Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

This thread is about whether or not it was appropriate for members to advocate for the reversal/removal of the 2015 policy. Please take OT arguments/discussions about its affects elsewhere.

Mods please lock the thread if anymore OT comments appear about suicide.

Edited by CA Steve
Link to post
9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

This thread is about whether or not it was appropriate for members to advocate for the reversal/removal of the 2015 policy. Please take OT arguments/discussions about its affects elsewhere.

Mods please lock the thread if anymore OT comments appear about suicide.

Speaking for myself, I was right! ūüėĀ

  • Like 1
Link to post
22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Read this stuff, people, if you care.

https://www.health.utah.gov/vipp/topics/suicide/prevention.htmlÔĽŅ

Deleted... in light of the OP's urging of the thread to be closed if more discussion centers on suicide. I'll PM you my post there if you don't mind. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
5 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

By this "reasoning" the Church's softening its position on birth control way back in the day was a step closer as well since homosexuality is a very effective form of birth control.

To me, this "reasoning" would make sense if temple marriage were not essentially about eternal families--i.e. procreation (fruitful and multiplying).

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

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).  

You are missing the point of the analogy. But, that is to be expected. You have your solidified position  to protect. And, nothing I can say will change that.

Have a nice day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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

This thread is about whether or not it was appropriate for members to advocate for the reversal/removal of the 2015 policy. Please take OT arguments/discussions about its affects elsewhere.

Mods please lock the thread if anymore OT comments appear about suicide.

I think depends entirely on the attitude, methods and processes they drew upon, and whether their faith in Christ was increased by their actions.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

By this "reasoning" the Church's softening its position on birth control way back in the day was a step closer as well since homosexuality is a very effective form of birth control.

To me, this "reasoning" would make sense if temple marriage were not essentially about eternal families--i.e. procreation (fruitful and multiplying).

We have no idea how things are going to work (ie. procreation) after this life.  We can speculate and form some beliefs...but that's about it  Members who are gay can have children and could be sealed to another spouse (just like happens with heterosexual couples who are not both the physical parents of the children) and sealed to their children.  There are couple here who cannot physically have a child that adopt and have that child sealed to them.  There is absolutely no reason that those in a SSM cannot be with the one they love (and the children involved) for eternity.  All reasons given are your beliefs or teachings of men that have been attributed to God....which continue to evolve and change.

The teachings regarding this issue (gay members and marriage) have changed over the years within the church as well.  I see no reason to believe that will not continue in the future.

1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

You are missing the point of the analogy.

No, I believe that it is you who's missing the point.  Both analogies can apply and for different reasons.  I believe mine is the better analogy and the most likely scenario, but we can disagree on that.  It does not mean that I am "missing the point" of your analogy though.   

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, california boy said:

It has been my experience that members who abandoned the Church over the original policy left because they lost faith that church leaders spoke for God.  Reversing the policy doesn't not change that conclusion.  If anything, it reinforces that belief.  I honestly doubt many who have left over this policy will ever return.  Once that trust is broken, it is very hard to ever believe again.

The original policy affected a LOT of people both inside the church and outside the church.  It brought into question a policy that for many completely went against the teachings of the Savior.  The reasoning for the policy "We did it for the children" sounded like baloney.  It sounds even more like baloney now.  If it was really "for the children", then are church leaders now throwing those children under the bus just to remove an unpopular revelation?

The least affected group is gay couples with children IMO. This policy is certainly not the only reason the church has given for gay members to leave and never come back.  

CB- you absolutely nailed it.

This issue is specifically about discrimination against LGBTQ but more broadly is an illustration of why so many members have lost faith and trust in the church and it's leaders. The discrimination is terrible and it's impact on LGBTQ individuals and community is bad enough, but if one thinks it's only about the impact on SSM couples with children really miss the bigger picture. Thank you for being such a reasoned, fair, and wise poster on this subject.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 4/4/2019 at 1:16 PM, 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 policy originally came from leaders (at some level) within the church (the MormonLeaks leaked emails indicate that the policy existed in a form close to what was published some months before November of 2015).

I believe President Nelson that it was discussed at length among the apostles.  And I imagine that after sincere prayer, President Monson gave the go ahead to publish the policy in the handbook.

But I don't think it was the will of God for this policy to be in place.  So I think that the Brethren listened and have now reversed the policy because they realized it was doing more harm than good.

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

This thread is about whether or not it was appropriate for members to advocate for the reversal/removal of the 2015 policy. Please take OT arguments/discussions about its affects elsewhere.

Mods please lock the thread if anymore OT comments appear about suicide.

The answer is "no."  And my reasoning I've posted, but I'll reiterate.

First, an analogy:  Polygyny was enjoined first on JSJr, then on select others, then more broadly.  There are two spots in section 132 which make clear (to me at least) that it is an imposed trial in the nature of the principal Abrahamic trials (sacrificing Isaac and obeying Sarah in her desire to conceive a son through her slave woman).  Both broke Abraham's heart and made life all but unbearable.  Yet he and Sarah made it through the trials.  So did Isaac and Ishmael.  The ram's appearance saved Isaac, and the angelic visitor saved Ishmael.  I have come to the conclusion (please bear with me) that the trial was intended only for a short time and a select few in the first generation of adults who made the trek from Nauvoo to Utah.  And that G-d wished to take it away, but waited on BY and the Twelve, as well as the membership of the Church, to ask that the trial be concluded.  But that next generation ( my great grandfathers') never asked for the trial to be removed.  They suffered arrest, incarceration, and the near utter destruction of the temples and the Saints as a people rather than give it up.  They quite missed the point of it.  Abraham never asked that Ishmael and his mother stay in the camp so that he could have one big happy polygynous family.  Nope.  He obeyed Sarah in sending them away, just as he obeyed her in bringing Ishmael into the world in the first place.

Now, G-d didn't impose the release from the calling to practice polygyny, notwithstanding He wished to do so.

When asked, He authorized OD1.  A general release from an onerous covenant obligation.

Now, getting back to your question, when faced with first the spectre and later the reality of state-imposed same-sex marriage and worse, G-d directed that the Proclamation be published.  Then,  facing the day-to-day realities, the First Presidency and the Twelve sought guidance both from house counsel and from G-d.  The decades-long experience with unauthorized post-Manifesto polygynists and their serial lying, deceipt, misrepresentation, and outright fraud to gain access to the Temple gave a framework on what was expected to happen now that same-sex marriages was a puzzling and unhappy reality.  Long experience with having to adjust temple worthiness questions, and adopting a reasonable policy on what to do with the children of these underground polygynists when it came to blessings, baptisms and such, fleshed out the framework.

I believe both came from G-d, the policy on children of polygynists and the policy on children of homosexual couples, married or no.

What I believe has happened is a malignant opposition from without, fueled by disloyal insider employees/staff with their leak to press and foe, so that press and foe could attack this quite reasonable and benign policy, such that many, dazzled by the expertly bedazzled anti-policy packaging, were misled.  They who were misled were not evil, just mistaken.  Yet G-d is ever merciful, and this adjustment to the policy, which contains distinctions without particular difference, will, with time, I hope, heal hearts broken by the malignant opposition from without.

Those misled were not right to attack the Brethren from within.  But, as stated, G-d is merciful.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 4/4/2019 at 3:16 PM, 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.

 

 

 

 

Quite simply.... YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
On 4/4/2019 at 3:34 PM, The Nehor said:

Or ‚Äúholy slandering of the apostles‚ÄĚ.

At times they deserve it.  Even though on the mind control bend they say they can never be criticized even if the criticism is valid.

Link to post
On 4/4/2019 at 4:14 PM, JLHPROF said:

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.

Sure we know for sure. If someone claims that what they tell us is from God they need to prove it. If not then we can call it simple BS...which is exactly what this was. And what we have witnessed on this issue demonstrates the BS.

Edited by Teancum
Link to post
On 4/4/2019 at 4:16 PM, JLHPROF said:

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

Bwwahhhaa!  Well its nice to see confirmation bias is alive an well.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Bwwahhhaa!  Well its nice to see confirmation bias is alive an well.

The prophets have told us that -- right or wrong -- they will never lead us astray.  It is not in the Lord's program.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I am so pleased with this change.  One family in our ward has had their son already contact the Bishop to discuss rebaptism.

Wow....that's wonderful to hear.

I spoke with my Bishop last night and he is so happy about this change.  He also passed on to me that our Stake President is relieved and thrilled.

  • Like 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We have no idea how things are going to work (ie. procreation) after this life.  We can speculate and form some beliefs...but that's about it  Members who are gay can have children and could be sealed to another spouse (just like happens with heterosexual couples who are not both the physical parents of the children) and to their children.  There are couple here who cannot physically have a child that adopt and have that child sealed to them.  There is absolutely no reason that those in a SSM cannot be with the one they love (and the children involved) for eternity.  All reasons given are your beliefs or teachings of men that have been attributed to God....which continue to evolve and change.

The teachings regarding this issue (gay members and marriage) have changed over the years within the church as well.  I see no reason to believe that will not continue in the future.

No, I believe that it is you who's missing the point.  Both analogies can apply and for different reasons.  I believe mine is the better analogy and the most likely scenario, but we can disagree on that.  It does not mean that I am "missing the point" of your analogy though.   

Yes, the human imagination can conjure all sorts of possibilities for the hereafter.

It will be interesting to see how those who try to straddle living of the world and of heaven, image a hereafter with 85 or more genders. As a consequence, the principles of marriage and family will take on a myriad of permutations.

Of course, the imaginings can be entertaining, but not necessarily edifying--because this is dependent upon what God thinks, and not man.

Some men believe they are in a better position than others to speak for God, but there, too, this reasonably ought to be left to God to decide--which is why these kinds of exchanges between divergent mankind about the things of God , tend not to be productive .

Each of us should be having this conversation with God, with real intent, having faith....

With that said, I wish you a good day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Expressing doubts about a policy is not an attack on the brethren from within. It is merely a disagreement. If I can't be allowed to disagree with a certain policy without being labeled an attacker, I think that is a sad day indeed, but I think it does characterize my treatment/feeling on this board - because I simply don't agree with every thought which has ever come out of the Church leadership. LDS seem to take that very rigidly, and then assume I must be against the Church when I am not. I just don't believe the Garden of Eden was in America for instance. Does that mean I am against the Church or that I am attacking the Church. Gosh, I hope not. Nothing is really further from the truth - my interest is in pursuing the truth - not in creating discord. Sometimes there can be more than one path to getting there.

I'm not attacking, RT.  I've tried to be clear that I believe you're mistaken and misled, but it's in G-d's bailiwick to judge your and my hearts.  Just as a certain protestant padre was once told he'd been deceived by a malicious intelligence, and G-d, through His messenger, delivered to the poor deceived soul a message of hope and love, so I believe this instant recasting/adjustment of the policy is intended as a message of hope and love.

I defy anybody to find an ounce of anger in it.

I'm not crazy about it, as I think it will tend to empower the outsider malefactor class.  But I'm not paid to make such decisions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, Wade Englund said:

Yes, the human imagination can conjure all sorts of possibilities for the hereafter.

It will be interesting to see how those who try to straddle living of the world and of heaven, image a hereafter with 85 or more genders. As a consequence, the principles of marriage and family will take on a myriad of permutations.

Yup.  But God can work miracles, right?  He can sort it all out and make things right.  Same with all of the mess that polygamy has caused or other complicated family situations.  It will all be made right (is what I keep hearing).  I'm sure that can apply to what you state above too.

 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yup.  But God can work miracles, right?  He can sort it all out and make things right.  Same with all of the mess that polygamy has caused or other complicated family situations.  It will all be made right (is what I keep hearing).  I'm sure that can apply to what you state above too. 

Yes, God can make right in heaven the messes created by the minds of man in this world, though not likely in accord with the worldly minds that created the messes to begin with.

Things will be made right according to God's mind, and we (mankind) will only view it that way the more  our minds conform or become one with God''s.

Again, it all comes back to conversing with the mess fixer rather than the mess creators.  

Choose you this day whom ye will serve...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post
Just now, Wade Englund said:

Yes, God can make right in heaven the messes created by the minds of man in this world,

Oh, I think it's more than just the "minds of man" that create these messes.

Quote

 

Things will be made right according to God's mind, and we (mankind) will only view it that way the more  our minds conform or become one with God''s.

Again, it all comes back to conversing with the mess fixer rather than the mess creators.  

Choose you this day whom ye will serve..

 

I agree.  

Link to post
22 hours 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. 

If it effected almost nobody then why institute ?  I will tell you why. Because the leadership did not like the fact that many church members were becoming more accepting of LBGT people and their lifestyle. And it followed heavily upon the US SC sanctioning same sex marriage. So they put a stake in the ground. And it backed fired. Big time. And this because it showed the church to be extreme and bigoted against a segment of society that most of society has come to understand that these people are the way they are because that is how they were born to be.  

What is really interesting about all of this is that the LDS Church appeared to be moving toward a more accepting and tolerant position even if they branded homosexual relations as a sin. 

  • 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...