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

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

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

Temple.

[Jeanne]

The answer to this question is another question.  How many people have died because of this policy?

[bearhoof]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The answer to this question is another question.  How many people have died because of this policy?

I'll go out on a limb and say "zero"

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The answer to this question is another question.  How many people have died because of this policy?

Are you suggesting that we might see a decline in suicide rates because of the change?  

Edited April 4, 2019 by pogi

[SouthernMo]

35 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Temple.

Nope. Not said at all.

If you’re referring to not “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed” I ask who in leadership has been anointed?

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that we might see a decline in suicide rates because of the change?  

No...and i am not even sure of deaths per policy....but it is questioned that should be asked.  For many, it was a final blow at that time.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No...and i am not even sure of deaths per policy....but it is questioned that should be asked.  For many, it was a final blow at that time.

If you want to ask the question that is fine, but that requires research.  Anything less is reckless and suggestive without any evidence whatsoever.

[lostindc]

1 hour ago, bearhoof said:

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. 

This policy is likely responsible for many resignations and even unfortunately helped influence some to suicide.  This policy impacted many, hence why the four year policy and a complete 180.  I think it probably didn’t impact you because you live in an area and lead a life where things are extremely homogenous and LGBT is nonexistent.

As for the refiners fire, that’s up to you to decide.  It’s sounds awful silly for a God to choose this method, but heck, I am sure many can find a way to rationalize.

 

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Temple.

Not true.  One can disagree or even be critical of a policy or decision without speaking evil about our leaders.

There's a definite distinction and we are encouraged to think for ourselves and also rely on our own inspiration and guidance.  We are not always 100% going to agree with all of our leader's decisions or teachings.  That is not breaking any covenants.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you want to ask the question that is fine, but that requires research.  Anything less is reckless and suggestive without any evidence whatsoever.

You are right.  I apologize.

[lostindc]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you want to ask the question that is fine, but that requires research.  Anything less is reckless and suggestive without any evidence whatsoever.

I agree to an extent, but one can easily head over to various social media groups and find quite a few posting today about how this policy led to a loved one or friend committing suicide.  

[Storm Rider]

6 minutes ago, lostindc said:

This policy is likely responsible for many resignations and even unfortunately helped influence some to suicide.  This policy impacted many, hence why the four year policy and a complete 180.  I think it probably didn’t impact you because you live in an area and lead a life where things are extremely homogenous and LGBT is nonexistent.

As for the refiners fire, that’s up to you to decide.  It’s sounds awful silly for a God to choose this method, but heck, I am sure many can find a way to rationalize.

Just curious, do you know a married gay couple that wanted to raise their children in the Church and those children were prevented from being baptized?  I have heard of a single gay couple, but that couple did not have children that were as yet denied baptism. You stated above the policy impacted many - I suspect it actually impacted almost no one. 

[lostindc]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Just curious, do you know a married gay couple that wanted to raise their children in the Church and those children were prevented from being baptized?  I have heard of a single gay couple, but that couple did not have children that were as yet denied baptism. You stated above the policy impacted many - I suspect it actually impacted almost no one. 

Yes, I actually do know one, that’s it, but I spent most of my life in a very low mormon pop.

A couple things to ponderize.  Most LGBT members were already pushed out of the Church.  The significant backlash and mad feelings you’re reading is due to many of us having LGBT friends and family.  This policy was another kick in the gut, another way of saying you’re not welcome in Mormonism.

What sucks for all of the TBMs on this board is that many of you folks spent time rationalizing this policy over the years only to have the policy taken off the table.  All the arguing with posters, perhaps friends and family, all the discussions were for a policy the Church dumps four years later.  I know the policy divided my family even further.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Temple.

That's not in the temple.

[Storm Rider]

3 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Yes, I actually do know one, that’s it, but I spent most of my life in a very low mormon pop.

A couple things to ponderize.  Most LGBT members were already pushed out of the Church.  The significant backlash and mad feelings you’re reading is due to many of us having LGBT friends and family.  This policy was another kick in the gut, another way of saying you’re not welcome in Mormonism.

What sucks for all of the TBMs on this board is that many of you folks spent time rationalizing this policy over the years only to have the policy taken off the table.  All the arguing with posters, perhaps friends and family, all the discussions were for a policy the Church dumps four years later.  I know the policy divided my family even further.

Lost, you are doing a little too much projecting. Those TBMs are not cookie-cutter caricatures; they are a lot like everyone else. They are individuals who strive to follow what they believe. 

What is so sad about this is that this policy affected almost no one in the entire world; but it was used by the Left to attack the Church. When a policy affects no one, why care about it?  Strange to see, worse to see it happen. It makes me think of a story,  Rhinoceros, by Eugene Ionesco. Individuals turned into irrational individuals that were angry about it, but "it" never affected anyone. Just really, really bizarre. 

[lostindc]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

Lost, you are doing a little too much projecting. Those TBMs are not cookie-cutter caricatures; they are a lot like everyone else. They are individuals who strive to follow what they believe. 

What is so sad about this is that this policy affected almost no one in the entire world; but it was used by the Left to attack the Church. When a policy affects no one, why care about it?  Strange to see, worse to see it happen. It makes me think of a story,  Rhinoceros, by Eugene Ionesco. Individuals turned into irrational individuals that were angry about it, but "it" never affected anyone. Just really, really bizarre. 

How did this policy only impact only a few?

[SouthernMo]

26 minutes ago, lostindc said:

As for the refiners fire, that’s up to you to decide.  It’s sounds awful silly for a God to choose this method, but heck, I am sure many can find a way to rationalize.

Agreed. It seems that some have a belief in a God who is more like a drill sergeant preparing young soldiers by making them to tasks to see who will obey and who will not.

I guess I’ve always thought of him as a loving Heavenly Father who cares for us, rather than wants to test us.

I may be wrong about my ideas of what/who God is. But, if God is more like the drill sergeant, he’s not deserving of my love or worship.

[lostindc]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

Agreed. It seems that some have a belief in a God who is more like a drill sergeant preparing young soldiers by making them to tasks to see who will obey and who will not.

I guess I’ve always thought of him as a loving Heavenly Father who cares for us, rather than wants to test us.

I may be wrong about my ideas of what/who God is. But, if God is more like the drill sergeant, he’s not deserving of my love or worship.

Yep, I am in your boat.  I can’t imagine worshipping a god that plays mind games and some of these games lead to members feeling so hopeless that they end up harming themselves.  That doesn’t sound like a God of love, really, that sounds like humans messing with other humans and most certainly not involving any sort of love.

[Exiled]

The members who opposed were correct to do so and the prohibition against disagreeing with leaders should be opposed too. Constructive criticism should always be tolerated especially when the leaders are wrong. It seems obvious that having to face some criticism would have perhaps prevented the wrongheaded policy in the first place, but here we are.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

This is a totally made up idea

Hell or people going to it?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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

Nope, not without breaking mine.

[tulip]

The wind changed so the policy changed also.

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, not without breaking mine.

I really urge you to listen to what you have Covenanted and what you have not.

In LDS temple liturgy, one covenants not to reveal the signs or tokens. For some reason, most Mormons think they have covenanted to secrecy beyond that.  These people are good people who follow the traditions of man, rather than the teachings of the temple.

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I really urge you to listen to what you have Covenanted and what you have not.

In LDS temple liturgy, one covenants not to reveal the signs or tokens. For some reason, most Mormons think they have covenanted to secrecy beyond that.  These people are good people who follow the traditions of man, rather than the teachings of the temple.

Thank you, I was wondering If I’d been attending the wrong temple all this time 

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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.

Its possible.  It is also just as possible that God saw some members professing their love towards him so he decided to test them.  I was never a big fan of the policy but the idea people who proclaimed the Church to be true but then leave the church over an issue like showed to me at least they were faking it.  We are to follow God without conditions.  When we follow God based on conditions,  then perhaps we are not really as committed as we think.