The obvious question

[_Runtu]

Knowing how things work at the Church Office Building, I am left with an obvious and unanswered question:

Who came up with this idea?

Someone, whether a prophet, seer and revelator, a bureaucrat, or an attorney at Kirton McConkie, thought this new policy was a good idea. Either through inspiration or their own initiative, someone thought, "Hey, let's treat gay parents and their kids like we treat polygamists, only let's make it even harder for them to participate in the church!"

But perhaps the bigger question is, Why didn't someone along the line say, "You know, this may not be a good course of action"? Why didn't someone say, "We shouldn't be dividing families like this"?

I remember dealing with projects that were either killed or heavily modified because they couldn't get unanimity among the 12 and the FP, and sometimes it was intense disagreement over what I thought were trivial issues. But in this case, they were unanimous in approving a policy that pretty much everyone with a conscience recognizes is cruel and absurd.

Why?

[_Chap]

I'd suggest tweaking that question in the hope of leading in a more fruitful direction: "On the assumption that the 12/FP must have approved this policy, what can we deduce about their decision-making processes, more particularly, what are the factors that have the most weight in their decisions?"

[_just me]

It's the million dollar question.

I am left baffled, as well. It truly does not make any sense to me. At all.

The only thing that could slightly make sense to me is that the church does not want to make records where both parents are male/female. But this policy goes so far and beyond that it boggles the mind.

[_consiglieri]

As I have told many friends over the past week, "Not only do I have trouble believing that all 15-leaders signed off on this, I just can't get my head around the idea that even one person thought this was a good idea!"

[_Enzo the Baker]

Knowing how things work at the Church Office Building, I am left with an obvious and unanswered question:

Who came up with this idea?

Someone, whether a prophet, seer and revelator, a bureaucrat, or an attorney at Kirton McConkie, thought this new policy was a good idea. Either through inspiration or their own initiative, someone thought, "Hey, let's treat gay parents and their kids like we treat polygamists, only let's make it even harder for them to participate in the church!"

But perhaps the bigger question is, Why didn't someone along the line say, "You know, this may not be a good course of action"? Why didn't someone say, "We shouldn't be dividing families like this"?

I remember dealing with projects that were either killed or heavily modified because they couldn't get unanimity among the 12 and the FP, and sometimes it was intense disagreement over what I thought were trivial issues. But in this case, they were unanimous in approving a policy that pretty much everyone with a conscience recognizes is cruel and absurd.

Why?

IMHO, this "policy" has Oaks' grubby, legalistic, fingerprints all over it and while I can't answer your question as to why, Runtu, I think I'm safe in believing that none of the other eunuchs in the Q15 would dare defy him.

[_Mayan Elephant]

This may have been approved when there were only 11 alert apostles in the gtoup. Getting oaks, nelson, hales, joffrey and bednar looks easy to do. Christofferson and his brother both seem to think it is wonderful.

that's 6. Easy peasy.

Eyring and uchdorf havent said a word. They may not like it. Who knows.

[_Runtu]

I'd suggest tweaking that question in the hope of leading in a more fruitful direction: "On the assumption that the 12/FP must have approved this policy, what can we deduce about their decision-making processes, more particularly, what are the factors that have the most weight in their decisions?"

It's not an assumption, as all leadership handbooks must be approved by the 12 and the First Presidency. Such is not the case for lesson manuals and other materials. That said, you're quite right that it opens up a lot of questions about what is valued and why when they make decisions.

[_Analytics]

Q: Why?

A: Wikipedia says...

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

[_Tim the Enchanter]

I could tell some personal stories about him but I'll just leave it at that.

You are such a tease.

[_Sanctorian]

I think it's pretty obvious the apostles were in agreement for this. Why else would their gay brother loving apostle agree to do damage control?