Taking the good, leaving the bad.

[Emower]

It's not about the kids being denied baptism because if it were, they would've left long before when they discovered children of polygamist families could not be baptized - which policy is old news and nobody showed a problem with that. And essentially it's the same thing.

What percentage of members actually knew about the policy regarding children of polygamists? It's only published in Handbook 1, and not available to the general membership. Personally, I was unaware of the "Children of polygamists hate policy" before the "November children of homosexuals hate policy" was leaked. I felt the same way about the polygamist hate policy as I did about the "new" homosexual hate policy. Hate is hate, no matter who it is directed at. Putting a target on the back of any minority group is wrong.

I'd personally wager that the majority of folks were unaware of the polygamist hate policy before the homosexual hate policy was leaked.

I was unaware of that as well. And it didn't sit any better for me. Although I was farther removed from polygamists then I am from lgbt folks. I don't know that many polygamists, but I do know a lot of lgbt people.

[Newme]

It's not about the kids being denied baptism because if it were, they would've left long before when they discovered children of polygamist families could not be baptized - which policy is old news and nobody showed a problem with that. And essentially it's the same thing.

What percentage of members actually knew about the policy regarding children of polygamists? It's only published in Handbook 1, and not available to the general membership. Personally, I was unaware of the "Children of polygamists hate policy" before the "November children of homosexuals hate policy" was leaked. I felt the same way about the polygamist hate policy as I did about the "new" homosexual hate policy. Hate is hate, no matter who it is directed at. Putting a target on the back of any minority group is wrong.

I'd personally wager that the majority of folks were unaware of the polygamist hate policy before the homosexual hate policy was leaked.

I'd agree with your wager and that's my point. Who is actually THINKING? Who is actually looking into facts themselves rather than following the herd? Who has researched the effects of children being raised by homosexual parents before jumping to cognitively distorted conclusions?? Why persist in cherry picking facts, leaving behind inconvenient ones, just as church leaders do? To be liked, to avoid being called a "hater" just for acknowledging socially unacceptable FACTS.

"Insanity in individuals is rare; insanity in groups is the norm."

[wtfluff]

I'd agree with your wager and that's my point. Who is actually THINKING? Who is actually looking into facts themselves rather than following the herd? Who has researched the effects of children being raised by homosexual parents before jumping to cognitively distorted conclusions?? Who doesn't STILL cherry pick facts, leaving behind inconvenient ones, just as church leaders do?

"Insanity in individuals is rare; insanity in groups is the norm."

How can one THINK about the damage that a hateful policy does to people, if they are not even aware of the policy?

The topic of this thread is the good vs. the bad in the church, not homosexuality. We already know from past experience where that discussion will lead. Can we stick to the topic of the thread before it completely goes south?


The hateful policies regarding withholding "saving ordinances" from children that the church hides in Handbook 1 are two very bad things related to the church. People kill themselves over those policies. Those policies are two very heavy weights that shift my own opinion to the side of saying that the church is a net negative on society.

[alas]

If I support an organization that does a whole lot of bad, and a tiny bit of good, is it OK ignore the "bad" that the organization does, and support the "good"?

It's more complicated then that for me. Some may view the church as evil, quite simply, I don't.

I don't want to put words in wtfluff's mouth but I didn't read the original question as asking whether the church could be considered good or evil. I took it to ask people at what point they decide to cut off their support.

E.g.
If you believe the church is 10% bad and 90% good.
If you believe the church is 25% bad and 75% good.
If you believe the church is 49% bad and 51% good.
If you believe the church is 50% bad and 50% good.
If you believe the church is 51% bad and 50% good.
If you believe the church is 75% bad and 25% good.
If you believe the church is 90% bad and 10% good.
etc.

"Good" and "bad" are entirely subjective and everyone has a line. Someone that believes the church does 90% bad may wonder why someone else stays. Maybe because the person that stays is in the 10% bad camp.

I agree, it is complicated. How many of you are willing to give up your U.S. citizenship after many unfortunate incidents in U.S. history? Every four years we get people insisting that they are leaving the country because some disagreeable person won the U.S. presidency. Very few people actually do leave. Let's be clear that I am deeply happy and grateful to have been born as a U.S. citizen and I have no interest in changing to some other more "enlightened" country. For one thing, which country is objectively best that all good people should emigrate into?

It's even more complicated than countries. In the USA there are elections. People get a say in who runs the show. In the USA the democrats held the presidency, the house, and the senate in 2009 and in 2017 the republicans hold the presidency, the house, and the senate. Church would be wild if every decade or so one faction got their way while the other faction was told to pound sand - only to have the roles reversed every so often.

And things can get bad enough in a country to make people leave (wars, economics, etc.). Usually it's something drastic because leaving it all behind isn't easy. It's far easier to wait until the next election and hope your side wins so it can tell the other side to pound sand.

I don't view the church as evil either but I think the question was more, where's the line where people decide to drop their support for the church? I know many that bailed after the November policy. It wasn't the policy itself, the policy played more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" role.

I can't fix the historical challenges of the LDS church, the United States, or humanity in general.

Is it the history or the perceived future that causes people to leave? For instance, someone might believe the church will change but they may also believe that by the time it changes to something palatable they'll be long since dead. Maybe all the history does is shake people up enough to get them to perform a cost/benefit evaluation of imagined future experiences.

I decided that the church is bad enough that I can no longer support it. I can't really give a percentage, but for me, one LGBT kid committing suicide tips the scales into it is bad enough that I can't support it.

For some 30 years I was a non believer who was mostly fully active, temple recommend and all. That was when I thought there was enough good to support the church and raise my children in it. Then my daughter came out gay, and I saw how much emotional damage was done ther and her partner. I saw the partner's parents refuse to allow my daughter to even visit, because the church said that was how it was supposed to be when you had gay kids. Not only is the church emotionally damaging to gays, but I saw how the church emotionally abuses people by having standards that are unattainable. No matter how much you are doing, it is never good enough. Paying ten percent of gross come is not good enough and you have fast offerings and fundraisers on top of that and when ever I had a calling, I was putting in my own money for things to make primary more fun, or to have a decent RS dinner. The ward budget never covered things so that they could be nice, because 90% of tithing goes to SLC to build malls....um, I mean so they can put it in the bank and save for a rainy day, while they use the interest on that money for malls.

So, when I added up that women are second class, that gays are despised, that your best is never good enough, and how the church claims to not condone abuse, then ACTS in ways that do condone abuse, how long the church continued to be racist, I had to ask myself if I could support a homophobic, sexist, racist, stuck in the 1950s, money grubbing corporation? And the answer was no. It isn't that I do not see good in the church, it is just that in my own life, the church does more harm than good.

[Newme]

I'd agree with your wager and that's my point. Who is actually THINKING? Who is actually looking into facts themselves rather than following the herd? Who has researched the effects of children being raised by homosexual parents before jumping to cognitively distorted conclusions?? Who doesn't STILL cherry pick facts, leaving behind inconvenient ones, just as church leaders do?

"Insanity in individuals is rare; insanity in groups is the norm."

How can one THINK about the damage that a hateful policy does to people, if they are not even aware of the policy?

The topic of this thread is the good vs. the bad in the church, not homosexuality. We already know from past experience where that discussion will lead. Can we stick to the topic of the thread before it completely goes south?


The hateful policies regarding withholding "saving ordinances" from children that the church hides in Handbook 1 are two very bad things related to the church. People kill themselves over those policies. Those policies are two very heavy weights that shift my own opinion to the side of saying that the church is a net negative on society.

The church has many aspects (particularly financial & logical fallacies) which I deem to be bad, but supporting and believing in families is not something I consider bad. Why would people who are in homosexual relationships want to attend a church which is so pro-family & heterosexual marriage? I don't believe that people who are suicidal are mentally healthy - and do not blame a group entirely for such mental illness. No doubt church teaches logical fallacies (cognitive distortions) which can contribute to mental issues. But ultimately, suicide is an indication of much more baggage than the church (ie abuse/trauma from childhood & consequent issues).

People getting so pissed about a group believing what they do to call them "haters" simply for defending heterosexual marriage, is ridiculous. Illogical hypocritical herd mentality. It's as if someone wanting to give up US citizenship because homosexual parades are allowed in the US. People parading in parades believe as they do - who am
I to call them haters for not believing as I do and for not including heterosexuals in their parades?

[Jinx]

The church has been harmful to me. I spent decades not believing in my ability to make my own decisions because I was taught that only men could do that. I spent decades judging others who were living normal lives because they were doing things that I was taught were evil. I spent decades thinking that I was evil because I couldn't force my square peg into their round hole.

It has been harmful to me for decades. I am now starting to live my own confident life without it. The good is not good enough to make me stay.

[Fifi de la Vergne]

But ultimately, suicide is an indication of much more baggage than the church (ie abuse/trauma from childhood & consequent issues).

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. You have Alas, the mother of a gay child, testifying to the damage that the church has done to her gay child. There are are several parents of gay children on this board, and any of them could provide relevant information and knowledge about the gay experience as LDS that is woth more than your opinions.

Also, I am the mother of a young man who died of suicide. Obviously, he was not mentally healthy. But he was not abused or traumatized as a child. You are opining with limited and/or incorrect information.

I apologize for adding to the derailment of this thread and for my tone, but you are really pushing my buttons.

[wtfluff]

Why would people who are in homosexual relationships want to attend a church which is so pro-family & heterosexual marriage?

And, once again, you've turned the entire thread around to your agenda against homosexuals.

I typed up a long response, but honestly, it's not worth it. I'll just agree with Fifi. You've obviously never been close to anyone who is homosexual, or dealt with the suicide of someone important to you. When people like that become actual human beings to you, and not just statistics, maybe your views will change...

And back on topic: Once again, my opinion is that the good that the LDS Corporation does, doesn't outweigh the bad that the LDS Corporation does.


P.S. / Edit: Oh My Goodness! Heterosexual MORMONS "parading" with gay people in "their parade".

[Newme]

And, once again, you've turned the entire thread around to your agenda against homosexuals.

I typed up a long response, but honestly, it's not worth it. I'll just agree with Fifi. You've obviously never been close to anyone who is homosexual, or dealt with the suicide of someone important to you. When people like that become actual human beings to you, and not just statistics, maybe your views will change...

And back on topic: Once again, my opinion is that the good that the LDS Corporation does, doesn't outweigh the bad that the LDS Corporation does.

P.S. / Edit: Oh My Goodness! Heterosexual MORMONS "parading" with gay people in "their parade".

My "agenda"?? WTF? A little projection?
You're wrong about your condemnations of me - I have been close to people who have homosexual preferences. But I don't need to prove that to you. You have already jumped to conclusions about me and others simply because we don't deny inconvenient facts like you do.

Homosexual parade would not allow heterosexuals in support of heterosexual marriage in parades. They only allow people who support their beliefs.
You only support and respect people who support your beliefs. The rest you call "haters." It's like TBMs calling anyone who apostasizes evil.
TBMs deny inconvenient facts - they base their thinking on EMOTIONAL reasoning (logical fallacy), like you're doing. No facts - just BS trying to persuade with emotional BS. And then you call me a hater - another logical fallacy (ad hominem attack).

[wtfluff]

My "agenda"?? WTF? A little projection?
You're wrong about your condemnations of me - I have been close to people who have homosexual preferences. But I don't need to prove that to you. You have already jumped to conclusions about me and others simply because we don't deny inconvenient facts like you do.

Homosexual parade would not allow heterosexuals in support of heterosexual marriage in parades. They only allow people who support their beliefs.
You only support and respect people who support your beliefs. The rest you call "haters." It's like TBMs calling anyone who apostasizes evil.
TBMs deny inconvenient facts - they base their thinking on EMOTIONAL reasoning (logical fallacy), like you're doing. No facts - just BS trying to persuade with emotional BS. And then you call me a hater - another logical fallacy (ad hominem attack).

Ha! Jumping to conclusions? Logical fallacies? And you referring to everyone who doesn't have your opinion as part of a "herd" is not an ad homminem attack, now is it?

No need to reply, I know I'm wrong... Again!


Edit: Sorry mods. I don't want to get the thread closed, so... I'm Out! (I will use all my might, mind and strength to resist posting here again.)

[ulmite]

If you believe the church is 51% bad and 50% good

then you are wrong. Mathematically speaking.

For much the same reasons as alas, I will not pay one cent to the Church until it fixes the horrible way it treats oh, over 52% of its members, very cautiously assuming perfect gender parity and 4% of all males being homosexual.

However, I recognize that the Church works for a lot of people, and it still works enough for me to be happy going the middle way. Abnormally high self-confidence and not really caring what other people think unless they are right make it possible for me to stick around and try to change from within on a local level.

[Emower]

It really comes back to what you are able to do. I am not able, due to family pressures, to step completely away. It's not practical/feasible to withdraw all my support without causing hell. But I also don't like the "middle way" either. It's just not who I am. So I have begun taking only the stuff that makes me feel good, and leaving the crap behind. I don't feel like I am utilizing a middle way, I feel like a drunk guy on a donkey weaving in and out of the mess that is the church.

I suppose I am just repeating myself, and not really answering what the fluff's and nibbler's questions were. So to you guys I suppose I would ask is it a moral imperative to not support something that has objectionable content? You ask where does one draw the line, and I suppose my answer is you draw it about one inch in front of where you are walking. That's about the best I can do... I am not thinking about the church specifically here, organizations that cause physical harm should probably be held to a different standard.

I read an interesting article today about filtering movies. Aside from the usual objections to films being art and how we shouldn't censor art, the article talked about people just turning off everything objectionable and how this leads to polarization in society. It leads to polarization because people wI'll not adopt a "live and let live" attitude. They want everything their way, and they want it now. It was interesting to think of the implications.

[Newme]

Ha! Jumping to conclusions? Logical fallacies? And you referring to everyone who doesn't have your opinion as part of a "herd" is not an ad homminem attack, now is it?

No, I never stated that. Again, you're engaging in logical fallacy. It's impossible to reasonably discuss when logical fallacies are blindly embraced as part of thinking.

Bottom line in regard to why I bring this up (besides that people keep bringing it up as if to say, "see? I support this, so like me."):
To me, this homosexual BS is an indicator of how much someone either prioritizes the truth & thinks for themselves, or has continued blindly believing what others are - without understanding facts on both sides of the issue. It's a way to see what you guys prioritize.

Often, I've thought and dreamt that of all people - the ones I'd have the best chance of having good friendships with would be NOM types. They'd understand where I'm coming from more than any other group. Even though I've been discouraged many times, I do believe that some have the courage and integrity to think things through rather than accept BS - even if doing so will make them less popular to anonymous strangers on a forum.

[nibbler]

If you believe the church is 51% bad and 50% good

then you are wrong. Mathematically speaking.

Copy/paste typo... or intentionally trying to add some paradox. Take your pick.