Policy reversal

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not necessarily. Lots of people get more lenient discipline for sex outside of marriage or adultery.

Yes, but most of that is tied to a desire to not do it again. Getting legally married into a relationship that is currently sinful by definition makes it much less likely leniency will be offered.

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But here's what will happen...

~34,000 stake presidents and bishops will interpreting the new policy.  Some will interpret it as you have done, others will read it as @ALarson does.

Meanwhile, attitudes of members toward gay marriage will continue to shift and as that happens, I'm confident that more and more gay couples will be welcomed in full fellowship (and will not be disciplined).  And, to me, it seems clear where that will lead - we only need to look at our church's history to see what the future will hold.

Let's hope Stake Presidents get some training, eh?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But here's what will happen...

~34,000 stake presidents and bishops will interpreting the new policy.  Some will interpret it as you have done, others will read it as @ALarson does.

Meanwhile, attitudes of members toward gay marriage will continue to shift and as that happens, I'm confident that more and more gay couples will be welcomed in full fellowship (and will not be disciplined).

I'll talk to my Bishop regarding how he interprets the sentences in question.  But I tend to believe he will agree with me and feel that those in homosexual relationships should only be disciplined in the same manner as those in heterosexual relationships.  The same path for both regarding counseling, confession, discipline and repentance (for fornication or adultery).  

Otherwise, what does it mean to treat them "in the same way"?

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

Just now, Benjamin Seeker said:

Let's hope Stake Presidents get some training, eh?

I don't believe there was any training when the policy was released in 2015.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So is it continuing revelation if it just puts things back to 2014?

If it is the result of revelation perhaps it was a reprimand for 2015.  Perhaps 2015 was never God's will.

Or maybe both were revelations and 2015 was just to weed out weak testimonies.  Seems to have worked.

Personally I don't have much faith in a fickle God so I doubt He had anything to do with either change.

My money is on 2015 was a mistake.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I have been feeling very off since hearing this. I think I may have just lost my temple recommend. I do not think I can answer that I sustain the church leaders as prophets. They lead me astray too often. I can no longer justify their mistakes in my mind and heart. I really have a sick feeling about all of this. I have wanted the church to be true for the past few years since my eyes started to be opened to the big problems. 

I simply cannot continue to believe these men are prophets when they have been so wrong so many times since the beginning. Good men, yes. Faithful men who are trying to do their best? Absolutely, I believe that 100%. In my mind they just cannot be who they say they are based on their fruits. And it really does break my heart. I think I have finally reached the end of my rope and it is a pretty empty feeling.

I would suggest that you no more be discouraged about them than you might be about yourself. You are a wonderful child of God, and your Gift of the Holy Ghost, covenants, etc. are no less real because of anything you might do to the dismay of those you love (which is nothing to be discouraged about, this is a gospel of hope).

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

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.

You think God revoked his will because Church members were in rebellion?  I can buy that.

I wonder how many more pieces of God's will are going to be removed because we as a Church can't accept them.  The problem is according to D&C we lose a blessing every time God revokes his will and law.

We really are modern day Israel.  And if we keep rejecting God's will he will keep revoking and giving us lesser laws.  So much for last dispensation.  We'll need another at this rate.

Edited April 4, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe there was any training when the policy was released in 2015.

Hopefully, they can learn from that mistake?

[Benjamin Seeker]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

You think God revoked his will because Church members were in rebellion?  I can buy that.

I wonder how many more pieces of God's will are going to be removed because we as a Church can't accept them.  The problem is according to D&C we lose a blessing every time God revokes his will and law.

They only blessing we'd be losing this time is... um, nothing.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

My money is on 2015 was a mistake.

Well, we've been taught lately that revelation in the Q12 and FP is when all 15 find themselves in consensus on a particular matter.

I suspect that they all agreed on the 2015 policy, thus it was deemed revelation.

Now they all agree on the reversal so it's revelation as well.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Except there haven’t been any changes to who is allowed to be baptized. Everyone is allowed to be baptized. In fact everyone is going to get that opportunity weather in this life or the next. The only question is when.Except there haven’t been any changes to who is allowed to be baptized. Everyone is allowed to be baptized. In fact everyone is going to get that opportunity weather in this life or the next. The only question is when.

Fair point.

Then let’s take it to the extreme to explore the principle you’re supporting: Why do we have a missionary program focused on baptism?  Let’s just wait until the next life. Let’s save the millions of dollars spent by the church and it’s members to send young adults out?

Do we believe it is better to be baptized sooner or not?

[Benjamin Seeker]

Just now, rockpond said:

Well, we've been taught lately that revelation in the Q12 and FP is when all 15 find themselves in consensus on a particular matter.

I suspect that they all agreed on the 2015 policy, thus it was deemed revelation.

Now they all agree on the reversal so it's revelation as well.

1

The impression I got from reading Pres. Nelson's description of revelation and his subsequent deeming the 2015 policy as revelation was that the quorum deliberated it over whatever length of time. Eventually they came together, all said their input, prayed about it at length, and then Monson uttered a revelation, which was then accepted by the quorum. To be uber-clear, Nelson didn't give this narrative I've just spelled out. I've simply overlayed the general revelation narrative that Nelson has shared (I believe it's Nelson, and if not, it was another apostle) onto the policy. If I'm remembering correctly, Nelson gave that general narrative in the same talk that he called the 2015 policy relevation, but I'll have to go double check that (so I'm CFRing myself, so no one else needs to!).

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I don't agree. I'm unclear as to exactly what it means as well. Clearly, homosexual marriages no longer mandate excommunication. What is less clear is if a homosexual marriage will be disciplined or if just homosexual fornication and homosexual adultery will be disciplined.

Exactly. Local leadership has the option now to make their own decision regarding the level of discipline applied. So, for example, under the old policy defined as a revelation, if a local leader found out about a member who has never been active, but was part of a gay marriage, he had no choice but to excommunicate that person regardless of whether or not that person considered himself a member or not. Now, under the new policy which has yet to be defined as a revelation, a local leader may just choose to ignore someone like that, and in my opinion should chose to ignore it.

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I don't agree. I'm unclear as to exactly what it means as well. Clearly, homosexual marriages no longer mandate excommunication. What is less clear is if a homosexual marriage will be disciplined or if just homosexual fornication and homosexual adultery will be disciplined.

If homosexual sex in a homosexual marriage is deemed less sinful than homosexual sex outside of marriage, but it's still a transgression, then this change could have just created a subset (or subclass?) of LDS who are in a homosexual marriages and retain their membership and are able to attend, but can't have callings or otherwise participate.  And certainly they can't get Temple Recommends.

I don't know how many people like this there are, but it could mean interesting times are ahead...

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

They only blessing we'd be losing this time is... um, nothing.

Agreed.  Because none of this came from God.

Now if the Church ever embraced SSM that would change.

[Lemuel]

32 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I have been feeling very off since hearing this. I think I may have just lost my temple recommend. I do not think I can answer that I sustain the church leaders as prophets. They lead me astray too often. I can no longer justify their mistakes in my mind and heart. I really have a sick feeling about all of this. I have wanted the church to be true for the past few years since my eyes started to be opened to the big problems. 

I simply cannot continue to believe these men are prophets when they have been so wrong so many times since the beginning. Good men, yes. Faithful men who are trying to do their best? Absolutely, I believe that 100%. In my mind they just cannot be who they say they are based on their fruits. And it really does break my heart. I think I have finally reached the end of my rope and it is a pretty empty feeling.

I've been there.  What got me through it was the realization that I shouldn't put my trust in the arm of flesh:

2 Nephi 28:31 [Thus saith the Lord:] Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. 

The prophets’ arms are made out of flesh, just like ours.

[SouthernMo]

22 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Nothing fickle about it. Let go of your pride and go to the Lord and learn from him instead of fighting Him

I’m not fighting him.  That’s a somewhat hurtful assumption on your part.

I’m trying to follow him, but (if we trust our current leadership as revelatory) he’s pretty darn hard to follow when he changes directions so often, but insists there is no change of direction.

[SouthernMo]

34 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I have been feeling very off since hearing this. I think I may have just lost my temple recommend. I do not think I can answer that I sustain the church leaders as prophets. They lead me astray too often. I can no longer justify their mistakes in my mind and heart. I really have a sick feeling about all of this. I have wanted the church to be true for the past few years since my eyes started to be opened to the big problems. 

I simply cannot continue to believe these men are prophets when they have been so wrong so many times since the beginning. Good men, yes. Faithful men who are trying to do their best? Absolutely, I believe that 100%. In my mind they just cannot be who they say they are based on their fruits. And it really does break my heart. I think I have finally reached the end of my rope and it is a pretty empty feeling.

I ache for you and empathize with you. I’m there, too. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The impression I got from reading Pres. Nelson's description of revelation and his subsequent deeming the 2015 policy as revelation was that the quorum deliberated it over whatever length of time. Eventually they came together, all said their input, prayed about it at length, and then Monson uttered a revelation, which was then accepted by the quorum. To be uber-clear, Nelson didn't give this narrative I've just spelled out. I've simply overlayed the general revelation narrative that Nelson has shared (I believe it's Nelson, and if not, it was another apostle) onto the policy. If I'm remembering correctly, Nelson gave that general narrative in the same talk that he called the 2015 policy relevation, but I'll have to go double check that (so I'm CFRing myself, so no one else needs to!).

From President Nelson, Oct 2014:

"The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!"

 

From President Nelson, April 2018:

"When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church."

 

Elder Rasband, Oct 2018:

"I add my witness to the messages of President Russell M. Nelson and Elder Quentin L. Cook given moments ago of the harmony and unanimity of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I know these revelatory announcements are the mind and the will of the Lord and will bless and strengthen individuals, families, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for generations to come."

[HappyJackWagon]

I can understand the excitement surrounding this announcement.

I can also understand the confusion and angst surrounding the announcement.

But I find myself ambivalent about the announcement. The policy was terrible. Removing a terrible policy is a good thing, and can legitimately be seen as positive progress, but the damage is done. Trust has been broken. It will take much more than removing a terrible policy to make restitution for that policy and the lives it affected. IMO it never was a revelation, and I don't believe rescinding it is a revelation either. It's just a policy that church leaders believe is appropriate and useful in furthering the purposes of the church. The policy was enacted 3 1/2 years ago. Today it's gone. Tomorrow, or in 10 years it could be back. There is nothing lasting or dependable. The only constant is change, but when that continual change is in the name of God I can't help but think the name of God is being taken in vain, attributing to God, what is of man. Trust has been broken and it will be difficult to rebuild.

So I'm glad the terrible policy is gone but I can't get too excited about the implications, or hope too much for what it may mean down the road. It's just a policy that can change at any moment. We try to ascribe greater meaning to it, but it's just a policy. It may reflect the soul of the church at any given moment, but it's just for a moment. Maybe things will get better in the church for LGBTQ members, or maybe the pendulum will swing back the other way to placate more conservative members who may not approve of this change. My guess is, depending on ones location, both will be true.

I predict continued whiplash on the issue of LGBTQ in the LDS church.

[Storm Rider]

Stand back everybody - there will be a deluge of baptisms from all of these children belonging to the gay community that were desperate to be baptised. Undoubtedly, there will be a great need for thousands of new church buildings to accommodate these thousands, if not millions of people. 

Or, it might mean absolutely nothing with miniscule numbers of baptisms that had been delayed. So the real impact has always been - that hurt my feelings and the Church is so mean they should be killed and destroyed because they do not think like me. 

[halconero]

I fully accept both the original policy a revelation, and this most recent policy a revelation. This story illustrates my sentiments on the fundamental purpose of both.

Quote

A story is told of an encounter between the Prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. In the presence of a rather large group of brethren, the Prophet severely chastised Brother Brigham for some failing in his duty. Everyone, I suppose somewhat stunned, waited to see what Brigham’s response would be. After all, Brigham, who later became known as the Lion of the Lord, was no shrinking violet by any means. Brigham slowly rose to his feet, and in words that truly reflected his character and his humility, he simply bowed his head and said, “Joseph, what do you want me to do?” The story goes that sobbing, Joseph ran from the podium, threw his arms around Brigham, and said in effect, “You passed, Brother Brigham, you passed” (see Truman G. Madsen, “Hugh B. Brown—Youthful Veteran,” New Era, Apr. 1976, 16).

[rockpond]

Just now, halconero said:

I fully accept both the original policy a revelation, and this most recent policy a revelation. This story illustrates my sentiments on the fundamental purpose of both.

Is your implication here that this "revealed" policy from 2015 was just a test to see how members would do?  And what of the casualties -- those who were harmed by the policy?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Stand back everybody - there will be a deluge of baptisms from all of these children belonging to the gay community that were desperate to be baptised. Undoubtedly, there will be a great need for thousands of new church buildings to accommodate these thousands, if not millions of people. 

Or, it might mean absolutely nothing with miniscule numbers of baptisms that had been delayed. So the real impact has always been - that hurt my feelings and the Church is so mean they should be killed and destroyed because they do not think like me. 

I believe we are called to minister to the one, not the ninety and nine.

[Benjamin Seeker]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, we've been taught lately that revelation in the Q12 and FP is when all 15 find themselves in consensus on a particular matter.

I suspect that they all agreed on the 2015 policy, thus it was deemed revelation.

Now they all agree on the reversal so it's revelation as well.

 

9 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The impression I got from reading Pres. Nelson's description of revelation and his subsequent deeming the 2015 policy as revelation was that the quorum deliberated it over whatever length of time. Eventually they came together, all said their input, prayed about it at length, and then Monson uttered a revelation, which was then accepted by the quorum. To be uber-clear, Nelson didn't give this narrative I've just spelled out. I've simply overlayed the general revelation narrative that Nelson has shared (I believe it's Nelson, and if not, it was another apostle) onto the policy. If I'm remembering correctly, Nelson gave that general narrative in the same talk that he called the 2015 policy relevation, but I'll have to go double check that (so I'm CFRing myself, so no one else needs to!).

OK, I didn't quite have it right. It's actually completely explicit. Here is the pertinent paragraph in the original address by President Nelson, given on Jan. 10, 2016.

"This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation." (my bolding)

Here is the link to the address: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-true-millennials?lang=eng

Also, if you go back and look at some of the online discussions, you'll see that this particular paragraph was published and retracted in online seminary materials multiple times, though I believe it was not included when all was said and done.