The new policy. Why and why not?

[Anonymous]

I have been discussing this topic with some other church people and it’s interesting to see why people agree/disagree with the policy.

I publicly made a post on Facebook saying I didn’t agree with the new policy and the thread exploded (in a pretty constructive way for the most part)

I know most people here, like me, don’t support the policy and I’m really interested in knowing exactly why you don’t support it or why you do support it.

The only “ok” reason I have heard is this:

A kid grows up and it’s parents split up. One of them is homosexual. The other is a member of the church (yes I know you can still be homosexual and a member:))

The gay parent gets custody over the child because most of the time, a church that is against gay marriage is frowned upon so the custody goes to the gay parent.

This is just one example though. You don’t have to comment on this only. All your thoughts on why vs why not are welcome!

Thanks a lot:)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

There could be a number of reasons. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the church has been forthcoming about the reasons … thus leading to speculation.

I believe part of it might have to do with fear that BYU could lose tax exempt status. In the 70’s a number of religious schools were threatened with loss of tax exempt status/loss of federal student loans and other student funding over their segregationist policies. Given the church’s history with the government (The government was confiscating church assets over polygamy), perhaps the church is a little paranoid.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/07/02/tax-exemption-post-obergefell/

https://ldsmag.com/schools-fear-gay-marriage-ruling-could-end-tax-exemptions/

http://www.lds-mormon.com/taxes_priesthood.shtml

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/09/26/the-church-and-the-irs/

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/05/20/obergefell-and-byus-tax-exemption/

This helps explain the apostasy part. There was a question in the court proceedings about if schools that provide married student housing would be forced to accommodate gay married couples. This helps clarify and strengthen the position of BYU administrators should they run across that problem.

It has also been theorized that an individual in a gay marriage might sue the church for parental estrangement by teaching the child that the parents behavior is against God.

But… once again we are left to speculate. I wonder if the church would rather have random speculation from members that it can later disavow rather than going on record as to the true purposes of the policy.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

But… once again we are left to speculate. I wonder if the church would rather have random speculation from members that it can later disavow rather than going on record as to the true purposes of the policy.

Very possible. Even the essays are not signed and are released and revised without any notification. This allows the leadership to say they told someone something without being nailed down forever and being quoted 150 years from now.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the reasons Roy gave. So often there are are legal reasons for policies that do not make sense. For example, at the school where I work, there was a sudden policy that vendors were not allowed on campus….credit cards, school rings, book sellers. It made no sense. Then I learned that the corporate lawyers were concerned about a union soliciting employees to form a union at the school. One way to discourage unions from forming is to impose a non solicitation policy for EVERYONE. That way the school would not be called out for blocking the union….rather than appearing to discriminate against unions, the school would say they were simply applying their no solicitation policy to everyone. So, it would be interesting to see what legal considerations are influencing the policies toward children of gay parents. Aso, I wonder if they are trying to stem the tide of gay sympathy from permeating the church. For example, children of gay parents are likely to be sympathizers. Would denying such baptism of children of gay parents provide a means of lessening gay influence in the church and at its universities? Children of gay parents would likely feel ostracized and not participate. It sounds cruel but the church has other policies that can seem cruel.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I’ve been swept up in the “tide of gay sympathy.” At least that’s what it looks like to my husband and others. But in reality I’ve been swimming for decades against the current of my own instinct to love, accept, and “do unto others.” I just got tired of it.

Bear, since you bravely started a conversation out in the open – and it seems to be going well – I hope you’ll keep it going. I’d be very interested to hear how people interact.

[Anonymous]

Yet another funny from Kirby

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3288402-155/kirby-a-gay-man-walks-into” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.sltrib.com/news/3288402-155/kirby-a-gay-man-walks-into

Quote:

when it comes to church stuff, my one job is to make sure I treat everyone there with respect and acceptance.

Since I’m already doing that for assorted tea partiers, doctrine disciples, gospel Nazis, the Mormon Mujahedeen and the like, how difficult could it be to do the same for gay people?

[Anonymous]

My own view was in a post I did before the policy change that unfortunately appears to be prophetic. I was speculating what the church could actually do to reverse the tide of support for gay marriage that is prevalent among younger generations. I posited that the only thing it could do is create a complete bubble in which they don’t interact with any gay people ever. This policy effectively does that to the extent the church can, with two notable exceptions (which is why it will fail):

1 – gay people continue to be born into the church.

2 – very few Mormon families home school, and their kids will continue to befriend gay people at school and see how unjustly they are treated. They will side with their gay friends because it’s wrong not to treat them well.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/09/12/manufactured-prejudice/

What I see as prejudice the brethren see as doctrinal purity. What they see as choice, I see as innate.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

1 – gay people continue to be born into the church.

2 – very few Mormon families home school, and their kids will continue to befriend gay people at school and see how unjustly they are treated. They will side with their gay friends because it’s wrong not to treat them well.

This, or will kids side with the church because they want to be in the mainstream of the church, want to be that obedient kid in seminary, the one leaders and teachers have a high opinion of, because they need that ecclesiastical endorsement, want to serve a mission as a rite of passage into Mormon adulthood, etc. I know my stake wants these other concerns to win out, and they have some events in planning.

I hope we can quickly recognize that the church is in deep trouble if this becomes an obsessive, pitched battle.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

1 – gay people continue to be born into the church.2 – very few Mormon families home school, and their kids will continue to befriend gay people at school and see how unjustly they are treated. They will side with their gay friends because it’s wrong not to treat them well.

I seem to remember the FLDS pulling their children out of public schools because they did not agree with the secular education values. I wonder what happens to gay individuals born within the FLDS church. I imagine that they are either sent away to become lost boys in the case of young men or married young to controlling older men in the case of young women.

I agree with HG’s premise that the mainstream LDS church will not go to such totalitarian extremes.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I’ve been swept up in the “tide of gay sympathy.” At least that’s what it looks like to my husband and others. But in reality I’ve been swimming for decades against the current of my own instinct to love, accept, and “do unto others.” I just got tired of it.

Bear, since you bravely started a conversation out in the open – and it seems to be going well – I hope you’ll keep it going. I’d be very interested to hear how people interact.

Well it died out after a couple of days after the policy was leaked.

And it’s all in Danish so a link wouldn’t do you any good:)

It had pretty much all sides.

Some very negative people. Some in between (me being one of them. Although I was VERY upset and angry because of the policy) and the normal churchy “everything is inspired by God!” People.

I basically gave the reasons why I had to publicly distance myself from the policy and people discussed back and forth.

I felt kind of empowered because I spoke up. I NEVER ever do any religious posts. Even people from work liked some of my posts and I’m very private about my beliefs. (Religion is often a personal matter in Denmark).

I got one mail though. From one of the the higher ranks in the church saying some things that weren’t down right bad or anything but still made me feel very bad. He said that I have to make sure that my little brother (who is in the pre missionary age and getting ready) shouldn’t have to choose between me and Thomas s monson. In my book that is a pretty narrow minded view but we are all entitled to our opinions. I send him a very loving and understanding mail back and we ended on a good note. My little brother on the other hand was kind of offended that people didn’t think he could make his own choices.

I was kind of shocked, realizing how much other church people’s opinions of me, mattered to me. Didn’t think it would make such a deep impact but I was a nervous wreck for a couple of days because of showing my true colors and getting som negative (and positive) feedback.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Bear wrote:

I felt kind of empowered because I spoke up.

I agree.

Quote:

I got one mail though. From one of the the higher ranks in the church saying some things that weren’t down right bad or anything but still made me feel very bad. He said that I have to make sure that my little brother (who is in the pre missionary age and getting ready) shouldn’t have to choose between me and Thomas s monson. In my book that is a pretty narrow minded view but we are all entitled to our opinions. I send him a very loving and understanding mail back and we ended on a good note. My little brother on the other hand was kind of offended that people didn’t think he could make his own choices.

I was kind of shocked, realizing how much other church people’s opinions of me, mattered to me. Didn’t think it would make such a deep impact but I was a nervous wreck for a couple of days because of showing my true colors and getting som negative (and positive) feedback.

I’m sorry for the stress, but it sounds like you handled things well. I’m not sure exactly what the brother in your ward was driving at, and I hope he doesn’t mean it in the somewhat threatening way it could be taken. And what I mean by that, is that I hope the church doesn’t make this a loyalty test. I do respect President Monson and the others. But I just listened to a podcast with Richard Bushman, and he said, “You can never abandon your own conscience.” No one at life’s end will fret about whether they loved Thomas S. Monson enough. (And I’m not saying that President Monson is saying they should.) They will be reviewing their lives and hoping that they loved their family and fellow man enough. They’ll be wondering if they knew and loved God. The prophet can help me do those things, but he is not “the thing” itself.

[Anonymous]

Thanks:)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Author]

Posts