Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

The origins of the policy are disputed

I note the passive voice.  And the absence of references.

I dispute those disputes.  There.  Now we are back to relying solely in the public statements of a reliable and credible percipient witness (Pres. Nelson).

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.

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):

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:

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

It seems odd that the example you give is one where one parent opposed the baptism. Of course there is going to be conflict when a child is baptized against the wishes of one or both parents. 

Even if that example were applicable, the results of the older policy have been mixed. Are these mixed results more or less positive than the results of not having such a policy? No one can say. 

In the cases I know of, the results of the new policy have been as I have said. I don’t know of any family situation where the policy has reduced conflict. 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I note the passive voice.  And the absence of references.

I dispute those disputes.  There.  Now we are back to relying solely in the public statements of a reliable and credible percipient witness (Pres. Nelson).

Thanks,

-Smac

As I recall, according to Greg Prince, the policy was not voted on or discussed with the full quorum before being implemented.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Gray

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems odd that the example you give is one where one parent opposed the baptism. Of course there is going to be conflict when a child is baptized against the wishes of one or both parents. 

Even if that example were applicable, the results of the older policy have been mixed. Are these mixed results more or less positive than the results of not having such a policy? No one can say. 

Indeed.  "No one can say."  Sage words.

And because "No one can say," it seems a bit odd to oppose the policy based on its unpredictable results.  Better, I think, to approach the policy based on its origins.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Indeed.  "No one can say."  Sage words.

And because "No one can say," it seems a bit odd to oppose the policy based on its unpredictable results.  Better, I think, to approach the policy based on its origins.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think there are some predictable results, as I’ve said. Indeed, the results so far have been as predicted. 

You’re right that if you think this is the will of God, you should probably accept it. But I thought you were asking for rational analysis, not an expression of faith. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

According to Greg Prince, the policy not voted on before being implemented.

And Greg Prince was there, was he?  He was a percipient witness?

As I understand it, he is relying on an anonymous source.  Was that source a percipient witness?  Or just passing on what he/she heard?  

So we've got Gray telling us what Greg Prince said some anonymous source said . . . something.  That's what, triple hearsay?  Perhaps quadruple?  Quintuple?

The probative value of what Greg Prince has to say is exactly equivalent of what I have to say.  That is to say . . . no value at all.  I wasn't a percipient witness, and neither was Greg Prince.

So we're back to the public statement of a Pres. Nelson, who was a percipient witness.

As an advocate of critical thinking skills, I am curious how you manage to privilege the say-so of Greg Prince over the percipient testimony of Pres. Nelson.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think there are some predictable results, as I’ve said. Indeed, the results so far have been as predicted. 

You’re right that if you think this is the will of God, you should probably accept it. But I thought you were asking for rational analysis, not an expression of faith. 

Rational analysis and faith are not mutually exclusive categories.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Rational analysis and faith are not mutually exclusive categories.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, but “it’s Gods will” is not something you can discuss in strictly rational terms. 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Greg Prince was there, was he?  He was a percipient witness?

As I understand it, he is relying on an anonymous source.  Was that source a percipient witness?  Or just passing on what he/she heard? 

 

I trust Greg Prince's ability as a historian to evaluate and cultivate reliable sources.

 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

So we've got Gray telling us what Greg Prince said some anonymous source said . . . something.  That's what, triple hearsay?  Perhaps quadruple?  Quintuple?

I don't recall you asking the judge's permission to treat the witness as hostile, counselor.

 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The probative value of what Greg Prince has to say is exactly equivalent of what I have to say.  That is to say . . . no value at all.  I wasn't a percipient witness, and neither was Greg Prince.

Greg Prince apparently has a source with some knowledge of the situation, while you do not.

 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So we're back to the public statement of a Pres. Nelson, who was a percipient witness.

As an advocate of critical thinking skills, I am curious how you manage to privilege the say-so of Greg Prince over the percipient testimony of Pres. Nelson.  

Thanks,

-Smac

President Nelson seems to be something of a lone voice here.

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Can you please explain how either policy hurts children?

 

To take your position that denying a child baptism is not hurtful for a child, then you would have to believe that baptism is not a blessing and that there is no value to being baptized.  Perhaps if you listed all the reasons why it is important for a child to be baptized when they reach the age of 8 and then looked at that list and asked yourself if denying a child any of the blessings would be harmful to a child.  

If denying baptism has no negative or positive blessings attached to it, then why baptize any child?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, but “it’s Gods will” is not something you can discuss in strictly rational terms. 

Well, that's true.  In the immortal words of Spock: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

15 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.

There are far more couples living together without marriage that have children than gay couples with children.  Yet the church decided to address the smaller issue.  

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

I trust Greg Prince's ability as a historian to evaluate and cultivate reliable sources.

Who is his source?  You trust Greg Prince, who is not a percipient witness.  I trust Pres. Nelson, who is a percipient witness.

Let's stipulate that both Greg Prince and Pres. Nelson are honorable men.  As a matter of critical thinking, which quantum of trust is more reliable?

Quote

I don't recall you asking the judge's permission to treat the witness as hostile, counselor. 

A dodge with a smiley face.  But a dodge nonetheless. 

You are advocating that we rely on anonymous multiple hearsay rather than the public statement of a percipient witness.  

Quote

Greg Prince apparently has a source with some knowledge of the situation, while you do not.

"Apparently" being the key word there.  You don't know that.  Neither do I.

Quote

President Nelson seems to be something of a lone voice here.

So is Greg Prince.  And more to the point, it's not his voice we are supposed to rely on.  We are supposed to rely on some anonymous source, who may in turn be relying on some other anonymous source, and so on.

In contrast, Pres. Nelson was a percipient witness.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are far more couples living together without marriage that have children than gay couples with children.  Yet the church decided to address the smaller issue.  

According, to the doctrines of the Church, couples living together are engaged in misconduct.  They can rectify that misconduct by getting married.  No need to destroy the family unit.

According to the doctrines of the Church, couples living in a same-sex marriage are engaged in conduct.  They cannot rectify that misconduct except by destroying the family unit.

The Church chose the remedy that reduced the risk of conflict in and destruction of same-sex marriages.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who is his source?  You trust Greg Prince, who is not a percipient witness.  I trust Pres. Nelson, who is a percipient witness.

Let's stipulate that both Greg Prince and Pres. Nelson are honorable men.  As a matter of critical thinking, which quantum of trust is more reliable?

As a matter of critical thinking, it's arguable. Given the scrambled and contradictory responses to the aftermath of the policy leak, I'm inclined to think that Prince was right and this was not fully vetted before being implemented

 

Quote

"Apparently" being the key word there.  You don't know that.  Neither do I.

Ditto for Pres. Nelson's statements, right?

 

Quote

So is Greg Prince.  And more to the point, it's not his voice we are supposed to rely on.  We are supposed to rely on some anonymous source, who may in turn be relying on some other anonymous source, and so on.

In contrast, Pres. Nelson was a percipient witness.

Thanks,

-Smac

President Nelson gives his own perspective, which I don't think has been corroborated by any of his peers. His perspective on what happened may not be shared by the whole quorum.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Gray

[Five Solas]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

To take your position that denying a child baptism is not hurtful for a child, then you would have to believe that baptism is not a blessing and that there is no value to being baptized.  Perhaps if you listed all the reasons why it is important for a child to be baptized when they reach the age of 8 and then looked at that list and asked yourself if denying a child any of the blessings would be harmful to a child.  

If denying baptism has no negative or positive blessings attached to it, then why baptize any child?

Regardless of what one may think of LDS baptism, your conclusion seems awfully reasonable.  If there's no harm--then there's no value.  And I'll hazard a guess Glenn101 (and others) won't wish to follow you there. 

--Erik

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

As a matter of critical thinking, it's arguable.

LOL.  As you like.

Quote

Given the scrambled and contradictory responses to the aftermath of the policy leak, I'm inclined to think that Prince was right and this was not fully vetted before being implemented

What has Prince said?  What has his source said?  What does "fully vetted" mean?  

Quote

Quote

"Apparently" being the key word there.  You don't know that.  Neither do I.

Ditto for Elder Nelson's statements, right?

Nope.  Elder Nelson was a percipient witness.

Your position only works if we assume the best of Greg Prince and his anonymous sources, and the worst of Pres. Nelson.

And we should take that position . . . why, exactly?

Quote

President Nelson gives his own perspective, which I don't think has been corroborated by any of his peers.

Right.  So Pres. Nelson lied.  That's where this line of argument always ends up.

And this oblique accusation against Pres. Nelson is predicated on . . . what?  

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[Amulek]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In the cases I know of, the results of the new policy have been as I have said. I don’t know of any family situation where the policy has reduced conflict. 

Not to interrupt - just kind of thinking out loud here - but do you think that the long-term results might be different? I mean, the only group of people this could possibly affect are those with children between the ages of 1 and 7, right? So once we get through that window and this becomes a known thing, shouldn't we expect future conflicts to wane? 

I mean, the policy pertaining to polygamist families has been around for decades and it's a big fat nothing burger. In ten or twenty years, won't this be pretty much the same thing? 

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

According, to the doctrines of the Church, couples living together are engaged in misconduct.  They can rectify that misconduct by getting married.  No need to destroy the family unit.

According to the doctrines of the Church, couples living in a same-sex marriage are engaged in conduct.  They cannot rectify that misconduct except by destroying the family unit.

The Church chose the remedy that reduced the risk of conflict in and destruction of same-sex marriages.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do couples living in sin have to make any promises that at some future date they will rectify their relationship and get married?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

Not to interrupt - just kind of thinking out loud here - but do you think that the long-term results might be different? I mean, the only group of people this could possibly affect are those with children between the ages of 1 and 7, right? So once we get through that window and this becomes a known thing, shouldn't we expect future conflicts to wane? 

I mean, the policy pertaining to polygamist families has been around for decades and it's a big fat nothing burger. In ten or twenty years, won't this be pretty much the same thing? 

In twenty years, there will still be these kinds of situations, so the impact on custody agreements and family conflict will likely be the same, IMO. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do couples living in sin have to make any promises that at some future date they will rectify their relationship and get married?

I don't believe so.  But the opportunity for repentance is there.  And that opportunity would not come at the cost of the family's existence.

In contrast, the opportunity for repentance is also there for same-sex couples, but that opportunity would come at the cost of the family's existence.  The Church's policy alleviates that problem.

Of course, the policy creates other problems.  I acknowledge that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

LOL.  As you like.

What has Prince said?  What has his source said?  What does "fully vetted" mean?  

Fully vetted meaning presented to the quorum for discussion and sustaining. Apparently that didn't happen.

 

Quote

Nope.  Elder Nelson was a percipient witness.

Since you weren't there, you don't know that for sure. And you don't know if his recollections are accurate. I'm just trying to apply the same standards to both sources here.

 

Quote

Your position only works if we assume the best of Greg Prince and his anonymous sources, and the worst of Pres. Nelson.

And your position is the reverse.

 

Quote

And we should take that position . . . why, exactly?

We should assume the opposite position . . . why, exactly?

 

Quote

Right.  So Pres. Nelson lied.  That's where this line of argument always ends up.

That's not my argument. But his perception of what happened could be in error.

 

Quote

And this oblique accusation against Pres. Nelson is predicated on . . . what?  

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Thanks,

-Smac

No accusation. But you know how things work in the church - true principles are not hard to find - they're taught by many church leaders. So far only Pres. Nelson has offered up this interpretation of the process.

Back to my point - your point that this policy was received by revelation unanimously approved by the FP and 15 is disputed. Its origins are unclear, and its implementation was chaotic and disorganized.

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Gray

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

I mean, the policy pertaining to polygamist families has been around for decades and it's a big fat nothing burger. In ten or twenty years, won't this be pretty much the same thing? 

I think the policy pertaining to polygamist families has presented real and actual challenges to those directly affected by it.  The difference, however, is that . . . nobody cares about those kids.  There is no sustained campaign against the Church about it.  There is no nonstop fanning of the flames of controversy by critics and opponents of the Church.  There has been no horrible rhetoric deployed, no nonstop scare tactics, no critics presuming to speak for the Church, no false assertions that the Church hates polygamists and their children.

But all of these things have been happening as pertaining to the November 2015 policy.  And they have been ongoing since November 2015.

Which is why I think most of the acrimony and controversy, and even much (most?) of the pain caused by the new policy is attributable to the overwrought antics of the critics and opponents of the Church, rather than by the actual enactment of the policy itself.

Which kinda makes me wonder why, if the critics and opponents are so concerned about the welfare of children, are they resorting to rhetoric and tactics which appear calculated to instill fear and suspicion and anger in those children?  And to alienate those children from the Church?  I thought the new policy was supposed to be bad because it is divisive.  But it seems that the critics and opponents are fomenting and facilitating as much, if not more, divisiveness than the policy ever could.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I think the policy pertaining to polygamist families has presented real and actual challenges to those directly affected by it.  The difference, however, is that . . . nobody cares about those kids.  There is no sustained campaign against the Church about it.  There is not nonstop fanning of the flames of controversy by critics and opponents of the Church.  There has been no horrible rhetoric deployed, no nonstop scare tactics, no critics presuming to speak for the Church, no false assertions that the Church hates polygamists and their children.

But all of these things have been happening as pertaining to the November 2015 policy.  And they have been ongoing since November 2015.

Which is why I think most of the acrimony and controversy, and even much (most?) of the pain caused by the new policy is attributable to the overwrought antics of the critics and opponents of the Church, rather than by the actual enactment of the policy itself.

Which kinda makes me wonder why, if the critics and opponents are so concerned about the welfare of children, are they resorting to rhetoric and tactics which appear calculated to instill fear and suspicion and anger in those children?  And to alienate those children from the Church?  I thought the new policy was supposed to be bad because it is divisive.  But it seems that the critics and opponents are fomenting and facilitating as much, if not more, divisiveness than the policy ever could.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good heavens. The OP was about fallout from the policy. Far from fanning any flames, I refrained from discussing my reasons for disagreeing with the policy until you specifically asked me to discuss them. I hadn’t thought about this subject in quite some time.

And it’s absurd to say that the family conflicts triggered by the policy are attributable to those flame-fanning critics. Conflict has arisen because the policy adds another level of complexity to already difficult issues. 

[CV75]

1 hour 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. 

What source are you using?

This one indicates the policy is to sever the point of conflict (the subject of marriage and family, the center core and most sacred institution of the Church) that can spill over from the parents: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640934/Elder-Christofferson-explains-updated-LDS-Church-policies-on-same-sex-marriage-and-children.html The parent's construct prevails; no contest. The same with this one: https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

Of course there will be situations where children are exposed to their parents’ negative reactions to the policy, but the policy is not about controlling how parents raise their children or what they expose them to. For those that hold to it, the doctrine of the Holy Ghost also helps prevent, reconcile and resolve any such conflicts in a constructive manner.