Why A Meeting For The Ssm Letters?

[Duncan]

I read that letter and packet of other documents the Church just released, but they want to read this in a meeting setting. I read it in like 10 minutes, why would they want a meeting over that? Like, I am not getting all gussied up to sit in a pew for this! I know it will spill out in a fight or something and I don't want to ruin a tie. Why a meeting?

[Russell C McGregor]

I read that letter and packet of other documents the Church just released, but they want to read this in a meeting setting. I read it in like 10 minutes, why would they want a meeting over that? Like, I am not getting all gussied up to sit in a pew for this! I know it will spill out in a fight or something and I don't want to ruin a tie. Why a meeting?

Probably because they don't want it to take over Sacrament meeting.

Which, in the grand scheme of things, is rather more important than same sex "marriage."

Edited June 30, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[mfbukowski]

I read that letter and packet of other documents the Church just released, but they want to read this in a meeting setting. I read it in like 10 minutes, why would they want a meeting over that? Like, I am not getting all gussied up to sit in a pew for this! I know it will spill out in a fight or something and I don't want to ruin a tie. Why a meeting?

It just says "a meeting other than Sacrament Meeting".

 

Sounds like a combined Priesthood RS meeting to me, including the older youth I guess.

 

So you read it in 10 minutes and separate for classes.  No biggie

[Duncan]

It just says "a meeting other than Sacrament Meeting".

 

Sounds like a combined Priesthood RS meeting to me, including the older youth I guess.

 

So you read it in 10 minutes and separate for classes.  No biggie

 

I guess, hope their's treat's afterwards

[JLHPROF]

I guess, hope their's treat's afterwards

 

You mean this:

 

 

When the teacher hands out treats before the lesson:

 

 

 

VS

 

When you get all dressed up and go to a fireside and then find out there won't be treats:

 

 

 

http://dashmandy.blogspot.com/2013/01/snark-and-testimony.html

[Teancum]

Probably because they don't want it to take over Sacrament meeting.Which, in the grand scheme of things, is rather more important than same sex "marriage."

Wow. We agree on something.

[tonie]

I read that letter and packet of other documents the Church just released, but they want to read this in a meeting setting. I read it in like 10 minutes, why would they want a meeting over that? Like, I am not getting all gussied up to sit in a pew for this! I know it will spill out in a fight or something and I don't want to ruin a tie. Why a meeting?

 

Is the reading intended to be just a reading? Or is it to be a reading with discussion? 

 

The message, as I understand it, is essentially:

 

Man's laws do not and can not change God's Laws

Be nice when disagreeing.

Being nice does not require acceptance.

[tonie]

Here is the mormonnewsroom article, which also provides all the documents.

[Duncan]

Here is the mormonnewsroom article, which also provides all the documents.

 

yeah, like we all have the internet so why a mtg? I don't know why they'd have a discussion there isn't anyone can do about anything!!!! hahahaha!

[tonie]

I found this interesting:

 

"[W]e must also exercise tolerance and respect toward others’ rights but do so without condoning behavior that goes contrary to the laws of God."

 

 

And I liked this part:

 

“On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should . . . be good listeners and show concern for the sincere belief [of others.] Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. We should be wise in explaining our position and, in doing so, ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” October 2014 general conference).

Edited July 1, 2015 by tonie

[carbon dioxide]

Given all that has been said and done over the past few years by the Church, is there really any question on what the position of the Church is?  If there are members that don't got it now, they probably never will.

[The Nehor]

Given all that has been said and done over the past few years by the Church, is there really any question on what the position of the Church is?  If there are members that don't got it now, they probably never will.

Prophets are often told to keep preaching to those who are past hearing.

[Tsuzuki]

Prophets are often told to keep preaching to those who are past hearing.

That's certainly why I keep posting here.

[mnn727]

I read that letter and packet of other documents the Church just released, but they want to read this in a meeting setting. I read it in like 10 minutes, why would they want a meeting over that? Like, I am not getting all gussied up to sit in a pew for this! I know it will spill out in a fight or something and I don't want to ruin a tie. Why a meeting?

It took you 10 minutes to read that?

[Duncan]

It took you 10 minutes to read that?

 

 

I have glasses, I read twice as fast as others

[rpn]

If I were the First Presidency, I would do the meeting to make it crystal clear what the official position of the church is.   Yes, the internet is everywhere.  Doesn't mean members pay attention to it.   Doesn't mean that members see the internet as authoritative.  And the announcement says it is to also answer questions (which I would expect to include how to disagree without being disagreeable --- at which point I hope bishops will refer parents to their obligation to love their children even when their children do not live/believe as the parent taught or hopes for them; and what it means to welcome those with ssa into the ward without judgment, since that is solely a bishop's perogative.)

[Storm Rider]

I read that letter and packet of other documents the Church just released, but they want to read this in a meeting setting. I read it in like 10 minutes, why would they want a meeting over that? Like, I am not getting all gussied up to sit in a pew for this! I know it will spill out in a fight or something and I don't want to ruin a tie. Why a meeting?

 

They want a meeting so that we can fight in church; what's the issue?  Mormons are known for fighting in church.  I guess I don't understand your question. 

[carbon dioxide]

They want a meeting so that we can fight in church; what's the issue?  Mormons are known for fighting in church.  I guess I don't understand your question. 

Need two sides to have a fight.  Few LDS would advocate the LDS Church changing its position on SSM.  Now if they want a fight, get a polygamy discussion going.  That seems to bring up some division here.

Edited July 1, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Duncan]

They want a meeting so that we can fight in church; what's the issue?  Mormons are known for fighting in church.  I guess I don't understand your question. 

 

 

It seems so cut and dry but members have questions that the answers don't seem to be forthcoming or people don't agree with the answer. Like, why does homosexuality transgendered even exist? Why don't we know we know the answer? it takes one person with a different position or question and others will join in on either side and well, we see that here

[stemelbow]

It'd be awesome if the Church promoted opening it up for discussion on a local level, in a Church setting. Read the letter or letters, and let people comment, question, and disagree. Of course I imagine it'll go much like reading it over the pulpit. Everyone will feel it necessary to agree and if they personally don't agree he/she won't feel welcome to offer comment.

[Buckeye]

The one glaring omission from the letter is any meaningful instruction on how to approach members who disagree with church. The final paragraph tries to address the issue, but only cites to the handbook section on proper channels for questions (ie, talk to your bishop; don't write the FP). There is nothing to help local leaders who preside over members who have prayed, read scriptures, etc. ... and yet still support SSM. My guess is that the FP/Q12 still haven't figured out exactly how to deal with this and so, until they do, local leaders will be left to their own judgment.

[Mormonmaniac]

It'd be awesome if the Church promoted opening it up for discussion on a local level, in a Church setting. Read the letter or letters, and let people comment, question, and disagree. Of course I imagine it'll go much like reading it over the pulpit. Everyone will feel it necessary to agree and if they personally don't agree he/she won't feel welcome to offer comment.

Debacle. There is no point to discuss. You know, I find it interesting that at church, everyone always seems in agreement on where we stand as far as marriage and morality. The only dissent I hear comes from this board and others like it as if these places just attract all the dissenters.

[Duncan]

The one glaring omission from the letter is any meaningful instruction on how to approach members who disagree with church. The final paragraph tries to address the issue, but only cites to the handbook section on proper channels for questions (ie, talk to your bishop; don't write the FP). There is nothing to help local leaders who preside over members who have prayed, read scriptures, etc. ... and yet still support SSM. My guess is that the FP/Q12 still haven't figured out exactly how to deal with this and so, until they do, local leaders will be left to their own judgment.

 

 

and what is the local leaders support it themselves?

[Mormonmaniac]

The one glaring omission from the letter is any meaningful instruction on how to approach members who disagree with church. The final paragraph tries to address the issue, but only cites to the handbook section on proper channels for questions (ie, talk to your bishop; don't write the FP). There is nothing to help local leaders who preside over members who have prayed, read scriptures, etc. ... and yet still support SSM. My guess is that the FP/Q12 still haven't figured out exactly how to deal with this and so, until they do, local leaders will be left to their own judgment.

Its rather simple. SSM goes against church policy. The question you have to ask is if you want to side with or side against the church. I imagine that if you decide to disagree and go on to promote SSM, then you probably are on the road to apostasy.

[stemelbow]

Debacle. There is no point to discuss. You know, I find it interesting that at church, everyone always seems in agreement on where we stand as far as marriage and morality. The only dissent I hear comes from this board and others like it as if these places just attract all the dissenters.

I have no doubt, or little doubt, that there are wards out there where there is complete agreement on this issue. I also do not doubt that there are wards out there with active members who disagree with the Church's position on this issue. Of course those who disagree probably feel less welcome to speak up--probably feel like Church is less about speaking with one another about the welfare of their souls and more about trammeling people into submission on this point and perhaps others. Of course as we are currently situated, it is likely that in most wards, if someone states their disagreement with the Church on this point and the reasons why, he/she is likely to feel like the bishop will forever view he/she with skepticism and may even feel like the bishop wishes to call he/she in for discipline.