The November policy change was reaffirmed as revelation in the Oct. Ensign

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede that they are ignoring the Lord's mandate in the way they implement the law of common consent.

 

The quote I used earlier was from the D&C manual (chapter 26) still in publication.  It stated that common consent is to be used for policies (among other things).  We had a new policy implemented last November.  They had a General Conference this weekend.  Still no common consent sought for that policy.  

They have disregarded their own published interpretation of the Lord's mandate given in the D&C.  

Edited October 3, 2016 by rockpond

[CV75]

On 10/1/2016 at 4:34 PM, rockpond said:

You are correct... the Brethren don't really use common consent anymore.  They only ask for sustaining of callings and not for "policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints" as is required.

 

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The quote is used earlier was from the D&C manual (chapter 26) still in publication.  It stated that common consent is to be used for policies (among other things).  We had a new policy implemented last November.  They had a General Conference this weekend.  Still no common consent sought for that policy.  

They have disregarded their own published interpretation of the Lord's mandate given in the D&C.  

I think you're missing something. The manual provides a description of the broadest application possible. But it is not required. D&C 26 establishes the principle of common consent in anticipation of appointing the President of the Church. This was when the Church had a handful of members, but the basic principle applies today.

D&C 28 applied the principle in this fashion: The President is appointed by common consent of the conference (verse 10), and in executing his duties he carries the approbation of that common consent (verses 11-14). The church covenants would include policies, which in this case (the unauthorized use of seer stones) happened to be unwritten and unpublished. This is how policies, such as the one covered by this OP, abide by common consent.

D&C 104 has to do with how the principle was applied within the decision and actions of the United Order. It can be applied in various other ways among quorums and units of the Church according to the direction of the appropriate priesthood authority.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

 

I think you're missing something. The manual provides a description of the broadest application possible. But it is not required. D&C 26 establishes the principle of common consent in anticipation of appointing the President of the Church. This was when the Church had a handful of members, but the basic principle applies today.

D&C 28 applied the principle in this fashion: The President is appointed by common consent of the conference (verse 10), and in executing his duties he carries the approbation of that common consent (verses 11-14). The church covenants would include policies, which in this case (the unauthorized use of seer stones) happened to be unwritten and unpublished. This is how policies, such as the one covered by this OP, abide by common consent.

D&C 104 has to do with how the principle was applied within the decision and actions of the United Order. It can be applied in various other ways among quorums and units of the Church according to the direction of the appropriate priesthood authority.

I don't see anything in those sections that rescinds the law of common consent or reduces it to only sustaining persons in callings.  Rather, those sections repeat the mandate that "all things" in the church "shall" and "must" be done through common consent. 

Here is the full quote still published on LDS.org from the D&C manual chapter on Section 26:

"Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2)."

[cdowis]

del

Edited October 3, 2016 by cdowis

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Policy == blacks given the priesthood

Major Decision == Manifesto, to stop the practice of polygamy

New Scripture == D&C 138

Affect lives... == based on discretion of the President of Church

There is nothing in those scriptures that puts it at the discretion of the prophet.  And there is nothing in the lesson I cited that makes such a qualification.  Rather, the scriptures say "all things" and use language such as shall and must with reference to common consent. 

Thanks for the historical references.  Looks like we are coming up on the 40 year anniversary of the last time we used common consent for something other than sustaining people in callings despite having just been presented an opportunity with the November policy/"revelation"/"scripture". 

[Okrahomer]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

BYU went through a similar thing over the ban on blacks.  They are still playing football.  Of course the church changed it's position so no one is sure where it would have all ended up.  I think you are right about the law school.  I remember something about that, but not sure how they solved the problem or even what the problem was.  I think it had to do with how rape was reported and sanctions against the person that got raped.  But I could be wrong.

 

There were two different Honor Code issues confronting BYU:

The Law School-Honor Code issue had to do with non-believing students seeking an exemption from the ecclesiastical endorsement requirement.  The FreeBYU group had filed a complaint of discrimination with the ABA in October of last year.  But with little or no fanfare, BYU adjusted that part of the Honor Code just a few weeks later, and the ABA announced that they had dropped their investigation this summer.  FreeBYU wants to take credit for the honor code adjustment, but BYU claims that this change had actually been studied for several months before it was made.  See here.

BYU is still working through the sexual-assault-title IX-honor-code issue; however, unlike the quiet approach BYU took to the ecclesiastical endorsement modification, it sounds like they intend to be more open and transparent in this case.  I think it likely that we will see some additional adjustments to the honor code.  At a minimum, I think BYU will have to reinforce the independence of the Title IX office and make sure it isn't sharing information with the Honor Code office.  I hope we will also see BYU provide victims of sexual assault with some kind of amnesty for reporting these crimes.

I love and support BYU.  I had a tremendous experience there, but I think the institution was wrong on these issues.  I admire President Worthen for initiating thoughtful analysis and having the courage to commit to finding solutions.

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Then why the concept of common consent? While common consent is not democracy it does allow for opposition which has largely been lost for most of LDS Church history. 

We either support the person in their calling or we do not. In theory all it takes is one person with a well substantiated opposition and that person is not called. See your Stake President if you have it.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't see anything in those sections that rescinds the law of common consent or reduces it to only sustaining persons in callings.  Rather, those sections repeat the mandate that "all things" in the church "shall" and "must" be done through common consent. 

Here is the full quote still published on LDS.org from the D&C manual chapter on Section 26:

"Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2)."

Yes, I see you keep referring to the lesson manual. But let's go back to the scriptures it is explaining. The scripture reference to "all things" refers to "all things" the prophet is commanded to do:

D&C 26 is instruction to Joseph Smith (as the President) to do “all things” (verse 2) that are made known to him to do on any occasion (verse 1) by common consent of the Church, referring to the principle whereby those in conference appoint him as prophet, sustain him as prophet and recognize that the Lord called him as prophet (28:10). The Church covenants are revealed to him in this capacity and he and those he instructs carry them out according to the keys he exercises (28:1-3, 7). The phrase "For all things must done in order" has to do with operating under the keys, and he who heads their operation does so "by common consent," and the prayer of faith refers to the prayers of all involved (28:13).

Now, if any are inclined to depend on the manual alone, even the manual does not say all “policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints.” The principle operates through our appointing and sustaining the President, and when he calls for sustaining vote (in his capacity as head of an order – a quorum, the general Church body, etc., as we did Saturday – as demonstrated in D&C 107), it operates on those occasions also. This explanation ties the manual and the three scriptures about it together quite nicely, and we also see that this is how it operates in actual practice.

Edited October 3, 2016 by CV75

[rodheadlee]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

The quote I used earlier was from the D&C manual (chapter 26) still in publication.  It stated that common consent is to be used for policies (among other things).  We had a new policy implemented last November.  They had a General Conference this weekend.  Still no common consent sought for that policy.  

They have disregarded their own published interpretation of the Lord's mandate given in the D&C.  

So you think the entire membership should vote on policies? And on whether our policy is a revelation or not?

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

 

There were two different Honor Code issues confronting BYU:

The Law School-Honor Code issue had to do with non-believing students seeking an exemption from the ecclesiastical endorsement requirement.  The FreeBYU group had filed a complaint of discrimination with the ABA in October of last year.  But with little or no fanfare, BYU adjusted that part of the Honor Code just a few weeks later, and the ABA announced that they had dropped their investigation this summer.  FreeBYU wants to take credit for the honor code adjustment, but BYU claims that this change had actually been studied for several months before it was made.  See here.

BYU is still working through the sexual-assault-title IX-honor-code issue; however, unlike the quiet approach BYU took to the ecclesiastical endorsement modification, it sounds like they intend to be more open and transparent in this case.  I think it likely that we will see some additional adjustments to the honor code.  At a minimum, I think BYU will have to reinforce the independence of the Title IX office and make sure it isn't sharing information with the Honor Code office.  I hope we will also see BYU provide victims of sexual assault with some kind of amnesty for reporting these crimes.

I love and support BYU.  I had a tremendous experience there, but I think the institution was wrong on these issues.  I admire President Worthen for initiating thoughtful analysis and having the courage to commit to finding solutions.

Thanks for the clarification.  Now that you spelled it out, I do remember that was the issue for the law school.  I also had a great experience at BYU.  I hope they are able to make things a little more fair for their students.

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

So you think the entire membership should vote on policies? And on whether our policy is a revelation or not?

Yes, I do think that common consent should be used for new policies.  It is what the D&C and the manual on LDS.org both indicate.  How do you interpret those scriptures and statements?

I don't think members should vote on whether something was revelation, but where there is revelation that is going to be used for a church-wide policy, I think that revelation should be presented for common consent. 

[Gray]

On 10/1/2016 at 8:31 AM, cdowis said:

And I I care very much about those children whose parents are leading their little ones down forbidden paths.

As Christ said:
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

And this includes those who practice forbidden forms of relationships such as polygamy and SSM.  But the church will not intervene between those parents apostate lifestyle  and their children.  This is not merely a Word of Wisdom issue, for example, but requires a change in lifestyle and philosophy of life.  And It is their responsibility and decision to bring up their children in righteousness,, and the church's responsibility to teach them the commandments of God.

The basic unit of the church is the family, and this policy reflects that fact.

You can't teach someone to be gay. But you can certainly teach them to hate the "other", sadly. 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I do think that common consent should be used for new policies.  It is what the D&C and the manual on LDS.org both indicate.  How do you interpret those scriptures and statements?

I don't think members should vote on whether something was revelation, but where there is revelation that is going to be used for a church-wide policy, I think that revelation should be presented for common consent. 

I'm not really sure, I'll have to study it some. It doesn't seem practical to have the whole church vote on policy. I could see common consent among the 12 or even the 70.Bringing in votes for 15 million people seems like we do't trust the Lord to have His Apostles do His will.

 

edited to ad: too bad the post are not numbered it would make it easier to go back and read your posts on common consent.

Edited October 3, 2016 by rodheadlee

[smac97]

A few thoughts about the Law of Common Consent:

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on this subject:

Quote

Common consent is a fundamental principle of decision making at all levels in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In selecting new officers and making administrative decisions, Church leaders are instructed to seek the will of God. Once the Lord makes his will known and a decision is reached, the matter is brought before the appropriate quorum or body of Church members, who are asked to sustain or oppose the action. This process provides for direction of the Church by revelation, while protecting the agency of the members to verify in their own minds whether decisions have been proper and made according to the will of God.

The principle of common consent has functioned in the Church since its inception, though the actual practices incorporating this principle have evolved significantly. The revelation on LDS Church government, received when it was organized in April 1830, states: "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church" (D&C 20:65). This instruction was reemphasized three months later: "All things shall be done by common consent in the church" (D&C 26:2). LDS practices may have been influenced in these earliest years by the Book of Mormon model of theocratic government that conducted its "business by the voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:25-26), and by biblical example (e.g., Ex. 24:3; Num. 27:19).

It appears that some folks want to construe "common consent" in a very, very broad way.  That is to say, that this concept is essentially identical to "direct democracy"-type forms of governance, "in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly."

However, I think this is an incorrect interpretation.  The Church is not a democracy.  The members of the Church provide sustaining votes, not electoral ones.  The members of the Church provide "consent," and are not directly involved in the formulation of policy initiatives.

Back to the EOM article:

Quote

Evidence from accounts of some early meetings and conferences indicates that many of the New England leaders of the Church felt that the membership should be directly involved in decision-making meetings, including making motions on policy issues, following standard parliamentary procedure for public meetings, and voting to finalize decisions. Individual members sometimes exercised the prerogative to call a meeting, and once it was in session, anyone had the right to address the group. The conduct of their meetings followed the congregational model that was familiar to them. However, before long early Latter-day Saints began to realize that having a prophet as their leader was a reality that must be recognized in decision making, and that they could not follow the traditional congregational model without denying the authority and revelations that God had bestowed on Joseph Smith, these being the essential features of the Restoration that brought them together in the Church.

This makes sense to me.  The early members of the Church worked with the principles with which they were familiar (derived from the faith traditions from which the individual Saints had come), but they quickly found out that stringently applying such concepts to an organization headed by actual prophets and apostles was both impractical and inappropriate.

Quote

An incident in September 1830, wherein Hiram Page claimed to have received revelations for the direction of the Church, brought the issue into focus. The confusion of Oliver Cowdery and other Church members that was caused by Page's claim to be a second revelator provided the occasion for a revelation through Joseph Smith clarifying the distinctive role of Joseph as the prophet. This revelation also indicated that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church" (D&C 28:13). As the authority of Joseph Smith and his successors in the office of President of the Church was clarified over the following years by subsequent revelations (D&C 107:65-67, 91-92), the principle that the sustaining voice of the members of the Church should be sought was also repeatedly reaffirmed (D&C 38:34;42:11;102:9;124:144). As priesthood councils and priesthood quorums were introduced into the Church organization, general discussion of policy issues and decision making became more their responsibility in council meetings, and less an agenda item for conferences, which in turn focused more on preaching the gospel.

This sounds right.  The Presiding High Priest and those who serve with him has the responsibility of developing and implementing Church-wide policies and procedures.  

Back to the EOM article:

Quote

Today the Church continues to operate by divine revelation and common consent. Callings to positions of Church service at all levels of the organization and ordination to the priesthood are made by the inspiration of authorized leaders and are then brought before the appropriate body of members to be sustained or opposed. Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way. This procedure is also followed in accepting important revelations and scriptural additions.

So in the main, "common consent" is a concept utilized when we sustain the leaders of the Church.  This is why the sustaining vote is such an important one.  There is a lot of authority, a lot of "consent," that goes along with it.  

Back to the EOM article:

Quote

In a much less visible but equally important practice, decision makers at all levels present policy decisions and callings to priesthood councils for their comment and approval. At the local level a bishop will ordinarily discuss decisions with his counselors in the bishopric before presenting a matter to the ward membership for a sustaining vote. On many policy and program decisions the bishopric will consult with the ward council and work for consensus in that group before taking action. Following the same pattern, the stake president consults with his counselors in the stake presidency and then with the high council. The First Presidency consults in this same way on matters of general Church policy and action in regular meetings with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Having served on a high council and in a bishopric, i can attest to the regular application of the "common consent" principle in matters of local church governance.

Back to the EOM article:

Quote

Unanimity is the ideal for all these decision processes because of the importance of unity in the Church: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). The three presiding quorums over the whole Church are of equal authority within their own spheres (D&C 107:22-26), but their decisions are of "the same power or validity" only when made "by the unanimous voice" of the quorum (D&C 107:27). Many important decisions take shape over what seem like long periods because achieving unanimity is highly valued by the quorums.

I note here that unanimity appears to be the "ideal," but is not required.

I think I understand the reason why "common consent" has been injected into this thread.  There are people inside and outside of the Church who dislike the Church's policy changes from last November, and who are casting about for some basis to challenge or criticize it, and "common consent" seems to be about the best argument out there.  But based on the foregoing, "common consent"-based arguments against last year's policy changes don't seem to work well.  Similarly, speculation that Elder Nelson has gone rogue, that he has fabricated or otherwise misrepresented the revelatory nature of the experience of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, that there are members of those quorums who disagree with him (but who have nevertheless remained silent for the many months during which Elder Nelson's remarks have been published on the Church's website and, more recently, in The Ensign), etc., are without any factual support or reasoning.

I respect those who disagree with the policy changes.  I am generally abstaining from interacting with individual posters/comments because there are strong feelings in play, and acrimony appears to be on the rise.  I hope that those who have divergent opinions about the policy changes can allow for principled disagreement about this topic, and can grant a presumption of good faith to those on the "other side."

The Church teaches that "{n}ot only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2)."  I can see a reasoned and principled argument to be made that the recent policy changes are important enough to warrant a presentation of the policy changes to the Church for a "common consent" vote.  On the other hand, i can also see a reasoned and principled argument that the policy changes in reality "affect the lives" of only a very few people (members of the Church in same-sex marriages, who are now subject to discipline, and members of the Church in same-sex relationships who have minor children who want to be baptized, which children must wait until they turn 18).

On balance, I would like to see the policy changes presented to the body of the Church for a sustaining vote.  Perhaps it will be presented in the future.  Better yet, I would like to see a formal revelation on the subject of same-sex attraction generally.  I am persuaded that the teachings of the Church, particularly the teachings which have been refined over the last several years, are substantively in accordance with the mind and will of God.  Same-sex behavior is a violation of the Law of Chastity, as are many other sexual behaviors.  So while we can and should and must refine and improve how we treat individuals with same-sex attraction, I think the underlying principles relating to the Law of Chastity have remained, and will remain, unchanged.  

Nevertheless, a revelation about same-sex behavior and/or same-sex attraction generally could be helpful for those who, in good faith, honestly believe that same-sex behavior (and associated concepts like same-sex marriage) are acceptable to God.  Conversely, if the Brethren throughout the history of the Church have been exactly wrong about same-sex behavior, and if it (and same-sex marriage) are things that are acceptable to God, then a revelation to that effect would be useful to people like me.

That said, I am willing to wait on this issue.  If the last few years have taught us anything, it is that the Brethren are aware of issues relating to same-sex attraction, and that they are discussing it and praying about it and seeking to understand the Lord's will about it.  

Meanwhile, what can those who disagree with the Brethren do to voice their disagreement?  Well, they can act in accordance with the principles associated with "common consent."  From the EOM article:

Quote

Because of the emphasis on divine and prophetic leadership and because of well-established norms and values in decision-making procedures, public dissent on a proposed calling or policy is unusual. There are, however, mechanisms for accommodating dissent. Normally, if one or more members find the proposed action objectionable, the dissenting member or members are asked to meet with the presiding officer privately to make known the reason for the question or objection. After considering the objections, presiding officers are free to pursue whatever decision they believe to be right.

The challenge for some of the Saints today is how to proceed with they (the individuals) believe that they (the individuals) are correct on these issues and that the Brethren are fundamentally, irretrievably wrong.  Well, I think a lot of study is in order, as there seems to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions going on (on both sides of the argument).  There also needs to be a lot of patience and faith.  There also needs to be some real introspection about the scope and magnitude of what it means to "sustain" the Brethren.  And at the end of it all, I think we will all need to consider accepting this counsel from Elder Dallin H. Oaks (emphasis added):

Quote

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference.

...

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference.

...

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

...

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

...

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

I think the fifth remedy is the most appropriate one in the present circumstance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 3, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm not really sure, I'll have to study it some. It doesn't seem practical to have the whole church vote on policy. I could see common consent among the 12 or even the 70.Bringing in votes for 15 million people seems like we do't trust the Lord to have His Apostles do His will.

 

edited to ad: too bad the post are not numbered it would make it easier to go back and read your posts on common consent.

We don't need to "bring in votes".  The procedure for common consent already exists and is already performed each year in general conference, stake conference, and ward conference.  All we would need to do is add the policy to the list of items being consented to.

[rodheadlee]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We don't need to "bring in votes".  The procedure for common consent already exists and is already performed each year in general conference, stake conference, and ward conference.  All we would need to do is add the policy to the list of items being consented to.

Ok, so how many nay votes does it take to disallow a policy?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Ok, so how many nay votes does it take to disallow a policy?

As I understand it, that's not how "common consent" votes work. From the EOM article (quoted above) (emphases added):

Quote

Because of the emphasis on divine and prophetic leadership and because of well-established norms and values in decision-making procedures, public dissent on a proposed calling or policy is unusual. There are, however, mechanisms for accommodating dissent. Normally, if one or more members find the proposed action objectionable, the dissenting member or members are asked to meet with the presiding officer privately to make known the reason for the question or objection. After considering the objections, presiding officers are free to pursue whatever decision they believe to be right.

If the majority, or perhaps a significant minority, of the Saints voted in opposition to the policy changes, I think the Brethren would give that some real consideration.  However, at the end of the day, I think the Brethren would still be able to "pursue whatever decision they believe to be right."

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

Thank you smac97

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Ok, so how many nay votes does it take to disallow a policy?

Common consent is not voting.  There isn't a count as to whether a policy should stay or a person should be released. 

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, that's not how "common consent" votes work. From the EOM article (quoted above) (emphases added):

If the majority, or perhaps a significant minority, of the Saints voted in opposition to the policy changes, I think the Brethren would give that some real consideration.  However, at the end of the day, I think the Brethren would still be able to "pursue whatever decision they believe to be right."

Thanks,

-Smac

No doubt about it.  I am pretty sure no matter if the minority or majority of the membership who  raised hands..they would do what they set out to do anyway.  Sad, but true. 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No doubt about it.  I am pretty sure no matter if the minority or majority of the membership who  raised hands..they would do what they set out to do anyway.  Sad, but true. 

Could you explain what is "sad" about this?  What they "set out to do" is discern and implement the will of God as they understand it.  The policy changes were not made on a whim.  Or in haste.  Or with malice.  Instead, the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles have discussed the issue extensively, have studied it.  Have prayed about it.  And they appear to be doing what they think is right.  This, in your view, is "sad?"

You would apparently prefer that these men abdicate their responsibilities to follow instructions from God, and to instead capitulate to social pressures?  To disregard what they think is revelatory and right if such things are unpopular?  How would such moral cowardice be preferable to the current course being taken by the Brethren?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain what is "sad" about this?  What they "set out to do" is discern and implement the will of God as they understand it.  The policy changes were not made on a whim.  Or in haste.  Or with malice.  Instead, the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles have discussed the issue extensively, have studied it.  Have prayed about it.  And they appear to be doing what they think is right.  This, in your view, is "sad?"

You would apparently prefer that these men abdicate their responsibilities to follow instructions from God, and to instead capitulate to social pressures?  To disregard what they think is revelatory and right if such things are unpopular?  How would such moral cowardice be preferable to the current course being taken by the Brethren?

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps Jeanne is referring to all the needless pain that has resulted from the policy.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps Jeanne is referring to all the needless pain that has resulted from the policy.

I'm not presently inclined to argue about what measure of "pain" exists or whether or not it has been "needless."  Emotions are high, I think.  I do not want to antagonize or offend, so I am trying to tread carefully.

That said, I am curious as to your thoughts about how all of this would play out.  Let us hypothesize that the Brethren either A) present the policy changes at the next General Conference for a "common consent" sustaining vote, B) send a letter out to stake presidents announcing that the policy change is an issue for which a "common consent" sustaining vote should be sought during the next stake conference, or C) the Brethren otherwise provide for a "common consent"-based vote on the policy change.

How do you think the body of the Church would "vote?"

If the majority of the Church members voted to sustain (perhaps "ratify" would be the better word) the policy changes, would that alter your perspective on or assessment of those changes?

Also, do you think reasonable minds can disagree about whether the policy changes were A) revelatory, B) needful/necessary, and/or C) crafted so as to minimize pain / injury / hurt feelings?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not presently inclined to argue about what measure of "pain" exists or whether or not it has been "needless."  Emotions are high, I think.  I do not want to antagonize or offend, so I am trying to tread carefully.

That said, I am curious as to your thoughts about how all of this would play out.  Let us hypothesize that the Brethren either A) present the policy changes at the next General Conference for a "common consent" sustaining vote, B) send a letter out to stake presidents announcing that the policy change is an issue for which a "common consent" sustaining vote should be sought during the next stake conference, or C) the Brethren otherwise provide for a "common consent"-based vote on the policy change.

How do you think the body of the Church would "vote?"

If the majority of the Church members voted to sustain (perhaps "ratify" would be the better word) the policy changes, would that alter your perspective on or assessment of those changes?

Also, do you think reasonable minds can disagree about whether the policy changes were A) revelatory, B) needful/necessary, and/or C) crafted so as to minimize pain / injury / hurt feelings?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I don't know how the church members would vote.  I'd like to know.  And I think the Brethren should know.  I also think that we have a lot of work to do (and it would take some time) before the stigma of an opposing vote in common consent would be removed.

If given the chance, the majority of members ratified the policy it would not alter my perspective on the policy.  But my perspective isn't what matters.

And, yes, reasonable minds can disagree on the policy and on your three points (A, B, & C).  Do you also think that reasonable minds can disagree on whether the policy is revelatory, needful, and crafted to minimize pain?

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps Jeanne is referring to all the needless pain that has resulted from the policy.

How much eternal pain do think would occur if these folks got to the next life only to find out an SSM family is not acceptable to God and therefore their family unit is null and void? Why is the pain and suffering for this not being laid at the feet of the parents? This policy came about due to the looking for loopholes in The Family: A Proclamation. The POTF came out over 20 years ago this isn't something new.