Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Op Ed by Founders of "Sit With Me Sunday" / Resigning Church Membership

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is that supposed to make it better? She's either lying or she's stupid. Choose?

I would assume you would apply the label of "misguided" to Bluebell for her position/interpretation.  Does that mean you see her as "stupid"?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is that supposed to make it better? She's either lying or she's stupid. Choose?

 

Misguided-mislead, wrong, misinformed, faulty reasoning...  

Interestingly, I couldn't find "stupid" as a definition of misguided anywhere.  I think that suggesting that i must have meant stupid when i said that someone might have been misguided is, well, misguided.   ;)

Quote

How would she continue this program? Invite people to worship in a "safe place" she knows will subject them to discipline for apostasy?

I wasn't aware her program only applied to people in a SSM relationships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Got it.

I agree it definitely can be critical.  However, i personally had a friend in high school who was not allowed to get baptized because of her parents (she, surprisingly, did not feel like she was being shunned. :D ) and she managed to make it without any trouble.  So did a girl who had that same thing happen to her when i was serving in a Young Women's presidency.  

I have found that it's not so much being able to take part in the ordinances that makes the difference in someone's activity-it's whether or not the desire to partake of them is there that matters in the end.  If someone doesn't care about the ordinance, getting baptized isn't going to keep them active.  If someone does, not getting baptized for a few years isn't going to change that in and of itself.

You said-"His statement, already gone from the church's homepage will become lost in the archives of LDS.org."

So you think that an adult leader isn't likely to come across his statements in that interview but that a primary age child is going to be confronted with them and that's why they weren't relevant before but are relevant now?

"Do you agree that people living in SSM are in apostasy?"  That's both a disavowal of someone living in SSM and a question of agreement with LDS doctrine in one question and if being asked that question is part of your definition of being shunned, then it's completely relevant. :pardon:

2.  Those are great examples.  And it's definitely possible to stay in.  But we also know that there are many examples of those who don't (the YM down the street from me and my friend's brother are two examples that immediately come to mind).  That's why we place so much emphasis on our youth programs.  It's a tough world and I think we should try to avoid situations where youth are asked to go through those challenging years without the ordinances and gift of the Holy Ghost.  One thing you might want to consider, given that both of your examples were female, is the difficulty of staying active as a male without the priesthood.  So much of what the YM do is dependent on that.  Not holding the priesthood will leave a YM on the outside quite often.

3.  For a child in primary, the published policy, Elder Christofferson's interview, and the Nov 13 FP letter will all lack relevance.  A child in primary will be taught about the necessity of following Jesus into the waters of baptism, having your sins washed away, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.  And then they will be told that they cannot do that because of who their parents are.  Regardless of what message you may want them to receive, the message I believe they'll actually get is that they are somehow less than, that they are on the outside, that they are not like the others in their class.  You don't see that as "shunning".  I think it clearly is.

4.  SSM as apostasy is a matter of policy.  I don't think it rises to the level of doctrine, especially given Elder Christofferson's statement that faithful members can publicly support gay marriage.  It would seem, however, that the standard is different if your parents are in a gay relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

This doesn't seem very fair.

First, this is a discussion board.  I respond differently here than i do in other places.  If i met Sherry in person i would express regret and sadness at losing her in the church.  Here though, i want to discuss the points she makes in her op ed.  And i disagree with her on some of her major points.  She's a grown woman, i'm sure she can handle being questioned about some of the things she said.

Second, i've seen you disagree and get pretty accusatory in the past on here, especially to church leaders in regards to this policy.  Does that mean that if Elder Christofferson showed up in your ward he should hesitate to feel welcome there by you?

I'm confused... you said my comment doesn't seem fair but then you agreed with me that you come here not to show sympathy or empathy but to discuss the points she makes.

I've expressed on these boards, time and time again, the extremely challenging position that the Brethren are in.  I've also talked about their demanding schedules.  I've mentioned how I regularly study their words.  I sustain them in their callings.  If you believe I have said something to make Elder Christofferson not feel welcome in my ward, please cite it.

Thread closed by request.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...