- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi everyone. It’s been a while. With everything kicking off over this latest mess it occurred to my that you wonderful folks who walk a middle way would probably be really hurting right now.
I can’t offer much in words of comfort. I just wanted to visit with you for a while. Job 2:13 style.
SilentDawning wrote:See – this is the example of churchcentric thinking that bothers me so much. You imply that cohabitation, a sin, but legal is an analogy for same sex marriages. Yet, the church allows children of cohabitating parents to have all the blessings of membership and ordinances because it would “grind missionary work to a halt”.
Or, possibly, because they see it as a way to encourage cohabiting parents to go spend a few bucks at the courthouse and make their relationship fully legitimate in the eyes of the Church.
DarkJedi wrote:We actually have a fairly recent convert (less than a year) who entered into such a relationship after being baptized and she and her boyfriend (I don’t know what to call him) attend fairly regularly – without apparent repercussions (if there is discipline it is low level and very private).
How would you know? There’s no disfellowshipment armband or excommunication hat that people have to wear in Church buildings, and the only thing you’d likely notice with a relatively recent convert (who wouldn’t have a TR or teach classes anyway, and may also be reluctant to offer a prayer in a large group setting) would be that they refrained from taking the Sacrament, which a fair number of people do on their own conscience without Priesthood guidance when they feel they’ve not repented adequately for something yet, and is also a fairly common condition of formal probation as well. The whole point of a lot of the secrecy around Church discipline is to avoid turning it into shaming or shunning by only telling the people who need to know (those who might ask someone to teach a class, etc., and they are reminded that it is private information not to be shared or used other than to avoid putting the person in an embarrassing situation by asking them in front of the class to pray or teach) unless the disciplined member makes it known first.
NightSG wrote:DarkJedi wrote:We actually have a fairly recent convert (less than a year) who entered into such a relationship after being baptized and she and her boyfriend (I don’t know what to call him) attend fairly regularly – without apparent repercussions (if there is discipline it is low level and very private).
How would you know? There’s no disfellowshipment armband or excommunication hat that people have to wear in Church buildings, and the only thing you’d likely notice with a relatively recent convert (who wouldn’t have a TR or teach classes anyway, and may also be reluctant to offer a prayer in a large group setting) would be that they refrained from taking the Sacrament, which a fair number of people do on their own conscience without Priesthood guidance when they feel they’ve not repented adequately for something yet, and is also a fairly common condition of formal probation as well. The whole point of a lot of the secrecy around Church discipline is to avoid turning it into shaming or shunning by only telling the people who need to know (those who might ask someone to teach a class, etc., and they are reminded that it is private information not to be shared or used other than to avoid putting the person in an embarrassing situation by asking them in front of the class to pray or teach) unless the disciplined member makes it known first.
I agree that we are normally unaware of discipline because it is rightly kept private.
Let’s just say in this case I do know and what I said here is not the full extent of the situation or what I know. FWIW, she does take the sacrament, and participates in church meetings and she does hold a calling appropriate for a newer member. Any discipline there is in place (if any) is of an informal nature and without church participation restrictions.
I was trying to be more vague (and coy) and look at it from the point of view of a ward member who may not know as much about the situation as I do. It is no secret this couple is cohabiting, other stuff may not be as visible – but in a small ward it’s easy to see who takes the sacrament and who doesn’t if one cares to look and even more obvious when people you wonder about say prayers, bear testimony, and participate in SS class.
Old-Timer wrote:I think cohabitation is the best example to use in opposing this policy precisely because of what you said. SD.
I don’t disagree with anything in your comment – and, again, I am not trying to defend the policy. The central issue for me is the excommunication of the parents. Everything else stems from that.
I met with a member of our stake presidency today for a recommend interview and talked to him about the policy telling him I felt the church had made a mistake. In speaking about excommunication he said only a council was mandatory but not excommunication. I thought later how there to could be any different outcome. The main requirement of any court would be to disavow the behavior and that would mean divorcing and moving out and who is going to do that? One thing he told me was that he thought that local leaders were losing sight of the seriousness of the “sin” and that the church had to set a hard and fast rule. I can only assume they did not envision the depth of feeling this would raise up or they’re hoping it will blow over in a short time. I think the membership loss is going to way more than they ever imagined.
LookingHard wrote:An LDS.net response
http://lds.net/blog/buzz/lds-news/myths-on-new-mormons-and-gays-policy/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://lds.net/blog/buzz/lds-news/myths-on-new-mormons-and-gays-policy/ It classic “it is a myth” as in “you can’t have this as an opinion.” To even say a position is an opinion gives it too much credence. It is so very passive/aggressive defensiveness.
They do at least push that this is not doctrine.
And then there is this one that says this policy is pro-family
http://www.dannyras.com/blog/why-the-recent-lds-policy-change-is-actually-pro-gay-family ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.dannyras.com/blog/why-the-recent-lds-policy-change-is-actually-pro-gay-family Quote:This is precisely why this policy change is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It puts families—specifically the parent-child relationship—above the earthly administrative body of the Kingdom of God.
Wow. I mean wow.
Here comes a new round of simultaneous retrenchment and alienation/disaffection. So sad.
Well, I have no where to vent but here. I have been directed to that lds.net post by my husband and my head is about to explode.We’ve had our worst times in a long time this weekend.
mackay11 wrote:I just wanted to visit with you for a while. Job 2:13 style.
That is a great scripture.
Joni wrote:My husband went to PEC and tells me that my ward is considering having a 5th Sunday lesson on this. I did not hesitate to say that I think that’s a terrible idea.
I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s one of those Catch 22 scenarios for me. I want people to talk about it but I don’t want people to talk about it. Both outcomes can end up hurting but I think talking about it in church will lead to an outcome that may hurt worse than saying nothing at all.
This past Sunday the subject was brought up in a talk by our SP and a talk by a visiting member of the 1st Q of the 70. Their comments felt definitive and they felt divisive. I felt more hurt than healed; if the church is meant to be a hospital I think yesterday we went back to the days of treating everything with bloodletting. Two good friends of mine have now resigned from the church and I’ll be honest, I seriously considered it myself for the first time.
People have a “wait and see” attitude but I feel like I’ve already seen enough pain from all this.
amateurparent wrote:Quote:Nibbler wrote “it’s frustrating being tethered to the slow kid in a three legged race.”
But the slow kid is so grateful to be tethered to you. Thanks for being on the team and willing to participate. Your efforts make the slow kid a little faster.
It’s been a hard weekend but the weekend has now hopefully passed. I’m the slow kid, I can see that now. When compared to Christ we are all the slow kid. I apologize for my comment.
This new policy was brought up by my stake president in the stake adult meeting held last Saturday evening. The next morning was a priesthood leadership meeting followed by a brief meeting with all of the bishops and the stake presidency. I don’t know what was discussed in that meeting but I suspect it had something to do with the firestorm of controversy this policy has caused. I don’t really have a pony in this race and so my own reaction is a bit muted. But I do believe that the Church was caught unawares by the controversy and attention generated by this policy change.
I have kind of set myself up to be a Mormon apologist, so I feel obligated to defend the church. This is the safest place online I have to complain. I’ve had some angry moments the last few days. It’s very, very difficult not to see this as a spiteful, immature reaction to the gay community after losing every fight it’s picked recently on the subject. I thought we were moving on, but it doesn’t look like it. Yesterday, I’m talking at home with wife and older kids and younger kid says “can someone please tell me whether or not my church hates gays.” The situation just sucks. I hope we can make it right soon. I was very hopeful when I heard the church was making a clarification that it would be something like “oops that got out into the media before it was finalized.” or at least “it’s been interpreted wrong, it only applies to adopted children of same sex parents not split parents”. But instead, Elder Christofferson seemed to double down and remove wiggle room in his clarification. None of the logic being used to defend it makes any sense. It hurts a lot of children and families in LGBT community. And not just that. Members who don’t hate gays are assumed to be gay bashers. Just four years ago, we were in the middle of the Mormon moment. Mitt Romney was running for president. Book of Mormon musical was popular. Mormons had reputation of being faithful, a little weird, but super nice, hard working, high achievers. Dammit, that’s how I want to be perceived! Now we’re quickly trying to ruin that reputation for one that is obsessed with discriminating against gays. There’s been talk of the Q12/First Presidency taking action after unanimous agreement, and I’ve been trying to picture it. Because this really feels like a no-confidence vote in the gospel I thought we taught. Do we trust bedrock truths and concern for the one to help us in these times? At least one person voted no, and they moved on to consider other options. We ended up with what feels to me like a Byzantine, lesser-law policy that assumes the worst. The other hard thing about it all is that it (at least for now) deflates my optimism about the new members of the quorum.
Chirchistrue – I can tell you are trying to make it work and trying to help others. My respect for you has increased. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ann wrote:The other hard thing about it all is that it (at least for now) deflates my optimism about the new members of the quorum.
I had this same thought, Ann, considering the timing. I would full well expect something like this from Packer and Perry but not necessarily the new ones.
Ann wrote:There’s been talk of the Q12/First Presidency taking action after unanimous agreement, and I’ve been trying to picture it. Because this really feels like a no-confidence vote in the gospel I thought we taught. Do we trust bedrock truths and concern for the one to help us in these times? At least one person voted no, and they moved on to consider other options. We ended up with what feels to me like a Byzantine, lesser-law policy that assumes the worst.
The other hard thing about it all is that it (at least for now) deflates my optimism about the new members of the quorum.
Couple of thoughts. I’m not sure that they all vote the same way. I picture it being more like once the vote is understood to be a majority, all get on board. Also, it’s doubtful that this was put the Q12 after conference. I work in the business world. It would be impossible to roll out a change to something as crucial as the CHI in a matter of a month.
The rubber meets the road. I’m a local leader who would be placed in a situation to enforce this policy and I can’t do it with a clear conscience. I have a 1×1 meeting with my Stake President later this week and I plan to ask two questions: 1) How much discretion do I have over disciplinary action?
2) How much am I required to publicly support and defend the new policy?
I think the answer to 1) is going to be they have to undergo some sort of formal discipline 2) complete public support and buy-in of the policy.
Last night had a long heart-to-heart with my dear wife who is very orthodox. Told her I thought a possible outcome is release from bishopric and another possible outcome is loss of temple recommend. My fear is that she will leave me and take the kids because – after all an unworthy and apostate husband is a divorce in the eternities because I didn’t honor my temple covenants. She assured me over and over that wouldn’t happen and I believe her that she wouldn’t leave me. I’ve also told my orthodox parents about this and they are supportive. My wife’s parents are uber-orthodox and know half of the Q15. I can’t wait for that next family meeting.
My conundrum is this – do I have the guts to actually go through with a public release and some degree of public humiliation for me and my family or do I toe the line and hope for a revision? Only I can answer this – but I hope the answer is that I do what I feel is right. I’ve decided that I cannot publicly support nor enforce this policy unless I have significant discretion. I feel peace that standing up for my personal values is the right thing and I have decided I will attend church and support my wife if the SP is hardline.
This is what I’ve been talking about on this forum and in my head – that I wish I could distance myself and my family from the church. I just need to decide if it’s worth it.
I have more understanding and compassion for gay members. They are facing this dilemma x 100.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.