Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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

Zero.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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?

Depends which anointing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour 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.

 

 

A good test or refiners fire is one that actually causes people to have stress and struggle with things. I did not care for the policy but it did not affect my life or views towards the doctrines of the Church.  So it was not a test for me.  For others it was a serious test.  A test that some passed and others failed.  If God was using it as a test, then the method worked just fine.  God tests us in various ways.  A bad test is one where everyone passes. Those are not real tests. 

Link to post
22 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.

So true.  But by preventing people from discussing the elements that are outside the covenants of secrecy they allow false interpretations of the endowment to continue among members.

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

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.  

Anecdotal information isn't going to provide accurate assessment of causes when suicide itself is usually a result of mental disturbance and unrealistic thinking.

  • Like 3
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anecdotal information isn't going to provide accurate assessment of causes when suicide itself is usually a result of mental disturbance and unrealistic thinking.

Nice at least somebody is responding to irresponsible if not maliciously slanderous nonsense.

Link to post
22 minutes ago, Gray said:

That criticizing leaders will send you to it. False doctrine.

:)

I suppose Emma is going to hell for complaining about the brethren spitting on the floor :) 

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

Nope, not without breaking mine.

No covenants involved.  You can disagree with the leaders and still be respectful of them and not speak “evil”.  That would be wrong, I agree. 

Link to post

My answer to the OP is to invite those who think this fluidity of policy demonstrates a mistake in the original policy or a reaction to public sentiment or floundering to find a way to make an unpopular policy more palatable to consider the encounter between Jesus and the woman from Canaan who sought His blessing for her possessed daughter.  (Matthew 15)

He first declined to speak to her directly, but told His disciples to tell her He wasn’t sent to the Gentiles, but only the Jews.  Was that response dismissive, unkind, inappropriate?

She took no offense, but persisted and “worshipped Him.”

He responded by speaking to her and compared her to a dog.  How did this response show compassion, empathy or kindness?  Do we view it as wrong?  Or a mistake?

She took no offense, but called His analogy “truth.”

Only then was the miracle given.  Jesus acknowledged her great faith and granted her the desire of her heart.  Her daughter was healed in that very moment.  Was this a course correction?  We’re the earlier statement now confirmed as wrong and in need of repudiation?

 l invite you to consider that our journey of conversion will, of necessity, include instances where we hear things and experience things that are upsetting to us and just seem “wrong” (I wasn’t sent to you, my blessing you would be like giving my childrens’ food to a dog).  At those time whether we allow our reaction to what others might see as mistakes or wrongs be driven by our faith and hope or our fear, doubt and anger determines our progress on that journey. 

The Cannanite woman chose to react to these “wrongs” committed by Jesus in such a way as to increase her faith and hope and to prove that faith and hope, not to Jesus, but to herself. And while some might believe her child was the innocent hostage of these tests of her mother’s faith, I have no doubt she was in His loving arms regardless of how her mother reacted and whether or not she was healed.

How many of us will abandon our journey of conversion because we perceive God, or His Son, or a Church leader does something “wrong” and thereby loose the opportunity to have the desire of our heart?  How many of us will persist, “worship Him,” call the “wrong” “truth” and be granted the desire of our heart?

  • Like 2
Link to post

Consider doubting Thomas - he was honest with his doubts, shared his struggles, and received the evidence he needed to better understand.  I think honesty and transparency- ask and it will be opened, seek and find - knock on closed doors...  

to me, seeking = asking questions, openly communicating when we find something that does not sit well with our conscience.

Free will is a big deal - we fought in heaven for our agency.  Satan's plan was to take away our individual thoughts, our individual agency.  God's plan was for everyone to have full ownership of their will.  To think and act for themselves, not to think and act based on what fallible leaders command.... 

Screenshot_20190404-204122_Facebook.jpg

I agree that an apology is in order.  I would have a lot more respect, and faith in church leaders if they were willing to demonstrate what repentance is - "Lord, is it I?"  

something I recently posted on a friend's announcement that they were being called in to a disciplinary council...

"I dream of a community where everyone feels safe being honest about their fears, doubts, imperfections, and hurting hearts. I dream of a community where apostles, prophets, and leaders are the first to admit their mistakes – “Lord, is it I?” I dream of a community where all are equally loved and supported, where we can all face our imperfections together without shaming, without silencing, without dis-fellowship, without being judged by councils…"

Edited by changed
  • Like 4
Link to post
11 hours ago, CA Steve said:

The proof is in the fact they changed it.

Let's test that conclusion with an actual case:

Joseph twice prayed to God that He allow Martin Harris to take the 116 pages of BoM manuscript, and each time was "commanded" otherwise. On the third attempt, God changed His policy and granted permission. 

The proof that Joseph was correct in making the request is in the fact God changed his policy.

D&C 3 says otherwise..

If it is of an consolation, the fact that your reasoning is fallacious doesn't mean that your conclusion is false. But....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 2
Link to post

After talking with family and friends, some thought that once god reveals something it’s set in stone, but we talk about how things have changed due to the voice of the people.

now does it make it right or wrong for God to go by the voice of the people, only time will tell.

Israel had God as their king but because they wanted to be like other groups they wanted a earthly king. And we know how that went.

god said no to the 114 pages but then said ok.

Polygamy yes then no.

blacks and priesthood no then yes. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

After talking with family and friends, some thought that once god reveals something it’s set in stone, but we talk about how things have changed due to the voice of the people.

now does it make it right or wrong for God to go by the voice of the people, only time will tell.

Israel had God as their king but because they wanted to be like other groups they wanted a earthly king. And we know how that went.

god said no to the 114 pages but then said ok.

Polygamy yes then no.

blacks and priesthood no then yes. 

 

Let's hope the next step is:

SSM no then yes.

I think it'll take years to get there, but it'll happen.  Yesterdays announcement is one step closer, IMO.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Let's test that conclusion with an actual case:

Joseph twice prayed to God that He allow Martin Harris to take the 116 pages of BoM manuscript, and each time was "commanded" otherwise. On the third attempt, God changed His policy and granted permission. 

The proof that Joseph was correct in making the request is in the fact God changed his policy.

D&C 3 says otherwise..

If it is of an consolation, the fact that your reasoning is fallacious doesn't mean that your conclusion is false. But....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What "policy" are you referring to here?  Seems like quite the stretch to me....

I think a better analogy would be to compare what took place with the 116 pages to the implementation of the original policy.  This could have just as easily been the case as what you're proposing (that the leaders wanted the new policy, continued praying for confirmation and the Lord finally allowed them to make that mistake and then watch them go through the consequences....and now finally correct their mistake).  

Edited by ALarson
Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:

Anecdotal information isn't going to provide accurate assessment of causes when suicide itself is usually a result of mental disturbance and unrealistic thinking.

There are just too many anecdotes about the policy causing depression and suicide to discount the policy as being a cause. The altitude excuse seems tangential and I don't think places like the Andes were even considered. Is there even a suicide problem in the Andes mountains and other high mountainous regions outside the US?  

When the religious group condemns biology as sin, mental disturbance no doubt increases for these kids and unrealistic thinking about God being a part of the condemnation is also there leading to a downward spiral. I think we should pay attention to these anecdotes and perhaps the church did too, finally.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Exiled said:

There are just too many anecdotes about the policy causing depression and suicide to discount the policy as being a cause. The altitude excuse seems tangential and I don't think places like the Andes were even considered. Is there even a suicide problem in the Andes mountains and other high mountainous regions outside the US?  

When the religious group condemns biology as sin, mental disturbance no doubt increases for these kids and unrealistic thinking about God being a part of the condemnation is also there leading to a downward spiral. I think we should pay attention to these anecdotes and perhaps the church did too, finally.

Anecdotes really matter to the one. ❤️

  • Like 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

Anecdotal information isn't going to provide accurate assessment of causes when suicide itself is usually a result of mental disturbance and unrealistic thinking.

But, do you want to be the source of the thing that pushes someone over the edge?

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...