Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[Glenn101]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Even leaving God in the equation morality is subjective, from the mortal perspective.  

People who support SSM because they believe that's what God expects of them and people who don't because they believe that's what God expects of them, can both believe they are holding the high moral ground.

Not if one accepts the pronouncements of the apostles.

 

[Glenn101]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

The gay policy breaks down because it hurts children. Good luck finding many who think that a child should be penalized for the sins of the  parents. Not even scripture supports that.

Can you please explain how either policy hurts children?

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I repeat, few Mormons have had to deal with a polygamist policy.

And I repeat: It doesn't matter.  The two policies are nearly identical.  If one is wrong, then so is the other.  So the vast disparity in opposition to these policies, to me, means something.  

Quote

I think it is safe to say that few polygamists are trying to get baptized.

You'd be surprised, actually.

In any event, that doesn't matter, either.  The number of children being directly affected by the new policy is also rather small.

That you are pointing to numbers only reinforces my previous point.  It appears that the current vitriol about the newer policy is more a matter of popularity/unpopularity (where numbers matter) than right/wrong or moral/immoral (where numbers do not matter).

Quote

And for the record, after the Sister Wives' incident, I feel the same way about the polygamist policy.

Okay.

Quote

But there is something else you are not considering, plural marriages are illegal, gay marriages are not.

That doesn't matter, either.  Plural marriages are not recognized in the Church.  Neither are gay marriages.  From the June 2015 message from the First Presidency (and Quorum of the Twelve):

Quote

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Now, as a point of law, the Church recognizes that civil governments may deem them to be valid (polygamous marriages are legal in some places, as are gay marriages).

So yes, I have considered that.  And no, I have not found it be be determinative.

Quote

It is not a parallel situation.

Yes, it is.  Both forms of marriage are not recognized as valid as a matter of Church governance.  Both are forms of apostasy.  Participation in either results in excommunication.

Quote

So I'm calling non sequitur. 

Then you'll need to call it on Elder Christofferson (emphases added)

Quote

Elder Christofferson Says Handbook Changes Regarding Same-Sex Marriages Help Protect Children

...

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.

So yes, it is "a parallel situation."

Quote

I could just as easily say that the any members' furor over defending the gay policy is based only on feelings.

You can say what you like.  I would just hope you could back it up (rather than make a specious claim for the sake of rhetorical advantage).

Quote

Why that is supposed to even matter escapes me since even "reason" boils down to a feeling or everyone would be in lockstep.

I disagree about this all boiling down to "a feeling."  I concede that people can and do confuse and conflate spiritual and emotional experiences.  Pres. Hunter put it this way: "I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself."

This FAIR article also has some useful things to say:

Quote

It is a fundamental misunderstanding or misstatement to say that the LDS revelatory experience is exclusively or primarily “emotional.” The united witness of mind and heart is key in LDS doctrine. Even the body is involved in many instances, hence the use of language exactly like “burning in the bosom.” The LDS concept of human experience is not one where we are carved up into separate, rigid compartments labeled emotional, intellectual, and physical. The LDS approach to human experience is holistic and involves all of our faculties operating simultaneously and inextricably. According to LDS scripture, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man.” D&C 88:15 We are greater than the mere sum of our inner and outer parts. Ordinarily, it’s not possible, nor is it desirable, to reject and shut down any one of our faculties. All of them combine to provide useful and valid ways of coming to know ourselves, the world, and God. All are involved in true spiritual experience.

Accordingly, an LDS “spiritual” experience has intellectual content as well as emotional elements of peace or joy. In the early days of the Church, Oliver Cowdery received the following revelation through Joseph Smith:

Quote

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.

Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? (D&C 6:22–23).

Notice the information is spoken to the “mind,” and the feeling of peace accompanies the intellectual gift. Further, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling” alone but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier.

This matches the revelatory pattern later explained to Cowdery:

Quote

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong… (D&C 9:7–9).

Again, the united witness of intellect and heart are essential. If either does not agree, then revelation has not yet confirmed the matter under consideration. Anyone who relies exclusively on any one faculty – either feeling or reasoning or physical sensation – does not properly understand the LDS approach to spiritual witnesses.

To be sure, many Church members will talk about how they “felt” when they prayed or had other experiences with God. However, it is to fundamentally misunderstand these experiences to assume (as critics often do) that talk of “feeling” means simply—or only, or primarily— experiencing an “emotion.” What's lacking from these descriptions is vocabulary. The problem with them is more semantic than it is substantial. The LDS member is stymied, in a sense, because there is no good, available word for what happens during a spiritual experience. These experiences are ineffable. By definition, they defy description. Since few of us have the poetic and metaphorical powers of prophets like Isaiah and John, we are left to try our best to convey what we've experienced in words laden with secular connotations which critics can misinterpret if they so choose.

This article by Jeff Lindsay also has some good points on this issue.

So with respect, I do not agree that "even 'reason' boils down to a feeling."

Quote

It is the same problem as those who try to present themselves as the unbiased party. It is all very self-serving...and impossible. 

Which is why we need external sources of authority.  Benchmarks.  Reality checks.  In the LDS paradigm, we have scriptures and prophets, seers and revelators.

As to the issue of the policy changes, we have very clear guidance from prophets, seers and revelators.  And yet that guidance is being ignored.  Or glossed over.  Or sidestepped.  Or rejected outright.

Quote

The gay policy breaks down because it hurts children.

The Church's longstanding policy about children from polygamous families can also be subjected to this sort of reductionism.  And yet . . . nobody cares.

Quote

Good luck finding many who think that a child should be penalized for the sins of the  parents.

I don't think that.  The "sins of the parents" will always have consequences, some of which land on the children.

Quote

Not even scripture supports that.

Agreed.  But scripture does point out that a person's sins can have an adverse effect on his family.  See Jacob 2, for example.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

 

 

Simply put, the Church's role is to help parents introduce and reinforce the Gospel in their homes for the benefit of their marriage and children, but she cannot sustain the parents in introducing and reinforcing an antithetical parental and family structure that the children are relying upon for their maintenance. At least with the other apostates and run-of-the-mill sinners, this child maintenance relationship is sufficiently congruent between the Church and the parents, creating room for some kind of relationship, which is still subject to the bishop's recommendation (for example, we have a non-member couple in our ward that is not married but together for 16+ years and have several children aged 6 - 16 who are members of the Church).

I know some might argue that the Church cannot rightly sustain sinful parents in maintaining their children with any kind of sin in the home, but same sex relationships and marriages actually institutionalize the sin and that is where institutions are like oil and water. The differentiation I see is that the Church is in a position to help sinners and repenting apostates raise their children, but cannot help those insistently embroiled in apostate institutions and practices that so clearly undermine the most basic Gospel organization, the family.

I would not be surprised if sometime in the future when living together without marriage to have children becomes the norm, that the Church may move to a greater restriction of baptism for a similar reason.  Currently for families, marriage is still usually considered the ideal and many unmarried couples may perceive themselves as married, just not by the government.  When parents start to standardly teach marriage is not desirable, the Church will likely need to draw another bright line, imo.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, omni said:

Not sure if this was directed at me personally or critics in general, but admittedly I was ignorant of the policy regarding children of polygamous families until the "November Policy" came out, however don't you think "embarrassingly" ignorant is a bit much?  Would you describe a faithful member of your ward as "embarrassingly" ignorant if they too had been unaware of the same policy?

Yes, it was a bit much.  I apologize.

22 minutes ago, omni said:

I've said this before and will say it again, I don't have a problem with the Church requiring minors without active parents to wait until 18 to be baptized. 

I agree.

22 minutes ago, omni said:

In fact, I think as a general rule this would be a good policy to implement. 

I think the Church is being more attentive to this issue.

But that would seem to cut against opposition to the policy under discussion.  If these are matters of discretion, if reasonable minds can disagree, then all the vitriol and "moral indignation" becomes rather less serious.

22 minutes ago, omni said:

While I don't have any stats, I imagine the activity rate for individuals in these cases is rather low (yes, I realize there are exceptions).  If their eternal salvation is on the line, why set them up for failure?  

Indeed.  The purpose of baptism is to initiate a lifelong covenant.  Minor children being raised in a same-sex parent household face some very real and serious challenges to maintaining that covenant, particularly when doing so would seem to create an emotional no-win scenario, in which the child feels like he has to choose loyalty to the Church and God, or else loyalty to his parents.  That's a pretty big ask.  So perhaps the best thing to do is . . . slow things down a bit.  The child is certainly welcome to participate in the Church to the fullest extent possible.  And when the child reaches majority, he will be better equipped, emotionally and intellectually and spiritually, to address the seeming conflict between the baptismal covenant and loyalty to his parents.  As an adult, he will be more able to find ways to reconcile these two things, rather than feel he has to choose one over the other.

That makes sense to me.

22 minutes ago, omni said:

My issue is in the singling out of the children of gay or polygamous parents. 

There is no "singling out."  It's a blanket policy.  There is also no "singling out" of children who have parents who refuse to give permission for the child to be baptized.  The Church's policies as to all three circumstances elevate the importance of familial unit cohesion, even if that cohesion comes at the (hopefully temporary) expense of the Church.  These policies alleviate pressures on children, who may feel conflicted about divided loyalties.  

Again, this makes sense to me.

22 minutes ago, omni said:

Given the Church's doctrine and history, don't you think these converts are in a difficult enough position without having the added "bonus" of having their parents labeled as apostates and being required to disavow their marriage prior to baptism?

First, the Church doesn't "label" in this way.  

Second, yes, "these converts" are in a difficult position.  The position they are in becomes more difficult, not less, when they are placed in a situation where they may feel obligated to choose one set of loyalties over another.

Third, there are more ramifications stemming from this issue than the surface-level ones under discussion.

22 minutes ago, omni said:

Do you think the policy will strengthen the relationship between these individuals and their parents? 

Yes.  A minor child will not be placed in a situation where he feels obligated to choose one set of loyalties over another.  Adults are better equipped to address that sort of things.  Children . . . not so much.

22 minutes ago, omni said:

Will it strengthen their relationship with the Church?

In some circumstances, yes.  In others, no.  It depends on the individual, and on the types and amounts of support and opposition he receives from those around him.

22 minutes ago, omni said:

All of these still hold true once the child turns 18, and yet they are allowed to be baptized. 

Again, adults are better equipped than minor children to address that sorts of things described above.

22 minutes ago, omni said:

Honestly, I'm not even sure how this is relevant.  It's not like those who were converts as minors are stripped of their membership if their parents never end up getting married or remain atheists.   

Parents can repent of these transgressions (not being married, being atheist) without destroying their families.  The same cannot be said for the repentance process for those involved in a polygamous or same-sex marriage.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

You are applying your specific interpretation of law to achieve a desired outcome, hoping that those who get to ultimately decide what is reasonable will see it your way. There is nothing unbiased about this process. The entire process is ultimately based on an elaborate system of appeals to authority and popularity.  Which is fine, I just think it's misleadigto assert that there is no bias in it. 

I think the problem is magnified in this thread wherein you are demanding dispassionate, unbiased reasoning you seem to assume that some unbiased framework for reasoning exists. How could you begin to establish a framework that is not based on your personal experience and one that you think is objectively workable between disagreeing parties? Do you really think that there is some objective framework that can standardize what is objectively right or wrong about the church’s policies? If so, what is it? If not, why would you demand that those you disagree with be held to a standard that your own beliefs don’t measure up to?  

No rep points possible, but I wanted to express my agreement with your post.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

As I’ve said previously, reasoning is relative to a framework.

You asked for an example of "dispassionate reasoning."  I gave you one.  And I cited many others as well.

Quote

The decision to evict someone is arrived at by appealing to a legal framework that seeks to establish what is legally good behavior, legally bad behavior, valid evidence, proper procedure, etc. This framework is the summation of beliefs and values of individuals spanning time and cultures. It’s a codified system of what people believe is right and the results of legal proceedings is what a person or group of people think is the proper application of the framework. Can a decision or argument be “reasonable” within a framework? Sure, why not, but asserting that you are engaging in impassioned (unbiased) reasoning when suing for eviction is, in my opinion, a poor way of describing what you are doing.

Oh, I see.  Let me clarify.  By "dispassionate," I was referencing something more along the lines of "free from or unaffected by passion" and "calm."

As an attorney, I am not "unbiased."  I am an advocate for one point of view.  But being "dispassionate" is nevertheless helpful in many ways.  A judge is more likely to adopt my arguments if she feels that they are based on sound reasoning and clinical analysis.  This is particularly so when I am representing the Big Bad Bank and the defendant is The Little Guy.  I don't want to resort to emotional arguments in that situation.  Some proximity to objectivity, to reasoned and straightforward application of the law to the facts, is the better way to go.

As for this thread, I am seeing very little of that.  Lots of emotional rhetoric.  Lots.  "Dispassionate reasoning" . . . not so much.

Quote

You are applying your specific interpretation of law to achieve a desired outcome, hoping that those who get to ultimately decide what is reasonable will see it your way.

With respect, I think you are overthinking this.  Dispassionate reasoning has its place most discussions.  It is not an end unto itself, but it's a good resource.

Quote

There is nothing unbiased about this process. The entire process is ultimately based on an elaborate system of appeals to authority and popularity.  Which is fine, I just think it's misleadigto assert that there is no bias in it. 

Got it.  I have clarified.

Quote

I think the problem is magnified in this thread wherein you are demanding dispassionate, unbiased reasoning you seem to assume that some unbiased framework for reasoning exists.

Yes.  I think this topic is susceptible to "dispassionate reasoning."  Most topics are.

Quote

How could you begin to establish a framework that is not based on your personal experience and one that you think is objectively workable between disagreeing parties?

Dunno.  Pick a framework and give it a go.  Plenty of people strive for "dispassionate reasoning" in some (though not necessarily all) of their writing efforts, and they use different frameworks to get there.  Scientists.  Academics.  Accountants.  Political analysts.  

Quote

Do you really think that there is some objective framework that can standardize what is objectively right or wrong about the church’s policies?

I'm not looking for "objectively right or wrong."  That's a judgment call best left to the individual.  I am looking for "dispassionate reasoning."

Quote

If so, what is it? If not, why would you demand that those you disagree with be held to a standard that your own beliefs don’t measure up to?  

I do not understand what you are saying here.  

How 'bout we stick with the "dispassionate reasoning" thing, rather than making this thread about me?  

Quote

I don’t view what you are doing as any different from a “critic” coming in here and telling everyone that they are categorically irrational and deluded for believing in God, the BoM, wanting to follow prophets, etc.

Requesting "dispassionate reasoning" about the policy under discussion is equivalent to "coming in here and telling everyone that they are categorically irrational and deluded for believing in God, the BoM, wanting to follow prophets, etc."?

I think . . . not.

Quote

You’re both demanding a standard of reasoning that your own beliefs can’t possibly meet

I am asking for "dispassionate reasoning."  I think that, or an approximation of it, is obtainable.

Quote

You agree with the policy. Fine. You share your reasons for agreeing with it. Excellent. Someone disagrees with you and you accuse them of being biased….pot meet kettle. 

CFR, please.  Where have I accused people who disagree with me of "being biased?"  Chapter and verse, please.

And then once you've responded to the CFR, please get back on track and stop trying to make this thread about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would not be surprised if sometime in the future when living together without marriage to have children becomes the norm, that the Church may move to a greater restriction of baptism for a similar reason.  Currently for families, marriage is still usually considered the ideal and many unmarried couples may perceive themselves as married, just not by the government.  When parents start to standardly teach marriage is not desirable, the Church will likely need to draw another bright line, imo.

That is currently the practice actually.  In the Philippines it is very common for people not to get married because it is so expensive.  There were several instances on my mission where I had to refuse baptism to unmarried families, until they were legally married. 

I don't think that the children were restricted from baptism, however, so long as the parents consented.  That does raise the question of whether the church will restrict the baptism of children of unwed parents, or require them to disavow their parents unwed situation. 

[Brother Bear]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You asked for an example of "dispassionate reasoning."  I gave you one.  And I cited many others as well.

Oh, I see.  Let me clarify.  By "dispassionate," I was referencing something more along the lines of "free from or unaffected by passion" and "calm."

As an attorney, I am not "unbiased."  I am an advocate for one point of view.  But being "dispassionate" is nevertheless helpful in many ways.  A judge is more likely to adopt my arguments if she feels that they are based on sound reasoning and clinical analysis.  This is particularly so when I am representing the Big Bad Bank and the defendant is The Little Guy.  I don't want to resort to emotional arguments in that situation.  Some proximity to objectivity, to reasoned and straightforward application of the law to the facts, is the better way to go.

As for this thread, I am seeing very little of that.  Lots of emotional rhetoric.  Lots.  "Dispassionate reasoning" . . . not so much.

With respect, I think you are overthinking this.  Dispassionate reasoning has its place most discussions.  It is not an end unto itself, but it's a good resource.

Got it.  I have clarified.

Yes.  I think this topic is susceptible to "dispassionate reasoning."  Most topics are.

Dunno.  Pick a framework and give it a go.  Plenty of people strive for "dispassionate reasoning" in some (though not necessarily all) of their writing efforts, and they use different frameworks to get there.  Scientists.  Academics.  Accountants.  Political analysts.  

I'm not looking for "objectively right or wrong."  That's a judgment call best left to the individual.  I am looking for "dispassionate reasoning."

I do not understand what you are saying here.  

How 'bout we stick with the "dispassionate reasoning" thing, rather than making this thread about me?  

Requesting "dispassionate reasoning" about the policy under discussion is equivalent to "coming in here and telling everyone that they are categorically irrational and deluded for believing in God, the BoM, wanting to follow prophets, etc."?

I think . . . not.

I am asking for "dispassionate reasoning."  I think that, or an approximation of it, is obtainable.

CFR, please.  Where have I accused people who disagree with me of "being biased?"  Chapter and verse, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm confused; your own definition of dispassionate in a previous post included unbiased as part of the definition. You accused people of not being dispassionate (not unbiased). I thought that was clear from your own posts. 

if we're revising your definition of dispassionate to mean "calm" then I'm not sure what to say. I personally don't expect people to lack passion when expressing views of a topic that clearly and deeply affects them. 

[ERMD]

22 hours ago, Duncan said:

We had a guy in our Stake who left over this, PH.D. In Medicine. I had heard just recently a family split up over it, Mom is out of the Church and husband is still in, not sure what the 5 kids will do. Crazy. If God is so against homosexuality then why even send gay kids to Mormon families? I was talking to a former member earlier, not about this though, he's gay and he knew a child he was different. He hates God he thinks he was set up for failure, was at a loss as to what to tell him

I thought people got MDs in medicine.

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Good luck finding many who think that a child should be penalized for the sins of the  parents. Not even scripture supports that.

You will have to take it upstairs . Ex 20:5 and several other scriptures seem to disagree with your assertion .

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, ERMD said:

I thought people got MDs in medicine.

You have an MD!  but you can also get a Doctorate as well. We had two members of our stake who each had one, That's a TON of time in University! Pres. Nelson has a P.H. D. in Medicine. The two brethren in our Stake their specialities were pediatric nephrology? and the other does "Surgical & Cytopathologist"-whatever that means!

Edited October 25, 2017 by Duncan

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

I'm confused; your own definition of dispassionate in a previous post included unbiased as part of the definition. You accused people of not being dispassionate (not unbiased). I thought that was clear from your own posts. 

if we're revising your definition of dispassionate to mean "calm" then I'm not sure what to say. I personally don't expect people to lack passion when expressing views of a topic that clearly and deeply affects them. 

I think Elder D. Todd Christofferson sets a good example of being dispassionate on this matter. He clearly loves his brother, who is gay, and his brother loves him. He is obviously sensitive to the pain and sorrow his brother has experienced over the years and has done what he can to help include that brother in the family circle. Yet Elder Christofferson is able to set his personal feelings aside and participate in the formulation of and articulate a policy that is in the best interest of children who may in the future be impacted by the decision of one or more of their parents to engage in behavior that is clearly at odds with the Church.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Not if one accepts the pronouncements of the apostles.

 

True, but I'm sure that there are Muslims that say the exact same thing about accepting the teachings of Mohammad.

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

if we're revising your definition of dispassionate to mean "calm" then I'm not sure what to say. I personally don't expect people to lack passion when expressing views of a topic that clearly and deeply affects them. 

Do people have to ”lack passion” in order to be able to present their case “dispassionately?”

A personal example.  Years ago, while waiting at a red light, I was sideswiped by an MTA bus.  (Fortunately, only minor injuries). MTA claimed that their bus was the stationary vehicle and I sideswiped it.  When the matter went to (small claims) court, MTA had three witnesses and the police report on their side.  You better believe I was angry -- after all, I absolutely knew that I was right.  Furthermore, I felt that what had actually happened should have been obvious to the officer and any competent expert who examined the photos taken at the accident scene.  (i.e.,  I believed that MTA’s experts had to know that their driver was lying).  Fortunately, I was finally able  to set my anger aside and make a dispassionate  presentation in court.  I began by saying that I would prove that this accident could not possibly have occurred in the way the bus driver, the witnesses and the investigating officer claimed it did.  Then I proceeded to do precisely that. And did so in a dispassionate manner.  (They had three witnesses and the police report.  I had Sir Isaac).  The judge ruled from the bench in my favor.

Had I not been able to set aside my anger and make a dispassionate presentation, I believe that I would have lost -- in spite of the compelling physical evidence.  

[Glenn101]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

True, but I'm sure that there are Muslims that say the exact same thing about accepting the teachings of Mohammad.

Of course Mohammed is not around to clarify any of his teachings to unsubjectivise any of his teachings which may be subjected to interpretation.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Can you please explain how either policy hurts children?

 

It does not hurt them anymore than the policy of the priesthood ban hurt blacks.  If God agrees with the policy, then those kids are not held accountable for not being baptized.  Their eternal status is not affected by it.   God does not penalize people for restrictions placed upon them if they are personally not a fault for the restrictions.

[Avatar4321]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Who was hurt?  LGBT community, families and friends, and I would argue the whole church was hurt by it.  I believe Elder Oak’s position on this will largely be discarded in the future.  

how was the lgtb community hurt when by in large they have no intention of repenting and being baptized?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

I'm confused; your own definition of dispassionate in a previous post included unbiased as part of the definition.

Yes.  Though I was referencing dispassionate reasoning.  

As an attorney, I am obviously biased  And yet there are times when it is valuable for me to put my bias aside and present argument that is as dry and clinical and detached as possible.  In eviction actions, for example, where the factual circumstances are straightforward and the legal requirements are simple, I don't do my client any favors by resorting to emotive reasoning.  I don't disparage the defendant or dwell on the fact that he has lived in the property for months or years without paying a penny in rent or mortgage payments.  Instead, I present an argument through "dispassionate reasoning."  I stick to a presentation of the facts and the law that is so straightforward, so divorced from "emotion" or drama, that the judge accepts my argument wholesale.

Now, there are other times when a bit of "show" is warranted.  But usually, judges prefer to get the straight skinny.  And since my clients are almost always in a superior legal and factual position, arguing "the straight skinny" is the best way to go.

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

You accused people of not being dispassionate (not unbiased).

I think I have been focusing on "dispassionate reasoning."  I have used that phrase many times now.

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

I thought that was clear from your own posts. 

To the extent I have accused people of "not being dispassionate," allow me to clarify that my focus is not on them and their personality, but on their reasoning.

I am not interested in discussing personalities.  I am interesting in "dispassionate reasoning."

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

if we're revising your definition of dispassionate to mean "calm"

I provided a dictionary definition that included this meaning, and I subsequently clarified my intent (and have done so a second time in this post).  So no need for "revising."

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

then I'm not sure what to say.

You could dispense with the "Offender for a Word" schtick.  You could stop trying to make this thread about me.  And you could provide a dispassionate and reasoned critique of the policy under discussion.

Nobody here is interested in discussing me.  Nobody. 

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

I personally don't expect people to lack passion when expressing views of a topic that clearly and deeply affects them. 

I can understand that.  But I also think most people who are mature and of sound mind and are reasonably informed are generally able to provide "dispassionate reasoning" when given sufficient time and opportunity.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Can you please explain how either policy hurts children?

 

Whether or not others draw attention to it, the way kids' minds work will ensure they will feel like an outsider when they learn of the difference between families in the Church's teachings.  This feeling will likely increase as they age and are excluded from temple trips and other activities that require membership.

Whether this cost is greater or less than the cost of conflicts between what they see at home and what they would commit to living themselves is in my opinion a personal call.

I had a lot of conflict with my dad over his vision of what I should be and my vision and my disagreement with him were based on minor issues.   I also feel the need to keep contention in the home a minimum so it is a refuge from the world for everyone in it.

Thus I tend to decide on the cost being higher if the distance is created in the home rather than at Church.

Speaking as someone who felt like an outsider at church, though, participation drops as much as possible.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Calm

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I must have missed this. Sorry. 

My family member’s situation isn’t unusual. He is from a large family of active LDS, and his older brother is gay, with two children. When the policy became public knowledge, his kids were 6 and 4, and he has custody of them. As I recall, his ex-wife has them 2 weekends a month and a longer period in the summers. 

He is married to a man who, like him, was raised in the church, attended BYU, and served an honorable mission. Everyone had agreed to raise the kids in the church, and they were attending weekly. 

Now his kids can’t be baptized unless they live with their mother, which is not a good idea for a number of reasons. So, when the policy change happened, the father and his spouse wondered if it was a good idea to keep going to church where they are “apostates” and their kids can’t participate fully. And the mother suddenly started pushing for custody, despite an amicable arrangement until then. 

Obviously, the church has every right to set its own policies, but there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with those policies. 

Don't get me wrong, I hold you blameless for disagreeing with those policies.  I'll admit that if they had asked me my opinion of the policy before announcing it, I would definitely have questioned whether this was the best way to address the situation -- but I've not been given the heavy responsibility of watching out for the Church at a world-wide level, and the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have. But because I sustain them as Prophets, Seers and Revelators, both in spirit and in action, I believe that the policy was decided upon after due consideration and consultation with the Lord. There is no doubt in my mind that the policies, in regard to both polygamy and gay marriage, are not perfect.  Because the situations they deal with are far from perfect.  It may be that after a period of time there could be some modification to it, to deal with exceptional cases.  In the case you mention, I feel badly for the family -- but it doesn't change the fact that the marital arrangement is apostate from the point of view of God's laws, and not just because the LDS church says so.  It's been apostate from the very beginning, and there's never ever been a time in the history of the Gospel when there was a divine sanction for two persons of the same sex to live together in a marital community. 

Oh, this situation is imperfect, all right.  Whether the children are permitted to be baptized or not, they'd be going to Church every week and potentially facing being taught or told that their parents marital arrangement is apostate.  What the policy does is to avoid them being required to personally endorse the Church's judgement of their parents' apostasy every week through partaking of the sacrament, sustaining church leaders and related things such as receiving the priesthood.  

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

The parents refusal to obey an Eternal law is preventing these children from coming onto Christ. Not the church.

Straw man.  Read Christ's words in Mathew.  He doesn't put any qualifiers on "suffer the litter children to come unto me".  It has nothing to do with what their parents are or are not doing.  If you believe that the Bible is the world of God, then the November policy is indefensible.   

 

[Avatar4321]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Dispassionate reasoning is often overrated. Sometimes emotion is called for. Not sure if that is the case here but usually the call for reason comes to shut down objections.

Herodotus wrote that the Persians debated everything twice. Once while drunk they came to a decision. Then when they were sober they evaluated the decision and decided whether to stick with it or start over. I personally think Congress would function better if we took this approach. Would also make C-Span more entertaining. In the Church we usually do the sober debate and then wait on the Spirit which sometimes manifests as emotion to make decisions.

In the end though this is not a rational question. It operates via revelation. The decision made might make sense to some but that is not why the Church made the decision.

I'm not sure you could get congress to stop drinking

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Morality is subjective if you leave God out of the equation. Once that happens, then the the White Supremists would be "right" if they succeeded in winning over a majority of the people.

Glenn

In LDS theology God doesn't invent morality. But even if there was some objective moral standard out there, we would have no way to access it. 

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I'm not sure you could get congress to stop drinking

Considering the voters they have to try to appeal to I really do not blame them for drinking or even developing drinking problems.

Seems like a rational response.