- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote: Quote:Regardless of who is right or wrong…how do I conduct myself at church, with my family, with the community as I stumble around trying to make sense of what the church is doing right now and how I align myself to it. I see through the glass darkly, and I stand up for my beliefs based on what I see, and maintain love wins in the end.
This is my philosophy too. Great minds think alike. (You can quote me.)
In my ward there is a great mix of people with a wide range of beliefs. I can always find similar beliefs on my side of the spectrum.
The rest are tolerant of each other’s views. It is a comfort to me knowing I’m not alone.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Check back with me in three weeks. We will be at a very different place by then I hope.
What do you expect to be different in 3 weeks?
mackay11 wrote:The speed of movement in the church means this was probably signed off months ago.
It bothers me more that Elders Uchtdorf & Eyring would have perhaps had the opportunity to veto this and didn’t. Perhaps. Purely speculation.
On another board (the name of which shall not be uttered), there was somebody who said he had first hand knowledge that this change had been talked about for over a year (ever since it was inevitable that SSM would become legal), and that it was Tom Perry that was the holdout not voting for it. Thus the timing of it. Pure internet rumor, but its all we’ll get for now.
I feel the need to defend the faith that I love. One thought that passes my mind is how quantum physics seems so not intuitive. That even though we don’t understand, it is how things work. I believe that the 15 men in the leading councils are inspired. That they are men that speak up when they see something out of line. That they would not assent to a policy they do not feel is from God. I am thinking of the news conference when Pres Eyring was sustained. These men surely have thought and prayed and received confirmation that this policy is what is needed.
http://richalger.blogspot.com/2007/10/here-are-prophets-of-god-and-theyre.html I choose to believe because I want to believe. I trust that things will work out.
I have collected my thoughts in these two posts. I would love some feedback.
http://richalger.blogspot.com/2015/11/lord-to-whom-shall-we-go.html http://richalger.blogspot.com/2015/11/handbook-changes-affecting-same-sex.html Thank you for contributing Rich. I believe it is important that we strive for a balanced perspective that includes room for multiple voices.
For me personally it is very hard to understand the (non-legal imperative) logic of restricting the membership and ordinances from the children. It just does not seem to make sense from the theological standpoint. OTOH, I also believe that these same types of restrictions against the children of polygamists or Muslims are also for practical earthly purposes.
For me personally, I would appreciate a frank discussion from church leadership about the WHY. I believe it had something to do with not wanting to get sued under parental interference or alienation. It might also be that these kids of gay married parents might become the next generation of gay allies advocates and so the church is acting preventively to keep the doctrine pure from their perspective. I could even understand if they wanted to protect LDS kids from the confusing situation of having little Timmy with two dads attend their primary class.
These things make sense to me. I might not like them but at least they make sense. Saying that they want to protect the kids of gay families (from having confusing church influences in their life???) and honor the family relationships of these gay families strikes me just strikes me as being deliberately obfuscatory or hiding the true motivation behind pleasant side effects.
Quote:We should remember that most typically revelations are “conclusions” and not “explanations.” When we receive revelation for ourselves, we discover what God would have us do. He rarely provides a reason for why we should do what was revealed. Rather, He trusts us to be obedient to the revelation He has given us. (Facebook post, David A. Bednar, 26 Oct 2015)
https://www.facebook.com/lds.david.a.bednar/posts/1130763450284728?hc_location=ufi ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.facebook.com/lds.david.a.bednar/posts/1130763450284728?hc_location=ufi It is possible that the brethren do not know all the reasons this policy has changed the way it has. Is it also possible that they do not intend to share all the reasons why.
I can think of a lot of reasons. They are my speculation. I have detailed many of them in my post in an effort to sort through my own feelings and thoughts and so that I might be of help to those around me. There is a gulf between what the church says about gay sexual relations and what many in and around the church say. It seems to me that this is the source of the dissonance.
Many people do not see gay relations as sinful. To be honest, I see monogamous, committed gay, couples in a different light that I did even a couple years ago. The church teaches that these relations are not only a sin, but a grievous one. The policies really only puts a bright line on these differences. Whoever is closer to the Truth, I see this is the reason for the policy. The church is taking a stand for what it has stated in the past is its stand. To clarify to all bishops and stake presidents. To the membership. To the governments.
At the very least it will sort out what works and what does not work for Mormons, investigators and everyone else.
I am seeing the hurt affecting those I know online. I hope for a way forward in healing and connection.
Yesterday my thoughts turned to how the Catholic church is handling the same issue. Like the LDS church they consider homosexual feelings to be not sinful in and of themselves, but acting on them to be sinful. They also define marriage as being between a man and a woman and do not recognize gay marriage. However, I don’t see that they have a policy like this is place, nor do they seem to prevent the children of gay members from being baptized. I have not asked a Catholic official about it and don’t currently know any well enough that I would. Is anyone aware of how our apparent allies (which include others besides Catholics) on this issue are dealing with it? Are we unique in our hardline approach? I heard a quote on one of the podcasts that said
Quote:If this policy be of God, God will help us through this. If this policy be not of God, God will help us through it.
I think I can say that in church and it shouldn’t offend anybody, but leaves the door open to “maybe this was a mistake at some level.”Rich, I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts on this. I have a hard time thinking the 1st Presidency and Q12 have anything but best intentions. I believe they pray to God for direction, are close to the spirit, and counsel openly with others and try to get input from different sources to check their opinions. They are smart men. They are holy men. I truly believe they are trying to do the will of God and would not make this decision unless they felt it was right with a lot more info from their vantage point than many others have. From my perspective, it doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it the Will of God. While I trust they have higher probabilities of knowing God’s will than I do or most others do, it is still a probability, and not a certainty. There is a degree of error, as we have learned in history.
Because there is a process to review and seek ongoing revelation and truth, over time, like with the Priesthood Ban, they will find out what doesn’t feel right, and change it through revelation.
In the mean time, there will be people affected by it. And faith will be tested. There have been many people in the past that did not feel right about church policy, but stayed with the hope it will soon change because they believe in the end truth will prevail.
As we have learned from history, it will probably be over decades, and it will probably be clearer in time what exactly is prejudice and cultural influences vs what is really truth.
I believe they will get it right in the end. I personally am in favor of SSM and letting all married couples be sealed in temples, and will navigate through my church experience with my opinions. I may be wrong, but I do not think this is a deal breaker. It is just one part of the mosaic of mormonism. One thing in the cafeteria. It does not spoil everything else. It is just painful to think through my own opinions at odds with the brethren.
richalger wrote:I am seeing the hurt affecting those I know online. I hope for a way forward in healing and connection.
I do too. I don’t think we get a “no hurt” option in life. Compassion and understanding is needed, especially during times like these.
Quote:If this policy be of God, God will help us through this. If this policy be not of God, God will help us through it.
I am taking this as my own FB post.
Thank you for your comments Heber13. I deeply desire to have us all to be One in Christ. I have traversed my own journey of faith transition. I love what I love in the church. I am also under no allusion that what I have retained in my testimony of the restored gospel is true and eternally so. I trust in the way the prophets are leading us because I choose to. I also trust that they will, according to the strength of the roots, trim out the most bitter branches of the tree of the church. Listening ears and compassion are the salve requested. I answer in kind.
Sheldon wrote:mackay11 wrote:The speed of movement in the church means this was probably signed off months ago.
It bothers me more that Elders Uchtdorf & Eyring would have perhaps had the opportunity to veto this and didn’t. Perhaps. Purely speculation.
On another board (the name of which shall not be uttered), there was somebody who said he had first hand knowledge that this change had been talked about for over a year (ever since it was inevitable that SSM would become legal), and that it was Tom Perry that was the holdout not voting for it. Thus the timing of it. Pure internet rumor, but its all we’ll get for now.
Interesting. A former AA that I know told me that there were really only a couple leading the “anti-gay” (his words) sentiment. I would have pegged both Perry and Packer as being in that anti camp. I have not interacted with him since the new policy, he’s not someone I see all the time.
I recently posted this link on my fb feed http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2015/11/shocker-the-new-lds-policy-experiment-on-lgbt-families-who-will-pull-the-switch/ I try not to post anything controversial on my fb feed but this one was to good to pass up. Well one of my tbm friends replied with the usual rhetoric of we’re lead my god. ..etc, then said why don’t you leave. That hurts deeply.
Well – here is some of the “clarification” http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/” class=”bbcode_url”> LookingHard wrote:Well – here is some of the “clarification”
http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/” class=”bbcode_url”> I don’t see much clarification there, I see reiteration. The only clarification I see is about children who have already been baptized or received the priesthood. Not that I’m glad they didn’t make that more clear, but it does not address the main concerns that so many of us have.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.