Apparently new policy is no longer

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good grief!

My sentiments exactly.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good grief!

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

John 14: 15 ¶If ye love me, keep my commandments.

 

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

John 14: 15 ¶If ye love me, keep my commandments.

 

Proving once again that there is a scripture you can use to defend ANY position. Congrats 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Proving once again that there is a scripture you can use to defend ANY position. Congrats 

If the position is that God and his commandments should come BEFORE our family, but only when there is a conflict between the two of course.

Seriously, how is this even a question?  God first, family second, self last.  Always.

[sunstoned]

In ten years people will look back on this and consider the policy nothing more than a prophets personal opinion. Not real revelation.  Public opinion will hold sway with the brethren, just like it always has.  The bottom line is what counts.  This policy will be reversed. 

The sad thing is that this personal opinion will have impacted many, many members.  This includes myself.  I considered this ill conceived policy the last straw, and I resigned my membership.  When Jesus said suffer the little children to come unto me, I take him at his word with no qualifications.  I wish the brethren would. 

 Just like the priesthood restrictions introduced by BY.  Many people did not join, or left the church because of this racist policy.  No worries. now it has been reversed.  BY  was thrown under the bus.  But what about all the lives impacted by this racist "opinion" that was not corrected for almost a hundred years?   Do we forget about them and assume that all will be set right in the here after?  What about my openly LGBT student who dropped out of school this semester and killed himself because he was kicked out of his TBM home after the last years policy was announced in November?  In then years when this policy is reversed because of public opinion, how will this help those, like my student, who struggled with this today?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by sunstoned

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If the position is that God and his commandments should come BEFORE our family, but only when there is a conflict between the two of course.

Seriously, how is this even a question?  God first, family second, self last.  Always.

What does that have to do with what we were discussing?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Claiming that disrespect, rejection, shunning, and love can all comfortably coexist just makes the "love" claim come across as empty words to me. 

I think the problem is people who equate being disagreed with to being disrespected, rejected, and shunned.  

I haven't claimed anything concerning those emotions and love coexisting though.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

John 14: 15 ¶If ye love me, keep my commandments.

 

Love one another, as I have loved you. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

In ten years people will look back on this and consider the policy nothing more than a prophets personal opinion. Not real revelation.  Public opinion will hold sway with the brethren, just like it always has.  The bottom line is what counts.  This policy will be reversed. 

The sad thing is that this personal opinion will have impacted many, many members.  This includes myself.  I considered this ill conceived policy the last straw, and I resigned my membership.  When Jesus said suffer the little children to come unto me, I take him at his word with no qualifications.  I wish the brethren would. 

 Just like the priesthood restrictions introduced by BY.  Many people did not join, or left the church because of this racist policy.  No worries. now it has been reversed.  BY  was thrown under the bus.  But what about all the lives impacted by this racist "opinion" that was not corrected for almost a hundred years?   Do we forget about them and assume that all will be set right in the here after?  What about my openly LGBT student who dropped out of school this semester and killed himself because he was kicked out of his TBM home after the last years policy was announced in November?  In then years when this policy is reversed because of public opinion, how will this help those, like my student, who struggled with this today?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This.  So sad. 

 

Hopefully the good that will come from it is us, as a body of saints, learning to stop letting the philosophies of men (even when they are spoken by  prophets/seers/revelators) mingle with our scripture. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think the problem is people who equate being disagreed with to being disrespected, rejected, and shunned.  

I haven't claimed anything concerning those emotions and love coexisting though.

 

First, disrespect, rejection, and shunning are not emotions.

Second, I haven't taken the position that disagreeing equals disrespect, rejection, shunning.  It doesn't. 

Some of our church's teachings and policies do, however disrespect, reject, and shun.  You might feel and believe that they are doctrinally correct in so doing.  Or that they reflect God's will.  That they're justified.  But that doesn't change the reality that claiming someone's marriage/family to be counterfeit (as our church teachings do) is a show of disrespect.  That a policy which deems them apostates is a rejection.  That telling them attendance at our church would "not be appropriate" is an act of shunning. 

You can couch these teachings and policies in a gospel cloak and bear your testimony of their truthfulness but it does not change the reality of what they are.  

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

First, disrespect, rejection, and shunning are not emotions.

Second, I haven't taken the position that disagreeing equals disrespect, rejection, shunning.  It doesn't. 

Some of our church's teachings and policies do, however disrespect, reject, and shun.  You might feel and believe that they are doctrinally correct in so doing.  Or that they reflect God's will.  That they're justified.  But that doesn't change the reality that claiming someone's marriage/family to be counterfeit (as our church teachings do) is a show of disrespect.  That a policy which deems them apostates is a rejection.  That telling them attendance at our church would "not be appropriate" is an act of shunning. 

You can couch these teachings and policies in a gospel cloak and bear your testimony of their truthfulness but it does not change the reality of what they are.  

I agree that we have doctrine that rejects specific actions.  We don't have teachings or policies that disrespect, reject people, or shun anyone.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that we have doctrine that rejects specific actions.  We don't have teachings or policies that disrespect, reject people, or shun anyone.

A difference in perspective.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

A difference in perspective.

Definitely.  And it illustrates how much our personal issues (emotional baggage, personalities, assumptions, even our individual love languages) impact what we feel from those around us.  

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

What about my openly LGBT student who dropped out of school this semester and killed himself because he was kicked out of his TBM home after the last years policy was announced in November?

Why would a parent kick a child out of their home because of a policy that had nothing to do them?  Those parents should face church discipline if that's true.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why would a parent kick a child out of their home because of a policy that had nothing to do them?  Those parents should face church discipline if that's true.

That's something I'd like to see.

Perhaps Elder Oaks could start by apologizing for and retracting some of his 2006 remarks.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Definitely.  And it illustrates how much our personal issues (emotional baggage, personalities, assumptions, even our individual love languages) impact what we feel from those around us.  

It illustrates how much some are willing to hold to dogma over showing concern for others.

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why would a parent kick a child out of their home because of a policy that had nothing to do them?  Those parents should face church discipline if that's true.

I know when my family shunned me, they did it because the thought the church teaches that we should reject "the gay lifestyle"  When the church's solution is to kick someone out of the church and label them apostates, families follow that example.  They are trying to do what the prophet does and how the prophet handles gays. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know when my family shunned me, they did it because the thought the church teaches that we should reject "the gay lifestyle"  When the church's solution is to kick someone out of the church and label them apostates, families follow that example.  They are trying to do what the prophet does and how the prophet handles gays. 

Exactly. 

In his 2006 statements Oaks told parents that they shouldn't do anything that could be taken as approval of their child's gay relationship.  And he told them that you need to be careful not to allow one child's homosexuality to influence other children in the home. 

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

In ten years people will look back on this and consider the policy nothing more than a prophets personal opinion. Not real revelation.  Public opinion will hold sway with the brethren, just like it always has.  The bottom line is what counts.  This policy will be reversed. 

The sad thing is that this personal opinion will have impacted many, many members.  This includes myself.  I considered this ill conceived policy the last straw, and I resigned my membership.  When Jesus said suffer the little children to come unto me, I take him at his word with no qualifications.  I wish the brethren would. 

 Just like the priesthood restrictions introduced by BY.  Many people did not join, or left the church because of this racist policy.  No worries. now it has been reversed.  BY  was thrown under the bus.  But what about all the lives impacted by this racist "opinion" that was not corrected for almost a hundred years?   Do we forget about them and assume that all will be set right in the here after?  What about my openly LGBT student who dropped out of school this semester and killed himself because he was kicked out of his TBM home after the last years policy was announced in November?  In then years when this policy is reversed because of public opinion, how will this help those, like my student, who struggled with this today?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This just breaks my heart.  Think of all the joys and talents lost to the rest of world.  Surely these parents are in a hell of their own.  So sad.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's something I'd like to see.

Perhaps Elder Oaks could start by apologizing for and retracting some of his 2006 remarks.

Did elder oaks teach that parents should kick gay children out of their homes?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I know when my family shunned me, they did it because the thought the church teaches that we should reject "the gay lifestyle"  When the church's solution is to kick someone out of the church and label them apostates, families follow that example.  They are trying to do what the prophet does and how the prophet handles gays. 

Except that's not how the prophet handles gays. 

[bsjkki]

Elder Oaks full remarks. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction. "

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all."

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If the position is that God and his commandments should come BEFORE our family, but only when there is a conflict between the two of course.

Seriously, how is this even a question?  God first, family second, self last.  Always.

What does that have to do with what we were discussing?

Addressing this false concept of "love" that keeps coming up.  As if love trumps correct principle and eternal law.
God is love and God is God because he followed law.

That should tell us something about what love really means.

 

 

[Sleeper Cell]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

If you were my friend and you started telling me I should not have married the person I love and committed my life to.  If you started telling me my marriage was an abomination and my children should not be baptized, I would probably put your calls on ignore?  When you feel it is your place to tell me how I should run my life then you are not really showing love and friendship.  You are trying to control how I choose to live.  Have you ever told one of your friends that you think their marriage is an abomination?  And that they can't or shouldn't be married to their spouse?  How did that go?

Maybe I am naive but I don't really call that friendship or showing love.  There is a big difference between having two different approaches and even values in life and telling your "friend" how he should live his life according to your standards and beliefs.  I think most friends would be ok with however their friend lived their life as long as it didn't infringe on how I lived my life.  If someone asks for help in changing their life, then that is a different matter.  Just my opinion.  Perhaps I view friendship and love differently than you do.  And that is ok.  

Obviously, you do.  

For starters, I make a distinction between telling someone they are wrong and trying to control that person’s life.   I have a close friend who has told me on more than one occasion that I never should have joined the Mormon church and that, unless I repent,  I am probably going to hell because of my Mormon beliefs. Should I put his calls on ignore?  

If a friend sincerely believes that I am in serious danger, what kind of friend would he be if he said nothing?  

It is OK for a friend to live his life “as long as it didn’t infringe on how I lived my life?”  Telling a close friend that what he is doing is “wrong” is infringing?  Does this have applicability beyond the example you gave?   For example, if I told an overweight friend that he should change his diet and exercise regularly, would I be “infringing” on how he was living his life?  

BTW, I have told a friend that she shouldn’t marry the guy she married.  You bet it was difficult and yes, it was hurtful for her to hear.  But we remained friends.  And I (and other friends who had expressed similar concerns) were there for her when they divorced a couple of years later.   
 

[CV75]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

Let me put it really simply:  Nothing is more important to me than my wife and children.  Reject them and you don't love me.  Full stop. 

That's one way of approaching the world and others through the language and currency of love... I suggest that those who take the new policy as rejecting their children and interpret that as denying them love personally would benefit from understanding it better, or from understanding the perspective from which it was created better, and not holding solely to their initial reaction.