Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

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

You seem to be suggesting that it wasn't.

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

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.

"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

Again, I have no idea why you think I'm accusing anyone of lying. It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion when you dismiss negative consequences as "you're just upset" and couch any disagreement as a personal attack on the brethren. I've explained my reasons for disagreeing with the policy, and they are not based on butt-hurt or animosity toward the brethren.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with this, I think that's the conflict and its unfortunate and unnecessary. 

"Unfortunate and unnecessary," yes.  Attributable to the Church?  Not so much.

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The policy was created by church leaders and it can be destroyed by church leaders. 

The policy was the result of revelation.  It can only revoked by revelation.

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Church leaders have within their power to alleviate this conflict.  

So do the critics and opponents who have been fanning the flames of controversy about this topic.  Nonstop.  For years.

Meanwhile, the Brethren are constrained to follow what they understand to be the will of God.  

To be frank, I suspect some (many? most?) of the Brethren had concerns about the policy.  Take a look at Pres. Nelson's remarks:

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, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

I have been watching and listening to these men all my life.  I am strongly inclined to give them the benefit of a couple of hundred doubts.  So if I am called upon to choose which narrative is more accurate, that of a percipient witness and presiding apostle, or else speculative and antagonistic guesswork from non-percipient critics and opponents of the Church, I'll go with the former.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Do you have authority to speak for the church on this issue?  I disagree.  

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Its not sneering insults, you have an odd way of misreading my words, similar to what JK is trying to point out to you.  You interpret my disagreement as thoughtless insult, but its nothing of the sort.  I think some GAs are wrong, I think the policy is wrong, and I think you're wrong on this issue.  But I'm not making it personal, neither am I getting into insult territory.  

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I feel similar, in a way.  But it gets me going when a member starts telling me they know the intentions of others (painted as negative) while defending the Church. 

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

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

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

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

Cal, I think there are certainly gay activists that direct gay marketing, but the more pernicious side of the gay agenda is more subtle and far more pernicious.  It produces things like the film that was posted about the teen suicides in Utah - no basis in fact, pure propaganda, but its sole agenda is to attack the Church and any other entity, organization, or person that dares to say, think, or do anything that is less than supportive of the gay lifestyle. 

I think some of what you said above is reflective of the average gay individual. They live their lives and what the Mormon church does or does not do is irrelevant to them. It simply is not a topic of conversation unless someone else brings it up. 

I do wish that you were correct, but if you were we would not see such a continuous flow of propaganda articles and videos about conservative organizations including the church.  Cal, it is pretty preposterous to think that the Church has "chosen to after gay families" - the truth, the reality is that the Church and many other Churches try to teach the difference between what is righteous and what is not.  They have tried to do what is best for both children and adult parents and step parents.  Because someone disagrees with their actions should not be a surprise - show me any decision by any organization that pleases everyone. 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I have no idea why you think I'm accusing anyone of lying. It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion when you dismiss negative consequences as "you're just upset" and couch any disagreement as a personal attack on the brethren. I've explained my reasons for disagreeing with the policy, and they are not based on butt-hurt or animosity toward the brethren.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious when I say it sounds like someone is coming from a very passionate and not so reasonable place to me.  I suppose I can't help but point it out seeing as the accusation of lacking reason and being dispassionate was leveled.  It somehow became all about the intentions of others from his perspective rather than about dispassionate, reasonable discourse. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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?

I know of a few situations where extremely harsh feelings and conflict were created because grandparents and one parent was pushing for baptism and the gay parent didn't want to give permission.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I've seen similar effects with LDS friends and family, as I said. It's not that they don't believe in the gospel anymore, but they no longer accept what the church says without question because, for the first time, they think the church is capable of being wrong on an issue. I've seen a lot of people struggle to get the old relationship of trust back, and it's difficult.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I've seen similar effects with LDS friends and family, as I said. It's not that they don't believe in the gospel anymore, but they no longer accept what the church says without question because, for the first time, they think the church is capable of being wrong on an issue. I've seen a lot of people struggle to get the old relationship of trust back, and it's difficult.

I don't see this as inherently bad myself.  I think everyone should have been questioning long ago so they sought out confirmation and understanding from God rather than just assume the Church got it right.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I feel like I'm stating the obvious when I say it sounds like someone is coming from a very passionate and not so reasonable place to me.  I suppose I can't help but point it out seeing as the accusation of lacking reason and being dispassionate was leveled.  It somehow became all about the intentions of others from his perspective rather than about dispassionate, reasonable discourse. 

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was going after anyone's motivations. I just find the spin placed on what I say is usually unrecognizable to me. I don't get it.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

I don't see this as inherently bad myself.  I think everyone should have been questioning long ago so they sought out confirmation and understanding from God rather than just assume the Church got it right.

No, I don't, either. It's just maddening that people insist that those who have reached a different conclusion (even after prayer and fasting) are wrong and have some kind of irrational hatred for the church.

[Calm]

4 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 it would be helpful in clear cut situations such as unmarried parents to delay baptism given how I have seen too many baptisms that are done at grandparents' pushing and the kid never shows up except on rare occasions and doesn't even consider themselves Mormon later on.

Where parents have different beliefs, but not practices than church teachings, that would be more case by case imo.

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I must have missed this, but this is a really poor analogy.

I think it's quite apt, particularly since I am speaking from personal experience.

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm assuming you are equating the robbery with same-sex marriage,

Not "equating."  Analogizing.  A comparison of two otherwise dissimilar things.

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

so to "decriminalize" it would mean the church accepts and embraces same-sex marriage.

Nope.  Decriminalization would be more analogous to the Church ignoring same-sex marriage.

The problem, though, is that the Church can't feasibly do that, at least in terms of children being raised in a same-sex parent household.

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

CFR that I've ever called for the church to recognize same-sex marriage.

I don't think you have.

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Per your analogy, yes, the behavior of parents can have serious positive or negative consequences on their children.

Thank you for acknowledging that.  

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But what we are talking about here is an artificially imposed consequence,

What do you mean "artificially imposed?"  

My friend is in prison because he broke a law.  A man-made law.  Is his punishment an "artificially imposed consequence" too?  If not, why not?

Our society can make laws.  Those laws need to fall within the ambit of constitutionality, but otherwise they are generally good to go.  To dismiss the enforcement of those laws as "an artificially imposed consequence" seems unreasonable.

Similarly, our society, meaning our society as a church, can also make laws (or, in this case, "policies").  Those policies need to fall within the ambit of revealed doctrines, but otherwise they are generally good to go.  To dismiss the policy changes in question as "an artificially imposed consequence" seems unreasonable.

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

not something naturally arising out of the behavior.

There was nothing "naturally arising out of" my friend's behavior, either.  Everything that landed him in prison was, in your apparent view, "artificial." 

The governmental organs that passed the laws criminalizing his conduct?  Artificial.

The authority of the police who investigated my friend's behavior and compiled evidence against him?  Artificial.

The authority of the judge who passed judgment and sentence my friend to prison?  Artificial.

The authority of the prison guards and staff who presently hold my friend in captivity?  Artificial.

Meanwhile, the policy changes under discussion are, according to Pres. Nelson, the result of revelation.  From God.  To His presiding high priest.  And sustained by fourteen other prophets, seers and revelators.  And all of this took place in this context:

Quote

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, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

This sounds far more natural, more organic, than the man-made constructs which facilitated my friend's long-term stay in the land of striped sunlight.

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Having gay parents disqualifies a child from saving ordinances

False.  Having gay parents temporarily postpones a child from saving ordinances.

This sort of recklessly inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric is problematic.

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

"The church has decided" this because, according to those in authority, they received a revelation from God to implement that policy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

False.  Having gay parents temporarily postpones a child from saving ordinances.

This sort of recklessly inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric is problematic.

There you go again. A child of gay parents cannot be baptized until he or she is no longer a child. Saying so is not recklessly inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric. This reminds me of the time I did "bombastic debate" in high school. The point wasn't to actually debate but to focus on the polemics, the exaggeration, the bombast. I'm not in high school anymore, so it's kind of lost its appeal.

As for the "artificial" part, I'm talking about the consequences on the child, not the parent. Having an incarcerated parent has inherent consequences on a child that are not part of the sentencing and incarceration. Again, you seem intent on dealing with arguments and attacks I haven't made.

Edited October 25, 2017 by jkwilliams

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The policy was the result of revelation.  It can only revoked by revelation.

Joseph Smith had multiple revelations in one day.  Surely it can't be that hard.  Pray about it, and lets go, revoke the awful thing.  

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So do the critics and opponents who have been fanning the flames of controversy about this topic.  Nonstop.  For years.

Meanwhile, the Brethren are constrained to follow what they understand to be the will of God.  

To be frank, I suspect some (many? most?) of the Brethren had concerns about the policy.  Take a look at Pres. Nelson's remarks:

Greg Prince and others have talked about this based on inside sources and what they've said happened, but because this happens behind closed doors we can only speculate about those that were concerned about the policy.  I predict it will be changed in the near future. 

And its not the critics that are causing the problem, its the church's inability to address the issues that society is dealing with in a measured and thoughtful way.  The SCOTUS eventually got things right, most developed countries are getting this issue correct as well.  The church is unfortunately behind the times and its not only embarrassing, it is doing real harm to real people.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have been watching and listening to these men all my life.  I am strongly inclined to give them the benefit of a couple of hundred doubts.  So if I am called upon to choose which narrative is more accurate, that of a percipient witness and presiding apostle, or else speculative and antagonistic guesswork from non-percipient critics and opponents of the Church, I'll go with the former.

I'm wondering if you were old enough to be witnessing the events that unfolded from 1950s - 1970s (I'm not that old) in society and the church that led up to the 1978 change for blacks and the priesthood/temple.  If you were old enough to be viewing those events, were you in lock step with the Petersons, McKonkies of the leadership, or did you have the discernment to recognize that their speculative statements would end up being disavowed at some future time?  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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

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

But it is not left solely up to the families, but also their local leaders.  I have known local leaders who have not allowed baptisms of children where there is conflict and potential conflict, where they see a verbal agreement to support the child but little evidence that it will actually happen.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm saying he's human, nothing more.

He's also an apostle of Jesus Christ.  I'd say that makes him "more" (at least when he is acting in that capacity).

38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

History is full of people who thought they were doing God's will. Not all of them were right.

As you like.  We've gone the rounds.  I've had my say, and you've had yours.

I'll stick with the unified voice of the prophets, seers and revelators leading the Church.  If they are wrong, I think God will reveal that.  But He will reveal it to them.  So to the extent you want me to choose between the explanation of the origins of the policy changes publicly declared by Pres. Nelson's (an apostle, and a percipient witness, and representing the unified voice of all fifteen prophets, seers and revelators at the head of the Church) and the countervailing speculation from you (who are neither an apostle, nor a percipient witness), I'll go with the former.

Now, I recognize that this will make me unpopular.  It opens me up to false accusations and acrimony.  I don't like that.  I don't enjoy it.  But I'm willing to put up with it.  In the wise words of Evette Carter (see my sig line): "'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." 

I acknowledge that the policy changes have resulted in some very real difficulties to some very good people.  However, the same can be said for many, many situations.  As long as the children of men sin, there will be consequences that follow.  And as long as those consequences follow, they will land, partially, on innocent parties.  My hope and faith is that such things will be sorted out by God in the end.  Meanwhile, we do the best we can with what we've got.  And what we've got is prophetic authority being exercised by good and decent men in very difficult circumstances.  I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I'll not press the matter further.  In fact, I will go one step further and retract my previous characterizations about your comments and apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Brother Bear]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

"No, I'm not persuaded" doesn't explain or clarify anything.  

Again, I have seen precious little dispassionate reasoning from those who have found fault with the policy changes.  What I have seen overwhelmingly consists to fallacious appeals.  To popular opinion.  To emotion.  To ignorance.  To judgmentalism.  To bigotry and prejudice.

I would like to see some "dispassionate reasoning" as to why you are "not persuaded."  But if you are not so inclined, I will not press the matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

...pot meet kettle. If we wanted to analyze your own positions, I would wager quite heavily that everything you've asserted on this and other threads is logically fallacious. Reasoning, "impassioned" or not, is relative to framework of beliefs and assumptions that likely can't be justified by anything other than the notion that it makes sense to the person. Soliciting "impassioned reasoning" is nonsense. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

But it is not left solely up to the families, but also their local leaders.  I have known local leaders who have not allowed baptisms of children where there is conflict and potential conflict.

I'll take your word for it. In every case I've ever known, if both parents give consent, the child is baptized.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it would be helpful in clear cut situations such as unmarried parents to delay baptism given how I have seen too many baptisms that are done at grandparents' pushing and the kid never shows up except on rare occasions and doesn't even consider themselves Mormon later on.

Where parents have different beliefs, but not practices than church teachings, that would be more case by case imo.

I guess it depends upon what you think is the purpose of baptism. If it's to create Mormons who will actively engage and support the church, then you're probably right. But if the purpose is to provide a saving ordinance that is required for salvation, then whether or not the person is a proper Mormon doesn't really matter much.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

He's also an apostle of Jesus Christ.  I'd say that makes him "more" (at least when he is acting in that capacity).

As you like.  We've gone the rounds.  I've had my say, and you've had yours.

I'll stick with the unified voice of the prophets, seers and revelators leading the Church.  If they are wrong, I think God will reveal that.  But He will reveal it to them.  So to the extent you want me to choose between the explanation of the origins of the policy changes publicly declared by Pres. Nelson's (an apostle, and a percipient witness, and representing the unified voice of all fifteen prophets, seers and revelators at the head of the Church) and the countervailing speculation from you (who are neither an apostle, nor a percipient witness), I'll go with the former.

Now, I recognize that this will make me unpopular.  It opens me up to false accusations and acrimony.  I don't like that.  I don't enjoy it.  But I'm willing to put up with it.  In the wise words of Evette Carter (see my sig line): "'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." 

I acknowledge that the policy changes have resulted in some very real difficulties to some very good people.  However, the same can be said for many, many situations.  As long as the children of men sin, there will be consequences that follow.  And as long as those consequences follow, they will land, partially, on innocent parties.  My hope and faith is that such things will be sorted out by God in the end.  Meanwhile, we do the best we can with what we've got.  And what we've got is prophetic authority being exercised by good and decent men in very difficult circumstances.  I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'll not press the matter further.  In fact, I will go one step further and retract my previous characterizations about your comments and apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you. I have not asked you to agree with me over the brethren, and your sticking with the brethren on this doesn't make you unpopular with me or make me feel any acrimony. My frustration has only been that you have, for whatever reason, decided to put the worst possible spin on everything I've said, to the point that I don't recognize my position in your reactions. I appreciate the apology and likewise apologize for contributing to the acrimony in any way.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There you go again. A child of gay parents cannot be baptized until he or she is no longer a child. Saying so is not recklessly inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric. This reminds me of the time I did "bombastic debate" in high school. The point wasn't to actually debate but to focus on the polemics, the exaggeration, the bombast. I'm not in high school anymore, so it's kind of lost its appeal.

As for the "artificial" part, I'm talking about the consequences on the child, not the parent. Having an incarcerated parent has inherent consequences on a child that are not part of the sentencing and incarceration. Again, you seem intent on dealing with arguments and attacks I haven't made.

And a child whose parents refuse to give permission has to wait as well.

Do you believe the Church should ignore parental wishes and be solely concerned in giving the child access to saving ordinances in the timeline that they want without regard to the family circumstances at all?

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Frankly, I wonder if the Brethren (erroneously, as it turns out) presumed that this would be the normative reaction to the policy changes.  That would explain the poor roll-out (which, as I have noted before, was preempted by John Dehlin's scoop).

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Perhaps.  The Church has never claimed that the members would never face such tests of faith.  To the contrary, there seem to be ample warnings that tests of faith are exactly what we should expect.

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I hope that changes in the future.  But if not, I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

More huffing and puffing in lieu of dispassionate reasoning -- just as Smac97 has pointed out.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But if the purpose is to provide a saving ordinance that is required for salvation, then whether or not the person is a proper Mormon doesn't really matter much.

A covenant that is made but never honored or broken is not a saving ordinance.