Policy reversal

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

As the Doctrine of marriage remains, the present "chang" should not be veiwed as the Church "honoring" same-sex marriages.

But then they add:

Quote

Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

So, if one does enter a "homosexual relationship" they "will be treated in the same way" as those entering a heterosexual relationship regarding immoral conduct.

How do you interpret that?

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

As the Doctrine of marriage remains, the present "chang" should not be veiwed as the Church "honoring" same-sex marriages.

What specifically is the "doctrine" that isn't changing?  Do we have any clear doctrinal statements we can refer to on this subject? 

Fidelity in marriage and abstinence outside of marriage?  This reading is compatible with that view.  

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

The November 2015 was the impetus for my family's resignation because we believed it to be intentionally harmful. I have to say I'm surprised because the church really doubled down on the previous policy with revelation claims. 

This is a step in the right direction. 

Phaedrus

My gay sister left the church. I suspect this may be a nice gesture, but I doubt she’s coming back.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What specifically is the "doctrine" that isn't changing?  Do we have any clear doctrinal statements we can refer to on this subject? 

Fidelity in marriage and abstinence outside of marriage?  This reading is compatible with that view.  

Many cannot even come to an agreement on what defines "doctrine" from what I've seen....

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Gray]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Then they should rephrase it, IMO.  Saying that those entering a homosexual relationship will be "treated in the same way" as those entering a homosexual relationship means (to me) that they should not commit fornication or adultery.  Why say they will be treated "in the same way" if that's not true?

It probably didn't even occur to them that it wasn't the same

Edited April 4, 2019 by Gray

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

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. 

I guess the parents will have to decide whether or not they want the baptism to go forward. As it should be.

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What specifically is the "doctrine" that isn't changing?  Do we have any clear doctrinal statements we can refer to on this subject? 

Fidelity in marriage and abstinence outside of marriage?  This reading is compatible with that view.  

You are welcome to write President Oaks and ask him. 

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

As the Doctrine of marriage remains, the present "chang" should not be veiwed as the Church "honoring" same-sex marriages.

I want you to remember what I am about to say:

The LDS church will one day allow same sex couples the privilege of marrying in the temple. The “doctrine” will change.

I wonder how firmly you will hold to this “doctrine” at that time?

It all changes. The LDS puts itself in a difficult position by being so dogmatic about ‘eternal truths’ and ‘doctrine.’  It seems we are expected to believe things will never change - until they do.

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many cannot even come to an agreement for what defines "doctrine" from what I've seen....

How are we going to define doctrine we can't distinguish between a policy and a revelation?

[TOmNossor]

Buried in this fast moving thread I will offer the below.

First, I should probably say that in my non-inspired musings, I think I would rather have never had this policy.  I would rather this than to have it still today AND I certainly would rather this than to have had it for a short period of time and then it goes away.

On to something different.

Another NON-INSPIRED guess is that, I will not say that I wish the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had ended prohibitions on same-sex marriage earlier than they actually did (will as this has not happened).  My NON-INSPIRED opinion is that same sex marriage is a sub-optimal and non-divinely-sanctioned way for a society to organize itself (by this I mean that it would be better for 0% of the population to be involved in these relationships than the 3%-15% or whatever it is). 

But, church members could not live the United Order.  Much of the reason members could not live the united order was because of selfishness and laziness (sin) present within the members AND some of it was that socialist aspects of the united order were very foreign to the self concept of Americans (especially frontier Americans).  A response to this selfishness. laziness, and societal hostility was to end the united order.  Another response could have been to call members to less selfishness, less laziness, and less concern with the ways of the world, but for whatever reason (I believe God was involved) the Church ended the United Order.  

I believe that one day the church will accept same-sex marriage.  It may be clear when this happens that society and the church would be better if the ideas and attitudes that shifted over the last 50-100 years had not shifted and same-sex relations were considered sinful just as they were in 1920 (though sinful in the same way pre-marital sex is/was sinful in the 1920's together with a large dose of compassion and knowledge that we all sin).  Or it may not be clear when the change happens even though it is still true.   But, my non-inspired belief is that at some point in time society's views of same-sex relationships will have moved so far from God's truth that "holding the line" does more harm than good.  Perhaps it hurts more people to teach divine truth than to work with people where they are.  Christians and LDS having lost or presently loosing, depending on your view, this battle may recognize that the continued fighting hurts more folks, does more damage, and ... than a loving surrender.   

"Loving surrender" recognizes that mercy and Grace are sometimes more important than teaching the truth.  I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a very pragmatic faith.  I am sure I will not stand before the judgment bar sinless thus it is only mercy that will get me through.  Some of the sins I picked up felt so appropriate at the time.  Others came to seem like they were appropriate after I had been awash in them and only latter did I recapture the truth of my sinfulness.  And, I am sure I have sins I scarcely recognize today despite my sometimes diligent efforts to align my will with God's.  Thank God for mercy and Grace. 

Charity, TOm 

Edited April 4, 2019 by TOmNossor

[ttribe]

37 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

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. 

Do you happen to realize that your real argument is not with the people who are happy about the reversal?  Your REAL argument is with the people who implemented the reversal.  Will you be putting forth such arguments to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?  If so, please cc: the rest of us.  I, for one, would like a ringside seat to that one.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

You are welcome to write President Oaks and ask him. 

So in other words, "no" or "I don't know"....but let's ask..... is your response to this question: "Do we have any clear doctrinal statements we can refer to on this subject?"

Do you have a response to my numerous requests of you to interpret this sentence?

Quote

Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I guess the parents will have to decide whether or not they want the baptism to go forward. As it should be.

And fair enough. But I will have 0 sympathy (and I do mean zero) when there is an uproar over the fact that some kid was traumatized and his parents outraged that a Bishop would teach an 8 year old that his parents were living in sin and their family could not be eternal like other families.

[Mystery Meat]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Do you happen to realize that your real argument is not with the people who are happy about the reversal?  Your REAL argument is with the people who implemented the reversal.  Will you be putting forth such arguments to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?  If so, please cc: the rest of us.  I, for one, would like a ringside seat to that one.

Nope. My beef is not with the Church or its leadership. I think they implemented the Lord's will and then when everyone got offended, the Lord said, "Enough." Now we will see how pleased folks are with the alternative.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Mystery Meat

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

Nope. My beef is not with the Church or its leadership. I think the implemented the Lord's will and then when everyone got offended, the Lord said, "Enough." Now we will see how pleased folks are with the alternative.

LOL!  Okay.

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of why this thread is so fascinating.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ttribe

[ERMD]

Peter was told to kill and eat.  No need to explain what the vision meant, I think.  Jesus had been with him personally not too long before.  Why didn't he tell him then?  Why didn't Jesus do it himself?  Was Jesus wrong the first time around?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, ERMD said:

Peter was told to kill and eat.  No need to explain what the vision meant, I think.  Jesus had been with him personally not too long before.  Why didn't he tell him then?  Why didn't Jesus do it himself?  Was Jesus wrong the first time around?

At least with that one you could argue that the Atonement needed to be completed first.  This quick reversal?  Not so much.

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord." DC 56:4

[toon]

56 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'll have to look it up, but I vaguely remember reports of instances where a child of a divorced couple with joint custody, one parent being a faithful member and the other in a same-sex relationship, was either prevented from baptism or had the baptism delayed. I suspect that was the most likely and most obvious situation where a child of a same-sex couple would like to be baptized, but surprisingly, it appears not to have been one of the "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios" considered, through fasting and prayer and the seeking of the Lord's guidance.

I also remember the Church issuing some after-the-fact clarification that the policy didn't apply to those situations, but they never formally changed the policy (so a local leader reading the policy would have to have been aware of the news release. If not, there was still a risk that the local leader would strictly apply the policy.)

I get that there have been reversals in the past on policy that was presented as doctrine or as having been implemented through revelation. But has there ever been one reversed so quickly? Does God really say, "Oops! My bad."

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, provoman said:

You are welcome to write President Oaks and ask him. 

One leader's statement wouldn't represent doctrine according to many conference talks, so I don't think an answer from Oaks would help.  

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

LOL!  Okay.

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of why this thread is so fascinating.

Its not like there is no scriptural precedent...

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How are we going to define doctrine we can't distinguish between a policy and a revelation?

And what's the difference between a "sin" and a "transgression"?  And it's no longer considered apostasy (SSM).  For sure there's a softening taking place regarding the stance of the leaders towards those entering a SSM.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

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

I think Jesus spends a lot of time just shaking his head....😟

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, toon said:

I'll have to look it up, but I vaguely remember reports of instances where a child of a divorced couple with joint custody, one parent being a faithful member and the other in a same-sex relationship, was either prevented from baptism or had the baptism delayed. I suspect that was the most likely and most obvious situation where a child of a same-sex couple would like to be baptized, but surprisingly, it appears not to have been one of the "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios" considered, through fasting and prayer and the seeking of the Lord's guidance.

I also remember the Church issuing some after-the-fact clarification that the policy didn't apply to those situations, but they never formally changed the policy (so a local leader reading the policy would have to have been aware of the news release. If not, there was still a risk that the local leader would strictly apply the policy.)

I get that there have been reversals in the past on policy that was presented as doctrine or as having been implemented through revelation. But has there ever been one reversed so quickly? Does God really say, "Oops! My bad."

No, God never says, "Oops! My bad." But that doesn't mean he doesn't rescind or reverse or alter based on the wickedness of the children of men.

[provoman]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So in other words, "no" or "I don't know"....but let's ask..... is your response to this question: "Do we have any clear doctrinal statements we can refer to on this subject?"

Do you have a response to my numerous requests of you to interpret this sentence?

 

You and hope for things appear to want to quibble about what "doctrine" is/means.

As for the second sentence, as I stated I think you are missing the mark.