What would you do?

Last Sunday, I went to SS. Substitute teacher got off on a tangent and started talking about the Church’s new policies. He talked about the press saying people were leaving the church over it. He stated that the people who left needed to be gone anyway. And good riddance. He went on to announce that if anyone had a problem with the policy, it was because they were influenced by SATAN.

I was torn. I wanted to raise my hand and plainly tell him that I disagreed with everything he had just said. What stopped me was not wanting to “Ruin” SS. I look back and realize that it wouldn’t have ruined anything. It would’ve put the first bit of spice in a long dead class.

My real-life response: I just looked at him, got up, and walked out. I didn’t bang the door .. But just walked out.

If I could live the day over, I should have stayed and started the conversation. I’m not sure why I chickened out. I assume too many decades of “no controversy allowed” enculturation running through my veins. It made me realize that when someone walks out, there isn’t a conversation. It solves nothing. Staying and discussing is harder .. But the results are potentially better.

I like ray’s response. I hope I would have the courage to do the same. I would probably raise my hand and if anyone asked why, I would cite the ga’s who said it’s not an infraction to have different opinions on the same sex marriage issue. I would probably say I don’t have reasons yet, just that it doesn’t feel right.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

When it comes to certain things it’s hard for me to master my emotions, at least until some time has passed.

If I know I’m having trouble mastering my emotions I take amateurparent’s approach. I leave the room or silently stew on the inside. Maybe that is mastering emotions at the most basic level. I know that if I open my mouth in those moments I’ll probably be uncharitable in my approach and end up saying things in a way that only erodes my position.

The problem is that once I finally come around to where I could conceivably take Ray’s approach the subject is a month dead and I’d just be ripping a scab off a wound.

I haven’t said much in church in a loooong time.

Confession time. This particular subject got me very emotional. We had a stake conference immediately after the leak. On my way to church I made the decision to raise my hand during the “any opposed” portion of the sustainings. Yes, I was that far gone. A technical difficulty with the feed (I was in a satellite building) made everyone in the building miss that portion of the meeting. I was spared the embarrassment. Divine intervention?

Now that some time has passed, would I do it again should the opportunity arise? I don’t really know.

My local experience has been similar to amateurparent’s. In your hypothetical a leader asks people if they have a problem. In my reality we were told that we have a problem if we have a problem, buy a GA, a SP, and the BP. It was a rough weekend. I figure if I was willing to raise my hand as an “any opposed” out of emotion then the people in the “for” camp were probably saying things they ordinarily wouldn’t out of emotion, just from the opposite end of the spectrum.

Do you think it would do any good?

Yes and no. No, I don’t believe it would hasten a reversal of the policy. Yes, in that it would help someone else in the congregation feel a little less alone in their feelings. In our stake you just have to be prepared to lose a TR in the process.

I do worry like Nibbler about my emotions getting the better of me.

Would you raise your hand? Yes.

How would you answer if asked in a public forum?

I respect that others can have a different opinion than I have reached and I respect that and I would hope they would respect my position. I would tell them that I can’t wrap my head around it from a theological perspective and emotionally it hurts me very deeply as I know how this is affecting many people. I have prayed about it and have not received the promised confirmation if something was of God. I am open to the fact that I might not yet received the answer that I might in the future. In my study of church history I have had to give church leaders quite a bit of latitude in not getting everything right at first. If I didn’t give that latitude I would have left long ago. I would give the same latitude to current leaders that I would past leaders.

If I got pushback, I might mention a talk that a high councilor gave that talked about if we require everyone to believe everything right now (ie perfection) then we all doomed. I would mention that I am not bashing any of the leaders, just not agreeing with them on this at this time.

Do you think it would do any good?

“good” in what way?

It would be good for others that are also struggling to realize others do not agree with this. I think if someone else would have said something like this in AP’s ward, I bet AP and even others might have also commented. It might help keep dogmatic overbearing members feel some pushback.

It may only be one drop of water, but if enough drops fall they can form a river and if that river’s course is blocked going up the chain, then it will build some dam pressure (pun intended).

There is a difference between a meeting in which leadership asks for people to raise their hand if they have a problem with policies and a meeting in which an authority figure stands up and states that anyone who doesn’t like the policy is misguided by Satan and should just leave the church as they are obviously tares among the wheat.

The first meeting allows discussion. The second is looking to intimidate, bully, and demand blind obedience. The first meeting is easier to raise a hand in. The second, there is a fear that a raised hand will become a bloody stump.

Overcoming the fear of the bloody stump .. That is the problem. But it is only through making a quiet statement that we are truly heard.

I’m left handed .. Next time, I raise my right hand.

There is a difference between a meeting in which leadership asks for people to raise their hand if they have a problem with policies and a meeting in which an authority figure stands up and states that anyone who doesn’t like the policy is misguided by Satan and should just leave the church as they are obviously tares among the wheat.The first meeting allows discussion. The second is looking to intimidate, bully, and demand blind obedience. The first meeting is easier to raise a hand in. The second, there is a fear that a raised hand will become a bloody stump.

I agree. I have heard things said in church that tangentially reference this policy – such as the separation between the church and the world and the church growing wider.

In another instance the speaker warned against misuse of social media. I was all ready for him to launch into a sermon about accessibility of porn or internet addiction or the isolated nature of our electronic communications. Instead the speaker bemoaned friends of his saying things on social media that did not paint the church in a good light before warning us not to do similarly.

None of these things were said in a format that invited discussion.

I have spoken with my bishop and stake president about this issue in private. If they asked the question in a public setting in the way you describe, they should expect people to answer honestly.

To be candid, I view this as a policy. I don’t have a problem disagreeing with a policy. I would be polite, articulate and respectful, but I would share my concerns and explain then in detail.