Duty Bound to Reject It!

Public forum to discuss interesting and helpful books.
User avatar
hawkgrrrl
Site Admin
Posts: 3559
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 16:27

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by hawkgrrrl »

I've had the experience many times of talking with a friend or acquaintance and feeling prompted that this is a person who would make an excellent Mormon only to remember that, no, that wouldn't work at all because they are gay.

The church isn't afraid of weakness, but of alternate success. Gay families coming to church is something they find terrifying because they don't know what to do with gay people in the narrative on the family. And yet gay people continue to be born into Mormon families. I'm with OON that those are the children who are absolutely not being protected by this policy. Those and the straight children who don't believe in bullying or treating gay people with disdain. Millenials are leaving the church in droves, and this is the exact sort of thing that drives a wedge for them.

I'm heartsick about this policy.
Minyan Man
Posts: 2222
Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 13:40

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by Minyan Man »

hawkgrrl, I completely agree with what you said:
The church isn't afraid of weakness, but of alternate success. Gay families coming to church is something they find terrifying because they don't know what to do with gay people in the narrative on the family. And yet gay people continue to be born into Mormon families. I'm with OON that those are the children who are absolutely not being protected by this policy. Those and the straight children who don't believe in bullying or treating gay people with disdain. Millenials are leaving the church in droves, and this is the exact sort of thing that drives a wedge for them.
Has the church ever made a declaration or statement of their opposition? Other than "The Family Proclamation"?
For example, have they ever explained SS attraction?
Or, why it is wrong for two loving people of the same sex to raise children as a family?

(I'm 70 yrs old & have more questions today than I did 50 years ago.)
Since this policy went into effect, I wonder if the LGBT will return the donation that the church made back in July this year.
User avatar
DevilsAdvocate
Posts: 1392
Joined: 19 Feb 2010, 12:56
Location: Utah

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by DevilsAdvocate »

On Own Now wrote:The main reason I don't find "the children" to be a compelling counter argument is that the Church has already had an identical long-standing policy with regards to children of polygamous families. To me, that one makes perfect sense, and I support it whole-heatedly. From my perspective, there is a huge difference between polygamy and SSM, but I can understand from the believer's perspective that the difference would be much less obvious...The prohibition isn't targeted at kids, but at parents. When the Church draws the 'apostate' line in the sand, the prohibition on SSM families is a logical step, from their perspective, no matter how uncomfortable it is for you, me, and an awful lot of believers...For me, I've chosen to stay away from this particular "the children" argument. There is way too much subjectivity to make it effective for convincing anyone...If there is a "the children" argument I do make it's not about the children of SSM couples who want to be baptized, but rather about the orders-of-magnitude more numerous gay/lesbian children of standard Mormon families, who grow up to find that there is no room for them in the inn...
I disagree; to me it looks like "the children argument" is actually the primary reason why so many people, both TBMs and non-believers alike, were bothered so much by the policy. It bothered many TBMs precisely because of the same basic reasons DBMormon mentioned such as that it contradicts the basic doctrines of free agency, personal accountability, etc. and looks like the children are basically being punished because of their parents' "sins" that they didn't choose or have any control over and it bothered many non-believers because they thought the Church was trying to use children to get back at their gay parents out of spite, discriminating against them in an unfair way that is inconsistent with how everyone else is treated, etc. Personally I doubt this policy change would have gotten anywhere near the level of attention and public disapproval it did if it simply included the part about defining same-sex marriage/cohabitation as apostasy because people already know that the Church doesn't approve of homosexuality so that really wasn't really anything new or groundbreaking but targeting their children to single out and treat as a different class of people simply because of who their parents are was seen as shockingly inappropriate and a new low point to many people.
"Truth is what works." - William James
Rob4Hope
Posts: 665
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 07:28

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by Rob4Hope »

What role do potential law-suits play in this?...and at what magnitude?

When I first heard the policy, I thought that legal concerns were THE compelling reason, though I had no real proof of such -- only a hunch.

I had a problem with the idea of "protecting the children from confusion" carrying any weight at all. It made no sense. To me, I saw the possibility of gay parents suing the church for teaching their children, who were members, that they were living an "abomination". Consequently, the church had a compelling reason to make a policy that protected itself from problems that would get totally out of hand and bring in external rulings that would mess with "doctrine".

After all, wasn't the Proclamation a legal document?....driven by legal reasons primarily?

I've not heard much about this....but is it something like this ? (this is a SWAG)


Protect against law suits -- 75%
Whittle out fringe -- 5%
etc...
etc...
etc...
User avatar
DevilsAdvocate
Posts: 1392
Joined: 19 Feb 2010, 12:56
Location: Utah

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by DevilsAdvocate »

Rob4Hope wrote:What role do potential law-suits play in this?...and at what magnitude?...When I first heard the policy, I thought that legal concerns were THE compelling reason, though I had no real proof of such -- only a hunch...To me, I saw the possibility of gay parents suing the church for teaching their children, who were members, that they were living an "abomination". Consequently, the church had a compelling reason to make a policy that protected itself from problems that would get totally out of hand and bring in external rulings that would mess with "doctrine".
If protecting against potential legal liabilities was much of a factor at all then I think that would be more of a product of hyperactive paranoia of Church leaders where maybe they fear that things will supposedly get worse in the future and at some point many gays and lesbians will think they are entitled to get married in the temple and start to demand acceptance in the Church or that kind of thing rather than a case of the Church actually being in serious danger of losing lawsuits on a large scale at this point. If the Westboro Baptist Church can get away with preaching over-the-top hateful messages without getting shut down then I have a hard time believing that "freedom of religion" is really under siege and in serious danger of going away anytime soon in the US at least.

I also find it interesting that same-sex marriage was already legal in other countries and states for years but it was only after it became legal in Utah that this new policy was implemented. Personally I think the main factor was simply that Church leaders didn't like to see increasing acceptance of homosexuality by Church members and they thought that children raised in this environment as well other Church members that know homosexuals personally would be more likely to sympathize with them so they wanted to do even more to discourage them from associating with the Church than they already did to essentially try to protect the supposed purity of the traditional hard-line LDS doctrines and Church members' belief in these doctrines.
"Truth is what works." - William James
User avatar
Heber13
Site Admin
Posts: 7245
Joined: 22 Apr 2009, 16:37
Location: In the Middle

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by Heber13 »

DA: It sounds like you are saying the church is trying to draw a line in the sand to rein in the changes that are happening, moreso than actual motivation of lawsuits. Is that what you are saying?

Perhaps that is where revelation and wisdom is coming from. Perhaps it isn't the church being completely against LGBT relationships, but wants it so slow down from over compensating or swinging too far the wrong way? And by reining things in, it makes them look like they are against it...when what they are trying to say is "We don't know about this all yet, so we need to protect our rights to figure it out while we wait for revelation on it." Perhaps they just go slower than society, and want the freedom to go slow. Even if eventually, they will see there are little to no reasons to be afraid these changes will have any impact on the human family, children, or God's plan.

Is that possible?

It seemed to happen with ban on the priesthood. Too slow...far too long...and denounced all speculative teachings that surrounded it.
Luke: "Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father."
Obi-Wan: "Your father... was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."
Luke: "A certain point of view?"
Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to...depend greatly on our point of view."
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by DarkJedi »

Hawrkgrrrl wrote: The church isn't afraid of weakness, but of alternate success. Gay families coming to church is something they find terrifying because they don't know what to do with gay people in the narrative on the family. And yet gay people continue to be born into Mormon families. I'm with OON that those are the children who are absolutely not being protected by this policy. Those and the straight children who don't believe in bullying or treating gay people with disdain. Millenials are leaving the church in droves, and this is the exact sort of thing that drives a wedge for them.
I agree. The whole plan of happiness and the very idea that anyone not doing exactly what the church teaches as doctrine cannot be happy has a lot to do with this policy. Those of us who live outside the Corridor need only look around us to see that there are plenty of happy (and, yes, joyful) people who are members of other churches or no church at all. We do not have a monopoly on happiness. I believe the church is afraid that the general membership may recognize that and that the sinful gays can still find happiness in their relationships, marriage, and families. The thing that makes Mormon gays unhappy is how they are treated by the church.
DevilsAdvocate wrote: I also find it interesting that same-sex marriage was already legal in other countries and states for years but it was only after it became legal in Utah that this new policy was implemented. Personally I think the main factor was simply that Church leaders didn't like to see increasing acceptance of homosexuality by Church members and they thought that children raised in this environment as well other Church members that know homosexuals personally would be more likely to sympathize with them so they wanted to do even more to discourage them from associating with the Church than they already did to essentially try to protect the supposed purity of the traditional hard-line LDS doctrines and Church members' belief in these doctrines.
I find this interesting as well, but it's not the only issue they never became concerned about until it hit Utah. It bugs me, actually, because we are a world church, not a Utah church. I agree they are afraid of the acceptance of gays - and most of us know some, and most know of a gay person that grew up in our own ward. And it's not just Millennials.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction
User avatar
On Own Now
Posts: 1801
Joined: 18 Jan 2012, 12:45

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by On Own Now »

Roy wrote:I want to break our own rules when we might do so for the sake of compassion and mercy. I want policies that are flexible enough to take individual circumstances into account. I want people to matter more than policy.
Roy, I've been thinking about this a lot since you wrote it. I think this embodies exactly what I hope for. Thanks for stating it so clearly.
- - -
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ― Carl Jung
- - -
"Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another." ― Romans 14:13
- - -
User avatar
DevilsAdvocate
Posts: 1392
Joined: 19 Feb 2010, 12:56
Location: Utah

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by DevilsAdvocate »

Heber13 wrote:DA: It sounds like you are saying the church is trying to draw a line in the sand to rein in the changes that are happening, moreso than actual motivation of lawsuits. Is that what you are saying?...Perhaps that is where revelation and wisdom is coming from. Perhaps it isn't the church being completely against LGBT relationships, but wants it so slow down from over compensating or swinging too far the wrong way? And by reining things in, it makes them look like they are against it...when what they are trying to say is "We don't know about this all yet, so we need to protect our rights to figure it out while we wait for revelation on it." Perhaps they just go slower than society, and want the freedom to go slow. Even if eventually, they will see there are little to no reasons to be afraid these changes will have any impact on the human family, children, or God's plan....It seemed to happen with ban on the priesthood. Too slow...far too long...and denounced all speculative teachings that surrounded it.
I guess I would call it trying to quarantine the "problem" more than reining it in almost as if Church leaders think tolerance or acceptance of "sin" is an epidemic disease that is spreading even among active Church members. The way I see it most Church leaders absolutely are completely against LGBT relationships in a black-and-white way at this point but beyond that having heterosexual Church members ignore or disregard what the Church officially teaches about this and show some level of acceptance of the homosexual lifestyles of others is threatening to Church leaders as well because it basically means they are losing control of the narrative, beliefs, behavior, etc. of typical members and this trend is out of sync with what they think Mormonism is supposed to be about (strict obedience, prophets dictating what is true or right, keeping score on people's supposed level of righteousness or wickedness, etc.).
Last edited by DevilsAdvocate on 21 Nov 2015, 10:11, edited 2 times in total.
"Truth is what works." - William James
User avatar
DevilsAdvocate
Posts: 1392
Joined: 19 Feb 2010, 12:56
Location: Utah

Re: Duty Bound to Reject It!

Post by DevilsAdvocate »

DarkJedi wrote:
Hawrkgrrrl wrote: The church isn't afraid of weakness, but of alternate success. Gay families coming to church is something they find terrifying because they don't know what to do with gay people in the narrative on the family. And yet gay people continue to be born into Mormon families. I'm with OON that those are the children who are absolutely not being protected by this policy. Those and the straight children who don't believe in bullying or treating gay people with disdain. Millenials are leaving the church in droves, and this is the exact sort of thing that drives a wedge for them.
I agree. The whole plan of happiness and the very idea that anyone not doing exactly what the church teaches as doctrine cannot be happy has a lot to do with this policy. Those of us who live outside the Corridor need only look around us to see that there are plenty of happy (and, yes, joyful) people who are members of other churches or no church at all. We do not have a monopoly on happiness. I believe the church is afraid that the general membership may recognize that and that the sinful gays can still find happiness in their relationships, marriage, and families. The thing that makes Mormon gays unhappy is how they are treated by the church.
DBMormon wrote:This policy encourages promiscuous homosexual sex over committed legal loving homosexual relationships.

The message the policy gives directly is that the worst possible legal consenting relationship dynamic you can be in is a homosexual marriage or long-term cohabitation. That this is the most highly punishable sin you can commit in these terms and is now labelled “apostasy,” triggering a required church disciplinary court. What message does this give to homosexual church members? Homosexual acts are, by contrast, labelled a “greivous sin.” Common sense says that even if homosexuality is against God’s law that we as a church would prefer to encourage legal loving committed relationships rather than an unsafe, promiscuous lifestyle, and yet this policy does the opposite by placing harsher penalties on commitment than on promiscuity.
This is another interesting inconsistency about the policy that seems like it hasn't gotten quite as much attention as some of the others so far. Basically it is treating committed long-term same-sex relationships as if they are worse and more of a serious problem than promiscuous gay sex. I think it shows that Church leaders feel especially threatened by the idea that homosexuals can actually have legitimate and respectable families just like everyone else and openly live this way instead of staying in the closet and feeling ashamed of who they are and afraid of what other people will think about it so Church leaders are basically making the explicit point that they don't recognize these relationships as legitimate even if many people in the rest of the world are already starting to now more than ever.
"Truth is what works." - William James
Post Reply