Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[jkwilliams]

14 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 must have missed this. Sorry. 

My family member’s situation isn’t unusual. He is from a large family of active LDS, and his older brother is gay, with two children. When the policy became public knowledge, his kids were 6 and 4, and he has custody of them. As I recall, his ex-wife has them 2 weekends a month and a longer period in the summers. 

He is married to a man who, like him, was raised in the church, attended BYU, and served an honorable mission. Everyone had agreed to raise the kids in the church, and they were attending weekly. 

Now his kids can’t be baptized unless they live with their mother, which is not a good idea for a number of reasons. So, when the policy change happened, the father and his spouse wondered if it was a good idea to keep going to church where they are “apostates” and their kids can’t participate fully. And the mother suddenly started pushing for custody, despite an amicable arrangement until then. 

Obviously, the church has every right to set its own policies, but there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with those policies. 

[jkwilliams]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

I've explained why I disagree with the policy:

• It introduces conflict into families unnecessarily, as in my family member's case. You said conflict might possibly arise anyway, but the odds are much greater with the policy in place.
• It treats children of certain kinds of "apostates" differently than others. My wife's cousin, for example, runs "MormonLeaks," and if there is an apostate in our family, he's it. But his kids would be eligible for baptism.
• If the children continue attending church, they are not full participants and thus will be treated as different inevitably. For example, there are many Primary lessons about preparing for baptism, "but not you, Timmy."
• If the children continue attending church, the tension between the church's teachings and the parent's lifestyle doesn't magically disappear.

I haven't thought about any of this in a long time, so it's kind of ironic that I'm seen as having an irrational, emotion-driven position--probably because I hate the church so much, you know.

I know about a dozen families who have been directly affected by the policy change. In every one of them, it's caused problems instead of avoiding or mitigating them. I understand why other people support the policy, and I understand the church's position. I just disagree with it.

[omni]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Same rules applied to polygamous families.

I realize that and believe that is wrong as well.  

I understand the reasoning behind the potential family discord created By the baptism, but if the Church is truly concerned about this, why stop at children with polygamous or gay parents?  

What if the parents are unmarried but living together?  What if they are avowed atheists?  Wouldn't these situations cause the same problems?

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

That's quite the spin.

I’m wondering why any gay parents would want to raise their children in a Church that teaches gay marriage is wrong and grounds for excommunication? But if there are some gay parents who still decide to raise their children in the LDS Church, thanks to the  policy they are the ones who will be accused of messing with the minds of their children by allowing them to be exposed to major league mixed moral signals.Through the policy, the Church is admitting that LDS Church teachings could undermine the parental authority of gay parents; through the policy, the Church is saying it doesn’t want to be held responsible for traumatizing young, impressionable minds. Gay parents who defy reason and choose to raise their kids in the LDS Church are placing their children in an untenable situation, and if the gay family relationships are harmed because the kids are being raised in the Church, thanks to the policy the damage will now be squarely the parent’s responsibility. The Church isn’t going to refute the inspired Family Proclamation because some feelings might get hurt.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I’m wondering why any gay parents would want to raise their children in a Church that teaches gay marriage is wrong and grounds for excommunication? But if there are some gay parents who still decide to raise their children in the LDS Church, thanks to the  policy they are the ones who will be accused of messing with the minds of their children by allowing them to be exposed to major league mixed moral signals.Through the policy, the Church is admitting that LDS Church teachings could undermine the parental authority of gay parents; through the policy, the Church is saying it doesn’t want to be held responsible for traumatizing young, impressionable minds. Gay parents who defy reason and choose to raise their kids in the LDS Church are placing their children in an untenable situation, and if the gay family relationships are harmed because the kids are being raised in the Church, thanks to the policy the damage will now be squarely the parent’s responsibility. The Church isn’t going to refute the inspired Family Proclamation because some feelings might get hurt.

It sounds as if you think the goal is to make sure the children of gay parents don't associate with the church.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I've explained why I disagree with the policy:

• It introduces conflict into families

I disagree.  The people "introducing conflict" about this issue are critics and opponents of the Church.  They are the ones who have whipped up adverse public sentiment.  They are the ones who presume to dictate to the Church what it can and cannot do regarding sensitive internal matters.  They are the ones who have not acknowledged the Church's explanation for the policy changes or afforded it any credence or weight.  They are the ones making horrible public accusations against the Church and its leaders and members.

And to make it all the worse, many of them are operating in bad faith.  These same critics and opponents who claim to resent the Church's policy changes are intrinsically opposed to the LDS Church and its doctrines and beliefs.  How does that work?  "Hey, Mormonism sucks in every respect!  And I am really steamed that they are having some very few children wait until they are emancipated before joining!"  

I have considerably more sympathy for faithful members of the Church (and, I suppose, some earnest nonmember critics) who are conflicted about the policy changes.  But at least they are operating in good faith.

Quote

• unnecessarily,

That's a value judgment, and a highly debatable one.

The leaders of the Church who made decision about the policy changes are good and decent men.  They are, to a man, husbands and fathers.  They understood the ramifications of the policy change since they had been dealing with those ramifications for quite a while as arising from children in polygamous homes.  And yet . . . they made the policy changes anyway.  And we know that the principal impetus for making those changes was . . . revelation from God.  Pres. Nelson, a percipient witness, stated as much.

So I cannot agree that the policy change - the one mandated by God according to those in authority - is "unnecessarily" doing any such thing.  Rather, it is the agenda-driven hyperbole and false rhetoric from critics and opponents that, in my view, are creating most of the problems.

There are times when the Restored Gospel is ironic.  One of the Savior's titles is "The Prince of Peace."  I believe that.  He also said: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."  (John 14:27).  I believe that, too.  In both a "macro" and "micro" sense, the Gospel is intended to bring peace and love and harmony into the world.  And eventually, it will.  Meanwhile, however, we are living in a Telestial world.  A world which is moving away from the counsels of God at an ever-accelerating rate.  This increasing distance between the children of men and their Heavenly Father is resulting in tension.  Conflict.  Acrimony.  Such is the way of things in a fallen world.  I think this is why the Savior, the "Prince of Peace," said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34).  He also said:

Quote

49 ¶ I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

(Luke 12)

Years ago I used to be puzzled at the seeming inconsistency in the foregoing verses (the "Prince of Peace" coming to cause "division" amongst family members).  But I have come to believe that the conflict is arising from the increasing distance between God and His children, which distance is in turn being caused by the waywardness of His children.  Then the Savior comes and calls us to Him.  Some will heed the call, and some will not.  And from those disparate responses comes . . . division.  "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."

So with actual and real respect to you, I disagree that what the Church is doing is "unnecessary."  Following the mandates of God is always necessary.  

Quote

• You said conflict might possibly arise anyway, but the odds are much greater with the policy in place.

That's an untestable guess.

Quote

• It treats children of certain kinds of "apostates" differently than others.

To the extent these children feel alienated from the Church, the vast bulk of the blame lies with those who have sensationalized this issue, who have been screaming for years now, falsely declaring that the Mormon Church hates gay people and their children.  They have put the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.  They have presumed to speak for the Church to those children, and to then proceed to say horrible and false things to those children.  They have sought to put false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

The great swells of anger and animosity and resentment about the policy changes cannot credibly be attributed to the Church.  By way of evidence, I point you to to the Church's nearly identical policy about children coming from polygamous families.  That policy has been in place for years, and has been administered at the local level by individual bishops and other leaders who know the individuals involved and work with them with love and encouragement and patience.  And the response to this policy from critics and opponents has been . . . essentially nonexistent.  No hue and cry.  No hysterical denunciations.  Now why is that, do you think?  Whence the indifference to these children?  I attribute it to the lack of available opportunism.  Critics and opponents of the LDS Church, in the aggregate, simply don't care about these kids.  

In contrast, critics and enemies of the Church are using the corollary policy (the one under discussion) to work nonstop to publicly foment anger and discord and hate against the Church by its members and prospective members.  Now, these critics and opponents of the LDS Church like to claim that they care about these kids, but I question their sincerity.  It's too pat.  Too convenient.  To jarringly inapposite to the near-total inattentions/neglect demonstrated by the critics and opponents as to the children of polygamous families.  Gay rights are presently a Hot Topic, hence the "Think of the children!" angle results in lots of attention and social pressure and criticism against the LDS Church. 

Cynical exploitation is, I think, the best way to explain the disparate treatment of these two issues (children in gay families v. children in polygamous families) by the Church's critics and opponents (that is "cynical exploitation" for the former).  The disparate reactions to these two policies are, in my view, a key indicator that the current state of acrimony and high tension is not attributable to the November 2015 policy changes, but to the sensationalized, agenda-driven, I-hate-the-LDS-Church-so-much-I'm-willing-to-inflict-fear-and-anger-and-confusion-on-children-and-then-exploit-their-reactions-and-weaponize-them-against-the-Church style of controversy ginned up by the Church's critics and opponents.

Quote

• My wife's cousin, for example, runs "MormonLeaks," and if there is an apostate in our family, he's it. But his kids would be eligible for baptism.

Possibly.  But your cousin can repent of his apostasy without destroying a family.  The same cannot be said for same-sex couples repenting of their apostasy.

Ironic, isn't it?  The Church's policy acknowledges and seeks to account for the potential challenges to families that may arise from children joining the Church.  The Church, hoping not to inject such hostilities into these families, has enacted the current policy which is designed to mitigate such things (there are, I think, other reasons for the policy as well).  Put another way, the Church is more concerned about the welfare of these families than are the critics and opponents of the Church, who are mostly using the policy change as a brickbat against the Church.

Quote

• If the children continue attending church, they are not full participants and thus will be treated as different inevitably. For example, there are many Primary lessons about preparing for baptism, "but not you, Timmy."

That's rank melodrama, and the sort of emotional-and-not-rational-at-all silliness that is part of the problem here.  Lessons about baptism will continue, but nobody would single out "Timmy" in this way.  That's just emotionally manipulative nonsense.

Membership in the Church can be difficult.  This is why individualized attention to children is important, as is familial support.  Local leaders and members are situated to give such attention to children like "Timmy" and to do everything within their power to encourage and love and support him until he is ready to join the Church.  "Timmy's" familial support, on the other hand, is probably not going to be there, for obvious reasons.

As it is, "Timmy" will face years and years of listening to terrible and false screeds from the Church's critics and opponents about how much the Church "hates" his parents, and even "hates" him.  It is a toxic environment, concocted by the very people decrying it.

Quote

• If the children continue attending church, the tension between the church's teachings and the parent's lifestyle doesn't magically disappear.

Which is exactly what the Church has been saying.  The tension, if anything, would be worse.  Hence the Church's policy that, as enacted, minimizes the risk of children being alienated from their own parents.  And yet critics and opponents of the Church . . . resent this.  Not very consistent, they.  It's as if the welfare of these children and their families is incidental.  What really matters to the critics and opponents, it seems, is the weakening and tearing down of the Church, even if that means telling those children terrible falsehoods about their LDS family members and friends ("Sorry, Timmy, but you can't get baptized because the Mormon Church is full of horrible bigots who hate you and your parents.").

Quote

I haven't thought about any of this in a long time, so it's kind of ironic that I'm seen as having an irrational, emotion-driven position--probably because I hate the church so much, you know.

I appreciate your thoughts here.  As much as I disagree with them, and as laden-with-emotion as they appear to be, I acknowledge and respect your position.

I think good and decent people can have principled, measured, informed, and reasoned concerns about the policy changes.  But I think most of those concerns are, in the end, ill-founded.

Quote

I know about a dozen families who have been directly affected by the policy change.

I question that.  A dozen families who have children who are thinking of joining the LDS Church and are being raised by same-sex parents?  That would seem to be a statistical anomaly.

On the other hand, if you are speaking about "a dozen families who have been directly affected" by an agenda-driven, I-hate-the-LDS-Church-so-much-I'm-willing-to-inflict-fear-and-anger-and-confusion-on-children-and-then-exploit-their-reactions-and-weaponize-them-against-the-Church-style controversy ginned up by the Church's critics and opponents, then I'm right there with you.

I would also understand if you are referring to "good and decent people can have principled, measured, informed, and reasoned concerns about the policy changes."

Quote

In every one of them, it's caused problems instead of avoiding or mitigating them. I understand why other people support the policy, and I understand the church's position. I just disagree with it.

Again, I appreciate your thoughts here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[Benjamin McGuire]

Let me tell you, Spencer, about my experience with this policy.

I had a gay uncle. I have brothers who have been in same sex relationships. I have a gay child.

My parents have decided to become inactive because of this policy. Several of my siblings have left the Church. And my wife told me that she no longer considers herself a Mormon. All because of this specific policy.

I think you have no place to lecture about others about how this policy has affected them. You have no clue how much pain this policy change caused for many members of the Church. You want to minimize anything that reflects negatively on the Church. Well, in my personal life, that isn't really possible in this situation.

In comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy, the policy at its core still embraces the idea that same-sex attraction is largely a matter of choice (as polygamy is). That it was implemented when Russell M. Nelson became president of the Q12 doesn't seem to me to be a coincidence. In a few years, when certain of the senior apostles have passed (and old age is something we do not recover from) and the historical animus towards those who experience same-sex attraction will diminish in the leading quorums of the Church, then the approach that the Church takes will shift again (much as happened historically with the question of blacks and the priesthood). I am absolutely certain of this.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

I really don't see a clash coming.  People will increasingly accept LGBT individuals as normal people with unique talents and ways to contribute to society.  Instead of viewing them as a kind of existential threat to our culture and institutions.  As this awareness increases, the fear mongering and discrimination will fade away into the distance, and I believe a new "revelation" will be received by church leaders to articulate the inclusion of these individuals.  

Edited October 25, 2017 by hope_for_things

[smac97]

1 hour ago, omni said:

I realize that and believe that is wrong as well.  

Funny, isn't it, that virtually nobody is saying anything about that other policy?  So the critics who are presently in hysterics about the children-in-same-sex-households policy are A) embarrassingly ignorant as to longstanding, substantive, and relevant aspects of Church governance, B) supremely indifferent to the welfare of the children in polygamous families, C) cynically exploiting a "Think of the children!"-style effort at manipulating public opinion against the Church, and/or D) some combination of A-C.

By the way, is anyone else besides me bemused at the notion of critics and opponents of the Church being concerned about the welfare of children who are not allowed to join the LDS Church until they reach the age of majority?  Since when do they equate the welfare of children with those children joining a church they (the critics/opponents) despise?

1 hour ago, omni said:

I understand the reasoning behind the potential family discord created By the baptism, but if the Church is truly concerned about this, why stop at children with polygamous or gay parents?  

Because the repentance process for those parents necessarily requires the destruction of those family units.

1 hour ago, omni said:

What if the parents are unmarried but living together?  

The unmarried parents can repent by getting married.  No destruction of the family unit is needed.

1 hour ago, omni said:

What if they are avowed atheists?  

The parents can start to believe in God.  No destruction of the family unit is needed.

1 hour ago, omni said:

Wouldn't these situations cause the same problems?

No, they would not.  The Church has the Restored Gospel in its entirety in mind, including vital teachings about repentance.  Rather than facilitate intractable conflicts between that principle and the cohesiveness of families who are raising children, the Church has sought to mitigate this challenging situation by temporarily delaying the baptism of children until they reach the age of majority.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

 

Quote

 

I disagree.  The people "introducing conflict" about this issue are critics and opponents of the Church.  They are the ones who have whipped up adverse public sentiment.  They are the ones who presume to dictate to the Church what it can and cannot do regarding sensitive internal matters.  They are the ones who have not acknowledged the Church's explanation for the policy changes or afforded it any credence or weight.  They are the ones making horrible public accusations against the Church and its leaders and members.

And to make it all the worse, many of them are operating in bad faith.  These same critics and opponents who claim to resent the Church's policy changes are intrinsically opposed to the LDS Church and its doctrines and beliefs.  How does that work?  "Hey, Mormonism sucks in every respect!  And I am really steamed that they are having some very few children wait until they are emancipated before joining!" 

I have considerably more sympathy for faithful members of the Church (and, I suppose, some earnest nonmember critics) who are conflicted about the policy changes.  But at least they are operating in good faith.

 

My family member is not operating in bad faith. The conflict in his family is not coming from critics and opponents of the church but from a difficult situation made even more difficult because of the church's new policy.

Quote

That's a value judgment, and a highly debatable one.

Everything is debatable. I think that particular "value judgment" is true. There was no need to introduce conflict into my family member's brother's situation.

Quote

 

The leaders of the Church who made decision about the policy changes are good and decent men.  They are, to a man, husbands and fathers.  They understood the ramifications of the policy change since they had been dealing with those ramifications for quite a while as arising from children in polygamous homes.  And yet . . . they made the policy changes anyway.  And we know that the principal impetus for making those changes was . . . revelation from God.  Pres. Nelson, a percipient witness, stated as much.

So I cannot agree that the policy change - the one mandated by God according to those in authority - is "unnecessarily" doing any such thing.  Rather, it is the agenda-driven hyperbole and false rhetoric from critics and opponents that, in my view, are creating most of the problems

 

No one here is saying the leaders of the church are bad people. Good and decent men can and do make poor decisions. Church leaders have made poor decisions in the past, and the church has repudiated those decisions, so the idea that recognizing the fallibility of men is the same as rejecting the mandates of God is kind of hyperbolic.

Quote

 

There are times when the Restored Gospel is ironic.  One of the Savior's titles is "The Prince of Peace."  I believe that.  He also said: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."  (John 14:27).  I believe that, too.  In both a "macro" and "micro" sense, the Gospel is intended to bring peace and love and harmony into the world.  And eventually, it will.  Meanwhile, however, we are living in a Telestial world.  A world which is moving away from the counsels of God at an ever-accelerating rate.  This increasing distance between the children of men and their Heavenly Father is resulting in tension.  Conflict.  Acrimony.  Such is the way of things in a fallen world.  I think this is why the Savior, the "Prince of Peace," said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34).  He also said:

Years ago I used to be puzzled at the seeming inconsistency in the foregoing verses (the "Prince of Peace" coming to cause "division" amongst family members).  But I have come to believe that the conflict is arising from the increasing distance between God and His children, which distance is in turn being caused by the waywardness of His children.  Then the Savior comes and calls us to Him.  Some will heed the call, and some will not.  And from those disparate responses comes . . . division.  "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."

So with actual and real respect to you, I disagree that what the Church is doing is "unnecessary."  Following the mandates of God is always necessary. 

 

Again, I do not believe church policies necessarily reflect the mandates of God. I don't think I know anyone who believes that.

Quote

That's an untestable guess.

It is the case in the example I've used and in other situations I am personally aware of.

Quote

 

To the extent these children feel alienated from the Church, the vast bulk of the blame lies with those who have sensationalized this issue, who have been screaming for years now, falsely declaring that the Mormon Church hates gay people and their children.  They have put the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.  They have presumed to speak for the Church to those children, and to then proceed to say horrible and false things to those children.  They have sought to put false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

The great swells of anger and animosity and resentment about the policy changes cannot credibly be attributed to the Church.  By way of evidence, I point you to to the Church's nearly identical policy about children coming from polygamous families.  That policy has been in place for years, and has been administered at the local level by individual bishops and other leaders who know the individuals involved and work with them with love and encouragement and patience.  In contrast, critics and enemies of the Church are using the corollary policy (the one under discussion) to work nonstop to publicly foment anger and discord and hate against the Church by its members and prospective members. 

The disparate reactions to these two policies are, in my view, a key indicator that the current state of acrimony and high tension is not attributable to the November 2015 policy changes, but to the sensationalized, agenda-driven, I-hate-the-LDS-Church-so-much-I'm-willing-to-inflict-fear-and-anger-and-confusion-on-children-and-then-exploit-their-reactions-and-weaponize-them-against-the-Church style of controversy ginned up by the Church's critics and opponents.

 

I'm not sure how this relates to what we've been talking about at all. The children in question are still attending church, so far as I know. But they cannot help but be treated differently because they are not members and cannot participate fully in church activities. What does that have to do with ranting anti-Mormons?

Quote

Possibly.  But your cousin can repent of his apostasy without destroying a family.  The same cannot be said for same-sex couples repenting of their apostasy.

I have no idea what you mean here.

Quote

 

Ironic, isn't it?  The Church's policy acknowledges and seeks to account for the potential challenges to families that may arise from children joining the Church.  The Church, hoping not to inject such hostilities into these families, has enacted the current policy which is designed to mitigate such things (there are, I think, other reasons for the policy as well).  Put another way, the Church is more concerned about the welfare of these families than are the critics and opponents of the Church, who are mostly using the policy change as a brickbat against the Church.

 

I've said exactly why I disagree with the policy, and it is because it does not mitigate family "hostilities" but can--and does--exacerbate them. Frankly, it's insulting for you to say that my stated reasons for disagreement are mere cover for wanting to go after the church with a brickbat.
 

Quote

 

That's rank melodrama, and the sort of emotional-and-not-rational-at-all silliness that is part of the problem here.  Lessons about baptism will continue, but nobody would single out "Timmy" in this way.  That's just emotionally manipulative nonsense.

Membership in the Church can be difficult.  This is why individualized attention to children is important, as is familial support.  Local leaders and members are situated to give such attention to children like "Timmy" and to do everything within their power to encourage and love and support him until he is ready to join the Church.  "Timmy's" familial support, on the other hand, is probably not going to be there, for obvious reasons.

As it is, "Timmy" will face years and years of listening to terrible and false screeds from the Church's critics and opponents about how much the Church "hates" his parents, and even "hates" him.  It is a toxic environment, concocted by the very people decrying it.

 

Not rank melodrama, as that's exactly what will happen. Church activities and lessons are geared towards ordinances and priesthood "milestones." These kids will be left out, period. It's not silly to point that out.

Quote

Which is exactly what the Church has been saying.  The tension, if anything, would be worse.  Hence the Church's policy that, as enacted, minimizes the risk of children being alienated from their own parents.  And yet critics and opponents of the Church . . . resent this.  Not very consistent, they.  It's as if the welfare of these children and their families is incidental.  What really matters to the critics and opponents, it seems, is the weakening and tearing down of the Church, even if that means telling those children terrible falsehoods about their LDS family members and friends ("Sorry, Timmy, but you can't get baptized because the Mormon Church is full of horrible bigots who hate you and your parents.").

This goes back to what I said in the beginning: when parents have agreed their kids are going to be raised in the church, there seems to be little risk of parental alienation. My family member's brother had been attending church (even doing FHE) for 2-3 years without any alienation or resentment. The problems arose when that arrangement became not good enough.

Quote

I appreciate your thoughts here.  As much as I disagree with them, and as laden-with-emotion as they appear to be, I acknowledge and respect your position.

I have not appealed to emotion here. If anything, you are the one bringing up all the hateful, terrible people destroying kids' lives.

Quote

I think good and decent people can have principled, measured, informed, and reasoned concerns about the policy changes.  But I think most of those concerns are, in the end, ill-founded.

I wouldn't expect otherwise. You may disagree with my reasoning, but my conclusions, however "ill-founded," are not based on emotional response or animosity toward the church. I have seen what has happened in several families post-policy change, and it hasn't been good.

Quote

I question that.  A dozen families who have children who are thinking of joining the LDS Church and are being raised by same-sex parents?  That would seem to be a statistical anomaly.

I know at least a dozen families in the same situation: a gay person married a straight person in the temple, had children, and later divorced. In all these cases, they had agreed to raise the children in the church. Of course, I know a lot more gay people who aren't in this situation, but it doesn't seem to me all that uncommon. Or I could be lying.

Quote

On the other hand, if you are speaking about "a dozen families who have been directly affected" by an agenda-driven, I-hate-the-LDS-Church-so-much-I'm-willing-to-inflict-fear-and-anger-and-confusion-on-children-and-then-exploit-their-reactions-and-weaponize-them-against-the-Church-style controversy ginned up by the Church's critics and opponents, then I'm right there with you.

What was it you said about emotion-laden arguments?

Quote

I would also understand if you are referring to "good and decent people can have principled, measured, informed, and reasoned concerns about the policy changes."

I know a lot of people who fit that description, gay or otherwise.

Quote

 

Again, I appreciate your thoughts here.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I appreciate yours, as well, though I wish we could dispense with the overwrought hyperventilating about evil anti-Mormons and their hateful attacks on the church.

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let me tell you, Spencer, about my experience with this policy.

I had a gay uncle. I have brothers who have been in same sex relationships. I have a gay child.

My parents have decided to become inactive because of this policy. Several of my siblings have left the Church. And my wife told me that she no longer considers herself a Mormon. All because of this specific policy.

I think you have no place to lecture about others about how this policy has affected them. You have no clue how much pain this policy change caused for many members of the Church. You want to minimize anything that reflects negatively on the Church. Well, in my personal life, that isn't really possible in this situation.

In comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy, the policy at its core still embraces the idea that same-sex attraction is largely a matter of choice (as polygamy is). That it was implemented when Russell M. Nelson became president of the Q12 doesn't seem to me to be a coincidence. In a few years, when certain of the senior apostles have passed (and old age is something we do not recover from) and the historical animus towards those who experience same-sex attraction will diminish in the leading quorums of the Church, then the approach that the Church takes will shift again (much as happened historically with the question of blacks and the priesthood). I am absolutely certain of this.

I'm really sorry you've had to go through that.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

With fully practiced earthly polygamy in our past and multiple temple sealing polygamy in our present, this idea that the rules around what this "one particular form" should look like are complicated to say the least.  I see no reason that same sex marriages can't be legitimized by the church.  The only assumption that has to change is for people to recognize that these individuals aren't flawed and broken, that their condition isn't a threat, that its natural and part of the tapestry of experience, and to grant the dignity and legitimacy to these people that they deserve.  

I don't see how this changes eternal families at all.  Families are build on love and mutual commitment, not on stereotypes and assumptions about what is normal and natural.  

Edited October 25, 2017 by hope_for_things

[CA Steve]

Frequently the defense of the policy is to compare it to similar (or the same) rules that apply to poygamous families. For me there is a big difference. When I hear "Same rules applied to polygamous families", I understand what is meant but I don't know anyone in those type of relationships. But when I hear mention of excluding children from baptism, I remember the anguish of my gay niece who now could not (would not?) send her children to the same church she was raised in. I think of a gay boss I had for many years who I consider one of my best friends or my neighbors three doors down who just seem like part of the neighborhood. I know that every one of my kids as well as my wife also have close friends who are gay.

 

So perhaps it is the same thing for polygamous families but I suspect that the reason this affected people the way it did is the personal level they see this affecting gay family, friends, coworkers and neighbors, a level probably missing for most regarding people involved in polygamy.

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

 

I guess I consider the LGBT community as having cross over into the church community, so when I think about it hurting them I think about the suicides, the strained relationships, the cultural shunning, pretty much everything that has negatively impacted the these families in the church I consider part of the LGBT community as the two overlap in my mind.  Perhaps I used the term incorrectly, but that's what I was thinking, does that make sense, and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong on this.  

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let me tell you, Spencer, about my experience with this policy.

I had a gay uncle. I have brothers who have been in same sex relationships. I have a gay child.

My parents have decided to become inactive because of this policy. Several of my siblings have left the Church. And my wife told me that she no longer considers herself a Mormon. All because of this specific policy.

I am sorry to hear about these difficulties.  Truly.

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think you have no place to lecture about others about how this policy has affected them. You have no clue how much pain this policy change caused for many members of the Church.

Ironic that you feel free to speak your views, but suggest I have no such corollary right.  I think that's . . . wrong.

I also note that your remarks here are pretty much pure emotion.  I get that you are personally angry and upset.  But emotions are not evidence, nor reasoning.  They need to be acknowledged, but only in their sphere.

As I noted previously, I am an attorney working in real estate law.  I do lots of foreclosures and evictions.  It can sometimes be downright unpleasant work.  Unpleasant, but necessary.  So I go about my work, which involves taking legal disputes to a judge, who then evaluates the facts of the case and dispassionately and fairly applies the law thereto.  That "dispassionate" bit is really important.  Our society cannot function if we let passion and emotions dictate what is "legal" and "illegal," what is "wright" and "wrong."  

I do not envy judges and their obligations.  I have seen judges react to litigants literally crying in front of them.  These judges recognize that enforcing the law can cause emotional pain, but they do it anyway.  As soon as we let emotions of one sort (sadness, for example) predominate in how the law operates, we open the door to other emotions predominate as well (anger, hate, mob mentality, etc.).  So as difficult as it is, I am grateful that we have judges who acknowledge emotional pain, but who nonetheless apply the law according to overarching principles of justice and equity.

So it goes with the leaders of the Church.  They are good and decent men.  They are also, cumulative and individually, quite intelligent and well-informed.  They know about people like your gay uncle, your gay child, your parents, your siblings.  And yet they unanimously sustained Pres. Monson on the policy change.  They recognize that declaring divine mandates can cause difficulties and pain.  But they do it anyway because that is the lot of "prophets, seers and revelators."

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You want to minimize anything that reflects negatively on the Church. Well, in my personal life, that isn't really possible in this situation.

No, that is not my objective.  The Book of Mormon "reflects negatively on the Church," in some quarters, but I read it regularly and encourage others to do so.

I will defend the Church against unreasoned and unreasonable criticisms.  I will also acknowledge the errors of the Church and its leaders and members where such things arise (such as, I think, happened in many respects with the Priesthood Ban).

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy,

I am comparing the two respective policies.

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

the policy at its core still embraces the idea that same-sex attraction is largely a matter of choice (as polygamy is).

No.  The policy embraces the idea that same-sex marriage is a matter of choice.  And it plainly, unequivocally is.

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That it was implemented when Russell M. Nelson became president of the Q12 doesn't seem to me to be a coincidence.

Not much point is discussing unadulterated speculation and conjecture, except to acknowledge it as such.

There were fifteen men involved in the policy change.  Fifteen.  And their decision was unanimous.

9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In a few years, when certain of the senior apostles have passed (and old age is something we do not recover from) and the historical animus towards those who experience same-sex attraction will diminish in the leading quorums of the Church, then the approach that the Church takes will shift again (much as happened historically with the question of blacks and the priesthood). I am absolutely certain of this.

I think the better corollary has been how the Church has waited until "senior apostles have passed" and historical animus has diminished as toward polygamy.  Did the Church "shift" in its position on polygamy after its practitioners (and/or their immediate descendants) passed on?  Nope.  The Church had a clear, revelatory mandate about polygamy, and has continued to prohibit the practice in accordance with that mandate.

I think the Church has worked hard to moderate and improve its treatment of issues associated with same-sex attraction.  But the underlying doctrinal position remains unchanged.

As for guesswork about what might happen "in a few years," there's not much point in discussing such things.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Your contention that people like myself cannot provide a dispassionate and reasoned argument to critique the policy change is just a matter of your perspective.  There are plenty of arguments critiquing this policy already that I believe more than qualify as dispassionate and reasoned, but I'm guessing your standards are set so high as no argument could possibly meet it.  There are also passionate calls for change which are justified and appropriate from my perspective.  

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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:

 

Well this is confusing.  If homosexual issues are rarely talked about in church, why would having gay parents be that big of issue.  Think about this for a second.  The importance of baptism is talked about a lot in the church.  The importance of the priesthood is talked about a lot in the church.  Passing the sacrament for a 12 year old happens every single week.  The importance of priesthood duties and why it is such a blessing to hold the priesthood is a weekly message.  So just how much of a conflict do you think it would be for a young adult growing up, knowing weekly that they are unworthy of any of this because their parents are gay.  .Do you get my point?

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well this is confusing.  If homosexual issues are rarely talked about in church, why would having gay parents be that big of issue.  Think about this for a second.  The importance of baptism is talked about a lot in the church.  The importance of the priesthood is talked about a lot in the church.  Passing the sacrament for a 12 year old happens every single week.  The importance of priesthood duties and why it is such a blessing to hold the priesthood is a weekly message.  So just how much of a conflict do you think it would be for a young adult growing up, knowing weekly that they are unworthy of any of this because their parents are gay.  .Do you get my point?

I think Bobbieaware hit it on the head: to avoid conflict, the church would prefer that children of gay parents not attend meetings.

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let me tell you, Spencer, about my experience with this policy.

I had a gay uncle. I have brothers who have been in same sex relationships. I have a gay child.

My parents have decided to become inactive because of this policy. Several of my siblings have left the Church. And my wife told me that she no longer considers herself a Mormon. All because of this specific policy.

I think you have no place to lecture about others about how this policy has affected them. You have no clue how much pain this policy change caused for many members of the Church. You want to minimize anything that reflects negatively on the Church. Well, in my personal life, that isn't really possible in this situation.

In comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy, the policy at its core still embraces the idea that same-sex attraction is largely a matter of choice (as polygamy is). That it was implemented when Russell M. Nelson became president of the Q12 doesn't seem to me to be a coincidence. In a few years, when certain of the senior apostles have passed (and old age is something we do not recover from) and the historical animus towards those who experience same-sex attraction will diminish in the leading quorums of the Church, then the approach that the Church takes will shift again (much as happened historically with the question of blacks and the priesthood). I am absolutely certain of this.

I just wanted to thank you for the vulnerable post and say that I really appreciate you sharing it.  I hope you are correct about your perspective on the future, I agree with that assessment and history has shown a tendency for things to play out this way.  

I wish like anything that people who are blind to the experiences of so many in their midst would wake up and recognize the pain and suffering being caused by these policies and by their defense and attitudes towards the policies.  This is the danger of religious conviction when taken to an extreme it causes a callous approach to life and to the suffering of others.  

[stemelbow]

I haven't heard a reasoned dispassionate purpose for the policy.  The effort to explain the policy hasn't been a reasonable one at all.  It doesn't work, and doesn't make sense. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, omni said:

I realize that and believe that is wrong as well.  

I understand the reasoning behind the potential family discord created By the baptism, but if the Church is truly concerned about this, why stop at children with polygamous or gay parents?  

What if the parents are unmarried but living together?  What if they are avowed atheists?  Wouldn't these situations cause the same problems?

I think there is an important difference between apostate and cohabitating or atheist parents that sets up an irreconcilable situation between the child’s spiritual caretakers and the Church, at least until the apostate is no longer apostate. With plain old sin, there is room for a relationship between the Church and the parents for repentance; with apostasy, that relationship is severed and the ball is entirely in the apostate’s court. And there is always room for a relationship between the Church and the non-member parents to join.

This is key because the Church holds that “All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age,” and there is obviously a spiritual component to that (otherwise we wouldn’t have the concept of “born in the covenant”). The children are reliant upon their parents and the Church cannot interfere with that, especially where there is an “anti-covenant” relationship with the parents. She can help when invited, but that cannot happen when invited by apostates. I think that is one of the foundation principles for Elder Christofferson’s explanations, and I think it presumptuous that an apostate would substitute a covenant relationship with the Church with a merely social, cultural or traditional one, especially when they can obtain non-covenant spiritual involvement with a number of other faith communities (granted, not all). It can even be had with the Church as a non-member friend or visitor.

Benjamin M said:

In comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy, the policy at its core still embraces the idea that same-sex attraction is largely a matter of choice (as polygamy is).

I think at its core, the policy embraces the idea that an apostate by definition cannot have a covenant relationship with the Church, either for himself or for his children who have claim upon him for his maintenance.

Edited October 25, 2017 by CV75

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So perhaps it is the same thing for polygamous families but I suspect that the reason this affected people the way it did is the personal level they see this affecting gay family, friends, coworkers and neighbors, a level probably missing for most regarding people involved in polygamy.

The number of children I have known who could not join the church because their parents were committed Catholics, Baptist, Jews, Muslims, etc. (who refused to consent) is orders of magnitude larger than the number of children I have known who could not join the church because they were living with parents who were in a committed same-sex marriage (who allegedly would give consent). I have known tons of kids in the former category; zero in the latter, and I don't think my experience is wildly abnormal. 

Baptism is a covenant which you will be held accountable for, so it makes sense in my mind that some amount of effort should be taken to ensure, as best we can, that children who enter into this covenant are going to have the support they need to keep that covenant and continue to progress in the gospel. I think that is going to be difficult to accomplish in a family which is hostile to the gospel (who refuses to consent to their children's baptism) or in a family which has been formed in ways which are not sanctioned by the gospel as it has been revealed - be they polygamous families or families with same sex parents (even if those parent would be okay with their children's baptism).  

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I really don't see a clash coming.  People will increasingly accept LGBT individuals as normal people with unique talents and ways to contribute to society.  Instead of viewing them as a kind of existential threat to our culture and institutions.  As this awareness increases, the fear mongering and discrimination will fade away into the distance, and I believe a new "revelation" will be received by church leaders to articulate the inclusion of these individuals.  

I do not expect such a revelation, especially not one with scare quotes around it.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

It's hard not to reach the conclusion that the policy change was reactionary to the Supreme Court loss.  The church spent a lot of time and money fighting same sex marriage and lost.  The policy change had to have been immediately discussed right after the decision for it to make it into the handbook so soon afterward.  To make matters worse, it affects innocent children primarily. 

It seems to be a mistake, an over-reaction to a loss.  The church can claim it was a revelation, sort of, or try and change the focus by claiming an attack on religious freedom.  However, it looks like an over-reaction and a mistake.  But as E. Oaks says, the church never asks for apologies and doesn't give them either. 

[rodheadlee]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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.

 

The parents refusal to obey an Eternal law is preventing these children from coming onto Christ. Not the church.