Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As others have said, the reason this strikes home to so many is that most of us have gay family members or friends, many of whom are affected by the policy. I don't know any polygamists, and I wasn't aware of the policy regarding them, but I've said before I disagree with that policy too, even though I think it's not analogous to the situation with gay families. I've said why I disagree with the policy, and I've tried hard to give rational arguments that are not based on emotion. I think the horse has been dead a while, so time for me to stop beating it.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson has a gay family member (a brother) whom he loves deeply and whom he has taken pains to include within the family circle. Yet Elder Christofferson participated in the formulation of the policy and arguably has been the most prominent of the Brethren in articulating it to the public.

I think there's a message there.

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As a parent, I would be very nervous and guarded about finding myself in that unhappy position.

The first lesson our children receive from us ought to be the example we set.

What should parents do if they disagree with the policy? Suppose their children ask them what they think. Should they tell the kids how they feel, or keep it to themselves? I would think it's possible to be honest with your kids without slandering and demeaning church leaders.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder D. Todd Christofferson has a gay family member (a brother) whom he loves deeply and whom he has taken pains to include within the family circle. Yet Elder Christofferson participated in the formulation of the policy and arguably has been the most prominent of the Brethren in articulating it to the public.

I think there's a message there.

I have not questioned the intentions of the brethren. 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

It's a lot higher than you would think.  Some recent evidence has even suggested it is a majority of individuals who identify as gay.  

Edited October 27, 2017 by kllindley

[Brother Bear]

All I know is that Bob Crockett deserves some credit for making the largest contribution to this thread. My next album will be titled "Jukebox Revelation." I just called dibs on it. Bob gets a 1% royalty on all net sales.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As others have said, the reason this strikes home to so many is that most of us have gay family members or friends, many of whom are affected by the policy.

I acknowledge that.  I am not faulting people for whom this topic "strikes close to home."  I am, however, expressing concern about fellow Latter-day Saints who are publicly speaking against and finding fault with the Brethren.  And I am also expressing concern about everyone who is resorting to "overheated and caustic rhetoric" (critics, opponents, members, whatever) against the Church and its leaders as regarding this policy.

I think it's time to calm down about the policy.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know any polygamists, and I wasn't aware of the policy regarding them, but I've said before I disagree with that policy too, even though I think it's not analogous to the situation with gay families.

I think it's remarkably similar.  Both policies involve children who are are being raised in family which is organized in a way that is irretrievably incompatible with the Restored Gospel.

Both policies require postponement of baptism of children until they reach majority.

Both policies require the baptismal candidate to disavow a decision made by their parents (though not to disavow the parents themselves).  Both types of decision (to enter into a polygamous marriage, or to enter into a same-sex marriage), if made by a member of the Church, is an excommunicable offense.

Both policies pertain to situations where a baptismal candidate is being raised by parents who are or may very well be hostile to the Church.

Yep.  Pretty similar.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've said why I disagree with the policy, and I've tried hard to give rational arguments that are not based on emotion. I think the horse has been dead a while, so time for me to stop beating it.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, not what I stated.   Please read what I actually post and stop misrepresenting me and twisting my words.

Isn't this what you posted?

Quote

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?

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, I think the Latter-day Saints should give them the benefit of the doubt.  And ease up on corrosive rhetoric that, sooner or later, ends up being read or heard by children, and who will be awfully confused by the spectacle of self-selected members of the Lord's Church professing, on the one hand, to value and sustain living prophets, seers, and revelators, and yet on the other hand publicly slander and demean those men and their decisions.

I don't believe that it's an either or (either sustain or publicly slander and demean).  As we know, our leaders and Prophets are not infallible.  They have made mistakes and will continue to do so.  They are human and we all make mistakes, so that is not slander or demeaning to state that.

But because we know they can make mistakes, members can disagree with them at times.  This policy personally affects many members and their families so there are varied reactions and emotions and feelings regarding it.  There is nothing wrong with hoping this policy may change in the future.

Edited October 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It's a lot higher than you would think.  Some recent evidence has even suggested it is a minority of individuals who identify as gay.  

Not following you here. Did you mean to say majority?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

All I know is that Bob Crockett deserves some credit for making the largest contribution to this thread. My next album will be titled "Jukebox Revelation." I just called dibs on it. Bob gets a 1% royalty on all net sales.

Oh, don't be modest.  Your "giving the middle finger to the gay community" comment was perfectly timed to illustrate an important point being discussed in this thread.

-Smac

[kllindley]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

These were instructions regarding what to advise or how to help cure homosexual members of the church (nothing was mentioned about bisexuals).  

BS.  It was not about homosexual members, it was about members who had become involved in homosexuality.  You don't think any bisexuals would fall into that category?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Oh, don't be modest.  Your "giving the middle finger to the gay community" comment was perfectly timed to illustrate an important point being discussed in this thread.

-Smac

As I mentioned, an active church member said exactly the same thing to me, only he said it approvingly. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

So you don’t have to be a member to be a deacon now?

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What should parents do if they disagree with the policy? Suppose their children ask them what they think. Should they tell the kids how they feel, or keep it to themselves? I would think it's possible to be honest with your kids without slandering and demeaning church leaders.

There is wisdom in some instances in remaining silent.

But, my experience as a parent has been that my children are very rarely interested enough in my views on public affairs to ask me about them. Most of the time, they quickly grow bored when I try to give them my opinions unsolicited.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I mentioned, an active church member said exactly the same thing to me, only he said it approvingly. 

So we're to be accountable for the errant behavior of "an active Church member"?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Isn't this what you posted?

Yes, and I stand by that.  That's also not what you accused me of stating.  Please read the entire exchange between myself and Bob for context.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

There is wisdom in some instances in remaining silent.

But, my experience as a parent has been that my children are very rarely interested in my views on public affairs to ask me about them. Most of the time, they quickly grow bored when I try to give them my opinions unsolicited.

My kids must be more curious than yours.  I generally tell my kids what I think when asked. I don't see the value in remaining silent.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not following you here. Did you mean to say majority?

Yes. Thank you for catching it.  A minority of individuals who identified as "gay" later revealed an exclusively homosexual orientation. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So we're to be accountable for the errant behavior of "an active Church member"?

Nope, I didn't say that. I'm just noting a statement I mentioned in an earlier post that had been said by a believing church member. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

My kids must be more curious than yours.  I generally tell my kids what I think when asked. I don't see the value in remaining silent.

Most of the time I don't either.

As I said, if I found myself at odds with the Brethren on a matter this important, I would be very nervous, unsettled and guarded. I certainly would go around the house ranting about my disapproval of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Yes. Thank you for catching it.  A minority of individuals who identified as "gay" later revealed an exclusively homosexual orientation. 

That's what I thought you meant.

And thanks for that observation.

It raises pertinent questions about the possible role of social pressure these days in influencing the sexual self-identity of individuals who might actually be somewhere towards the middle of the Kinsey scale.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Most of the time I don't either.

As I said, if I found myself at odds with the Brethren on a matter this important, I would be very nervous, unsettled and guarded. I certainly would go around the house ranting about my disapproval of them.

I've never ranted about the church in my home, either. What would be the point? But yes, my kids have asked me my opinion about a lot of things, including religious and political issues, and I tell them what I think. 

[Brother Bear]

Just now, smac97 said:

Oh, don't be modest.  Your "giving the middle finger to the gay community" comment was perfectly timed to illustrate an important point being discussed in this thread.

-Smac

Haha....touche. It was admittedly over the top and foolishly hyperbolic. Someday I'll learn to express myself more dispassionately...if only I could treat these matters the way I treat filing my tax return...or filling out a form at the DMV  

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's not an either or (either sustain or publicly slander and demean). 

According to Elder Oaks (emphases added):

Quote

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

...

My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

...

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. The Savior taught: “The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, [who] stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (3 Ne. 11:29.) Paul taught the Romans: “Mark them which cause divisions … and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17.) In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.)

...

The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to “[speak] the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit.

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)

...

Church leaders need this consideration, since the responsibilities of Church leadership include the correction of others. That function is not popular. As the Lamanite prophet Samuel taught, when a prophet comes among us and speaks of our iniquities, we are made angry. We call him a false prophet and “cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him.” (See Hel. 13:26.) But if a man comes among us and speaks flattering words about our behavior and tells us that it is all right to “walk after the pride of [our] own hearts … and do whatsoever [our] heart desire{s},” “we will not find fault with him.” (See Hel. 13:27, 28.) We will call him a prophet and reward him.

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

There is nothing new about this counsel. Even though King Saul sought to kill him, David would not allow his companion to strike the king, saying, “for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9.) The prophet Isaiah denounced those who “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Isa. 29:21; see also 2 Ne. 27:32.) (Those who reproved in the gate in Isaiah’s time were the religious leaders.) This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” (D&C 121:16.)

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

The prophet Moses expressed another reason we should refrain from criticizing Church leaders. On one occasion, the whole congregation of the children of Israel became dissatisfied and “murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.” (Ex. 16:2.)

“What are we, that ye murmur against us?” Moses asked them. “The Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord.” (Ex. 16:7–8.) Similarly, when the children of Israel ignored the prophet Samuel’s inspired warnings and begged him to appoint a king to rule over them, the Lord directed him to do as they asked, explaining: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:7.)

...

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations...

The article is quite long, but definitely worth a read.

There is essentially no circumstance under which the publicly slandering and demeaning of general authorities (acting within their capacity) by an observant Latter-day Saints is appropriate.

Quote

As we know, our leaders and Prophets are not infallible.

Which is a different topic from, and does not justify, the publicly slandering and demeaning of general authorities (acting within their capacity) by an observant Latter-day Saints.

Quote

They have made mistakes and will continue to do so.  They are human and we all make mistakes, so that is not slander or demeaning to state that.

I agree.  But some of the accusations I have read against Pres. Nelson are, I think, plainly slanderous and demeaning.  "He went rogue" is a common one.  Innuendo about him lying have been frequent in this very thread.

Quote

But because we know they can make mistakes, members can disagree with them at times.

Yes.  But that disagreement should be expressed in the appropriate time, place and manner. There is essentially no circumstance under which the publicly slandering and demeaning of general authorities (acting within their capacity) by an observant Latter-day Saints is appropriate.

Quote

This policy personally affects many member's lives so there are varied reactions and emotions and feelings regarding it.

I acknowledge that.

Quote

There is nothing wrong with hoping this policy may change in the future.

I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly (don't know about it being "many").   However, this doesn't change the fact that these used to be the teachings regarding how local leaders should help homosexual members.  These teachings have changed (which is a good thing).

Have we had this conversation before? The difference between the teachings and techniques believed to support the teachings? The doctrine on marriage has not changed throughout the canon. Likewise, the doctrine on sexual relations outside of marriage being a sin. The resources (the science and technology of the day) the leaders use in their ministry  does change, but that certainly does not drive the teachings or the doctrine.

I've observed a consistent desperation to conflate secular knowledge and methods with doctrinal-based ministering and teaching on this subject.