Policy reversal

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

But also, I feel it would be dishonest to say that your comments supporting the idea that the Church accept same-sex marriage weren't part of what made yesterday difficult.  

So, if someone disagrees with you on this, it causes you pain?  (sincere question)

Can't I support your decision (to marry who you chose to marry) and also support SSM?  (another sincere question).  

And...I feel none of us you named deserve to be accused of mocking or labeling members naive, bigoted or foolish if they disagree with us (unless you can provide a source where one of us named did that).  I feel you should edit that post, but it's your choice of course....

Edited April 5, 2019 by ALarson

[lostindc]

I believe this board and many posters here are culpable.

We read many posts supporting the policy and denouncing those that took issue with the policy.  We had a wing of amateur and pro apologists begin to build a rationalization tower and unfortunately that often comes with the Nibley approach of attacking the messenger.  Many posters were attacked.  Many debates, much sadness and anger, just on these very boards.  In real life, the causalities really exist. Lifestyles were attacked.  Families were divided.  Members left the doors of the church to never return.  Youth left messages that their suicide was due to being gay and the Church's cruelness to this fact caused them to finally need to end their existence because the pain became too much.  Really, it can't get much worse.  I've never seen the Church leaking so much.    

Yet, we have members continuing to rationalize/justify the latest approach to the policy.  

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Yesterday's announcement didn't bother me at all. While I supported the policy and understood the need for it, it never made me happy. 

The hurtful part is the mocking of those of us members who believed and still believe the policy was inspired. It's the not-so-subtle message that believing in the principles of marriage and chastity taught in the Church is naive/bigoted/foolish/etc. I guess I expect that from the more bitter former members, but feel frustrated when that comes from fellow Saints. 

 

 

It is hurtful and my empathy is with you and for what you believe.  I have known that pain intimately for eleven years.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I believe this board and many posters here are culpable.

We read many posts supporting the policy and denouncing those that took issue with the policy.  We had a wing of amateur and pro apologists begin to build a rationalization tower and unfortunately that often comes with the Nibley approach of attacking the messenger.  Many posters were attacked.  Many debates, much sadness and anger, just on these very boards.  In real life, the causalities really exist. Lifestyles were attacked.  Families were divided.  Members left the doors of the church to never return.  Youth left messages that their suicide was due to being gay and the Church's cruelness to this fact caused them to finally need to end their existence because the pain became too much.  Really, it can't get much worse.  I've never seen the Church leaking so much.    

Yet, we have members continuing to rationalize/justify the latest approach to the policy.  

 

And I believe you are a malignancy. With just as much justification. Neither statement is worth a farthing.

Why would you say such malicious things?

[Oliblish]

6 hours ago, Rivers said:

Lifting of the priesthood ban was the last big “R” in my view.  That was a canonized while the 2015 policy was just a temporary inclusion in the handbook.  

So it looks like the way we can tell if a revelation is big "R" or not is based on how long it lasts.  There was no mention of little "r" before the reversal came out that I noticed.  Is there a way to determine this when a revelation first comes out, or do we have to wait a few decades before we can categorize what type of revelation it is?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

My only reaction to reading everyone’s comments here is thus, What is the status of your personal testimony? In other words, how are the communication channels between you and God? If you are where you should be spiritually it doesn’t matter what twists and turns the Church may take, God is generous is revealing His will to individuals. If you wrung your hands and hearts in anguish over either the implementation of the policy in 2015, or its latest revision, you need look no further than your own bedside to find relief, i.e. get down on your knees and quit relying on “the Brethren” to learn the mind and will of the Lord!

 

 

 

 

I’m fine personally seeking the mind and will of the Lord on my own. 

But what our prophet claims to be the revealed will of God isn’t unimportant.  It does matter. 

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

“Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills . . . but I want to say to you, my brethren, the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God. Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming.” (Heber C. Kimball, 1856. Quoted by J. Golden Kimball, Conference Report, October 1930, pp. 59-60.)

We can expect to receive many tests in our lives to see if we are faithful.  I don't know if the policy regarding gay kids is the tests mentioned above.   But I do know that it was a test for many people.  We have to be tested.  The Lord has to see if we are committed to him.  All of us will be tested in our own way.  For me this policy was not a test but  I know I will get my own tests in time.  The question is do we struggle through and keep our testimonies and pass the tests or do we throw it all way when our test comes and fail.  Expect more in the future as God has to sift his Church so that we can be prepared for the big stuff he needs the Church to do.  God can accomplish many miracles with a church of very small righteous members.  He may not be be able to do as much with a church that my be larger but has a lot of middle of the road, lukewarm ones. 

It does seem that the church uses the LGBT community as their own personal pawns to further their agenda and provide some kind of test for it's members.  

[lostindc]

Just now, USU78 said:

And I believe you are a malignancy. With just as much justification. Neither statement is worth a farthing.

Why would you say such malicious things?

 

The anger is real and justified.  This board has always been a place to battle out the topics.  But now, we can start to compile a bodycount due to the policies/approaches we debated for so many years.  

After this policy retreat, I think one message we can ponderize is that many of the other policies and doctrines that are topics of contention may change thus it's probably a good idea to not attack those that question.  We have a long history of attacking the messenger and not the message.  From Nibley to Greg Smith, even the most notable of LDS apologists focus so much on the person instead of what the person is attempting to convey.  

The salt has lost its savor.  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Oliblish said:

So it looks like the way we can tell if a revelation is big "R" or not is based on how long it lasts.  There was no mention of little "r" before the reversal came out that I noticed.  Is there a way to determine this when a revelation first comes out, or do we have to wait a few decades before we can categorize what type of revelation it is?

Who started this “little r big R” thing? Can we please stone them for it?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

 

The anger is real and justified.  This board has always been a place to battle out the topics.  But now, we can start to compile a bodycount due to the policies/approaches we debated for so many years.  

After this policy retreat, I think one message we can ponderize is that many of the other policies and doctrines that are topics of contention may change thus it's probably a good idea to not attack those that question.  We have a long history of attacking the messenger and not the message.  From Nibley to Greg Smith, even the most notable of LDS apologists focus so much on the person instead of what the person is attempting to convey.  

The salt has lost its savor.  

Pretty sure this board is not the salt of the earth.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I found this reason quite coherent myself:

Though I do realize it isn't consistently applied.

This was already accomplished before with the practice of giving parents the option to consent to baptism or not.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m fine personally seeking the mind and will of the Lord on my own. 

But what our prophet claims to be the revealed will of God isn’t unimportant.  It does matter. 

It's taking the name of God in vain and breaking a commandment. I understand that the church or a few of it's leaders think that the gays, intellectuals or feminists are a big threat. So they are only reacting IMO. Too bad their reactions, IMO, have backfired over and over. I'm a broken record on the topic of taking the name of God in vain, because it's only in the last few years I came to a complete understanding of what that really means. The sin of doing that is big because how would any of us feel if someone said that it was because of any one of us that something needs to be implicated and we didn't authorize it. So it's basically putting the blame on the blameless if things go wrong or right. When God is innocent of it. And had nothing to do with it. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Tacenda

[carbon dioxide]

Just now, california boy said:

It does seem that the church uses the LGBT community as their own personal pawns to further their agenda and provide some kind of test for it's members.  

The Church spends too much time focusing on the LGBT issues.  According to CDC study, less than 5% of the population falls in that groups.  Other issues affect far more people and members like finances, porn, sabbath day observance, tithing,...  All members are tested in various ways.  Gay issues however have seem to get the most attention in the last 10 years or so.  Back in 80s and 90s, LGBT issues were hardly mentioned.

I am not sure what agenda you are referring to.  Perhaps they are attempting to respond to a broader agenda in society.  The Church has a responsibility to promote the agenda of Christ. Sometimes that means addressing gay issues but it should not be too focused on that and neglect other things.

[Avatar4321]

37 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I believe this board and many posters here are culpable.

We read many posts supporting the policy and denouncing those that took issue with the policy.  We had a wing of amateur and pro apologists begin to build a rationalization tower and unfortunately that often comes with the Nibley approach of attacking the messenger.  Many posters were attacked.  Many debates, much sadness and anger, just on these very boards.  In real life, the causalities really exist. Lifestyles were attacked.  Families were divided.  Members left the doors of the church to never return.  Youth left messages that their suicide was due to being gay and the Church's cruelness to this fact caused them to finally need to end their existence because the pain became too much.  Really, it can't get much worse.  I've never seen the Church leaking so much.    

Yet, we have members continuing to rationalize/justify the latest approach to the policy.  

 

So supporting the Lord and sustaining our leaders is the problem?

What about those who are finding every reason to criticize and keep lying that these policies are do to hate rather than looking at the modern and historical context?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Yesterday's announcement didn't bother me at all. While I supported the policy and understood the need for it, it never made me happy. 

The hurtful part is the mocking of those of us members who believed and still believe the policy was inspired. It's the not-so-subtle message that believing in the principles of marriage and chastity taught in the Church is naive/bigoted/foolish/etc. I guess I expect that from the more bitter former members, but feel frustrated when that comes from fellow Saints. 

 

 

I don’t think that anything I wrote here was mocking those who believe in the Church’s teachings on marriage. 

Likewise, I can’t set aside my beliefs on what I think God accepts when it comes to marriage. 

I completely support and celebrate the decisions you’ve made for how to follow the gospel.  At the same time, I’m grateful that we no longer consider gay marriage as equivalent to apostasy and that we are now welcoming their children into the church in full fellowship.

I truly am sorry for contributing to your pain, I’ll work on being more considerate in how I write posts here.

 

[lostindc]

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So supporting the Lord and sustaining our leaders is the problem?

What about those who are finding every reason to criticize and keep lying that these policies are do to hate rather than looking at the modern and historical context?

Supporting a leader isn't the problem, supporting the leader in this case might be wrong.

I think most that criticize the church do so from a place of pain, and I don't know how looking through the scope of both the modern and historical contexts will alleviate the pain.

[Avatar4321]

31 minutes ago, lostindc said:

 

The anger is real and justified.  This board has always been a place to battle out the topics.  But now, we can start to compile a bodycount due to the policies/approaches we debated for so many years.  

After this policy retreat, I think one message we can ponderize is that many of the other policies and doctrines that are topics of contention may change thus it's probably a good idea to not attack those that question.  We have a long history of attacking the messenger and not the message.  From Nibley to Greg Smith, even the most notable of LDS apologists focus so much on the person instead of what the person is attempting to convey.  

The salt has lost its savor.  

I suspect the salt is in a far better position than you judge it to be

[Avatar4321]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

Supporting a leader isn't the problem, supporting the leader in this case might be wrong.

I think most that criticize the church do so from a place of pain, and I don't know how looking through the scope of both the modern and historical contexts will alleviate the pain.

There is nothing wrong with supporting leaders in a policy designed to protect people, even if the enemies of the church want to pervert it into a weapon.

you want to alleviate pain? Bring people to Christ. Stop twisting things to drive a wedge between them

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Then you would have to believe this reversal also came by revelation  (whether they claim it or not).

The  alternative is that the leaders are disobeying God by violating the revelation you believe came.

Must be easy to just assume that no matter what they do or say it's always revelation unless they specifically say that it isn't.  Saves needing an opinion.

As I read yesterday’s announcement, I do believe the reversal came by revelation. 

[alter idem]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

Seriously?  

Let’s hear what Russell M. Nelson stated about receiving this revelation:

“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.”

Does that sound like a revelation with a small “r”?

It sounds like they pondered and prayed about a situation that they felt was something which needed to be acted upon.  It sounds like they felt they were inspired to implement a policy.  I personally don't know about this big 'R' and little 'r' stuff, to me, it all comes from the same source.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims priesthood authority, to lead and guide the members, to administrate the church.  We believe in continuing revelation, which means that we will see changes.  They implemented a policy in 2015 which they came to by inspiration, aka revelation.  After three years of this policy in place, they determined, in the same way, through pondering, praying-- inspiration, aka revelation, to make changes to that policy. 

 

They can do that, this is what continuing revelation includes and it is an example of Continuing Revelation for policies and practices to be tried for a while and then changed.  I know for some of you that is very uncomfortable and it seems some of you want the rest of us to be as uncomfortable with it as you all are, but for me, it's an integral part of the Church.

[HappyJackWagon]

49 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And I believe you are a malignancy. With just as much justification. Neither statement is worth a farthing.

Why would you say such malicious things?

Wow. You literally just called someone a "malignancy". I'm stunned by your rudeness.

Quote

ma·lig·nant

ADJECTIVE

1. malevolent.

   "in the hands of malignant fate"

   synonyms:

   spiteful · hostile · malevolent · malicious · malign · evil-intentioned ·

   [more]

   baleful · full of hate · vicious · nasty · poisonous · venomous · acrimonious · rancorous · splenetic · cruel

   antonyms:

   benevolent
2. (of a disease) very virulent or infectious.

   synonyms:

   virulent · infectious · invasive · uncontrollable · dangerous · harmful ·

   [more]

   pernicious · deadly · fatal · life-threatening · lethal · terminal · incurable

   • (of a tumor) tending to invade normal tissue or to recur after removal; cancerous.Contrasted with benign.
     synonyms:

     cancerous · nonbenign · metastatic

Can you communicate without personal attack?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

This makes sense.  This has always made sense.  You are making the same argument I have made from the beginning, and one you would never acknowledge until now.  What never made sense is the church making a blanket policy specifically targeting gay families that took away the opportunity to handle each situation individually and with prayerful consideration.  What I have never understood is why the policy was instituted in the first place.  

If the parents refused those conditions, then of course their children would not be baptized.  That is what happens with every other situation when a minor is seeking baptism.  Parents have always had to agree to the conditions presented by the church and give their consent.  For church leaders to target gay families tells more about leadership attitudes towards gays than some kind of "righteous reason."

It really didn't take much foresight to be able to predict what would happen when the church starts to deny baptism to minor children just because their parents are gay.  Nothing has changed since this policy was announced.  Just 3 1/2 years and a lot of backlash against the church for a teaching that many felt went directly against the teachings of the Savior. 

As far as polygamist families, that also should be talked about.  But then, I have never been a believer in denying blessings to a child because of the sins of the parents.

I believe the opportunity was always present to handle each situation individually. That opportunity is present when dealing with polygamous households as well. That’s what local leaders are for. 

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, alter idem said:

It sounds like they pondered and prayed about a situation that they felt was something which needed to be acted upon.  It sounds like they felt they were inspired to implement a policy.  I personally don't know about this big 'R' and little 'r' stuff, to me, it all comes from the same source.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims priesthood authority, to lead and guide the members, to administrate the church.  We believe in continuing revelation, which means that we will see changes.  They implemented a policy in 2015 which they came to by inspiration, aka revelation.  After three years of this policy in place, they determined, in the same way, through pondering, praying-- inspiration, aka revelation, to make changes to that policy. 

 

They can do that, this is what continuing revelation includes and it is an example of Continuing Revelation for policies and practices to be tried for a while and then changed.  I know for some of you that is very uncomfortable and it seems some of you want the rest of us to be as uncomfortable with it as you all are, but for me, it's an integral part of the Church.

Where have I stated I’m at all uncomfortable with this change?  I’m not.

I support continuing revelation and am hopeful there will be more progress and more acceptance on this issue (SSM).  As others have expressed, we are heading in the correct direction now.  

(And I’m with you on the silly big “R” vs little “r” revelation.)

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe the opportunity was always present to handle each situation individually. That opportunity is present when dealing with polygamous households as well. That’s what local leaders are for. 

And yet, some seemed critical of local leaders here who stated they’d not likely discipline members who entered SSM and then accused them of not supporting the church leaders if they didn’t follow or obey that policy.

Edited April 5, 2019 by JulieM

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I read yesterday’s announcement, I do believe the reversal came by revelation. 

I presume you also believe the original implementation came by revelation, as well (given your past posts).  Would you be willing to explain how you reconcile that?