Pres. Oaks devotional to Young Married Couples

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you figure?  The policy's purpose was to avoid creating conflicts.  By what metric do you propose we discern the number of avoided conflicts?

With respect, I disagree.  I think the bulk of the "conflict and difficulty" has arisen from shrill and over-the-top protestations against the policy. 

You can't have it both ways, smac.  If families felt more conflict as it seems you are agreeing with, after the policy change, then it doesn't take much effort to realize without the policy change that added conflict wouldn't have happened.  You are blaming those who responded negatively to the policy change as being the cause of the conflict when they are the ones in the conflict due to the policy change.  You seem to be essentially saying, "how dare that guy complain to his family about the policy change that tells him he's an apostate and says his kids can't be baptized?"  It's his fault that he has disagreement and difficulty with his family on that stuff.  

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The policy itself, when allowed to function, probably works about the same as the policy it was based on (the one pertaining to children being raised in polygamous families).  

So we measure prophetic actions based on whether they are popular?  By that reckoning, Jesus Christ was a failure.  

Thanks,

-Smac

As was stated, afterwards as an explanation, the policy change was implemented so families wouldn't feel the conflict.  From my vantage point, every family I've seen as affected by the policy change, has had more conflict due to the policy change...and many families not directly affected by it also have far more conflict.  Thus, the policy change added difficulty and conflict in families rather than relieving conflict.  Thus the opposite of what was intended happened.  There was nothing prophetic in that.  

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If you read my posts and follow my comments, you’ll know this is a very inaccurate characterization.  I’m a very positive person the majority of the time.  Nice try at slinging a negative stereotype at any criticisms that you don’t agree with.  Much easier to just demonize people than to engage with them on substance.  

I would characterize your posting style as Bomb-throwing Snowflake.™️

You make incendiary comments about the church, its leaders, etc., either overtly (as in this thread) or by implication, and then when you see all the big kids starting to put their gloves on for the fight, it suddenly becomes all 'why would you say such unkind things to me - you're totally hurting my feelz.' Or, sometimes you go with something a bit more passive-aggressive like, 'this is why people like me don't feel welcome at church.' 

Look, if you want to start a discussion, start a discussion. But if you come in and start a fight, don't start crying like a baby when your opponents start punching back. 

Banned-personal attacks

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps they are simply reflecting the Lords view that "I the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance."  Perhaps some of the policies may be a little excessive but maybe there is a reason for it.  To impress on the minds of people the the Lord is not playing games.  Some things eternally matter and God will judge people for things regardless of what generation one was born in.  Society does not care about eternal laws.  It does not care about eternal consequences to things.  God does not care if society views his laws as being mean or if they see God as a bigot.  What is clear is if there is a difference of opinion on issues between God and a certain individual, God always wins.  The younger generation can choose to leave but eventually the wicked will be swept off.   I fully believe if every wicked Nephite who rebelled against God was allowed a testify of the results of rebellion, they would plead to everyone not to do it.  It simply is not worth the eternal consequences of standing up for wicked principles. 

When I think of all the evil perpetrated in the history of this world because people justified that evil via a religious conviction, it makes me very sad.  Actually treating people with dignity and respect should always take precedence from my vantage point.  

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

No family is perfect and not every person is in the ideal family.  Some people never marry.  Some people divorce.   It is the reality of life.  However what is the real purpose of the church?  The Church does not exist to feed the poor or help the needy.  Sure that is one responsibility of the Church but that is not why it exists.  Any religion or secular organization can accomplish that task.   Does it exist to tell people about Jesus?  Once again the answer is no.  Other religions can do that.  There are basically two things the Church does that no other organization or church can do.  First it exists to better prepare for individuals to stand before God spotless at judgement and second what really relates here is to seal families together.  The Church takes this charge very seriously and thus it has an obligation to proclaim the importance of the family and really the family in the ideal condition.  Sure we may not often achieve the standard and the Lord is merciful but that does not mean Church should not proclaim the full standard to work towards.  Some families not only do not fit the mold, they are so far off the mark that the Church can not sanction any part of it.  It goes beyond families headed by married gay people.  Two married heterosexuals who have an open marriage  is off the mark.  The problem is today is that we are too tolerant of things.  It will get worse before it things are corrected but we must make a stand for righteousness.  Even if those stances are seen as bigotry or being mean.  If the Church was not getting flack from a wicked society, that would be a serious problem.  That would mean we are doing something wrong.

This is exactly why its so hard to imagine the LDS church can be a net positive influence on this world.  The focus of the orthodox is not on actually helping people in the here and now, its not about feeding the sheep of Jesus literally.  The primary focus is the theological vision of the future, and whenever that is prioritized over the needs of a living human, then it can justify the worst behaviors.  Thank you for the honesty.  This is an important point to make and its part of the reason why people like myself are so concerned about the current trajectory of the LDS church.  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s not new. Church leaders have been enjoining that for decades. Do I have to cite general conference talks and the Church handbook?

I've lived through the leadership of President Hinckley and President Monson.  They embraced the title of Mormon because of the practicality of doing so.  President Nelson has changed course, which is his right as leader to do so, but its a flawed approach in my opinion.  Are you honestly claiming this new announcement isn't actually a change in direction?  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I assume most orthodox members support leaders by default without much critical examination of what was said.  

Do you have any idea how insulting that is? 

I don't think most orthodox members are even aware of how accurate this description is.  Loyalty and obedience are privileged above critical thinking, absolutely.  

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

How do you figure?  The policy's purpose was to avoid creating conflicts.  By what metric do you propose we discern the number of avoided conflicts?

With respect, I disagree.  I think the bulk of the "conflict and difficulty" has arisen from shrill and over-the-top protestations against the policy. 

You can't have it both ways, smac.  If families felt more conflict as it seems you are agreeing with, after the policy change, then it doesn't take much effort to realize without the policy change that added conflict wouldn't have happened. 

"It doesn't take much effort" being the key words there.

Again, how do you know any of this?  How can you gauge the "number" of current conflicts (which, again, have arisen primarily from shrill and over-the-top protestations against the policy, and very little from the actual implementation of the policy itself) compared to the number of theoretical conflicts that have not arisen?  

How do you propose to gauge the prophetic nature of the policy when we'll never know what "wouldn't have happened?"  Are you a seer?  Do you have a crystal ball?  

It would be nice for the critics and cranks to just chill out and let the policy play out for a while.  As it is, they are the ones fomenting pretty much all the anger and confusion and vitriol.  They are "putting their thumb on the scale," so to speak, by constantly carping about the policy.  That constant carping stirs up resentments and hostility that - to borrow your phrase - "[probably] wouldn't have happened" if these folks would just calm down and let the policy work.  

The policy's actual effect (as in, the number of people impacted by the application of the policy) is, I think, quite small.  

Quote

You are blaming those who responded negatively to the policy change as being the cause of the conflict

Yes.  I am.  Big time.  I've been watching this play out for years.

Quote

when they are the ones in the conflict due to the policy change. 

By and large, I disagree.  Most of the vitriol being thrown about by the cranks and critics is theoretical and rhetorical only.  How many people personally know a child who A) is growing up in a same-sex parent household, B) is attending and wants to join the Church, C) has parents are totally okay with the child attending and wanting to join the Church, and D) has been forced to postpone baptism until the child reaches majority?

Very, very few, I think.

The people introducing conflict about this issue are critics and opponents of the Church.  They are the ones who have whipped up adverse public sentiment.  They are the ones who presume to dictate to the Church what it can and cannot do regarding sensitive internal matters.  They are the ones who have not acknowledged the Church's explanation for the policy changes or afforded it any credence or weight.  They are the ones making horrible public accusations against the Church and its leaders and members.

And to make it all the worse, many of them are operating in bad faith.  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.

Quote

You seem to be essentially saying, "how dare that guy complain to his family about the policy change that tells him he's an apostate and says his kids can't be baptized?" 

When "that guy" is acting in bad faith by despising the Church and then resenting restrictions on entry into it, yes, I am essentially saying that.

When "that guy" despises the Church, but then incoherently resents the Church implementing policies that are none of "that guy's" business, yes, I am essentially saying that.

When "that guy" engages in behavior that contravenes some of the foundational principles and commandments of the Church, and then throws a public hissy fit when faced with the could've-seen-it-coming-from-a-mile-away consequences of that disobedience, yes, I am essentially saying that.

When "that guy" feigns indignance about the Church taking its doctrines seriously, and about the Church expecting - and to some an extent requiring - members to adhere to the Law of Chastity, yes, I am essentially saying that.

Quote

It's his fault that he has disagreement and difficulty with his family on that stuff.  

Meh.  How many of these "guys" are there, really?  How many men are there who A) are gay, B) a member of the Church, C) in a same-sex marriage, D) totally okay with his child attending and wanting to join the Church, E) opposed to and shocked by the policy?

Very, very few, I think.  The vast majority of people complaining about the policy are upset about it only in the abstract.

Quote

As was stated, afterwards as an explanation, the policy change was implemented so families wouldn't feel the conflict. 

That was one of many reasons.

This issue was explained by Elder Christofferson two years ago:

Quote

Speaking not only as an Apostle, but also as a husband, father, and grandfather, Elder Christofferson said the new policy originates out of compassion. “It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … 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.”

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.”

He also said this (same link):

Quote

He said the changes were necessary because the Church regards “same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline.”

“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.”

And this (same link):

Quote

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.”

“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,” Elder Christofferson explained. “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.

“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, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

And this (same link):

Quote

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 this (same link):

Quote

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.”

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.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

Quote

From my vantage point, every family I've seen as affected by the policy change, has had more conflict due to the policy change...and many families not directly affected by it also have far more conflict.  Thus, the policy change added difficulty and conflict in families rather than relieving conflict.  Thus the opposite of what was intended happened.  There was nothing prophetic in that.  

I invite you to take into account more factors than what you have only personally perceived from your "vantage point."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I would characterize your posting style as Bomb-throwing Snowflake.™️

You make incendiary comments about the church, its leaders, etc., either overtly (as in this thread) or by implication, and then when you see all the big kids starting to put their gloves on for the fight, it suddenly becomes all 'why would you say such unkind things to me - you're totally hurting my feelz.' Or, sometimes you go with something a bit more passive-aggressive like, 'this is why people like me don't feel welcome at church.' 

Look, if you want to start a discussion, start a discussion. But if you come in and start a fight, don't start crying like a baby when your opponents start punching back. 

 

Interesting feedback, I'm thinking about what you've said here.  I admitted right up front in the OP that I would be sharing some raw emotion which in this case manifest in the form of some pretty strong criticisms of the article and the words of President Oaks.   One thing I've always tried to do is to follow the rules of the forum when it comes to personal criticism of others, I've tried to make sure I'm never attacking another person on the board, even if and when I'm being more overtly critical.  

So when people start making a thread personal and attacking me directly, I think that crosses the line as that is strictly prohibited in the rules.  So when you say that opponents start punching back, that is fine as long as they don't aim those punches directly at me or other members of this community.  

When I said that this was an example of why people like me don't feel welcome, I'm on one hand trying to be vulnerable and share how hurtful this kind of a message from church leaders is to me personally.  On the other hand I'm expressing that I'm aware of how hurtful this is to other Mormons that I know and interact with.  When you interpret this as passive-aggressive, I think you're misreading what I'm saying.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just read through this news room article on a August 24th devotional by President Oaks, and I'm more than a little frustrated.  I'm going to critique some of the quotes and leave it up to you if you want to comment.  Some of what I'm going to say is pretty raw emotionally, and I think this talk is unfortunately one more example of why people like me just won't be welcome in church under the current regime.  

Quote

“Brothers and sisters, we know much more than you suppose,” he said. “You know we are constantly traveling to be with our members all over the world. What you may not know is that every week we receive reports from the most knowledgeable professionals in every field of concern in a worldwide Church — economics, politics, social sciences, legal requirements, diplomacy, the latest thinking on social issues, etc.”

The Brethren are informed “about the world in which we live,” but “we are even more intensely informed about our own members — the challenges they face in medical care, mental health, public schools, higher education, employment, the market place, retirement, and in their personal relations such as marriage, childbearing, adoption, child-rearing, challenges to faith such as questions about Church history, same-gender attraction, transgender issues, etc.,” he said.

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2018-08-28/president-oaks-talks-church-history-lgbt-issues-mental-illness-at-los-angeles-devotional-47877

If they are informed so fully, including through consulting with knowledgeable professionals, you'd think they wouldn't be so out of touch with society on important issues of our day.  This quote helps me realize just how deliberately bad certain positions are, because of all the knowledge they have gathered, it makes me think that things like the Nov 2015 policy can't be made by mistake

 

This first part really grabbed my attention when I read the report on Oak's talk. Sure, I expect some grandpa humor, and some doubling down on past decisions.

But I find it a little bit humorous that he has to state how sage and smart he is "we know more than you suppose". "We receive reports" just struck me as funny. Everyone knows that getting a report from a "knowledgeable professional" is the same things as understanding the issue. IMO- only someone who is really disconnected from the people would tell people how connected he is because he gets reports. Sounds like a king sitting on a throne thinking that he can truly understand the people by listening to an Elder Gong style presentation. "Let them eat cake!"

I am curious about HOW they are "even more intensely informed about our own members." What do those reports look like? Who makes them? Where does the information come from? The polling group? They are just too far removed from the average, non-family, members of the church. The ones they do see when traveling are most likely the Stake/Mission presidents, occasionally bishops. How often do they really sit down and talk to regular people? I honestly don't know, but unless they're getting a brief on the average member, I doubt they really can relate much. It's one thing to be told something and quite another to experience it or see it for yourself.

[HappyJackWagon]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You can't have it both ways, smac.  If families felt more conflict as it seems you are agreeing with, after the policy change, then it doesn't take much effort to realize without the policy change that added conflict wouldn't have happened.  You are blaming those who responded negatively to the policy change as being the cause of the conflict when they are the ones in the conflict due to the policy change.  You seem to be essentially saying, "how dare that guy complain to his family about the policy change that tells him he's an apostate and says his kids can't be baptized?"  It's his fault that he has disagreement and difficulty with his family on that stuff.  

As was stated, afterwards as an explanation, the policy change was implemented so families wouldn't feel the conflict.  From my vantage point, every family I've seen as affected by the policy change, has had more conflict due to the policy change...and many families not directly affected by it also have far more conflict.  Thus, the policy change added difficulty and conflict in families rather than relieving conflict.  Thus the opposite of what was intended happened.  There was nothing prophetic in that.  

Yeah, but that's only temporary. Once all of those people leave the church with their families, there won't be conflict any more. It's an effective weeding out process.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I've lived through the leadership of President Hinckley and President Monson.  They embraced the title of Mormon because of the practicality of doing so.  President Nelson has changed course, which is his right as leader to do so, but its a flawed approach in my opinion.  Are you honestly claiming this new announcement isn't actually a change in direction?  

That's precisely what I'm claiming. Having "lived through the leadership" of Presidents Hinckley and Monson apparently doesn't mean you were paying attention during those periods. The style guide at "Newsroom" on lds.org for many years has expressed the desire that "Mormon" not be used in referring to the Church, but rather, the full name of the Church be used or, as a shortened form, the name of Jesus Christ be applied to the Church. Occasional general conference talks by Elder M. Russell Ballard and others have reaffirmed this directive. An entry in "Selected Church Policies and Announcements" in the general Church handbook (Book 2), has been consistent with the style guide and with the admonitions from Church leaders.

The only things of substance that have changed recently are that Church members are no longer to be referred to as "Mormons," that the term is to be avoided in most other usages pertaining to the Church and that we are to avoid the alphabet soup LDS in all usages. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have no insider knowledge of the dynamics between PR, correlation and church leaders.  

Not only was your supposition altogether inaccurate, it was illogical and counter-intuitive. What large organization are you acquainted with in which the board or CEO answers to the PR department or ancillary staff and not the other way around?

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"It doesn't take much effort" being the key words there.

Again, how do you know any of this?  How can you gauge the "number" of current conflicts (which, again, have arisen primarily from shrill and over-the-top protestations against the policy, and very little from the actual implementation of the policy itself) compared to the number of theoretical conflicts that have not arisen?  

As I've said this is all from my vantage point.  The policy change brought conflict to families, which conflict was not otherwise there.  Thus, at least for those I know about, the policy change did the exact opposite the brethren are saying it was put in place to do.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you propose to gauge the prophetic nature of the policy when we'll never know what "wouldn't have happened?"  Are you a seer?  Do you have a crystal ball?  

It would be nice for the critics and cranks to just chill out and let the policy play out for a while.  As it is, they are the ones fomenting pretty much all the anger and confusion and vitriol.  They are "putting their thumb on the scale," so to speak, by constantly carping about the policy.  That constant carping stirs up resentments and hostility that - to borrow your phrase - "[probably] wouldn't have happened" if these folks would just calm down and let the policy work.  

No one can help that many people, at least many that I know, were hurt by the policy, smac.  All this really does is show precisely that the policy change actually did the opposite of what they, after the fact, suggested it was intended to do.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The policy's actual effect (as in, the number of people impacted by the application of the policy) is, I think, quite small.  

If you say so.  Although I know many who were greatly hurt, felt completely cast out due to being labeled apostates.  I know many who feel estranged from their former ward families because of what the policy says.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  I am.  Big time.  I've been watching this play out for years.

By and large, I disagree.  Most of the vitriol being thrown about by the cranks and critics is theoretical and rhetorical only.  How many people personally know a child who A) is growing up in a same-sex parent household, B) is attending and wants to join the Church, C) has parents are totally okay with the child attending and wanting to join the Church, and D) has been forced to postpone baptism until the child reaches majority?

Very, very few, I think.

Agreed.  Thus the policy itself has no effect other than to send a hurtful message to people.  It doesn't have any effect at all in terms of actual people who have under-aged children primarily being raised by LBGTQ parents who also want to be baptized.  If next to none, then what's the point of the policy change?  Well, it does label members who were otherwise quite content with their situations concerning family and church as apostates.  In other words, the policy is just a message to send out.  It has no to little actual effect, in practice.  Thank you again, for making my point.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The people introducing conflict about this issue are critics and opponents of the Church. 

The people hurt by it have spoken to other members all of who have in turn been hurt by the policy change.  There's no need to pit this as people in certain categories for simple labeling purposes.  People in the Church actually disagree with and vehemently oppose this policy change.  You seem to have plugged your ears, closed your eyes and sang a song that suits your own agenda.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They are the ones who have whipped up adverse public sentiment.  They are the ones who presume to dictate to the Church what it can and cannot do regarding sensitive internal matters.  They are the ones who have not acknowledged the Church's explanation for the policy changes or afforded it any credence or weight.  They are the ones making horrible public accusations against the Church and its leaders and members.

And to make it all the worse, many of them are operating in bad faith.  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.

When "that guy" is acting in bad faith by despising the Church and then resenting restrictions on entry into it, yes, I am essentially saying that.

When "that guy" despises the Church, but then incoherently resents the Church implementing policies that are none of "that guy's" business, yes, I am essentially saying that.

When "that guy" engages in behavior that contravenes some of the foundational principles and commandments of the Church, and then throws a public hissy fit when faced with the could've-seen-it-coming-from-a-mile-away consequences of that disobedience, yes, I am essentially saying that.

When "that guy" feigns indignance about the Church taking its doctrines seriously, and about the Church expecting - and to some an extent requiring - members to adhere to the Law of Chastity, yes, I am essentially saying that.

You operate, and it has been evident over the years, far too much in reading into other's intentions for my tastes.  But I will add if I were in your shoes wanting to defend the Church as you have, and you are opposed to those who speak out against it, as it seems you are, then it'd be way easy, I'd say, to attack the intentions of those who disagree with you.  In every case, that'd be the easy way.  But not the helpful way, of course.  It is just emptiness and what I'd call anger and resentment.  But have at it.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  How many of these "guys" are there, really?  How many men are there who A) are gay, B) a member of the Church, C) in a same-sex marriage, D) totally okay with his child attending and wanting to join the Church, E) opposed to and shocked by the policy?

nearly every member I know who are in a situation that might be touched in some way by what the policy says, have felt hurt by it.  Nearly every child, nearly every adult, nearly every mom, nearly every dad...  Granted that's in my sphere.  I realize also that many members who I don't know so well, like some who post here, might also be in situations that would somehow pertain to what this policy says and do not feel hurt by it.  But, as I said, I only know them virtually.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Very, very few, I think.  The vast majority of people complaining about the policy are upset about it only in the abstract.

That was one of many reasons.

This issue was explained by Elder Christofferson two years ago:

He also said this (same link):

And this (same link):

And this (same link):

And this (same link):

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.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

I invite you to take into account more factors than what you have only personally perceived from your "vantage point."

Thanks,

-Smac

To me your logic is backwards.  You blame the families with conflict due the policy change and do not at all recognize that the policy change was the change that occurred that introduced the added conflict.  It is simple logic that you refuse to see.  It's plain blindness.     

[BlueDreams]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just read through this news room article on a August 24th devotional by President Oaks, and I'm more than a little frustrated.  I'm going to critique some of the quotes and leave it up to you if you want to comment.  Some of what I'm going to say is pretty raw emotionally, and I think this talk is unfortunately one more example of why people like me just won't be welcome in church under the current regime.  

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2018-08-28/president-oaks-talks-church-history-lgbt-issues-mental-illness-at-los-angeles-devotional-47877

Not every day i see a topic heading that describes exactly where I'm at...

young - relatively

Married - yup

Contemplating how to raise future children in the current concerns of the day - check

I read the article before I read what you mentioned. Obviously its a summary, so I wish I had full context but from what he mentioned I had little but a passing qualm about it. (The stereotype joke thing). 

When I see younger couples in therapy many of the issues he described were the ones I also am likely to hear about in my office at some point. Mental illness especially. Obviously, as a therapist, I see more of that than the average jane. But it's a growing problem in younger generations. Particularly anxiety and depression in all its varieties. He's right on that.

Oaks, being who he is, focused on the law/boundaries of the church. Honestly, I've always understood why the policy is in place. I get for many that this was hard. I do remember when it was first leaked, it was a harder pill for me....when the clarifications came... it made sense. One of the things Christoffersen said during the time is still something I contemplate and quote from time to time (summarizing as it was in a video like 2 years ago and I'm not that good). It was about how it isn't a kindness to hide the difference. Or something like that. I find it absolutely true and I see sometimes people wanting a gospel of absolute softness and interactions with people that never hurts. And that's just not realistic. (on this last point I'm usually talking about outside LGBT concerns....it's a wide spread desire effective various aspects of people's lives.  

But Overall, I agreed with the article quotes. 

Okay on some of your rawer criticisms. I'm going to focus on what i generally know best:

Quote

 

If they are informed so fully, including through consulting with knowledgeable professionals, you'd think they wouldn't be so out of touch with society on important issues of our day.  This quote helps me realize just how deliberately bad certain positions are, because of all the knowledge they have gathered, it makes me think that things like the Nov 2015 policy can't be made by mistake and that church leaders know exactly how damaging that policy really is and deliberately chose to implement the policy anyway.  

 

I already mentioned my perspective on this. I don't do so lightly....I'm not outside or unafffected by these concerns. My cousin that I love dearly is lesbian. I plan one day, if she marries her girlfriend, to attend her wedding. I work with it regularly enough as a concern in my office. Just recently I worked with someone who was extremely suicidal and LGBTQ+. It was probably one of my most rewarding experiences this year to help that person get to stability again. 

But I still believe the gospel and the doctrines around marriage. Being informed doesn't necessarily mean that a specific outcome will absolutely happen.

Quote

 

Ironically its often the policies and practices of the church that are the obstacles that young married couples face.  

 

Yes, Among a plethora of other issues that also come up. Mental illness is a biggie. But other issues also are there in droves as well. The policies and practices can be difficult for a number, I've met them....but of all the issues I get a strangely close window into, It's rarely their biggest obstacle. I don't mean this to be minimizing for those where it is. Just to give balancing perspectives as to the concerns that are also being faced that may effect a larger percentage of our population. Hyperfocusing on one concerns that effects a minority of the population isn't necessarily the best idea. There should still be focus, but it should be balanced with the many concerns others are facing.

Quote

 

I think this is a legitimate and important topic, but besides a few talks in recent years I can't think of how the church is effectively putting forward resources to address it.  I also wonder how much the church's own teachings and practices aren't contributing factors that exacerbate mental health issues.  They could lean on the vast knowledge of professionals in mental health to develop programs to assist those struggling with this serious issue, but I don't see any of the vast church resources being used effectively to combat this challenge.  

 

I disagree. Not in that there could be more done, just in that there are things they try to do. One of the biggies I see regularly is bishop pay and referrals to therapy. LDSFS is really a funneling system to help people get the therapy the need for therapy. The give generally short-term therapy and when something major or complicated comes up they are likely to use several referals to branch the member to other therapists. Bishop pays are different. And I take several a year. This is where church funds are directly used to fund therapy sessions. Not just that, but I often have contact with the bishops (usually monthly) to coordinate and give my perspective on the concern as well as theirs. I may suggest topics that would be better for a bishop to discuss as they're spiritual in nature. At times I've also helped bishops better understand the circumstance around an issue. I've also seen in wards special firesides directly addressing a mental health concern. I've given them before myself. And with my old YSA bishop, I was even able to have in-depth meetings to help him better understand sex related concerns that may come up. One thing that a number of people would agree would be helpful is to implement training to better prepare lay-clergy with issues that may come up.  But to say the church isn't effectively putting forward resource period, its simply not true.

Quote

If the church cares about families, its only certain kinds of families, the 1950s family ideal, not other very real families, not families that don't fit the mold.  Either fit the mold or you don't belong in this church, and God doesn't approve of your family.  That's the message I get from this talk.  This is very frustrating and upsetting.  I can't believe this guy is our leader in 2018.  Such a horrible rewind into less tolerant times.  

Last one for the day. I never have had a 1950's family ideal growing up. My family didn't fit the mold at all. I'm still not sealed to anyone beyond my husband. It entails complicated functions that I usually draw out for people so they can follow along. I have had moments where I felt left out or felt sore in church. Families can be together forever, for example. At the same time, though my family of origin is not the epitome of celestial glory, I haven't felt that the church doesn't care about me or my family...or that I didn't belong. It meant that some of my interactions were different, as are some of my siblings (my siblings on my dad's side are all likely to be baptized as adults, for example). But I still had place. There is a large difference between having your family endorsed in the church as an equally good model v not belonging. And I didn't get this message from the talk....even though traditional family talk often is a sensitive topic for me.

It could be that having a non-traditional family structure has somewhat cemented my beliefs that there are things a traditional family structure has implicitly that's better. I say that, loving my peoples...but I wouldn't duplicate the family I have. And with all non-traditional families there are implicit costs and losses to it. I don't mean that that means no one should have a non-traditional family. But I think pretending that it doesn't is likely to lead to children that may inadvertently be hurt if those costs aren't acknowledged (again....please don't read this as a blanket statement that all people with non-traditional family will feel)

 

** one last thing, the answer to bare testimony may seem trite, but with that and other talks I've heard and what I've seen.....I could see why it's mentioned. He's not saying to never explore these concerns with your kids but to refocus on what is the most important truths there for you as an anchoring rod in your search. At least that's how I took it. And I find that absolutely important in a search through a tidal wave of conflicting information. 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 29, 2018 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, but that's only temporary. Once all of those people leave the church with their families, there won't be conflict any more. It's an effective weeding out process.

I hear you...I do..but families break on this.  One brother and his kids leave and his siblings and their kids stay.  The conflict happens.  

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This first part really grabbed my attention when I read the report on Oak's talk. Sure, I expect some grandpa humor, and some doubling down on past decisions.

But I find it a little bit humorous that he has to state how sage and smart he is "we know more than you suppose". "We receive reports" just struck me as funny. Everyone knows that getting a report from a "knowledgeable professional" is the same things as understanding the issue. IMO- only someone who is really disconnected from the people would tell people how connected he is because he gets reports. Sounds like a king sitting on a throne thinking that he can truly understand the people by listening to an Elder Gong style presentation. "Let them eat cake!"

I am curious about HOW they are "even more intensely informed about our own members." What do those reports look like? Who makes them? Where does the information come from? The polling group? They are just too far removed from the average, non-family, members of the church. The ones they do see when traveling are most likely the Stake/Mission presidents, occasionally bishops. How often do they really sit down and talk to regular people? I honestly don't know, but unless they're getting a brief on the average member, I doubt they really can relate much. It's one thing to be told something and quite another to experience it or see it for yourself.

Good points.  Apparently they are regularly criticized for being out of touch, and I imagine this strikes a nerve with some of the brethren.  

I do wonder how well informed they really are when surrounded with so little diversity of thought.  When you have yes men reporting to you, do you ever truly know what people think?  The culture and the structure are contributing factors that I believe exacerbate this problem.  

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This first part really grabbed my attention when I read the report on Oak's talk. Sure, I expect some grandpa humor, and some doubling down on past decisions.

But I find it a little bit humorous that he has to state how sage and smart he is "we know more than you suppose". "We receive reports" just struck me as funny. Everyone knows that getting a report from a "knowledgeable professional" is the same things as understanding the issue. IMO- only someone who is really disconnected from the people would tell people how connected he is because he gets reports. Sounds like a king sitting on a throne thinking that he can truly understand the people by listening to an Elder Gong style presentation. "Let them eat cake!"

I am curious about HOW they are "even more intensely informed about our own members." What do those reports look like? Who makes them? Where does the information come from? The polling group? They are just too far removed from the average, non-family, members of the church. The ones they do see when traveling are most likely the Stake/Mission presidents, occasionally bishops. How often do they really sit down and talk to regular people? I honestly don't know, but unless they're getting a brief on the average member, I doubt they really can relate much. It's one thing to be told something and quite another to experience it or see it for yourself.

If he has to state that they know “more than you suppose,” maybe it’s because of the false supposition and narrative being so frequently repeated that they are “out-of-touch” and “in a bubble.”  Would you insist that they let that false impression go unchallenged? That hardly seems fair. 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, juliann said:

That is demonstrably untrue. The move towards more understanding and tolerance has grown in leaps and bounds in almost all areas. They do deserve credit for that. 

Why do I get the impression from this very short selection of quotes that you have left out all the good stuff?

Confirmation bias in spades!

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good points.  Apparently they are regularly criticized for being out of touch, and I imagine this strikes a nerve with some of the brethren.  

I do wonder how well informed they really are when surrounded with so little diversity of thought.  When you have yes men reporting to you, do you ever truly know what people think?  The culture and the structure are contributing factors that I believe exacerbate this problem.  

“Yes men”? I thought your narrative heretofore has been that “the PR department” and Correlation tell them what to do. 

[hope_for_things]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's precisely what I'm claiming. Having "lived through the leadership" of Presidents Hinckley and Monson apparently doesn't mean you were paying attention during those periods. The style guide at "Newsroom" on lds.org for many years has expressed the desire that "Mormon" not be used in referring to the Church, but rather, the full name of the Church be used or, as a shortened form, the name of Jesus Christ be applied to the Church. Occasional general conference talks by Elder M. Russell Ballard and others have reaffirmed this directive. An entry in "Selected Church Policies and Announcements" in the general Church handbook (Book 2), has been consistent with the style guide and with the admonitions from Church leaders.

The only things of substance that have changed recently are that Church members are no longer to be referred to as "Mormons," that the term is to be avoided in most other usages pertaining to the Church and that we are to avoid the alphabet soup LDS in all usages. 

At the same time, they promoted the word Mormon in many venues, like I'm a Mormon campaign or the Meet the Mormons movie or countless other uses of the word Mormon.  I would call those substantive changes, and so would Nelson, that is why he announced that he was feeling inspired to make this change of emphasis.  Pretty clear to me.  

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not only was your supposition altogether inaccurate, it was illogical and counter-intuitive. What large organization are you acquainted with in which the board or CEO answers to the PR department or ancillary staff and not the other way around?

I agree that it is somewhat counter-intuitive, however, this is based on observations and my interpretations of the dynamics as an outsider.  I'm not 100% convinced that I am right on this matter.  It might be that the PR dept and the correlation committee have very little to no independent voice, and that all talks and formal statements are highly controlled by the brethren.  I really can't confirm my suspicions and I'm open to you being completely right about this, and with additional evidence I would change my opinion. 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

At the same time, they promoted the word Mormon in many venues, like I'm a Mormon campaign or the Meet the Mormons movie or countless other uses of the word Mormon.  I would call those substantive changes, and so would Nelson, that is why he announced that he was feeling inspired to make this change of emphasis.  Pretty clear to me.  

That much has changed. I’ve already acknowledged that in the very post you responded to. But the directive to call the Church by the name of Christ and to not substitute other names such as Mormon or LDS has been in place for many years. I repeat, if you think there has been “a change in direction” in this regard, it indicates you haven’t been paying attention. 

And I notice, incidentally, that you are still calling it “the LDS church.” QED. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Confirmation bias in spades!

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that Juliann is illustrating confirmation bias in spades, or are you agreeing with her statement that the comment to which she was referring was "demonstrably untrue", signifying that she thought the other comment was confirmation bias? Just seeking clarity here.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that it is somewhat counter-intuitive, however, this is based on observations and my interpretations of the dynamics as an outsider.  I'm not 100% convinced that I am right on this matter.  It might be that the PR dept and the correlation committee have very little to no independent voice, and that all talks and formal statements are highly controlled by the brethren.  I really can't confirm my suspicions and I'm open to you being completely right about this, and with additional evidence I would change my opinion. 

Your “opinion” is altogether unsupported by observable fact, direct statements to the contrary from former Church Public Affairs director Michael Otterson and, as I mentioned, logic and common sense. 

When addressing this matter, Otterson  cleverly said of the Public Affairs Department, “We don’t free-lance.”

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that Juliann is illustrating confirmation bias in spades, or are you agreeing with her statement that the comment to which she was referring was "demonstrably untrue", signifying that she thought the other comment was confirmation bias? Just seeking clarity here.

I think he’s saying that HfT is exhibiting confirmation bias in spades. If you follow the trail of posts, that becomes clear. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd