Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

On a recent interview on RadioWest, historian Greg Prince discusses his upcoming book on the history of LDS Church policies on homosexuality, Prince shares the following anecdotal data:

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!

That is a good reason for Prince to publish his observations on the matter.  Even so, I don't see the Brethren making any major changes on the policy.  They may see those resignations as a one-time thing in any case, and a necessary culling of the unfaithful, if you will.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

 

I'm glad I don't have to defend the policy. It is definitely unpleasant, but also unnecessary, IMO. I've said before that I thought it was a joke when I first heard of it, and my LDS father didn't believe the church would do something like that when he heard about it. I'm with my family member in hoping that someday the policy will be abandoned.

The justification for it is the same as for the policy that says a child of a polygamous family must wait until 18 for baptism.  Is your family member and your father aware of this?  And secondly, if aware, does your family member hope that someday that policy will be abandoned?

I will say I was initially puzzled by the policy when first hearing about it, but upon hearing the explanation of the justification it made perfect sense.  In both cases. 

Edited to add:

I see from your response to smac that you weren't aware of the child of polygamous parents rule, previously. 

So I gather that you think it's just and fair to teach a child, while that child is a minor under its parents protection, that its parents are apostates? And then ask that child to implicitly sustain that teaching every Sunday when it partakes of the Sacrament? 

It don't think it is a punishment to delay baptism, by the way.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Stargazer

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I feel the same way about both policies. And no, I’m not persuaded by the church’s stated reasoning. 

Having read the story of a child from a polygamous family who was allowed to be baptized and was then ostracized by most in her family, including iirc her father and siblings, I find the policy to be quite wise.  

She shared her personal story when the 2015 policy came out to explain why she supported it.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Having read the story of a child from a polygamous family who was allowed to be baptized and was then ostracized by most in her family, including iirc her father and siblings, I find the policy to be quite wise.  

She shared her personal story when the 2015 policy came out to explain why she supported it.

Lots of people are ostracized when they join the church. Is that a good reason for a blanket denial of baptism? Clearly you and I disagree. 

[Bob Crockett]

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Lots of people are ostracized when they join the church. Is that a good reason for a blanket denial of baptism? Clearly you and I disagree. 

You don't have "standing" to make this argument.  During Jesus's ministry, he refused to give a blessing to a Canaanite child because his ministry was not to them.  Religions have the unfettered right to say who is qualified for membership and priesthood.

You may be critical and mocking of the Jews who require women to sit on one side of Temple, and men on the other, and the Sephardic Jews who do not permit their womenfolk to drive cars.  But what is the use of that?    You have no standing, and it is an assault on freedom of worship to say otherwise.

I guess there's a long tradition within the LDS faith of being somewhat critical of other religions for lacking the truth and being corrupt, but somehow it seems rather odd to hear an outsider who left the church complain about baptismal requirements.   Or bishops' youth interviews.  Or tithing.  Or whatever. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Those numbers sound reasonable to me, this new policy was a big deal and hurt a lot of people.  Unfortunately we have to speculate because the church doesn't publish its numbers so we are forced to resort to non-public sources to speculate about the fallout. 

I wonder what the impact was on members that didn't ask to have their names removed, but that their commitment level/activity levels were negatively impacted related to this policy change.  It would really be interesting to see the tithing impact as I think tithing is one of the best indicators of commitment, probably even better than attendance.  There have always been those who attend but don't contribute very much to the church financially.  I know for myself, I'm still semi-active (depends on my mood and my ability to negotiate how I feel about the church), but that I don't contribute to the church anymore and issues like this are part of the reason why.  

Wish we could see the financials, just another reason we need financial reporting transparency.  

Yeah, no. It was not a big deal to the vast majority of the Church.  I having been on the east Coast for a while I have not heard a peep - as in nothing, nada.  The saints in my wards - 3 different ones over the last three years - just don't talk about it. 

What you are doing is creating an echo chamber and because you spoke it once among a small group and they all say the same thing and it echos multiple times then it is a giant problem.  the reality is it is still the same group doing all the talking and hand-wringing and prognosticating dire predictions about the future of the Church of Jesus Christ.  It is time to step outside your own group and breathe some fresh air.  There is entirely too much hot air in your group.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Lots of people are ostracized when they join the church. Is that a good reason for a blanket denial of baptism? Clearly you and I disagree. 

For an underage kid dependent on parents' care, yes, there should be a standard ban with exceptions made in very rare conditions.

For a young teen not to be talked to by the majority of their family, including a father...huge trauma during years that can be traumatic when having a typical life.  Some have suggested when this happens to a LGBT kid, it may drive them to suicide.

I find this protest of the policy strange given how important having a LGBT supported by their family is to the point the Church is highly criticized for having doctrine that might lead to contention and yet when they actively have a policy to help prevent contention between child and parents, they are condemned.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I feel the same way about both policies. And no, I’m not persuaded by the church’s stated reasoning. 

"No, I'm not persuaded" doesn't explain or clarify anything.  

Again, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

I would like to see some "dispassionate reasoning" as to why you are "not persuaded."  But if you are not so inclined, I will not press the matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The Nov 2105 policy is an eternal law? 

In a D&C 19 sense, possibly.  To the extent we receive guidance from God, that guidance is "eternal."  That does not mean that it is endlessly in effect, only that it's source is "eternal."

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't even think the Church leaders saw it that way.  Sounded like their effort to draw boundaries for us lowly folks. 

I think the Brethren do not look upon the members of the Church as "lowly folks."  I think attributing such an uncharitable characterization to them is not warranted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Yeah, no. It was not a big deal to the vast majority of the Church.  I having been on the east Coast for a while I have not heard a peep - as in nothing, nada.  The saints in my wards - 3 different ones over the last three years - just don't talk about it. 

What you are doing is creating an echo chamber and because you spoke it once among a small group and they all say the same thing and it echos multiple times then it is a giant problem.  the reality is it is still the same group doing all the talking and hand-wringing and prognosticating dire predictions about the future of the Church of Jesus Christ.  It is time to step outside your own group and breathe some fresh air.  There is entirely too much hot air in your group.

I’m not arrogant enough to think that my experiences apply to everyone or my groups of friends and family represents the whole church.  However this goes the same right back at you.  

I would venture to say that Mormon culture on Sunday does not create a safe environment for the open discussion about issues like this.  The conversations I’ve had have been outside formal settings.  Just because you aren’t aware of  these conversations doesn’t mean they aren’t happening frequently.  

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"No, I'm not persuaded" doesn't explain or clarify anything.  

Again, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

I would like to see some "dispassionate reasoning" as to why you are "not persuaded."  But if you are not so inclined, I will not press the matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hah!  This gave me a good laugh.  The privileged class playing the victim card.  Sad...

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

You don't have "standing" to make this argument.  During Jesus's ministry, he refused to give a blessing to a Canaanite child because his ministry was not to them.  Religions have the unfettered right to say who is qualified for membership and priesthood.

You may be critical and mocking of the Jews who require women to sit on one side of Temple, and men on the other, and the Sephardic Jews who do not permit their womenfolk to drive cars.  But what is the use of that?    You have no standing, and it is an assault on freedom of worship to say otherwise.

I guess there's a long tradition within the LDS faith of being somewhat critical of other religions for lacking the truth and being corrupt, but somehow it seems rather odd to hear an outsider who left the church complain about baptismal requirements.   Or bishops' youth interviews.  Or tithing.  Or whatever. 

So, a high priest in good standing has no right to an opinion. Good to know.

 

 

 

[jkwilliams]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"No, I'm not persuaded" doesn't explain or clarify anything.  

Again, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

I would like to see some "dispassionate reasoning" as to why you are "not persuaded."  But if you are not so inclined, I will not press the matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, I have my reasons, but this thread was about how the policy affected the membership. In my experience, a lot of faithful members have struggled with this, though few have left. 

My view is that the polygamist/gay parents policy is about making sure such families do not become normalized in the church. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

I think the roll out was poor because it's a Handbook 1 policy, only given to leaders.

I think the roll out was poor because it was "scooped" by John Dehlin, to sensationalized it.  The Brethren could have (and, in retrospect, probably should have) expected widespread interest in this "policy" (even though there has been no public interest/outcry regarding the Church's corollary policy as to children from polygamous families, which is . . . illuminating).

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

I don't think the LDS Church had been planning on informing the rank-and-file at the time.

Nope.  The bishop of our ward gets First Presidency notifications rather frequently.  Some are intended for general consumption, some are not.  But none of them are "secret."

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

The policy was leaked, so they had no choice but to explain it.

M.

I think the Church probably would have explained the policy change.  It just didn't anticipate being preempted by John Dehlin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I have my reasons, but this thread was about how the policy affected the membership. In my experience, a lot of faithful members have struggled with this, though few have left. 

My view is that the polygamist/gay parents policy is about making sure such families do not become normalized in the church. 

None of which elucidates or is otherwise responsive to what the Church has said the policy "is about."

Again, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

Perhaps someday . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

For an underage kid dependent on parents' care, yes, there should be a standard ban with exceptions made in very rare conditions.

For a young teen not to be talked to by the majority of their family, including a father...huge trauma during years that can be traumatic when having a typical life.  Some have suggested when this happens to a LGBT kid, it may drive them to suicide.

I find this protest of the policy strange given how important having a LGBT supported by their family is to the point the Church is highly criticized for having doctrine that might lead to contention and yet when they actively have a policy to help prevent contention between child and parents, they are condemned.

It just doesn’t make sense. If a gay parent is fine with their child joining the church, why would they suddenly ostracize them? Do you really think that’s the norm?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

None of which elucidates or is otherwise responsive to what the Church has said the policy "is about."

Thanks,

-Smac

Nope. Again, that’s not the subject of the thread. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Hah!  This gave me a good laugh.  The privileged class playing the victim card.  Sad...

Again, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

And your response is . . . "Hah!"

So . . . contempt instead of reasoning.  That's all you've got.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Nope. Again, that’s not the subject of the thread. 

The "subject of the thread" is "homosexual policy and church fallout."

I am seeking clarification and reasoning about reactions to that policy, including "fallout."

Seems rather topical to me.

But as you like.  I won't press you on the matter.  Have a good day.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

And your response is . . . "Hah!"

So . . . contempt instead of reasoning.  That's all you've got.

Thanks,

-Smac

Meh. I just think it’s odd that parental consent suffices for everyone else. I don’t understand it. If that makes me ignorant or bigoted or judgmental, fair enough. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!

Not really convinced. While in general I agree with the idea if the data comes from the Mormon Corridor it is suspect in my opinion. If you live in Utah or Idaho you have a lot of inactives but you cannot completely ignore the church. It is a presence in the community. When you are upset about something (and everything the church does makes the local news) a lot of people have memberships to resign.

Now if it were happening here in Texas or in California I would agree it is most likely active people or at least semi-active people resigning. Inactives just slip off the radar and rarely care what the church does anymore.

While I am sure some active people resigned I think the net effect of most of the resignations in Utah and Idaho is that Home and Visiting Teaching lists get a little shorter and sacrament meeting attendance will only drop slightly.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Meh. I just think it’s odd that parental consent suffices for everyone else. I don’t understand it. If that makes me ignorant or bigoted or judgmental, fair enough. 

Again, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

And now, in this thread, I'm getting ridicule and contempt in lieu of substantive discussion (lookin' right atcha, HFT).

I am not accusing you of anything.  I am looking for dispassionate reasoning.  So far, I haven't seen it.  "I just think it's odd" is not reasoning.  It's a conclusory opinion devoid of reasoning.

So far the I-dislike-the-Church's-November-2015-policy-changes crowd aren't doing much to impress, both in this thread and generally.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Again, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

And now, in this thread, I'm getting ridicule and contempt in lieu of substantive discussion (lookin' right atcha, HFT).

I am not accusing you of anything.  I am looking for dispassionate reasoning.  So far, I haven't seen it.  "I just think it's odd" is not reasoning.  It's a conclusory opinion devoid of reasoning.

So far the I-dislike-the-Church's-November-2015-policy-changes crowd aren't doing much to impress, both in this thread and generally.

Thanks,

-Smac

Every family I know affected by the policy is one where the parents are divorced but have agreed to raise the kids in the church. There’s no contention or ostracism, and the result is a child who will grow up attending church but not eligible for membership. It stands to reason that the kids will be treated as different at church, for no fault of their own, and where I have seen contention, it’s arisen because the policy change has affected prior custody agreements. 

I don’t think my concerns are fallacious or appeals to emotion. I don’t see an upside to this but I’ve already seen plenty of bad effects. 

If you’re unimpressed, that is your right. 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Those numbers sound reasonable to me, this new policy was a big deal and hurt a lot of people.  Unfortunately we have to speculate because the church doesn't publish its numbers so we are forced to resort to non-public sources to speculate about the fallout. 

I wonder what the impact was on members that didn't ask to have their names removed, but that their commitment level/activity levels were negatively impacted related to this policy change.  It would really be interesting to see the tithing impact as I think tithing is one of the best indicators of commitment, probably even better than attendance.  There have always been those who attend but don't contribute very much to the church financially.  I know for myself, I'm still semi-active (depends on my mood and my ability to negotiate how I feel about the church), but that I don't contribute to the church anymore and issues like this are part of the reason why.  

Wish we could see the financials, just another reason we need financial reporting transparency.  

Who was hurt by this policy?

 

Elder Oaks really was prophetic when he stated how we treat the proclamation will be the test doenthis generation

Edited October 25, 2017 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So hey let's try to change eternal laws because 60k people don't like it.  We don't care what God wants,  what the will of the Father or Son is.

The problem is too many people, in and put of the Church, don't care what God wants