Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's not.  I am not criticizing all discourse critical of the policy.  I am criticizing those arguments and bits of rhetoric I find problematic.

The Church "inserts {itself} into matters of custody and child-rearing" by not having the affected child be baptized?  

If the policy had not been implemented, then the exact same criticism could be leveled, namely, that the Church "inserts {itself} into matters of custody and child-rearing" by having the affected child be baptized.

Your reasoning eludes me.  Your criticism is applicable to the Church no matter which way it goes re: the policy.  The Church loses and is faulted either way.  That, to me, suggests a flaw in the criticism.

I have posted dozens of responses in this thread.  I am specifically and at some length acknowledging and responding to those concerns.

There are aspects of the arguments made in justifying those concerns which I have found problematic, and I have explained why.  But even that does not seem to be "dismissive."  I am, after all, engaging those arguments.

I have not said that.  I have, in fact, said quite the opposite.

I quite agree.  I have made this point several times.  In this very thread.

However, there are people who are disagreeing with the policy by asserting things like "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever."  It is those arguments I find problematic.

As the old saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it."  The shoe does not seem to fit in your case.  So stop trying to wear it (or claim that I am asking you to).

Thanks,

-Smac

Leaving the decision to baptize a child up to the family means the church is not inserting itself into matters of custody and child-rearing. Responsibility for how a child is raised and by whom would be left with the parents, as it should be. This isn't a difficult concept. And it's annoying that you suggest that critics like me would be finding fault with the church "either way." If it's too much to expect for you to acknowledge that opposing conclusions are considered and reasonable and not motivated by a desire to criticize the church either way, I can't see how discussion is possible.

I stand by what I said about your attempts to shut down discussion. Your post explicitly suggested that reasoned discourse was coming from one side, and it was prevailing against the false accusations and bitterness of the other side. If that hadn't been enough, you suggested a couple of straw men as anticipated responses from the irrational side of things. 

I'm not wearing this shoe, as it were. I'm just trying to have a discussion, and you seem intent on attributing the worst to the other side. If anything, your spinning reasoned disagreement as overt hostility undermines your own arguments, as they can likewise be dismissed as reflexive defense of the church, "either way."

Edited October 27, 2017 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Really?  What evidence do you have that this is happening?

I am seeing just the opposite.

I guess we are looking at different things.  In different ways.  That happens.

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for sharing this.

Yep.  The rhetoric about the policy is way overblown.  There is no "irredeemable injustice" in view.  None.  Frankly, it has been rather bizarre to see opponents of the Church, in essence, say "We despise the Mormon Church and its teachings!  And how dare you not let some children get baptized into it until they are adults!"  The opponents of the Church have a rather incoherent message, to be sure.

There is also a not-insignificant measure of incoherence in the position taken by some Latter-day Saints who are up-in-arms about the policy.  "I think the policy is horrible!  It does not reflect God's will!  So I am going to publicly excoriate and oppose the Church and its leaders!  'Cuz nothing better demonstrates fealty to God's will than publicly ripping apart His prophets and apostles, and His Church!  And even though we have a very clear and reasonable explanation about the origins of the policy from Pres. Nelson, who was a percipient witness as to those origins, and even though he publicly and emphatically attributed the policy to revelation to Pres. Monson, and even though Pres. Monson's decision was sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I feel totally at liberty to ignore his remarks, and to baselessly question his honesty and/or mental competency.  He went rogue.  He lied.  He was deluded.  But no worries!  I won't actually say these things.  Instead, I'll resort to hamfisted innuendo that anyone with an IQ above 20 would understand as an attack on Pres. Nelson's integrity.  Meanwhile, I will give absurd amounts of credence to anonymous and potentially multiple hearsay gossip purveyed by Greg Prince about sinister goings-on amongst the Brethren.  Yep.  Anonymous hearsay trumps the public declaration of the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Don't ask why.  And don't you dare ask me about why I am indifferent to nearly identical policy affecting children in polygamous families, either.  That's just a non sequitur, even though Elder Christofferson specifically cited that older policy as an analog to the newer one.  In any event, I don't want to talk about the challenges arising from that nearly identical policy, even though it has been in place for nearly a century, because . . . I don't know those kids.  I do not care about their welfare.  And they are simply not popular enough to warrant me linking arms with the critics against the Brethren when it comes to the policy that affects kids from polygamous homes.  You see, a policy of the Church is only immoral if it affects people I know personally, or who otherwise are presently popular on social media and in pop culture generally.  And as we all know, the best way for the Church to address broad and complex and difficult moral issues is to subject them to random popularity contests."

I have seen all of these arguments/positions, or variations thereof, promulgated by Latter-day Saints (many of them in this very thread).  Not very coherent, IMO.

I would hope that conversant Latter-day Saints, at least, would stay their hands and control their emotions long enough to give this topic a bit of study.  And thought.  And faith.  And application of gospel principles.  Three of these immediately come to mind.

First, we have received assurances that the Church will not be led astray.  Consider these remarks from then-Elder Faust:

I think some of our fellow Latter-day Saints have forgotten these things.

Second, there is the general obligation to sustain the Brethren.  I have been, frankly, surprised to see friends and acquaintances whom I have known for years to, it seems, almost instantly drop any semblance of maintaining that principle, and who have instead joined with critics and opponents of the Church in publicly denouncing the Brethren (and/or ignoring them) as regarding this policy.  I think this is a profoundly wrong course of action.  If the Brethren were wrong in promulgating the policy, then there are mechanisms to voice concern about that, mechanisms that do not entail evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.  Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (from 1987 so this counsel has been out there for a long time):

The article is quite long, but it is definitely worth a read.  Particularly for those of our brothers and sisters who have chosen to publicly speak against and criticize the Brethren.

The third principle arises from and pertains to "at the end of it all / when all is said and done"-type questions.  If the policy results in a child not joining the Church, is that child going to face eternal consequences?  For failing to make a choice he was not even allowed to make?  Of course not.  Consider these verses from D&C 137:

I think the policy makes sense.  It's a hard one, to be sure, but it's addressing hard challenges.  But even if we assume that the policy is inherently wrong, then the Restored Gospel has precepts that account for that.  If a person is deprived of Church membership because of this policy, and if they "would have received it with all their hearts" had they been given the opportunity, then they "shall be heirs."  They are situated pretty much like those who never get a chance to accept the Restored Gospel at all in this life.  They are covered.  The Atonement covers them.  As Elder Christofferson so aptly put it, “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.”

Amen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your whole assertion that this came from God rests on Elder Nelson.  Why isn't he getting the support from all the other brethren?  Because for as much as this policy is ripping up the church both within and the social media outside the church, it better have come from God.  If not, then these men have made a very bad decision all on their own.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we are looking at different things.  In different ways.  That happens.

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, you have no evidence to back up your statement?  Just your feelings?

 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

However, there are people who are disagreeing with the policy by asserting things like "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever."  It is those arguments I find problematic.

Who are you quoting here (the part you put in quotation marks)?  Do you have a link to their post?

[carbon dioxide]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Declare to all the world that no gay married children of God will ever hold the priesthood until all the straight sons of Able have that opportunity.  Because the truthfulness of this policy all rests on whether this was indeed a revelation from God.

The policy does not claim that the children of a gay couple can not hold the priesthood.  The policy simply delays it until at least 18. 

[pogi]

13 hours ago, ERMD said:

You're avoiding the question.

No, I answered you.  They have a doctorate degree, just like MDs.  The difference is the amount of required clinical hours after schooling for licensing. 

 

14 hours ago, ERMD said:

When things go south and the patient is crashing, I guarantee the staff isn't yelling, "DNP!! GET IN HERE NOW!!"

:-)

They wouldn't call for the paleontologist either, yet he is called "doctor".  Hell, they wouldn't even be yelling, "GP get in here now!" yet general practitioners are doctors too.  Different kinds of doctors play different roles.  That seems obvious.

This isn't about who has the bigger muscles or more training (although MD egos like to make it about that), it is about who has earned the title of doctor because of their schooling, and therefore is entitled to be called "doctor", just like any other PhD.  Every doctor plays a different role.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Your whole assertion that this came from God rests on Elder Nelson.  

I don't see that this fairly characterizes smac97's position.

Quote

Why isn't he getting the support from all the other brethren?

What is the basis of your assumption that he does not have their support? Why do you insinuate dishonesty on his part?

 

Quote

Because for as much as this policy is ripping up the church both within and the social media outside the church, it better have come from God.  If not, then these men have made a very bad decision all on their own.

All I have observed of the Brethren as pertaining to this policy is that they are at peace with it and the understanding that it has divine approbation. What indication do you have that they are not?

And apart from the faultfinding emanating from a very noisy and vitriolic faction, I don't concede that the policy is "ripping up the Church" from within. The situation strikes me as steady-as-she-goes with regard to the work of the Church in the fulfillment of its mission. To invoke the words of Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "the caravan moves on."

As for the social media on the outside, the Church of Jesus Christ has always had its vocal opponents and antagonists and I suppose it always will up until the day when He whose right it is to rule returns to the earth in glory.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Brother Bear]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Why is it you can’t understand the leaders of the Church simply don’t want to push the children of gay parents to have to make a decision about whether or not to reject their parents’ values at such a and tender young age? I don’t get why people don’t see this?

I agree that children shouldn't have to deal with the heaviness of making such a decision and if that were the sole purpose of the policy then I would have no issue with. But I can't help but that isn't the sole purpose of the policy, because I can't see a situation wherein the policy provides additional benefit beyond what previously existing policies provide. Kids don't just show up at baptismal fonts to be baptized. Missionaries can't teach them without their parents permission; bishops and auxiliary leaders don't meet with kids without consulting parents. Kids already can't be baptized without parental consent. Baptism was likely never going to happen with or without the new policy. 

In addition, the policy does not prohibit children from attending the Sunday block, mutual, and various activities. Children of same sex couples can basically be dry members, with some exceptions (baptisms for the dead and callings). Surely if there was going to be tension caused by baptism the same tension would be caused by a child's desire to attend church, mutual, activities, etc. the policy does nothing to prevent a child from having to deal with this tension.

To me the policy, combined with the redefining of same-sex as apostasy, is the church's way of giving the middle finger to the gay community. The policies communicate, "fine, you won the fight for same sex, civil marriage. But the things you value most will either never be accepted (your marriage) by the church and God or will only be accepted (your children) provided they reject the other thing you value most." I think that those in the LGBT community who want to be part of a religious community have an incredibly difficult road to walk and the church's actions in recent years have done very little to show them that we believe in a God that is really interested in them. I don't claim to know how to properly stand by your principles while communicating Christlike love; it's a tough thing to do and people will perceive actions and policies differently. But I think recent policy has failed miserably in that respect. For that reason, I don't like it.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who are you quoting here (the part you put in quotation marks)?  Do you have a link to their post?

I don't know how to link to specific posts, but he is quoting jkwilliams. Go back one screen before this, and you will see.

Edited to add:

jkwilliams had said in a post:

Quote

It's entirely possible to disagree without saying the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever.

It was that post to which smac97 was responding.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Leaving the decision to baptize a child up to the family

That never happens.  Ever.  Baptism is an ordinance administered by the Church.  It is the Church which makes the decision.  The family's consent is an integral part of the Church's decision, but there are other considerations as well.

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

means the church is not inserting itself into matters of custody and child-rearing.

Again, you could make the exact same complaint if the policy had not been implemented.  A complaint that damns the Church no matter which course of action it takes is not much of a complaint, IMO.

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Responsibility for how a child is raised and by whom would be left with the parents, as it should be.

The policy facilitates that.  The Church's teachings would have a strong likelihood of conflicting with that "responsibility."  The policy removes that conflict by allowing the parents to raise the child as they see fit, without any countervailing teachings from Sunday School and whatnot that might cause the child to feel confused, to feel like they have conflicting loyalties, etc.

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This isn't a difficult concept. And it's annoying that you suggest that critics like me would be finding fault with the church "either way."

Okay, not you.  I apologize.  But someone else would certainly fault the Church in this way.

"The LDS Church baptized my child and is teaching her that my lifestyle is morally wrong.  The LDS Church is therefore inserting itself into matters of custody and child-rearing."

"The LDS Church will not baptize my child while she is a minor, nor teach her that my lifestyle is morally wrong.  The LDS Church is therefore inserting itself into matters of custody and child-rearing."  (This seems to be what you are saying, and I am just not able to grasp its logic.)

The Church is darned if it does, darned if it doesn't.

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If it's too much to expect for you to acknowledge that opposing conclusions are considered and reasonable and not motivated by a desire to criticize the church either way, I can't see how discussion is possible.

Okay.  I acknowledge this.

I still don't get your point, though.  And I'm not being obtuse, nor am I maneuvering for rhetorical advantage.  I really do not understand your point.

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I stand by what I said about your attempts to shut down discussion.

I reject such charges.  I have not told anyone to stop talking.  I have not censored anyone.  I have not reported anyone to the mods.  I have instead been engaging in extensive discussions with people who disagree with my position.  So how is it that engaging in discussion transmutes into "shut{ting} down discussion?"

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Your post explicitly suggested that reasoned discourse was coming from one side, and it was prevailing against the false accusations and bitterness of the other side.

That's my general assessment, yes.  I think my reasoning and arguments are superior to the countervailing reasoning/arguments I have seen.  I have explained at length why I so think.

But you are doing the exact same thing, are you not?  You think your reasoning and arguments are superior to the countervailing reasoning/arguments you have seen.  And to be clear: I am totally fine with that.

In other words, we are having a discussion.  A debate.  And I gave my opinion that one side (the one I am on) appears to be doing better than the other side.  

That is not "shut{ting} down discussion."  That's expressing an opinion.

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If that hadn't been enough, you suggested a couple of straw men as anticipated responses from the irrational side of things. 

I was not reciting anticipated responses.  I was paraphrasing responses I have already seen.

And here you are, calling those responses (some of them, anyway) "straw men."  Well, I agree with you.  They are.

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not wearing this shoe, as it were. I'm just trying to have a discussion, and you seem intent on attributing the worst to the other side. 

I am expressing disagreement with "the worst" of "the other side."

I have also elsewhere expressed (repeatedly) that reasonable minds can disagree about this policy, that there are sincere and good and decent people who can have legitimate concerns and grievances about it.  I reiterate those sentiments again now.

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If anything, your spinning reasoned disagreement as overt hostility undermines your own arguments, as they can likewise be dismissed as reflexive defense of the church, "either way."

Well, no.  By way of example, we could have a discussion about my thoughts about the Priesthood Ban.  Or (now disavowed) explanations for the Ban.  Or the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  You wouldn't find me "reflexively defending" these things.  

But in the main, yes.  My "reflex" is to defend the Church.  It's my community.  I am a part of it.  I have made covenants which relate to it.  I will defend it.  That doesn't mean that I think the Church is perfect.  Rather, it means that I believe the Church is good and decent.  And divinely appointed.  I believe it is what it claims to be.  That's my lodestar.  So I give it my allegiance and devotion.  I'll not work against it.  When it makes a mistake, or when a flaw is exposed, I will work with it to address such things.  I will not "air the family's dirty laundry."  I will not seek to embarrass the Church or its leaders in the eyes of the world, or to foment ill will against the Church.  I will not seek to use government regulation or adversarial public pressure tactics to coerce the Church into doing something I want it to do, or to stop doing something I dislike.  I will not publicly speak against or seek to undermine the Brethren.  I think they are collectively good and decent men who are doing very hard work under very trying circumstances.  I will given them the benefit of the doubt.  I will not presume that my perspective and personal opinions are superior to theirs.  I will not seek to usurp their role as prophets seers and revelators, nor will I seek to undermine their good faith efforts to function in that role.  I will not raise my voice as one that is superior and alternative to theirs.  I will not presume to publicly criticize them, as that is not within my stewardship.  If I have a concern about their conduct or about matters within their stewardship, I will address such things the way Elder Oaks recommends here.

I hope that clarifies things a bit as regarding what I believe and where I am coming from.  And to clarify further, the preceding paragraph is not intended to be accusatory in any way.  I am not suggesting that you (or anyone else) is not doing the things described in the preceding paragraph.  I just felt like sharing my viewpoint.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know how to link to specific posts, but he is quoting jkwilliams. Go back one screen before this, and you will see.

 

Then that's a complete misrepresentation of what jkwilliams expressed here:

Quote

 "It's entirely possible to disagree without saying the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever. Good people can make poor decisions, even as a group, and saying so is not demonizing them."

Smac used his quote as stating ("asserting") just the opposite of what jk's meaning was above.

Edited October 27, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

 

55 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, you have no evidence to back up your statement?  Just your feelings?

What "statement" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[ALarson]

Just now, smac97 said:

 

What "statement" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

The one we were discussing.  Here's your quote again:

Meanwhile, the wisdom of the policy seems to be getting more apparent as time goes on.

What evidence do you have that this is true?  (I've seen just the opposite.)

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well there you go.  A testimony from a faithful member that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not that big of deal.  Never thought I would hear that argument.  But hey, this policy brings out the best arguments that completely go against Mormon belief in order to justify it.  This is jus another example.

LOL you're such a stinker!

The Gift is a big deal (along with a number of other things, but who's counting?), but the Father, Son and Holy Ghost together are just an even a bigger deal. All in good time.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then that's a complete misrepresentation of what jkwilliams expressed here:

Smac used his quote as stating ("asserting") just the opposite of what jk's meaning was above.

No, smac was immediately replying to and referencing what jkwilliams  had just said. Any reasonable person who reads the two posts together can see that.

If anything, it was you who took it out of context by severing it from the conversation he was having with jkwilliams.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

This is interesting. So when my child turns eight and has a baptismal interview with the bishop, I can attend and tell the bishop that I have decided that my child can't be baptized and confirmed until the age of eighteen, my bishop should just say, "no problem." Is that right? When I come in for a temple recommend interview later or am considered for a calling, my prohibition on underage baptism should be "no problem." Is this right? How could I be accused of doing anything wrong as a parent if my child is not losing out on anything?

I was responding to CB's rather sarcastic response which was rather ironic since he is no longer a believer. And actually there will be no problem for your child. The problem would be yours.

Glenn

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, smac was immediately replying to and referencing what jkwilliams  had just said. Andy reasonable person who reads the two posts together can see that.

If anything, it was you who took it out of context by severing it from the conversation he was having with jkwilliams.

 

Then who is smac referring to below ("people")?  (That was my question as I've seen no one do that on this thread and thought he was quoting them, not someone who meant just the opposite).

 

Quote

 

 1 hour ago, smac97 said:

However, there are people who are disagreeing with the policy by asserting things like "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever."  

 

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The one we were discussing.  Here's your quote again:

Quote

Meanwhile, the wisdom of the policy seems to be getting more apparent as time goes on.

What evidence do you have that this is true?  (I've seen just the opposite.)

Well, that's what we've been discussing for 21 pages now.  My opinion is based on the plausibility of the reasoning and explanation proffered by the Brethren (particularly by Elder Christofferson and Pres Nelson), in particular the unanimous sustaining vote from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. 

And by the glaringly obvious efforts to sidestep or twist or ignore or outright reject the remarks of Elder Christofferson and Pres Nelson. 

And by the general failure to to meaningfully engage these remarks and give them a fair shake. 

And by the ongoing faith I have that the Lord is leading this Church, and that the efforts described by Pres. Nelson to reach a decision about the policy are designed to facilitate decisionmaking borne of revelation rather than personal preferences.  

And by my scrutiny of the ramifications of the policy, both actual (as applied) and theoretical (what would have happened had it not been implemented). 

And by the "track record" of the Church's corollary policy pertaining to children from polygamous families. 

And by the relative lack of sufficiently persuasive critical arguments against the policy. 

And by the general lack of probative value I find in opposition to the policy that is based on raw, negative emotions and/or anecdotal experiences and/or "I oppose the policy because it has been adversely affected someone I care about"-style complaints (as I have noted, I have a friend whose violation of a criminal law and subsequent incarceration has created substantial hardship for his wife and children.  But I don't think the remedy is to decriminalize his conduct or refuse to enforce a necessary and important law.).  And by the seeming overabundance of these sorts of arguments.

I could go on, but that's probably good for now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, smac was immediately replying to and referencing what jkwilliams  had just said. Andy reasonable person who reads the two posts together can see that.

If anything, it was you who took it out of context by severing it from the conversation he was having with jkwilliams.

 

Nope.  ALarsen is correct.  No one said "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots".  JkWilliams said no one said that and then Smac said people are saying that.  This often happens on this topic, the defense tends to hyperventilate and argue against that which is not being said.  There is rarely if ever an attempt by the defense to address this topic in a dispassionate and reasonable way.  But it was odd when smac was saying the opposite while tending to try and tell everyone what their intentions were, in a passionate and unreasonable way. 

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by stemelbow

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then who is smac referring to below ("people")?  (That was my question as I've seen no one do that on this thread and thought he was quoting them, not someone who meant just the opposite).

Quote

However, there are people who are disagreeing with the policy by asserting things like "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever."  

 

Ah.  Okay.  I was, I think, quoting JK, who in turn was paraphrasing me, who in turn was paraphrasing and summarizing many arguments which I have seen promulgated since the policy game out.  I should have clarified that.

If you are presenting a CFR for assertions like "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever," then let me know.  I thought these sorts of denunciations were sufficiently widespread that they did not need to be quoted chapter and verse.  But I can easily track some down for you if you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: We could start with quoting Brother Bear, who just now said this: "To me the policy, combined with the redefining of same-sex as apostasy, is the church's way of giving the middle finger to the gay community."

"Giving the middle finger to the gay community" seems awfully close to saying "the church hates gay people."  It's this sort of horrible, overheated rhetoric that I find problematic (particularly when it comes from Latter-day Saints).

So thanks to Brother Bear, for so timely proving my point!

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

To me the policy, combined with the redefining of same-sex [marriage] as apostasy, is the church's way of giving the middle finger to the gay community.

I understand this is how critics of the church want to characterize the policy, but you'll have to forgive me for admitting that I really don't think that was the intent. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then who is smac referring to below ("people")?  (That was my question as I've seen no one do that on this thread and thought he was quoting them, not someone who meant just the opposite).

 

 

I'll let smac respond to that if he chooses to do so.

My intent was to answer a question you had posed. That was when I thought you were sincerely seeking information, not just intending to quarrel.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  Okay.  I was paraphrasing and summarizing many arguments which I have seen promulgated since the policy game out.  I should have clarified that, or not used quotation marks.

If you are presenting a CFR for assertions like "the church hates gay people or the brethren are bigots or whatever," then let me know.  I thought these sorts of denunciations were sufficiently widespread that they did not need to be quoted chapter and verse.  But I can easily track some down for you if you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the difficulty in these discussions is introducing things that aren't being said and presenting a defense or argument against that, particularly when the foreign comments put in quotations marks as if someone is saying it are words describing emotion (in essence it is throwing out a dispassionate and reasonable discourse and introducing an unfriendly emotional lashing out). 

[Brother Bear]

10 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I was responding to CB's rather sarcastic response which was rather ironic since he is no longer a believer. And actually there will be no problem for your child. The problem would be yours.

Glenn

Well, I don't think a person has to be a believer to identify potential contradiction. Surely this board has done plenty to point out contradiction in belief systems they don't accept. 

What I'm struggling with here is that you seem to suggest that since a child theoretically loses out on nothing in the end the church's actions are justified (it has no blood on its hands). Yet if I do the same thing you claim I do have a problem. Why? 

I bring this up because similar comments are made on topics related to the priesthood ban, suggesting that nothing is lost by being denied the crowning blessings of our religion in this life. It just seems like people are talking out of both sides of their mouths.