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

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

okay, so could you tell me how the church can make Sunday worship more welcoming while still condemning the sinful practice of ssm and homosexuality? I would like to understand what you think that would look like.

Start by removing the policy.  Say that in hindsight you've realized it wasn't needed.  And apologize.

Not too difficult.

[Mystery Meat]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Start by removing the policy.  Say that in hindsight you've realized it wasn't needed.  And apologize.

Not too difficult.

that's not going to happen. The policy is needed for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is to protect covenants and those who make them or would make them prematurely.

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

that's not going to happen. The policy is needed for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is to protect covenants and those who make them or would make them prematurely.

CFR that the policy was put in place for the reason of protecting covenants and those who make them or would make them prematurely.  I don't see where that has been stated as a reason.

[Mystery Meat]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

CFR that the policy was put in place for the reason of protecting covenants and those who make them or would make them prematurely.  I don't see where that has been stated as a reason.

that's a strange CFR. I believe you will find your answer in elder christoffersons comments and by using common sense.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

that's a strange CFR. I believe you will find your answer in elder christoffersons comments and by using common sense.

I don't recall any mention of covenants in his interview.  Are you suggesting that I should assume he meant something the he didn't say?

I also don't see any reference to covenants in the Nov 13 letter from the First Presidency.

Citing "common sense" is not a reference.  The CFR for your statement stands.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by rockpond

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't recall any mention of covenants in his interview.  Are you suggesting that I should assume he meant something the he didn't say?

I also don't see any reference to covenants in the Nov 13 letter from the First Presidency.

Citing "common sense" is not a reference.  The CFR for your statement stands.

 

 

I can't provide a citation for private conversation (nor opinion), not to mention common sense.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Of course your statement isn't providing the full story, let's write it together and get both sides:

"If I invite you to church, but call your parents apostates; if I encourage you to participate in receiving certain blessings for healing and comfort, but deny you the critical, saving ordinances given to children of straight parents; if I don't allow you to participate in everything that goes on; if our leaders say that it is likely not appropriate for you to "be in Primary or other organizations"; if I tell you that they only way you can enter into full fellowship with us is to move out of your home and disavow your own parents' relationship; have you been shunned?"

 

My thoughts on this-

First, are you saying that if the church labels anyone an apostate then it is automatically shunning the children of those people? You seem to have set the bar pretty low for your shunning standard (like, basically on the ground, low.  I have some family who were excommunicated.  Maybe i'm being shunned and i just haven't realized it yet...  )

Second, it seems weird to say that you are going to provide the 'full story' and then not actually give the full story.  No one is being denied any blessings.  Some are being asked to wait.  That seems to be a very important distinction that would need to be recognized in a 'full story' kind of way.  

Third, if you can give me a quote where the church has said that it's not appropriate for children to be in primary then i'll give you that one.  The quote can't be from the interview with E. Christofferson though as you've already said that the interview is not relevant to what the church is actually doing or saying.  In the interest of clarity though, when i said what i said, i was saying from the perspective of asking an adult.  Primary kids would have no bases for defining what it is to be shunned.  It would be inappropriate to even ask them to answer such a question.

Fourth, if being asked to agree with the doctrines of the church before baptism is the equivalent of shunning, then a lot of people get shunned by the church every time they take a baptismal interview.  Words become worthless when they are chosen as a way to legitimize disagreement instead of just sticking with the normal definition of the word.

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Start by removing the policy.  Say that in hindsight you've realized it wasn't needed.  And apologize.

Not too difficult.

The Brethren already said though that the policy came into existence because they saw there was a need for it.   So taking that off the table, what other ways can the church make things better while still teaching the doctrine?  That seems to be a good thing to focus on at this point.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I can't provide a citation for private conversation (nor opinion), not to mention common sense.

Okay... so you are saying that the primary reason for the policy that you stated (that I CFR'd) was just your opinion?  Do we then agree that that reason has not been publicly stated by our church leaders?

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The Brethren already said though that the policy came into existence because they saw there was a need for it.   So taking that off the table, what other ways can the church make things better while still teaching the doctrine?  That seems to be a good thing to focus on at this point.

That doesn't mean that they can't decide they were mistaken.  They've done it before.

Another way they can make things better?  Maybe they should take up Sherri Park's "Sit with me Sunday" movement and push it through to the ward council level.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My thoughts on this-

First, are you saying that if the church labels anyone an apostate then it is automatically shunning the children of those people? You seem to have set the bar pretty low for your shunning standard (like, basically on the ground, low.  I have some family who were excommunicated.  Maybe i'm being shunned and i just haven't realized it yet...  )

Second, it seems weird to say that you are going to provide the 'full story' and then not actually give the full story.  No one is being denied any blessings.  Some are being asked to wait.  That seems to be a very important distinction that would need to be recognized in a 'full story' kind of way.  

Third, if you can give me a quote where the church has said that it's not appropriate for children to be in primary then i'll give you that one.  The quote can't be from the interview with E. Christofferson though as you've already said that the interview is not relevant to what the church is actually doing or saying.  In the interest of clarity though, when i said what i said, i was saying from the perspective of asking an adult.  Primary kids would have no bases for defining what it is to be shunned.  It would be inappropriate to even ask them to answer such a question.

Fourth, if being asked to agree with the doctrines of the church before baptism is the equivalent of shunning, then a lot of people get shunned by the church every time they take a baptismal interview.  Words become worthless when they are chosen as a way to legitimize disagreement instead of just sticking with the normal definition of the word.

1.  No.  I was just describing the whole picture.

2.  They are being denied the ordinances at this time.  I believe that the likelihood of them staying active in the church while having to wait for full fellowship is slim.  I've been taught numerous times in various leadership positions that getting our youth to fully participate in all the programs and ordinances is critical to keeping them active.

3. I didn't say that Elder Christofferson's interview was not relevant, I said that when it came to future disciplinary action, leaders would be looking to the handbook.  But his interview is where that quote comes from.  Primary kids, however, are the ones we are talking about, they are the ones affected by the policy, and their feelings are certainly important in this discussion.  If they feel shunned than what does someone's textbook definition of "shunning" matter?

4. The policy doesn't simply require agreement with the doctrines of the church before baptism.  So your statement here is not relevant.

 

I continue to assert that Sherri Park was not being dishonest in her op ed letter and that you've failed to prove that she was.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That doesn't mean that they can't decide they were mistaken.  They've done it before.

Another way they can make things better?  Maybe they should take up Sherri Park's "Sit with me Sunday" movement and push it through to the ward council level.

The movement she has said is now impossible to continue because of the policy?  I think that would be a great idea, but what can the church leadership do that the originator of the movement now sees as impossible?

[bluebell]

1.  No.  I was just describing the whole picture.

Got it.

Quote

2.  They are being denied the ordinances at this time.  I believe that the likelihood of them staying active in the church while having to wait for full fellowship is slim.  I've been taught numerous times in various leadership positions that getting our youth to fully participate in all the programs and ordinances is critical to keeping them active.

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.  ) 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.

Quote

3. I didn't say that Elder Christofferson's interview was not relevant, I said that when it came to future disciplinary action, leaders would be looking to the handbook.  But his interview is where that quote comes from.  Primary kids, however, are the ones we are talking about, they are the ones affected by the policy, and their feelings are certainly important in this discussion.  If they feel shunned than what does someone's textbook definition of "shunning" matter?

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?

Quote

4. The policy doesn't simply require agreement with the doctrines of the church before baptism.  So your statement here is not relevant.

"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.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

okay, so could you tell me how the church can make Sunday worship more welcoming while still condemning the sinful practice of ssm and homosexuality? I would like to understand what you think that would look like.

So if the church doesn't regularly condemn a particular sin, does that mean the church is in favor of that sin? Of course not. That would be silly. IOW- why the need to continually condemn any particular sin or a subset of sinners?

Is SSM the greatest evil in the world? Is it worse than the various types of abuse? Worse than greed? Worse than anger and violence in its many forms? Is SSM (relationships inside a committed, monogamous relationship) worse than lust? Why is the church acting like a one trick pony in its continual condemnation of one particular sin? Why do they take it so far as to call one type of sinner so "apostate" that not even their children can receive saving ordinances?

How do we make church more welcoming? Easy. Stop singling people out. We are all sinners. We are all doomed except when we claim the power of the atonement in our lives. Stop creating a hierarchy of sins. Stop saying that people are welcome to attend while simultaneously making it as uncomfortable as possible for them if they do. Welcome all people as the weak, flawed individuals and families and stop pretending like the flaws of others are worse than our own. In other words...be inclusive and be charitable. That is the best of Christianity. All people need to experience real love much more than they need to be condemned by people acting like they have a full understanding of God's mind and will on this subject.

Edited December 8, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I continue to assert that Sherri Park was not being dishonest in her op ed letter and that you've failed to prove that she was.

I continue to assert that Sherri Park was being dishonest or misguided in her op ed letter and that you've failed to prove that she wasn't.  Not that my assertion means anything, just like your's doesn't.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I continue to assert that Sherri Park was being dishonest or misguided in her op ed letter and that you've failed to prove that she wasn't.  Not that my assertion means anything, just like your's doesn't.

Is your default to assume dishonesty? Guilty until proven innocent...right?

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The movement she has said is now impossible to continue because of the policy?  I think that would be a great idea, but what can the church leadership do that the originator of the movement now sees as impossible?

I get the sense that she is hurt and greatly discouraged.  She seems to feel that the Church has reversed course with this policy.  That said, I disagree with her that the movement can't continue.  I think it's sad that she feels she needs to give up and resign.  While I think it is now considerably more difficult to make gay members/investigators feel welcome, I disagree with her that the movement she started can't continue.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I get the sense that she is hurt and greatly discouraged.  She seems to feel that the Church has reversed course with this policy.  That said, I disagree with her that the movement can't continue.  I think it's sad that she feels she needs to give up and resign.  While I think it is now considerably more difficult to make gay members/investigators feel welcome, I disagree with her that the movement she started can't continue.

Resignation is one thing but I don't see how her movement continues. By policy there is no safe place within the church for SSM couples or their children. So anyone she invites to attend she is really inviting to be disciplined as an apostate. It's hard to see that movement lasting. Why invite people to a safe place for worship if you know it isn't safe for them?

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is your default to assume dishonesty? Guilty until proven innocent...right?

I think I'm eternally optimistic here on these boards... when I post an article like that, I still hope members will respond with more sympathy than accusations.  But I continue to be proven wrong.  And yet somehow we are to think that gay members/visitors will feel welcome amongst us.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I get the sense that she is hurt and greatly discouraged.  She seems to feel that the Church has reversed course with this policy.  That said, I disagree with her that the movement can't continue.  I think it's sad that she feels she needs to give up and resign.  While I think it is now considerably more difficult to make gay members/investigators feel welcome, I disagree with her that the movement she started can't continue.

Me too.  I think her movement is a wonderful idea and i think it's sad that she doesn't realize she could still do it.  

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Resignation is one thing but I don't see how her movement continues. By policy there is no safe place within the church for SSM couples or their children. So anyone she invites to attend she is really inviting to be disciplined as an apostate. It's hard to see that movement lasting. Why invite people to a safe place for worship if you know it isn't safe for them?

I guess that's true and basically the message of the policy.  It's sad that the policy specifically targets gay couples who had remained friendly to the church... the gay couples who were still with us have been told:  No thanks, we don't want you or your kids.

 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is your default to assume dishonesty? Guilty until proven innocent...right?

Not at all.  Is your default to ignore anything in a post that doesn't serve your agenda?   Or did you accidentally miss where i said "Park was being dishonest or misguided"?  I've allowed for that from the beginning.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if the church doesn't regularly condemn a particular sin, does that mean the church is in favor of that sin? Of course not. That would be silly. IOW- why the need to continually condemn any particular sin or a subset of sinners?

 

In my experience, the church will regularly condemn a particular sin when that sin regularly impacts church membership.  I mean, how many talks condemning pornography have we had in the last few years?  Hundreds?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not at all.  Is your default to ignore anything in a post that doesn't serve your agenda?   Or did you accidentally miss where i said "Park was being dishonest or misguided"?  I've allowed for that from the beginning.

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

Quote

Me too.  I think her movement is a wonderful idea and i think it's sad that she doesn't realize she could still do it.  

How would she continue this program? Invite people to worship in a "safe place" she knows will subject them to discipline for apostasy? Doesn't sound very safe to me and I can see why she wouldn't want any part of that. The new policy seems to be designed to keep families of SSM away from the church. Mission accomplished. (Maybe we should print a huge banner to hang at the COB)

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think I'm eternally optimistic here on these boards... when I post an article like that, I still hope members will respond with more sympathy than accusations.  But I continue to be proven wrong.  And yet somehow we are to think that gay members/visitors will feel welcome amongst us.

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?