Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you have authority to speak for the church on this issue?  I disagree.  

There is no authority needed to acknowledge the existence of the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

And a child whose parents refuse to give permission has to wait as well.

Do you believe the Church should ignore parental wishes and be solely concerned in giving the child access to saving ordinances in the timeline that they want without regard to the family circumstances at all?

Where is that coming from? I'm saying the church shouldn't ignore parental wishes. If the parents want the child to be baptized, the church should respect that.

I am not agitating for the church to do anything, just stating what I think is right.

Edited October 25, 2017 by jkwilliams

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Where is that coming from? I'm saying the church shouldn't ignore parental wishes. If the parents want the child to be baptized, the church should respect that.

I don't understand the inconsistency.  If the consequences of denying a child baptism until they are an adult are so significant that the parents' own behaviour and beliefs (apostasy) should be ignored, then why shouldn't parental wishes be ignored in order to save the child from the same consequences and therefore give the child the saving ordinance whether or not parents approve?

If the most important thing is to ensure a child has the saving ordinance, why not just give it to any child that asks for it?

If it is acceptable for the child to be required to wait when the parents have concerns about membership, why isn't it acceptable for the child to wait when the Church has concerns about membership?

Edited October 25, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps.  The Church has never claimed that the members would never face such tests of faith.  To the contrary, there seem to be ample warnings that tests of faith are exactly what we should expect.

The odd thing about an event like this is that both sides can interpret this as a test of faith.  I believe this is a test of faith for the orthodox, and I believe those defending the policy are failing the test.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no authority needed to acknowledge the existence of the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Funny then how two people can interpret the teachings so differently.  

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

And a child whose parents refuse to give permission has to wait as well.

Do you believe the Church should ignore parental wishes and be solely concerned in giving the child access to saving ordinances in the timeline that they want without regard to the family circumstances at all?

The difference here is that this policy applies to instances in which the child wants to be baptized and the parents are agreeable to the baptism. So in this case the church is refusing a saving ordinance despite the wishes of the child and the parent.

All I can say is that the church better be right about this because if they aren't, they are denying saving ordinances, to those who desire them, and do so in the name of God.

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Greg Prince and others have talked about this based on inside sources ...

As between Greg Prince and his anonymous "inside sources" and the public statement by Pres. Nelson, I'll go with the latter.

Meanwhile, I reiterate my CFR.  You said: "There are plenty of arguments critiquing this policy already that I believe more than qualify as dispassionate and reasoned..."

Let's see 'em, please.

Quote

and what they've said happened, but because this happens behind closed doors we can only speculate about those that were concerned about the policy. 

I agree.  "We can only speculate."

As to the balance of the equation, however, we can go with Pres. Nelson's remarks.

Quote

I predict it will be changed in the near future. 

An untestable guess.

I predict the policy change will remain, much like the Church's policy as to children in polygamous households.

Quote

And its not the critics that are causing the problem,

Yes, it is the critics.  Mostly.  Overwhelmingly.

Again, nobody is carping about the Church's policy as to children in polygamous households.

Quote

its the church's inability to address the issues that society is dealing with in a measured and thoughtful way. 

Okay, I'll bite.  How would you have dealt with these issues?

Quote

The SCOTUS eventually got things right, most developed countries are getting this issue correct as well. 

Secular courts do not profess to be guided by revelation from God.

Secular laws arise from the will of the people.  Revelatory laws (and policies) in the Church arise from . . . someplace else.

Quote

The church is unfortunately behind the times and its not only embarrassing, it is doing real harm to real people.  

Right.  The World is doing just a bang-up job at promulgating systems of sexual morality and ethics, and marriage.

Quote

I'm wondering if you were old enough to be witnessing the events that unfolded from 1950s - 1970s (I'm not that old) in society and the church that led up to the 1978 change for blacks and the priesthood/temple. 

No, I was not old enough.

Quote

If you were old enough to be viewing those events, were you in lock step with the Petersons, McKonkies of the leadership, or did you have the discernment to recognize that their speculative statements would end up being disavowed at some future time?  

My parents have repeatedly told me that they understood that the priesthood ban would end eventually, but that it would need to happen through revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

All I can say is that the church better be right about this because if they aren't, they are denying saving ordinances, to those who desire them, and do so in the name of God.

How is this different than all the myriad of situations where baptism requests are turned down until after some requirement I'd fulfilled?

Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they are ready to commit to what is required to make use of that something.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

I don't understand the inconsistency.  If the consequences of denying a child baptism until they are an adult are so significant that the parents' own behaviour and beliefs (apostasy) should be ignored, then why shouldn't parental wishes be ignored in order to save the child from the same consequences?

I'm saying consent is the important thing. Until this policy, I'd never heard of a church leader denying baptism to a child when consent from both parents is granted, no matter what the parents do or believe. As I said, I think the families should decide what is best for the children, so long as the child is willing to enter into the baptismal covenant.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

...pot meet kettle. If we wanted to analyze your own positions, I would wager quite heavily that everything you've asserted on this and other threads is logically fallacious.

Feel free to so analyze.  I'm open to correction.

I'm not sure you're correct, tho.

19 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Reasoning, "impassioned" or not, is relative to framework of beliefs and assumptions that likely can't be justified by anything other than the notion that it makes sense to the person. Soliciting "impassioned reasoning" is nonsense. 

Actually, I've been soliciting dispassionate reasoning.  And no, it's not "nonsense."  Lawyers do it all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

How is this different than all the myriad of situations where baptism requests are turned down until after some requirement I'd fulfilled?

For one thing, the baptismal candidate is the one who has to fulfill the requirement. The policy shifts the requirements to the parents.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Thank you. I have not asked you to agree with me over the brethren, and your sticking with the brethren on this doesn't make you unpopular with me or make me feel any acrimony. My frustration has only been that you have, for whatever reason, decided to put the worst possible spin on everything I've said, to the point that I don't recognize my position in your reactions. I appreciate the apology and likewise apologize for contributing to the acrimony in any way.

Thank you.  I hope we can part ways as friends.

Sincerely,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Calm said:

How is this different than all the myriad of situations where baptism requests are turned down until after some requirement I'd fulfilled?

Maybe it's not.

But if the requirement prior to baptism has something to do with worthiness, at least the requirement would be consistent with church and scriptural teachings. But if the church makes up it's own requirements, then I think the leaders will answer to God for that.

[Hestia]

Book titles, articles, authors, etc. do not suffice when given a CFR.  Either back up the assertion with quotes that support it or retract it.

Hope_for_things, today this means you.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Thank you.  I hope we can part ways as friends.

Sincerely,

-Smac

No need to part ways.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The odd thing about an event like this is that both sides can interpret this as a test of faith. 

And yet only one side is saying "Hey, this is a hard thing.  But let's exercise faith and go with the Lord's prophets and apostles on this."

The other side is saying . . . well, something quite different.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe this is a test of faith for the orthodox,

A test of faith being administered by whom?

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

and I believe those defending the policy are failing the test.  

So listening to prophets and apostles = "failing the test {of faith}"?

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, I suppose.  But this one doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

For one thing, the baptismal candidate is the one who has to fulfill the requirement. The policy shifts the requirements to the parents.

I think rather, the policy recognizes the proper responsibility of parents.

This is key because the Church holds that “All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age,” and there is obviously a spiritual component to that (otherwise we wouldn’t have the concept of “born in the covenant”). The children are reliant upon their parents and the Church cannot interfere with that, especially where there is an “anti-covenant” relationship with the parents. She can help when invited, but that cannot happen when invited by apostates. I think that is one of the foundation principles for Elder Christofferson’s explanations, and I think it presumptuous that an apostate would substitute a covenant relationship with the Church with a merely social, cultural or traditional one, especially when they can obtain non-covenant spiritual involvement with a number of other faith communities (granted, not all). It can even be had with the Church as a non-member friend or visitor.

So I think at its core, the policy embraces the idea that an apostate by definition cannot have a covenant relationship with the Church, either for himself or for his children who have claim upon him for his maintenance.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm saying consent is the important thing. Until this policy, I'd never heard of a church leader denying baptism to a child when consent from both parents is granted, no matter what the parents do or believe. As I said, I think the families should decide what is best for the children, so long as the child is willing to enter into the baptismal covenant.

I don't understand why only parents and child should have a say in this covenantal/contractual agreement.  By allowing the child to receive baptism, the Church is committing to provide attention and resources...it is in essence a contract with God, the individual, the family, and the Church.

The Church needs to have input into a situation where they will be expected to perform, but may be hamstrung in that performance by the lack of commitment of the individual or family involved (both for children and adults).

If a parent and 16 year old child went to a car dealership and the parents told the dealer they were fully committed to allowing their child to own a car and the child expressed a fervent desire to own a car, is that the only information that should be considered by the dealership in judging whether or not to turn a car over?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

I think rather, the policy recognizes the proper responsibility of parents.

This is key because the Church holds that “All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age,” and there is obviously a spiritual component to that (otherwise we wouldn’t have the concept of “born in the covenant”). The children are reliant upon their parents and the Church cannot interfere with that, especially where there is an “anti-covenant” relationship with the parents. She can help when invited, but that cannot happen when invited by apostates. I think that is one of the foundation principles for Elder Christofferson’s explanations, and I think it presumptuous that an apostate would substitute a covenant relationship with the Church with a merely social, cultural or traditional one, especially when they can obtain non-covenant spiritual involvement with a number of other faith communities (granted, not all). It can even be had with the Church as a non-member friend or visitor.

So I think at its core, the policy embraces the idea that an apostate by definition cannot have a covenant relationship with the Church, either for himself or for his children who have claim upon him for his maintenance.

If that were true, the policy would apply to all apostates, not just some.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

For one thing, the baptismal candidate is the one who has to fulfill the requirement. The policy shifts the requirements to the parents.

Which is pretty much what happens in every child baptism.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Funny then how two people can interpret the teachings so differently.  

Indeed.  Hence the value of having continuing guidance from . . . prophets, seers and revelators.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[Brother Bear]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Feel free to so analyze.  I'm open to correction.

I'm not sure you're correct, tho.

Actually, I've been soliciting dispassionate reasoning.  And no, it's not "nonsense."  Lawyers do it all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let me backtrack a step and ask you to define "dispassionate reasoning" and perhaps give an example of an argument that is "reasonable" and free of passion. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Which is pretty much what happens in every child baptism.

What?

I don't think so. Are you suggesting that a child's worthiness for baptism is always determined based on the worthiness of the parent? You can't be suggesting that, can you?

 

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was going after anyone's motivations. I just find the spin placed on what I say is usually unrecognizable to me. I don't get it.

I’m not saying you have been going after intentions.  Smac has.  Should have been more clear

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

I don't understand why only parents and child should have a say in this covenantal/contractual agreement.  By allowing the child to receive baptism, the Church is committing to provide attention and resources...it is in essence a contract with God, the individual, the family, and the Church.

The Church needs to have input into a situation where they will be expected to perform, but may be hamstrung in that performance by the lack of commitment of the individual or family involved (both for children and adults).

If a parent and 16 year old child went to a car dealership and the parents told the dealer they were fully committed to allowing their child to own a car and the child expressed a fervent desire to own a car, is that the only information that should be considered by the dealership in judging whether or not to turn a car over?

I've always thought the covenant was with God. The requirements for baptism are spelled out in the scriptures, and they basically come down to desire to be baptized and willingness to live in the covenant. Of course the church has input, hence the baptismal interview, completion of missionary discussion, and so on. Does having gay parents mean a child is unlikely to keep their baptismal covenants? I haven't seen any data to support that idea. Are gay parents more likely to withdraw support for their child's choice to join the church than are other non-member or apostate parents? Again, there's no evidence of that, either. For me, a person's desire to make and keep covenants trumps speculation about the odds they'll stay committed to the church.

I respect that you are good with the policy. I am not trying to change your mind.