- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
I have read a bunch about this new policy. Most of what I am reading does not appear to get to what I believe to be the heart of the issue…I am a business man. Where I work we have a policy where no outside organizations or individuals can post signs or solicit. This means that you can’t put up a sign for a fundraiser for children with cancer or ask your coworkers to buy a candy bar for your kid’s soccer team.
This policy is to protect against unions…I look at this new policy from that same perspective and I believe that church leadership does too…I do not think it reasonable to fear that gay people would sue to get married in the temple and actually believe that this is an element of fear mongering. There seem to be very strong protections on the division of church and state that would protect this from happening. However, I could see people suing for other reasons.Suppose that I am in a gay marriage and am enrolled at BYU – should I not have access to married student housing?…But why the stuff about not baptizing the kids until they turn 18, etc. etc?…In summary, for me all this talk of protecting children vs. punishing children is actually a distraction from the much more straightforward reasons for this policy.I do not like this policy but at least from this perspective I can better understand it. I could see some of them being paranoid about lawsuits with some of the hype about religious freedom supposedly being under attack even though there isn’t much compelling evidence of this being a very valid threat to worry all that much about. However, even if that was one of their primary concerns it still doesn’t explain why they would have included some of the details such as that if someone’s parents were ever in a same-sex marriage or cohabitation relationship they should have to get special permission from the First Presidency before getting baptized even after they are legally adults. To be honest it seems like many apologists and critics alike are giving Church leaders more credit than I think they really deserve as far as carefully thinking this policy change through, knowing exactly what they were aiming for and why, and having a good idea what the likely results of it would actually be.
For example, in addition to this theory about being afraid of possible legal liabilities to the point that they supposedly felt like they had to do something to try to protect the Church another fairly popular theory is that they supposedly intended this as sort of a purge to separate the wheat from the tares because they don’t really want liberals in the Church that sympathize with gays and lesbians and that supposedly don’t really believe in the Church and don’t pay much if any tithing anyway. However, I see this as an example of Church leaders basically shooting themselves in the foot because it has mostly turned out to be a major PR blunder that has also caused many Church members to question the Church more than they would have otherwise and my guess is they didn’t expect it to get anywhere near the attention it already has in part because they had already been treating the children of polygamists the same way without getting nearly this much attention.
In fact, when was the last time, before this, that any policy in the local leadership handbooks got very much public attention outside of the DAMU? Also there was some talk about this supposedly only directly affecting 1% of Church members so maybe they thought it wouldn’t matter that much if most of them were excluded from the Church because so few children of openly gay parents are even active members of the Church anyway. However, I think this is one area where they miscalculated the costs versus benefits because like the Pew survey showed the the number of self-identified Mormons that said homosexuality should be accepted by society has already increased from 25% to 36% between 2007 and 2014 and that doesn’t even count all the ones that think homosexuality should be discouraged but will still have a hard time understanding or accepting the idea that the children of gays and lesbians should be singled out and treated differently than everyone else because of who their parents are.
Check back with me in three weeks. We will be at a very different place by then I hope. Roy wrote:This seems to be the case with all religions. After the fiery eruption of creative spiritualistic force, the lava flows almost immediately begin to harden and calcify into hierarchy and policy. There are both good things and bad things about modern corporate church conformity … at least it is dependable.
🙂 An old parable:
“God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand.
“Ah, Truth,” he said.
“Here, give it to me,” the devil said. “I’ll organize it.”
churchistrue wrote:I have kind of set myself up to be a Mormon apologist, so I feel obligated to defend the church. This is the safest place online I have to complain. I’ve had some angry moments the last few days. It’s very, very difficult not to see this as a spiteful, immature reaction to the gay community after losing every fight it’s picked recently on the subject. I thought we were moving on, but it doesn’t look like it. Yesterday, I’m talking at home with wife and older kids and younger kid says “can someone please tell me whether or not my church hates gays.” The situation just sucks. I hope we can make it right soon. I was very hopeful when I heard the church was making a clarification that it would be something like “oops that got out into the media before it was finalized.” or at least “it’s been interpreted wrong, it only applies to adopted children of same sex parents not split parents”. But instead, Elder Christofferson seemed to double down and remove wiggle room in his clarification. None of the logic being used to defend it makes any sense. It hurts a lot of children and families in LGBT community. And not just that. Members who don’t hate gays are assumed to be gay bashers. Just four years ago, we were in the middle of the Mormon moment. Mitt Romney was running for president. Book of Mormon musical was popular. Mormons had reputation of being faithful, a little weird, but super nice, hard working, high achievers. Dammit, that’s how I want to be perceived! Now we’re quickly trying to ruin that reputation for one that is obsessed with discriminating against gays.
Thanks for your honest reaction. One of the things that bothers me most about this policy is that it will twist people’s arms to feel obliged to support it. Intuitively many people will feel uncomfortable about it, but feel a loyalty pushing them to accept it and post-rationalise it.
I think that’s what bothers me the most. It pushes people to be something they’re not and believe something they don’t.
Any your youngest’s question was a corker…
DarkJedi wrote:Ann wrote:The other hard thing about it all is that it (at least for now) deflates my optimism about the new members of the quorum.
I had this same thought, Ann, considering the timing. I would full well expect something like this from Packer and Perry but not necessarily the new ones.
The speed of movement in the church means this was probably signed off months ago.
It bothers me more that Elders Uchtdorf & Eyring would have perhaps had the opportunity to veto this and didn’t. Perhaps. Purely speculation.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:For example, in addition to this theory about being afraid of possible legal liabilities to the point that they supposedly felt like they had to do something to try to protect the Church another fairly popular theory is that they supposedly intended this as sort of a purge to separate the wheat from the tares because they don’t really want liberals in the Church that sympathize with gays and lesbians and that supposedly don’t really believe in the Church and don’t pay much if any tithing anyway.
I cannot agree with that theory. I get that the church must do some boundary policing every now and again but purges and witch hunts are not consistent with what I want my church to be. I am trying to give the Brethren of the Q15 the benefit of the doubt and extend as much charity in my judgments as possible.
I wonder if they “must”. What I meant by “must” is that if they do not do any boundary policing/maintenance then the brand of what it means to be Mormon will drift and dilute. I find it natural that men that see their role as “watchmen in the tower” and “shepherds over the flock” would perform this type of boundary policing/maintenance. ya. Good point. They think that is what they are called to do. Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Did we not learned anything from the debacle that has resulted from the rhetoric, exclusion and discrimination around the priesthood ban? This is the issue that consistently has been the most despicable and UnChristlike policy ever–up until now – –advocated by the church. Aren’t we just repeating history. For the church to maintain any sense of respect from a societal and governmental perspective 50 years from now, no discrimination based on sexual orientation will be tolerated.
For once, couldn’t we be in the leading edge of love and tolerance standing as an example of Christ to the world rather than clinging to Archaic “doctrine” that is not scientifically sound or consistent with lived human experience?
hawkgrrrl wrote:Check back with me in three weeks. We will be at a very different place by then I hope.
Is this supposed to sound as criptic as it does?
Hawkgrrrl can answer, but I take this as “this issue isn’t ‘done’ yet” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nearly a week out I think I have gelled what I think. I believe this is policy, not doctrine, and not inspired. I think the policy is uneven. If the church is going to say children of gay marriage or gay cohabitation cannot fully participate without some hoop jumping the sane should be true of those living in heterosexual cohabitation. If gay marriage and cohabitation is apostasy, so heterosexual cohabitation. In the eyes of the church both are serious sexual sins, and frankly I cannot see much of a difference between the two.
This is not “thus saith the Lord…” (Revelation) It is “thus saith the Lawyer…” (Policy)
Minyan Man wrote:This is not “thus saith the Lord…” (Revelation)
It is “thus saith the Lawyer…” (Policy)
When apostles are lawyers, doctors, and businessmen…it can be the same thing. Seriously. For many many decades, that formula has benefited the church by organizing and providing structure and leadership to position to grow and spread the gospel across the world. It hasn’t always been a bad thing. In today’s world, there are needs the apostles are called to be stewards over.But sometimes, it feels too corporate and not enough gospel to me. I do not envy the choices they make to navigate through competing needs and taking the criticisms in the short run for things they believe are best for the long term.
blindsided wrote:Aren’t we just repeating history.
Good question. If we are…I hope we learn from it and fast forward to the moments when a prophet in 1890 and 1978 asked the Lord and received revelations to reverse prior church policy. I have faith we will, because it will be a no brainer.
History does seem to indicate Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother let the prophet come to them with the solution, and let’s us all work through it in the mean time. They don’t jump in and stop stuff from happening.
I feel they are watching my reaction to all of this. Regardless of who is right or wrong…how do I conduct myself at church, with my family, with the community as I stumble around trying to make sense of what the church is doing right now and how I align myself to it. I see through the glass darkly, and I stand up for my beliefs based on what I see, and maintain love wins in the end.
I do believe prior generations went through the same things, had their dissonance, and had their trials for which I do not wish for theirs. So…if history is repeating…we should all prepare for a slow change over a long time. That is what has happened before, right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.