Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[Robert F. Smith]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

..............................."

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

The rule is this, Spencer:  "If something can go wrong, it will."

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

I've not seeing how it's a punishment either.

For years we've asked minors to wait for baptism if their parents have not approved.

Why? Because we are trying to create good will in families and not destroy them, particularly when the minor still has to live with their parents.

Sometimes we have to wait on the Lord to receive the covenants and blessings He has planned. Is that a punishment? Or perhaps just the wisdom of just and Holy Father?

[Duncan]

We had a guy in our Stake who left over this, PH.D. In Medicine. I had heard just recently a family split up over it, Mom is out of the Church and husband is still in, not sure what the 5 kids will do. Crazy. If God is so against homosexuality then why even send gay kids to Mormon families? I was talking to a former member earlier, not about this though, he's gay and he knew a child he was different. He hates God he thinks he was set up for failure, was at a loss as to what to tell him

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

Understood.

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There’s no contention or ostracism, and the result is a child who will grow up attending church but not eligible for membership.

So are children who are in polygamous relationships.

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It stands to reason that the kids will be treated as different at church, for no fault of their own,

It does?

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

and where I have seen contention, it’s arisen because the policy change has affected prior custody agreements. 

Contention would possibly arise either way.

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think my concerns are fallacious or appeals to emotion.

I'm not as interested in "concerns" as I am in reasoning.  I'm just not seeing a dispassionate, reasoned assessment of the Church's policy change.

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t see an upside to this but I’ve already seen plenty of bad effects. 

I am not sure the policy changes were intended to have a specific "upside."  I think they were intended to minimize/avoid "downsides."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

What does God want, Avatar?

[Gray]

2 hours 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.

This isn't aimed at  LGBT kids though. It's aimed at kids with a gay parent.

[omni]

24 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've not seeing how it's a punishment either.

For years we've asked minors to wait for baptism if their parents have not approved.

Why? Because we are trying to create good will in families and not destroy them, particularly when the minor still has to live with their parents.

You're proving the critic's point.  Yes, for years the Church has required the parents' approval, except now if the those parents happen to be gay, their approval is no longer sufficient. 

Through the policy the Church has essentially stated these children are different, are "other" through no fault of their own.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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?

This girl's polygamous parents gave permission for her to be baptized as well.  Don't you think it is possible that over time resentment towards the Church might create contention Where contention did not exist, especially if the child's commitment to the Church appeared to interfere with commitment to the family?

If family conflict can be created in people's minds by someone being gay in the Church, why not the reverse even if the parents don't believe they would allow their love to be so compromised?

What if parents were okay with it, but siblings weren't?  Don't you think that would also cause significant problems for a child?

Edited October 25, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

This isn't aimed at  LGBT kids though. It's aimed at kids with a gay parent.

I know, but unless you think there is something that makes LGBT kids more prone to emotional disorders that result in suicide and therefore they need more protection than heterosexual or asexual teens, than family rejection or contention over any subject would be detrimental to any teen, correct?

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, omni said:

You're proving the critic's point.  Yes, for years the Church has required the parents' approval, except now if the those parents happen to be gay, their approval is no longer sufficient. 

Through the policy the Church has essentially stated these children are different, are "other" through no fault of their own.

Same rules applied to polygamous families.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

What does God want, Avatar?

The immortality and eternal life of man.

Which we obtain though faith in Jesus Christ

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know, but unless you think there is something that makes LGBT kids more prone to emotional disorders that result in suicide and therefore they need more protection than heterosexual or asexual teens, than family rejection or contention over any subject would be detrimental to any teen, correct?

It's bad for kids to face rejection from their parents. As far as I can tell the policy creates new rejection for kids - rejection from their church; this rejection can only be overcome if they later choose to reject their gay parent. 

As far as contention goes, I think the policy is apt to create more of it. 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

The immortality and eternal life of man.

Which we obtain though faith in Jesus Christ

And in regards to the topic at hand?

[Avatar4321]

45 minutes ago, omni said:

You're proving the critic's point.  Yes, for years the Church has required the parents' approval, except now if the those parents happen to be gay, their approval is no longer sufficient. 

Through the policy the Church has essentially stated these children are different, are "other" through no fault of their own.

But their situation is different because of the choices their caregivers have made.

How is acknowledging the position they are in a bad thing?

[Avatar4321]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's bad for kids to face rejection from their parents. As far as I can tell the policy creates new rejection for kids - rejection from their church; this rejection can only be overcome if they later choose to reject their gay parent. 

As far as contention goes, I think the policy is apt to create more of it. 

Reject their parents? By acknowledging they aren't living according to the commandments? How do you jump to these conclusions based on nothing? And why do you expect us to do the same?

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

This girl's polygamous parents gave permission for her to be baptized as well.  Don't you think it is possible that over time resentment towards the Church might create contention Where contention did not exist, especially if the child's commitment to the Church appeared to interfere with commitment to the family?

If family conflict can be created in people's minds by someone being gay in the Church, why not the reverse even if the parents don't believe they would allow their love to be so compromised?

What if parents were okay with it, but siblings weren't?  Don't you think that would also cause significant problems for a child?

I found my old missionary journal last week and read portions of it.

I was thus reminded that on one occasion, my companion and I had occasion to teach what we missionaries in Sweden in the mid-1970's were prone to call "Osmond frökens." An Osmond fröken was a teenage girl whose interest in the Church had been engendered by her being a fan of the Osmonds. She might be a self-referral. The one we were teaching was a referral from the wife of the eldest Osmond brother. The girl had sent a fan letter to Marie, and Marie's sister-in-law had sent the referral to our mission.

The parents of this particular girl were fine for a while with having us missionaries teach their daughter, but they were not in the least interested and would not even sit in on the discussions. 

They let it go on for a while until it was obvious that the daughter was serious about her intent to be baptized. Then, the parents cut the whole thing short. 

This happened so often that the  word came down from the mission president thereafter that we were not to teach Osmond frökens unless their parents were present for every discussion.

It's the nature of parents to humor the desires of their children for a while, but to step in and interfere when things start to make them nervous or give them heartburn. Gay parents of straight children may be fine for a while with their children being baptized and participating members of the Church until the children start to learn and embrace doctrines that contradict the parents' own attitudes and ideologies. That's when the conflict arises. 

Not only is the November 2015 policy wise, but according to President Russell M. Nelson, it is revelatory.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

First, you are the one who is alleging that this is a big deal. It is up to you to prove.  I have replied to allegation that all it is is an echo chamber effect of a small subgroup of members and ex-members.  IF it was a BIG deal then everyone would be talking about it. 

Shockingly, I talk with LDS people both inside and outside of church.  Strange that you do too, but can't see that I could do the same thing.  My stating that I have attended three wards is a demonstration that I am meeting and talking with a larger subgroup than a single ward. 

All is quiet on the eastern front.  This is a squeaky wheel and they are screaming loudly and often.  There is real pain among those directly impacted. I think their pain is only made worse by all the moaning, hand-wringing and attacks on the Church repeatedly and ad nauseam.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The rule is this, Spencer:  "If something can go wrong, it will."

A corollary is that if an antagonistic apostate sees an opportunity to sabotage the Church, he'll take it.

[Storm Rider]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I found my old missionary journal last week and read portions of it.

I was thus reminded that on one occasion, my companion and I had occasion to teach what we missionaries in Sweden in the mid-1970's were prone to call "Osmond frökens." An Osmond fröken was a teenage girl whose interest in the Church had been engendered by her being a fan of the Osmonds. She might be a self-referral. The one we were teaching was a referral from the wife of the eldest Osmond brother. The girl had sent a fan letter to Marie, and Marie's sister-in-law had sent the referral to our mission.

The parents of this particular girl were fine for a while with having us missionaries teach their daughter, but they were not in the least interested and would not even sit in on the discussions. 

They let it go on for a while until it was obvious that the daughter was serious about her intent to be baptized. Then, the parents cut the whole thing short. 

This happened so often that the  word came down from the mission president thereafter that we were not to teach Osmond frökens unless their parents were present for every discussion.

It's the nature of parents to humor the desires of their children for a while, but to step in and interfere when things start to make them nervous or give them heartburn. Gay parents of straight children may be fine for a while with their children being baptized and participating members of the Church until the children start to learn and embrace doctrines that contradict the parents' own attitudes and ideologies. That's when the conflict arises. 

Not only is the November 2015 policy wise, but according to President Russell M. Nelson, it is revelatory.

Scott, there you go again; pulling at our heart strings. The evil Mormons purposely destroy families by converting the children and then ripping them from the loving arms of their parents forever....eternity no less.  Just like you Mormons to do such terrible, evil things. Thoughtlessly destroying families, forcing an estrangement of tranquil parent child relationships in the present and in the future.  It is just plain evil. 

Then you turn around and destroy the lives of gay parents who desire to raise their children in the Church so that their children can enjoy the truths of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  You are affecting millions of devoted gay parents who want to raise their children in the church; well, not millions, but thousands; well, not thousands, but hundreds; well, not hundreds, but may tens; well, not tens; well, what is the really important is the concept even though this fictitious gay couple does not exist.  Yup, you don't even let these poor children be baptized!  Just pure evil and thoughtless. 

What continues to amaze me is that on a topic of such import and affecting truly eternal things, what is actually done in the media and by gay activists is knee-jerk, thoughtless attacks.  How is it that so very few actually think about each family unit and how it is affected by children going embracing eternal truths that condemn the lifestyle of their gay parents by obtaining membership in the Church?  You would think some of these gay people would at least say, "Thank you" for removing the conflict from their lives and, more importantly, from troubling their children. The gay agenda and its activists are not interested in what is best for families; it is interested only, and singularly, on what is best for the making every human accept their lifestyle as healthy, wholesome, and right.  

[sunstoned]

7 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.

Oh, I would say there is a lot more than 60K who don't like it.   Even if we don't have solid numbers, it is clear that that back lash surprised and rattled the top brethren. They started back peddling immediately.  They even changed the wording of the policy to try and soften it.  When that and their other PR attempts didn't work, they went with the nuclear option, and declared it a revelation after the fact.  I don't think that helped much. There is still a lot of hurt and disappointed people out there hoping this thing gets reversed.

To your other point.  We do know what God wants, and we do know what his will is because he has told us in very clear language:

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."  (Matthew 19:14)

Forbidding children to come unto Christ by denying them a blessing, baptism, and membership in his kingdom because of the marital status of their parents by an organization that claims to be Christ's only true church, is in my opinion the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Duncan]

If anything comes from this is that the timing of someone's baptism really doesn't matter. Whether you're 8, 18 or 88, or you have it done in the next life, doesn't make a lick of difference. Elder Christofferson said, “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.”

if that applies to children of gay parents then why wouldn't it apply to anyone else? is baptism important or isn't it? To me, he is saying the timing isn't. Nothing is lost to them anyways  so it doesn't really matter when anybody gets baptized, just as long as it happens

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

First, you are the one who is alleging that this is a big deal. It is up to you to prove.  I have replied to allegation that all it is is an echo chamber effect of a small subgroup of members and ex-members.  IF it was a BIG deal then everyone would be talking about it. 

Shockingly, I talk with LDS people both inside and outside of church.  Strange that you do too, but can't see that I could do the same thing.  My stating that I have attended three wards is a demonstration that I am meeting and talking with a larger subgroup than a single ward. 

All is quiet on the eastern front.  This is a squeaky wheel and they are screaming loudly and often.  There is real pain among those directly impacted. I think their pain is only made worse by all the moaning, hand-wringing and attacks on the Church repeatedly and ad nauseam.

Your experience sounds closed and unreasonably biased to me.  

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A corollary is that if an antagonistic apostate sees an opportunity to sabotage the Church, he'll take it.

Perhaps another corollary is if a self righteous sheeple sees an opportunity to prop up a disintegrating Church position, he’ll take it.  

(Kind of interesting to have divisive language turned around the other direction sometimes) 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours 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

That you can use the words bigotry, prejudice and discrimination in a statement to defend a policy that is founded on the bigotry, prejudice and discrimination of a marginalized and vulnerable group of people is sad to me.  If you can’t see it, then I certainly can’t convince you of something so obvious.  

[Bobbieaware]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's bad for kids to face rejection from their parents. As far as I can tell the policy creates new rejection for kids - rejection from their church; this rejection can only be overcome if they later choose to reject their gay parent. 

As far as contention goes, I think the policy is apt to create more of it. 

The policy simply provides increased incentives, beyond the obvious incentives that already exist, for gay parents to not want to expose their children to a system of religious belief that could undermine their parental authority and sabotage their relationship with their children. But if for some inexplicable reason gay parents still opt to have their children immersed in religious teachings that could do injury to their relationship with their children by allowing them to be exposed to teachings (primarily the divine approval of male-female marriages only)  that might very well undermine their parental image and authority, they will have nobody to blame but themselves. And because the children of gay parents will not be able to officially join the Church until they decide to join on their own after reaching adulthood, there will be less opportunity for enemies  to claim that the Church is deliberately trying to errect barriers between gay parents and their children. 

But because God is perfectly just and merciful, in the eternal scheme of things he will see to it that the children of such relationships are not harmed nor held back in any way as to their opportunities for eternal salvation. In fact, he might very well cut them a great deal of extra slack. God is the great equalizer and perfectly knows how to make all things right so that none are cheated in any way. because of circumstances they did not create or circumstances that are beyond their control.