Runtu wrote:And anyone who thinks the church is going to back off from something they have written into the handbook is delusional, in my opinion.
I agree with you, and this is just a bizarre thing to watch unfold. It is like watching someone play chicken with a brick wall. This issue will be the end of them as an ideology of significance within 20 years if they don't reverse course somehow, but they don't show any signs of slowing down. It's full speed ahead at the brick wall for now.
While I am certain that you know more about the LDS church than I will ever know, something is telling me that this may not be correct.
I think that, depending on how this all transpires over the next several months, "backing off" might be exactly what we see the church do.
We shall see?
Peace, Ceeboo
Hey back at you, Ceeboo!
I'll just repeat this little tidbit from Reddit, which seems far more believable than the idea that church leaders did not anticipate the reaction.
I have a close friend who is the director of Finance and Records and this is directly opposite of what he says the response and tone is. His insight is, and he has met with a couple of the 12 this week on other matters, is that they understand that people are upset but feel the members will need time to adjust, like they did to the change in priesthood in 1978. This policy change was planned for almost a year, apparently when it became clear that gay marriage would become legal, but L. Tom Perry was the lone hold out.
I'm not saying the friend of your sister in law is wrong, but this guy and I have been friends for 30 years and he is never wrong on what he tells me. So I guess time will tell. He says they have no intention of changing the policy or amending it.
I think they're just going to wait for the dust to settle and accept that they will have lost a few members over this.
Analytics wrote:You have some reservations about the idea, but nobody else speaks up. Everybody seems to want to defer to the senior apostle's judgment and move on. If you were in that room and saw 14 prophets and apostles that all seemed to be in agreement on this and all wanted to move on to the next item on the agenda, would you stick your neck out and tell them you thought they were all wrong? Or would you keep your mouth shut and defer to their collective judgment?
Especially when the most vocal senior apostle pushing the idea used to be a justice on the Utah Supreme Court.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
I think they did the math and don't believe they will see much of a change in tithing revenue. I think they are right.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Ceeboo wrote: Perhaps I am in the minority here (I don't know?) but I am rather impressed by this post of yours.
You, MG, as well as boat-loads of other good and decent people who just happen to be Mormons, have been put in a very, very difficult position.
Chap wrote:But unfortunately that position is so difficult that it is forcing people like MG to get close to crossing (or to have already crossed) the boundary between taking a maximally charitable interpretation of the position stated by their church leaders and being prepared say black is white rather than disagree with those leaders.
It's not a pretty sight.
Ceeboo wrote: I stand on my post and remain impressed.
Do be careful not to fall off.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
And you be careful too. Do not stand on anything. No matter how safe you might think it is. Taking stands, of any kind, is very risky - especially if one does not have the courage and balance to do so.
mentalgymnast wrote: The interesting thing that's coming out during this conversation in the last week or so is that the critics suddenly think that there is some kind of a rush to get folks baptized. Can't get them dunked fast enough.
It's uncanny the way you conistently fail to correctly identify an issue.
sock puppet wrote:You admit this hurts some people. Which people does it help? In which ways? How does that outweigh the 'collateral damage' to the children of gay cohabiting parent(s)?
Weren't you the one that said it was a cost/benefit risk analysis?
I've already given my opinion/input on these questions earlier in the thread.
Regards, MG
Please link me to the post where you identified the people hurt and the type of people that this policy advantages. I must have not seen that one.
