Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let me tell you, Spencer, about my experience with this policy.

I had a gay uncle. I have brothers who have been in same sex relationships. I have a gay child.

My parents have decided to become inactive because of this policy. Several of my siblings have left the Church. And my wife told me that she no longer considers herself a Mormon. All because of this specific policy.

I think you have no place to lecture about others about how this policy has affected them. You have no clue how much pain this policy change caused for many members of the Church. You want to minimize anything that reflects negatively on the Church. Well, in my personal life, that isn't really possible in this situation.

In comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy, the policy at its core still embraces the idea that same-sex attraction is largely a matter of choice (as polygamy is). That it was implemented when Russell M. Nelson became president of the Q12 doesn't seem to me to be a coincidence. In a few years, when certain of the senior apostles have passed (and old age is something we do not recover from) and the historical animus towards those who experience same-sex attraction will diminish in the leading quorums of the Church, then the approach that the Church takes will shift again (much as happened historically with the question of blacks and the priesthood). I am absolutely certain of this.

I am largely unaffected by this since none of my close family is gay. But I know you and these stories should never be overlooked or dismissed. They should be front and center. I cannot support this policy. I had to live through a nonsensical priesthood ban that by the end of it, I was ashamed. I'm not going to sit silently through another situation that targets any other group.  That doesn't mean I don't think marriage between a man and a woman is best practice (but not for obvious reasons.) 

I'm so pained by your experience and so inspired by your choice to remain. I too am certain this policy will change if for no other reason than Mormons will no longer be welcomed in the national political arena without being required to renounce the policy if not the church. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

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.  

But in this case, local leaders have no say in whether a child can be baptized if the parents are gay or polygamists. The church doesn't have a blanket policy for "uninvolved" parents, and it sounds like you think they shouldn't. I agree.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, juliann said:

I am largely unaffected by this since none of my close family is gay. But I know you and these stories should never be overlooked or dismissed. They should be front and center. I cannot support this policy. I had to live through a nonsensical priesthood ban that by the end of it, I was ashamed. I'm not going to sit silently through another situation that targets any other group.  That doesn't mean I don't think marriage between a man and a woman is best practice (but not for obvious reasons.) 

I'm so pained by your experience and so inspired by your choice to remain. I too am certain this policy will change if for no other reason than Mormons will no longer be welcomed in the national political arena without being required to renounce the policy if not the church. 

This by 10 times.

It may sound strange, but I also find the choice to remain inspiring. My family member expressed deep pain and hurt over the policy, but he too is determined to stay and keep his covenants. It just gets so tiring hearing that the only people who are troubled by this policy are bitter apostates with an axe to grind (well, I suppose if the shoe fits). That certainly doesn't describe you or Ben or my family member.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

Really? People who couldn't care less are routinely baptized? Hmmm. I haven't seen that at all.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But in this case, local leaders have no say in whether a child can be baptized if the parents are gay or polygamists. The church doesn't have a blanket policy for "uninvolved" parents, and it sounds like you think they shouldn't. I agree.

From what i understand, church leaders can get permission for children of SSM to be baptized.  They just have to go through the first presidency.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

From what i understand, church leaders can get permission for children of SSM to be baptized.  They just have to go through the first presidency.

In the handbook, it says children of polygamists can be baptized upon approval from the First Presidency. There is no such written policy regarding children of same-sex marriages. If that has changed, I am happy to stand corrected.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I explained this (I won't post the links again LOL) , but if you don't see the distinction and how it ties to D&C 83:4 that is fine with me.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Really? People who couldn't care less are routinely baptized? Hmmm. I haven't seen that at all.

I didn't say 'routinely', but you've really never known a child or adult who the only reason they got baptized was because people they loved and cared about or respected (boyfriends/girlfriends/friends/spouses/parents/missionaries, etc.) wanted them to but they didn't really have a testimony or feel strongly either way?  

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

Is your wife a believer?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In the handbook, it says children of polygamists can be baptized upon approval from the First Presidency. There is no such written policy regarding children of same-sex marriages. If that has changed, I am happy to stand corrected.

I can only speak anecdotally, but i've heard of it happening.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But in this case, local leaders have no say in whether a child can be baptized if the parents are gay or polygamists.

Yes, they do.  The appeal to the First Pres. comes through them.  They may not have final say, but they have a chance to veto or support and my understanding is with dealings, attention is paid to their input so I see no reason why it would be disregarded in these cases.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can only speak anecdotally, but i've heard of it happening.

Yes, me too and I can see it happening anyway.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I didn't say 'routinely', but you've really never known a child or adult who the only reason they got baptized was because people they loved and cared about or respected (boyfriends/girlfriends/friends/spouses/parents/missionaries, etc.) wanted them to but they didn't really have a testimony or feel strongly either way?  

In my mission, a lot of missionaries baptized people I would consider to be completely unprepared, but I don't remember anyone getting baptized who didn't care either way. But this just goes back to my point: it should be up to the person being baptized, the parents, and local leaders to determine if someone is ready for baptism. Of course, I don't have any "standing" to enforce my opinion. I just find the current policy to exacerbate the problems it is supposed to prevent. It doesn't mean the brethren are evil or hate gay people; it just is a bad policy, IMO. I'm the one who will have to answer for my conscience and conclusions.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is your wife a believer?

Yes. Would my kids be ineligible for baptism if she weren't?

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can only speak anecdotally, but i've heard of it happening.

That's good. I hope that is true.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

I mentioned Greg Prince's speech and the Bryce Cook essay, those are probably the most relevant as they are recent, but I would also suggest the Petrey essay.  The Prince speech is linked in this OP of this thread.  The Bryce Cook essay is found at his website, and I'm sure you've read it before, it was also published in Dialogue.  Google Mormon LGBT Questions.  I'm not going to do the hard work for you, if you want to understand the perspective of those you disagree with, you'll have to invest the time and energy to do it.   I've answered your CFR. 

It sounds like you just want to hear yourself argue a specific point from a very narrow criteria.  I'm not interested in proving to you that the arguments of many that are very reasonable and dispassionate, meet your personal standards (this isn't some legal semantics game).  They obviously don't, but thankfully your standard isn't the bar that people need to meet to have intelligent discussions on this issue.  

Banned from the thread for failure to answer a CFR after being warned. ~mods

[Gray]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the better corollary has been how the Church has waited until "senior apostles have passed" and historical animus has diminished as toward polygamy.  Did the Church "shift" in its position on polygamy after its practitioners (and/or their immediate descendants) passed on?  Nope.  The Church had a clear, revelatory mandate about polygamy, and has continued to prohibit the practice in accordance with that mandate.

The policy has already changed considerably from the first version that leaked to the press, to the toned down interpretation that was offered weeks later. The first version was much harsher, if you recall.

 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In the handbook, it says children of polygamists can be baptized upon approval from the First Presidency. There is no such written policy regarding children of same-sex marriages. If that has changed, I am happy to stand corrected.

There is at least one other exception that is known to occur that is not mentioned in the handbook and that is a woman being sealed a second time while living without a cancellation.

The handbook or at least the documentation that went along with the intro states that any questions of local leaders can be directed towards FirstPres. iirc.  That would seem to me to include questions about possible exceptions, meaning they are open to them.

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which rather demonstrates the problem.  You are operating from a position governed by your circumstances, by people you know and love.  By your emotional investment in those people.  I understand that.  I respect it.  But it's not the correct position to take.

I have a friend who is presently in prison for some serious crimes he committed.  I have witnessed first-hand for years the significant burden his incarceration has had on his wife and children.  By the reckoning of some, my position should be "We need to decriminalize ______________ because the consequences of those guilty of that crime can affect his family members."  But removing the penalty for the crime would create other problems.  And removing the penalty of the crime because it adversely affects others is not a proposition borne of the law, or reason, or common sense.  It's a call for action based purely on the emotional stance of some of those personally involved.  That's no way to run a society.

I have a family member who is presently living with his girlfriend.  I love this family member dearly, but I cannot take use his situation as a basis from to declare that we need to revise the Law of Chastity.  Rather, the Law of Chastity should govern revisions as to my family member's choices.  Now, it so happens that he grew up in the Church.  He knows that its teachings are.  And I am not his father, so he is not within my specific sphere of stewardship.  So I have focused on loving and supporting him in all possible ways.  But those ways do not include demands that the Church alter its teachings about the Law of Chastity.

Yes, that is a common thing.  But these are emotional arguments, not reasoned or doctrinal ones.  

I completely agree.  It's all about emotional investment.  Not reason ('cuz otherwise there would not be such a gaping disparity in the reactions to the two policies).  Not morality (again, 'cuz otherwise there would not be such a gaping disparity in the reactions to the two policies).  Not doctrine.  Emotion.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe that if dispasioned logical appeals were the basis for our beliefs, most of us would not be Mormons.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

The policy has already changed considerably from the first version that leaked to the press, to the toned down interpretation that was offered weeks later. The first version was much harsher, if you recall.

 

Interpretation...they didn't provide specifics so some read it as broader, others like myself did not and always assumed custody/living with by gay parents was required.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I believe that if dispasioned logical appeals were the basis for our beliefs, most of us would not be Mormons.

But surely "dispassionate reasoning" and analysis should play some part in our lives?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes. Would my kids be ineligible for baptism if she weren't?

Having one parent as a believer significantly raises the likelihood of support at home  follow through on covenants made, which was in part what was being discussed iirc, but I may have misinterpreted CV's comments.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I mentioned Greg Prince's speech and the Bryce Cook essay, those are probably the most relevant as they are recent, but I would also suggest the Petrey essay.  The Prince speech is linked in this OP of this thread.  The Bryce Cook essay is found at his website, and I'm sure you've read it before, it was also published in Dialogue.  Google Mormon LGBT Questions.  I'm not going to do the hard work for you, if you want to understand the perspective of those you disagree with, you'll have to invest the time and energy to do it.   I've answered your CFR. 

It sounds like you just want to hear yourself argue a specific point from a very narrow criteria.  I'm not interested in proving to you that the arguments of many that are very reasonable and dispassionate, meet your personal standards (this isn't some legal semantics game).  They obviously don't, but thankfully your standard isn't the bar that people need to meet to have intelligent discussions on this issue.  

Oh, if only you knew me...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Interpretation...they didn't provide specifics so some read it as broader, others like myself did not and always assumed custody/living with by gay parents was required.

The interpretation offered later contradicted a close reading of the original policy on several points (IIRC). I don't know if the new version ever made it into the handbook, though. Anyone know?

Edited October 25, 2017 by Gray

[Calm]

Just now, Gray said:

The interpretation offered later contradicted a close reading of the original policy on several points.

In your opinion perhaps, not in mine.