Policy reversal

[SouthernMo]

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

You need to read the sentences before it

 

"While we still consider such a marriage[same-sex marriage] to be a serious transgression,"

Same-sex marriage is a trangression. 

I wonder if we need to debate the difference between a sin and a transgression?  Maybe SSM isn’t so bad anymore in the eyes of LDS leadership?  No longer a sin?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

In light of this help me see how involved Jesus really is in decision making?

He's not.  If he is, he rarely is.  

[provoman]

1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

In light of this help me see how involved Jesus really is in decision making?

"These new policies are being sent to priesthood leaders worldwide and will be included in online updates to our Church Handbook for leaders. These changes do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change. These policy changes come after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord on these matters."

[kimpearson]

I can accept that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ allow their leaders to make policy decisions that later turn out not to be such great decisions.  I think it is called human experience and we all go through it to one degree or another.  What surprises me about this discussion is how quickly we forget similar experiences from our own Church history such as:

• Priesthood ban
• Indian placement program
• Borrowing policies that put the Church in serious debt in the late 1800's and early 1900's
• "Mormon Doctrine"
• Kirkland Safety Society
• Polygamy
• an a hundred more if you study church history

I am curious as to why you all think we so quickly forget the past and look at each new experience as either evidence the end is near, the prophets have fallen, the Church isn't true or "I know something they didn't."

Just a personal note as the father of a young man who is gay.  My heart is very thankful that good men who thought they were doing the right thing didn't slam the door shut on listening to the promptings of the Spirit and the very real experiences that more than just a handful of members of the Church.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

How do you interpret the second sentence if not how I did:

This wording is very interesting, and potentially a huge shift.  I hate to get my hopes up, but the wording of a written statement like this, I'm sure is very carefully considered before they release these to the public.  Same sex marriage is not described as a "sin" but instead a "transgression".  Wow.  

And nowhere in this statement can I find any discussion about homosexual behavior, like the church typically has talked about in the past.  Could this possibly be the start of the church respecting and honoring same sex marriage as moral and not considering same sex marriage as a sin?   Am I just reading too much into this?  

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Anijen said:

So in your opinion they are only Prophets and Revelators when they are inspired with issues that you agree with, but they are not when their revelations disagree with issues you are for?

No, I didn't state that.  

 

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

If a leader says it was revelation and you say it was not revelation but strong feelings, how exactly is that sustaining them?

We can disagree with our leaders and still sustain them.  Or do you disagree?

 

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

In the Church there has been many times when revelation has been reversed. Here, it appears to be reversed, but you cannot accept it as revelation because you obviously have a personal issue against their decisions regarding this topic. I do not accept your rationalization of sustaining church leaders and at the same time not sustaining them. You either do or you do not. 

No, it's not that clear cut.  One can disagree (especially when it's just a policy and not doctrine) and still continue to sustain their leaders.  Do you agree with everything your Bishop is inspired in his calling to do?  How about your Stake President?  But you can still sustain them.  

I serve in a Bishopric and we all disagreed with this new policy (privately), but we would have never publicly spoken out against it or preached against President Monson.  Even when members came to us with concerns and questions over the policy, we did not do that.

[mnn727]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It caused much pain for many members and some left the church over the policy (not to mention the bad PR that took place for the church over it).  I believe most members were not strongly in favor of it, but did try to believe it was a revelation.

Now many will wonder if it was and will question what the purpose was for this short lived policy.

Was there even one case of a gay/lesbian couple wanting their child to be baptized that could not be because of the policy? I can't imagine it ever happening.

[Oliblish]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then, they need to clarify what this statement means:

"will be treated in the same way" is pretty clear.  How do you interpret it?

It appears that the church would like us to think that they now treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals.  This is clearly not the case.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, mnn727 said:

Was there even one case of a gay/lesbian couple wanting their child to be baptized that could not be because of the policy? I can't imagine it ever happening.

Does that even matter?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

This wording is very interesting, and potentially a huge shift.  I hate to get my hopes up, but the wording of a written statement like this, I'm sure is very carefully considered before they release these to the public.  Same sex marriage is not described as a "sin" but instead a "transgression".  Wow.  

And nowhere in this statement can I find any discussion about homosexual behavior, like the church typically has talked about in the past.  Could this possibly be the start of the church respecting and honoring same sex marriage as moral and not considering same sex marriage as a sin?   Am I just reading too much into this?  

I don't know...I'm waiting to see if those two sentences are clarified.  But you're right about the change in language (from it being "apostasy" to it being a "transgression" to enter a SSM).  And then the follow up sentence of members entering a SSM should be treated in the same way as those in heterosexual marriages as far as morality goes (it very clearly states that).

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, mnn727 said:

Was there even one case of a gay/lesbian couple wanting their child to be baptized that could not be because of the policy? I can't imagine it ever happening.

indeed. how hollow was the policy?  It was nothing more than an assault on people who were LGBTQ or were sympathizers.  That perhaps is the most troubling aspect of it.  IT's good it's reversed, but seriously, what a mess it created.  Many otherwise faithful members left after the policy change.  I doubt there's much reconciling now.  It all feels so hollow.  

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It needn't have been wrong or not a revelation to be reversed. Anyone remember plural marriage?

This does not prove your point. Your evidence could also be used to show that plural marriage was not revelation.

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This wording is very interesting, and potentially a huge shift.  I hate to get my hopes up, but the wording of a written statement like this, I'm sure is very carefully considered before they release these to the public.  Same sex marriage is not described as a "sin" but instead a "transgression".  Wow.  

And nowhere in this statement can I find any discussion about homosexual behavior, like the church typically has talked about in the past.  Could this possibly be the start of the church respecting and honoring same sex marriage as moral and not considering same sex marriage as a sin?   Am I just reading too much into this?  

I say reading too much. Go to mormonnewsroom.org articla and read the whole section ateibuted to President Oaks

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Was there even one case of a gay/lesbian couple wanting their child to be baptized that could not be because of the policy? I can't imagine it ever happening.

I only knew of members who had family members that were gay (or in SSM) and this policy was painful for them to accept.

I think most who were personally affected were those who were split families (shared custody with an ex spouse who was now in a SSM).

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, Anijen said:

So in your opinion they are only Prophets and Revelators when they are inspired with issues that you agree with, but they are not when their revelations disagree with issues you are for?

If a leader says it was revelation and you say it was not revelation but strong feelings, how exactly is that sustaining them?

In the Church there has been many times when revelation has been reversed. Here, it appears to be reversed, but you cannot accept it as revelation because you obviously have a personal issue against their decisions regarding this topic. I do not accept your rationalization of sustaining church leaders and at the same time not sustaining them. You either do or you do not. 

It seems as though you want to control how people interpret the word “sustain”, and make it a black/white binary question.

[Anijen]

I see the type of pride that has been warned about in the Book of Mormon. The type of pride that makes one's opinion superior to the Prophets, as if their prideful voices holds equal or greater weight than the Lords chosen Prophets. They see weakness in the Lord's anointed servants, but see only superiority in their prideful opinions. Perhaps the sifting has started.

• "Both were clearly wrong.  as wrong as wrong could be."
• "Yup.  Another mistake 😉 It just took longer to correct it!"
• "😊I  rest my case...I am happy but I rest my case on so many things that have come from this."

[Mystery Meat]

And so it goes.

I still support the initial policy (and so do my gay and lesbian friends who have no connection to the Church or proximity to Utah) and not because I hate the "gays".  But that is neither here nor there. I wonder how long before all those who are celebrating and gloating realize that this announcement basically says if an 8 year old child of a LGBTQ parent  who is hoping to be baptized will be interviewed by a bishop who tells them and their parents that homosexual behavior is sinful, two people of the same gender being married is sinful and a violation of God's law, and sexual relationships are only condoned by God within the bonds of marriage between a man and his wife. Furthermore, this will be continuously taught to the child throughout his church participation. I am sure the LGBTQ folks and those in their support corner will be thrilled with that. 

Ironically, their inevitable anger and self righteousness will validate the charitable purpose behind the policy in the first place (edit), and also reveal their true, uncompromising demand: the church embrace homosexuality and SSM full stop. Anything less will be protested, slandered and rejected.

But by all means, lets begin teaching these kids that their parents are entrapped in serious sin and that their very families are fundamentally in violation of God's eternal law. Reap what you sow. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Mystery Meat

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

I say reading too much. 

Not really.  I have to believe the wording of this was very carefully considered and analyzed before it was released.  "Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way" is pretty clear.

How to you interpret that sentence?

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So much for the revelation that created the ban just a couple of years ago.

The Lord commands and revoked as He pleases

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Anijen said:

So in your opinion they are only Prophets and Revelators when they are inspired with issues that you agree with, but they are not when their revelations disagree with issues you are for?

If a leader says it was revelation and you say it was not revelation but strong feelings, how exactly is that sustaining them?

In the Church there has been many times when revelation has been reversed. Here, it appears to be reversed, but you cannot accept it as revelation because you obviously have a personal issue against their decisions regarding this topic. I do not accept your rationalization of sustaining church leaders and at the same time not sustaining them. You either do or you do not. 

You still want to claim that the policy and then the clarification of the policy was all revelation? God changed his mind 3.5 years later?

I disagree.  It was never the revealed will of God.  It was these men’s best attempt to help the church deal with an issue they don’t fully understand. When they realized it was wrong and doing harm, they had the good sense to reverse it.  I don’t see revelation anywhere here. 

And I’m on record saying it was wrong and needed to be changed from the beginning.  No revelation needed - just an understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know...I'm waiting to see if those two sentences are clarified.  But you're right about the change in language (from it being "apostasy" to it being a "transgression" to enter a SSM).  And then the follow up sentence of members entering a SSM should be treated in the same way as those in heterosexual marriages as far as morality goes (it very clearly states that).

Either this was a blunder in the way they worded that section, or it represents a huge shift of policy.  Can you imagine if same sex married couples were treated as worthy members?  WOW!  I really don't want to get my hopes up for this because it would be amazing.  I'm in denial.  

But think about it.  If the church really did want to reverse policy on how they treat same sex couples, how should we expect that to be communicated?  Are the leaders going to publicly say that they made a mistake in the past and apologize?  Remember, we church leaders don't apologize, that is not how these things are handled.  Would accepting same sex couples be announced with a lot of fan fair?  Or would it be communicated in a quiet way like in this announcement? 

Oh boy, I'm talking myself into wanting this to be true.  Please walk me away from the ledge someone.  

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

"These new policies are being sent to priesthood leaders worldwide and will be included in online updates to our Church Handbook for leaders. These changes do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change. These policy changes come after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord on these matters."

How in the world you rationalize the question of who can and cannot be baptized as some sort of policy shift is baffling. The LDS church teaches and teaches how central and important ordinances and baptism are. How central they are to our salvation.

Yet, when practices around who is allowed to be baptized are changed, you and others are quick to minimize and trivialize these changes.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

I say reading too much. Go to mormonnewsroom.org articla and read the whole section ateibuted to President Oaks

Maybe I am.  I read the whole thing already.  Do you see any sections that could contradict my wishful thinking?  

[Anijen]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It seems as though you want to control how people interpret the word “sustain”, and make it a black/white binary question.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps I do have a different interpretation of "sustain" as others do. 

To me, one is not sustaining a church leader such as; when a leader says, it was revelation and the member says it was not.

[Lemuel]

13 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

In light of this help me see how involved Jesus really is in decision making?

I think this makes it extremely clear how involved Jesus is in decision making.

 

When we claim revelation where there is none, we take God's name in vain.

 

>Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.

> I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.