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

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I do understand that the change is not without risks. I do hope that gay parents do not try to use it in political ways. I think I understand your concerns, but I do hope/believe that in the end it will be for the overall good - especially for children who wish to be baptized, who previously could not. We can hopefully put an end to the divisiveness the policy caused.

You mean the whole six of 'em? 😎

[Wade Englund]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

CFR that I've been "gossiping".  Please post a link to a post where I have posted gossip.

Or do you agree with me that I have not done that?

I agree with you that you don't believe you have been gossiping--as you understand the word. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[RevTestament]

39 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You mean the whole six of 'em? 😎

I understand. But six could be six souls otherwise lost to the world. You never know which one may be integral to the Lord's work.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

You can actually use the ignore function so you don't even have to see posts themselves and thus only have to resist reading them when they are quoted.

This can help cut down on the need to tell someone you are ignoring them...which kind of proves you are not.  

Just observing.

Is the ignore function still available?  I can't find it. 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I understand. But six could be six souls otherwise lost to the world. You never know which one may be integral to the Lord's work.

You get it that G-d never really abandons the ninety and nine, right?

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is the ignore function still available?  I can't find it. 

Upper right under your profile name, "ignored users".  Let me know if you need more details. 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Upper right under your profile name, "ignored users".  Let me know if you need more details. 

Thanks Calm.  Using it right now  

[Wade Englund]

57 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You’re such a belittling and insulting poster!  I’m sure he understands very well what the word “gossip” means.  And he does not do that here from all the posts I’ve read by him.  

Then you sign each post with “Thanks”?  After you act all superior?  Ridiculous.  I’ll say no thanks to you!

I do think I’ll take Calm’s advice and use the ignore option.

Yes, please use the ignore option. It will help you avoid being agitated by that which you consistently misunderstand and misjudge.

I wish you a good life.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited April 6, 2019 by Wade Englund

[Wade Englund]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ve known Wade for roughly 25 years. Kind of fun seeing him around again. 

You are one of my favorite people, John.  You best me by a long ways in living up to my new motto: "Always be humble and kind."  Being odd has its challenges.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 6, 2019 by Wade Englund

[Gray]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, they can be. They just should not be by the faithful.

Yes they should be. It's every member's moral obligation to do what is right, to develop their own moral compass rather than forever leaning on someone else's. Sometimes that involves disagreeing with church leaders.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Gray

[Gray]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Temple.

False. "Evil speaking" is not the same thing as criticism.

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, they can be. They just should not be by the faithful.

Not true.  We know that our leaders make mistakes and we also know that we have our own relationship with God and should pray for confirmation regarding their opinions and policies and use our own discretion in matters as well.  It's not a sin to disagree.

And we take no covenant in the temple to not disagree or even criticize at times.  That is not evil speaking..

 

Quote

 

e·vil

1.

profoundly immoral and wicked.

 

 

 But if reaches to the level described in the definition above or if a member starts preaching against the leader publicly or speaking out to cause damage to the church, then yes....that is wrong to do, IMO.

 

Also, if this policy was so good for the church and the members as it was originally written, it would not have been revised and now reversed, IMO.  

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Actually... We have a pattern of men interpreting the Lord in such a way that it seems He may have changed His will. 

"Actually"? Really? OK then, if it's that black-and-white, which pattern do you subscribe to: do you mistakenly interpret the Lord as changing, or do you allow that He changes His will (policy-wise, instruction-wise per the context of this thread) from time to time, as demonstrated in scripture? Or is there "actually" a third option? Do you interpret others as interpreting the Lord in such a way that it seems He may have changed His will?

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not true.  We know that our leaders make mistakes and we also know that we have our own relationship with God and should pray for confirmation regarding their opinions and policies and use our own discretion in matters as well.  It's not a sin to disagree.

And we take no covenant in the temple to not disagree or even criticize at times.  That is not evil speaking..

But if reaches to the level described in the definition above or if a member starts preaching against the leader publicly or speaking out to cause damage to the church, then yes....that is wrong to do, IMO.

 

Also, if this policy was so good for the church and the members as it was originally written, it would not have been revised and now reversed, IMO.  

 

Our Old Testament often uses the word evil, but probably a better translation of the Hebrew - at least at times - is something in conflict with the design or purpose of the Lord. Church policies have a purpose, and sometimes they are not achieved well or ultimately they don't work well for some reason or another. I believe that to be the case here. I have never spoken about the originator(s) of the policy - only that the policy did not make sense to me and why. Thus, I spoke to the ultimate good the policy was supposed to achieve. In these instances I believe reasonable people may disagree without speaking evil of each other. I believe that to be the case here. A policy was enacted, and it seemed to cause more trouble or issues with little to no real benefit. So the policy got changed. I for one never felt it was some unchangeable command from the Lord, so I have no debate to offer about changing revelation and the ramifications of that, etc. To me that is simply a misplaced debate. That is ultimately what it boils down to for me.

[ALarson]

42 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Our Old Testament often uses the word evil, but probably a better translation of the Hebrew - at least at times - is something in conflict with the design or purpose of the Lord. 

I think that evil means evil.  And one can disagree or oppose something without speaking evil of the leaders.  Those are definitely two different things.  I agree that some can cross the line if they get into personally attacking, insulting and slandering or speaking out publicly in an effort to hurt the church.  That's wrong to do and I do not support that at all.  But as I stated before, our leaders make mistakes and we can most definitely disagree with them and their opinions (and policies, etc.) and still remain a faithful member of the church.

42 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Church policies have a purpose, and sometimes they are not achieved well or ultimately they don't work well for some reason or another. I believe that to be the case here. I have never spoken about the originator(s) of the policy - only that the policy did not make sense to me and why. 

I can agree with this.  Although, I never saw much of a good purpose in the originally written policy.  I'm glad it's been changed and made right now.

 

42 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

In these instances I believe reasonable people may disagree without speaking evil of each other. I believe that to be the case here. A policy was enacted, and it seemed to cause more trouble or issues with little to no real benefit. So the policy got changed. I for one never felt it was some unchangeable command from the Lord, ....

I agree.  I always felt it needed to be changed.  I honestly did not expect it to happen so quickly though....but I'm happy about it.

Edited April 6, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Actually"? Really? OK then, if it's that black-and-white, which pattern do you subscribe to: do you mistakenly interpret the Lord as changing, or do you allow that He changes His will (policy-wise, instruction-wise per the context of this thread) from time to time, as demonstrated in scripture? Or is there "actually" a third option? Do you interpret others as interpreting the Lord in such a way that it seems He may have changed His will?

My suggestion is that it isn't really that black and white.

Scripture, including modern-day scripture/revelation, is man's interpretation of his/our interaction with the divine.  Do you disagree?

He can certainly change His will.  Given that He is an omniscient being, I don't really see that as the case in this matter.  While I get that many belief He may have wanted the policy in place for three years, that doesn't really make sense to me.

As I've stated previously, I think that our leaders did their best to put in an appropriate policy that dealt with the legalization of gay marriage and how it related to our church doctrine.

And, now they have realized that it may not have been the best way to deal with the issue so they are reversing it.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

"Actually"? Really? OK then, if it's that black-and-white, which pattern do you subscribe to: do you mistakenly interpret the Lord as changing, or do you allow that He changes His will (policy-wise, instruction-wise per the context of this thread) from time to time, as demonstrated in scripture? Or is there "actually" a third option? Do you interpret others as interpreting the Lord in such a way that it seems He may have changed His will?

There is a third option:  The policy was an over-reaction to the defeat in the Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage.  "Revelation" was misapplied to it.  The outside world interpreted the policy as being bigoted.  The leaders, faced with the constant labeling and criticism, decided to walk back the policy, misapplying "revelation" once again.  So, it never was "revelation," just a misstep and then a correction, sort of (there still is condemnation for biology and threats that church people will intrude on the same sex couple to contact their baptized kid and threats to teach the kid that certain biology is sin)

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes they should be. It's every member's moral obligation to do what is right, to develop their own moral compass rather than forever leaning on someone else's. Sometimes that involves disagreeing with church leaders.

I would compare it to the military.  A soldier may not agree with his superiors and their decisions but it is the obligation of the soldier to do their duty and only disobey under the most extreme circumstances.  God probably does not care as much as if we agree or disagree with a decision but sees whether we will be faithful even when we disagree.  We might find that as we obey to something that we have a problem with, that in time we might see the other side of coin and find ourselves to be wrong.  The question is do we endure and push through our difficulties or just give up when things get tough.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

There is a third option:  The policy was an over-reaction to the defeat in the Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage.  "Revelation" was misapplied to it.  The outside world interpreted the policy as being bigoted.  The leaders, faced with the constant labeling and criticism, decided to walk back the policy, misapplying "revelation" once again.  So, it never was "revelation," just a misstep and then a correction, sort of (there still is condemnation for biology and threats that church people will intrude on the same sex couple to contact their baptized kid and threats to teach the kid that certain biology is sin)

You really have a poor opinion of Church authorities, don't you?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would compare it to the military.  A soldier may not agree with his superiors and their decisions but it is the obligation of the soldier to do their duty and only disobey under the most extreme circumstances.  God probably does not care as much as if we agree or disagree with a decision but sees whether we will be faithful even when we disagree.  We might find that as we obey to something that we have a problem with, that in time we might see the other side of coin and find ourselves to be wrong.  The question is do we endure and push through our difficulties or just give up when things get tough.

I like this. It's close to my own view, which is: to whom is my duty owed? Answer that question and most other questions fall away. 

[blueglass]

On 4/4/2019 at 3:16 PM, CA Steve said:

members who did complain were actually doing God's will by protesting against this policy.

I agree it was God's will to protest against the false doctrine that we should not administer ordinances to gay families and their children and that it was homophobic to label all gay people who were in love as apostates.  

Galatians 2:11-14

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned"

[why me]

America is in a crisis of change. The country has become very political correct and full of identity politics. And this is why there was such a reaction to the policy when it was announced some years ago. If such a decision was made in 1984 or even in 1995 or in 2005, there would have been no reaction by church members. Even Obama was opposed to gay marriage just 10 years ago. America has changed and so has its value structure now. The debate should be on changing landscapes and changing values and how this will influence the church in the future.

I don't think that the policy had much impact in central and south america nor in asia and russia. I think that it was pretty much a western thing, excluding the new countries of europe that became independent after 1991. And it certainly created a shock in the USA. Thus, the reversal.

I think that members should prepare themselves for one of the biggest changes yet to come: same sex marriage in the temple. I have this feeling that this reversal is the first step in the process for preparation of such an happening. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by why me

[USU78]

57 minutes ago, why me said:

America is in a crisis of change. The country has become very political correct and full of identity politics. And this is why there was such a reaction to the policy when it was announced some years ago. If such a decision was made in 1984 or even in 1995 or in 2005, there would have been no reaction by church members. Even Obama was opposed to gay marriage just 10 years ago. America has changed and so has its value structure now. The debate should be on changing landscapes and changing values and how this will influence the church in the future.

I don't think that the policy had much impact in central and south america nor in asia and russia. I think that it was pretty much a western thing, excluding the new countries of europe that became independent after 1991. And it certainly created a shock in the USA. Thus, the reversal.

I think that members should prepare themselves for one of the biggest changes yet to come: same sex marriage in the temple. I have this feeling that this reversal is the first step in the process for preparation of such an happening. 

Advocacy of desecration is an act of war.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes they should be. It's every member's moral obligation to do what is right, to develop their own moral compass rather than forever leaning on someone else's. Sometimes that involves disagreeing with church leaders.

No, it is every member’s duty to align themselves with the Will of God and to be empowered by his Spirit to know what is right.

5 hours ago, Gray said:

False. "Evil speaking" is not the same thing as criticism.

An ant could starve on that distinction in practice.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, why me said:

America is in a crisis of change. The country has become very political correct and full of identity politics. And this is why there was such a reaction to the policy when it was announced some years ago. If such a decision was made in 1984 or even in 1995 or in 2005, there would have been no reaction by church members. Even Obama was opposed to gay marriage just 10 years ago. America has changed and so has its value structure now. The debate should be on changing landscapes and changing values and how this will influence the church in the future.

I don't think that the policy had much impact in central and south america nor in asia and russia. I think that it was pretty much a western thing, excluding the new countries of europe that became independent after 1991. And it certainly created a shock in the USA. Thus, the reversal.

I think that members should prepare themselves for one of the biggest changes yet to come: same sex marriage in the temple. I have this feeling that this reversal is the first step in the process for preparation of such an happening. 

When we start being compelled to solemnize all heterosexual marriages in the temple I will worry about them trying to compel SSM in the temple. Until then this is hyperbolic worry.