Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, 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?

My husband has been in ward councils where a child of record with extremely uninvolved parents was being prepared for baptism, and the missionaries were gung ho, but the primary president and others expressed concerned about the idea and ultimately it was decided that the child would not be taught for baptism because it would be very difficult for the baptism to benefit the child at that time.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

My husband has been in ward councils where a child of record with extremely uninvolved parents was being prepared for baptism, and the missionaries were gung ho, but the primary president and others expressed concerned about the idea and ultimately it was decided that the child would not be taught for baptism because it would be very difficult for the baptism to benefit the child at that time.

My wife had extremely uninvolved parents, to put it mildly. She was baptized at age 8, went to church alone or with friends, attended BYU-I, served a mission, and married in the temple. Things might have turned out differently had the local leaders decided baptism wouldn't have benefited her at the time.

[Scott Lloyd]

37 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. 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. 

This is a bad rap.

Of all the people who post on this board, Smac97 exhibits far and away the best, most sound, most solid reasoning. I'm grateful to find myself on his side of the argument in virtually all cases. I would hate to have to go up against him.

 

[CV75]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

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

It is true whenever the apostasy is over the marriage covenant (plural marriage, ssm).

But even outside of that, it is still true that by policy, any excommunicated apostate has no recognized covenant relationship with the Church (until they come back); and in principle (a la "amen to the priesthood of that man), no apostate has a covenant anymore, whether formal action has been taken or not.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My husband has been in ward councils where a child of record with extremely uninvolved parents was being prepared for baptism, and the missionaries were gung ho, but the primary president and others expressed concerned about the idea and ultimately it was decided that the child would not be taught for baptism because it would be very difficult for the baptism to benefit the child at that time.

I think this shows how the church sometimes seems to misunderstand the purpose of baptism. It's not a covenant relationship with the church, it's a covenant relationship with God. Any individual who stands between a covenant relationship of an individual with God will have some explaining to do when God asks "Why did you take my name in vain"?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

It is true whenever the apostasy is over the marriage covenant (plural marriage, ssm).

But even outside of that, it is still true that by policy, any excommunicated apostate has no recognized covenant relationship with the Church (until they come back); and in principle (a la "amen to the priesthood of that man), no apostate has a covenant anymore, whether formal action has been taken or not.

Yep, but their kids can have a covenant relationship with the church. Mine certainly do.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this shows how the church sometimes seems to misunderstand the purpose of baptism. It's not a covenant relationship with the church, it's a covenant relationship with God. Any individual who stands between a covenant relationship of an individual with God will have some explaining to do when God asks "Why did you take my name in vain"?

I find it odd that the local leaders wouldn't even allow the child to be taught the gospel. Never heard of anything like that, ever.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this shows how the church sometimes seems to misunderstand the purpose of baptism. It's not a covenant relationship with the church, it's a covenant relationship with God. Any individual who stands between a covenant relationship of an individual with God will have some explaining to do when God asks "Why did you take my name in vain"?

These covenants with God are sustained by common consent of the membership (i.e. when new members are sustained into the ward).

Also: "The duty of the members after they are received by baptism.—The elders or priests are to have a sufficient time to expound all things concerning the church of Christ to their understanding, previous to their partaking of the sacrament and being confirmed by the laying on of the hands of the elders, so that all things may be done in order. And the members shall manifest before the church, and also before the elders, by a godly walk and conversation, that they are worthy of it, that there may be works and faith agreeable to the holy scriptures—walking in holiness before the Lord."

So by covenanting with God and coming into the fold we have a covenant relationship with each other as members, and even toward non-members: "...mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in..."

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, but their kids can have a covenant relationship with the church. Mine certainly do.

Who is "their"?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

Who is "their"?

Apostates.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My wife had extremely uninvolved parents, to put it mildly. She was baptized at age 8, went to church alone or with friends, attended BYU-I, served a mission, and married in the temple. Things might have turned out differently had the local leaders decided baptism wouldn't have benefited her at the time.

While this does occur, the more common case is uninvolved or antagonistic parents leads to noninvolvement.

Many see that as no big deal, there is in their opinion only pluses with baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  When the person is ready, they can pick up where they left off with no consequence save the delay.

However, this seems to go against teachings...that I can't document as I just looked st the time...that committing sins while under covenant has consequences that committing sins without the covenant do not.  It is possible that being baptized and then not following through may result in a more difficult conversion of the heart and soul when one is actually ready for it.  

I can see this as a possibility when I have observe the mocking of members who were baptized because of a parent's temporary interest in the Church, who were slightly exposed and then left. They seem certain they are more than familiar enough with the faith to make a judgment and in most cases I have seen, it is very negative, especially if their parents have been inconsistent or ungrounded in their own spiritual beliefs so the child has little respect for that side of their life.

[CV75]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Apostates.

You've got to admit I explained that already: Posted 24 minutes ago  and Posted 6 minutes ago

[Brother Bear]

23 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 just point out what I'm trying to get at based on this post. You're apparent framework appears to include the assumption that something is reasonable if it is done by lawyers: "it's not nonsense. Lawyers do it all the time." So are you stating that something is reasonable if lawyers do it? Why should we rely on what lawyers do as a justification for what is "reasonable." Are you not appealing to popularity or even authority? 

Just to clarify, I think your own personal experience justifies your beliefs and that's fine. I just don't see the use in demand that others use your same framework for reasoning as if your are objective agent.

[Brother Bear]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a bad rap.

Of all the people who post on this board, Smac97 exhibits far and away the best, most sound, most solid reasoning. I'm grateful to find myself on his side of the argument in virtually all cases. I would hate to have to go up against him.

 

Thanks for the warning, Scott. I think I'll take my chances.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

While this does occur, the more common case is uninvolved or antagonistic parents leads to noninvolvement.

Many see that as no big deal, there is in their opinion only pluses with baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  When the person is ready, they can pick up where they left off with no consequence save the delay.

However, this seems to go against teachings...that I can't document as I just looked st the time...that committing sins while under covenant has consequences that committing sins without the covenant do not.  It is possible that being baptized and then not following through may result in a more difficult conversion of the heart and soul when one is actually ready for it.  

I can see this as a possibility when I have observe the mocking of members who were baptized because of a parent's temporary interest in the Church, who were slightly exposed and then left. They seem certain they are more than familiar enough with the faith to make a judgment and in most cases I have seen, it is very negative, especially if their parents have been inconsistent or ungrounded in their own spiritual beliefs so the child has little respect for that side of their life.

I'm just saying I'm glad there's no blanket policy regarding "uninvolved" parents. If baptism is ever denied, it ought to be a rare exception, not a blanket policy, IMO. But I'm just an embittered apostate.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I was not old enough.

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.

 

I, on the other hand, am old enough to have observed events in the Church from the early 1960s through the 1970s (I was born in the mid-'50s)  and my memory coincides perfectly with what smac97 says his parents told him.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Let me backtrack a step and ask you to define "dispassionate reasoning"

"Dispassionate" = "free from or unaffected by passion; devoid of personal feeling or bias; impartial; calm"

"Reasoning" = "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises"

3 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

and perhaps give an example of an argument that is "reasonable" and free of passion. 

Oh, there are countless examples.

I file an eviction lawsuit in state court.  I present the Court with a copy of the trustee's deed (conveying ownership of the house to my client), and also a copy of the "Notice to Vacate" (a statutory requirement in Utah, see Utah Code Ann. 78B-6-801 et seq.), and an affidavit from the process server who served the Notice to Vacate.  The defendant files an answer.  I file a motion requesting an expedited hearing to determine who is entitled to be in possession of the house (authorized per Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-6-810).  The court schedules an expedited hearing.  I attend the hearing on behalf of my client, and the defendant appears to represent himself.  I recite the elements for an unlawful detainer claim pursuant to Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-6-802.5, which are as follows:

Quote

78B-6-802.5.  Unlawful detainer after foreclosure or forced sale. 
     A previous owner, trustor, or mortgagor of a property is guilty of unlawful detainer if the person:

(1)	defaulted on his or her obligations resulting in disposition of the property by a trustee's sale or sheriff's sale; and

(2)	continues to occupy the property after the trustee's sale or sheriff's sale after being served with a notice to quit by the purchaser.

I explain to the court that a trustee's sale has occurred, as evidenced by the Trustee's Deed, which was attached to the Complaint as an exhibit, and of which the court can take judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.  I also note that the Trustee's Deed is entitled to statutory presumptions in Utah Code Ann. sec. 57-1-28(2)(c) and Utah Code Ann. Sec. 57-4a-4(1)(j), such that the court can immediately conclude, without further inquiry, that my client owns the property.  I also direct the court's attention to the Notice to Vacate and the process server's affidavit, the latter of which creates a prima facie showing that we have complied with the notice requirements of the above statute.  I also note that the Defendant is presently remaining in the property, as evidenced by the fact that . . . he is standing in court intending to argue that he should be entitled to remain in the property (also, he gave the property address as his mailing address when he included it in his answer).  I conclude by arguing to the Court that my client has complied with Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-6-802.5, that this compliance is demonstrated by the exhibits, by the statutory presumptions associated therewith, and by the defendant's answer.

Then the court allows the defendant to state his position.  The defendant admits that a foreclosure sale took place, and that he has received the notice to quit, but that he wants to re-purchase the property from the bank, that the bank "screwed him over" by not giving him a loan modification, and that his children will be upset if they are forced to move out of their home.

The court then rules as it deems appropriate.  

There you go.  Dispassionate reasoning.  I have been through the foregoing scenario, or slight variations thereof, many dozens of times.  I do not resort to emotional arguments, as compared to the defendant, who complains about the bank "screwing him over" and that his children will be upset, both of which are "emotional" arguments.  Instead, I present the facts as best as I understand them, and the applicable law as best as I understand it.

It is manifestly possible to provide "dispassionate reasoning."  The problem here is that the policy changes under discussion are not being discussed fairly or dispassionately.  They are being treated as presumptively bigoted/hateful, as malicious, as morally wrong, as nonsensical, as ill-conceived.  And the character and integrity and competency of the General Authorities who were involved in formulating of the policy change are being impugned. 

These are emotional and a priori conclusions, not reasoned analysis.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

You've got to admit I explained that already: Posted 24 minutes ago  and Posted 6 minutes ago

I don't think you addressed the reasons why a child of an apostate can't or shouldn't have a covenant relationship with God. Perhaps you could clarify. My kids have made their own covenants despite the abject evil that is their old man.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Let me just point out what I'm trying to get at based on this post. You're apparent framework appears to include the assumption that something is reasonable if it is done by lawyers:

Not necessarily.  Reasoned analysis is certainly the objective, and by and large the attorneys I work with do a pretty good job at it.  But there are exceptions.

And even when lawyers succeed at presenting reasoned analysis, that doesn't mean they are correct in that analysis, or that they have taken all appropriate factors into account, that they have interpreted statutory and decisional authorities correctly, and so on.

4 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

"it's not nonsense. Lawyers do it all the time." So are you stating that something is reasonable if lawyers do it?

No.  See above.

4 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Why should we rely on what lawyers do as a justification for what is "reasonable." Are you not appealing to popularity or even authority? 

No, I am not.

4 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Just to clarify, I think your own personal experience justifies your beliefs and that's fine. I just don't see the use in demand that others use your same framework for reasoning as if your are objective agent.

I was providing an example of people who, generally speaking, are called upon to formulate dispassionate, reasoned analyses.  

Scientists can also do this.  And accountants.  And judges.  And military officers.  And on and on and on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I don't think you addressed the reasons why a child of an apostate can't or shouldn't have a covenant relationship with God. Perhaps you could clarify. My kids have made their own covenants despite the abject evil that is their old man.

In light of the topic of the thread, your referencing the policy and my subsequent explanation Posted 6 minutes ago , if you are an excommunicated apostate for ssm or polygamy, your children would not be granted baptism under the terms of the policy (unless an exception was made, which is possible), which is a covenant relationship with God and with the Church under the Church keys. Whatever you or your children propose to covenant with God outside of the Church keys or policy is not what I'm talking about and not what the policy is for.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this shows how the church sometimes seems to misunderstand the purpose of baptism. It's not a covenant relationship with the church, it's a covenant relationship with God. Any individual who stands between a covenant relationship of an individual with God will have some explaining to do when God asks "Why did you take my name in vain"?

I disagree.  Baptism does not exist separate from keeping covenants, for example, one of which is church attendance.

Baptism is about promising God things and the church is the vehicle that helps people keep those promises.  If a child is not going to be able to access the church, and will significantly struggle with keeping those promises himself without that aid, why set him up for failure?  What is the upside of baptizing a child who is personally neutral about it and has no home support?

 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In light of the topic of the thread, your referencing the policy and my subsequent explanation Posted 6 minutes ago , if you are an excommunicated apostate for ssm or polygamy, your children would not be granted baptism under the terms of the policy (unless an exception was made, which is possible), which is a covenant relationship with God and with the Church under the Church keys. Whatever you or your children propose to covenant with God outside of the Church keys or policy is not what I'm talking about and not what the policy is for.

My kids are the children of an apostate. Hasn't stopped them from making and keeping temple covenants. I'm not sure why children of polygamists or same-sex parents are any less able to make and keep covenants.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I disagree.  Baptism does not exist separate from keeping covenants, for example, one of which is church attendance.

Baptism is about promising God things and the church is the vehicle that helps people keep those promises.  If a child is not going to be able to access the church, and will significantly struggle with keeping those promises himself without that aid, why set him up for failure?  What is the upside of baptizing a child who is personally neutral about it and has no home support?

Generally speaking, if a person is "personally neutral" about baptism, they aren't going to pass the baptismal interview, anyway. It's another thing entirely to say such a child isn't even going to be taught. Again, thank heavens my wife's leaders didn't feel that way when they reached out to her about baptism.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My wife had extremely uninvolved parents, to put it mildly. She was baptized at age 8, went to church alone or with friends, attended BYU-I, served a mission, and married in the temple. Things might have turned out differently had the local leaders decided baptism wouldn't have benefited her at the time.

And like Cal said, other children are baptized in those kinds of situations, are never active, and commit serious sins while under covenants they don't understand or even remember making.  

No one is arguing that no children of inactive parents should ever be baptized.  I was addressing Cal's point of why church leaders get a say in who takes upon them the covenants of baptism and how it's not just the children of SSM or polygamist marriages that this happens for.  

 

[bluebell]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Generally speaking, if a person is "personally neutral" about baptism, they aren't going to pass the baptismal interview, anyway. It's another thing entirely to say such a child isn't even going to be taught. Again, thank heavens my wife's leaders didn't feel that way when they reached out to her about baptism.

Not in my experience as a missionary and serving in ward leadership.