Jump to content

Were Those Members Who Opposed The 2015 Policy Right To Do So?


Recommended Posts

The other thread on the policy change is going by so fast it is hard to follow the many lines of discussion. One aspect I think is interesting and deserves its own thread is the question about why this change came about. Some posts in the other thread I managed to read implied that it was rescinded because too many people were complaining about it and even though it was a correct policy (or revelation?) God has rescinded it to punish us for our complaining. Sort of a "Be careful what you ask for because you might get it" line of reasoning. Others have suggested that the old policy has served its need and is no longer necessary, and still others feel like leadership has listened to the members and reconsidered their decision.

Where do you fall?

I believe in the last explanation, that leadership reconsidered the policy because a significant number of members expressed their displeasure with the policy. If that is true, could it not be said that God was using membership to communicate something to His apostles and the prophet they were incapable of hearing directly from Him? And, if so, then members who did complain were actually doing God's will by protesting against this policy.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The other thread on the policy change is going by so fast it is hard to follow the many lines of discussion. One aspect I think is interesting and deserves its own thread is the question about why this change came about. Some posts in the other thread I managed to read implied that it was rescinded because too many people were complaining about it and even though it was a correct policy (or revelation?) God has rescinded it to punish us for our complaining. Sort of a "Be careful what you ask for because you might get it" line of reasoning. Others have suggested that the old policy has served its need and is no longer necessary, and still others feel like leadership has listened to the members and reconsidered their decision.

Where do you fall?

I believe in the last explanation, that leadership reconsidered the policy because a significant number of members expressed their displeasure with the policy. If that is true, could it not be said that God was using membership to communicate something to His apostles and the prophet they were incapable of hearing directly from Him? And, if so, then members who did complain were actually doing God's will by protesting against this policy.

I think this article explains things pretty well: https://www.lds.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

The doctrine isn't changing. Policies and initiatives, no matter how inspired, are more flexible in nature and are bound to change.

The policy changes came through the council process, which entails far more than hearing people express their displeasure. Each member has the Gift of the Holy Ghost and hopefully expresses himself and listens accordingly, with charity; we cannot do God's will individually without these, or collectively without the keys.

 

Link to post

We have to be careful in how we judge each other, don’t we? 

I am so grateful for open hearts who were willing to reverse this hurtful policy.  If God’s wrath is to follow in direct response to our resistance, it is what it is.  But I don’t even almost believe that.  

It’s interesting how we (me, you, all) are so sure to know what God thinks. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That proves nothing and I have to laugh at the idea that the unabashed criticism of the apostles is being characterized as “gentle promptings” as if the bile spewn about this is comparable to the sweet whispers of the Holy Ghost.

And yet they changed it. You can spew out what ever hyperbole you care to characterize those members who were against this policy but you can't ignore the fact (well you're The Nehor you pretty much do what ever you want) that they have retracted the policy. So laugh away.

Edited by CA Steve
  • Like 1
Link to post
48 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

And, if so, then members who did complain were actually doing God's will by protesting against this policy.

Joseph Smith came up with the word of wisdom because of complaints from his wife. The leadership needs to listen to the members sometimes to know what is needed or what they are ready for.
But I still don't see how having that policy or not having it is going to affect anyone. As I said before I can't see how any parent is going to let their child be a member of a religion and support their membership that will not allow them to be members. 
I think mostly the policy just didn't feel right to many members.

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The interesting thing here is how some people are reacting, by trying to defend leadership at any cost. It is yet another example of how we claim that our leadership is fallible but refuse to acknowledge when we actually see it happening right before our very eyes. What a great opportunity there is here for the Church to admit to making a mistake.

The even more interesting thing is how this is assumed to be the correct stance and not that criticizing the leadership is a violation of covenants and is sinking many straight to Hell.

Link to post
1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

And yet they changed it. You can spew out what ever hyperbole you care to characterize those members who were against this policy but you can't ignore the fact (well you're The Nehor you pretty much do what ever you want) that they have retracted the policy. So laugh away.

I did not dispute that they changed it but that does not mean I have to accept your conclusions as to why it was changed or how this proves we can safely ignore those fallible apostles who are bumbling in the dark turning policies on and off on a whim.

  • Like 3
Link to post

If the policy actually came from God they were wrong to oppose it.  If it went against God's will they were right.

Everyone has an opinion which is the case and nobody knows for sure.

  • Like 3
Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I did not dispute that they changed it but that does not mean I have to accept your conclusions as to why it was changed or how this proves we can safely ignore those fallible apostles who are bumbling in the dark turning policies on and off on a whim.

Read much into what I have said?

 

You are really mischaracterizing what I have said.

Edited by CA Steve
Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

this proves we can safely ignore those fallible apostles who are bumbling in the dark turning policies on and off on a whim.

You give them far too little credit.  They know exactly what they're doing, even when it's wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post

My teen nearly lost her faith over the original policy.  Those were trying times in our family.  I know other families struggled, and I know that many people were impacted negatively by the policy.

I wonder if for some the change of policy is in any way painful, in that they wonder if it didn't have to happen to begin with?  for those, what is needed is acknowledgement which will not come.  I wish peace for them.  It will be a journey they will take alone if they choose to take it, to forgive the hurts created.  

Those who opposed and left - was it wrong to leave?  None of us know.  I feel guilty that I froze.  But I'm glad I'm still here.  It's both/and.

Link to post
42 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The interesting thing here is how some people are reacting, by trying to defend leadership at any cost. It is yet another example of how we claim that our leadership is fallible but refuse to acknowledge when we actually see it happening right before our very eyes. What a great opportunity there is here for the Church to admit to making a mistake.

I just had a shower thought, for real. I thought of Pres. Oak's gay grandson, and how happy he must be with the announcement, or maybe not. Because sometimes some in the gay community think way outside of that box. 

But I thought that maybe Pres. Oak's is having a moment in his life of opening up to things out there. And maybe Pres. Nelson agrees. 

Link to post

Yes

Sadly, members did leave over this policy.  I don't know why God wants a three year trial run test on this policy, seems kind of absurd.

Anyways, I am glad current leadership reversed the policy.  Pretty cool that they can admit that something needed to change.  I am excited to see more policies changed.

Link to post
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

or gentle promptings from humble servants.

 

The proof is in the fact they changed it.

Question: Put the case that G-d wanted to discontinue polygyny after the Saints got to Utah. Put the further case that the next generation didn't want plural marriages to cease being conducted.

G-d, acknowledging the weakness of the Saints, decides to hold off for thirty or forty years before issuing the Manifesto, was the change occasioned by your alleged humble servants' righteous anger, or G-d's judging the time to be ripe to push things along?

Edited by USU78
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The even more interesting thing is how this is assumed to be the correct stance and not that criticizing the leadership is a violation of covenants and is sinking many straight to Hell.

This is a totally made up idea

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The even more interesting thing is how this is assumed to be the correct stance and not that criticizing the leadership is a violation of covenants and is sinking many straight to Hell.

Can you please teach me how criticizing the leadership is a violation of covenants?

  • Like 3
Link to post

I'm wondering two things:

1) Do members who abandoned the Church over the original policy now swallow their pride and return?

2) Could the original policy have been a "refiners fire" to test the faith of members?

The original policy affected so few people and yet the mote surely became a beam to many members. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...