Policy reversal

[Daniel2]

On 4/4/2019 at 11:14 AM, provoman said:

Do you have evidence of causality to such suicides?

I do. My own personal witness as a survivor of sucidal ideation and the personal witnesses of countless other gay men and women who are survivors of the same.

[kllindley]

34 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I do. My own personal witness as a survivor of sucidal ideation and the personal witnesses of countless other gay men and women who are survivors of the same.

Nvm. Off topic

Edited April 6, 2019 by kllindley

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Adults never feel humbled and called to repentance? Interesting perspective. I don't think being hard hearted and prideful is necessarily the hallmark of adulthood.

I think you missed the gist of the conversation. Emotional manipulation is not a game in which I will play. Attempting to cast the discussion in an emotional way also does not work. 

Creating a strawman out of it also doesn't work. Gotta get a new schtick; getting old. 

[CA Steve]

I don't know if there is anyway to measure it, but I think the timing of the announcement was brilliant. I expect the attention paid to conference this weekend to be significantly more than what they normally would have, especially from the media itself.

[why me]

I never saw the ban as something terrible. It just made sense. If a child is baptized at the age of 8 and he has same sex parents, I could see a conflict coming since the church policy is that man and woman can marry and if worthy get married in the temple. Over and over again as this child would grow in the church, he would hear that families are forever if they are married in the temple. I am sure that such a policy would create a conflict if that child would be taught in such a practice and go home to a same sex marriage. However, it needs to be mentioned that that child could still go to church be treated as an equal.

Now with the reversal, it will seem to those who left, a justification for their leaving the church and it will just put more logs on the fire for those to criticize the church and its policy of revelation. And I am sure that some members will doubt the church and perhaps become inactive or just leave, not because of the change but because there was a change so quickly after the fact. Too many changes are not always a great thing.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

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!

 

There was a great apostasy.  There's been a restoration.  There will come a great tribulation, and it will be very unpleasant before the Lord returns in power.  The Gospel will fill the earth after the Second Coming, not before.  Not sure what you're trying to say.

[flameburns623]

12 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

It shouldn't surprise anyone that even good, decent, highly intelligent, well respected people would cling unrelenting to the toxicity of anger in a world relatively bereft of personal responsibility and where outrage is the coin of the virtue-signalling realm.  

What makes this all the more worthy of sorrow is this condition tends to be intractable. Often the "cure" is the object of the toxic anger. And, up is viewed as down, and vice versa.

Certainly, it doesn't help that others encourage and even glorify the destructive attitude  But, such is the way of dysfunction--individual and collective.

If people truly cared for David, at least more than the pop culture agenda, at the very least they wouldn't feed the anger by making it a cause celeb, and more important they wouldn't give into the destructive attitude through apologies or the encouragement thereof.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

Dr. Bokovoy might disagree with you.  

David's statement this morning;

 

With the announcement that the LDS Church has jettisoned its Exclusion Policy, prohibiting the children of gay couples from receiving baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and blessings, some church members have promulgated the idea that this move does not represent the Church changing, it shows that the members themselves have changed, that we are now ready to accept gay people.

It’s the same argument that is often given concerning the LDS Church’s Temple and Priesthood ban against men and women of African ancestry. 

For some, this position allows them to retain faith in the infallibility of Church leaders and their policies.  It was God himself who instituted these restrictions because the Church members were not yet ready to accept others in full fellowship.  

To those who either encounter or promote such views, I would encourage you to think about Jesus.  Think about the stories told about him in the New Testament.  If there is one common denominator in those accounts it is this:  Jesus constantly offended the “Church” by extending the boundaries of fellowship.  He constantly sought to bring in those who were marginalized by society, and in the process, he offended his followers.

We encounter the same portrayal of God in the Hebrew Bible.  God is the champion, the defender of the vulnerable.  Instead of protecting the “Church,” he calls the “Church” to repentance for not accepting and protecting those on the margins.

The fact is LDS Church leaders make mistakes.  They are not infallible.  And the Exclusive Policy was immoral.  It literally violated a core aspect of Mormon doctrine, that a man should be punished for his own “sins” and not for Adam’s transgressions.

I love the LDS Church.  I love its leaders.  I devoted my education and 18 years of my career to the Church.  Yet because of the Exclusion Policy, I cannot attend.  It was wrong.  It was unethical.  And it was immoral.  

If, however, President Nelson will stand up this weekend and officially apologize for the policy, if he will admit that he was mistaken to call the Policy a revelation from God, if he will tell the world that after much prayer and pondering that God has shown him the errors of his way, I will happily return to Church.

But until he does this, I simply cannot accept any LDS Church leader as a moral, spiritual guide.

[Storm Rider]

21 minutes ago, why me said:

I never saw the ban as something terrible. It just made sense. If a child is baptized at the age of 8 and he has same sex parents, I could see a conflict coming since the church policy is that man and woman can marry and if worthy get married in the temple. Over and over again as this child would grow in the church, he would hear that families are forever if they are married in the temple. I am sure that such a policy would create a conflict if that child would be taught in such a practice and go home to a same sex marriage. However, it needs to be mentioned that that child could still go to church be treated as an equal.

Now with the reversal, it will seem to those who left, a justification for their leaving the church and it will just put more logs on the fire for those to criticize the church and its policy of revelation. And I am sure that some members will doubt the church and perhaps become inactive or just leave, not because of the change but because there was a change so quickly after the fact. Too many changes are not always a great thing.

I try to focus on one thing - the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ's main purpose is to strengthen each child of God's relationship with the Godhead. This is a narrow path that demands self-sacrifice in exchange for Eternal Life. There will be some that will follow after Christ and He will guide them even when it appears to, at present, be a conflicting path. For those that abandon the Savior and walk in darkness, the Holy Spirit will periodically call to them to return at times when their hearts are softened. 

The policies and operations of the Church are above my pay grade. The prophet and the Twelve can defend themselves. My responsibility to follow Christ and to strive to hear his voice and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

[flameburns623]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

There was a great apostasy.  There's been a restoration.  There will come a great tribulation, and it will be very unpleasant before the Lord returns in power.  The Gospel will fill the earth after the Second Coming, not before.  Not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm suggesting something very unflattering about your credulity.  

[Stargazer]

16 hours 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 reversal means we are following the world in sin, either.  I think we're pragmatically adjusting to a bad situation.

I have tried to wrap my head around the idea that the Lord might some time in the future reveal something along the lines of approval of same-sex marriage.  It fails to resonate with me.  I try to maintain a level of spirituality that I would hope leaves me able to correctly discern the will of the Lord, but your proposal does not pass the test.  I would not be surprised if the practice of plural marriage is restored at some point, but not same-sex marriage. 

 

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

The quotation given by flameburns said he didn't understand it.  "Understand" and "agree" are not equivalent.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I'm suggesting something very unflattering about your credulity.  

Insult me all you like, I don't mind.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

[flameburns623]

Just now, Stargazer said:

Insult me all you like, I don't mind.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

Find attached Part One of the John Dehlin interview with numerous people about the reversal of the November 2015 policy. 

The conversation about how the Church exploits various aspects of prophetic narrative to profess "victory" no matter what happens is relatively early in the show. If you want to watch the entire podcast,  better brew up a pot of Mormon coffee and settle down in a comfy place. This is a long one. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Apparently neither have been here long enough to develop some decency, common courtesy and good communication skills.  Their style of posting is about as ineffective as one can be on a board that is a discussion board.  If they want their voice to be heard, they should be respectful even as they are expressing an opposing view, IMO.

.

We have a beloved family dog at home that we adopted from the county shelter some 11 years ago. A more intelligent, gentle, affectionate animal I have never known. 

But over the years I’ve noticed how remarkably his attitude and behavior mirror that of those who interact with him. That is, he never barks, growls or bares his teeth in hostility unless he is approached aggressively or in what he perceives to be a threatening or menacing manner. 

I think, by observing animal behavior, we can by analogy gain insight into human psychology. 

Daniel Peterson has on occasion cited a German saying: This animal is extremely vicious; when attacked it bites. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Find attached Part One of the John Dehlin interview with numerous people about the reversal of the November 2015 policy. 

The conversation about how the Church exploits various aspects of prophetic narrative to profess "victory" no matter what happens is relatively early in the show. If you want to watch the entire podcast,  better brew up a pot of Mormon coffee and settle down in a comfy place. This is a long one. 

I was talking to a member last night who recommended watching this.  They said it was very touching, but also supportive of President Nelson and other church leaders.

I'm not a big John Dehlin fan and also not big on watching podcasts.....but I think I may take the time to at least watch part of this if I can find the time this weekend.

Thanks for posting the information and link 👍

Edited April 6, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, why me said:

I never saw the ban as something terrible. It just made sense. If a child is baptized at the age of 8 and he has same sex parents, I could see a conflict coming since the church policy is that man and woman can marry and if worthy get married in the temple. Over and over again as this child would grow in the church, he would hear that families are forever if they are married in the temple. I am sure that such a policy would create a conflict if that child would be taught in such a practice and go home to a same sex marriage.However, it needs to be mentioned that that child could still go to church be treated as an equal.

But that should have been the parents’ decision — as it now is under the new policy. 

And your last sentence doesn’t make sense... if the harm you want to avoid is having the child go to church and learn the church’s doctrine on marriage, why would you end it by saying the child could still go to church?

[why me]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But that should have been the parents’ decision — as it now is under the new policy. 

And your last sentence doesn’t make sense... if the harm you want to avoid is having the child go to church and learn the church’s doctrine on marriage, why would you end it by saying the child could still go to church?

If the child is baptized at 8 and learns about marriage between man and woman, it may harm the home. Do parents always make the right decisions? Would the parents then not allow the child to attend church even though he or she was baptized? Would that harm the child who then becomes a teenager by not attending church? Complicated. I think that the lds church had its heart in the right place: to protect the child and his or her family.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, why me said:

If the child is baptized at 8 and learns about marriage between man and woman, it may harm the home. Do parents always make the right decisions? Would the parents then not allow the child to attend church even though he or she was baptized? Would that harm the child who then becomes a teenager by not attending church? Complicated. I think that the lds church had its heart in the right place: to protect the child and his or her family.

And now?  Does the Church no longer have its heart in the right place?  No longer trying to protect the child and his/her family?

[why me]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And now?  Does the Church no longer have its heart in the right place?  No longer trying to protect the child and his/her family?

We need to wait and see just what happens in such families. My prediction is simple: once the child begins to ask questions about his parents relationship at home and what the church teaches in its youth organizations and the confusion that this will create in the child's mind, I think that the child will not be allowed to go to church.

Edited April 6, 2019 by why me

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, why me said:

We need to wait and see just what happens in such families. My prediction is simple: once the child begins to ask questions about his parents relationship and what the church teaches in its youth organizations and the confusion that this will create in the child's mind, I think that the child will not be allowed to go to church.

You didn’t answer the question.  You wrote the the *had* its heart in the right place and that it *was* trying to protect the child and his/her family.

Does the Church no longer have its heart in the right place?  No longer trying to protect the child and his/her family?

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

David Bokovoy's Facebook statement  on the effects of the Policy:

David Bokovoy's Facebook statement  on the effects of the Policy:

 

  Quote

 

I’ve been contacted by quite a few friends and family members, excited over today’s announcement that the LDS Church has rescinded the Exclusion Policy prohibiting the children of gay couples from being baptized and receiving blessings.  

I cannot join in your celebrations at this point.  This policy devastated my family.  I spent hours defending my convictions of opposition to CES administrators.  I labored diligently trying my best to have horrific statements about the policy and LGBTQ people removed from Church manuals.  I had parents of my students call and complain, trying to get me fired because I openly cried when discussing the policy and told students I didn’t understand it.  I ultimately quit my career for a $30,000 pay decrease and an unknown future because of the policy.  Students I knew and loved took their own lives.  And it was identified by President Nelson as a revelation from God for our day.

I’m pleased this immoral policy is no more, but until we are offered a sincere apology from those who put this into place, I will retain my anger.

 

Yea this pretty well sums it up for someone directly effected by the policy.  Also I believe the misguided policy the solid members of the Church to look less favorably on, and be less tolerant of LBGT persons and to justify positions that could be considered discriminatory. I am still convinced the policy was a knee jerk reaction to the SC ruling on gay marriage. I believe it was put in place because church leaders did not want members to become accepting of gay marriage. After they saw the fall out was just awful for many members and for the Church image they did the recent 180.  I am happy that they did so.  But it certainly doesn't feel like, look like or taste like the hand of some divine guidance in the whole process.  But at least the leaders were willing to reverse a very bad policy regardless of how it may appear. For that I commend them.

[why me]

59 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I try to focus on one thing - the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ's main purpose is to strengthen each child of God's relationship with the Godhead. This is a narrow path that demands self-sacrifice in exchange for Eternal Life. There will be some that will follow after Christ and He will guide them even when it appears to, at present, be a conflicting path. For those that abandon the Savior and walk in darkness, the Holy Spirit will periodically call to them to return at times when their hearts are softened. 

The policies and operations of the Church are above my pay grade. The prophet and the Twelve can defend themselves. My responsibility to follow Christ and to strive to hear his voice and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

I am sure that there are some members who do not share such a philosophy. They will see a change again, and question more. And where the questions lead, will be up to the questioner. Church members are seeing immense changes in their private lives and now they are experiencing changes in their church lives, it is left to be seen just how many can survive the navigation of change in church life and in private life. I have this feeling that most want to see stability in church life,,,a sort of rock that moves very little and is stable.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, why me said:

We need to wait and see just what happens in such families. My prediction is simple: once the child begins to ask questions about his parents relationship at home and what the church teaches in its youth organizations and the confusion that this will create in the child's mind, I think that the child will not be allowed to go to church.

That’s why it’s vital to explain to them in advance what it will mean for them to have a child blessed and/ or baptized — so they will be left without excuse. I think they should also be admonished not to hold out hope that the doctrine of the Church with regard to marriage, family and chastity will change. 

[why me]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You didn’t answer the question.  You wrote the the *had* its heart in the right place and that it *was* trying to protect the child and his/her family.

Does the Church no longer have its heart in the right place?  No longer trying to protect the child and his/her family?

I don't know. My answer: we just need to wait for the outcome if children of same sex parents are baptized and if the church attends church. Should the teacher be sensitive  to such a child when talking about temple marriage and being chaste? The church does not recognize same sex marriage.

[why me]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s why it’s vital to explain to them in advance what it will mean for them to have a child blessed and/ or baptized — so they will be left without excuse. I think they should also be admonished not to hold out hope that the doctrine of the Church with regard to marriage, family and chastity will change. 

True. But people are complicated. Not sure if all will receive such instruction or if the child will be prepared for the teachings of the church. A child is a child and confusion can only be a step away. I never had to think such things as a child. I just played with my GI joe doll and played sports with friends. Simple life in that regard even when the vietnam war was waging. I knew nothing about it. Now...children can't be children.