- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On Own Now wrote:
I reserve the right to resign in the future, if I just can’t stay over some policy or doctrine and I feel a kinship with those who have or will.
I have said repeatedly that I would resign if one of my children came out as gay. This to me would be a show of solidarity with my child. Not to say that the church was wrong so much as to say to my child that I would not associate with an organization that would make them feel less valuable as a person.
So why would I do this for my own kids and not for someone else’s kids? Am I morally or ethically inferior or superior to someone that agitates in the church for change on this issue? What about someone that opposes SSM because of their belief in the plan of happiness and desire to help the majority to follow it without distraction?
Those questions are mostly rhetorical. I believe that there are moral and ethical positions on all sides.
mom3 wrote:
I have one question though, how do having all these resignations help Protect the Children?
TBH, I don’t think it really does, but that’s not really the point. The movement is pretty much sunk now that its leader has been ex’d. It no longer has
anycredibility in the eyes of the average TBM. In resigning, people are sending the strong signal that what happened was not okay, that they stand with Sam, and that they feel the church is a lost cause beyond redemption. In retrospect, I can say that perhaps the hunger strike wasn’t the best idea, but he was already on the chopping block anyway.
Beefster wrote –
Quote:In resigning, people are sending the strong signal that what happened was not okay, that they stand with Sam, and that they feel the church is a lost cause beyond redemption.
Roy wrote –
Quote:I have said repeatedly that I would resign if one of my children came out as gay. This to me would be a show of solidarity with my child. Not to say that the church was wrong so much as to say to my child that I would not associate with an organization that would make them feel less valuable as a person.
From a point of view I do get it. Especially when you are protecting your own family or families you care about. My take was more about the cause itself. I don’t think “he was on the chopping block” before the fast. I think that was the turning point.
I also am changing my mind on the dead issue thing.
On Own wrote –
Quote:Additionally, I’ve been able to share views of many fringe topics with faithful members and leaders and I feel like I’ve made some inroads.
This likely can be one of those issues. Time will tell.
In the end, he got what he wanted – which was NOT to stay and try to continue to help make more changes. He wanted the whole enchilada or a complete break. That is his right, and I won’t condemn him for it. It isn’t what I want, however. I want the movement to keep going, so I do what I can to stay in a situation where I can do that.
I wonder, seriously, if he has somewhere else to go where he will be happy. If not, I feel even worse for him than I do now.
I just wanted to say “HI” to beefster :wave: ‘sup dude??
…ok…back to the topic…
Roy wrote:
Am I morally or ethically inferior or superior to someone that agitates in the church for change on this issue? What about someone that opposes SSM because of their belief in the plan of happiness and desire to help the majority to follow it without distraction?Those questions are mostly rhetorical. I believe that there are moral and ethical positions on all sides.
I agree with this line of thinking and questions.
At some point, there begins to be the “principle of the matter” that motivates someone to take a stand or draw a line. At some point, it becomes a bit about pride. On both sides. The church is gonna do it too. There are choices to stay or leave.
Old Timer wrote:
That is his right, and I won’t condemn him for it. It isn’t what I want, however.
Most of the time it has to do with more things than just the topic at hand…interviews with kids.dande48 wrote:
Ann wrote:I listened to that podcast, too. If what he’s saying is true, I’m ashamed of us.
I think a lot of my disappointment of the Church comes from the Church acting in the way I expect it to, rather than in the way I hope it would. In big business, they respond much in the same way. Some similarities I see are:
1. Throwing as much money as they need to at a problem to make it go away.
2. In the face of scandal, throwing the individual under the bus, rather than addressing the problem and taking responsibility.
3. Requiring the absolute loyalty of its “employees”, with a take it or leave it attitude, yet making it extraordinarily difficult to leave.
4. Enacting policy and procedures without the consent or input of “employees”.
In the early Church, and with younger and smaller businesses, I don’t think these problems were as prevalent. Raising your hand “opposed” meant you could voice your concerns, and things just weren’t done without common consent.
Love this! Totally love this!!
The early church was extremely volatile. That might be an understatement. Just saying.
🙂 Old Timer wrote:
The early church was extremely volatile. That might be an understatement.Just saying.
🙂
* Churches.
I’m really struggling with Sam Young’s excommunication. Here is where I struggle: voting opposed is taboo and asking local leaders for change is often fruitless. How can we try to bring about positive changes in the Church without getting in trouble? I heard Young tried the traditional methods first. When people feel unheard, they go public. That’s culturally how change happens. So how can we make our voices heard by general authorities without running the risk of excommunication? Especially on matters as vital as keeping minors safe? bdavis3 wrote:
I’m really struggling with Sam Young’s excommunication. Here is where I struggle: voting opposed is taboo and asking local leaders for change is often fruitless.How can we try to bring about positive changes in the Church without getting in trouble?I heard Young tried the traditional methods first. When people feel unheard, they go public. That’s culturally how change happens. So how can we make our voices heard by general authorities without running the risk of excommunication? Especially on matters as vital as keeping minors safe?
A few ideas
1. Embrace the good changes when they happen.
2. Be a positive individual force, without being oppositional.
3. Let the Church be the church. It will be the church, just like a spouse that won’t change on our own timeline. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Quote:I heard Young tried the traditional methods first.
My husband followed Sam pretty diligently. From my point of view he did try some traditional methods but it wasn’t a long haul effort. And in this church, it is wise to plan for long haul.
We don’t have a direct path for changes or concerns. Even people who have had conversations with one particular GA on a topic usually end up finding the end goal gets pushed back.
I actually don’t think Sam’s issue is finished.
From now on, your kids can ask for a second adult to be in the room. Or a parent can set a rule that they always attend with their child. That happened because of Sam.
You and I can gently bring the conversation forward. Or some other idea forward.
I do believe the top leadership doesn’t like to be embarrassed or pushed in a corner. When anyone undertakes public demonstrations, the cause changes.
What Silent Dawning said is great advice.
I agree with Mom and SD. From one of my earlier posts in this thread: DarkJedi wrote:
I think the answer is very simple, and I think it exactly opposite of Young, Kelly, Dehlin, etc. Those named above express their opinions in a calm reasonable manner, they make no demands, and most importantly they never say or even imply that the leadership is wrong of off base. Saying “I disagree with the gay policy because I think it is unfair” is way different than saying “The gay policy is an abuse of power, I demand to meet with RMN and that the policy be changed today, and here are 5000 signatures of people who agree with me.”
Change is a long slow process in the church. The ship does turn, but very slowly. We have to appreciate the small course adjustments and not be impatient for 90 degree turns. I think the leaders have made it pretty clear where the line – openly speaking out against church leadership is going to get you into trouble, especially if you don’t stop when asked.
bdavis3 wrote:
So how can we make our voices heard by general authorities without running the risk of excommunication?
I apologize in advance for the pessimism.
Voices heard by
general authorities… I think that expectation is at the heart of the issue. If the goal is to be heard by top leadership we may only be setting ourselves up for eventual disappointment. I think the way the system works is: 1) Become converted yourself.
2) Teach your children the best way you can teach them.
3) Maybe, maaaaaaybe , maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe have some extremely minuscule influence with peers at church.
4) Eventually you, your children, or an influenced peer, or a person with similar desires will age into top leadership.
5) You get your change. Success… and in a timely, slightly before or very after you die time frame.
:thumbup: /snarkYeah that was snarky, top leadership isn’t
thatrigid, well kinda… look, side with whichever gets me in the least amount of trouble, but my point is… a goal of changing the collective minds of top leadership is setting yourself up for failure. What do you do when it doesn’t happen? I think a better approach is to start living the change you’d like to see with no expectation that others follow or even that others will be accepting of your chosen path. You may have to walk it completely alone. Example:
Want a 2 hour block (
but don’t feel like waiting until the October ’18 general conference makes it officialI realize that this isn’t the best approach when it comes to more critical changes like the ones Sam Young lobbied for. I suppose the option of “well I guess you won’t be interviewing my child” is always on the table but I know it can be hard when kids want to be able to do what their peers are doing.
tl;dr; you can’t change anyone but yourself.
It’s worth pointing out that StayLDS self-selects for people who work quietly behind the scenes. It’s part of its character. People like Sam Young would get bored and frustrated here. And so you get narratives that talk about “the” way to get the church to change, all involving small local effects. I think this is desperately needed.
I think talking loudly and publicly is also desperately needed. Members need to know when their church causes pain. How else would they know if they don’t see it in someone’s face? How else does it invade their thoughts?
Then they need a few thoughtful people that they trust to nod gravely and say, “I think they might have a point” and then help them understand with their hearts.
I can’t help but see both approaches in Jesus’s ministry.
Reuben wrote:
I think talking loudly and publicly is also desperately needed. Members need to know when their church causes pain. How else would they know if they don’t see it in someone’s face? How else does it invade their thoughts?
This is a good point. I don’t think people would’ve been aware of the situation, if Sam hadn’t been so vocal about it. He made it a lot easier to sweep under the rug, which I have no doubt the Church would’ve continued to do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.