can cure perversion by trying to cure perversion. If unselfishness can effect a cure, we ought to be desperate enough by now at least to experiment with the possibility. I repeat, we have had very little success in trying to remedy perversion by treating perversion. It is very possible to cure it by treating selfishness... you can understand unselfishness and selfishness. You can learn to cure perversion".

Elder Boyd K. Packer, To the One, delivered at 12-stake regional conference March 5, 1978.

 

 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

it isn't a "mistake" to say that children can't be baptized at seven but can be baptized at eight. 

And no one is claiming that it is.