Policy reversal

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I don't know how to conceive of me making the right decision if the reason for that decision is false.  Are you suggesting that God "tricked" me into making the right decision? (Sincere question)

No, I don't believe that....not at all.  I don't think God is a trickster....especially with something like this.  I don't know all of your circumstances, so I honestly do not see that your decision would have been false even if SSM sealings were taking place when you made your decision.  I see that you and your wife are very happy together and have a wonderful family.  To me, I cannot see that being based on making a bad or false decision.

Quote

That is gracious to say.  Thank you.  

Well, I mean that.  I have a great deal of admiration and respect for you.  I also do feel that I understand more too....

Edited April 5, 2019 by ALarson

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I wasn't saying anything different actually.  Maybe I misunderstood SoMo, but he was making it sound like the church's new position will allow for a gay married couple to actively participate in church without any disciplinary ramifications or chance of excommunication.  Of course, if they are inactive a DC is not likely to happen, but if they want to be active, fully participating members, this change does not allow an unrepentant member who is guilty of publicly known sexual immorality to pretend to be in good standing and fully active in the church. 

"active and fully participating" is an ambiguous term. I am certain such a couple would never be given a temple recommend and highly confident they would not be allowed to participate in priesthood ordinances. But beyond that, what would happen to them would entirely depend on leadership roulette and the composition of the ward/stake within which they live. I have known bishops who allowed active participation to unmarried couples living together and those who have excommunicated the same. I have never observed a consistent standard applied when it came to local church discipline. Since it is no longer de facto apostacy for a gay couple to marry, the decision is now up to the discretion of the local leader as to if and how he wants to proceed, as it should have been to begin with.

[flameburns623]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

An apology will not help anything.  The church is wrong from first principles.  Or so say its opponents.

I have always admired David Bokovoy and thought him to be a brilliant man and a great thinker.  But it appears that even the elect can be deceived -- for he says that he couldn't understand the policy.  Yet even a benighted pipsqueak of an intellect such as myself could understand exactly where it was coming from -- maybe that's it, I'm too stupid to understand that it was wrong?  No, I am not.  I also understand that society is demanding at 100-db levels of scream that homosexual behavior must be completely normalized and accepted by all members of society.  And that no word whatsoever be said against it.  It is already the law in some places that saying "Homosexual behavior is a sin" can get you fined or jailed.  The time is coming, I'm fairly certain, when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be required to shut up about homosexuality, and probably also be required to perform weddings between people of the same sex.  

If you can't see that the days described in the Book of Revelation are getting ever closer, you are being willfully blind.  

A John Dehlin interview yesterday featured a guest who pointed out the win/win scenario the Church has created for itself: various early leaders have prophesied that the Gospel will spread and that the Church will "fill the Earth", and that there will be a "great apostasy", with the world turning against the few members who remain faithful. 

Oh, hi, Stargazer! Didn't notice you standing there!

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

True revelations are 100% reliable.  Thinking every confirming feeling mean God agrees with your decision doesn't qualify.

Like I said, this should tell you something. But apparently you are missing it, or don't want to look at it.

[kllindley]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, I don't believe that....not at all.  I don't think God is a trickster....especially with something like this.  I don't know all of your circumstances, so I honestly do not see that your decision would have been false even if SSM sealings were taking place when you made your decision.  I see that you and your wife are very happy together and have a wonderful family.  To me, I cannot see that being based on making a bad or false decision.

Well, I mean that.  I have a great deal of admiration and respect for you.  I also do feel that I understand more too....

I cannot imagine choosing to pursue something that felt so challenging unless I believed that there was no other way to achieve exaltation. 

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, changed said:

revelation vs. feel good ... it very much sounded to me like they were claiming "revelation" on it.  

I guess if we disagree with something a prophet states - we can just say "I do not believe they were receiving revelation (even though that is what they said), I think they were just getting their own emotions in it - so I can disagree with it... call anything you want to disagree with a "policy", rather than a doctrine?  

I think the Church called it a policy. You seem to want to take them strictly when they saw revelation and then ignore that they called it a policy. I am not sure the difficulty if someone says, "You know I prayed about this, went to the temple, prayed some more and I really think this is the way to go". If you call it revelation and I say inspire, I don't see a problem. However, when a scripture is created God speaks directly to the prophet and tells him this is what I want. There was no prayer or searching for the will of the Lord; there is simply a command to DO IT.  

I see no similarity between the two situations at all.  If there is fault it is demanding that the prophet take greater care with his words so that those that are desperate to find fault won't find a hook to hand their hat on. Of course, that is impossible. Haters are going to hate does not matter what happens. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

"A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

The policy was intended to avoid requiring children to disavow their parents relationships, which they would do by virtue of baptism, because it is a fundamental teaching that only sexual relationships between opposite sex persons is marriage, in the Lord's eyes.  Now they have given in, and the children will be required to repudiate their parents.  This will be decried as well.  Even if the policy had never been introduced there would have been trouble, because the first time a gay couple sent their child to church to be baptized their child would be being taught that the practices of their parent was abhorrent to the Lord.  And that will cause an uproar, too.

So many people want the Lord to give in and declare homosexual acts to be perfectly acceptable -- after millennia of the opposite being the case.  Do you really think this is going to happen?  

It's clear that the world is wallowing in sin, and we are edging ever closer to the end.  

Personally, I don’t want the “Lord to give in”, I believe He already accepts committed gay couples.  So for me it is just about the Brethren receiving the necessary revelation.  But I don’t expect others to believe the same. 

Given that, what this policy means to me is that we’re moving back in the right direction.  If I am right, it will one day mean that the Church goes into full apostasy by some members’ standards (possibly yours).  But for me, this is just a continuing unfolding of the restoration. I welcome this reversal and don’t think it means we are following the world in sin. 

[Storm Rider]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Personally, I don’t want the “Lord to give in”, I believe He already accepts committed gay couples.  So for me it is just about the Brethren receiving the necessary revelation.  But I don’t expect others to believe the same. 

Given that, what this policy means to me is that we’re moving back in the right direction.  If I am right, it will one day mean that the Church goes into full apostasy by some members’ standards (possibly yours).  But for me, this is just a continuing unfolding of the restoration. I welcome this reversal and don’t think it means we are following the world in sin. 

I don't think the tweaking of the policy means one thing or another to the doctrine of Church. If it makes someone feel good, then good. If it pacifies someone, then fine. If it confuses another, then that is okay too. I have been confused about many things in this life and I still don't understand a great many things.

I am not offended by the policy and consider it irrelevant to me and my extended family. Our niece (my brother's daughter) played with the lesbian thing for several years and then decided she fell in love with a man, married him, and is quite happy.  She has never been a member of the Church and I don't expect her to ever join the Church. 

Our society seems to produce a great number of people that live life as porcupine. Their quills are extended at all angles and enjoy taking offense at anything and everyone. They live in a constant state of both pride and anger; daring all to counter their wants, desires, and opinions. What is sad is that a greater number of people cater to them and are forever worrying about those who are offended. To take offense is a personal issue and I leave it with those that choose it. Not my monkeys and not my zoo. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

An apology will not help anything.  The church is wrong from first principles.  Or so say its opponents.

I have always admired David Bokovoy and thought him to be a brilliant man and a great thinker.  But it appears that even the elect can be deceived -- for he says that he couldn't understand the policy.  Yet even a benighted pipsqueak of an intellect such as myself could understand exactly where it was coming from -- maybe that's it, I'm too stupid to understand that it was wrong?  No, I am not.  I also understand that society is demanding at 100-db levels of scream that homosexual behavior must be completely normalized and accepted by all members of society.  And that no word whatsoever be said against it.  It is already the law in some places that saying "Homosexual behavior is a sin" can get you fined or jailed.  The time is coming, I'm fairly certain, when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be required to shut up about homosexuality, and probably also be required to perform weddings between people of the same sex.  

If you can't see that the days described in the Book of Revelation are getting ever closer, you are being willfully blind.  

I agree that Bokovoy is intelligent enough to understand the Brethren’s stated reasons for the policy.  I think what he likely means is that he disagrees with those reasons and doesn’t understand why this policy had to be in place. 

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Our niece (my brother's daughter) played with the lesbian thing for several years

I wish you knew how hurtful this phrase sounds to some.

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

To take offense is a personal issue and I leave it with those that choose it. Not my monkeys and not my zoo. 

It seems like you absolve yourself nicely of any need to consider others’ feelings and perceptions as you act.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Our society seems to produce a great number of people that live life as porcupine. Their quills are extended at all angles and enjoy taking offense at anything and everyone. They live in a constant state of both pride and anger; daring all to counter their wants, desires, and opinions. What is sad is that a greater number of people cater to them and are forever worrying about those who are offended. To take offense is a personal issue and I leave it with those that choose it. Not my monkeys and not my zoo. 

This is an odd and weak argument to put forward.  We’re on a discussion board and the topic is a matter of serious doctrinal importance to church members.  To imply that anyone disagreeing is just someone who is looking to be offended is short-sighted. 

[Storm Rider]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I wish you knew how hurtful this phrase sounds to some.

Again, we are responsible for our own feelings. I cannot force you to "feel" anything. 

What you should take away from my statement is that sexuality is highly flexible. That argument you hear all the time, "We are born this way!" That is balderdash for the vast majority of people. My niece proves that point. When she was young she dated boys. When she got out of college she dated girls and got into a rather long-term relationship with a girl. After they broke up, she started dating men again. What way was she born?  What choices were available to her?  She has obviously chosen different things at different times in her life and to my knowledge, she was relatively happy in both kinds of relationships. 

I don't think anyone should live their lives in fear of offending those who are seeking to be offended. I am just as susceptible to being PC as the next individual, but I try to resist it. 

A quotation was recently sent to me in my daily email from Quotations, "Being politically correct means saying what's polite rather than what's accurate. I like to be accurate. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I always tried to be correct, not politically correct."  

[Storm Rider]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is an odd and weak argument to put forward.  We’re on a discussion board and the topic is a matter of serious doctrinal importance to church members.  To imply that anyone disagreeing is just someone who is looking to be offended is short-sighted. 

ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is not a discussion about doctrine to any degree and never has been. This is a discussion about a policy that has changed. Please do not aggrandize the common to something of finer stuff. 

If you do see the groups that seek to take offense in our society....then you must not be looking. I cannot help you. 

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Again, we are responsible for our own feelings. I cannot force you to "feel" anything. 

What you should take away from my statement is that sexuality is highly flexible. That argument you hear all the time, "We are born this way!" That is balderdash for the vast majority of people. My niece proves that point. When she was young she dated boys. When she got out of college she dated girls and got into a rather long-term relationship with a girl. After they broke up, she started dating men again. What way was she born?  What choices were available to her?  She has obviously chosen different things at different times in her life and to my knowledge, she was relatively happy in both kinds of relationships. 

Your example is a sample size of 1 and clearly indicates she is bisexual.

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is not a discussion about doctrine to any degree and never has been. This is a discussion about a policy that has changed. Please do not aggrandize the common to something of finer stuff. 

I'll just leave this here for you (again) regarding the original policy implementation circa 2015-2016: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-nelson-handbook-change

I believe your attempts to minimize this issue as "common" are disingenuous.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is not a discussion about doctrine to any degree and never has been. This is a discussion about a policy that has changed. Please do not aggrandize the common to something of finer stuff. 

It’s a policy that is reflective of church doctrine.   And the implications of both the policy and the reversal weigh heavily upon the role of prophets and our understanding of how revelation from God works. 

Surely you didn’t think that 28 pages of dialogue were solely about a policy?

 

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

If you do see the groups that seek to take offense in our society....then you must not be looking. I cannot help you. 

There may be.  And if you’d like to discuss those groups as they are relevant to the discussion, than you should identify them.  But as far as I can see, everyone here is posting as individuals with their own perspectives and beliefs.  So criticizing unnamed groups for easily taking offense seems out of place. 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, lostindc said:

So do you think the revelation wasn't heard correctly hence why so much misunderstanding?  Why would revelation be reversed so quickly?  

There is absolutely no credible evidence that God has revealed anything concerning how the church should deal with gay people IMO.  You can't even point to a revelation that forbids gay couples from marrying coming from God.  This is all just guess work on the part of church leaders based on how THEY view scriptures.  This goes back all the way when I was fresh off my mission in the 70's when church leaders were claiming that God promised I would become straight if I just married a woman.  We all know how that turned out.  The 2015 policy declared a revelation now gets reversed.  Has anyone even claimed the latest change came about yet another revelation?

[SouthernMo]

38 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Again, we are responsible for our own feelings. I cannot force you to "feel" anything. 

What you should take away from my statement is that sexuality is highly flexible. That argument you hear all the time, "We are born this way!" That is balderdash for the vast majority of people. My niece proves that point. When she was young she dated boys. When she got out of college she dated girls and got into a rather long-term relationship with a girl. After they broke up, she started dating men again. What way was she born?  What choices were available to her?  She has obviously chosen different things at different times in her life and to my knowledge, she was relatively happy in both kinds of relationships. 

I don't think anyone should live their lives in fear of offending those who are seeking to be offended. I am just as susceptible to being PC as the next individual, but I try to resist it. 

A quotation was recently sent to me in my daily email from Quotations, "Being politically correct means saying what's polite rather than what's accurate. I like to be accurate. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I always tried to be correct, not politically correct."  

Again - what you say makes sense. It gives you license to hurt anyone you’d like and not take any responsibility for it.

[lostindc]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

There is absolutely no credible evidence that God has revealed anything concerning how the church should deal with gay people IMO.  You can't even point to a revelation that forbids gay couples from marrying coming from God.  This is all just guess work on the part of church leaders based on how THEY view scriptures.  This goes back all the way when I was fresh off my mission in the 70's when church leaders were claiming that God promised I would become straight if I just married a woman.  We all know how that turned out.  The 2015 policy declared a revelation now gets reversed.  Has anyone even claimed the latest change came about yet another revelation?

agreed

 

BTW, sorry you went through so much.  My sibling went through a lot of similar stuff.  He moved on from Mormonism a long time ago and his life is in a much better place.

[oklds]

Does anyone actually consider what it takes to be classified as "LGBTQ-etc."? I mean, what actually takes place in that relationship to create this situation? In other words, what do these people do, SPECIFICALLY, that makes them somehow 'perverted'?  Just think about that for a couple of minutes, okay?

 

Right.

 

Now, go enjoy your dinner.....

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is absolutely no credible evidence that God has revealed anything concerning how the church should deal with gay people IMO.  You can't even point to a revelation that forbids gay couples from marrying coming from God.  This is all just guess work on the part of church leaders based on how THEY view scriptures.  This goes back all the way when I was fresh off my mission in the 70's when church leaders were claiming that God promised I would become straight if I just married a woman.  We all know how that turned out.  The 2015 policy declared a revelation now gets reversed.  Has anyone even claimed the latest change came about yet another revelation?

There is no credible objective evidence that God even exists. I think your comment gets lost in kind of a bigger issue.

The question is of course as everyone knows I would bring up, is whether or not credible evidence is something we should even be speaking about in talking about revelation. 

I am sorry you were raised to believe that. As I think you know now one should follow one's own Revelation not someone else's, unless you yourself confirm it.  

But honestly I don't think this is a big news flash to anyone here. 

Anybody here seen God recently? Asked him how the world was doing or if he had a good day?

I think the point is that we feel him in our hearts and follow our own hearts, not what someone else tells you you should believe.

But I think you would know that by now, after what you've been through. You seem at least now to be following your own heart.

That's why your comment seems so odd to me, that I would even bring it up.

 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, oklds said:

Does anyone actually consider what it takes to be classified as "LGBTQ-etc."?

It doesn't matter. 

Just make up your own classification and stick another letter or two on the end.

But just remember whatever you decide to add, everyone in the world will have to remember these letters, if they know what they mean or not, or offend you, and after all offending anyone is the worst possible sin.

It it might even be hate speech and then heck, maybe you'll end up in jail.

You you got to watch the Federal Speech Police.  Nasty to deal with.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no credible objective evidence that God even exists. I think your comment gets lost in kind of a bigger issue.

The question is of course as everyone knows I would bring up, is whether or not credible evidence is something we should even be speaking about in talking about revelation. 

I am sorry you were raised to believe that. As I think you know now one should follow one's own Revelation not someone else's, unless you yourself confirm it.  

But honestly I don't think this is a big news flash to anyone here. 

Anybody here seen God recently? Asked him how the world was doing or if he had a good day?

I think the point is that we feel him in our hearts and follow our own hearts, not what someone else tells you you should believe.

But I think you would know that by now, after what you've been through. You seem at least now to be following your own heart.

That's why your comment seems so odd to me, that I would even bring it up.

 

Maybe I should have said, there is not even a claim of revelation by church leaders that gay marriage should be prohibited.  And given the current, just about any feeling qualifies as a revelation, this seems a bit odd to me.

But yeah, I have long since quit relying on others as my source of truth.  I trust God, not someone who claims to speak for God no matter who he is or what religion he is affiliated with.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

My niece proves that point. When she was young she dated boys. When she got out of college she dated girls and got into a rather long-term relationship with a girl. After they broke up, she started dating men again. What way was she born? 

I don’t know what’s happening in her head but she sounds bisexual. 

[MustardSeed]

49 minutes ago, oklds said:

Does anyone actually consider what it takes to be classified as "LGBTQ-etc."? I mean, what actually takes place in that relationship to create this situation? In other words, what do these people do, SPECIFICALLY, that makes them somehow 'perverted'?  Just think about that for a couple of minutes, okay?

 

Right.

 

Now, go enjoy your dinner.....

Am I reading this right? LGBTQ are perverts to you? 

Oh... this is the same guy who thinks he’s hilarious with his stand up routine about women’s menstrual cycles.  Ok. 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Again, we are responsible for our own feelings. I cannot force you to "feel" anything. 

Psychobabble. You’re rude.  Consistently.