Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The feeling I am getting is that those on this board who are vigorously defending the new policy are not aligned with the majority of believing mormons. I have read a few blogs where believing mormons are speaking out. Which leads me to believe that there are many more who aren't speaking out but silently are hoping this gets fixed.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 So the harm to families by the policy is collateral damage so the church can make it clear that gay marriage is wrong? You keep reciting this mantra about "harm." How do you define "harm?" People feeling put out? The Brethren have wisely determined that it is not in the best interests of minor children to make covenants that reject their parents' core life relationships. Do you disagree?
Mystery Meat Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) The feeling I am getting is that those on this board who are vigorously defending the new policy are not aligned with the majority of believing mormons. I have read a few blogs where believing mormons are speaking out. Which leads me to believe that there are many more who aren't speaking out but silently are hoping this gets fixed. The place I work is 90% believing and active Mormon. Everybody has been talking about the change since last week. No one has disagreed with the policy, rather most think it hasn't gone far enough. In Church on Sunday (keep in mind I am single, so I go to Church with a bunch of twenty somethings), our bishop brought up the issue in Elder's Quorum (about 60 elders) and asked for comments. I would say 60% of those in attendance shared their thoughts (one, who is more liberal politically and even he was on board) and all of them supported the policy. There was one who said it had caused some pain in his family, but did not criticize the policy at all (it has caused pain in my family as well, and I support it). Unless I am just surrounded by a disproportionate amount of people who support the policy, then I think you are way off. My message to those of us who support the policy is this: "There are people, influences and forces who would have you believe that you are alone in your support for the Church in this action. Many of them want you to feel alone so that you think you must be crazy, wrong, or bigoted for supporting this. Not only are you not alone, but you are in the majority and an overwhelming majority. So don't trust or believe the disinformation and intentional scare tactics of those who would cause you to doubt the worthiness of this cause. Even still, if all of the members but you did not support this, the Lord sustains his anointed prophets, seers and revelators. He will sustain you for doing the same." Edited November 12, 2015 by Mystery Meat 3
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 You keep reciting this mantra about "harm." How do you define "harm?" People feeling put out? The Brethren have wisely determined that it is not in the best interests of minor children to make covenants that reject their parents' core life relationships. Do you disagree?Yes I disagree. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) The feeling I am getting is that those on this board who are vigorously defending the new policy are not aligned with the majority of believing mormons. I have read a few blogs where believing mormons are speaking out. Which leads me to believe that there are many more who aren't speaking out but silently are hoping this gets fixed. The feeling I get is that most members aren't aware of the policy. Most of those who do, don't see that anything needs to be "fixed." I'm aware of a little internet cluster of people who imagine they know better than the brethren on this issue, and others. I don't think that little cluster is really representative of the views of the Saints in the wards and branches. Edited November 12, 2015 by Russell C McGregor 3
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The place I work is 90% believing and active Mormon. Everybody has been talking about the change since last week. No one has disagreed with the policy, rather most think it hasn't gone far enough. In Church on Sunday (keep in mind I am single, so I go to Church with a bunch of twenty somethings), our bishop brought up the issue in Elder's Quorum (about 60 elders) and asked for comments. I would say 60% of those in attendance shared their thoughts (one, who is more liberal politically and even he was on board) and all of them supported the policy. There was one who said it had caused some pain in his family, but did not criticize the policy at all (it has caused pain in my family as well, and I support it). Unless I am just surrounded by a disproportionate amount of people who support the policy, then I think you are way off. My message to those of us who support the policy is this: "There are people, influences and forces who would have you believe that you are alone in your support for the Church in this action. Many of them want you to feel alone so that you think you must be crazy, wrong, or bigoted for supporting this. Not only are you not alone, but you are in the majority and an overwhelming majority. So don't trust or believe the disinformation and intentional scare tactics of those who would cause you to doubt the worthiness of this cause. Even still, if all of the members but you did not support this, the Lord sustains his anointed prophets, seers and revelators. He will sustain you for doing the same." "..most don't think it has gone far enough.." What more could be done besides excommunicating the gays and banning their children?
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The feeling I get from my social media feeds is that most Mormons are concerned about the lack of Christmas symbolism on the cups they don't drink coffee out of. 1
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 "..most don't think it has gone far enough.." What more could be done besides excommunicating the gays and banning their children? I mentioned Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Anglicans in Uganda before, but you didn't seem to think that was pertinent to the poll on which churches hated LGBT people more.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Yes I disagree. So you think it is in the best interests of children to be fully participating members of the Church, even when that is in direct conflict with the major life choices of one or both of their parents? Then why, in your post #34, did you describe the Church of Jesus Christ as a "toxic mess" that you wish you could talk your wife and family into leaving?
Ares Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 I'm aware of a little internet cluster of teeth-gnashers who imagine they know better than the brethren on this issue, and others. I don't think that little cluster is really representative of the views of the Saints in the wards and branches. And you just broke the rule on insults. Knock it off or Good bye.
Okrahomer Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The feeling I get from my social media feeds is that most Mormons are concerned about the lack of Christmas symbolism on the cups they don't drink coffee out of. Ha! I assume you're referring to the Starbucks' and Dunkin' Donuts holiday cups? This little "brew-haha" was indeed covered during the Utah morning shows today. 1
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 I mentioned Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Anglicans in Uganda before, but you didn't seem to think that was pertinent to the poll on which churches hated LGBT people more. Sorry you bring up a good point. So you think it is in the best interests of children to be fully participating members of the Church, even when that is in direct conflict with the major life choices of one or both of their parents? Then why, in your post #34, did you describe the Church of Jesus Christ as a "toxic mess" that you wish you could talk your wife and family into leaving? Russell you already admitted this has caused pain in your family and others families you know of. I know of a few families this will negatively affect. Yes it is in the best interest of anyone who wants to participate in the religion they were brought up in. Preventing them from doing so seems harmful.
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 So you think it is in the best interests of children to be fully participating members of the Church, even when that is in direct conflict with the major life choices of one or both of their parents? Then why, in your post #34, did you describe the Church of Jesus Christ as a "toxic mess" that you wish you could talk your wife and family into leaving? The "toxic mess" I was referring to is the confusion and harm caused by the policy change.
Russell C McGregor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 And you just broke the rule on insults. Knock it off or Good bye. Thank you for taking the time to tell me what you actually found objectionable. I wasn't referring to people in this thread, or this forum. It was a generic descriptor.
volgadon Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 It's not that a manual exists, but that the manual gets so detailed to the point that it may be considered burdensome, much like the Law of Moses.That misses the point of the Torah and its function.
Raingirl Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The feeling I am getting is that those on this board who are vigorously defending the new policy are not aligned with the majority of believing mormons. I have read a few blogs where believing mormons are speaking out. Which leads me to believe that there are many more who aren't speaking out but silently are hoping this gets fixed.The majority of the Mormons (and everyone else that I know) really don't spend much time on the Internet in general, and especially not on discussion boards and the like endlessly discussing church policy and doctrine. They're usually busy living it. As with most things in life, it is the naysayers who spend the most energy endlessly talking about that which they don't like. Any discussion board I have ever been on (including this one) has actually had a very small core of active participants. Just because someone is yelling loudly, doesn't mean they are representing the majority. 3
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Ha! I assume you're referring to the Starbucks' and Dunkin' Donuts holiday cups? This little "brew-haha" was indeed covered during the Utah morning shows today. Yup... 1
JAHS Posted November 12, 2015 Author Posted November 12, 2015 The feeling I am getting is that those on this board who are vigorously defending the new policy are not aligned with the majority of believing mormons. I have read a few blogs where believing mormons are speaking out. Which leads me to believe that there are many more who aren't speaking out but silently are hoping this gets fixed. Not needing to be fixed. At the most just waiting for clarifications on special circumstances. This policy was added to the Church Handbook and sent only to Stake Presidencies and Bishops as it should have been, but then leaked to the public, which is now knee-jerk responding to all the imaginary harm it is going to do to the children. As with all new policy there will be clarifications for special circumstances that will be asked by the Bishops as they try to make application of it in their wards so that it can be done in the most loving and resctful way possible for the kids and their parents. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The "toxic mess" I was referring to is the confusion and harm caused by the policy change. Is it? Here is what you previously wrote: Do you realize how that comes across to many who are not believing Mormons(and many who are?) It makes me sick to my stomach and my first instinct is to resign and start the process of persuading my TBM wife and children to leave this toxic mess. I won't do it but I FEEL like doing it. :-( So you wanted them to leave "the confusion and harm caused by the policy change," did you? Do you realise how incoherent that is? And you still haven't explained what you mean by "harm." If you don't like the taste of your greens, is that "harm?"
Analytics Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The Brethren have wisely determined that it is not in the best interests of minor children to make covenants that reject their parents' core life relationships. CFR. I know that Elder Christofferson said it isn't appropriate for children with parents in same-sex relationships to participate in primary and other church organizations, but I haven't heard him (or any other brethren) say anything about making covenants.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Does anybody read anymore? CFR. I know that Elder Christofferson said it isn't appropriate for children with parents in same-sex relationships to participate in primary and other church organizations, but I haven't heard him (or any other brethren) say anything about making covenants. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years. 1
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Not needing to be fixed. At the most just waiting for clarifications on special circumstances. This policy was added to the Church Handbook and sent only to Stake Presidencies and Bishops as it should have been, but then leaked to the public, which is now knee-jerk responding to all the imaginary harm it is going to do to the children. As with all new policy there will be clarifications for special circumstances that will be asked by the Bishops as they try to make application of it in their wards so that it can be done in the most loving and resctful way possible for the kids and their parents. I disagree. A fix is the only way out of this mess. Trying to find a respectful way to tell a family they are no longer welcome will not reverse the harm that is taking place.
HappyJackWagon Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Why? You don't even accept the explanation that has been given so far.Have explained how they came to implement this policy? I missed that. I've heard them offer a weak justification, that it's compassionate to exclude the kids, but they haven't done anything to explain their process. My guess is it works better as a mystery than a rational process of reviewing in a counsel, passing memos between the brethren and the legal department, not to mention the possible inner dynamics of how they achieved unanimity amongst the Q15. If this has truly been in the queue for 1 year like has been mentioned previously, it would be interesting to know if the deaths in the Q12 and their replacements impacted that unanimity. Do they feel a revelation was received or was it an administrative decision just like many, many others they make? None of this sounds interesting to you?
Ron Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Is it? Here is what you previously wrote: So you wanted them to leave "the confusion and harm caused by the policy change," did you? Do you realise how incoherent that is? And you still haven't explained what you mean by "harm." If you don't like the taste of your greens, is that "harm?" Denying a child the right to worship in their church because of perceived sins of their parents is harm.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 I disagree. A fix is the only way out of this mess. Trying to find a respectful way to tell a family they are no longer welcome will not reverse the harm that is taking place. They and their children are always welcome at church even after excommunication. They are not welcome to claim membership and teach that gay marriage is acceptable at the same time. Don't take that too personally. The average Ward would hustle someone with a lit cigarette out of the building faster than they would someone who had declared gay marriage is of God.
Recommended Posts