Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

We’ve had long-time posters who are faithful LDS recount how this has torn their families apart and caused tremendous pain. Are you really suggesting they are noisy and vitriolic faultfinders?

 

Do you agree with CB that the policy is "ripping up the Church from within"?

That is what I had reference to, not individual anecdotes.

Quote

I will never understand why some people equate disagreement with church policy to murmuring and nascent apostasy. Maybe it’s that my father taught us it was okay, even good, to question church leaders because, unlike God, they are fallible humans. 

I had occasion a couple of nights ago to read through a thread in which I was excoriated because I refused to cite an example in which I personally disagreed with the leadership of the Church.

Assuming arguendo that I have such a disagreement, there's no way I'm going to open up about it in a venue such as this. I don't approve of the faultfinding that occurs here day after day as it is; I'm not about to engage in it myself.

As Smac as indicated, if one has a sincere disagreement with the Church over somehting, there are procedures for making that known that don't involve public condemnation of the Brethren or their actions on the Worldwide Web.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Didn't you make this remark?

I was saying that smac was referencing your words when responding to you.

 

Given that he posted that before I made my comment, I would say that’s impossible. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Given that he posted that before I made my comment, I would say that’s impossible. 

No. Look back at it. His remark was in response to yours. He posted after yours and quoted you.

 

[Bob Crockett]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ll try to do better with my posting style. As I said, the only reason I’ve expressed an opinion about the policy is that smac97 repeatedly asked me to do so. Obviously my opinion is mine alone, but I don’t apologize for having an opinion. 

As far as my membership status, what you call passive-aggressive was simply a response to your statement that I have no standing, which is not the case. If you feel I should not be in good standing in the church, feel free to contact my priesthood leaders. 

It is your nature to be passive aggressive.  I've followed you for years.  You can't change.  You're probably passive aggressive in real life.  I'm aggressive and can't really change.  But passive aggressiveness is inherently disingenuous.  You (collective you, not Williams you) try to present a passive face to lead one to believe something about you which isn't true. 

When it comes to posts about about the Church, it is simply disingenuous to say, for instance, "I'm just an honest broker here," or "I'm a bishop," or "I'm" this or that, all of which is completely irrelevant to the topic on the table, and then argue something critical about the Church which likely is just carping.  In terms of freedom of worship, religious freedom, and the like -- we should be free to believe what we want, no matter how absurd -- and to be constantly berated by critics is just unfathomable.  Certainly, it is not outrageous for a church to say that homosexuality is wrong and if you engage in a homosexual marriage your children can't gain admission.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Brother Bear]

22 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children correct principles and then let them be baptized if they should so desire when they reach the age of accountability. If the parent shirks that responsibility, then the problem is laid on the heads of the parents, not the child. That is what would happen should you do as you suggested. The same situation will exist with SSM parents. I do not envision any such parents teaching their children that the LDS church is true yet in error about SSM and asking that they be baptized. This is an emotional issue more than anything else. I actually regret chiming in on this subject because of that. As one poster has already pointed out, there was already a similar policy in regards to children living in polygamous homes which has not caused nearly the level of rhetoric that this issue has.

Glenn

To me it just does not compute. I don't see how I would be guiltless making a decision as a church leader but guilty making the same decision as a parent. I understand the complexity when this issue is addressed in the context of same-sex marriage, but previous posts seemed to me to suggest that, regardless of context, there is no harm done and no sin in delaying saving ordinances. I think others may have felt the same way, but if that wasn't intended then I apologize for the misread. 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here are a few:

Thank you!  These are helpful.

However, these seem fairly oblique.  They speak of "curing" homosexuality, an outdated term given what we have learned in the nearly 50 years since these remarks were made (and understandably offensive today, which is why it context matters).  "Curing" can, as I see it, mean "stop acting on."  Where are the references to "statements made by leaders back when they taught that gays could be cured or should fix their homosexuality by marrying {a member of the opposite} sex"?  (I interpolated what I think your intended language was, as you initially said "marrying the same sex."

I think we get sort of close to what you are saying in the first quote:

Quote

The entrenched homosexual has generally and gradually moved all of his interests and affections to those of his own sex rather than to the opposite sex and herein is another step. When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and gradually move his life toward the normal.  

So it sounds like dating is proposed as one part of a multi-step process.  You, on the other hand, referenced a one-and-done sort of thing ("they taught that gays ... should fix their homosexuality by marrying {a person of the opposite sex}").

Quote

If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong.

Well, this part seems to have been largely (though not completely) a bit of wishful thinking.  It appears that most people who identify as "gay" are unable to alter their sexual attraction from their own gender to the opposite one.  However, it seems like some can (see here).  I personally have a friend who previously identified as being sexually attracted to men, but states that he has overcome it and is now attracted to women.  I take him at his word.

I am ambivalent about "gay conversion" theory.  To be frank, I am generally dubious about it, but I don't preclude the possibility of it working for some (likely few) individuals.

But for this discussion, I was expecting to see what you seemed to be characterizing as a simplistic, just-marry-a-girl-and-things-will-sort-themselves-out kind of teaching.  That does not seem to be what the pamphlet contemplated.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. Look back at it. His remark was in response to yours. He posted after yours and quoted you.

 

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thank you!  These are helpful.

However, these seem fairly oblique.

You are joking right?  Come on smac....the leaders used to teach that being gay could be cured.  Local leaders received instructions to encourage gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.

Read the quotes again.  Would you like me to provide more?

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is your nature to be passive aggressive.  I've followed you for years.  You can't change.  You're probably passive aggressive in real life.  I'm aggressive and can't really change.  But passive aggressiveness is inherently disingenuous.  You (collective you, not Williams you) try to present a passive face to lead one to believe something about you which isn't true. 

When it comes to posts about about the Church, it is simply disingenuous to say, for instance, "I'm just an honest broker here," or "I'm a bishop," or "I'm" this or that, all of which is completely irrelevant to the topic on the table, and then argue something critical about the Church which likely is just carping.  In terms of freedom of worship, religious freedom, and the like -- we should be free to believe what we want, no matter how absurd -- and to be constantly berated by critics is just unfathomable.  Certainly, it is not outrageous for a church to say that homosexuality is wrong and if you engage in a homosexual marriage your children can't gain admission.

I don't claim to be an honest broker. You said I had no standing, but I do have standing as a member. Again, I wouldn't have said anything about what I think of the policy had smac97 not asked me repeatedly to do so. The OP was about the fallout from the policy, and I shared my experience with a family member. 

Do I find the church's policies and doctrines outrageous? Of course not. I do think this policy is wrong, and no matter how much you think it's wrong of me to express my opinion, I'm not going to apologize for it. And I am not berating anyone over this.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You are joking right? 

Nope.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Come on smac....the leaders used to teach that being gay could be cured. 

I've heard that.  Hence my CFR.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Local leaders received instructions to encourage gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.

Okay.  CFR on that, please.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Read the quotes again.  Would you like me to provide more?

If they are responsive to my CFR (either directly or obliquely), then yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you agree with CB that the is "ripping up the Church from within"?

That is what I had reference to, not individual anecdotes.

I had occasion a couple of nights ago to read through a thread in which I was excoriated because I refused to cite an example in which I personally disagreed with the leadership of the Church.

Assuming arguendo that I have such a disagreement, there's no way I'm going to open up about it in a venue such as this. I don't approve of the faultfinding that occurs here day after day as it is; I'm not about to engage in it myself.

As Smac as indicated, if one has a sincere disagreement with the Church over somehting, there are procedures for making that known that don't involve public condemnation of the Brethren or their actions on the Worldwide Web.

 

I don't think the policy is going to cause a major rift in the church, but certainly it has caused more contention and hurt among faithful members than anything I can remember. As smac said earlier, the policy change has caused faithful members to question and oppose the brethren on a major issue. I haven't seen that before, at least not to that extent. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  CFR on that, please.

Good grief.  I can post numerous other quotes regarding how it was taught that homosexuality could be cured along with the cures suggested.  There are also quotes regarding instructions given to local leaders to advise gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.  Here's another example (you may just want to read this entire document as it was sent out by the church leaders to local leaders):

Quote

 

If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be

patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong. Marriage and normal life can follow.

 

 

Here's a link to this document for you to read:

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors

Here's another quote from the same document. I'm not sure how you can classify the statement below as being "oblique":

Quote

Homosexuality CAN be cured, if the battle is well organized and pursued vigorously and continuously.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

 

You need to scroll down and look below this, at your post and at smac's response to it.

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think the policy is going to cause a major rift in the church,

I agree.  I think the overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics and opponents about the policy is causing most of the problems.  By way of evidence, I once again point to the Church's nearly nearly-identical policy regarding children from polygamous families.  That policy has been in place for nearly a century, and yet that has been virtually no the-sky-is-falling, condemnatory rhetoric about it, either from critics/opponents or from members.  Nobody seems to have lost any sleep over it.  Nobody seems to have had a crisis of faith over it.  Nobody that I have ever heard of has ever cited it as their reason for resigning their membership over it.

Why?  My surmise is . . . because the critics and opponents of the Church are not trying to inflame acrimony and public sentiment against the Church about it.  They just don't care about the children of polygamous families.  These kids are not useful as weaponized "But think of the children!"-style talking points.  And so in the absence of such acrimony and public sentiment, the Church has administered that policy without anything close to the drama and anger we've seen with the newer policy.

That is not to say that both policies are just easy-breazy in their applications and ramifications.  Of course not.  But the generalized angst about the newer policy is, I think, largely attributable more to the harsh rhetoric about the policy than its actual enactment and effect.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

but certainly it has caused more contention and hurt among faithful members than anything I can remember.

I'll disagree a bit here.  Again, I think the overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics and opponents about the policy is causing most of the problems.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As smac said earlier, the policy change has caused faithful members to question and oppose the brethren on a major issue. I haven't seen that before, at least not to that extent. 

That's about right.  I still think it's helpful, though, to distinguishing between the policy change and rhetoric about and emotional reactions to the policy change as the "cause."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thank you!  These are helpful.

However, these seem fairly oblique.  They speak of "curing" homosexuality, an outdated term given what we have learned in the nearly 50 years since these remarks were made (and understandably offensive today, which is why it context matters).  "Curing" can, as I see it, mean "stop acting on."  Where are the references to "statements made by leaders back when they taught that gays could be cured or should fix their homosexuality by marrying {a member of the opposite} sex"?  (I interpolated what I think your intended language was, as you initially said "marrying the same sex."

I think we get sort of close to what you are saying in the first quote:

So it sounds like dating is proposed as one part of a multi-step process.  You, on the other hand, referenced a one-and-done sort of thing ("they taught that gays ... should fix their homosexuality by marrying {a person of the opposite sex}").

Well, this part seems to have been largely (though not completely) a bit of wishful thinking.  It appears that most people who identify as "gay" are unable to alter their sexual attraction from their own gender to the opposite one.  However, it seems like some can (see here).  I personally have a friend who previously identified as being sexually attracted to men, but states that he has overcome it and is now attracted to women.  I take him at his word.

I am ambivalent about "gay conversion" theory.  To be frank, I am generally dubious about it, but I don't preclude the possibility of it working for some (likely few) individuals.

But for this discussion, I was expecting to see what you seemed to be characterizing as a simplistic, just-marry-a-girl-and-things-will-sort-themselves-out kind of teaching.  That does not seem to be what the pamphlet contemplated.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think what gets lost in these discussions is the Kinsey scale. That is, some people who have same-sex attraction are bi-sexual. In such instances, it seems to me that there would be a greater possibility likelihood of altering one's sexual attraction from the same sex to the opposite one.

I would be interested to know the percentage of those who identify as gay that are bi-sexual.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Good grief.  I can post numerous other quotes regarding how it was taught that homosexuality could be cured along with the cures suggested. 

Yes, please do so.  But let's keep in mind that "CFR" is a "Call for References."  So I'm not looking for hearsay recollections.  I am looking for the actual statements from the Church and its leaders.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are also quotes regarding instructions given to local leaders to advise gay members to date and marry the opposite sex. 

Great!  Let's see those instructions.  CFR, please.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's another example (you may just want to read this entire document as it was sent out by the church leaders to local leaders):

Here's a link to this document for you to read:

Quote

If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong. Marriage and normal life can follow.

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors

Here's another quote from the same document. I'm not sure how you can classify the statement below as being "oblique":

Ah, sorry!  I cannot get Scribd to work, so I was relying on your quotes, and I must have overlooked the "Marriage and normal life can follow" bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I agree.  I think the overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics and opponents about the policy is causing most of the problems.  By way of evidence, I once again point to the Church's nearly nearly-identical policy regarding children from polygamous families.  That policy has been in place for nearly a century, and yet that has been virtually no the-sky-is-falling, condemnatory rhetoric about it, either from critics/opponents or from members.  Nobody seems to have lost any sleep over it.  Nobody seems to have had a crisis of faith over it.  Nobody that I have ever heard of has ever cited it as their reason for resigning their membership over it.

Why?  My surmise is . . . because the critics and opponents of the Church are not trying to inflame acrimony and public sentiment against the Church about it.  They just don't care about the children of polygamous families.  These kids are not useful as weaponized "But think of the children!"-style talking points.  And so in the absence of such acrimony and public sentiment, the Church has administered that policy without anything close to the drama and anger we've seen with the newer policy.

That is not to say that both policies are just easy-breazy in their applications and ramifications.  Of course not.  But the generalized angst about the newer policy is, I think, largely attributable more to the harsh rhetoric about the policy than its actual enactment and effect.

I'll disagree a bit here.  Again, I think the overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics and opponents about the policy is causing most of the problems.

That's about right.  I still think it's helpful, though, to distinguishing between the policy change and rhetoric about and emotional reactions to the policy change as the "cause."

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll just go back to my family member, who I know does not pay the least bit of attention to critics and opponents of the church. The conflict and pain in his family came from the policy causing custody and child-rearing agreements to be revisited. It seems odd to suggest that changed circumstances leading to family conflict are attributable solely to the overheated and caustic rhetoric of enemies of the church. Do you think the posters here who have talked about the pain and conflict in their families are simply responding to outside attacks on the church?

Sorry, that just doesn't make sense.

[Bob Crockett]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You are joking right?  Come on smac....the leaders used to teach that being gay could be cured.  Local leaders received instructions to encourage gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.

Read the quotes again.  Would you like me to provide more?

Not only that, but so did the American Psychiatric Society, and so says about half of the evangelical churches and the Catholic Church today.

The reality is that we all have sins that we can cure through Jesus Christ.  As I have pointed out many times, there are plenty of people in the Church with strong homosexual desires who desire to follow Jesus instead.  

You're just a fountain of political correctness.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think the policy is going to cause a major rift in the church, but certainly it has caused more contention and hurt among faithful members than anything I can remember. As smac said earlier, the policy change has caused faithful members to question and oppose the brethren on a major issue. I haven't seen that before, at least not to that extent. 

Your observation may very well be correct.

On the other hand, we have the Internet now, which we didn't have before, and that tends to amplify rifts in a way that wasn't possible before, especially if people are so angry they are determined to make the rift public. And publicity tends to feed on itself, especially with social media.

[Bob Crockett]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not going to apologize for it. And I am not berating anyone over this.

Hah! Point made with this very post. Passive aggressiveness, at its core, is to say, I'm not berating you over your fundamental personal and sacred beliefs, but here is some berating for you.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, please do so.  But let's keep in mind that "CFR" is a "Call for References."  So I'm not looking for hearsay recollections.  I am looking for the actual statements from the Church and its leaders.

Great!  Let's see those instructions.  CFR, please.

I've done all of the above.  I provided numerous quotes and references in answer to your CFR (none were "hearsay recollections", so I'm not sure where that accusation came from).

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah, sorry!  I cannot get Scribd to work, so I was relying on your quotes, and I must have overlooked the "Marriage and normal life can follow" bit.

Ok.  Let me know if you're still having trouble looking up the document and I'll see if I can find another site where it's been published.  You really should read it in it's entirety as it will provide many other quotes on this topic regarding what used to be taught and advised by our leaders.

Edited October 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, please do so.  But let's keep in mind that "CFR" is a "Call for References."  So I'm not looking for hearsay recollections.  I am looking for the actual statements from the Church and its leaders.

Great!  Let's see those instructions.  CFR, please.

Ah, sorry!  I cannot get Scribd to work, so I was relying on your quotes, and I must have overlooked the "Marriage and normal life can follow" bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, I say that in the case of bisexuals, there may well be some validity to some of these earlier statements.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Not only that, but so did the American Psychiatric Society, and so says about half of the evangelical churches and the Catholic Church today.

Yes, but we have leaders and living Prophets who receive revelation directly from God.  So shouldn't they have had the truth revealed to them and not followed what the secular beliefs were at that time if they were incorrect?

 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  I think the overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics and opponents about the policy is causing most of the problems.  By way of evidence, I once again point to the Church's nearly nearly-identical policy regarding children from polygamous families.  That policy has been in place for nearly a century, and yet that has been virtually no the-sky-is-falling, condemnatory rhetoric about it, either from critics/opponents or from members.  Nobody seems to have lost any sleep over it.  Nobody seems to have had a crisis of faith over it.  Nobody that I have ever heard of has ever cited it as their reason for resigning their membership over it.

Why?  My surmise is . . . because the critics and opponents of the Church are not trying to inflame acrimony and public sentiment against the Church about it.  They just don't care about the children of polygamous families.  These kids are not useful as weaponized "But think of the children!"-style talking points.  And so in the absence of such acrimony and public sentiment, the Church has administered that policy without anything close to the drama and anger we've seen with the newer policy.

That is not to say that both policies are just easy-breazy in their applications and ramifications.  Of course not.  But the generalized angst about the newer policy is, I think, largely attributable more to the harsh rhetoric about the policy than its actual enactment and effect.

I'll disagree a bit here.  Again, I think the overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics and opponents about the policy is causing most of the problems.

That's about right.  I still think it's helpful, though, to distinguishing between the policy change and rhetoric about and emotional reactions to the policy change as the "cause."

Thanks,

-Smac

I wonder why overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics isn't causing similar problems regarding the missionary age change policy.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Your observation may very well be correct.

On the other hand, we have the Internet now, which we didn't have before, and that tends to amplify rifts in a way that wasn't possible before, especially if people are so angry they are determined to make the rift public. And publicity tends to feed on itself, especially with social media.

What's been interesting to me is the members I know who are really upset about the policy but have not expressed it publicly. Despite what some people think, the church isn't a big issue in my life anymore, so I never bring up the subject. But I have had family members and friends in the church volunteer how troubling this has been to them. Obviously, that's just anecdotal, but never before have I seen anything like this, not even with Prop. 8, which likewise happened in the age of the Internet.