Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[rockpond]

For those interested, this is an excellent interview with a gay Mormon man, who is a believer, and is married to another man.  He tried to keep his sons in the church.  He and his husband attended and were accepted by the ward but ultimately told that they would face a disciplinary council since they are in a same sex marriage. 

It is really a touching interview.  

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/dusty-johns/

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If it really was zero, after three years, than it makes me wonder why the Lord would have felt the need to supposedly reveal a policy to the Brethren that wasn’t really needed. 

Of course, it wasn’t zero. 

From my perspective, it's because the reason for the policy isn't to keep marriages from ending in divorce, but to keep children from being continually faced with the knowledge that their families (as they are constituted) can never partake of all of the blessings of the gospel while remaining intact.  

I've never understood the policy to be a safeguard against breaking up SS marriages.  

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, it's because the reason for the policy isn't to keep marriages from ending in divorce, but to keep children from being continually faced with the knowledge that their families (as they are constituted) can never partake of all of the blessings of the gospel while remaining intact.  

I've never understood the policy to be a safeguard against breaking up SS marriages.  

The question was about how many children were affected.  If the answer is zero after three years than it seems to be an odd policy to have enacted. 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Well let's talk about this.

 

Do the unmarried parents have to agree to even consider getting married before they allow their children to be baptized?  Have unmarried homes split up because one of the parents wants the join the church and insists on getting married when the other partner still does not want to marry?  Yes.

Do the parents who are a different religion have to agree to even hear about the church or are they required to consider changing religions in order to have their children baptized?  Have marriages split up because one partner joins the church and the other resents that?  Yes.

Is the non member required to join the church before his child can be baptized? Has a marriage ever ended because the non member becomes hostile to the church?  Yes. Are their children still allowed to be baptized if both parents had agreed?  Yes.

So here is my point of view about this policy that targets gay parents.  We are used to being called names by various groups.  Being called an apostate isn't any different than all the other things I have been called.  I have learned name calling is just part of what is going to happen when you are gay.

What is the most insulting thing about this policy is that just because you are gay, you must not be able to see that the path towards God might be different for your child than your own path?  Just because you are gay, you can't support your child in the religion they feel they want to worship in.  Do gay parents quit talking to their kids for 13 years when they find out that their children are attracted to the opposite sex?  Do gay parents decide not to talk to their children just because they dream of an opposite-sex marriage? Is it automatically assumed that just because you are gay you have a need to control the beliefs of your children?  Is it automatically assumed that just because your child is baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then you will want to follow that same path?  I know that path well.  I left that church knowing as much about it as any active member.  Do you think that if my child joined the church, somehow my beliefs about the church would magically change and I would want to separate from my partner?  And what happens when the oldest child turns 18 and chooses to be baptized?  Should the parents quit having any contact with that child because when that child joins the church it will surely cause their marriage to end in divorce.  And what if there are still younger children in the home? Yet there is a blanketed policy that covers every gay family.  That policy has caused more discord among family members than allowing any child of gay parents to be baptized ever has. Yet you sit there and defend this policy as if it is bringing some kind of wonderfulness to these families.  Were gay families breaking up if they allowed a child to be baptized  before this policy was mandated?

It is all excuses because members try to justify a policy that number one, never needed to be instituted and number two the reasons for its existence is bogus.

Who has said that the policy was created to keep SS marriages from ending in divorce?  Who said that members of the church believe that gay parents can't accept their parents might have different views.  All you've done here is to create straw men and then proudly knocked them down.

From my understanding the policy has nothing to do with saving SSM.   It's to keep children from continually being faced with the knowledge that their families can never be eligible for the full blessings of the gospel.  For other children, they can hope that through repentance, their families can receive all blessings, including being sealed together for eternity.  The children of polygamists and SS couples don't have that hope.  Even if the parents repented, the family still could not be sealed.

The policy does not only affect gays.  It targets those families (gay and straight) that can never access the full blessings of the gospel and who's members can only access it as far as they denounce (and for parents, repent and leave) the current family structure.   

You can agree or disagree that children should be protected from being put into that position until they are adults, but that's the issue at hand.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The question was about how many children were affected.  If the answer is zero after three years than it seems to be an odd policy to have enacted. 

I'm sorry, i thought you were responding to a different question about SSM divorces.

 

[Calm]

@Gray,

“Nor do they have enough influence in most churches to have church leadership give them special dispensation to sin, as happens for straight people in the LDS Church”

meaning what sin straight people have special dispensation for exactly?

Edited November 12, 2018 by Calm

[CV75]

On 11/8/2018 at 6:33 AM, Rivers said:

I am sorry to bring this old can of worms up again but I am curious about the kind of impact it as had over the few years it has existed.  I am of course speaking of the infamous policy concerning children in same-sex marriage households.  I had always felt that the impact would be minimal seeing that very few gay couples would have any interest in having their children baptized into the Church.  Anybody have any insights on how many children this has actually affected?

By "affected" children do you mean those who, according to their parents wanted to be baptized but the parents were told the child had to wait until she is of age?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

If you're going to fundamentalist, fundamentalist all the way. None of these half measures.

Agreed! 'So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth'.

[kllindley]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

You haven't attended the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a gay member.  You haven't heard the subtle and not so subtle snide remarks about "those gays".  You haven't heard priesthood leaders stand up and talk about the evil the gay community does.  You haven't had ward members quit talking to you and literally never hear from them again once they found out you were gay.  

You know it doesn't matter whether or not he has had those experiences.  You don't care.  You still ingore those of us who have and pretend that your experience is the only one that matters. 

 

10 hours ago, california boy said:

The church has this passive/aggressive relationship with those that are gay.  You really think those that are gay feel welcomed at church?  You really can't understand why the vast majority of gay members leave the church?  Why the church policy against gays is one of the major reasons why so many youth are leaving the church?  You think it is because the church is so loving and embracing of its gay members?

 

This is a perfect example of how to make a political statement that almost sounds like an attempt at conversation. It is interesting how completely you divide the world into "those who are gay" and those who are not. I'll say that I don't believe anyone who has left the church over it's doctrines of sexuality actually gives a hoot about members like us. 

[kllindley]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

It is all excuses because members try to justify a policy that number one, never needed to be instituted and number two the reasons for its existence is bogus.

Talk about refusing to understand because you don't want to. Your vitriol it's coming through loud and clear.  Of course you have every right to your bitterness and hatred, but I'm sincerely curious: Do you share these opinions with your children? Would they be surprised at what you write here?

[california boy]

12 hours ago, kllindley said:

You know it doesn't matter whether or not he has had those experiences.  You don't care.  You still ingore those of us who have and pretend that your experience is the only one that matters. 

 

This is a perfect example of how to make a political statement that almost sounds like an attempt at conversation. It is interesting how completely you divide the world into "those who are gay" and those who are not. I'll say that I don't believe anyone who has left the church over it's doctrines of sexuality actually gives a hoot about members like us. 

I didn't start this thread.  In fact, I haven't started a thread concerning LGBT issues in years.  But when someone else does, I am unwilling to just let some of the ridiculous rationalizations for the policies the church has instituted against gay people go unanswered.  I say what I believe and present my perspective as a former member who has had to live with being born with an attraction to someone of the same sex.  I have never told anyone both within this form and outside this forum who is gay how they must live their life and what choices they must make, including you.  I only provide a perspective as someone raised in the church who is attracted to the same sex.  I don't speak for others.  And I have never not allowed you to present your perspective.  I also have never dismissed your experience and perspective.  This comment is a bit unfair

.I have said repeatedly that the church can institute any policy against gays that it wants.  But when claims are made that such policies are for the benefit of those who are gay, then I am, as a gay man who is suppose to be "helped" by such policies am going to say from my perspective, that rationalizing of the policy is baloney.  This policy doesn't help gay families. This policy discriminates against gay families.  I have explained why I have those feelings.  You as straight members might think otherwise.  But you are not gay and you do not know how this feels to those who this policy is directed at.  

I have much less of a problem with the policy than I do with the attempts to justify the policy as being some kind of lifesaver to gay families and their children. It is very condescending when the church takes a position that it knows better than the parents what is best for their children and their family. This policy and the made-up rationalization for it is just a repeat of the history the church has and their supposed justifications of discrimination against blacks. Remember how ridiculous they sound now?  If the church and the members would just be forthright and say, "we discriminate against gay families and their children, get over it." then I would have nothing to say.  It is the dishonesty of the justification that is so insulting and offensive.  We may be gay, but we are not stupid.

[MustardSeed]

Anecdotally it has affected me.  There was a 7 year old, now 11, who started hanging around my house a lot.  My kids are raised.  He asked if he could call me mom.  His bio mom was abusive so he is being raised by his uncle and uncles husband.  This kid is starving for attention and for structure.  He asks about where I’m going a lot, asks to come with me for trunk or treat or to primary parties ( when I taught 8 year old class) .  Kids golden.  

I always tell him no. 

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have much less of a problem with the policy than I do with the attempts to justify the policy as being some kind of lifesaver to gay families and their children. It is very condescending when the church takes a position that it knows better than the parents what is best for their children and their family. This policy and the made-up rationalization for it is just a repeat of the history the church has and their supposed justifications of discrimination against blacks. Remember how ridiculous they sound now?  If the church and the members would just be forthright and say, "we discriminate against gay families and their children, get over it." then I would have nothing to say.  It is the dishonesty of the justification that is so insulting and offensive.  We may be gay, but we are not stupid.

I think the justifications for the policy all fall apart upon serious examination.

I continue to believe that this policy was and is about trying to avoid the impact that loving, committed gay parents would have on our congregations.

As a church, we are walking a very fine line right now with our teachings that being gay isn't a sin, only acting on it.  It's a position that won't hold over the long term.  And if members start sitting in the pews next to happily married same sex couples who are raising kids in the gospel... our current stance will be even shorter lived.

[smac97]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

For those interested, this is an excellent interview with a gay Mormon man, who is a believer, and is married to another man.  He tried to keep his sons in the church.  He and his husband attended and were accepted by the ward but ultimately told that they would face a disciplinary council since they are in a same sex marriage. 

It is really a touching interview.  

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/dusty-johns/

A few interesting bits:

1. John Dehlin claims that he has a "source" high up in the Church who indicated that the 2015 policy had been placed on an informal "hold," but this appears to have changed.

2. Bro. Johns entered into a same-sex marriage about 5 months before the October 2018 interview with Dehlin, several years after the 2015 policy.

3. Many of the points he raises are indeed very touching.  

4. He said that someone in the Church whom he trusted (a leader) who told him A) that he just needed to get married, and B) he shouldn't tell his wife that he was/is same-sex attracted.

5. He characterized his marriage as fairly dysfunctional.  Didn't get along with his in-laws, his wife was sad a lot.

6. The "CES Letter" helped him on his way out of the Church.  His marriage became worse.

7. He has a good metaphor about a "Spirituality" cup and a "Love" cup.  He felt that he could only fill up one, and not the other.  At all.

8. He got spinal meningitis.  He had a series of serious surgeries.  He began to feel anguish.  He had a spiritual experience during this, in which he felt the love of God.  He recovered.

9. After his recovery he began to explore life as a gay man.  

10. He claims (incorrectly, I think) that he was worried that his children would have to "publicly denounce" his same-sex marriage.

11. He met his partner/husband, Tate, in 2017.  They married in May 2018.

12. He started attending church again in Spring 2017 as an "out" gay man.  He was not "sleeping around."

13. He's fairly ambivalent about the sexual component of his relationship with Tate.  At times he characterizes that component as very minor, but several other times talks about frustrations with the Church's expectations about celibacy.

14. He suggested that his marriage did not violate the Law of Chastity because he and Tate were married (though he also indicated some indifference to proscriptions against extra-marital sex).

15. John Dehlin and Bro. Johns expressed frustration at the uneven application of the 2015 policy.  

16. Their ward members in Idaho have been very kind and welcoming.

17. He states that his bishop and stake president were frustrated with inconsistent messaging from Salt Lake about whether to proceed with a disciplinary council.

18. Bro. Johns is very upset that being in a same-sex marriage is within the "mandatory" category of disciplinary councils.

19. Bro. Johns received a letter about a pending disciplinary council a week before General Conference.  He forwarded it to John Dehlin, who posted it online with the intention of stopping the disciplinary council.  Bro. Johns then got a call from his stake president advising him that the disciplinary council was being postponed.  This got Bro. Johns very upset.  

20. Bro. Johns said he is not looking or expecting or demanding for his same-sex marriage to be solemnized in the temple.  He said he hopes that eventually the Church will not condemn him to hell for entering into a same-sex marriage.

21. Bro. Johns says that he supports and sustains the prophet.  

22. Bro. Johns says he wants to continue to attend Church so that he can change the Church "from the inside."  And then he changed his mind and said he thinks the Church will not change its mind.  

23. Bro. Johns says that celibacy "does not work."

24. John Dehlin suggests that the Church is "afraid" of same-sex couples being accepted in Church, as that may lead to increased acceptance of same-sex families in the Church.

25. Bro. Johns said he does not want to oppose the Church.

26. Bro. Johns said "being gay is such a small part of" who he is.

27. Both Dehlin and Johns repeatedly emphasize and dwell on gay suicides.  Dehlin said that the Church's policies are "clearly a factor" in the increase in suicides, and that the Church "has policies that are literally causing people to kill themselves, and we have to stop it."

Interesting stuff.  A lot of raw emotion there.  A lot.  Lots of elisions, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 12, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think the justifications for the policy all fall apart upon serious examination.

I disagree.  Here they are again:

Quote

Elder Christofferson has presented the most comprehensive exposition to date regarding the need for the new policies.  From his remarks we can glean the following real or potential harms and other factors which the Brethren identified:

• 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 factors as well (I can think of a few).  In any event, the points raised by Elder Christofferson are, in my view, meritorious.

Which of these, in your view, have fallen apart?  They all seem to remain in place and relevant.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I continue to believe that this policy was and is about trying to avoid the impact that loving, committed gay parents would have on our congregations.

Well, perhaps to some extent, you are correct.  Consider these issues referenced by Elder Christofferson:

Quote

• 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.")

To a significant extent, same-sex couples and marriage has been "normalized" in our society.  And there are people who are happy, to some extent, in such relationships.  But there are also people who are happy, to some extent, in unmarried sexual relationships, in polygamous relationships, in polyamorous relationships, in "open" marriages, in swinging, and so on.

Back in 2015 I posted a somewhat lengthy comment on this issue.  See here and here.  Here's an abbreviated version:

Quote

1. Homosexual Conduct is Incompatible with Marriage: Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God (and, as a corollary, sexual conduct outside of that union is per se sinful).  I have addressed this previously here...

2. Homosexual Conduct is One of Many Types of Sexual Conduct Prohibited by God: Homosexual conduct is prohibited by God (as are many other forms of sexual sin). In their 14 November 1991 letterconcerning the importance of the law of chastity, the First Presidency declared: “Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”   I recognize that our current society, including some members of the Church, really really want to exempt homosexual conduct from the Law of Chastity.  There are all sorts of machinations which have been attempted, including radically re-defining the word "marriage," accusing the Brethren of hate-based bigotry for not toeing the currently trendy line of embracing and celebrating same-sex behaviors, and so on.  But I just don't think this will work.  I've commented on this previously here...

3. Severance from the Purpose of Sex: Homosexual conduct necessarily and always separates sex from its fundamental purposes: A) the strengthening of a union between husband and wife and B) procreation.  Elder Oaks put it this way...

4. All of Us Held to the Same Standard: Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct (see above).  I commented on this issue previously here...

5. Feelings are Not Determinative of Morality (Where God Has Spoken): I have addressed this issue previously here:

 Quote

  Quote

I'm not suggesting that desire overrides chastity. A married man doesn't get to have an affair simply because he desires it.

Smac97: Great! And a homosexual man doesn't get to have sex with another man simply because he "desires it."  Desire, you see, is not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong. The same standard applies to all church members.

And here:

 Quote

  Quote

I'm not suggesting that "desire" is the standard.

Smac97: Well, it appears that is exactly what you are suggesting. Your entire premise is that homosexuals should be exempted from the same standards of sexual behavior that apply to everyone else because they want to engage in that behavior.

This thread is full of posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.

But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fall apart.

  Quote

I agree with you that there is much that we desire that we cannot act on.

Smac97: And yet here you are, proposing that homosexual members be given some sort of special dispensation. That they be allowed to engage in conduct prohibited to the rest of us, solely because they want to engage in that behavior. But such reasoning falls apart quickly. By your reckoning, adultery is A-OK as long as the adulterer wants to engage in that conduct, which is prohibited to others.

I have seen items 1-5 above repeated over and over and over in discussions such as this.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

As a church, we are walking a very fine line right now with our teachings that being gay isn't a sin, only acting on it.  It's a position that won't hold over the long term. 

I think the Church doesn't teach that gayness is a state of being.  

As for whether it is a position that will hold in the long term, I think it will.  Time will tell, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

"Dehlin said that the Church's policies are "clearly a factor" in the increase in suicides, and that the Church "has policies that are literally causing people to kill themselves, and we have to stop it."

I find irresponsible of him to do so without research to back his claim. But I do believe he is licensed and he scores points with people with the claims.

Edited November 13, 2018 by provoman

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

"Dehlin said that the Church's policies are "clearly a factor" in the increase in suicides, and that the Church "has policies that are literally causing people to kill themselves, and we have to stop it."

I find irresponsible of him to do so without research to back his claim. But he isnt licensed and he scores points with people with the unresearched claims.

Yep.  I have not seen much in the way of critics cautioning each other against publishing rhetoric designed to alienate Latter-day Saints from their faith.  Nevo emphasized this point as made in a recent Archives of Suicide Research article (emphasis added):

Quote

There were two important clinical implications found in the current study. First, it may seem counterintuitive that when individuals choose to leave their religion in order to experience more self-acceptance that they inadvertently experience more risk for suicide. Clinicians should be aware that leaving one's religion of origin may add additional stressors that ultimately place a client at additional risk for suicide. Further, the negative impact felt from leaving one's religion due to conflict has a stronger impact than the positive indirect impact through a reduction in internalized homophobia.

Sadly, we are witnessing people - like John Dehlin - who are bound and determined to shove these stressors down the throats of LDS teens.

 

As I have said many times, much (most?  virtually all?) of the acrimony about the policy is being fomented and maintained by critics and opponents of the Church.  That acrimony is also causing "real harm."

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

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

I think the Brethren are looking at this policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way.  In other words, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it.  But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change.

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

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

In the wise words of Evette Carter (see my sig line): "'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." 

The Brethren didn't conform.  They did not knuckle under.  They did what they thought was right, regardless ofwhat everybody else is doing.  And for that I honor and sustain them.

Can we expect any introspection from the folks who have spent years demonizing the LDS Church?  Will they ever stop to consider the possibility that they are causing harm to LDS teenagers by using deliberate and calculated means to vilify those teens' religious community, and to estrange those teens from that community?  My sense is that no, I don't think they will.

In all candor, these tactics make me seriously question the good faith of those who use them.  I question their good faith because it is one thing to express remorse and angst about suicide, and more particularly about teen suicide, and even more particularly about gay LDS teen suicide.  But it is quite another to exploit such horrific tragedies by using them as a brickbat with which to attack the LDS Church.  Such usage reeks of ill intent.  The deaths of LDS teens are not, I think, being discussed because of the innate and inestimable worth each child of God has, but because these suicides can be be used as social/political weapons against the LDS Church.  And such exploitation is what keeps happening, over and over and over again (see above).

I also question their good faith because data suggests that membership in and adherence to the tenets of the LDS Church are a good thing for LDS youth, including LDS youth with same-sex attraction.  Here are some data points on this:

• According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society's lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses. Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide. (Study of 5,998 Dutch adults) Theo G.M. Sandforte et al., "Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence," Archives of General Psychiatry 58, 10 (2001): 85-91.
• Researchers found "an elevated suicide risk for homosexuals" even in tolerant Denmark. Ping Qin, Esben Agerbo, and Preben Bo Mortensen, "Suicide Risk in Relation to Socioeconomic, Demographic, Psychiatric, and Familial Factors: A National Register-Based Study of All Suicides in Denmark, 1981-1997." American Journal of Psychiatry 160 (2003): 765-772.
• According to the American Journal of Epidemiology, active Latter-day Saints are seven times less likely to commit suicide:

  Quote

Young Mormon men living in Utah who closely adhere to the dictates of their faith are less likely to commit suicide than their peers who are less active in the church, study findings show.

The Mormon Church is known formally as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

For more than 10 years, 15- to 34-year-old males in Utah have had suicide rates markedly higher than those seen nationally. In fact, in the early to mid-1990s, suicide was the number one cause of death among 25- to 44-year-old men in the state and the second-leading cause of death among men aged 15 to 24.

"These results provide evidence that a low level of religious commitment is a potential risk factor for suicide," Dr. Sterling C. Hilton of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and his colleagues write in the March 1st issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Hmm. The Latter-day Saints who are at increased risk for suicide, then, are those who do not live according to the teachings of the LDS Church.  Put another way, the teachings of the LDS Church decrease the risk of suicide. 

But even assuming, to some extent, that there may be a link between teen suicides in LDS society and social opprobrium against homosexual conduct in LDS society, why are the folks endlessly dwelling on teen suicides seemingly doing all they can to ratchet up that tension?  

If folks are so concerned about homosexuals committing suicide, why aren't they encouraging them to to maintain high levels of religious observance (which includes, you know, abstinence from homosexual behavior)?

And why are they instead trying to persuade/cajole the LDS Church into altering its teachings about homosexuality when living in accordance with those teachings appears to lower the risk of suicide?  

These are sincere questions.

Sadly, my sense is that the answer to them is pretty much along the lines of this: There are people who hate the LDS Church so much, that they will use any rhetoric, any means, any handy brickbat to attack the LDS Church.  

Even if this means crassly exploiting the suicides of children, they will do it.  

Even if this means encouraging LDS youth to abandon precepts and a community, adherence to and participation in which have a demonstrably positive effect in their lives, they will do it.  

Even if this means materially contributing to the stress and anxiety felt by vulnerable, at-risk teens by telling them that the religion they have grown up in and love, that their leaders and mentors and friends and family, all hate them, they will do it.  

For the record, as a Latter-day Saint (or to be more precise, because I am a Latter-day Saint), I am appalled and saddened that anyone would kill themselves for any reason. I think it is tragic that Latter-day Saints with same-sex orientation have been (and, to some lesser extent, sometimes still are) treated poorly because of that orientation.  I have no doubt that same-sex attraction can be a tremendous struggle.  And I think the Church (both the leaders and laity) have improved significantly, but that we as individuals can and must to better to make teens feel loved and safe (no matter what the enemies of the Church say to the contrary).

The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ offers clarity in areas of moral ambiguity, particularly where the World is saying one thing and the Scriptures and Prophets another. Some of us have chosen to listen to and accept the precepts of the World on this point, precepts which patently contradict the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  Here they are again:

Which of these, in your view, have fallen apart? 

Welfare of Children/Triggering Events:  Blessing, baptizing, teaching children the gospel, and giving them a faith community is what we've historically taught as being in the best interest of children.  If our teachings are likely to cause acrimony (which can happen for many reasons beyond just gay parents) than we should address that in a better way than just excluding them.

Clarifying.../Alleviating confusion.../Providing guidance...: If the desire was to help members better understand, why place it in a handbook that is only accessible to a small minority of members?  While these reasons may be a beneficial end result for the Church, they don't seem like the driving reasons for creating a policy that would only be published in a document with very limited circulation.

The rationale that it protects our first amendment rights may have some merit as a policy that declares anyone in a same-sex marriage to be an apostate and their children to not be welcome into full-fellowship does make our "religious" position very clear if it needed to come into a court of law.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

I disagree.  Here they are again:

Which of these, in your view, have fallen apart? 

Welfare of Children/Triggering Events:  Blessing, baptizing, teaching children the gospel, and giving them a faith community is what we've historically taught as being in the best interest of children. 

Yes.  And yet there are circumstances in which it can't happen at 8 years old.  A parent withholds consent.  A child living in a polygamist family.  And others.

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If our teachings are likely to cause acrimony (which can happen for many reasons beyond just gay parents) than we should address that in a better way than just excluding them.

I agree.  But the 2015 policy doesn't preclude those "better way{s}."

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Clarifying.../Alleviating confusion.../Providing guidance...: If the desire was to help members better understand, why place it in a handbook that is only accessible to a small minority of members? 

Elder Christofferson gave an interview.  It's been open for public consumption for years now.

The policy isn't a secret.  

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While these reasons may be a beneficial end result for the Church,

I don't understand what this means.

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

they don't seem like the driving reasons for creating a policy that would only be published in a document with very limited circulation.

The policy would also only have affected a "very limited" number of people.  Not unlike the nearly-identical policy pertaining to children in polygamous households.

The difference, I think, is that John Dehlin and other folks have worked hard for years to whip up acrimony and hard feelings about the 2015 policy.

In any event, I'm inclined to these that these rationales are among the "driving reasons for creating" the policy because . . . Elder Christofferson said as much.

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The rationale that it protects our first amendment rights may have some merit as a policy that declares anyone in a same-sex marriage to be an apostate and their children to not be welcome into full-fellowship does make our "religious" position very clear if it needed to come into a court of law.

Still waiting to hear about the "justifications for the policy" that have "fallen apart."

Earlier this year I posted my thoughts about the "relative merits" of the 2015 policy.  Here's an abbreviated version (from here😞

Quote

1. The Policy Changes are Largely Preventative Medicine: I have never characterized the policy changes as pleasant and joyful.  To the contrary, they are akin to the Church's doctrines and policies pertaining to discipline, up to and including excommunication.  These things are unpleasant, but also necessary.  It appears they were implemented to minimize or avoid harm, both to individuals and families and to the Church.  

The counsel and instruction given by the leaders of the Church, and found in the doctrines and scriptures of the Church, are largely inclusive and welcoming (hence our emphasis on being a missionary church).  Nevertheless, some boundaries are necessary.  We are a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  Without some boundaries, we aren't really a community anymore.  So the Church's "boundaries" are, as I see it, reasonable and understandable (and, in some painful instances - such as the November 2015 policy - painful but necessary).

...

2. The Policy Changes are Revelatory: The bottom line is that that policy was enacted by the Presiding High Priest, through revelation, after extensive thought and discussion and prayer, and sustained as such by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  So accepting and following revelatory guidance is meritorious.

3. The Policies are Congruent, in Form and Function. with the Policies re: Polygamist Families: I again point to the Church's longstanding and nearly identical policy for children from polygamous families.  That policy has been in place and functioning since, according to this article, the 1920s.  The results have been . . . mixed (from the article):...

...

4. The Policies Were Needed: Real harm was going to be done, with or without the policy.  With the introduction of the innovation of same-sex marriate into society, the Brethren had to act.  To not act would have been a dereliction of their duties.  Absent guidance from the Brethren, the Church's mandates and moral cohesion would have faltered or failed, and confusion would have prevailed in Israel.  I don't think any of us are in a position to say that the lack of the policy would yield better results.  It's too speculative. 

...

5. Most of the Acrimony is not Arising from the Policies, but from Over-the-Top Reactions Thereto: As I have said many times, much (most?  virtually all?) of the acrimony about the policy is being fomented and maintained by critics and opponents of the Church.  That acrimony is also causing "real harm."

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

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

I think the Brethren are looking at this policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way.  In other words, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it.  But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change.

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  And yet there are circumstances in which it can't happen at 8 years old.  A parent withholds consent.  A child living in a polygamist family.  And others.

A parent withholding consent is not within the Church's control.  Though significantly different, I am also opposed to the policy prohibiting full fellowship of children of polygamist parents.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But the 2015 policy doesn't preclude those "better way{s}."

Doesn't preclude but certainly limits.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Elder Christofferson gave an interview.  It's been open for public consumption for years now.

The policy isn't a secret.  

Elder Christofferson gave the interview in response to the leak.  There is no evidence to suggest that this was going to be shared with membership at large without the leak.  One month earlier (and the leaked emails, see Mormon Wikileaks for the CFR, suggest that this policy was being informally used prior to that) they had the opportunity to instruct the members regarding the apostate status of those in same-sex marriages and the need to deny ordinances to their children but they did not.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The policy would also only have affected a "very limited" number of people.  Not unlike the nearly-identical policy pertaining to children in polygamous households.

Yes, the policy affects the "one" as opposed to the "ninety and nine".  Not a good justification, more like an excuse to minimize it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Still waiting to hear about the "justifications for the policy" that have "fallen apart."

I've given you my explanation.  You disagree.  No hard feelings.  I'm confident someday the policy along with our teachings regarding homosexuality will be walked back and disavowed all under the explanation of new revelation, as has been done before.  I imagine you disagree with that as well.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Earlier this year I posted my thoughts about the "relative merits" of the 2015 policy.  Here's an abbreviated version (from here😞

1.  Boundaries.  Yeah, I agree that's one valid reason for the policy.

2.  Revelatory.  Yes, it was claimed by an apostle, not by the prophet of the time, to be revelation.  We've also had the prophetic process of revelation defined as consensus and unity among the Twelve.  Does it fit either this current definition of revelation or the definition of prophetic revelation that I was taught all my life in the church?  We don't know.

3.  Matches the policy with respect to polygamists.  Yep.  Also not a good policy.

4.  Guidance from the Brethren.  Yes, it was needed.  Unfortunately, we went this direction.

5.  I don't know anyone who needed Dehlin to know how bad this policy is.

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/10/2018 at 7:08 AM, california boy said:

But what Christ didn't say to the woman is "You Are An Apostate, and can not be a member of my church.  And your children can not be a member as well until they are 18". 

Nevertheless, he did say, “Go, and sin no more.” There’s no doubt about what he meant by that. Repentance is the common denominator for all people.  

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Repentance is the common denominator for all people.  

Which makes it even more interesting when certain interest groups seem to want to be the sole people in the pews not confronted by the Saviour's universal challenge to deny oneself and take up the cross.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Nevertheless, he did say, “Go, and sin no more.” There’s no doubt about what he meant by that. Repentance is the common denominator for all people.  

 

I'm sorry... what do the children of gay parents need to repent of?

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Which makes it even more interesting when certain interest groups seem to want to be the sole people in the pews not confronted by the Saviour's universal challenge to deny oneself and take up the cross.

Certain "interest groups"?  A gay married couples an interest group?  And you think they don't want to be confronted by the Savior's challenge?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

And you think they don't want to be confronted by the Savior's challenge?

Anyone who wants her/his favourite sin struck off the list fits that description. Some are certainly more organised about it.