Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[california boy]

2 hours 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.

I honestly don't know if this is worth discussing because all of these questions and answers have been given before.  As far as I can tell, not a single mind has ever changed positions.  But I will answer your question and give what i think is a very reasonable answer to your question.  Though honest, I don't think it will make one bit of difference to you.

I have 5 children.  Most of them are active in the church.  The rest of my family are also active in the church.  I assume you know how much church culture is wrapped around everything when you are from an active Mormon family.  The church is referred to all the time.  And I think most people in the church see their membership as being a blessing in their lives.  I would say that the church was the single most important tool and guide I have as a parent to teach my children about important ideals of God, the value of keeping the commandments and the importance of morality.  Are you with me so far?

So why wouldn't I want those important, I would even say critical values instilled into my children just because I am gay?  Think about that for a minute.  All of those important ideals and only one issue is a problem.  Should I thorough out everything else or this one problem?

Now, lets talk about the one problem and how it affects my children.  They obviously know I am gay.  They believe that I can't change that.  They know that I disagree with the church on this one issue.  They see that I love my boyfriend and that my relationship with him is not that different than any other loving couple.  They see all of the good that comes from that relationship.  And perhaps on this one issue, they also think that the church is wrong.  Is that a problem for the church?  Evidently not.  Is that a problem for my children?  Evidently not.  They just think this one issue is wrong, much like a lot of members.  Does it cause internal family problems in other families?  Perhaps.  Are those problems so big that it trumps everything else?  No.

All of my children are straight.  Now if I did have a gay child, everything I have said would have a different answer.  I would not want that child to attend the Mormon church.  I would figure out a better way of teaching those important lessons to him or her.  THAT is where the issues arise.  THAT is where the church becomes a place where it becomes a place that is not healthy environment for the child.  Because the life it teaches for that child is a very unhealthy life for one to live in my opinion.  I have lived that life.  

I know it is not a good road to travel down. As a parent, I want the very best for my children.  Now think about how I answered your question.  There are two answers.  Both I think explain why I would make the choices that I have made.  Being a parent means doing what is right for your children.  Sometimes what is right for your children may not be right for you.  Do you need me to give you examples on when that is true?  

[Amulek]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

It's not a matter of worthiness. It's a matter of circumstances outside the child's control.

On my mission, we weren't allowed to baptize anyone who was from - and had family still living in - certain middle eastern countries, because their family overseas could face serious (potentially fatal) reprisals should it be discovered that their relative converted to another religion. One family that I worked with who was in this situation came to church every week and were loved and supported as much as anyone else. None of them ever felt like they were 'unworthy' to be members. 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Amulek

[clarkgoble]

42 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 opposition and shunning for polygamy, especially here in Utah, is high enough that most people keep things pretty quiet. Also many of the groups tend to live in polygamous communities. On the other hand there's more in regular communities than I think most are aware of. You may well know polygamists and just not be aware of it.

However by and large I think you're right that most people are aware of problems with gay marriage issues more than polygamy issues. However honestly polygamists have been dealing with the exact same policy for quite some time. And people who leave the polygamist groups are often given the untenable choice of abandoning spouses to be fully integrated back into church. Many for understandable reasons don't do this. This then leads to lots of problems for their kids including needing 1st presidency permission to go on missions. As I said earlier, it's hard not to respect those who do this.

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

I'm doubt that's true. I think it quite apparent that they are worried that some people want to normalize relationship. So they want to make abundantly clear that's not going to happen. Which is hardly a surprising worry on their part given there are lots of people agitating for just such normalization.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

And one of whom had a gay brother we should note. Also it's worth noting that Pres. Monson was, as a young apostle, involved in the last major excommunication of an apostle for apostasy over polygamy. (It was presented as adultery but was really about polygamy) Pres. Monson had to decide whether to allow the blessings to be restored. Polygamy has continued to be a live issue as well not just because of all the ugly FLDS issues that have been in the press but because of the major Manti apostasy over the issue back in the 90's.

2 hours 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?

Sometimes it might be a decision due to divorce agreements. In some gases the gay people might be hoping the policy will change and actually have testimonies. After all a testimony is the reason most people join the Church or stay in the Church despite having to make difficult choices. We are playing up the LGBT issues now, but read accounts of the tough choices faced in the 19th century. Lots of people were disowned by families choosing to join the Church. They had to make huge sacrifices and often left behind comfort for violence and poverty.

While I can completely understand people being upset over the issue, looking just at the history of my ancestors, it's hard not to think those leaving over the issue didn't already have major doubts or issues and that today we're simply not willing to sacrifice much for what we believe. (That's not to disparage those who simply don't believe - merely to note how little we're willing to sacrifice if we think something is true) As others have noted there are those today with Muslim families who still risk much.

Edited October 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

None of this really matters. The policy is what it is, like it or not. I'm with my family member in hoping the church eventually sees that whatever potential there is for conflict is outweighed by the negative consequences of the policy. But I won't hold my breath.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I was not accusing your family member.

Quote

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.

First, I think the bulk of the "conflict" is attributable to critics and opponents who have fanned the flames on this issue.  For years.

Second, Pres. Nelson has specifically and formally and publicly declared the policy changes to be the result of revelation.  To President Monson.  And sustained unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  So there was, it seems, a "need" of some sort.

Quote

No one here is saying the leaders of the church are bad people.

Well, you seem to be obliquely accusing Pres. Nelson of lying to the entirety of the Church.  

Quote

Good and decent men can and do make poor decisions.

Again, Pres. Nelson has specifically and formally and publicly declared the policy changes to be the result of revelation.  To President Monson.  And sustained unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. 

In contrast, you are characterizing the policy changes as a "poor decision."

You are setting yourself up as a voice alternative and opposed to that of the General Authorities.  And you appear to be doing that by obliquely accusing Pres. Nelson of lying.  Now, I am open to correction on this point.  If so, please explain how you reconcile your position with that of Pres. Nelson.

Quote

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.

Again, Pres. Nelson has specifically and formally and publicly declared the policy changes to be the result of revelation.  To President Monson.  And sustained unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. 

Quote

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

Oh, come now.  We are obviously not speaking of "church policies" generally.  The Church has a general policy against cooking food in a church building's kitchen.  That's a "policy" that is based on common sense (and, perhaps, on compliance with local and state laws), not revelation.  

In contrast, the particular policy changes under discussion were publicly declared by the President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles to be the result of revelation to Pres. Monson.  He declared this during a formal church event, being broadcast to the world.  And he was speaking in his official capacity.  And he spoke on behalf of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  

I cannot speak as to your personal beliefs.  You are certainly at liberty to believe as you like.  

Quote

I'm not sure how this relates to what we've been talking about at all.

The Church's recently-enacted policy is nearly identical to the longstanding policy as to children in polygamous families.  Are you not aware of this?

Quote

The children in question are still attending church, so far as I know.

Children from polygamous families can attend church.  Children from same-sex parent households can attend church.

Quote

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?

It is the public rantings of critics and opponents that are creating most of the controversy.  Fanning the flames.  Fomenting ill will.

Again, look at the near-total indifference by critics as to how the Church addresses children of polygamous families who want to join the Church.  Such children have, for many years now, been welcome to attend and participate, but they have to wait until majority before they join.  And the response to this policy is . . . nothing.  Crickets . . . chirping.  It is a virtually identical policy, but nobody is ranting and raving about it. 

Now why is that?  I've explained my view.  The hysterics about the recent policy are largely attributable 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.  These folks don't give two figs about the welfare of the children.  They are only interesting in attacking and tearing down the Church.  Complaining about the policy regarding kids in polygamous families is not conducive to those ends, since those kids . . . don't matter.  They are not at the center of a "Hot Button" controversy.  Kids in same-sex parent households, on the other hand, are part of such a controversy.  Hence we see "Think of the children!"-style hysterics from the critics about these kids, and indifference and silence as to the kids in polygamous families.

Quote

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.

If your cousin is in a state of apostasy because he is running a website critical of the Church, because he is doing and saying things in direct opposition to the Church, then he can rectify all of that by repenting.  But that repentance process means that he stops running his website, that he stops doing and saying things in direct opposition to the Church.

On the other hand, a couple in a same-sex marriage who are raising a child are in a very, very different state of "apostasy."  For them to repent of their wrongdoing, they . . . would have to get a divorce.  Move out.  Break up the family.  Make child custody arrangements.  And so on.

The Church, I think, understands these ramifications.  It's a very difficult situation.  It was very difficult before the policy changes, and remains difficult (albeit for different reasons) after.  The post-changes situation has been made markedly more difficult by the antics of the Church's critics and opponents.  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.  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.

Quote

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.

Actually, I had you in mind when I said this: "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."

And this: "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."

And this: "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."

Quote

Not rank melodrama, as that's exactly what will happen.

"But not you, Timmy" is rank melodrama.  Full stop.

And no, that's not what will happen.  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.  They will have to work very hard, however, because "Timmy" will also have critics and opponents in his ear, screaming at him that the Mormons hate him and his parents.

Quote

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.

I don't know about that.  Initial good intentions notwithstanding, I think sooner or later acrimony would have a very good chance of arising.  

Quote

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.

I can see where you are coming from.

Quote

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

The gist of the complaints about the policy changes has been as I have described/summarized.  Appeals to emotion prevail.  Dark emotions.  Anger.  Resentment.  Malice.

I cannot attribute good faith to critics and opponents who, on the one hand, oppose the Church and its teachings, and on the other, feign indignance at some children needing to wait a while before getting baptized.  Their position is logically incoherent.  Unless, of course, they are not operating in good faith.  Unless they are simply exploiting the challenging circumstances arising from the radical re-definition of marriage.  Unless they have a by-any-means-necessary mindset when it comes to tearing down the Church.  Then their position makes perfect sense.

"The LDS Church and its teachings are horrible!"

"The LDS Church wants children to wait until majority before becoming a part of that horrible organization and accepting its horrible teachings!  That's horrible!"

Quote

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.

You are upset about the impact the policy has had on family member.  That seems to be the definition of "emotional argument."

Consider your reasoning in other contexts.  Person X, a father to three small children, commits a robbery.  Person X is sentenced to jail.  Person X's children suffer adverse consequences because of Person X's actions and incarceration.  Your response would be . . . to decriminalize robbery (because the children have been harmed by the consequences of their father's conduct)?  To blame the judge?

Quote

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.

I'll take your word for it.

Quote

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.

People are being profoundly adversely affected by the 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.  Addressing that issue in this thread is not "overwrought."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

Tis the season for scare quotes.     Revelations generally are unexpected.  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Now why is that?  I've explained my view.  The hysterics about the recent policy are largely attributable 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.  These folks don't give two figs about the welfare of the children.  They are only interesting in attacking and tearing down the Church.  Complaining about the policy regarding kids in polygamous families is not conducive to those ends, since those kids . . . don't matter.  They are not at the center of a "Hot Button" controversy.  Kids in same-sex parent households, on the other hand, are part of such a controversy.  Hence we see "Think of the children!"-style hysterics from the critics about these kids, and indifference and silence as to the kids in polygamous families.

 

I am curious, smac.  How do you know, so certainly, the intentions of others?  I doubt you do.  I also think simplifying and polarizing a whole group's intentions in such a way to be hostile, uncharitable, and far too passionate to be reasonable.  But I am curious, how did you find yourself such a great evaluator of everyone else? 

[Robert F. Smith]

35 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?

Yet, but this would apply to a very small percentage of any congregation.  And, of those, only a small number would likely know anything about Church policy and practice -- primarily leadership.  I am a lifelong intellectual with an ear finely tuned to discern controversial statements from any sector, yet I don't hear discussion of such issues at Church.  They are, after all, sensitive issues, and most people would deliberately avoid discussing them.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, Pres. Nelson has specifically and formally and publicly declared the policy changes to be the result of revelation.  To President Monson.  And sustained unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  So there was, it seems, a "need" of some sort.

Well, you seem to be obliquely accusing Pres. Nelson of lying to the entirety of the Church.  

Again, Pres. Nelson has specifically and formally and publicly declared the policy changes to be the result of revelation.  To President Monson.  And sustained unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. 

In contrast, you are characterizing the policy changes as a "poor decision."

You are setting yourself up as a voice alternative and opposed to that of the General Authorities.  And you do that by obliquely accusing Pres. Nelson of lying.

Again, Pres. Nelson has specifically and formally and publicly declared the policy changes to be the result of revelation.  To President Monson.  And sustained unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. 

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, as you seem to think that my opposition boils down to being upset that a family member is being adversely affected by the policy. That's ridiculous. I stand by my assessment of the harm the policy has done, which was predictable.

But I can't let this stand without response: for the record, I have not accused President Nelson or anyone else of lying, obliquely or not. Even prophets, seers, and revelators make mistakes. That doesn't make them liars.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I am curious, smac.  How do you know, so certainly, the intentions of others?  I doubt you do.  I also think simplifying and polarizing a whole group's intentions in such a way to be hostile, uncharitable, and far too passionate to be reasonable.  But I am curious, how did you find yourself such a great evaluator of everyone else? 

No one has to mind read or assume intentions to be able to confidently point out that nowhere does anyone who is publicly outraged about the November policy also advocate for the ban to be lifted on COPs (children of polygamy). 

Now why is that?

You don't have to assume intentions to know that smac is correct. If they did feel just as strongly about them, why haven't we heard that? From anyone?

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Now this a completely agree with.  It is a reality.  But I see this more as a Mormon issue and those that are gay in the Mormon church, not a LGBT community issue.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

No one has to mind read or assume intentions to be able to confidently point out that nowhere does anyone who is publicly outraged about the November policy also advocate for the ban to be lifted on COPs (children of polygamy). 

Now why is that?

You don't have to assume intentions to know that smac is correct. If they did feel just as strongly about them, why haven't we heard that? From anyone?

You heard it from me in this thread. Does that count?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

The policy does not change any of this.

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Now his kids can’t be baptized unless they live with their mother, which is not a good idea for a number of reasons.

And perhaps not even then.  

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I think this demonstrates the hard wisdom of the policy.  The father and his spouse could, at any point, become concerned about any of a number of things involving the children "going to church."  Baptism only further entrenches the children in the Church, and increases the risk and the attendant pain of parental disagreement about children participating in the Church.  The policy, then, creates some breathing room for everyone.  The same-sex parents have more control over how much influence the Church has on their children (bizarrely, critics and opponents seem to think this is a bad thing).  The child is still welcome to participate to the fullest extent possible, and have a reduced risk of having conflicting loyalties between the Church and their parents (a conflict that can be resolved when the child is more emotionally and intellectually mature, and is able to find ways to reconcile these loyalties).

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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

In general, I agree.  But I think the tone and tenor of those disagreements matter.  A lot.  And much of the tone and tenor of those disagreements, at present, is pretty awful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

What are your thoughts about the Law of Chastity, and its prohibition against homosexual conduct?

What are your thoughts about the unified and unequivocal teachings of the General Authorities who have stated that same-sex marriage is not compatible with the principles of the Restored Gospel?

These seem to be some fairly significant "reasons{s} that same sex marriages can't be legitimized by the church."

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

But we're not talking about "assumptions."  We're talking about doctrines.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You heard it from me in this thread. Does that count?

Yes. That was literally the first time I have heard it even being brought up. 

If I remember correctly, it was when you were asked. I don't think you were manning the picket lines for ending the ban on COPs. . .  

[Duncan]

1 hour 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.

slight correction, my almost 85 year old dad who is a great health said one benefit to being old is getting the senior's discount, especially at Buffet Restaurants

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

Yes. That was literally the first time I have heard it even being brought up. 

If I remember correctly, it was when you were asked. I don't think you were manning the picket lines for ending the ban on COPs. . .  

I haven't been manning the picket lines for any of this. In fact, I hadn't even thought of this stuff in many months. The OP asked about fallout in the church from the policy, and I shared my family's experience. From there my participation devolved into my purely emotional opposition to this policy and reached its nadir with my calling Pres. Nelson a liar.

[california boy]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

We have heard plenty of examples where this policy has caused incredible problems with families and put the church between parents and their children.  Does ANYONE have any examples where families were torn apart over the issue of having gay parents prior to the policy being put in place?  

This is clearly a case where a solution to a problem that didn't exist has clearly created huge problems that are doing the very thing that the policy claimed to solve.  Is that not clear as day to everyone. including those defending the problem?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, california boy said:

Does ANYONE have any examples where families were torn apart over the issue of having gay parents prior to the policy being put in place?  

That's an excellent question. I have never heard of a situation where gay parents consented to their children being baptized, leading to the family being torn apart. I am personally aware, however, of several families who have been torn apart as a result of the policy.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the Law of Chastity, and its prohibition against homosexual conduct?

What are your thoughts about the unified and unequivocal teachings of the General Authorities who have stated that same-sex marriage is not compatible with the principles of the Restored Gospel?

These seem to be some fairly significant "reasons{s} that same sex marriages can't be legitimized by the church."

I'm don't believe the law of chastity clearly prohibits homosexual relationships, sounds like a speculative theory. 

GA's teachings on this subject have been uninformed and ignorant of the facts and will be disavowed in the future. 

The church as made many more significant changes in the past, the abandonment of the central defining polygamy principle, the relationship of black members, are both more significant.   New theological language was developed to accommodate the changing ideals of the church and society as has always been the case throughout the history of religion.  

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But we're not talking about "assumptions."  We're talking about doctrines.

One mans doctrine is another mans assumption.  Its just a matter of perspective.  Adam God was a doctrine for Brigham, but not for Kimball.  Change happens.  

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I haven't been manning the picket lines for any of this. In fact, I hadn't even thought of this stuff in many months. The OP asked about fallout in the church from the policy, and I shared my family's experience. From there my participation devolved into my purely emotional opposition to this policy and reached its nadir with my calling Pres. Nelson a liar.

Well, I certainly don't think President Nelson is a liar. 

My biggest frustration with the policy was the ham-handed roll-out (actually smoke out, since the original intent was for it to quietly go into the online handbook). The Church acted like a blind man in a mine field, from the leak, to the original communication to leaders, to the revised communication to leaders after outcry, to Nelson doubling down and calling it revelation in a YSA fireside months later. 

I also think that the policy's intent is to "burn the ships on the shore" --- to make it clear to everyone that gay marriage and normalization of homosexuality within the Church will never be approved, worlds without end. It is a solution in search of a problem, really. There are not very many gay-married couples in the Church seeking ordinances and activity for their kids. The intent is actually to send a message, not to address a problem within the Church.

I fully agree with defining gay marriage as apostasy triggering discipline. I am ambivalent about the children policy.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

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.

Which rather demonstrates the problem.  You are operating from a position governed by your circumstances, by people you know and love.  By your emotional investment in those people.  I understand that.  I respect it.  But it's not the correct position to take.

I have a friend who is presently in prison for some serious crimes he committed.  I have witnessed first-hand for years the significant burden his incarceration has had on his wife and children.  By the reckoning of some, my position should be "We need to decriminalize ______________ because the consequences of those guilty of that crime can affect his family members."  But removing the penalty for the crime would create other problems.  And removing the penalty of the crime because it adversely affects others is not a proposition borne of the law, or reason, or common sense.  It's a call for action based purely on the emotional stance of some of those personally involved.  That's no way to run a society.

I have a family member who is presently living with his girlfriend.  I love this family member dearly, but I cannot take use his situation as a basis from to declare that we need to revise the Law of Chastity.  Rather, the Law of Chastity should govern revisions as to my family member's choices.  Now, it so happens that he grew up in the Church.  He knows that its teachings are.  And I am not his father, so he is not within my specific sphere of stewardship.  So I have focused on loving and supporting him in all possible ways.  But those ways do not include demands that the Church alter its teachings about the Law of Chastity.

Quote

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.

Yes, that is a common thing.  But these are emotional arguments, not reasoned or doctrinal ones.  

Quote

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.

I completely agree.  It's all about emotional investment.  Not reason ('cuz otherwise there would not be such a gaping disparity in the reactions to the two policies).  Not morality (again, 'cuz otherwise there would not be such a gaping disparity in the reactions to the two policies).  Not doctrine.  Emotion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I haven't been manning the picket lines for any of this. In fact, I hadn't even thought of this stuff in many months. The OP asked about fallout in the church from the policy, and I shared my family's experience. From there my participation devolved into my purely emotional opposition to this policy and reached its nadir with my calling Pres. Nelson a liar.

Wait, I thought all your comments on this message board were just pure emotional flim flam anti-Mormon rants?  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

Well, I certainly don't think President Nelson is a liar. 

My biggest frustration with the policy was the ham-handed roll-out (actually smoke out, since the original intent was for it to quietly go into the online handbook). The Church acted like a blind man in a mine field, from the leak, to the original communication to leaders, to the revised communication to leaders after outcry, to Nelson doubling down and calling it revelation in a YSA fireside months later. 

I also think that the policy's intent is to "burn the ships on the shore" --- to make it clear to everyone that gay marriage and normalization of homosexuality within the Church will never be approved, worlds without end. It is a solution in search of a problem, really. There are not very many gay-married couples in the Church seeking ordinances and activity for their kids. The intent is actually to send a message, not to address a problem within the Church.

I fully agree with defining gay marriage as apostasy triggering discipline. I am ambivalent about the children policy.

I think you're absolutely right. It's about drawing a line and making sure same-sex marriage is never normalized in the church. I'm sure the other reasons are part of it (avoiding family conflicts, etc.), but I think they are secondary. What is frustrating to me is that once anyone says they disagree with the policy, they are lumped in with hateful anti-Mormons in beating up on the church.

I gave my family member as an example of how a faithful LDS family has been affected by the policy and how they've struggled with it. I feel bad for them, but it's not hurt feelings behind my disagreement with the policy. The negative effects were entirely predictable, so either these effects weren't anticipated, or the brethren figured they were outweighed by the message sent, as you put it.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess I consider the LGBT community as having cross over into the church community,

Yes, there is some overlap.  And that overlap is fine until the individual is faced with making choices based on moral codes from each community which are incompatible with each other.

Thanks,

-Smac