LDS Church Donates $25K to Affirmation (Re: Suicide Prevention Training)

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

The Church's treatment of unauthorized polygamy seems to be the closest analog.  The difference is that the Church allowed, even authorized via divine mandate, the behavior (polygamy), whereas same-sex behavior (unrepentant, that is) has never, in the entire history of the Church, been compatible with continuing membership in the Church.

As to polygamy, the Church has not "double[d]-down for a while, and then eventually ma[d]e changes."  Instead, the Church has spent more than a century excommunicating members who enter into polygamy.  It's a form of marriage that is incompatible with membership in the Church.  The same has been said for same-sex marriage, such that the Church's posture on SSM aligns with its ongoing posture on polygamy (and I think will continue to do so on into the future).

Thanks,

-Smac

I was thinking more in terms of 1890 and 1978.

The Manifesto (OD-1) and the cessation of the Priesthood Ban (OD-2).

The Manifesto restricted the parameters of marriage to monogamy.  Between one husband and one wife.  It was a revelation.  Then-Elder Russell M. Nelson characterized the Church's 2015 policy changes in January 2016 as being revelatory.  So the comparison between the Church's posture towards polygamy and its posture towards same-sex marriage makes a lot of sense.  This is particularly so given that Elder Christofferson expressly characterized the Church's position on the former as "a parallel with polygamy."

The Priesthood Ban seems a bit more tenous in its relevance.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m seeing this as a long game, as those were. I could be wrong.

Okay.  But in both of those circumstances the "long game" of the Church is to A) continue to prohibit polygamy and excommunicate those who enter into it, and B) "extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church."  

You said: "I wouldn't be surprised to see changes in the way gay members are treated doctrinally and practically."  How is this comparable to how polygamists have been treated for 100+ years (they are excommunicated and severed from the Church)?  How is this comparable to how black men have been treated for 40 years (receiving the priesthood)?

You said: "When challenged on something, the church seems to double-down for a while, and then eventually make changes."  I agree.  The Church in both 1890 and 1978 sought, and received revelation on what "changes" to make.  According the then-Elder Nelson, the Church did the same thing happened in 2015:

Quote

We sustain 15 men who are ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. When a thorny problem arises—and they only seem to get thornier each day—these 15 men wrestle with the issue, trying to see all the ramifications of various courses of action, and they diligently seek to hear the voice of the Lord. After fasting, praying, studying, pondering, and counseling with my Brethren about weighty matters, it is not unusual for me to be awakened during the night with further impressions about issues with which we are concerned. And my Brethren have the same experience.

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.

So the Church has indeed "ma[d]e changes."  In 2015.  And in 1995 (the Proclamation on the Family).

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My assumption is that if/when this issue is seen as damaging to the church’s growth and success, its leaders, being rational men, will make changes. But what do I know?

I don't think that's the calculus the Brethren use.  They are doing what they understand to be the will of God.  What is "popular" is not dispositive.

Look at John 6.  The Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon was, in the moment, "seen as damaging to the church's growth and success."  But did the Savior and His apostles, "being rational men ... make changes" that amounted to a revocation of the Bread of Life sermon?  Nope.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Just curious if you know of any gay married couple who have children and who do want their children to be baptized and thereby be obligated to support the doctrines of the church regarding SSM, which would be contradictory to what the parents believe? 

Personally I have an extended family member affected by this policy, yes.  Its a little more complicated in that the child went to church due to the influence of the grandparents, but the same sex couple wasn't interested in the church at all.  

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which, I think, explains why so many of our critics are so devoted to falsely characterizing and slandering the Church.  Why so many of them, as you have done here, damn the Church for what it does, for what it does not do, for whatever it does.

I said I have concerns about what I see are mixed messages.  You seem a little too sensitive to discuss this with an even hand.  

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

32 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Just curious if you know of any gay married couple who have children and who do want their children to be baptized and thereby be obligated to support the doctrines of the church regarding SSM, which would be contradictory to what the parents believe? 

Personally I have an extended family member affected by this policy, yes.  Its a little more complicated in that the child went to church due to the influence of the grandparents, but the same sex couple wasn't interested in the church at all.  

But the child is living with the parents right? And as such will be taught by the church that his parents are living in a sinful relationship, and are they OK with that?
If the child was living with the grandparents he might actually be allowed to be baptized. 

[USU78]

35 minutes ago, provoman said:

One of the issues about youth suicide in Utah is the automatic blame.  ellen certainly did her part to misinform and automatically blame regarding youth suicide in Utah.

The CDC studied youth suicided in Utah and found, in part, that youth who felt accepted in a religious community were less likely to commit suicide. I think the key there is acceptance in the religious community. 

Other findings, in part, were also related to acceptance in the community and the less likelyhood of suicide.

Ellen is an ill informed antireligionist bigot, so her behavior is hardly surprising.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Which, I think, explains why so many of our critics are so devoted to falsely characterizing and slandering the Church.  Why so many of them, as you have done here, damn the Church for what it does, for what it does not do, for whatever it does.

I said I have concerns about what I see are mixed messages.  You seem a little too sensitive to discuss this with an even hand.  

I think I'd surprise you.  I've been on this board 11 years longer than you have.  Thin-skinned folks don't last long here.

As for "an even hand," I'm not sure what you mean.  You are expressing your opinion, I am expressing mine.  You are partial to one point of view, I am partial to another.  But we're both here, having a fairly civilized, even cordial, exchange of viewpoints.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But the child is living with the parents right? And as such will be taught by the church that his parents are living in a sinful relationship, and are they OK with that?
If the child was living with the grandparents he might actually be allowed to be baptized. 

The child was living with her parents and attending church with the grandparents on the weekend.  To my knowledge the parents allowed the child to go to church, but weren't necessarily supportive of the church, but also didn't restrict the child from going. 

The child was not allowed to be baptized until she turned 18, even though she wanted to be baptized.  She did get baptized after turning 18, and I'm assuming disavowing the relationship of her parents, or whatever it is the new policy requires.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The child was living with her parents and attending church with the grandparents on the weekend.  To my knowledge the parents allowed the child to go to church, but weren't necessarily supportive of the church, but also didn't restrict the child from going. 

The child was not allowed to be baptized until she turned 18, even though she wanted to be baptized.  She did get baptized after turning 18, and I'm assuming disavowing the relationship of her parents, or whatever it is the new policy requires.  

I'm not sure I see the problem, then.  The child who wanted to be baptized was baptized.  The relationship with her parents was preserved as much as possible.  

By the way, the "disavowal" pertains to "the idea of same-sex marriage ... [not the] parents."

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think I'd surprise you.  I've been on this board 11 years longer than you have.  Thin-skinned folks don't last long here.

As for "an even hand," I'm not sure what you mean.  You are expressing your opinion, I am expressing mine.  You are partial to one point of view, I am partial to another.  But we're both here, having a fairly civilized, even cordial, exchange of viewpoints.

Thanks,

-Smac

You've already surprised me with the characterizations you're making.  You say I'm slandering the church and damning them no matter what they do.  You're using analogies to paint LGBT people in very uncharitable ways.  I don't consider these tactics even handed.  

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The child was living with her parents and attending church with the grandparents on the weekend.  To my knowledge the parents allowed the child to go to church, but weren't necessarily supportive of the church, but also didn't restrict the child from going. 

The child was not allowed to be baptized until she turned 18, even though she wanted to be baptized.  She did get baptized after turning 18, and I'm assuming disavowing the relationship of her parents, or whatever it is the new policy requires.  

So it sounds like the new policy did work out OK for her? She doesn't have to quit loving and honoring her parents just because she disavows the practice of SSM. 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I see the problem, then.  The child who wanted to be baptized was baptized.  The relationship with her parents was preserved as much as possible.  

By the way, the "disavowal" pertains to "the idea of same-sex marriage ... [not the] parents."

Thanks,

-Smac

Multiple problems are obvious.  Its hard for me to take comments like this seriously because the lack of sincerity and/or the blindness to the situation is palpable.  

Discrimination against the child's wishes to be baptized, nobody else would have to wait until 18 to get baptized.  Requiring the child to disavow the relationship of their parents.  

 

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So it sounds like the new policy did work out OK for her? She doesn't have to quit loving and honoring her parents just because she disavows the practice of SSM. 

What if the church asked you to disavow your parents relationship?  This is ugly stuff. 

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What if the church asked you to disavow your parents relationship?  This is ugly stuff. 

My parents are a man and woman, so that will never happen. It depends on how badly you want to become a member of the church.
If at 18 years of age I could not support that policy I would not get baptized.  It means I don't believe enough of the truthfulness of the church and it's leaders. 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

My parents are a man and woman, so that will never happen. It depends on how badly you want to become a member of the church.
If at 18 years of age I could not support that policy I would not get baptized.  It means I don't believe enough of the truthfulness of the church and it's leaders. 

Lets say you weren't a member today and you had were investigating the church and gained a testimony that it was true.  Would you be willing to join the LDS church if it required you to disavow you parents relationship?  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You've already surprised me with the characterizations you're making.  You say I'm slandering the church and damning them no matter what they do. 

You immediately and publicly impugned the motives of the Church in donating money to suicide prevention efforts ("I'm skeptical of institutional sincerity . . . these tokens . . . are very suspect").  You are publicly accusing the Church of having policies and teachings that are "significant contributing factors" to suicide.

You and your compatriots endlessly find fault with the Church.  The Church will be criticized of "not doing enough" regarding gay suicides, but then people like you then immediately kill any sense of good will or positive sentiment by maligning the Church's motives when it does do something regarding gay suicides (such as donating money to Affirmation, a group that is no friend to the Church, but which shares the Church's concerns regarding the welfare of gays).

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.  We're damned no matter what we do.

Quote

You're using analogies to paint LGBT people in very uncharitable ways. 

I disagree.  I said: "Our society is a bit too eager to create blame in vague ways such as this.  Maintaining standards of conduct in a society will always be susceptible to such characterizations."  I then gave a few examples of "standards of conduct" which are in and of themselves morally neutral or beneficial, but which can nevertheless "be vaguely and abstractedly characterized as having created difficulty for someone, somewhere."

Getting good grades, for example.  In and of itself, grades are intended to foster learning and intellectual growth.  However, a particular individual may react poorly to incentives or pressures to get good grades.  That is unfortunate, but that reaction is hardly an indictment on the concept of grading scholastic performance.

Nothing in the foregoing analogy "paint{s} LGBT people in very uncharitable ways."

Surely you recognize that analogies are, by definition, "a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification?"  That they are "a correspondence or partial similarity?"

An analogy is a comparison of two things which share a common trait, but which are otherwise dissimilar.  When Jesus in Matthew 23:37 compared Jerusalem to chicks and Himself to a hen, that was analogy.  He was not comparing His intellect or physical strength to that of a hen.  He was analogizing His compassion.  "As a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings."

I've said nothing to disparage LGBT people.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 11, 2018 by smac97

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Lets say you weren't a member today and you had were investigating the church and gained a testimony that it was true.  Would you be willing to join the LDS church if it required you to disavow you parents relationship?  

Yes I would disavow their relationship if it was against the doctrines of the church, but I would not disavow them as my parents; I would still love and honor them as such. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Lets say you weren't a member today and you had were investigating the church and gained a testimony that it was true.  Would you be willing to join the LDS church if it required you to disavow you parents relationship?  

I would hope so.  "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  (Matthew 10:37).

Elder Christofferson provided some clarity on this point:

Quote

Michael Otterson: There is also provisional requirement for a person who has reached the age of maturity who maybe wants to serve a mission in the Church, but who has come from a same-sex marriage relationship, family. There is a requirement for them to disavow the idea of same-sex marriage. Not disavow their parents, but same-sex marriage. What was the thinking behind that? 

Elder Christofferson: Well again, this is a parallel with polygamy. Anyone coming out of a polygamous setting who wants to serve a mission, it has to be clear that they understand that is wrong and is sin and cannot be followed. They disavow the practice of plural marriage. And that would be the same case here. They would disavow, or assent I guess would be a better way to say it, to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regards to same-sex marriage. So they would be saying, as you said, not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Manifesto (OD-1) and the cessation of the Priesthood Ban (OD-2).

The Manifesto restricted the parameters of marriage to monogamy.  Between one husband and one wife.  It was a revelation.  Then-Elder Russell M. Nelson characterized the Church's 2015 policy changes in January 2016 as being revelatory.  So the comparison between the Church's posture towards polygamy and its posture towards same-sex marriage makes a lot of sense.  This is particularly so given that Elder Christofferson expressly characterized the Church's position on the former as "a parallel with polygamy."

The Priesthood Ban seems a bit more tenous in its relevance.

Okay.  But in both of those circumstances the "long game" of the Church is to A) continue to prohibit polygamy and excommunicate those who enter into it, and B) "extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church."  

You said: "I wouldn't be surprised to see changes in the way gay members are treated doctrinally and practically."  How is this comparable to how polygamists have been treated for 100+ years (they are excommunicated and severed from the Church)?  How is this comparable to how black men have been treated for 40 years (receiving the priesthood)?

You said: "When challenged on something, the church seems to double-down for a while, and then eventually make changes."  I agree.  The Church in both 1890 and 1978 sought, and received revelation on what "changes" to make.  According the then-Elder Nelson, the Church did the same thing happened in 2015:

So the Church has indeed "ma[d]e changes."  In 2015.  And in 1995 (the Proclamation on the Family).

I don't think that's the calculus the Brethren use.  They are doing what they understand to be the will of God.  What is "popular" is not dispositive.

Look at John 6.  The Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon was, in the moment, "seen as damaging to the church's growth and success."  But did the Savior and His apostles, "being rational men ... make changes" that amounted to a revocation of the Bread of Life sermon?  Nope.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm just looking at this from a perspective of institutional survival, and that's not necessarily a function of popularity. I recognize that you believe these men are led by God. If I believed that, I'd probably see this the way you do. 

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

The "Comments" section contains the de rigueur hatefest against the Church that springs up every time the Trib publishes, well, anything about the Church.  Ah, well.

More here:

And here:

I am glad to hear about this.  I wonder if other private donations to this initiative are possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a very positive step for LDS Church to acknowledging the horrendous problem of youth suicides exist.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm just looking at this from a perspective of institutional survival, and that's not necessarily a function of popularity.

But the Church, broadly speaking, doesn't seem to function based on its notions about either "survival" or "popularity."

Consider, for example, these remarks by Pres. Woodruff re: the Manifesto (emphasis added):

Quote

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

Similarly, look at what happened in 2015.  If the Brethren were really fixated principally/entirely on "survival" and/or "popularity," they would not have enacted policies which they must have known would be unpopular.  And yet . . . they did.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But the Church, broadly speaking, doesn't seem to function based on its notions about either "survival" or "popularity."

Consider, for example, these remarks by Pres. Woodruff re: the Manifesto (emphasis added):

Similarly, look at what happened in 2015.  If the Brethren were really fixated principally/entirely on "survival" and/or "popularity," they would not have enacted policies which they must have known would be unpopular.  And yet . . . they did.

Thanks,

-Smac

That would be the "double-down" phase, as I said. I think that's the pattern: double-down, then eventually make changes. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by jkwilliams

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

This is a very positive step for LDS Church to acknowledging the horrendous problem of youth suicides exist.

... and in the face of truly disturbing and baseless accusations about causation. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

But the Church, broadly speaking, doesn't seem to function based on its notions about either "survival" or "popularity."

Consider, for example, these remarks by Pres. Woodruff re: the Manifesto (emphasis added):

Similarly, look at what happened in 2015.  If the Brethren were really fixated principally/entirely on "survival" and/or "popularity," they would not have enacted policies which they must have known would be unpopular.  And yet . . . they did.

Thanks,

-Smac

That would be the "double-down" phase, as I said. I think that's the pattern: double-down, then eventually make changes. 

I guess we disagree about what "phase" we're in.  And even what the pattern is.  I think it goes like this:

• Phase 1: The Church teaches something ("X") that is unpopular in the larger society.
• Phase 2: The Church encounters criticism/abuse/persecution regarding X.
• Phase 3: The Church seeks revelation regarding what to do regarding X.
• Phase 4: The Church receives revelation regarding X and proceeds accordingly.
• Phase 5: The critics don't let up (do they ever?), but the Church proceeds with its mandated responsibilities.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I guess we disagree about what "phase" we're in.  And even what the pattern is.  I think it goes like this:

• Phase 1: The Church teaches something ("X") that is unpopular in the larger society.
• Phase 2: The Church encounters criticism/abuse/persecution regarding X.
• Phase 3: The Church seeks revelation regarding what to do regarding X.
• Phase 4: The Church receives revelation regarding X and proceeds accordingly.
• Phase 5: The critics don't let up (do they ever?), but the Church proceeds with its mandated responsibilities.

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to be suggesting that people who criticize the church over their policies toward gay members are just finding the latest excuse to attack the church. If the church were to change in this instance, the critics would simply find another excuse to attack the church. I didn't think you were that cynical. 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You seem to be suggesting that people who criticize the church over their policies toward gay members are just finding the latest excuse to attack the church.

I'm suggesting that as pertaining to some critics, yes.  There are principled and reasoned criticisms of the Church, to be sure.  But there are factions of those who are opposed to the Church whose position is reactionary.  Predicated on finding fault.

Consider, for example, this statement by Dale Morgan, a past critic of the Church, in a letter he wrote to Juanita Brooks in 1985 (see here😞

Quote

With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.

It is this sort of reactionary criticism that I find problematic.

Here's another example.  As we all know, Pres. Trump recently announced his pick for a replacement of Justice Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court.  A correspondent from "Campus Reform" went out and solicited reactions of people-on-the-street to Pres. Trump's choice.  The funny thing, though, was that the correspondent conducted these interviews before the choice had been announced.  The results were both amusing and illuminating:

I think there could have been principled objections to Pres. Trump's selection.  But the opinions in the video above are not principled.  Or reasoned.  They are reactionary.  These folks dislike Pres. Trump, ergo they dislike anything he does, no matter what it is.

Here's another one, with the same correspondent.  He went on campus at George Washington University and asked students about their opinions regarding Pres. Trump's recently-released tax plan.  However, in describing the plan, he attributed it to . . . Bernie Sanders.  Again, the results were both amusing and illuminating:

The policy is essentially irrelevant.  For these folks, if it's Bernie's plan, it's great!  If it's The Donald's plan, it's awful!

So it is, I think, with some critics of the Church.  Their complaints often come across and reactionary.  Knee-jerk.

By way of example: Let's say that Affirmation had announced that Cher or George Clooney had donated $25,000 to suicide prevention.  Would we be seeing vitriolic hatred in the Salt Lake Tribune's Comment section?  I don't think so.  But when the LDS Church does it, the knives come out in an instant.

Quote

If the church were to change in this instance, the critics would simply find another excuse to attack the church. I didn't think you were that cynical. 

I don't think my assessment of reactionary, neverending faultfinders (which, again, only represent a portion of the critics of the Church) is borne of cynicism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 11, 2018 by smac97