The LDS Child Shunning Gambit - Debunking Mormon Propaganda

As you may have heard, the LDS church decided to ratchet up it's hatred of "homosexuals" to a whole new level. This time, the "family friendly" church has decided to target the children of LGBT people. But don't worry, their propaganda machine is already hard at work justifying this travesty. Here is a link to the propaganda:

Mormon Propaganda
*Please note: I'm linking to the Internet Archive version of this lds.net story, just in case the propagandists ever decide to delete this story, or change it (as they did with the 4 very different versions of the "First Vision" (which aren't a "consistent story" as the apologists claim).

I'm going to try to be as gentle as possible, even though I am disgusted (though not surprised) by this new development. Believing Mormons, please understand that my criticisms are for the church alone, and not an attack on you personally. I realize for those living in a tight-knit Mormon community, this concept of "criticize the church but love the human beings who are members" may seem very confusing. Just remember how you managed to "hate the sin but love the sinner" for LGBT people. Maybe that's a bad example, considering how many of you voted to strip us of basic legal protections. You'll just have to trust me: Outside Deseret, the concept of loving a person despite their associations is VERY COMMON. Just think of your closest Catholic friend, and consider your criticisms of the Catholic church. If you felt compelled to voice those criticisms publicly because they were doing something you perceived as harmful to children, would you hope that Catholics could distinguish between criticism of the church and criticism of them as individuals?

On with the debunking: Please note, the "myths" below are from the apologist article linked above. This post is a refutation of his refutation.

Myth 1: These Changes Punish Children
The author claims that there is no punishment in these changes, only a requirement that children of LGBT parents wait until they are 18 to join the church. All other children are allowed to be baptized at 8 (10 years earlier), provided BOTH parents give their approval. The author admits to this approval requirement in the propaganda piece directly, and my own experience joining the church corroborates this policy. The author (who never gives his name), continues to add a legal dimension by claiming fear of "custodial interference".

Debunking Myth 1:
The "this is not a punishment" argument is basically an question of semantics. Let's set aside the punishment question for a moment and focus on parental approval and "custodial interference". If the church is really sticking to it's "both parents must approve" policy, the "custodial interference" question is not an issue. No judge is going to charge a parent with "custodial interference" if there is written approval from the other parent giving permission to join. If the church is truly concerned about this, they should probably keep the written permission in one of their massive record vaults for safe keeping.
The "author" closes this first myth by saying that all children are welcome at all church activities, including primary and sacrament meeting. Sure. But he's forgetting about the priesthood and the sacrament itself. For believing mormons, the sacrament and priesthood (for boys) are vital. Boys generally receive the lesser (Aaronic priesthood) at age 12. At 14 boys can bless the sacrament and do home-teaching. At 16, boys can also baptize and ordain others to lesser callings. I'm really not sure what girls do in their meetings. If my sitting in on Relief Society meetings was any indication, there would be a ton of talk of obedience, chastity, and modesty.
Now, back to the semantics of "punishment". It isn't a punishment aimed at the children. It is another attempt by the church to use their social control and peer pressure to marginalize LGBT people. They've figured out a way to get some kids to shun their parents in order to assimilate into the dominant culture. An added benefit to the church is it gives haters more social cover to hate families headed by LGBT people.  This may seem odd to anyone living outside Deseret, but any non-Mormons inside know it's diabolical and cunning. So, no. It's not a punishment for the children. It's social control with the goal of marginalizing LGBT parents. It's the same dance as always, they've just changed the tune a bit.

Myth 2: Treats LGBT People Worse than Other Sinners
The author claims that, because of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling (nationwide marriage equality), the church was forced to reclassify "same sex relationships" as "apostasy" as opposed to the previous classifications of "adultery" and "fornication". I seriously doubt the courts have any concern for the church's internal classification for breaking their internal rules. That's sort of the point of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (see the Concerns of Virginia Baptists in the link).

Debunking Myth 2:
The "reclassification thing" may seem like a digression, and I believe it is purposeful. They wanted to lodge the words "apostate", "sin", "fornicate", "adultery", "homosexual" as many times as possible in the mind of the reader before moving on to a vacuous finish: "we're treating them the same as the children of polygamists and apostates". Do you see that? It's subtle. They made it APPEAR as though the government forced them to reclassify this "sin" (which is nonsense), then repeatedly associated the words (apostate, fornicate, adultery, sin) with "homosexual", then claimed that the new policy is in line with the treatment of other apostates and polygamists. If the Obvergefell ruling actually did force some kind of reclassification, I'd expect churches nationwide to be raising a stink about it. But they aren't. They are worrying about liability insurance (another red herring). This would have been on the cover of Ensign magazine if it were true. I suspect it was never mentioned.

Myth 3: Violates the Church’s 2nd Article of Faith
The LDS church doesn't believe in "original sin" (2nd article of faith). I've always considered that to be one of it's more (rare) progressive beliefs. My father was a racist, sexist man who loved to drink. I always took comfort in the thought that his "sins" would not transfer to me.
The original criticism of the new policy is that punishing children for the supposed "sins" of their parents violates the 2nd article of faith (not believing in original sin).

Debunking Myth 3:
The author claims he's already debunked this, which is false (see Debunking Myth 1). He claims this new policy is to "protect children" from a "variety of repercussions" by making them wait until they are 18 to join. I may be short sighted here, but the only repercussions I can think of would be social repercussions arising from treatment by members. Since they don't get into specifics, I'm just going to assume that this is Mormon-speak for "we know you're not going to ask questions".

Myth 4: Requires Children to Reject Parents
The author claims that this change doesn't require children to reject their parents. I suppose this may be TECHNICALLY true. In very specific circumstances, it is possible that a child could still love an accept their LGBT parent, despite belonging to a church that teaches that Mommy is an abomination. I suspect in places like Utah and Idaho, such circumstances are quite rare. So, it may be TECHNICALLY true, in the reality of Deseret it's usually going to be untrue. Children are going to be pressured to reject their LGBT parents. It may or may not work. It all depends on the relationships inside the family.
I do have one nit to pick. I admit, I could be wrong, as it's been nearly 30 years since I was baptized (and over 10 since I left the church in disgust). My biological parents were certainly not "good Mormon folk". My father was racist, sexist, and an alcoholic. My biological mother, at the time of my baptism, was known to be doing drugs and turning tricks. Needless to say, I lived with my aunt, who raised me. I don't recall any situation where I was asked to disavow the actions or lifestyle of my parents, or even the supposed "sins" of my aunt (whom I now call Mom). These were never an issue for my own baptism, or those of any of my sisters. I was also never asked to disavow anything when I received the Aaronic priesthood, or moved up into any callings. My biological parents gave their permission, and I got dunked. This whole thing appears to be completely new. I really don't think any other "main stream" Christian churches require children to tell the church about their parent's "sins", and certainly non that require the children to "affirm" that they don't agree with those "sins" after telling them. That seems to cross the line into cult behavior.

Myth 5: Places Newborn Children in State of Apostasy
This one is basically just Deseret News propagandists throwing poop at their competitors over at the Salt Lake Tribune. I am, however, grateful for the clue as to the identity of the author of this steaming pile. This is getting tedious. Why am I still writing about all this nonsense I left over a decade ago?

Myth 6: Church is Depriving Itself of LGBT Members
The criticism of this new policy is that it is keeping talented and gifted LGBT people from joining the church. The author goes into a long, convoluted rant about behavior, sin, and "twisted sense of reality" leading to the myth. He then goes on to compare LGBT people to alcoholics, and essentially says the solution is simple: stop being LGBT so you can have the "blessings of the church".
It's actually hilarious to be lectured on my "twisted sense of reality" by a guy who makes a living churning our reality twisting propaganda for an organization who's doctrinal claims have been widely discredited by ARCHAEOLOGY. At the end of the day, the criticism of the policy is correct: the church is robbing itself of talented LGBT people. But I have some news for you: Changing this policy won't change that. The rigidity and control of the church is inimical to the indomitable spirit that gives us LGBT people such talents and gifts. The control and rigidity kills the gifts. We're better off without the church.

Myth 7: This Hurts Me Personally
This guy is really irritating me now. He's building a straw man (straw man logical fallacy), then labeling it an appeal to emotion logical fallacy (argumentum ad passiones), and dismissing it. The problem is, his straw man didn't include the ACTUAL ARGUMENT which would be made by the person making the argument. The author makes it out like this is some sort of cry-baby tactic to end the conversation. That is a complete mischaracterization. This is the BEGINNING of the conversation, not the end. It usually starts with, "This effects (or hurts) me personally because....", and then the conversation can happen. When I would discuss the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with people who were against same-sex marriage, I would point out the tax implications of me getting health insurance through my partner's employer sponsored health plan. Or, I'd discuss the fact that, upon his death, I'd be taxed on everything inherited from my partner (married people get an exemption up to a certain amount). Or, I'd discuss inheritance, or hospital visitation, or any number of other issues. It would never be a crybaby tactic to stop the conversation. It was always a way of showing them that the issue was a lot more complicated than they were led to believe. That's what these propagandists do, they make people think these issues are simple. In the process, they dehumanize the subjects in the mind of the reader, and give cover to any kind of awful treatment meted out to the newly dehumanized subject.

Myth 8: The Church Lost and Should Move On
The criticism is pretty self explanatory. The response from the author is to say "popular opinion doesn't dictate church decisions" (he apparently isn't aware of 1890 [ending polygamy] or 1978 [black men gain the priesthood]). He then throws out the red-herring of the church being sued by same-sex couples seeking to be married by bishops or be married in the temple. This is a red-herring specifically because the Obergefell ruling specifically lays out the religious exemption:
"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered"
I admit, there could be a bit more reassurance in there, but I suspect the necessary reassurances can be found in statutes. I'm not an attorney. If this were some sort of loop hole left open on purpose, a flood of litigation would have followed. That doesn't appear to have happened. Keep in mind, anyone can go to court for any reason. That doesn't mean the case has merit.
The author claims that reclassifying same-sex relationships as "apostasy" provides the church some form of legal protection. It looks like another red-herring. How exactly does this classification give legal protection above the broad protections already provided in the First Amendment and the RFRA?

Myth 9: These Changes are Eternal Doctrine
I actually don't care. This matters as much to me as the specific odor of leprechaun flatulence, and it's just as real.

This Could Lead to a Great Exodus
The article is called "9 Myths", but somehow they managed to end up with 10. Oh well. I just love it when Mormons quote the bible, as they claim it is "not translated correctly" (not seeming to know that many segments of their "perfectly translated" book have segments of the bible lifted, with King James only mistranslations included). The author quotes 1 Timothy 4:41 to claim that Paul prophesied an exodus. There's a problem though. There's a fair amount of evidence that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudepigraphical (falsely attributed to Paul). The evidence does seem to suggest that the Pastoral Espistles were written sometime in the 2nd century AD (long after Paul's ~60 AD execution in Rome).

Conclusion
For me, this is all pretty academic. I left the church over 10 years ago, and I left Utah shortly thereafter. I still have family in Utah, but not many hard core LDS family. Those who are hard-core have stopped talking to me over political disagreements (one about the existence of a SCOTUS ruling on flag burning), or slowly drifted away. My Mom is the only LDS family I have in Utah, and she's really upset by this. I know she was hoping I could provide some comfort when she called the other day. We're close, and I love my Mom dearly. The trouble is, when it comes to the church, I honestly don't care anymore. It's kind of like watching a wild teenager pull one crazy stunt after another. You eventually stop being surprised by the next foolish nonsense. That's my relationship with the LDS church. I watch as they toss out foolish nonsense from the echo chamber of Deseret. I pity the people who've never really questioned the church and it's propaganda. My life was a rolling disaster when I was in that church. It only took a few years out of it before things started getting better for me. I no longer give every waking moment to my job, family, and the church. Now I have time to pursue my own interests. I'm thankful that my Mormon upbringing gave me a strong work ethic, but the emotional baggage that came along for the ride was not worth the cost of admission. It nearly cost my life a few times. It's not worth it. For any LGBT person reading this, I beg you, get out while you're alive. You can live a happy life outside that oppressive cult. Pack your bags and get out. If you family isn't supportive, leave. Leave Deseret if you have to. There's a whole world out there. Explore it. Enjoy it. Live YOUR life. It just might be your life you save.

The Way to Poverty

I read this article about rapid rehousing for homeless families:
Rapid Rehousing - NPR

I have a few questions. By the way, these questions have nothing to do with the race of the subjects of the article. The reporter on the story is in Washington D.C., and in D.C. black is the largest "racial" demographic. I use quotations around "racial" because I recognize that it is entirely a human, rather than biological construct. The D.C. homeless population is also massively disproportionately skewed toward being black. Still, I suspect the reporter could have found a white family to include in the report if she had tried.

So, here are my questions:

1. Why do so many poor people still have more children when they can't afford to care for the children they already have? In this article, Jordan McClellan already had 2 kids 8 years ago, and she got pregnant again. Why? I know what you're going to say: "Things happen, Frank". Yes, things happen. 2 kids already happened. So, she should have been very careful about sex. And when she found out she was pregnant, she should have made the abort or adopt decision immediately. When she got pregnant (again) Plan B was available to adults WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION (starting in 2007). There was NO excuse for adding another child into that cycle of poverty. My sister did the same thing. She already had one child she couldn't afford (with an "I don't believe in condoms" catholic idiot, btw), and she had another child with another no condoms catholic idiot.
2. In the article, the D.C. Director of Health and Human Services is quoted in a way that makes it seem like she has disdain for the idea that parents on welfare should be required to work. Is that me reading more into it, or does she honestly feel that sitting on the couch and popping out babies is an economically viable option for some people? She later pays lip service to the idea of providing job training and education, but there is no mention of any programs to help homeless parents learn marketable job skills, life skills, or get a useful education. Is this all lip service, or do these programs exist?
3. The article mentions that Jordan finally received a housing voucher, where she will be required to pay up 30% of her income toward her rent. The way it's phrased, it almost seems like the reporter thinks 30% is too high. If that is true, why? Affordable housing in urban areas is a struggle for the vast majority of people. At least this family gets a break.
4. Why does Mrs. McClellan have satellite television? The picture in the article shows Mrs. McClellan standing on her balcony next to a satellite dish. The picture shows 3 balconies, and only 2 of them have the dish. That means it probably isn't included in the rent (which would be crazy). I'm sorry. But if you can't afford to feed your children, why are you spending your money on satellite television? Why aren't you saving that money?

I'm all for helping families escape the poverty trap, provided that they are willing to meet me half way. It's sort of like saving a drowning man. You throw him a life buoy, which lands right next to this poor drowning fellow. Then you watch in horror as he continues to despair and flail around in the water as though you had done nothing. So, you jump in to save this poor idiot (thinking he must be mentally slow or something), and you discover he has massive lead weights tied to his feet, pulling him down into the depths.

When you are prepared, children are wonderful and joyous. But when you are already poor, having children is like jumping into the ocean with lead weights tied to your feet.

Oh, and one more thing. Some of you will say I'm a hateful bigot for wanting to take away another person's reproductive freedom. That's where you're wrong. You're absolutely free to reproduce and have as many children as you and your preacher want. Just keep in mind: when it comes time to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, and provide medical care for your oversized quiver, go beg your church and family to pay the bill. DON'T YOU DARE come and demand that I pay higher taxes to pay for your irresponsible behavior. You've made your bed, now sleep in it.

But if you're willing to accept that poor people shouldn't breed themselves deeper into poverty, I'm absolutely willing to help.

A new page in life

My old blog, called "Irate Liberal" just doesn't describe where I am in life anymore. While I still consider myself to be left leaning, I wouldn't call myself a liberal anymore. I'm also not irate anymore. I've come to a point in my life where I am quite happy. We've moved to a state where we're not second class citizens. We've both got good jobs, and we're looking at very nice homes. We go on a "once in a lifetime" vacation every year or two, and we have a niece and nephew whom we absolutely adore.

For some odd reason, I have an overwhelming drive to publish my thoughts. I don't know if it's for my progeny, or if it is sheer vanity of thinking someone actually cares what I think. But I write nonetheless.

I'll be posting my rants here, along with some random things that I learn.

Oh. One last thing. I really wanted to start a blog called "What I learned today", but the domain names were all lame. I was listening to Abba's Dancing Queen while searching for a name. As a little inside self joke, I typed in therantingqueen.com, and it was available! Holy crap! I'd better snap that up before some know it all, bossy, sassy queen comes along and takes it. It's MINE!