Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

Who was hurt?  LGBT community, families and friends, and I would argue the whole church was hurt by it.  I believe Elder Oak’s position on this will largely be discarded in the future.  

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

My first roommate at BYU was an Osmond froken.  She was from back East, and was the new convert, only member in her family.  She was obsessed with Donny Osmond.  Also was going through major depression and feeling out of place.  I don't know how she got to BYU, but there wasn't any support from home.  I have no clue if she stuck with the Church or not. 

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Who was hurt?  LGBT community, families and friends, and I would argue the whole church was hurt by it.  I believe Elder Oak’s position on this will largely be discarded in the future.  

it took 2 Manifestos to get rid of polygamy, I wonder if we'll have another manifesto or a few to get rid of what we have now? never say never in a church run by revelation! 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Duncan

[Stargazer]

3 hours 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.

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?

On my mission we taught a young man and a young woman, in two different cities. The young man wanted to be baptized, and the young woman simply wanted to continue be taught by us. Their parents refused permission for his baptism and directed him to break off contact with us; her parents told her she had to stop talking with us. The young man promised to seek out the missionaries when he turned 18 or whatever age it is that Germany says is official adulthood. I don't know if he did or not, ultimately. I remember his name: Rüdiger Haatz.  Our mission president was firm on the matter, that we were not to do anything to undermine the authority of these two young persons' families. 

And that is correct, the rule was created so as to not cause unnecessary problems in the family.  It isn't ideal, but I think it is best available compromise.

I can imagine what might have happened eventually if this rule hadn't been created.  It might not have happened immediately, but you can bet the results would have been worse in the long run.  CaliforniaBoy said he didn't know what a SJW -- Social Justice Warrior -- was. But going by the crap that has been created over the failure to properly address certain people with the proper pronouns, I can imagine all kinds of scenarios that might have happened without this rule in place. The world is going crazy (or at least the English-speaking world is), and I believe this rule will prevent problems that would have otherwise occurred.  Worse problems than have so far occurred.

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Stargazer

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

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?

Disavowing sounds like a rejection to me. 

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

 

That's quite the spin.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

Disavowing sounds like a rejection to me. 

From someone who actually experienced having to make a decision at age 18:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3261558&itype=CMSID

"When I began meeting with LDS missionaries at age 18, I was honest about my background, and because of this I followed the standard church policy which, for me, included meeting with the mission president as well as a personal interview with a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. 

Throughout the entire process of meeting with the missionaries, not once did I feel ostracized or criticized because of my background. Even during my interview with an apostle, the only question he asked concerning my family was about my relationships with them. I answered that my relationships were fine, which they were, and he said, "Good."...

During my childhood, I was taught that the LDS Church would require me to disavow my family and friends, but in my experience that was not true. Instead, I have seen family and friends ostracized and disavowed by their polygamous community for joining the LDS Church.

At a mature age, I was prepared to disavow the practice of polygamy, but I never disavowed the parents who raised me and loved me. I can't really know what it would have been like to be baptized at an earlier age, but I know enough to know that it would have been very difficult. Like many children, I felt very loyal to my parents and the community in which I was raised."

Edited October 25, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Disavowing sounds like a rejection to me. 

Same here, it's unconscionable for a church that is family centered to do that, but actually the church separates in other scenarios as well. Kingdoms, temple weddings, disassociations... 

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it took 2 Manifestos to get rid of polygamy, I wonder if we'll have another manifesto or a few to get rid of what we have now? never say never in a church run by revelation! 

Many things have changed as you point out.  Polygamy was the central defining doctrine of Utah Mormonism at the time, so it was very hard to change that one.

 If families are our central doctrine today, I don’t see as much trouble carving out a space for the LGBT community as they are part of families already.  Not nearly as big of a change I sincerely hope.  

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

From someone who actually experienced it:

Without breaking trust, I know people first hand in similar experiences. They had to get permission from Pres. Monson to go on a mission but they did. Their family was ostracized by the community down by Mona. More power to them. I have enormous respect for people who've done that. I certainly wouldn't ostracize people who are sincerely seeking God.

Edited October 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But then again, maybe those who request their names be removed remain as members on record for some odd reason.

I don't think that works. When your name is removed you're not on record anymore. I can't speak for current policy but when I was younger in the mission field the wards were highly incentivized to get people off the rolls who didn't consider themselves Mormon anymore. It may be different in the Mormon corridor though. (Utah, Arizona, Idaho) But I believe budget formulas for wards have also changed from when I was young so the relation of members of record to active members doesn't matter as much anymore.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am looking for dispassionate reasoning.  So far, I haven't seen it.

Dispassionate reasoning is often overrated. Sometimes emotion is called for. Not sure if that is the case here but usually the call for reason comes to shut down objections.

Herodotus wrote that the Persians debated everything twice. Once while drunk they came to a decision. Then when they were sober they evaluated the decision and decided whether to stick with it or start over. I personally think Congress would function better if we took this approach. Would also make C-Span more entertaining. In the Church we usually do the sober debate and then wait on the Spirit which sometimes manifests as emotion to make decisions.

In the end though this is not a rational question. It operates via revelation. The decision made might make sense to some but that is not why the Church made the decision.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Who was hurt?  LGBT community, families and friends, and I would argue the whole church was hurt by it.  I believe Elder Oak’s position on this will largely be discarded in the future.  

While I hope there is some accommodation that will be revealed on this issue to head off the coming cultural clash I doubt it.  

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Without breaking trust, I know people first hand in similar experiences. They had to get permission from Pres. Monson to go on a mission but they did. Their family was ostracized by the community down by Mona. More power to them. I have enormous respect for people who've done that. I certainly wouldn't ostracize people who are sincerely seeking God.

I can't imagine it happening to a child from their own family...and yet it does.  Reading that woman's blog helped me accept the Church's decision.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that works. When your name is removed you're not on record anymore. I can't speak for current policy but when I was younger in the mission field the wards were highly incentivized to get people off the rolls who didn't consider themselves Mormon anymore. It may be different in the Mormon corridor though. (Utah, Arizona, Idaho) But I believe budget formulas for wards have also changed from when I was young so the relation of members of record to active members doesn't matter as much anymore.

My husband has been a membership clerk iirc in four states and a couple of countries, but longest here in .Utah for a couple of bishops.  I will try and remember to ask him if he noticed any difference in attitudes tomorrow.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Many things have changed as you point out.  Polygamy was the central defining doctrine of Utah Mormonism at the time, so it was very hard to change that one.

 If families are our central doctrine today, I don’t see as much trouble carving out a space for the LGBT community as they are part of families already.  Not nearly as big of a change I sincerely hope.  

If any form of family were seen as eternal, I would agree with you, but there is one particular form that is sealed and that is husband and wife with or without children (generally if there are no children, they are seen as having them in the next life).  Single parents aren't allowed to be sealed to their children, nor are unmarried parents.  There would have to be major changes of assumptions about eternal families to be made imo before accepting gay families in full fellowship.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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.  

I haven't said a word throughout this entire thread.  Mostly because it has all been said before.  It will all calm down in a few days with the same conclusions and the same mindset on both sides.  But really Stormrider, why is it always the gay activists and gay agenda that must be repelled by the church and are the source of all of the upheaval created by the actions of the church leaders.  

i hear this issue discussed far more by my Mormon friends and family than I do by my gay friends.  Because most gays and gay activists groups couldn't care less what the Mormon church does.  They are already pretty clear that the church is out to attack the gay community and their families.  To them, this is just another block on the wall that the church has built.  It has no more significants to them than any of the other blocks on the wall the church has stacked.  You could tell the gay community just about any outlandish policy coming from the Mormon church.  They would probably issue a press release condemning it and that would be the last of it.  

Can you think of anything other than that these gay activists groups have actually done on this issue?  Do they stand on street corners shouting the injustice of this policy?  Do they go door to door telling people what they know about the Mormon church and what it has done to the gay community?  Just exactly what are you accusing the gay community and gay activists doing concerning this policy.  Because as far as I can tell, those that are the most vocal about this issue are members of the church or people like me who used to be members of the church and dislike the direction the church has chosen to go after gay families.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Who was hurt?  LGBT community, families and friends, and I would argue the whole church was hurt by it.  I believe Elder Oak’s position on this will largely be discarded in the future.  

How do you think it has hurt the LGBT community?  Because as far as I can tell, it hasn't hurt the LGBT community one bit.  It has hurt the church and families in the church and gay members.

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

I suspect there is a small group of nonmormons which are probably mostly exmormons and a few friends and family and a small group of believers that are both aware and see potential for impact of good or bad and maybe a few or many like myself who see impact as both.  Think of two large half circles---one believers, one non---with a much smaller split circle embedded in its center, the smaller circle being "those interested in the Other".  Thus Gays (large half circle) and gays who talk about and to Mormons (small half circle) and then Mormons (large half circle) and then (small half circle) Mormons who talk about and to gays (using gay as shorthand for LGBT)

So most non believers will say "we hardly ever talk about it, but boy almost every Mormon I talk to is buzzing about it" because they are looking at the big half circle for the nonbelievers of their acquaintance, but the little half circle of Mormons because those are the Mormons they engage with most often while believers are experiencing the reverse since the gays they most often engage with are ones talking about these issues, but most members otoh in their lives are not that interested to talk about it if they are even aware of it.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Calm

[mrmarklin]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm really skeptical of those figures myself. Like Bluebell I wonder if most of these weren't people largely already out of the Church. But I'd also like to see some confirmation.

Anecdotal is not a good word. I’m in the SF Bay Area, a hotbed of LGBT activity and I find the numbers quoted very dubious. 

Certainly we had no fallout like that here, if any at all.  And I’m in a position to know. 

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Anecdotal is not a good word. I’m in the SF Bay Area, a hotbed of LGBT activity and I find the numbers quoted very dubious. 

Certainly we had no fallout like that here, if any at all.  And I’m in a position to know. 

I also live in the SF Bay Area.  The suburbs are not a hotbed of LGBT activity.  The church has a very small presence in San Francisco.  Interesting.  

Note: I thought that there were only 2 wards in San Francisco that were struggling which is why I made my statement.  When I Googled it to check, Google is showing all LDS churches in San Francisco are now closed.  Is that true?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

.......................................  Because as far as I can tell, those that are the most vocal about this issue are members of the church or people like me who used to be members of the church and dislike the direction the church has chosen to go after gay families.  

It appears to me that the LDS policy is standoffish, rather than attack mode.  In fact one almost never hears anything said at Church on any homosexual issues.  I thought that Bobbieaware's summary was the most accurate:

Quote

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I also live in the SF Bay Area.  The suburbs are not a hotbed of LGBT activity.  The church has a very small presence in San Francisco.  Interesting.  

Note: I thought that there were only 2 wards in San Francisco that were struggling which is why I made my statement.  When I Googled it to check, Google is showing all LDS churches in San Francisco are now closed.  Is that true?

Your computer needs an update. There is a stake, albeit not all wards are in SF.

There was a WSJ article several years ago about a gay Bishops counselor in one of the wards  

BTW are you sure you live here?  There are many gays in the suburbs. Fine people too. Although I don’t know any LDS. 

[smac97]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

That people like you cannot seem to provide any sort of dispassionate, reasoned explanation for their assessment of the policy changes is... about what I expected.

You are only proving my point.

[jkwilliams]

9 hours 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?

That’s why I would leave it up to the families, as with every other situation where there is potential conflict over church membership. 

I am not trying to persuade anyone that I’m right, just trying to explain where I’m coming from.