Variety: LDS Musician Confronts His Church’s LGBT Stance in New Sundance Documentary

[ALarson]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Have at it, then.  Just don't expect others to follow along.  Or be persuaded.  You are not proceeding in good faith when you ignore what we have to say.

I really enjoy and appreciate your perspective, smac.  But do you think you can write a post without the words "good faith" in it?  I'm just wondering if that's your "go to" defense for everything.  "Good faith" does not have to mean 100% support and toeing the line (near blind obedience) on any topic.  There are all types of faith that are "good".....it does not only mean making sure you agree with every single word spoken and action done by our leaders.

I respect that you follow that type of belief and thinking in your own life.  I honestly respect that.  But the argument thrown at others from you over and over of that's not in "good faith" has lost much of it's appeal or effectiveness in discussions, IMO.

Quote

 

"good faith" meaning:

noun

honesty or sincerity of intention.

 

Do you honestly belief that everyone you accuse of "not proceeding in good faith" are not being honest or sincere in their beliefs and intentions?  Most members of this forum are really good people who post on here (I'd say close to almost all who post here are), from what I can tell.  No evil intentions, just expressions of opinions, beliefs and feelings....for the most part.   "Good faith" does not have to mean never disagreeing with the leaders or with policies implemented by them.  They are fallible, after all.  They make mistakes.  

Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson
spelling correction

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have found that most (that I associate with) know about it.  There was quite a bit of publicity about it when it was leaked and then with the follow up explanations (and revisions or clarification) from the press room and leaders.

My experience is that people know about it in only vague, broad terms.  It's like the three-day governmental shutdown over this past weekend.  Did people "know about it?"  Sure.  Lots of them.  Did they understand it?  Did they study it in any detail?  Did they know the particulars as to why it started?  Why it ended so abruptly?  Do they know the factors involved?  For most folks, I think . . . not.  They are aware that it happened, but that's about it.

I have an acquaintance who is extremely knowledgeable about many aspects of the Church, and who dislikes the policy.  However, in discussing it with my friend, it turns out my friend had not read Elder Christofferson's fairly extensive remarks about the context of the policy changes.  I also suspect that my friend wasn't aware of Pres. Nelson's remarks in January 2016 about the policy being revelatory.  My friend had formed a very strong negative opinion about the policy changes without giving any consideration to the Church's published explanations about those changes.  Instead, I suspect my friend's opinion was formed based on the overwrought rhetoric and mischaracterizations about the policy, such as we see from people like Dan Reynolds, and from people on this board.

So some people "know about it" in a vague, generalized sense.  But I suspect most of them are relying on hostile sources.  Not surprising, really, since it is critics and enemies of the Church who have been harping about the policy changes and whipping up hostilities about them for more than two years now.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, most have feelings or opinions on the topic (again from my personal experience with members in my ward and family).  Many have gay friends and family members.  Also, SSM and gay issues are important and relevant to the younger generations (I've over heard many conversations at youth activities, etc.).

Agreed.  But I think there is a lot of variation as to how substantively informed a lot of these opinions are.  I don't think the LDS Church is being given a fair shake here.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We can sustain our leaders and not agree with everything they say or do. 

Agreed.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They are not infallible and make mistakes. 

Agreed.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

For those who do not agree with the policy, I've found it's more of a feeling that it was a mistake to even attempt to implement it (something that is rarely done from what I've heard and seen) and that it was completely unnecessary.

Understdood.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, I disagree (and so do many I've discussed it with).  I can see no good reason for needing such a policy. 

I do.  I see quite a few, actually.  Elder Christofferson said this back in 2015 (emphases added):

Quote

For example, Elder Christofferson explained that a baby blessing in the Church places a child’s name on the records of the Church and triggers many things—including the assignment of home and visiting teachers and the expectation that the child will attend Primary and other Church-sponsored activities. “That is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting, where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple.”

After the child reaches maturity, he or she can make an informed and conscious decision about their own Church membership, said Elder Christofferson. “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.”

Elder Christofferson said the Church policy is analogous to policy for children born to polygamist families.

Just as has been Church policy regarding polygamist families, children of parents in a same-sex relationship will need to assent to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage before entering Church membership or missionary service, he said. They are “not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice,” he emphasized.

I think concern about the overall welfare of these families - both polygamous and same-sex parents - is baked into the policy.

The Church leaders were and are worried about a number of different things.  Some of these (though, perhaps, not all) were laid out by Elder Christofferson two years ago.  I previously reviewed them here:

Quote

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

Now, I can understand that you may not agree with Elder Christofferson's reasoning on some or all of the foregoing points.  I can respect that.

What I have a difficult time understanding, however, is when people like you declare that this reasoning doesn't exist at all, or else that this reasoning is utterly lacking in any coherence or good faith ("I can see no good reason for needing such a policy").

Again, the Church is not being given a fair shake here.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

None of the explanations that I've seen make much sense and pretty much fall apart when analyzed, IMO. 

CFR, please, as to the explanations and corresponding analyses you are referencing here.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I feel it's caused much more harm and pain (and loss of membership and future members) than any good that has come from it.

I feel the "harm and pain" stems far more from the overheated and hateful rhetoric about the policy than from the policy itself.

The policy, after all, affects very, very few people.

I've previously made the following remarks on this point:

Quote

 

Frankly, it has been rather bizarre to see opponents of the Church, in essence, say "We despise the Mormon Church and its teachings!  And how dare you not let some children get baptized into it until they are adults!"  The opponents of the Church have a rather incoherent message, to be sure.

There is also a not-insignificant measure of incoherence in the position taken by some Latter-day Saints who are up-in-arms about the policy. 

"I think the policy is horrible!  It does not reflect God's will!  So I am going to publicly excoriate and oppose the Church and its leaders!  'Cuz nothing better demonstrates fealty to God's will than publicly ripping apart His prophets and apostles, and His Church! 

And even though we have a very clear and reasonable explanation about the origins of the policy from Pres. Nelson, who was a percipient witness as to those origins, and even though he publicly and emphatically attributed the policy to revelation to Pres. Monson, and even though Pres. Monson's decision was sustained by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I feel totally at liberty to ignore his remarks, and to baselessly question his honesty and/or mental competency.  He went rogue.  He lied.  He was deluded.  But no worries!  I won't actually say these things.  Instead, I'll resort to hamfisted innuendo that anyone with an IQ above 20 would understand as an attack on Pres. Nelson's integrity. 

Meanwhile, I will give absurd amounts of credence to anonymous and potentially multiple hearsay gossip purveyed by Greg Prince about sinister goings-on amongst the Brethren.  Yep.  Anonymous hearsay trumps the public declaration of the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Don't ask why. 

And don't you dare ask me about why I am indifferent to nearly identical policy affecting children in polygamous families, either.  That's just a non sequitur, even though Elder Christofferson specifically cited that older policy as an analog to the newer one. 

In any event, I don't want to talk about the challenges arising from that nearly identical policy, even though it has been in place for nearly a century, because . . . I don't know those kids.  I do not care about their welfare.  And they are simply not popular enough to warrant me linking arms with the critics against the Brethren when it comes to the policy that affects kids from polygamous homes.  You see, a policy of the Church is only immoral if it affects people I know personally, or who otherwise are presently popular on social media and in pop culture generally.  And as we all know, the best way for the Church to address broad and complex and difficult moral issues is to subject them to random popularity contests."

I have seen all of these arguments/positions, or variations thereof, promulgated by Latter-day Saints (many of them in this very thread).  Not very coherent, IMO.

 

 

These were from last October.  Not much has changed since then.

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What good has come from it?  Can you relate or point to anything specifically?   

See Elder Christofferson's remarks above.  The policy is intended predominantly to prevent harm or confusion, and to provide clarification to the Church regarding the Lord's will.

I decline to frame the policy in a "what good has come from it" context.  The Church has policies in place for all sorts of difficult or controversial things.  It's weird to frame the enactment and application of those policies in a "what good has come from it" kind of way.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I really enjoy and appreciate your perspective, smac.  But do you think you can write a post without the words "good faith" in it?  I'm just wondering if that's your "go to" defense for everything. 

When the shoe fits...

CB asked for suggestions as to how we can proceed.  He then blew them off.  100%.  No attention or treatment or response.  He then proceeded to give his own opinions about how to proceed.  That is not an attempt at a good faith discussion.

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Good faith" does not have to mean 100% support and toeing the line (near blind obedience) on any topic. 

Of course it doesn't.  I've never suggesting anything like that.

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are all types of faith that are "good".....it does not only mean making sure you agree with every single word spoken and action done by our leaders.

I suggest you re-visit the meaning of "good faith."  It's not a religious term.  Consider, e.g., this:

Quote

Good faith (Latin: bona fides), in human interactions, is a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction. While some Latin phrases lose their literal meaning over centuries, this is not the case with bona fides; it is still widely used and interchangeable with its generally accepted modern-day English translation of good faith.^[1] It is an important concept within law and business. The opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides (duplicity) and perfidy (pretense).

The above is pretty much reflects my usage.

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I respect that you follow that type of belief and thinking in your own life.  I respect that.  But the argument thrown at others from you over and over of that's not in "good faith" has lost much of it's appeal or effectiveness in discussions, IMO.

CB asked for suggestions as to how we can proceed.  He then blew them off.  100%.  No attention or treatment or response.  He then proceeded to give his own opinions about how to proceed.  That is not an attempt at a good faith discussion.

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you honestly belief that everyone you accuse of "not proceeding in good faith" are not being honest or sincere in their beliefs and intentions? 

No.  Nor have I ever suggested such a thing.

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Most members of this forum are really good people who post on here (I'd say close to almost all who post here are), from what I can tell.  No evil intentions, just expressions of opinions, beliefs and feelings....for the most part.   "Good faith" does not have to mean never disagreeing with the leaders or with policies implemented by them.  The are fallible, after all.  They make mistakes.  

I think you seriously misunderstand the concept of "good faith."  See above.

I have no expectation that CB agrees with the leaders of the LDS Church.  I do, however, expect good faith to be demonstrated in discussions on this board.  CB asked for suggestions as to how we can proceed.  He then blew them off.  100%.  No attention or treatment or response.  He then proceeded to give his own opinions about how to proceed.  That is not an attempt at a good faith discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please, as to the explanations and corresponding analyses you are referencing here.

As I stated, "IMO" many of the explanations fall apart when actually analyzed.

An example for me is the one used that it would harm children to be taught at church something that didn't support what their parents were doing (or how they were living....that it is sinful).  If that's the big concern, then why baptize children who are living in a home where the parents aren't married (who are "living in sin") or in a home where a parent is an alcoholic?  The children will be taught that their parent(s) are living in a manner that is sinful or are doing things that are considered against church teachings.

That's just one example of what I was referring to regarding analyzing the reasons I've seen for the policy.  It makes no sense, IMO, and has caused pain and harm that does not balance out anything good that has resulted from implementing the policy.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

When the shoe fits...

CB asked for suggestions as to how we can proceed.  He then blew them off. 

Yes, and you do the same in response to him when he's posting his feelings and beliefs "in good faith".  This happens on both sides and we are all guilty of doing this.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you seriously misunderstand the concept of "good faith."  

No, I posted the meaning of "good faith" above.  You are the one who has made it such a narrow meaning to only fit your beliefs.  One can still have "good faith" and disagree with fallible leaders.

It's your right of course to continue using it, I was just expressing how I feel about your over usage of it. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

Just now, ALarson said:

No, I posted the meaning of "good faith" above.  You are the one who has made it such a narrow meaning to only fit your beliefs. 

Nope.  I have used "good faith" to reference the tenor and content of efforts at discussion in this thread.  Not to my personal beliefs.

Just now, ALarson said:

One can still have "good faith" and disagree with fallible leaders.

I acknowledge that.  Again.

I will again note that you are not understanding the intended use of "good faith."  I have since clarified.

Just now, ALarson said:

It's your right of course to continue using it, I was just expressing how I feel about your over usage of it. 

Okay.  I again invite you to review my previous posts.  "Good faith" is, in this context, not about religious "faith," or about disagreeing with church leaders.  It is manifestly possible to have a "good faith" disagreement with them.  My use of the term has nothing to do with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

When the shoe fits...

CB asked for suggestions as to how we can proceed.  He then blew them off. 

Yes, and you do the same in response to him when he's posting his feelings and beliefs "in good faith".  This happens on both sides and we are all guilty of doing this.

I have no qualms with "his feelings and beliefs," and I have not accused him of lacking "good faith" as pertaining to them.

Again, read my previous posts.  You are not understanding my use of the term.  I am speaking of good faith in conducting a discussion in this thread.  That is undermined when CB solicits suggestions as to how we can proceed on this difficult and sensitive issue, only to then totally blow off and ignore suggestions proffered in response to his request.

That is the ambit of my use of the term.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  I have used "good faith" to reference the tenor and content of efforts at discussion in this thread.  Not to my personal beliefs.

Well, we're just going to have to disagree on that.  From what I've seen, you only use "not in good faith" to describe when someone disagrees with a leader or a policy from the leaders or an action of a church leader or a teaching from the leaders.  I admit I have not read all of your posts, but this is how I've seen you use the term "good faith".

But we can move on and get back to the actual discussion....

[california boy]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Okay.  Let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.  That would be a good place to start

OK.  And lets start listening to those that disagree with the policy rather than villfying them.just because they disagree with the policy.

Quote

A lot has changed.  Are you capable of acknowledging that?

Yes

Quote

Again, let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

OK.  And lets start listening to those that disagree with the policy rather than villfying them.just because they disagree with the policy.

Quote

Let's stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

OK.  And lets start listening to those that disagree with the policy rather than villfying them.just because they disagree with the policy.

Quote

Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

CFR where I have made an effort to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

Quote

Let's stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.

OK.  And lets start listening to those that disagree with the policy rather than villfying them.just because they disagree with the policy.

Quote

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

OK.  And lets start listening to those that disagree with the policy rather than villfying them.just because they disagree with the policy.

Quote

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

CFR where I have ever put false words in the mouths of the leaders of the Church

Quote

Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

What you mean is anyone who disagrees with the policy should shut up.

Quote

Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

Let's give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No one is stopping the Church from taking all the time it wants.  I "blew off" your answers because they were not answers at all.  They were vitriol attacks.  You weren't looking for discussion on how to improve things,.  You are looking for silence.

Edited January 24, 2018 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/24/2018 at 8:26 AM, pogi said:

There was a great song by the Monkees? 

In point of fact there were a number of them.

I know they were a goofy, Hollywood-manufactured group, but they (or their handlers) relied on some of the best songwriters of the period. I've mentioned that Neil Diamond wrote "I'm a Believer." "Daydream Believer" was composed by John Stewart shortly before he left the Kingston Trio and has been covered a number of times, including by Anne Murray, who had a hit with it in her own right. Carole King and partner Gerry Goffin wrote "Pleasant Valley Sunday" a listenable tune with some clever social commentary.

Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, a prolific songwriting duo of the 1960s, wrote a number of Monkees tunes, including "Last Train to Clarksville" and "(Theme from) the Monkees." Every original Monkees album, except for the sound track from the movie "Head," had Boyce and Hart songs on it.

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

CFR, please, as to the explanations and corresponding analyses you are referencing here.

As I stated, "IMO" many of the explanations fall apart when actually analyzed.

I know.  Again, CFR, please, as to the explanations and corresponding analyses you are referencing here.

What explanations are you referencing?  Whose?  Published where?  When?

Which analyses?  Whose?  Published where?  When?

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

An example for me is the one used that it would harm children to be taught at church something that didn't support what their parents were doing (or how they were living....that it is sinful).  If that's the big concern, then why baptize children who are living in a home where the parents aren't married (who are "living in sin") or in a home where a parent is an alcoholic? 

It's quite possible that baptizing a child under those circumstances might not be appropriate.  Hence local leaders are given some fairly broad latitude and discretion to make case-by-case determinations.

However, can you allow for the possibility that such latitude and discretion is not unlimited?  That the General Authorities may feel it appropriate to impose some clear boundaries?

What are your thoughts about the Church's position re: polygamists?  Do you object to the Church excommunicating members who enter into that form of marriage?  Please explain your position.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The children will be taught that their parent(s) are living in a manner that is sinful or are doing things that are considered against church teachings.

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  Hence the need for prudent exercise of discretion at the local level.  But not all such issues are within the bounds of local leaders' discretion.  Some issues fall within the provice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Differentiating these things is a judgment call, but that's why we are asked to sustain the leaders of the Church.  Supporting them when they make a decision that is bright and frothy and cheering is the easiest thing in the world.  The duty to sustain them really comes into play when they make decisions which are difficult or controversial.  

As regarding the policy changes, I can see both sides' arguments, and I acknowledge that both have raised meritorious points.  So whether to enact the policy or not was, in the end, a judgment call.  And the parties responsible for making that judgment call are . . . the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

I have no "old paradigms" to reorient as to the issue of children of same-sex couples getting baptized.  I had not given the matter much, if any, thought prior to November 2015.  But then the policy change came.  And a lot of vitriol with it.  Against men whom I trust to be good and decent, and experienced in seeking and obtaining revelatory guidance from God.  And then the vitriol continued.  And continues to this day.  And it calls for Latter-day Saints to pre-suppose certain things that are (or, in my mind, should be) pretty hard to pre-suppose (such as that Pres. Nelson "went rogue," or was deluded, or that he lied).

There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases."  A legal scholar,  Glanville Williams questioned this adage's usage in 1957, writing, "It used to be said that 'hard cases make bad law'—a proposition that our less pedantic age regards as doubtful. What is certain is that cases in which the moral indignation of the judge is aroused frequently make bad law."

I think the Brethren are looking at this policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way.  However, "hard cases make bad law."  That a policy adversely affects someone you know and love is difficult, but it does not really speak as to the quality of the policy itself.  I have a friend, a father of several small children, who was sent to prison on serious criminal charges.  His incarceration has been very difficult for his wife and children.  However, I think it would be unreasonable for me to say "I personally know and love people who have been adversely affected by the enforcement of laws criminalizing my friend's behavior, therefore those laws are bad."  The law is necessary, even when its enforcement causes pain and distress to others.  Per Pres. Nelson's remarks, the General Authorities were apparently quite aware of the "hard cases" that would arise from enacting the policy changes.  But they also understood that those hard cases "make bad law" (just as repealing criminal laws because enforcement of them causes hardship would also "make bad law").

In the end, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it.  But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change.

At present, I remain convinced that most of the "hurt" stems not from the policy itself (which has fairly narrow application), but from public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy.  By way of evidence, I point - again - to the remarkable lack of popular "moral indignation" regarding the Church's longstanding and nearly-identical policy as to children from polygamous families.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's just one example of what I was referring to regarding analyzing the reasons I've seen for the policy.  It makes no sense, IMO, and has caused pain and harm that does not balance out anything good that has resulted from implementing the policy.

"It makes no sense" isn't much in the way of reasoned analysis.

I think the policy makes a lot of sense.  My assessment is based mostly on the remarks of Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It makes no sense" isn't much in the way of reasoned analysis.

I was giving my opinion (that's what "IMO" means).  I stand by that opinion.  I honestly cannot see any good reason (including the explanations that have been given) why this policy was necessary.  Were there children with parents in a SSM who were causing problems?  Were there members who were gay that were causing problems regarding wanting their child baptized or not baptized?  Why implement it when it has caused more pain and harm (and a loss of members and investigators from what I've seen and read) than good?  Even you cannot point to anything specifically that has been a good result of putting this policy in place.

I simply have not seen a reason that makes sense to me.  I do stand by that.  (And, you disagree and I'm fine with that too.)  

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In point of fact there were a number of them.

In my subjective opinion, those are what I would term "alternative facts"

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know they were a goofy, Hollywood-manufactured group, but they (or their handlers) relied on some of the best songwriters of the period. I've mentioned that Neil Diamond wrote "I'm a Believer." "Daydream Believer" was composed by John Stewart shortly before he left the Kingston Trio and has been covered a number of times, including by Ann Murray, who had a hit with it in her own right. Carole King and partner Gerry Goffin wrote "Pleasant Valley Sunday" a listenable tune with some clever social commentary.

Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, a prolific songwriting duo of the 1960s, wrote a number of Monkees tunes, including "Last Train to Clarksville" and "(Theme from) the Monkees." Every original Monkees album, except for the sound track from the movie "Head," had Boyce and Hart songs on it.

They were a comedy cover band who didn't write their own music and didn't even play on most of their albums (they used studio musicians).  Some of them had to take music lessons to appear as if they could play their instruments of television!  They were hardly a "band".  They couldn't even record their voices together in the studio because they goofed off too much.  It wasn't until much much later that they finally learned to play instruments and actually played a live show...of cover music.   

I can give a little credit to some of the song writers, but I still wouldn't consider them "great", just ordinary catchy pop fluff music.  But that is just me.  To each his own.  

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

OK.  And lets start listening to those that disagree with the policy rather than villfying them.just because they disagree with the policy.

I haven't vilified anyone "just because they disagree with the policy."

Asking people to "stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks" is not vilification.

Asking people to stop using "vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric" is not vilification.

Asking people to stop trying "to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children" is not vilification.

Asking people to "stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes" is not vilification.

Asking enemies and critics of the Church to stop "presum{ing} to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes," and to "stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings" is not vilification.

Asking enemies and critics of the Church to stop "putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church" is not vilification.

Asking people to "{q}uit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church"  is not vilification.

Asking people to "give the Church some room to teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits" is not vilification.

Asking people to "give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families)" is not vilification.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

OK.  And lets start listening to those that disagree with the policy rather than villfying them.just because they disagree with the policy.

I have been listening to you and people like you.  For years now.  What I don't do is capitulate to you.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

CFR where I have made an effort to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

CFR where I have ever put false words in the mouths of the leaders of the Church

I did not attribute these things to you specifically.  There are countless examples of such things, though.  Do you want to adjust your CFR?

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

What you mean is anyone who disagrees with the policy should shut up.

Nope.  I have said nary a thing about censoring critics and enemies of the Church.

Members of the Church, however, are a somewhat different story.  And even then, I have said nothing close to "shut up"  I have instead referenced - over and over and over again - Elder Oaks' 1987 Ensign talk, "Criticism."  In it Elder Oaks, acting in his capacity as an apostle of Jesus Christ, provides some rather clear and reasoned guidance to the members of the Church as to how such disagreements can and should be addressed.  

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

No one is stopping the Church from taking all the time it wants.  I "blew off" your answers because they were not answers at all.  They were vitriol attacks.  You weren't looking for discussion on how to improve things,.  You are looking for silence.

Malarky.  I am not looking for "silence."  I am looking for good faith.  Civility.  Respect.  Decorum.  Honesty.  Patience.

The rhetoric from folks on your side of this issue has been overwhelmingly lacking in these attributes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The children will be taught that their parent(s) are living in a manner that is sinful or are doing things that are considered against church teachings.

 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.

If they attend church regularly, of course they will be taught that not marrying, but living together is a sin  They will also be taught about the WofW and that drinking alcohol is a sin.  How can you claim "perhaps not" regarding whether or not they will be taught these things if they attend church regularly?

Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson

[Daniel2]

This thread is about Reynolds, his views, influence, media coverage, and statements in and/or about the upcoming documentary about The Church and LGBT issues, and news/info/reactions to it.

By way of staying on topic in this thread, can everyone please move discussion about that November policy to another more appropriate thread?

And while some discussion or postings of other musicians is understandable (especially in relation to comparisons to Reynolds), if there's ongoing desires to generally discuss other LDS musicians (or those of other Faith's or genres), perhaps that's best reserved for the Social Forum, or another thread.
 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, we're just going to have to disagree on that.  From what I've seen, you only use "not in good faith" to describe when someone disagrees with a leader or a policy from the leaders or an action of a church leader or a teaching from the leaders.  I admit I have not read all of your posts, but this is how I've seen you use the term "good faith".

But we can move on and get back to the actual discussion....

I, on the other hand, have always known Smac97 to use the phrase "in good faith" to convey the meaning he has explained here. I suspect some misunderstanding/misinterpretation on your end.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, CFR, please, as to the explanations and corresponding analyses you are referencing here.

I've already given you an example to back up why I feel as I do and also stated again that this is simply my opinion (note the "IMO" in my statement).  

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

This thread is about Reynolds, his views, influence, media coverage, and statements in and/or about the upcoming documentary about The Church and LGBT issues, and news/info/reactions to it.

By way of staying on topic in this thread, can everyone please move discussion about that November policy to another more appropriate thread?

 

Of course.  Sorry, Daniel.  I was done anyway 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

This thread is about Reynolds, his views, influence, media coverage, and statements in and/or about the upcoming documentary about The Church and LGBT issues, and news/info/reactions to it.

By way of staying on topic in this thread, can everyone please move discussion about that November policy to another more appropriate thread?

 

OK, but Reynolds did take jabs at the Church appertaining to the November policy. Thus, it might enter into the discussion, even if only peripherally.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I, on the other hand, have always known Smac97 to use the phrase "in good faith" to convey the meaning he has explained here. I suspect some misunderstanding/misinterpretation on your end.

Ok (not surprising that this is your "opinion").  I disagree (that's not surprising either )  I've only seen smac use that phrase as an indication of support for church leaders, teachings, policies or actions.  But once again, I admit I have not read every single one of his posts.

I think we should get back to what the thread's topic is though....

Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

In my subjective opinion, those are what I would term "alternative facts"

They were a comedy cover band who didn't write their own music and didn't even play on most of their albums (they used studio musicians).  Some of them had to take music lessons to appear as if they could play their instruments of television!  They were hardly a "band".  They couldn't even record their voices together in the studio because they goofed off too much.  It wasn't until much much later that they finally learned to play instruments and actually played a live show...of cover music.   

I can give a little credit to some of the song writers, but I still wouldn't consider them "great", just ordinary catchy pop fluff music.  But that is just me.  To each his own.  

They may have done some cover recordings (most everyone did in those days) but the hit songs for which they are known and which I have mentioned are not covers. They are the original hit versions. Diamond and Stewart each released versions of the songs they wrote, but I think that was after the Monkees had already had hits with them.

And I do appreciate a good song, of any genre and from any source, even one that you might disparage as "catchy pop fluff." I suppose we are hopelessly at odds on that. I say "hopelessly," because I'm afraid there's no hope in settling an argument over a matter of taste, aesthetics and subjectivity. No point in even trying.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok (not surprising that this is your "opinion").  I disagree (that's not surprising either )

I think we should get back to what the thread's topic is though....

Your disagreement is not well informed.

Here is an online dictionary definition of "in good faith":

Quote

Good faith (Latin: bona fides), in human interactions, is a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction.

In every instance in which Smac has used that term that I can remember, this has been his meaning. You seem anxious to move on, but I do invite you to cite even one instance where this has not been his intended meaning.

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

"It makes no sense" isn't much in the way of reasoned analysis.

I was giving my opinion (that's what "IMO" means).  I stand by that opinion. 

As you like.  Just don't expect it to be persuasive.  It lacks reasoned analysis.  

I am less interested in the sharing of mere opinions, and more interested in reasoned discussion and analysis.  "It makes no sense" is just a conclusory, because-I-say-so opinion.  If you have no reasoned analysis that you are willing to share, I will respect that.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I honestly cannot see any good reason (including the explanations that have been given) why this policy was necessary. 

Again, conclusory.  No reasoned analysis.  

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Were there children with parents in a SSM who were causing problems?  Were there members who were gay that were causing problems regarding wanting their child baptized or not baptized? 

What are your thoughts about these remarks from Pres. Nelson (emphases added):

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 ... 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.

And these remarks by Elder Christofferson:

Quote

And these questions that have arisen, we’re sympathetic to. They’re difficult, they’re sensitive, they tug at the heartstrings and they’re very real. And this is about family; this is about love and especially the love of the Savior and how He wants people to be helped and fed and lifted, and that’s the whole motivation that underlies our effort.

...

We regard same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline. It means the discipline is mandatory — doesn’t dictate outcomes but it dictates that discipline is needed in those cases. It’s a statement to remove any question or doubt that may exist. We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.

...

With the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord and how we respond to that. So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt. We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. 

...

We’re not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know sin does not. And so we’re going to stand firm there because we don’t want to mislead people. There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ.

...

I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things.

...

And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.

...

The situation with polygamist families, for example, and same-sex marriage couples and families really has a parallel. For generations we've had these same kinds of policies that relate to children in polygamist families that we wouldn't go forward with these ordinances while they're in that circumstance and before they reach their majority. That's the same sort of situation we're dealing with here, so it's something we have had a history with. It's a practice that really is analogous that's been the case over many generations.

...

On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case. The Church of course doesn't attempt to practice mind control, and people have varying opinions. It's only a problem if there is advocacy and people lobby and advocate against the standard and the very clear and expressed position of the Church as it has been stated repeatedly, and again now.

It sounds like the Brethren did not make a knee-jerk decision.  Rather, it sounds like they put quite a bit of time and effort into reaching an informed, a reasoned, and - per Pres. Nelson - a revelatory decision. 

These fifteen men, with literally hundreds of years of experience in the Church between them, reached a unanimous decision, the basis for which has been publicly explained it some detail.  And yet it utterly escapes you?  The policy changes make "no sense" at all?  There is no conceivable "good reason" for the policy changes?  Really?

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why implement it when it has caused more pain and harm (and a loss of members and investigators from what I've seen and read) than good? 

As soon as you tell me whether you've stopped beating your wife, I'll answer that question.

Loaded rhetorical questions aren't "reasoned analysis."  They're just conclusory opinions with a question mark on the end.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Even you cannot point to anything specifically that has been a good result of putting this policy in place.

Again, I decline to frame the policy in a "what good has come from it" context.  The Church has policies in place for all sorts of difficult or controversial things.  It's weird to frame the enactment and application of those policies in a "what good has come from it" kind of way.  

(For the record, I can think of some "good results.")

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I simply have not seen a reason that makes sense to me.  I do stand by that.  (And, you disagree and I'm fine with that too.)  

You've provided nothing by way of reasoned analysis or explanation.  Conclusory "it makes no sense to me" opinions are fine, but perhaps you can understand why I am not persuaded.  You aren't even trying to persuade, and are instead merely asserting an opinion.  I'm okay with that.  I guess we're done.

Thanks,

-Smac