LDS SSA Policies in Context

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

Because the policy was very poorly thought out.

I think the policy was intended to address multiple and varied permutations and circumstances.  The policy also addresses a very difficult and sensitive facet of society.  It's understandable, really, that difficulties will arise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Because the policy was very poorly thought out.

I don't think the policy was very poorly thought out; I think the implementation and execution of it was. A lot of that had to do with the surreptitious leaking of it, which kept the Brethren back on their feet and reactionary about it. That part of it was not the Church's finest hour. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think the policy was very poorly thought out; I think the implementation and execution of it was. A lot of that had to do with the surreptitious leaking of it, which kept the Brethren back on their feet and reactionary about it. That part of it was not the Church's finest hour. 

To the contrary, I believe they were blindsided but that they dealt with that very well. 

Perhaps it would have been better to get ahead of the public controversy somehow, but that’s a case of 20-20 hindsight. 

And I’m not certain how much good it would have done anyway. Some decisions, necessary though they may be, are inherently polarizing. I doubt those who are railing against it today would have received it any more cheerfully had it been publicized through official channels instead of leaked. 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To the contrary, I believe they were blindsided but that they dealt with that very well. 

Perhaps it would have been better to get ahead of the public controversy somehow, but that’s a case of 20-20 hindsight. 

And I’m not certain how much good it would have done anyway. Some decisions, necessary though they may be, are inherently polarizing. I doubt those who are railing against it today would have received any more cheerfully had it been publicized through official channels instead of leaked. 

I honestly wonder if it would have been publicized or announced if it hadn’t been leaked.  Do you have thoughts on that or an opinion on whether it would have been?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I honestly wonder if it would have been publicized or announced if it hadn’t been leaked.  Do you have thoughts on that or an opinion on whether it would have been?

It may not have been. The handbook is by nature an in-house publication, and occasional changes and updates to it typically don’t get much, if any, publicity, as far as I’m aware. 

That said, I don’t know what the Church leaders would have done in this case. They might have made an exception, but I just don’t know. 

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think the policy was very poorly thought out; I think the implementation and execution of it was. A lot of that had to do with the surreptitious leaking of it, which kept the Brethren back on their feet and reactionary about it. That part of it was not the Church's finest hour. 

 

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To the contrary, I believe they were blindsided but that they dealt with that very well. 

Perhaps it would have been better to get ahead of the public controversy somehow, but that’s a case of 20-20 hindsight. 

And I’m not certain how much good it would have done anyway. Some decisions, necessary though they may be, are inherently polarizing. I doubt those who are railing against it today would have received it any more cheerfully had it been publicized through official channels instead of leaked. 

 

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

I honestly wonder if it would have been publicized or announced if it hadn’t been leaked.  Do you have thoughts on that or an opinion on whether it would have been?

 

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It may not have been. The handbook is by nature an in-house publication, and occasional changes and updates to it typically don’t get much, if any, publicity, as far as I’m aware. 

That said, I don’t know what the Church leaders would have done in this case. They might have made an exception, but I just don’t know. 

My hunch (and it's simply that, so take it for what it's [not] worth) is, "usual channels": Perhaps a letter to Area Presidencies, Mission Presidents, Stake and District Presidents, and Bishops and Branch Presidents (along with anyone else I have neglected to mention who, usually, is included among those who receive such correspondence) but not much (if anything) beyond that. 

And I hope I can be forgiven for suspecting the [undoubtedly-pure and benign] motives of the MormonLeaks crowd and those who sympathize with them: Whatever else they may wish to accomplish, it seems that their very raison d'etre is simply "publicity for publicity's sake" along with harming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  (To be fair, their establishment of a companion organization dedicated to leaking internal documents from other faiths ... ReligionLeaks, or something like that, is it? ... makes them equal-opportunity offenders: Apparently, it's religion in general that they have a problem with.  (Of course, perhaps an unintended benefit from the establishment of such a sister organization is that it might finally do something to put to rest the notion that not publicizing things that are not usually publicized (and that shouldn't be publicized), somehow, is a phenomenon unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I know, I know!  I should have more faith in my fellowmen and women, but ...  

[Tacenda]

I think the church is behind the times. And they don't adhere to the American constitution at all, in giving all men and women equal treatment and allowing gays who are married to be members, nor their innocent children. Yet they allow some horrible people to be members through baptisms for the dead.  

I like this segment with Ellen, grab your tissues. 

 

[california boy]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure.  

They are subject to excommunication on grounds of apostasy, yes.

There is no "labeling."  The grounds for excommunication are in almost all instances kept confidential.

It sure would be nice to have some good faith in discussions like this.

Yes.  The Church is serious about the importance of marriage.  So unauthorized polygamous marriages are grounds for excommunication.  The same goes for same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, fornication may or may not be grounds for excommunication.  Adultery is (perhaps owing to its destructive and corrosive effect on a marital relationship).

I'm note sure, either.

Again, some good faith sure would be nice.

I am not sure if there is a hard and fast rule.

Possibly.  I don't think there is a hard and fast rule for this circumstance.

Again, some good faith sure would be nice.

Thanks,

-Smac

What does good faith mean to you?  Do you not think I am asking these questions sincerely wanting to understand what the church is trying to accomplish with this policy?  If we don't understand what the church is trying to accomplish, then how can we possible understand why this claimed revelation was given.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To the contrary, I believe they were blindsided but that they dealt with that very well. 

Perhaps it would have been better to get ahead of the public controversy somehow, but that’s a case of 20-20 hindsight. 

And I’m not certain how much good it would have done anyway. Some decisions, necessary though they may be, are inherently polarizing. I doubt those who are railing against it today would have received it any more cheerfully had it been publicized through official channels instead of leaked. 

I think your view on this is very blinded on this subject.  I have not heard anyone be that upset about how the policy was leaked.  It is the policy itself and how gay families and their children are treated is what people are upset about.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I think your view on this is very blinded on this subject.  I have not heard anyone be that upset about how the policy was leaked.  It is the policy itself and how gay families and their children are treated is what people are upset about.

I think people are being whipped up into a frenzy by critics and enemies of the Church.

I think it is telling that there has been no corollary outcry about the Church's identical and in-place-since-the-1920s policy regarding the children of polygamous families.  To me, the popular indifference to this other policy demonstrates that the opposition to the *newer* policy is borne more of factors like personal connections, emotions, and popularity (all of which make the newer policy "hit home more"), and less of the actual form and content and intent of the policy itself.  If the policy was controversial because it is innately bad, then so is the older one.  And yet nobody gives a tinker's darn about the older one.  On the other hand, if the policy was controversial because it "hits home more" (that is, because it potentially adversely affects a more socially popular group (popularity), it affects people you know (personal connections / emotions)), then there wouldn't be as much room for judgmentalism against the Brethren and the Church, rising up to join with critics and opponents of the Church in publicly criticizing and condemning the Brethren, and so on.  Again, the lopsided reaction to the two nearly identical policies is, to me, quite illuminating.

I think the controversy far outstrips the actual impact of the policy.  The controversy has overshadowed the intended and actual impact of the policy.  

I think that critics and opponents of the Church have worked very, very hard to foment as much acrimony and strife about the policy as possible. These same critics and opponents who claim to resent the Church's policy changes are intrinsically opposed to the LDS Church and its doctrines and beliefs.  How does that work?  "Hey, Mormonism sucks in every respect!  And I am really steamed that they are having some very few children wait until they are emancipated before joining!"  I have considerably more sympathy for faithful members of the Church (and, I suppose, some earnest nonmember critics) who are conflicted about the policy changes.  But at least they are operating in good faith.

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

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

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

I think the Church's November 2015 policy changes are difficult because those changes, while unpleasant, were nevertheless necessary.  And appropriate.  That is, in my view, a dispassionate assessment.  In contrast, 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 think the Church's policy acknowledges and seeks to account for the potential challenges to families that may arise from children being raised in same-sex parent households joining the Church.  The Church, hoping not to inject such hostilities into these families, has enacted the current policy which is designed to mitigate such things (there are, I think, other reasons for the policy as well).  Put another way, the Church is more concerned about the welfare of these families than are the critics and opponents of the Church, who are mostly using the policy change as a brickbat against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 29, 2017 by smac97

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the church is behind the times.

Hooray! Given the state of "the times," who in their right mind would want us not to be?

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And they don't adhere to the American constitution at all, in giving all men and women equal treatment and allowing gays who are married to be members, nor their innocent children.

I'm sorry, what part of the American Constitution tells churches what membership criteria they should adopt? I seem to have missed that bit.

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yet they allow some horrible people to be members through baptisms for the dead.

Well, there are horrible people objecting to Baptisms for the Dead; but it so happens that we don't count the dead on our membership rolls.

[kiwi57]

On 12/28/2017 at 11:25 AM, california boy said:

Thanks.  The letter refers to gay couples this way.

Does the church mean any couple living together when they call it a similar relationship?

That would seem likely.

On 12/28/2017 at 11:25 AM, california boy said:

 It is a bit confusing.

Why?

On 12/28/2017 at 11:25 AM, california boy said:

As you have explained, if the couple is legally married, then they are labeled apostates.

If someone who claims to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ enters into a bogus non-conjugal marriage, whether legally recognised or not, then they are certainly in a state of apostasy. What's confusing about that?

On 12/28/2017 at 11:25 AM, california boy said:

If they are not married then they get no such label.  It appears that the church looks at those relationships differently.  So not sure what a similar relationship means and why they would not be called apostates if the relationship is similar.

It's similar for the children living in that home; and the children are the focus of the policy, as you know.

However, a couple living together in sin has never been a matter of apostasy, as far as I know. It has always been a Law of Chastity matter.

On 12/28/2017 at 11:25 AM, california boy said:

And does any couple living together warrant a Church disciplinary council or only gay couples?

Any couple living together, where one or the other (or both) is/are a Church member/s, warrants a Church disciplinary council. Did you really not know that?

I expect that most couples living together are pretty much completely inactive, and most bishops have enough on their plate without going out hunting people down. But when it comes to their notice, they'll do something about it.

On 12/28/2017 at 11:25 AM, california boy said:

If a single gay man and just dating other gay men is raising a child, is the child allowed to be baptized?

I don't know. I expect the Bishop would look into the family situation and make up his mind based upon the best interests of the child.

On 12/28/2017 at 11:25 AM, california boy said:

Why is a single gay man not called an apostate if he is sexually active with other gay men?

Again: this is a Law of Chastity issue. I find it astonishing that this isn't obvious to you.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the church is behind the times.

I don't understand what this means.  Could you clarify?

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And they don't adhere to the American constitution at all, in giving all men and women equal treatment

I don't understand this, either.  Which provision of the U.S. Constitution has the LDS Church violated?  CFR, if you please.

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

and allowing gays who are married to be members, nor their innocent children.

I don't understand this, either.  Are you saying that the U.S. Constitution restricts the LDS Church's ability to grant or withhold membership in it?  If so, CFR, please.  Which part of the Constitution are you referring to here?

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yet they allow some horrible people to be members through baptisms for the dead.  

It seems that this criticism only works if you first concede that the LDS Church's truth claims, including its claimed authority to perform ordinances that have effect on a person's existence after death, are valid.

Do you so concede?

Thanks,

-Smac

[kiwi57]

On 12/29/2017 at 8:02 AM, Gray said:

Because the policy was very poorly thought out.

No. It was not.

[Calm]

"Yet they allow some horrible people to be members through baptisms for the dead."

They would only be "members" if they fully repented and therefore would be deserving of forgiveness by the Lord.  Or do you prefer that God's grace not be available to everyone, but only those you are comfortable with God forgiving?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Hooray! Given the state of "the times," who in their right mind would want us not to be?

I'm sorry, what part of the American Constitution tells churches what membership criteria they should adopt? I seem to have missed that bit.

Well, there are horrible people objecting to Baptisms for the Dead; but it so happens that we don't count the dead on our membership rolls.

The answer, of course, is that NO part of the U.S. Constitution dictates what membership criteria a church should adopt. Heaven help us as a nation if it should ever change in that respect. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I think your view on this is very blinded on this subject.  I have not heard anyone be that upset about how the policy was leaked.  It is the policy itself and how gay families and their children are treated is what people are upset about.

I’ve never held forth about people being upset about how the policy was leaked. 

If you’re going to attack me, at least do it for something I did say, not something I didn’t. 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what this means.  Could you clarify?

I don't understand this, either.  Which provision of the U.S. Constitution has the LDS Church violated?  CFR, if you please.

I don't understand this, either.  Are you saying that the U.S. Constitution restricts the LDS Church's ability to grant or withhold membership in it?  If so, CFR, please.  Which part of the Constitution are you referring to here?

It seems that this criticism only works if you first concede that the LDS Church's truth claims, including its claimed authority to perform ordinances that have effect on a person's existence after death, are valid.

Do you so concede?

Thanks,

-Smac

Our church allows murderers/rapist etc. to be baptised by proxy in the church but not gays who are married, nor their children? 

I may concede that the constitution doesn't make churches accept people, but those churches shouldn't be tax exempt then, IMO.

Also:

John 6:37 New International Version (NIV)

37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

[ttribe]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Our church allows murderers/rapist etc. to be baptised by proxy in the church but not gays who are married, nor their children? 

I may concede that the constitution doesn't make churches accept people, but those churches shouldn't be tax exempt then, IMO.

 

Tacenda, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this would violate the First Amendment.  You can't link doctrinal considerations to tax exempt status; that rips at the fabric of the Constitution.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Tacenda, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this would violate the First Amendment.  You can't link doctrinal considerations to tax exempt status; that rips at the fabric of the Constitution.  

Well, of course it would violate the First Amendment. And no, one doesn’t have to be a lawyer to recognize that. 

But thanks, in any case, for saying so. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think people are being whipped up into a frenzy by critics and enemies of the Church.

I though I would answer your post SMAC style.  Commenting on every statement you make.  I believes it needs that close of look.

You do realize that by critics and enemies of the Church, you are including many faithful members, including some bishops and stake presidents?  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it is telling that there has been no corollary outcry about the Church's identical and in-place-since-the-1920s policy regarding the children of polygamous families. 

I don't think many members knew about how the church treats polygamous families.  It doesn't make the treatment any better knowing that the church treats other children wish such harshness.  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

To me, the popular indifference to this other policy demonstrates that the opposition to the *newer* policy is borne more of factors like personal connections, emotions, and popularity (all of which make the newer policy "hit home more"), and less of the actual form and content and intent of the policy itself.  If the policy was controversial because it is innately bad, then so is the older one.  And yet nobody gives a tinker's darn about the older one.  On the other hand, if the policy was controversial because it "hits home more" (that is, because it potentially adversely affects a more socially popular group (popularity), it affects people you know (personal connections / emotions)), then there wouldn't be as much room for judgmentalism against the Brethren and the Church, rising up to join with critics and opponents of the Church in publicly criticizing and condemning the Brethren, and so on.  Again, the lopsided reaction to the two nearly identical policies is, to me, quite illuminating.

 

Well like I stated, I don't think many were aware of how harshly the church treats children of polygamist families.  I do think you are right that there is much more vocal opposition against the harshness exhibited against gay families because it affects just about every member of the church in one way or another.  Family brothers, fathers, sons, friends, school mates etc.  Polygamist are much more closed and far less people have any interaction with those families.  They rarely even exist outside the state of Utah.

There is a little more to this issue.  Polygamists are not born polygamists.  They choose to marry multiple wives.  Gays are born gay and for most, their only option for marriage is someone of the same sex.  I also think that the long history the church has in attacking gay families enters into it.  From the first attacks against gay couple's civli right to marry in Hawaii, to Prop 8, to the briefs filed against them in courts to supporting discrimination against them in the market place.  Yeah, it is not just one issue.  It is a long history of attacks even against those gay couples that have no connection with the church or share the same religious beliefs.  What a shame.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the controversy far outstrips the actual impact of the policy.  The controversy has overshadowed the intended and actual impact of the policy.  

Of course you do.  Because you see noting wrong with treating children of gay couples this way.  So for you, it is no big deal.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think that critics and opponents of the Church have worked very, very hard to foment as much acrimony and strife about the policy as possible. These same critics and opponents who claim to resent the Church's policy changes are intrinsically opposed to the LDS Church and its doctrines and beliefs.  How does that work?  "Hey, Mormonism sucks in every respect!  And I am really steamed that they are having some very few children wait until they are emancipated before joining!"  I have considerably more sympathy for faithful members of the Church (and, I suppose, some earnest nonmember critics) who are conflicted about the policy changes.  But at least they are operating in good faith.

There is very little that the "gay community" comments on the Mormon church.  By far, the majority of the outrage over this policy come from active members of the church and those that have a connection with the church in one form or another.  Certainly a lot of people in Utah rage against this policy because they live in a state dominated by Mormon politics.  When is the last time you have heard a comment from any gay organization attacking this policy outside the state of Utah.  If you are going to attack critics, you should be looking at those all around and in the church.  

The church statistically is just not that big of factor for the vast majority of people in the world.  They let the church exercise any crazy belief it wants without concern.  You act as if there is som concerted coordinated effort to attack the church.  There is no evidence of that.  Just a lot of people both within and outside the church that think the policy is totally misguided and not in keeping with their beliefs on how others should be treated.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

You already brought this up. and I already commented on it.  See above.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Interesting that you are so willing to not think of the children.  Why does this blanket policy even exist.  Why not leave these decisions up the the parents of the children and the bishop that knows the situation of these families.  Why not treat these families that don't uphold all of the church's teachings JUST LIKE all the other families that have children that may want to be baptized in the church but parents are not married, or don't believe in other tenants of the church.  This is why this policy is viewed with such distain.  It is a targeted policy against a very specific group.  Something that the church evidently has done also in the case of polygamist children.  But you don't get that.  You think the policy is just what the church needed to institute.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

You do realize that it was the church, not the critics that targeted children.  It is the church that has lit the fuse continually to cause high tension between the gay community and the Church.  When those policies get opposed, sometimes in a very vocal manner, you only look to the critics as being the problem.  It is all one sided to you.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church's November 2015 policy changes are difficult because those changes, while unpleasant, were nevertheless necessary.  And appropriate.  That is, in my view, a dispassionate assessment.  In contrast, 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.

Tell me all the problems the church was having with the children of gay couples before this policy that made this policy necessary.  I am all ears.  Tell me exactly why a bishop could not sit down with the parents of these children and work out what would be in the best interest of the child.  Tell me the need for a blanket policy whose affect seems more to rile up members and critics than to solve a problem.  Tell me what part the church played in creating this firestorm.  Perhaps rather than only looking at those that oppose this policy you should be at least viewing the role the church has played in putting itself in the situation it finds itself.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church's policy acknowledges and seeks to account for the potential challenges to families that may arise from children being raised in same-sex parent households joining the Church. 

So the intent of this policy is to keep gay families out of the church?  I hate to break it to you, but gay families have not been flocking to the church before this policy.  Is all this did was slam the gate.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church, hoping not to inject such hostilities into these families, has enacted the current policy which is designed to mitigate such things (there are, I think, other reasons for the policy as well).  Put another way, the Church is more concerned about the welfare of these families than are the critics and opponents of the Church, who are mostly using the policy change as a brickbat against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

And what blanket policy has the church instituted against all those other families whose actions of the parents are not in keeping with LDS beliefs?  No concerns over the welfare of those families?  This is exactly why so many see this policy for what it actually is and was intended to be.  An attack on gay families and their children to make it crystal clear exactly what place they have in the church that is suppose to represent Christ.  

Sorry, but you think critics have no leg to stand on when they rile against this policy.  I disagree.  You can continue to blame everyone but the Mormon church.  Before you continue to defend the church at all costs, perhaps the mote/beam  parable might be worth reviewing. And no, I am not saying that the church shares all the blame for what is going on.  Certainly there is emotion and overreaction from critics.  But let's not forget for one minute where the outrage is rooted in. 

And finally, let me be perfectly clear on where I stand and have always stood on this issue.  I have no problem with the church instituting any policy it wants against gay families.  What I do have, is a problem with members like you who are willing to support absolutely any policy church leaders institute blaming those that disagree with those policies.   They did not institute the policies.  They are only expressing their distain for what the church itself created.  Is that clear enough?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The answer, of course, is that NO part of the U.S. Constitution dictates what membership criteria a church should adopt. Heaven help us as a nation if it should ever change in that respect. 

I think she was referring to the civil rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution that the church fought to deny gay couples to marry that have nothing to do with church membership   

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve never held forth about people being upset about how the policy was leaked. 

If you’re going to attack me, at least do it for something I did say, not something I didn’t. 

When did clarification become a personal attack?  You appeared to be disagreeing with this statement by Rongo.

Quote

I don't think the policy was very poorly thought out; I think the implementation and execution of it was. A lot of that had to do with the surreptitious leaking of it, which kept the Brethren back on their feet and reactionary about it. That part of it was not the Church's finest hour. 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

When did clarification become a personal attack?  You appeared to be disagreeing with this statement by Rongo.

 

The disagreement was with his assertion that the Church implemented and executed the policy poorly. I never said anything about people being upset about “how the policy was leaked.”

And your attack was in saying my view is “very blinded on this subject.”

Edited December 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

I think she was referring to the civil rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution that the church fought to deny gay couples to marry that have nothing to do with church membership   

Then why did she say in follow up, “I may concede that the constitution doesn't make churches accept people, but those churches shouldn't be tax exempt then, IMO”?

It’s quite clear she wants to go after the Church’s tax-exempt status, if not having it prosecuted for allegedly violating the Constitution, all because she doesn’t like the November 2015 policy relative to the postponement in the baptism of children in gay households. 

It is apparent she doesn’t grasp that the federal government cannot legally dictate to a church its criteria for conferring membership. That would be a blatant and egregious violation of the First Amendment.  

Edited December 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd