Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[Kenngo1969]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't understand why only parents and child should have a say in this covenantal/contractual agreement.  By allowing the child to receive baptism, the Church is committing to provide attention and resources...it is in essence a contract with God, the individual, the family, and the Church.

The Church needs to have input into a situation where they will be expected to perform, but may be hamstrung in that performance by the lack of commitment of the individual or family involved (both for children and adults).

If a parent and 16 year old child went to a car dealership and the parents told the dealer they were fully committed to allowing their child to own a car and the child expressed a fervent desire to own a car, is that the only information that should be considered by the dealership in judging whether or not to turn a car over? [Bold added by Kenngo1969 to indicate what he's responding to.]

Nope, that's why minors lack the capacity to contract.  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree that "none of us are situated to provide anything other than isolated anecdotes". 

As you like.

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many even here have personally experienced pain from this new policy.  Do you doubt their word?

No.  But those personal experiences are only "isolated anecdotes."

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Moving the goalposts, I see

Not at all.  You are the one who is claiming this policy was implemented due to "real harm" taking place. 

I am the one . . . quoting Elder Christofferson.  And itemizing the numerous factors the Brethren took into account.

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm asking you if any specific cases have been named where this was happening causing a need for this policy. 

And I am saying that this is moving the goalposts.  Elder Christofferson provided a fairly extensive explanation of the factors the Brethren took into account.  But that's not enough.  And then Pres. Nelson provided even more clarification and explanation.  Still not enough.

And so it goes.  There is no end to this.

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I am personally not aware of any, so that's why I ask.  I have also not heard of any given from the leaders other than to speak in generalities or relating what "might happen".

Again, isolated anecdotal experience are not going to be very useful because . . . they are isolated and anecdotal.  And can be easily dismissed as such.  

Dismissal of Elder Christofferson . . . dismissal of Pres. Nelson . . . and now a request for easily dismissible anecdotes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.

No.  But those personal experiences are only "isolated anecdotes."

Again, isolated anecdotal experience are not going to be very useful because . . . they are isolated and anecdotal.  And can be easily dismissed as such.  

Wrong.  Many are first hand experiences (such as Benjamin McGuire's and others).  Do you believe those "can be easily dismissed"?.

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am the one . . . quoting Elder Christofferson.  And itemizing the numerous factors the Brethren took into account.

You made a claim:

"Real harm was going to be done, with or without the policy."

I asked you for references regarding any specific instances being reported where there was "real harm" taking place.  Not just instances that may happen, but any that had taken place causing a need for this new policy..  That is not moving the goal posts, that is asking for evidence to back up the claim you made.  From what I have read in your responses, the answer is a no, none given so far (not regarding an actual member of the church or their children).

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by ALarson

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

Please delineate the amount of training required to become a DNP.

The right amount of training that is required to earn the title of "doctor".   "Doctor" is an educational title, "physician" is an occupational title. 

Sure, MDs are required to have more clinical experience.  That doesn't however make a DNP any less of a doctor - it just makes them less of a physician. 

A DNP who has 10 years clinical experience will have for more training and experience than a brand new general practitioner MD fresh out of residency.  I would personally trust the DNP over the MD in that scenario most of the time. 

 

 

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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.

Aren't you over-clocking that scripture, just a bit?  Suffer them to come to him did not, in the story, mean baptize them.  They came to him and he interacted with him, and blessed them.  

To insist upon your interpretation of letting them come unto me, you might as well take the parable of the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard to provide a doctrinal basis for paying all your workers the same wage regardless of how long they worked that day.  I predict problems with this.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Stargazer

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

Thanks, but no thanks.  Look, be honest.  This is not really about fairness to the child, but as a tool to attack the sponsor of Prop 8,  to advance the gay agenda.

Where might I read this "gay agenda?"  I mean, is there a Gay Association of America to which the gays belong? 

I mean, I am a libertarian and I take exception when people tell me what libertarians really believe.   

It's like when people argue, as they have in this thread, that it is unethical for a religion to bar children from baptism if they live in a married gay household, I ask -- "where can I read a code of ethics that governs religion?"

The phrase "gay agenda" is meaningless, inflammatory and somewhat hate-filled jargon.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Brother Bear]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

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."

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."

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. 

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

 

Smac, my original post questioned the usefulness of resorting to pointing of logical fallacies since anyone who attempts to engage in a discussion about policy or Right and Wrong is bound to commit some logical fallacy when making some assertion. It's a useless thing to point out because it's unavoidable for reasons I've already discussed. If you think my comments are somehow an attempt to move the focus from the topic at hand to you personally then I can't help you there. I feel they are relevant to a discussion of the issues, but if you feel harassed I will kindly bow out. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wrong. 

Totally, completely right.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many are first hand experiences (such as Benjamin McGuire's and others).  Do you believe those "can be easily dismissed"?.

I meant dismissed by . . . people who really, really want to look for ways to ignore the explanations offered by Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson.

I'm willing to listen to evidence, including that of percipient witnesses like Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson.

As for anecdotal stories . . . I lend them some weight.  Sure.  

But I thought the "specific experiences" being requested were those relied upon by the Brethren.  I don't have such information.  And even if such information was provided, it could be dismissed as easily as we have seen in the cases of Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You made a claim:

"Real harm was going to be done, with or without the policy."

Yes.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I asked you for references regarding any specific instances being reported where there was "real harm" taking place. 

And I provided an extensive response to that request.

And, to be clear, my "claim" was . . . a surmise about what could have happened in the future if the policy had not been implemented.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not just instances that may happen, but any that had taken place causing a need for this new policy.. 

And, being a generally decent guy, I responded to your request.  In detail.  By citing factors the Brethren have noted they took into account.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That is not moving the goal posts, that is asking for evidence to back up the claim you made. 

You want me to "back up" a guess about something that might have happened in the future if the policy had not been implemented?

How do you propose I do that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Smac, my original post questioned the usefulness of resorting to pointing of logical fallacies since anyone who attempts to engage in a discussion about policy or Right and Wrong is bound to commit some logical fallacy when making some assertion.

Then by all means, ignore such things.  Please.

13 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

It's a useless thing to point out because it's unavoidable for reasons I've already discussed. If you think my comments are somehow an attempt to move the focus from the topic at hand to you personally then I can't help you there. I feel they are relevant to a discussion of the issues, but if you feel harassed I will kindly bow out. 

Don't bow out.  Let's just focus on the topic, not on me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Totally, completely right.

I meant dismissed by . . . people who really, really want to look for ways to ignore the explanations offered by Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson.

I'm willing to listen to evidence, including that of percipient witnesses like Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson.

As for anecdotal stories . . . I lend them some weight.  Sure.  

But I thought the "specific experiences" being requested were those relied upon by the Brethren.  I don't have such information.  And even if such information was provided, it could be dismissed as easily as we have seen in the cases of Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson.

Yes.

And I provided an extensive response to that request.

And, to be clear, my "claim" was . . . a surmise about what could have happened in the future if the policy had not been implemented.

And, being a generally decent guy, I responded to your request.  In detail.  By citing factors the Brethren have noted they took into account.

You want me to "back up" a guess about something that might have happened in the future if the policy had not been implemented?

How do you propose I do that?

Thanks,

-Smac

You made a claim.  What I've asked for (specific evidence of any "real harm" taking place) has not been provided from you.  I get that you only have general statements from a few leaders regarding what may happen or a few situations that could possibly take place.  That leaves me wondering why you felt you could make such a definite statement (regarding "real harm" taking place) as if it was 100% true, when no instances have been given (not even anecdotally from the leaders).  

I'm moving on as I really do not see where you have provided any cases or that you can even back up your assertion other than generalities or statements such as "this may happen".  

I'm off of here anyway for the day so I can't respond more...I think we've discussed this at length and will just have to disagree.

Edited October 26, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

On 10/25/2017 at 9:38 AM, smac97 said:

And yet we have Pres. Nelson's remarks . . .

Fifteen men.  With literally hundreds of years cumulative experience between them as to seeking after revelatory guidance.

Fifteen men sustained Pres. Monson.

The Presiding High Priest thereafter spoke to the entire Church.  In a formal setting, and in his official capacity.  And he declared the policy changes to be the result of "revelation."

There is a quantum of evidence here, with Pres. Nelson's public declaration on the one side and, on the other, "seems to be" guesswork from an anonymous critic.  On balance, I'll go with the former.

Don't you think context or timing matters?  Or are these decisions made in a vacuum and what appears to be causation is just mere coincidence?  Do you believe the leaders are infallible?  If not, when does the fallibility ever happen in your opinion?

Why did the revelation happen then when it could so easily be misconstrued as reactionary, non-revelatory actions by a defeated group?  Do you think God has bad timing?  Certainly it could have been done a lot sooner, say, in the early 90's when the issue was in it's infancy.  Do you think God did it at this time as yet another test of faith?

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You made a claim. 

Which was speculation about what might have happened had the policy not been implemented.

Quote

What I've asked for (specific evidence of any "real harm" taking place) has not been provided from you. 

Then I encourage you to go do some research yourself.  I responded as a courtesy.

Quote

I get that you only have general statements from a few leaders regarding what may happen or a few situations that could possibly take place.  That leaves me wondering why you felt you could make such a definite statement (regarding "real harm" taking place) as if it was 100% true, when no instances have been given (not even anecdotally from the leaders).  

Wonder away.

I am persuaded that Elder Christofferson's remarks are meaningful and substantive.  They illuminate the factors the Brethren took into account when contemplating the current policy.

You disagree.  Fine.

You want specific anecdotes, which I find to be A) a good example of shifting the goalposts, B) not my job to provide, and C) not particularly relevant to my "claim" (which, again, was "speculation about what might have happened had the policy not been implemented.").

Let's just move on.

Quote

I'm moving on as I really do not see where you have provided any cases or that you can even back up your assertion other than generalities or statements such as "this may happen".  

I provided extensive quotes from and commentary about remarks made by Elder Christofferson.  Your response, in my view, was to shift the goal posts.

Let's just agree to disagree and part ways (for the day) amicably.

Quote

I'm off of here anyway for the day so I can't respond more...I think we've discussed this at length and will just have to disagree.

It appears so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Don't you think context or timing matters? 

Such things can matter, yes.

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Or are these decisions made in a vacuum and what appears to be causation is just mere coincidence? 

I do not understand this question.

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you believe the leaders are infallible? 

No.

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

If not, when does the fallibility ever happen in your opinion?

An interesting question, and well outside the scope of this thread.

That said, I will note that I think the LDS paradigm allows, perhaps even calls for, measures which - when used - substantially mitigate the risks of serious error by the leaders of the Church.  Discussion in councils.  Extensive study and pondering.  Fasting.  Temple attendance.  Prayerful requests for guidance on issues within the proper boundaries of stewardship.  Patience.  Humility.  Sincere motives.  Good faith.

So let's take a look and see what the Brethren did (emphases added):

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

Do I think these efforts were observed?  Yes.  Pres. Nelson is a good and honest man.  I will take his word over countervailing gossip from anonymous hearsay "sources" purportedly leaking information to Greg Prince.

Now, is it still possible that the Brethren were, to a man, completely wrong on the policy change, notwithstanding the foregoing efforts?  Yes, it's possible.  I don't think it's likely, but I think it's possible.

I contrast this circumstance with the origins of the Priesthood Ban.  Where did it come from?  Dunno.  If it was revelatory, where is the record of that revelation?  Dunno.  Who received it?  Dunno.  Was the Ban preceded by the foregoing measures?  Apparently not (there are no records of such a thing).  So was it possible that the Priesthood Ban was not revelatory, and was instead an ad hoc policy that became entrenched over a period of many years?  That it became so entrenched that members and leaders came up with post hoc rationalizations for it (which the Church has since disavowed)?  We report, you decide!

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why did the revelation happen then when it could so easily be misconstrued as reactionary, non-revelatory actions by a defeated group? 

A nice imponderable question.  And a type that is applicable to virtually everything the Church has done since its inception.

Why did God give us the Book of Mormon when it could be so easily misconstrued as a 19th-century fabrication by Joseph Smith?

Why did God call Joseph Smith to be a prophet when his prophetic calling could be so easily misconstrued by critics and skeptics?

Why did God command the 19th-century Saints to practice polygamy when that practice could be so easily misconstrued and deemed ungodly by the Saints' contemporaries?

And on we go, forever.

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think God has bad timing? 

Let's stick with questions posed in good faith, shall we?

On an unrelated note, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Certainly it could have been done a lot sooner, say, in the early 90's when the issue was in it's infancy. 

Another imponderable.

I will note, however, that an argument could be made that the groundwork for the policy change was laid down in 1995.  With the publication of The Proclamation.

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think God did it at this time as yet another test of faith?

I'm not really interested in speculating about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm willing to listen to evidence, including that of percipient witnesses like Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson.

As for anecdotal stories . . . I lend them some weight.  Sure.  

 

 

What's the difference between an anecdote by Pres Nelson and anecdote by someone who has experienced negative fallout from the policy?

[kiwi57]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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.

No. He is not.

Ironic that you should start of by accusing Smac97 of a "straw man" and then introduce one of your own.

The children, of course, are welcome to come, of course, and will not be turned away, of course.

But we won't ask them to make binding covenants with God, when the lifestyle of their closest significant adults is so directly opposed to those covenants.

That would make the children the focus of family conflict, which is not something they should have to deal with.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

What's the difference between an anecdote by Pres Nelson and anecdote by someone who has experienced negative fallout from the policy?

I don't know.  Not much.  

Isolated anecdotal experiences are, in my view, not going to be very helpful.  After all, something that is "anecdotal" is, by definition, something that is "not necessarily true or reliable, because {it is} based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

I would hope that the Brethren would have relief upon as much information as possible, and not just "an anecdote."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[Brother Bear]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Then by all means, ignore such things.  Please.

Don't bow out.  Let's just focus on the topic, not on me.

Thanks,

-Smac

How could I continue? All I have is personal experience and opinion, which you have "easily dismissed" on this thread as "merely anecdotal." I'm afraid your standards for discussion are too restrictive for me. 

[CV75]

17 hours 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.   

 

In one respect, the parents are not suffering the children to be raised in a family headed by a marriage that the Church can work with. The Church is suffering them to come when they are free of that barrier.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

How could I continue?

Address the substantive topic.  Quit personalizing the thread.

8 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

All I have is personal experience and opinion, which you have "easily dismissed" on this thread as "merely anecdotal." I'm afraid your standards for discussion are too restrictive for me. 

And yet here I am, inviting you repeatedly to address the topic at hand.  

Bow out if you like.  But don't blame me for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Brother Bear]

Just now, smac97 said:

Address the substantive topic.  Quit personalizing the thread.

And yet here I am, inviting you repeatedly to address the topic at hand.  

Bow out if you like.  But don't blame me for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

And here I am telling you it's useless since anything I could possibly say would be dismissed as anecdotal and not worthy of consideration. Your asking me to do something I can't possibly do. Perhaps your could teach me how to step outside of my mind and find that non-anecdotal evidence that is worthy of discussion.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

And here I am telling you it's useless since anything I could possibly say would be dismissed as anecdotal and not worthy of consideration.

A cop-out.  But as you like.

Quote

Your asking me to do something I can't possibly do. Perhaps your could teach me how to step outside of my mind and find that non-anecdotal evidence that is worthy of discussion.

Perhaps you could dispense with this silliness and get to the topic.  You are still fixating on me.  That's just not kewl.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2017 by smac97

[Brother Bear]

I think it is fine for a religious organization to implement whatever policy it wants. However, I think the policy has the unfortunate effect of further ostracizing an already ostracized group of people. I personally don't like the policy and have noted some negative outcomes in my ward. But frankly if I were gay I wouldn't care what the lds church did with regards to its own policies because I would have zero desire to be part of the lds church. 

This of course is all anecdotal and based on personal experience, making my views unfit for discussion, so please refrain demanding evidence gathered from my own non-personal experience because I have none.

Sincerely,

A normal person who doesn't think they are capable of possessing views based on non-personal experience

 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

I think it is fine for a religious organization to implement whatever policy it wants. However, I think the policy has the unfortunate effect of further ostracizing an already ostracized group of people. I personally don't like the policy and have noted some negative outcomes in my ward. But frankly if I were gay I wouldn't care what the lds church did with regards to its own policies because I would have zero desire to be part of the lds church. 

This of course is all anecdotal and based on personal experience, making my views unfit for discussion, so please refrain demanding evidence gathered from my own non-personal experience because I have none.

Sincerely,

A normal person who doesn't think they are capable of possessing views based on non-personal experience

If you think your own views are unfit for discussion, I'll leave you to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Brother Bear]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

If you think your own views are unfit for discussion, I'll leave you to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

I also ask that people stop fixating on me, my reasoning, the subjectivity of the human experience, or anything that I could  even slightly interpret as not relevant to the topic, and instead focus on the words in my post...as if they got there by the hand of a mindless robot.

 

[ERMD]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

hmmm, according to his biography Pres. Nelson got his PH.D. from the U of Minnesota. Yeah these brethren that had their MDs and PH.D.s are probably the most educated people i've ever known!  They are both Profs at the Med. School in their respective areas. I would link to their university profile pages but I don't know if they would want that

https://www.lds.org/church/leader/russell-m-nelson?lang=eng

You are correct.  Likely got the Ph.D when he was doing research after residency.