Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[smac97]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

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.   

So you must also advocate the Church's baptism of children over the objections of the child's parents.  Right?  No qualifiers in Matthew, and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

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.   

 

And nothing is stopping the children from coming to Him

[kiwi57]

First I'm thinking: If it's all just science, why the need to puff up Prince's Mormon cred?

Then I realise (Okay, I suspected all along) that it's not all just science; it's really all about opinion-forming.

Then I'm thinking: Given that it's all about opinion-forming, why the need to pretend that it's all about science?

Incidentally, whatever his credentials may be, Prince is still wrong. There is no basis to expect the Church to change its doctrines regarding sexual morality.

Morality, you see, is not a scientific concept.
 

[Glenn101]

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

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. 

I actually agree with what you are saying. At least the first part. The second part, partially. Without God we would have no way to access it.

Glenn

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I know of a few situations where extremely harsh feelings and conflict were created because grandparents and one parent was pushing for baptism and the gay parent didn't want to give permission.

But in the situation you bring up, the policy would be irrelevant. So I don't see how it is applicable.  Maybe you could explain what you think the connection is to the question I asked.

[sunstoned]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you must also advocate the Church's baptism of children over the objections of the child's parents.  Right?  No qualifiers in Matthew, and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again a straw man argument.  Classic apologetic defense.  Don't address the hard topic, just pound the table in the hopes that it will cause a distraction.  

Once again, the issue is that Christ said suffer the little children to come unto him. and forbid them not.  It sounds like you are making an argument for forbidding.

Edited October 26, 2017 by sunstoned

[sunstoned]

41 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

And nothing is stopping the children from coming to Him

Except a heavy handed, restrictive policy that not only forbids children of gay parents from being baptized, it forbids them from receiving a name and a blessing.   The November policy really is at odds with that whole "forbid them not" clause that Christ stated.  

[cdowis]

On 10/24/2017 at 1:10 PM, cinepro said:

So if that type of thing were to continue.  And if you were to multiply that 10% by a factor of the people just pulling back, that's going to have an effect on the long-term vitality of the Church. 

The parable of the wheat and the tares, the parable of the sower. 
"Wilt thou leave me also?"  Christ said after so many of his disciples abandoned him.

DC 112 33 Verily I say unto you, behold how great is your calling. ^aCleanse your hearts and your garments, lest the blood of this generation be required at your hands.

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by cdowis

[Avatar4321]

13 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Except a heavy handed, restrictive policy that not only forbids children of gay parents from being baptized, it forbids them from receiving a name and a blessing.   The November policy really is at odds with that whole "forbid them not" clause that Christ stated.  

Not at all. If that was accurate then the command to wait until a child is 8 before baptism is likewise at odds with the forbid them not statement.

There is absolutely nothing stopping a boy or girl no matter what age from studying the scriptures, seeking God in prayer, living the commandments they can live etc.

Do you think the apostasy taking authority from the earth kept anyone from coming to Christ? It hasn't. It's just had them wait longer to get the fullness of the blessings.

We are commanded to honor our father and mother. If the Church was subverting parent authority over a minor we would be encouraging the child to violate this commandment.

Tell me, what is a more prudent course, to be patient or to destroy family unity by being impatient?

[jkwilliams]

I’ll just repeat my “emotion-laden” and irrational reasons for disagreeing with the policy:

• It introduces conflict into families, as in my family member's case. A good friend who is a family law attorney predicted that the policy would complicate custody agreements and introduce additional conflict. In the situations I know personally, that’s exactly what has happened. 
• It treats children of certain kinds of "apostates" differently than others. 
• If the children continue attending church, they are not full participants and thus will be treated as different inevitably. Even LDS kids can be cruel to those who are different. 
• If the children continue attending church, any tension between the church's teachings and the parent's lifestyle doesn't magically disappear.

Besides these, I think the policy is morally wrong, unfair, and antithetical to gospel principles. 

The arguments I’ve heard in favor of the policy seem to be these:

• It mitigates potential conflict between family practices and church teachings. I would suggest that’s only true if the children don’t attend church.

Well, come to think of it, that’s really the only argument I’ve heard. At least that’s the stated reason. 

Other people have suggested it’s a necessary line drawn to show that the church will never normalize same-sex marriage. That is the argument that makes the most sense to me.

I recognize that I’m never going to agree with many of you on this issue, and that’s fine. It’s possible to disagree without accusing each other of bad faith. Disagreeing with church leaders is not equal to accusing them of evil motivations, nor does it equate to mocking and derision. 

It makes me sad to see kids caught in the middle of all this. 

[CV75]

14 hours 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.

I’m hoping (perhaps like some may hope the Church will change on ssm) that it doesn’t get to that.

I was thinking about Elder Renlund’s recent talk https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/the-priesthood-and-the-saviors-atoning-power?lang=eng where he compares the priesthood to a rocket that delivers a payload (ordinances and covenants), and the opportunity to benefit from the Savior’s atoning power is the payload. Taking this a step further, the ordinances for a child are delivered through the family which serves as the docking station for the payload. This coordinated relationship between the Church and the family is in line with D&C 83:4. But the payload and the docking station have to be able to “dock,” and the structure of a same-sex relationship simply does not permit that for a number of reasons outlined in the family proclamation.

But that structure also has to be endowed with a particular willingness for the coordinated relationship to occur. This is what I think distinguishes the structure of those living in a same-gender relationship and those who do not. Those who do not, whether they are apostate or sinful, divorced or single, cohabitating or promiscuous, are at least (generally) demonstrating a willingness to accept the divinely-ordered structure of the docking station as faulty as it may be in execution for the time being. Willingness creates a tremendous amount of space to minister, as we see every time we partake the sacrament worthily, since that is a key component of the prayer (D&C 20: 77, 79) as it is of the baptismal covenant (Mosiah 18:9; D&C 20:37).

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ll just repeat my “emotion-laden” and irrational reasons for disagreeing with the policy:

• It introduces conflict into families, as in my family member's case. A good friend who is a family law attorney predicted that the policy would complicate custody agreements and introduce additional conflict. In the situations I know personally, that’s exactly what has happened. 
• It treats children of certain kinds of "apostates" differently than others. 
• If the children continue attending church, they are not full participants and thus will be treated as different inevitably. Even LDS kids can be cruel to those who are different. 
• If the children continue attending church, any tension between the church's teachings and the parent's lifestyle doesn't magically disappear.

Besides these, I think the policy is morally wrong, unfair, and antithetical to gospel principles. 

The arguments I’ve heard in favor of the policy seem to be these:

• It mitigates potential conflict between family practices and church teachings. I would suggest that’s only true if the children don’t attend church.

Well, come to think of it, that’s really the only argument I’ve heard. At least that’s the stated reason. 

Other people have suggested it’s a necessary line drawn to show that the church will never normalize same-sex marriage. That is the argument that makes the most sense to me.

I recognize that I’m never going to agree with many of you on this issue, and that’s fine. It’s possible to disagree without accusing each other of bad faith. Disagreeing with church leaders is not equal to accusing them of evil motivations, nor does it equate to mocking and derision. 

It makes me sad to see kids caught in the middle of all this. 

Another reason to uphold the policy is because it respects the overarching role of parents to raise their children as they see fit, while recognizing the Church’s limitations in participating in helping them raise their children in a family structure established on a foundation of unwillingness on part of the parents to sustain the principle that we are exalted as families per the family proclamation tenets (see my longer explanation immediately above).

Edited October 26, 2017 by CV75

[smac97]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Quote

Straw man.  Read Christ's words in Mathew.  He doesn't put any qualifiers on "suffer the litter children to come unto me". 

Quote

So you must also advocate the Church's baptism of children over the objections of the child's parents.  Right?  No qualifiers in Matthew, and all that.

Again a straw man argument.  Classic apologetic defense. 

Refusal to acknowledge flaw in reasoning.  Classic critic dodge.

Your reasoning, such as it is, is simplistic to the point of absurdity.  You are the one positing an absolutist claim ("He doesn't put any qualifiers on...").  I am applying that claim to another situation where there obviously is a qualification, and you . . . ignore it.

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Don't address the hard topic, just pound the table in the hopes that it will cause a distraction.  

There is no "hard topic."  Prooftexting Matthew isn't "hard."  It's a matter of hitting "Control C" and "Control V" on your keyboard.

You present no reasoning, just assertion.

You present no rationale, no limiting principle.  According to you, there is no limiting principle.

You have not provided any substantive point to analyze.

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Once again, the issue is that Christ said suffer the little children to come unto him. and forbid them not.

Right.  So if a 10 year old approaches the missionaries and says "I want to be baptized, but my parents have told me I need to wait until I am 18," the appropriate response from the missionaries - according to your reasoning - would be "Sounds good!  No need to honor your parents' wishes or parental rights.  Let's head on down to the stake center..."

This is a rational and logical application of your "He doesn't put any qualifiers" reasoning.  So what is your response?  Do you think the Church should baptize a minor child against the wishes of his parents?

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

It sounds like you are making an argument for forbidding.

Yes.  Absolutely.  Parents have significant legal and moral authority over their minor children.

And it doesn't end there.  I also think the Church should not baptize a child who wants to be baptized immediately, without knowing anything about the Church.

I also think the Church should not baptize a child who has not professed a willingness to obey the commandments after baptism.

And so on.  

Of course there are preconditions for baptism.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Except a heavy handed, restrictive policy

Which, according to Pres. Nelson, was the result of revelation.  How do you account for that?

Quote

that not only forbids children of gay parents from being baptized,

Again, false.  It postpones baptism for such children.  Until they reach the age of majority.

Quote

it forbids them from receiving a name and a blessing.

That is not a saving ordinance.  Countless converts to the Church never received such a blessing, and are doing just fine.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge the spiritual and cultural value of this ordinance.  I have seen other types of pain associated with it, such as when the father of the child is unable to perform it.  The father may become upset at this.  Or family members.  Once again, we see how a parent's misconduct can result in hurt or injury to others.

Quote

The November policy really is at odds with that whole "forbid them not" clause that Christ stated.  

No, it's not.  I can say that with confidence because . . . the same Christ who said "forbid them not" also instructed His Presiding High Priest to enact the policy, an instruction that was sustained and ratified unanimously by the fourteen other prophets, seers and revelators on the planet.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The arguments I’ve heard in favor of the policy seem to be these:

• It mitigates potential conflict between family practices and church teachings. I would suggest that’s only true if the children don’t attend church.

Well, come to think of it, that’s really the only argument I’ve heard.

What about the argument that the policy is the result of revelation to Pres. Monson, and sustained unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles?  You've heard that one many times now, but you don't list it here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

What about the argument that the policy is the result of revelation to Pres. Monson, and sustained unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles?  You've heard that one many times now, but you don't list it here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I thought about listing that, but I was thinking more in terms of dispassionate reasoning. To me, the bottom line is that the policy does not accomplish its stated purpose to mitigate family conflict. 

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ll just repeat my “emotion-laden” and irrational reasons for disagreeing with the policy:

• It introduces conflict into families, as in my family member's case. A good friend who is a family law attorney predicted that the policy would complicate custody agreements and introduce additional conflict. In the situations I know personally, that’s exactly what has happened. 
• It treats children of certain kinds of "apostates" differently than others. 
• If the children continue attending church, they are not full participants and thus will be treated as different inevitably. Even LDS kids can be cruel to those who are different. 
• If the children continue attending church, any tension between the church's teachings and the parent's lifestyle doesn't magically disappear.

Besides these, I think the policy is morally wrong, unfair, and antithetical to gospel principles. 

I get the sense that you don't read the Bible or scriptures very much -- but very conversant with the morality expressed in newspapers and TV.

Let me help you.

"It introduces conflict into families, as in my family member's case. A good friend who is a family law attorney predicted that the policy would complicate custody agreements and introduce additional conflict. In the situations I know personally, that’s exactly what has happened. "

Matt 10 [34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
[37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

In this case, the policy avoids conflicts between the MINOR child and the values of the parents until they come of age, where they can then make their choice.

"It treats children of certain kinds of "apostates" differently than others. "
The policy is almost identical to that for children of polygamous families.

"Even LDS kids can be cruel to those who are different. "
That is true for anyone who is outside the norm.  But we can't allow the tail to wag the dog, so to speak.

"Besides these, I think the policy is morally wrong, unfair, and antithetical to gospel principles."
May I suggest that you spend more time in the scriptures and reviewing General Conference addresses.

This policy protects the integrity of the church and avoids "back door" sabotage.  An example was the recent video of the "testimony" of the young girl in testimony meeting declaring her coming out.  Some SS couples will use their member children to attempt to "correct" church policy.

The slippery slope is real when it applies to the gay agenda.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by cdowis

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I actually agree with what you are saying. At least the first part. The second part, partially. Without God we would have no way to access it.

Glenn

All of our ways to access God are subjective and personal, so even then we wouldn't really have any access to objective morality. Like trying to see the color blue while wearing glasses that filter out all color.

In any case, I think the whole notion of an objective morality is an oxymoron. Morality by its nature is subjective.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I get the sense that you don't read the Bible or scriptures very much -- but very conversant with the morality expressed in newspapers and TV.

Let me help you.

"It introduces conflict into families, as in my family member's case. A good friend who is a family law attorney predicted that the policy would complicate custody agreements and introduce additional conflict. In the situations I know personally, that’s exactly what has happened. "

Matt 10 [34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
[37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

"It treats children of certain kinds of "apostates" differently than others. "
The policy is almost identical to that for children of polygamous families.

"Even LDS kids can be cruel to those who are different. "
That is true for anyone who is outside the norm.  But we an't allow the tail to wag the dog, so to speak.

"Besides these, I think the policy is morally wrong, unfair, and antithetical to gospel principles."
May I suggest that you spend more time in the scriptures and reviewing General Conference addresses. 

I wish you all the best.

So, you agree with me that the policy doesn’t mitigate conflict in families. 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought about listing that, but I was thinking more in terms of dispassionate reasoning. To me, the bottom line is that the policy does not accomplish its stated purpose to mitigate family conflict. 

I think a big reason why it was implemented was to keep gay families from becoming normalized and therefore accepted in the church. That's especially evident in the original wording of the policy. It sounds like an attempt at a quarantine.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I get the sense that you don't read the Bible or scriptures very much -- but very conversant with the morality expressed in newspapers and TV.

Let me help you.

"It introduces conflict into families, as in my family member's case. A good friend who is a family law attorney predicted that the policy would complicate custody agreements and introduce additional conflict. In the situations I know personally, that’s exactly what has happened. "

Matt 10 [34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
[37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

"It treats children of certain kinds of "apostates" differently than others. "
The policy is almost identical to that for children of polygamous families.

"Even LDS kids can be cruel to those who are different. "
That is true for anyone who is outside the norm.  But we an't allow the tail to wag the dog, so to speak.

"Besides these, I think the policy is morally wrong, unfair, and antithetical to gospel principles."
May I suggest that you spend more time in the scriptures and reviewing General Conference addresses. 

I wish you all the best.

 

 

Ironically, given your opening sentence, this is an extremely superficial reading of scripture. And your interpretation of scripture doesn't match the church's teachings on family.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about the argument that the policy is the result of revelation to Pres. Monson, and sustained unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles?  You've heard that one many times now, but you don't list it here.

Thanks,

-Smac

The origins of the policy are disputed

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Ironically, given your opening sentence, this is an extremely superficial reading of scripture. And your interpretation of scripture doesn't match the church's teachings on family.

You're right about the irony of Cdowis interpreting these scriptures superficially but he has definitely mastered the art of self-righteousness

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought about listing that, but I was thinking more in terms of dispassionate reasoning.

Ah.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

To me, the bottom line is that the policy does not accomplish its stated purpose to mitigate family conflict. 

And for others, "the bottom line" is that that policy was enacted by the Presiding High Priest, through revelation, after extensive thought and discussion and prayer, and sustained as such by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

As for the policy "not accomplish{ing} its stated purpose," I again point to the Church's longstanding and nearly identical policy for children from polygamous families.  That policy has been in place and functioning since, according to this article, the 1920s.  The results have been . . . mixed (from the article):

Quote

As the Mormon community comes to terms with a new policy dealing with same-sex couples and their children, some with historical experience with a similar policy are sounding off about its potential impact.

Some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with ties to polygamist families say they believe the policy, which excludes minor children from membership in the faith, is designed to protect children. But, they contend, it could also have negative consequences.

"Both policies are there to protect the faithful children and members from seeing that 'apostates' are real people capable of living meaningful lives despite their apostasy," said Anthony Mangum, 37, of Bountiful, who was raised in part of the Kingston polygamist family.

...

Mangum said he was baptized in 2002 at the age of 24 after getting a personal interview with LDS apostle Joseph B. Wirthlin.

During that interview, Mangum said, he was told the policy was "to prevent polygamist believers from coming into the church to get [temple] ordinances."

Sam Brown, 31, of Boise, also grew up in the Kingston family. He joined the church at age 20 after being interviewed by LDS apostle Richard G. Scott.

According to Brown, Elder Scott told him that there have been others who join the church with the intent of teaching its members the practice of polygamy. "Meeting with a general authority was a way to stop the spread of apostasy," Brown summarized.

Despite having to disavow the practice of polygamy, both Mangum and Brown said they were encouraged by the apostles to honor their parents. Brown said he was told to "repair and strengthen the bond I had with my parents but still acknowledge that they were wrong in practicing polygamy."

But others have had a less positive experience.

Melissa, who asked 2News to not use her real name, is 37 years old and lives in West Jordan.

Melissa was baptized into the LDS Church at age 18. After that, she said, she struggled with figuring out how to have a relationship with her parents who were members of the Apostolic United Brethren based in Bluffdale.

"[I wasn't sure] how to love them, despite what I was choosing to do," she said.

Looking back, Melissa said she feels getting baptized made her feel she was better than her parents because "what they did was wrong, and what I was doing was right. I was going to go to heaven, and they were not."

She now feels the policy creates an elitist, "us vs. them" mentality for members of the church. She worries the new policy regarding same-sex families will have the same effect.

But Utah resident Jess Durrant believes both policies protect children. In a Nov. 6 public Facebook post, Durrant related her experience of being an exception to the rule -- baptized at age 8 while still living in a polygamist household.

"Once I made the decision to be baptized, the parent that did not agree with my decision began to treat me as though I was a plague in their house," Durrant wrote. "I grieved the loss of a parent though they were living down the hall. It took years before that parent could stand to be in the same room as me."

Durrant said her childhood was not warm or loving, and though she chose to stick with the LDS faith, it made her life difficult and destroyed any chance she had to have a good relationship with her parents.

"These are not new rules, they are simply being broadened to accommodate the changes that are happening in this world," Durrant wrote of the new LGBT policy. "But I repeat and promise you with every ounce of my being -- This is to protect the children!"

That echoes what Christofferson said in his video interview as he defended the new policy: "We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the church are very different."

So to the extent the older policy has had problems, those problems seem to stem from individual foibles ("Looking back, Melissa said she feels getting baptized made her feel she was better than her parents...").  And yet . . . this sort of problem militates in favor of the new policy, does it not?  Melissa said she felt "she was better than her parents" because she had been baptized.  The current policy reduces the risk of that sort of problem happening to children in same-sex parent households because the policy requires them to wait.  The family relationship is therefore faced with a reduced risk of such problems arising between children and parents.  Isn't that a potentially good thing?

I also think Jess Durrant's assessment of the older policy, stemming from her experience of being exempted from it, is instructive:

Quote

In a Nov. 6 public Facebook post, Durrant related her experience of being an exception to the rule -- baptized at age 8 while still living in a polygamist household.

"Once I made the decision to be baptized, the parent that did not agree with my decision began to treat me as though I was a plague in their house," Durrant wrote. "I grieved the loss of a parent though they were living down the hall. It took years before that parent could stand to be in the same room as me."

Durrant said her childhood was not warm or loving, and though she chose to stick with the LDS faith, it made her life difficult and destroyed any chance she had to have a good relationship with her parents.

"These are not new rules, they are simply being broadened to accommodate the changes that are happening in this world," Durrant wrote of the new LGBT policy. "But I repeat and promise you with every ounce of my being -- This is to protect the children!"

What are your thoughts about her experience?  Is it possible they could be replicated but for the policy being in place?  That some children being raised in a same-sex parent household might run into corrosive conflict with their parents by becoming baptized while still a child in the home?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I get the sense that you don't read the Bible or scriptures very much -- but very conversant with the morality expressed in newspapers and TV.

Let me help you.

"It introduces conflict into families, as in my family member's case. A good friend who is a family law attorney predicted that the policy would complicate custody agreements and introduce additional conflict. In the situations I know personally, that’s exactly what has happened. "

Matt 10 [34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
[37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

"It treats children of certain kinds of "apostates" differently than others. "
The policy is almost identical to that for children of polygamous families.

"Even LDS kids can be cruel to those who are different. "
That is true for anyone who is outside the norm.  But we an't allow the tail to wag the dog, so to speak.

"Besides these, I think the policy is morally wrong, unfair, and antithetical to gospel principles."
May I suggest that you spend more time in the scriptures and reviewing General Conference addresses. 

I wish you all the best.

Having just recently completed a round of somewhat comparable barbed discourse with JK, and having realized that such barbs are unnecessary and counterproductive, and having re-committed myself (yet again) to improving the tone and tenor of my discourse (especially with other participants who are here and speaking and acting in good faith and according what they sincerely hold to be right), I propose that we . . . not do what I have been doing (and repenting of).

Thanks,

-Smac