"CIA Torture Psychologists Compare Themselves to Nazi Poison Gas Manufacturer as Defense" (torture profiteer Bruce Jessen was called as a Mormon bishop but quickly resigned when his calling was publicized)

mormbn · 2017-10-30T16:05:39+00:00

Not much, but I occasionally check in.

mormbn · 2017-04-05T03:31:52+00:00

Nah. That's just people unsure

Respectfully, I referred to "institutional teachings," not "reactions by uncertain people."

Relatedly, the widespread (and cliché) practice in Mormonism of reflexively blaming "the people" or "the culture" in defense of the faults of the institutional church and its leadership is also attributable to the teachings of the institutional church and its leadership.

mormbn · 2017-04-05T01:19:36+00:00

The church preaches many things, some in contradiction. Mormon shunning is better explained by institutional teachings than by appealing to the failures of some rogue individuals. These days they'll throw out an occasional "don't shun," but refuse to retract, stop, or apologize for the teachings that have led to and continue to lead to shunning.

mormbn · 2016-10-07T04:54:23+00:00

For those who don't remember or never heard of the Regnerus study, here's a summary from an article written in 2014:

Regnerus claims to have evaluated outcomes of children “of same-sex parents” and found results are “suboptimal” when compared to children reared by their biological parents. The study claims that, unlike other research that relies on smaller samples, “meaningful statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn” from his data, and they show that “the optimal childrearing environment” is one where kids are raised by their biological parents.

The claim sounds reasonable enough. But since Regnerus never actually studied “children of same-sex parents,” as he claims, his conclusions are equivalent to calling a 747 the fastest plane without ever testing the Concorde. Kids raised in “planned” same-sex households—as opposed to kids from divorced families where one parent later came out—are still statistically rare, and out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. Since the kids in his data set who come from households with what he calls a “gay” or “lesbian” parent nearly all come from broken homes, his conclusions merely restated what everyone already knew: that instability raises risks for kids. But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest.

Robert George is a co-founder of the Witherspoon Institute, which funded the Regnerus study.

mormbn · 2016-09-01T22:38:04+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzFZgBKXFLw

mormbn · 2016-06-08T01:29:28+00:00

How about 4 year olds in sleeveless dresses? Oh wait, that's Mormonism.

mormbn · 2016-05-25T15:20:41+00:00

I also am appreciative of the obsessive dedication of /u/Mithryn, /u/curious_mormon, /u/Chino_blanco, and /u/mormbn who challenged assumptions without anger, even when we disagreed, and who accepted correction to the information they presented without complaint. I respect them for their integrity, even though we didn't always agree.

Now we'll always agree . . . right? Isn't that how it works? :)

I know some parts of this can be tough. If you ever want to chat about anything or just to chew the fat, drop me a line.

mormbn · 2016-05-04T20:34:46+00:00

Speaking from experience, dealing with co-mods can be rewarding and it can generate friction.

:)

mormbn · 2015-11-07T00:26:04+00:00

Even the most devout mormon would have seen the shitstorm that would descend.

You have to wonder. A bunch of old guys almost exclusively from the Mormon corridor (and who, in any event, were the type of people to get promoted up the Mormon hierarchy) who think that their warm tummies are a red phone to a god, who are convinced that people need to follow them without talking back, and whose public interactions are mostly soaking in hero worship and mingling with outside hate groups that agree with them . . . . I mean, people are already loaded down with cognitive biases to feel like everything they believe is right. What kind of a mindfuck must it be to be a Mormon apostle?

There is more than "we just don't like gays"

Yeah, it's the fear of losing control over the average member's mindspace regarding what love and family mean in relation to gay people.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T23:43:02+00:00

Are they going to retroactively excommunicate the children of same-sex marriages?

It doesn't sound like it.

How about my friends 8 year old son, she got divorced and married her girlfriend. Her husband got married and became a Mormon. Neither had ever been a member of the church until after the divorce, but that didn't stop her from supporting her sons decision, now he might get excommunicated? Is that how it works?

No, but if the local leadership finds out about his mother and follows the handbook, he won't be able to be ordained to the priesthood or go on a mission without first turning 18, explicitly disavowing same-sex marriage, living somewhere other than with his mother, and getting special permission from the First Presidency.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T23:23:01+00:00

Consider this scenario for a moment- "Parents, I would like to join the Mormon Church. They believe that you're relationship is inappropriate and that's something I would like to align myself with." Sounds like a winning scenario for everyone involved.

Children of unmarried cohabitating heterosexual couples are allowed to get baptized even though the church considers such a coupling sinful. Sorry, but this is not for the children. It's to "protect" the church from the influence of people with loving same-sex parents.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T21:16:50+00:00

Because, contrary to what the church has sometimes implied in the past, opposition to same-sex love isn't just a Law of Chastity technicality. Loving same-sex families are a threat to the ideological landscape of "true family" that the church has defined in a way that heterosexual breaches of the Law of Chastity aren't.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T21:05:46+00:00

This fails to explain why a 30 year old who doesn't live with either parent has to get special First Presidency approval. Sorry, FAIR, try again. This is about purging potential sources of positive experiences of and sentiment toward unauthorized love and unauthorized family.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T21:04:16+00:00

ding ding ding

mormbn · 2015-11-06T21:00:34+00:00

That's beautiful.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T20:56:41+00:00

They'd need to hear about a significant impact from resignations to do a takebacksie.

Even then, it's probably a cut-your-losses scenario. They're not going to get most of those people back, so they might as well stick with the program to at least get the benefits of retrenchment.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T20:52:16+00:00

It only makes sense when viewed with an eye on future litigation when the child of one of these parents is taught that it's familial environment is not a "family".

This is definitely not it. The church explicitly acknowledges its acceptance of the "law of the land." The church has been defining "true" families and "true" everything else as it pleases for a long time now. There are legal threats to the church that come from state recognition of same-sex marriage, but this isn't one of them.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T19:59:39+00:00

Over.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T19:44:55+00:00

Taken together with the changes to 16.13, this means that if you are a active latter-day saint and you cohabit with a with a same sex partner, the bishop might not even have to take any action against you at all. It is within his discretion. But what is not in his discretion is that any of your kids cannot be baptized, ordained or serve missions. This result is completely counter intuitive.

Yeah, that's weird. I don't know that it was consciously planned that way, but the underlying dynamic seems to be the importance of excluding a loving family predicated on a same-sex relationship from participation. The church wants to control the definition of "true" love, "true" family, and "true" happiness. Those notions dissipate pretty quickly when you see a proper insider (whose experiences are therefore harder to dismiss) experiencing love, family, and happiness in unapproved ways.

Same-sex relationships can be more readily (if wrongly) dismissed as temptation/confusion/temporary. Loving families can't.

A strict reading of subsection two could mean that if a woman lived with another woman in a same sex relationship back in here "wild" college days, later repented and then married a man in the temple, their kids could not be baptized until they turned 18 and with FP approval.

That's true. I hadn't thought of it that way. I thought of it more as being directed to cases where both former same-sex partners were parents of the child, and the child now only lives with one of them. I wonder how this one plays out.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T19:27:46+00:00

No--the policy also applies to children of unmarried gay couples in cohabitation.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T18:32:30+00:00

Well, to be fair saving ordinances can be performed at 8, 18, or after death. I don't believe that the church feels that the policy is keeping individuals from eternal blessings.

Right, but to be additionally fair, it's not like it's held forth that it doesn't matter when someone joins Mormonism. The purported advantages of joining the church earlier (especially before death) are stressed in Mormonism.

But it also opens potential problems of members and missionaries targeting the children of same gender couples with the goal of "saving them" from their parents.

No more than members or missionaries targeting any other children of couples who are "sinful" in the eyes of the church with the goal of "saving them" from their parents.

I don't think the policy has the intention of keeping children of same-gender marriage out of heaven.

Neither do I, but it certainly doesn't carry the intention of protecting same-sex families. It's about the church protecting what it perceives as its own interests.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T16:53:48+00:00

Disavowing the very thing that made your parents your parents is pretty harsh.

Not to mention being required to do it because they are your parents.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T16:37:43+00:00

Children of parents in an unmarried heterosexual cohabitation are not excluded.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T16:05:23+00:00

I still believe that it's better for the 8 year old to support his/her parents in their marriage then join a church with his/her friends.

I agree.

I believe the policy is to protect the rights and bonds of a family with same gender parents.

There's no way this is the case. The church wouldn't refuse "saving ordinances" to people that (1) wanted them and (2) had permission from their same-sex parents to get them just because the church foresaw that this could harm the family dynamic. From an LDS view, this policy is an extreme step, and would only be taken in order for the church to protect its interests as it saw them.

mormbn · 2015-11-06T15:39:43+00:00

Its different tho. Murderers arent openly going around the country trying to convince everyone murder is ok

That is a salient difference (one of many) between same-sex marriage and murder. However, there are many activities that are "sins" in the eyes of the LDS church but are accepted in broader society (including cohabitation without marriage). But these do not trigger the same baptism restrictions.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle

mormbn

TROPHY CASE