Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Clarification of policies happen all the time. What about the rest of the post? 

There are children probably in your own ward that are taught things that their parents do not do...and many parents are not even married...but they are baptized..they are not even slightly shunned by their friends at church.

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Gee, I thought you were doing us a favor by marking the parts we could ignore.

  I thought maybe I was supposed to read between the lines..

[kllindley]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  Do the leaders still teach that there is a cure for homosexuality (including bisexuals)?  If you believe they do, can you supply a recent quote from one of our leaders who still teaches this?

Do our leaders currently instruct local leaders to advise bisexual members to marry the opposite sex?  (From my experience, these types of teachings are no longer encouraged.)

I think it's very wise that the leaders have distanced themselves from making general claims regarding this.   Cases should really be handled individually and uniquely, IMO.  There are just too many variables to give sweeping instructions to all gay (including bisexual) members.

To suggest that the document you cite does not suggest individual and unique suggestions is ridiculous!

To quote page 2:

Quote

You were promised discernment of spirit (See D&C 46:27) and though you would wish to be informed and alert, you still must draw heavily upon the source of all wisdom, and if you are dedicated and in total  attunement with your Heavenly Father, you will be able to find solutions.There are no answers to fit every case-each one needs special consideration and treatment.

Again if you look at the original document, (page one) it specifically identifies homosexuality as a "practice."  Multiple times!  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Yet that gift is denied children of gay couples. There is no way around thatYet that gift is denied children of gay couples. There is no way around that

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This is from the current Pamphlet regarding Same-Gender Attraction

According to Elder Holland

Elder Oaks:

 

Thanks kllindley.  I know this is a topic that is personal for you and I appreciate the quotes.  They support what I thought was now taught and I feel (for the most part), these are much better than what was taught in the past.  Progress is being made, IMO.  

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Thanks kllindley.  I know this is a topic that is personal for you and I appreciate the quotes.  They support what I thought was now taught and I feel (for the most part), these are much better than what was taught in the past.  Progress is being made, IMO.  

I agree that the tone is more compatible with current ways of discussing the issue.  

[california boy]

3 hours 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

I may not believe that church leaders have had a revelation on gay marriage. And I may not believe other queens about the church. But that doesn’t mean I don’t support much of what the church does.I may not believe that church leaders have had a revelation on gay marriage. And I may not believe other queens about the church. But that doesn’t mean I don’t support much of what the church does.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

No, and I commented elsewhere that if that was the purpose of the policy then I agree. But as I've stated earlier, I don't think the policy can prevent that kind of conflict.

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.  So perhaps the best course of action would be to ease up, let the policy run its course, and see what happens.  And meanwhile, we could all refrain from incredibly vulgar and inappropriate public accusations against the Church and its leaders.  That sort of rhetoric ratchets conflict up, you see.

Quote

Sure it disallows baptism,

 It postpones baptism.

Quote

but it doesn't prevent "dry" membership activity in Sunday meetings, youth activities, seminary, etc.

Correct.  The Church is seeking to do the best it can in a very difficult situation.  Under the policy, children affected by the policy cannot get baptized, but they can otherwise participate in the Church if they wish to do so.  

Quote

Any conflict that would arise from baptism would likely arise from other forms of participation on which the policy is silent.

In which case the parents can make a decision about their child's attendance.  Decisions about attendance are much more malleable than decisions about membership.

Quote

I think the policy clearly cannot achieve the stated goal. 

I think it can.  It depends on the individual child, and her parents, and her circumstances.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can pipe down and let them give it a go.  Publicly denigrating the Church is not helpful.  At all.  It only contributes to the conflict about which you profess concern.

Quote

I also think the brethren are intelligent and are advised by capable, intelligent people and so I'm left to wonder why a group of intelligent people would give such silly reasons for developing the policy.

CFR, please, as to these "silly reasons."  What are you talking about here?

Quote

I agree with you that they likely prayed much, counseled much, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them had a lot of consternation. I think they likely have another justification for the policy and I can only speculate as to what that justification is, but I can't accept this useless explanation of preventing conflict for children when it clearly does not do that. 

"Clearly" is not in play here.  There is no such "clearness" about the impact of the policy.  After all, if one of the purposes of the policy is to avoid conflict, and if the conflict is successfully avoided, how would you suggest that this be gauged?  How do you measure success where success means something has not happened?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[ALarson]

Just now, kllindley said:

Again if you look at the original document, (page one) it specifically identifies homosexuality as a "practice."  Multiple times!  

I'd have to read it again in its entirety to see if that's the only way homosexuality is defined.  

Here is a quote from leaders defining it as both:

Quote

 

Definitions:

Homosexuality has many forms.  It may be only a mental state without behavior, or it may include complete emotional and sexual genital involvement with a member of the same sex.

https://www.scribd.com/document/329384642/Homosexuality-Welfare-Services-Packet-1-LDS-Victor-Brown

 

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I may not believe that church leaders have had a revelation on gay marriage. And I may not believe other queens about the church. But that doesn’t mean I don’t support much of what the church does.I may not believe that church leaders have had a revelation on gay marriage. And I may not believe other queens about the church. But that doesn’t mean I don’t support much of what the church does.

"Queens?"

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

You are correct that it is not a problem for you as you no longer profess to believe in the truth claims of the church. However the angst among some members of the church is of their own making. I understand the emotional reactions of some who have loved ones who may be caught in this situation, but they are missing the point of the policy. No child that is caught in that situation will be harmed by the policy. If anything happens to them between the age of eight and eighteen the problem would be upon the heads of the parents who are tasked with the duty to teach their children correct principles.

Glenn

And if the policy had never been introduced, wouldn’t the responsibility still be upon the heads of the parents

Your explanation still doesn’t explain why the policy was necessary

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd have to read it again in its entirety to see if that's the only way homosexuality is defined.  

Here is a quote from leaders defining it as both:

 

It does speak of helping individuals with "homosexual tendencies or activities." And then clearly addresses helping people overcome "the practice."  

Again, I'm also glad that the language is better.  It is described as a "dread practice" and a "despicable practice" (although it is not clear if the latter is just referring to sodomy)  

Though I also notice that they state that: "They must not be unduly embarrassed.  Their repentance and reformation cannot be forced-it can only come by kind persuasion." and "There are many approaches-they must all be kindly and understanding."   

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet that gift is denied children of gay couples. There is no way around thatYet that gift is denied children of gay couples. There is no way around that

There is no way around that there is no way around that -- kind of circular isn't it? I think you give up way too easily and have a way too myopic a view.

I explained how, as Elder Cristofferson said,  “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go." There is no way around that either but it trumps whatever you have to say about it because you couldn't even answer my plain questions.

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet that gift is denied children of gay couples. There is no way around thatYet that gift is denied children of gay couples. There is no way around that

It is a gift that is denied to the majority of the population of earth.  There is no way around that either.  God will make all thinks just and fair in the end, it is all about what we do with the talents and gifts that we have been given in this life.    

[Bob Crockett]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

The key word being, "assume".  The only way to know is to pray about it and have the Spirit bear witness to you personally.  Otherwise you rely on blind faith, which the prophets warn against.   "Don't take my word for it..." (Brigham Young).

I really have no clue what you mean by that.  On this forum, I don't say anything about my personal beliefs (whether I am a believer of not).  I merely comment upon what I see is Church procedure, the issues relating to First Amendment protections of religious liberty to believe any absurd thing, and I further observe the craziness of being a critic of a Church and its believers who really believe the rationally indefensible.  

You indeed believe, as is evident from your posts, that the church teaches juke box revelation, when that is not the case.

[kllindley]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks kllindley.  I know this is a topic that is personal for you and I appreciate the quotes.  They support what I thought was now taught and I feel (for the most part), these are much better than what was taught in the past.  Progress is being made, IMO.  

I do feel a need to apologize for my tone earlier.  I understand that there are differing interpretations of past comments and different ways to view situations.  The purpose of my comments and counter-arguments is not so much to prove that you are wrong and that I am right, or to convince you to change your mind.  Rather I admit that I feel a need to also present a differing  perspective of active LGBT members who are at peace with the Church and its history.  This is particularly because I do see the common language around LGBT issues as marginalizing and invalidating this experience.  (Though I will also admit that the language from "orthodox" members and social conservatives is often equally minimizing and invalidating.)  Thank you for your understanding as well.  

Edited October 27, 2017 by kllindley

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I really have no clue what you mean by that. 

Let me explain by asking a question.  Do you believe that we are to accept and automatically believe all things that are claimed to be revelation from the prophets?  (warning, that is a baited question).  I personally like to error on the side of the prophets if I have not received any personal revelation on the matter myself, but I make no assumptions as you make.

11 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

On this forum, I don't say anything about my personal beliefs (whether I am a believer of not).  I merely comment upon what I see is Church procedure, the issues relating to First Amendment protections of religious liberty to believe any absurd thing, and I further observe the craziness of being a critic of a Church and its believers who really believe the rationally indefensible.  

??? 

13 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

You indeed believe, as is evident from your posts, that the church teaches juke box revelation, when that is not the case.

No, that is a false characterization of me.  I don't believe in "juke box" revelation.  I believe that revelation is true whether I believe/accept it or not.  However, I also believe in spiritual self-reliance vs blind faith. We are to verify for ourselves.  That is Mormonism.

 

[Bob Crockett]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you believe that we are to accept and automatically believe all things that are claimed to be revelation from the prophets?  (warning, that is a baited question). 

I don't discuss my beliefs with anonymous people, and I try to avoid discussing my beliefs on this Board.  Everybody has their own beliefs and they are free to believe as they choose without me foisting my beliefs on them.  

I like to discuss my opinions about absurd criticisms of indefensible religious beliefs.   I like to poke fun at people who try and tell a First Amendment organization how and what to teach, and how and what to adopt as policy.  There's a Coptic church a mile down the street from my house; I wouldn't cotton to people poking fun at their liturgy if I were a member there.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

I think they likely have another justification for the policy and I can only speculate as to what that justification is, but I can't accept this useless explanation of preventing conflict for children when it clearly does not do that.

Do you know anyone that is being affected by it. Have you received any feedback on it from anyone so involved?

Glenn

[kiwi57]

8 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?

Not right.

Doctrine and Covenants 68:

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

8 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

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?

Who said your child is not losing out on anything.

The child would be losing out on  a great deal. But if your home life is simply incompatible with the Gospel, then maybe on balance she should wait until she's 18.

But if your home life is that incompatible with the Gospel, then I don't see how you could qualify for a Temple Recommend. Do you?

(Assuming that this is all hypothetical, of course.)

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

There are children probably in your own ward that are taught things that their parents do not do...and many parents are not even married...but they are baptized..they are not even slightly shunned by their friends at church.

I was not talking about children being shunned at church. I do not think that will happen. I hope not. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And if the policy had never been introduced, wouldn’t the responsibility still be upon the heads of the parents

Your explanation still doesn’t explain why the policy was necessary

Once that child is baptized, no. I do accept that the brethren were guided by revelation in the matter, and I guess that is where we are going to have to let it lie. I appreciate the comments that you have made explaining your position.

Glenn

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I was not talking about children being shunned at church. I do not think that will happen. I hope not. 

I don't think anything would be deliberate .but it would be how a child feels with friends/peers.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

No, and I commented elsewhere that if that was the purpose of the policy then I agree. But as I've stated earlier, I don't think the policy can prevent that kind of conflict. Sure it disallows baptism, but it doesn't prevent "dry" membership activity in Sunday meetings, youth activities, seminary, etc. Any conflict that would arise from baptism would likely arise from other forms of participation on which the policy is silent. I think the policy clearly cannot achieve the stated goal. I also think the brethren are intelligent and are advised by capable, intelligent people and so I'm left to wonder why a group of intelligent people would give such silly reasons for developing the policy. I agree with you that they likely prayed much, counseled much, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them had a lot of consternation. I think they likely have another justification for the policy and I can only speculate as to what that justification is, but I can't accept this useless explanation of preventing conflict for children when it clearly does not do that. 

Give the long history (almost a hundred years) of a similar policy to draw on, I believe Church leaders likely used that model to determine the value of the same policy for gay marriage...at least once the decision to define gay marriage as apostasy was made, if not before.

In my view, from the stories I have heard from such children, the policy was and is more helpful than not.  I got the impression from Ardis Parshall's history that there was initially turmoil when that policy was new in the 1920s, but has been accepted more or less without question since then.  Leadership may be anticipating the same response for the new policy, turmoil and pain initially, but once it becomes old news and expectations of doing things differently fade, conflict will fade as well.  

Edited October 27, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  Do the leaders still teach that there is a cure for homosexuality (including bisexuals)?  If you believe they do, can you supply a recent quote from one of our leaders who still teaches this?

Do our leaders currently instruct local leaders to advise bisexual members to marry the opposite sex?  (From my experience, these types of teachings are no longer encouraged.)

I think it's very wise that the leaders have distanced themselves from making general claims regarding this.   Cases should really be handled individually and uniquely, IMO.  There are just too many variables to give sweeping instructions to all gay (including bisexual) members.

If cases are to be handled uniquely and individually, could not this counsel from the past apply in some instances such as those where there is capacity for heterosexual attraction?