Ep 233 – Family Under Attack – Man on Man Edition

Written by on November 13, 2015

How is this new LDS policy impacting real lives of real people? Why would a gay couple even want their children to be involved in the Mormon church? And how does a gay person even have children in the first place? Scott conducts two interviews with men whose families are directly impacted by the LDS Church’s Children Alienation and Exclusion policy. Listen in as the Infants once again do their darnedest to scoop their big tall buddy, John Dehlin.

Tagged as , , ,

  1. Will Roberts   On   November 13, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    I think it’s important that we differentiate between disavowing one’s parents vs. disavowing the parents’ relationship. I understand that there is an argument to be made that they’re one in the same, but when you tell a TBM that children of gay parents must disavow their parents, they won’t hear anything you say after that because all they’re thinking/saying is, “It’s disavow the *relationship*. Hate the sin, not the sinner! Critics gonna critique!” We should be stating it correctly and pointing out why it’s equally damaging to the relationship either way, that way TBMs have nothing to come back with but their own bigotry as inherited from their leaders.
    Also, Scott, you’re a lawyer, right? There *has* to be a lawsuit somewhere in there with the first guy’s story – a clergyman violated his privacy and then he lost a bunch of business and had to go through therapy as a result?? Please tell me he has legal recourse somehow.
    Great, great interviews.

    • Orrin Dayne   On   November 13, 2015 at 10:53 pm

      I too wanted them to discuss disavowing a parent versus disavowing a parent’s relationship. D. Todd C. (his rapper name) made that distinction. I believe it was a missed opportunity here to explain (for the benefit of TBMs with whom we might share this episode) how the distinction does not make a difference. Instead, those TBMs will tune out when they hit the “parent disavowal” parts.

      • Orrin Dayne   On   November 14, 2015 at 6:05 pm

        I understand that there might be reluctance (if not hostility) to dignify the distinction with a response. But given TBMs hang on every word and rationalization from the Q15, it deserved mentioning, if only to swiftly smack it down.

      • Ryan Gregson   On   November 14, 2015 at 7:09 pm

        It’s possibly a straw man, I would venture to say it is in the sense that’s it’s manipulating the language just enough to emphasize a point of view. Given that we like to pick apart every word choice in these announcements etc. I think its only fair that we’re just as careful with our wording. I think if you told an outsider about the policy, there would be a big difference in understanding if you said “disavow parents’ marriage” vs “disavow parents”. The implications are very different. But in the long run, we’re all in agreement that the policy is terrible either way, and it’s terrible enough without having to overstate it’s problems which leads to bad communication.

      • Tierza Rose Askren   On   November 16, 2015 at 10:49 pm

        One point, though, is that step-parents are parents – right? – at least ideally – so if a child is told to “disavow” her parent’s relationship she is in fact being told to disavow her relationship with her step-parent and therefore to disavow an actual person.

      • Ryan Gregson   On   November 17, 2015 at 12:01 am

        I suppose, in a sense. I guess all I’m saying is that they are not being asked to sever all relations with their parents. Not that that makes what they are asking any better.

    • Scott   On   November 15, 2015 at 4:58 pm

      Point taken. The only reason why I didn’t get into that is because by the time I recorded these it was nearly a week past the original release and frankly that distinction had been made and discussed a million times. The important thing here is that for these men there is no distinction. Saying that disavowing the “relationship” is somehow less damaging than disavowing the parents can only come from a place of privilege from someone with no skin in the game. For those in the relationships, of course there is no substantive difference.

    • Mike Sorbe   On   November 13, 2015 at 10:20 pm

      To me, their reply seems to state that if you are already baptized and ordained, you are “Grandfathered in” Should you not have been baptized yet, you are SOL and you can’t get baptized. At least that’s how I read it. I would also like clarification on that release. Also, it looks like they are putting all the hard decisions on the local bishops and making them the bad people

    • Ron Hill   On   January 15, 2016 at 8:49 pm

      My dad was gay and he baptized me, does that mean I’m off the hook, or do I still have to disavow his gay baptism?

  2. Phonin' It In From Kolob   On   November 14, 2015 at 3:21 am

    This is a really excellent podcast. Thanks, Scott, Dennis and Christin(sp?). I know how much we hate to think, much less say, the “C” word, but before long there won’t be another name for it. The stories are hard to listen to, but we must all listen to them. I wish these guys and their families well through all of this.
    I loved Dennis’s Wizard of Oz analogy (especially the part where John Dehlin plays Toto). You guys like SO have to do a Wizard of Oz parody on the whole Journey Through the Church thing. With music and singing and flying monkeys.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Please visit Appearance->Widgets to add your widgets here
%d bloggers like this: