Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

It's either that or go back to sacrificing babies to Molech.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Your contention that people like myself cannot provide a dispassionate and reasoned argument to critique the policy change

Let me clarify.  I am not saying that "people like" you "cannot" provide such an argument.  I am saying that you have not.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

is just a matter of your perspective. 

Then feel free to correct my perspective.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

There are plenty of arguments critiquing this policy already that I believe more than qualify as dispassionate and reasoned,

CFR, please.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

but I'm guessing your standards are set so high as no argument could possibly meet it. 

How 'bout you present the arguments (or provide links to them) rather than guess about my hypothetical response to them.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

There are also passionate calls for change which are justified and appropriate from my perspective.  

I understand and respect your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I agree with this, I think that's the conflict and its unfortunate and unnecessary.  The policy was created by church leaders and it can be destroyed by church leaders.  Church leaders have within their power to alleviate this conflict.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's either that or go back to sacrificing babies to Molech.

How are you at multitasking?  

[smac97]

1 hour 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.

And yet the Church's policy has nothing to say about attending meetings.

Earlier you were criticizing me for expressing "overwrought hyperventilating about evil anti-Mormons and their hateful attacks on the church."  And yet here you are, publicly accusing the Church of dishonesty, of not wanting children of gay parents to attend Church.  

This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said this: "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."

"Presumed to speak for the Church to those children" = "the church would prefer that children of gay parents not attend meetings."

"False words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church" = "the church would prefer that children of gay parents not attend meetings."

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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?

I must have missed this, but this is a really poor analogy. I'm assuming you are equating the robbery with same-sex marriage, so to "decriminalize" it would mean the church accepts and embraces same-sex marriage. CFR that I've ever called for the church to recognize same-sex marriage.

Per your analogy, yes, the behavior of parents can have serious positive or negative consequences on their children. But what we are talking about here is an artificially imposed consequence, not something naturally arising out of the behavior. Having gay parents disqualifies a child from saving ordinances because the church has decided to implement that policy, not because there is something inherent in being the child of gay parents that disqualifies a minor from baptism.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

And yet the Church's policy has nothing to say about attending meetings.

Earlier you were criticizing me for expressing "overwrought hyperventilating about evil anti-Mormons and their hateful attacks on the church."  And yet here you are, publicly accusing the Church of dishonesty, of not wanting children of gay parents to attend Church.  

This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said this: "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."

"Presumed to speak for the Church to those children" = "the church would prefer that children of gay parents not attend meetings."

"False words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church" = "the church would prefer that children of gay parents not attend meetings."

Thanks,

-Smac

I was just agreeing with Bobbieaware. How is that an accusation of dishonesty?

[smac97]

4 hours 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. 

I have heard nothing but reasoned and dispassionate explanations for the policy.  In contrast, I have not seen any reasoned, dispassionate criticisms of the policy.  Just lots and lots and lots of vitriol, appeals to emotion, false accusations, and so on.

It's a funny world we live in.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, 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?

I don't know what you're saying, rongo.  Everything smac said (the portion that I quoted) was assuming intentions of others. 

Edited October 25, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have heard nothing but reasoned and dispassionate explanations for the policy.  In contrast, I have not seen any reasoned, dispassionate critique of the policy.  Just lots and lots and lots of vitriol, appeals to emotion, false accusations, and so on.

It's a funny world we live in.

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess we see what we want to see. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I have heard nothing but reasoned and dispassionate explanations for the policy.  In contrast, I have not seen any reasoned, dispassionate critique of the policy.  Just lots and lots and lots of vitriol, appeals to emotion, false accusations, and so on.

It's a funny world we live in.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pointing out the predictable consequences of the policy is not vitriol, an appeal to emotion, or a false accusation. The arguments I've seen in favor of the policy rest on the possibility of mitigating conflict in families. Of course, we have no evidence for that, but we do have plenty of evidence that conflict has been exacerbated in some families. The only thing I can think of is that the brethren decided the policy was worth the negative consequences.

 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let me clarify.  I am not saying that "people like" you "cannot" provide such an argument.  I am saying that you have not.

Then feel free to correct my perspective.

CFR, please.

How 'bout you present the arguments (or provide links to them) rather than guess about my hypothetical response to them.

I understand and respect your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Firstly is the work Greg Prince has been doing, which this thread linked to his speech, and I'm looking forward to his book on the subject.  I also like Bryce Cook's recent work expounding on the history of the LGBT issue in Mormonism.  I think Taylor Petrey's essay in Dialogue from a few years back was very important, although that was before the Nov 2015 policy, the issues around the theology are related. 

Lots of podcasts and blog posts on this issue as well.  Bill Bradshaw's work has been influential and educational to me as well.  So much information out there if you're really interested in learning and having your perspective opened up, but you have to do the work, I'm not going to spoon feed you.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It's hard not to reach the conclusion that the policy change was reactionary to the Supreme Court loss. 

Yep.  Especially since Pres. Nelson specifically told the entire Church that very thing:

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then...

So nope.  Not hard at all.

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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. 

Yes.  "Had to have been."  But there's no need to guess.  Just listen.

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

To make matters worse, it affects innocent children primarily. 

Such is the way of things.  When parents transgress, some of the consequences can fall on their children.

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It seems to be a mistake, an over-reaction to a loss. 

And yet we have Pres. Nelson's remarks . . .

Fifteen men.  With literally hundreds of years cumulative experience between them as to seeking after revelatory guidance.

Fifteen men sustained Pres. Monson.

The Presiding High Priest thereafter spoke to the entire Church.  In a formal setting, and in his official capacity.  And he declared the policy changes to be the result of "revelation."

There is a quantum of evidence here, with Pres. Nelson's public declaration on the one side and, on the other, "seems to be" guesswork from an anonymous critic.  On balance, I'll go with the former.

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The church can claim it was a revelation, sort of,

Wow.  Subtle.  Not hamfisted at all.

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

or try and change the focus by claiming an attack on religious freedom. 

CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

But scare quotes are not intended to convey surprise.  They are intended to convey skepticism.

-Smac

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I am curious, smac.  How do you know, so certainly, the intentions of others? 

I observe their words and statements, and extrapolate therefrom.

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I doubt you do. 

I'm okay with that.  I'm relying on informed surmises.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rock_N_Roll]

So...if the policy concerning SSM couples and their children was a revelation, and the policy for polygamist families is basically the same...was the policy for polygamist families a revelation as well? 

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know what you're saying, rongo.  Everything smac said (the portion that I quoted) was assuming intentions of others. 

And I was just pointing out that when he says that people aren't as outraged about COPs as they are about children of gay-married parents, and people complain that we can't know if they are outraged about it or not (their intentions), that the fact that there is zero agitation on behalf of COPs is a strong indicator that smac is correct. 

You can continue to mutter under your breath "Still doesn't prove they don't care about it as much" if you want. 

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

Pres. Nelson has publicly declared that the policy change was revelatory.  You are claiming it a "mistake."  If you are right, Pres. Nelson (and the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) is wrong.

If those men are wrong, then Pres. Nelson was either lying or mentally infirm when he declared that the policy change was revelatory.

I haven't seen you question Pres. Nelson's mental health, so that pretty much leaves us with . . . an oblique accusation that he lied.

I don't see how else to account for the discrepancy between your public statements and his.

The problem, though, is that such a lie must also be attributed to the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  So it's a rather explosive charge to make, even obliquely.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Pres. Nelson has publicly declared that the policy change was revelatory.  You are claiming it a "mistake."  If you are right, Pres. Nelson (and the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) is wrong.

If those men are wrong, then Pres. Nelson was either lying or mentally infirm when he declared that the policy change was revelatory.

I haven't seen you question Pres. Nelson's mental health, so that pretty much leaves us with . . . an oblique accusation that he lied.

I don't see how else to account for the discrepancy between your public statements and his.

The problem, though, is that such a lie must also be attributed to the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  So it's a rather explosive charge to make, even obliquely.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm saying he's human, nothing more. History is full of people who thought they were doing God's will. Not all of them were right.

I guess I don't understand the need to interpret everything I say with the worst possible spin. People make mistakes all the time. How that equates to calling someone a liar is beyond my comprehension.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

And I was just pointing out that when he says that people aren't as outraged about COPs as they are about children of gay-married parents, and people complain that we can't know if they are outraged about it or not (their intentions), that the fact that there is zero agitation on behalf of COPs is a strong indicator that smac is correct. 

You can continue to mutter under your breath "Still doesn't prove they don't care about it as much" if you want. 

I'm not sure what you're saying.  My concern in my reply has nothing to do with any notion of whether people care about COPs or not.  It's quite possible for someone to agree with the policy on COPs and disagree with the policy on COGP.  They are not the same situation.  It's also quite possible for someone to disagree with both and yet be more concerned about and more vocal for one over another due to what he/she is experiencing in life.  But again, that hardly means there is any reason to assume the intentions he did.  I guess I'm gone with this since I've probably lost posting privileges for today and will likely get banned from this thread too, like most of the others, so take care. 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Then I'll leave you to it.  We can debate the merits of LDS belief, but not their existence.

There is no question about the LDS Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity as pertaining to homosexual behavior.  None.

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Here you corroborate my assessment about the absence of dispassionate, reasoned critique of the policy changes.  You present no reasoned analysis.  No thoughtfulness.  Just sneering insults and guesswork.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

The polygamy policy was put in place in the 1920s.

For contextual background and a good comparison between the two, including pointing out some differences disappear if you look at the polygamy policy when it was first created rather than current status:

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/11/05/the-children-of-marriedcohabiting-gay-parents/

Information on how polices used to be announced...I think it helps to explain the inconsistency even existing today.

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/11/11/about-that-polygamy-policy-timeline/

 

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, 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. 

Huh?  President Nelson did not lie, but then he "doubl{ed} down and call{ed} it revelation?"

Sounds like you are accusing Pres. Nelson of lying, after all.  You seem to be suggesting that what Elder Nelson described did not happen.  That there was no revelation (that he only "called" it revelation, but that it really wasn't).

What am I missing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm disappointed in myself for not feeling the fire about this anymore. I think I'm coming to the point of apathy about what the church thinks and does with regard to this subject. What's worse is I'm becoming more apathetic about the possible impact something like the policy will have on the church. The Church is acting like the Church. No surprise. It will live with the consequences for many years. Over time more and more people will question the church's claim of authority with "revelation" like this. For some, the policy is a last straw. For others it is the first major crack they will notice in their shelves. The Church doesn't share detail about the impact so we are all left to speculate.

Yes, I find the Church's approach to be sad but I find it personally sad that things like this policy cause me to stop trusting and/or caring much about the church. I think I'm like many others. I just accept the church for what it is and accept that my relationship with the church will likely never be the same as it once was.

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think you're absolutely right. It's about drawing a line and making sure same-sex marriage is never normalized in the church.

Pres. Nelson said it's "about" revelation.

You seem to be suggesting that it wasn't.

Which make Pres. Nelson's remarks . . . what?

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

Well, no.  I have repeatedly stated that I can accommodate reasoned and principled concerns about the policy.  I reiterate that sentiment here.

The problem arises when the rhetoric becomes antagonistic, when unfair/false characterizations of the Church's motives are declared by those who are opposed to the Church, when public accusations against the Brethren surface.

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

"The message" being . . . the one which Pres. Nelson publicly declared to be revelatory.

The phrase "Don't shoot the messenger" comes to mind...

Thanks,

-Smac