Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maestrophil

Policy reversal

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

That concept has helped me through this whole process. But the thing I can't shake off is if we can't trust the prophet what really makes this church any different than the rest? The church's bold statement has always been that this is the only true church on the face of the planet led by the only person on earth that speaks for God. The church's foundation falls apart for me when that only person misspeaks for God all the time.

I have tried to keep an open mind and heart. I'm not anti, I admit I don't know all of the answers. But I just don't see how we are different than anyone else.

We have the only place where the restored keys are, so your covenants are truly binding. This is what makes her the true and living church (and the 'collectively" part), despite our (the "individually" part) perceptions and expectation of her leaders (also (the "individually" part) . -- D&C 1:30

I think if we trust that prophet has the keys and our covenants are good, that is the main thing. Things are not always as capricious as we may see them. We all can receive fine-tuning revelation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I love the distortion of scripture to smugly support a position - it gratifies the self-righteous pharisee in each of us. 

Can you explain how an individual who looks past rules and rites and tradition, who thinks about an individual, who focuses more on love than law can be compared to a Pharisee?

I accept you disagreeing with anyone about an interpretation or application of Christ’s teachings. But it’s hard to understand how you equate @rockpond to a Pharisee because you disagree with how he follows the Savior’s teachings.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I just got a news notification on my phone that the church has just announced it is allowing the baptism of children of LGBTQ people.  

 

What repercussions will this have?  Will there be those who return to the church now?  I wonder if it is a d$%ned if you do d#$ned if you don't proposition.  

Edited to add link:  https://www.ksl.com/article/46524616/church-to-allow-baptisms-blessings-for-children-of-lgbt-parents-updates-handbook-regarding-apostasy

 

I'm glad to see the policy change.  I do find it weird when God is so indecisive with his revelations.

Good change to poor doctrine

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

That concept has helped me through this whole process. But the thing I can't shake off is if we can't trust the prophet what really makes this church any different than the rest? The church's bold statement has always been that this is the only true church on the face of the planet led by the only person on earth that speaks for God. The church's foundation falls apart for me when that only person misspeaks for God all the time.

I have tried to keep an open mind and heart. I'm not anti, I admit I don't know all of the answers. But I just don't see how we are different than anyone else.

The only thing we have that is better is the BoM.  We certainly aren't the best church because we have the best leaders.

Quote

48 And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard—have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves. Behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted?

There's a lot of ways to interpret Jacob 5, but for me the roots are the scriptures, and the leaders have taken strength unto themselves and overcome the roots.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm sorry, I don't believe in a God that is fickle enough to have wanted such a policy in place for three years.

Will those couples that were excommunicated be reinstated?  Will individuals and families that were harmed be reached out to?  If there was a reason for the policy to be in place for three years, I think those who claimed it to be God's will ought help the members understand why.

Otherwise, I am forced to conclude that this was one of Holland's "wrong roads" that the Church had to go down.  The end result might be good but the wrong road was bad.

So you don’t believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

was The Lord being fickle when he commanded father Abraham to sacrifice Isaac only to reverse course later? Or do you think that perhaps He might have had a higher purpose that we with our limited understanding might not see?

 

was God being fickle when He commanded animal sacrifice and then when He commanded it to cease centuries later?

was God being fickle when He limited ministry to the House of Israel but later went the gospel to the gentiles?

many of you seem very confident that you can pass judgment on the Lord for these things but I suspect doing so might be rash

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

All same sex relations are sin even if they are not explicitly fornication because a legal marriage exists

They are now transgressions.  Will SSM alone be a reason for church discipline?  I highly doubt it moving forward.

But, if those relationships are treated in the same manner as heterosexual relationships/marriage (regarding immoral behavior), then they can be disciplined for the same sins (fornication and adultery).  That makes the most sense from reading that sentence (for me at least).

I guess we will  just wait and see if there's more instruction or clarification regarding that one sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, juliann said:

What ugly unloving thing to say. I know someone whose grandchildren were affected by this. The announcement itself says we are to mourn with those who mourn. 

What I am saying is this whole thing has been a farce by the Left. Two gay parents who are raising children actively in the church and who want their children to be raised in the Church are as rare as hen's teeth. They are there, but they are extremely, extremely rare. So then what was all the hoopla about? The Church of Jesus Christ teaches the scriptures and they condemn the gay lifestyle....full stop. The Gay Agenda does not accept this and so we have an uproar.  

Of course, not a single tear has been shed for those children of polygamous households. Why? Well, let's just say they don't meet the demands of the Left and those who support their agenda of chaos. They are not Gay, they are not feminists and they are mostly white folks so who cares about them - they are just a nuisance and should be forgotten as they do not measure up as really important to all this whining and hand-wringing that the Left loves to do for their persecuted, specially, hand-picked groups of loved ones.  

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I have never believed or thought that a policy is revelation. Policies of the church are created by its leaders to meet their objectives for church governance as they think is best. We a revelation happens - as in a church-wide revelation - it is different. It is either signed by the the FP and the Q12 and released or it is added to scripture. 

Ok - I like the clarity of this position.  Let’s consider the implications...

Since Joseph Smith died, how many revelations have there been (according to your definition)?  Very, very few.  So how should I accept someone who has not received revelation as a revelator?  He or she is just as much of a revelator as I am.

I could be a Formula 1 Race Car driver. But I haven’t done so. Would you respect me if I asked you to sustain me as a race car driver despite never having done it?  Maybe you’d vote because you have confidence that I will one day do so; but I need your support.  By your definition, this church has not received revelation since 1995. It’s getting hard to sustain these men as revelators when they produce so little (any?) revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 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.

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.

Why do you have so little hope and faith?

Share this post


Link to post

It seems the two emerging explanations @Mystery Meat @The Nehor(besides the church just screwed up) are 1) that the policy was put in place to get rid of the fickle members or 2) that the Lord rescinded the divine policy to placate the fickle members. So either God is trying to get rid of, or accommodate the fickle members. Is this humorous to anyone else?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

You still want to claim that the policy and then the clarification of the policy was all revelation? God changed his mind 3.5 years later?

 

And I believe that in 2019 God changed his mind about gay people...

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

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?

The Lord has already decided that some will not receive the ordinance till the next life. Who am I to say it’s not a just decision?

the Lord has also commissioned us to preach the gospel to the living and prepare the world for His  arrival. I think obeying is a better plan than not

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What I am saying is this whole thing has been a farce by the Left. Two gay parents who are raising children actively in the church and who want their children to be raised in the Church are as rare as hen's teeth. They are there, but they are extremely, extremely rare. So then what was all the hoopla about? The Church of Jesus Christ teaches the scriptures and they condemn the gay lifestyle....full stop. The Gay Agenda does not accept this and so we have an uproar.  

Of course, not a single tear has been shed for those children of polygamous households. Why? Well, let's just say they don't meet the demands of the Left and those who support their agenda of chaos. They are not Gay, they are not feminists and they are mostly white folks so who cares about them - they are just a nuisance and should be forgotten as they do not measure up as really important to all this whining and hand-wringing that the Left loves to do for their persecuted, specially, hand-picked groups of loved ones.  

 

Bitter, table for one? 

I say if you need to carry a torch for polygamists then have “that” conversation.  

No one was born a polygamist in my opinion. It’s a choice 100%.  In my opinion many people are born attracted to the same sex.  

I have a child in my neighborhood who has asked several times for me to involve him in my church activities.  He is now 11.  He started asking 2 years ago.  His dads supported our friendship but I would not take him with me.  I think that was a lost opportunity. 

I have homosexual family members.  Policies, though they may have limited impact on actual baptisms, spoke volumes about our church’s attitudes and made us all look as homophobic and exclusionary as the worst of us.  Many people couldn’t stand by such a policy.  I both admire and pity their integrity.  I’m glad that era is over.  

 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What I am saying is this whole thing has been a farce by the Left. Two gay parents who are raising children actively in the church and who want their children to be raised in the Church are as rare as hen's teeth. They are there, but they are extremely, extremely rare. So then what was all the hoopla about? The Church of Jesus Christ teaches the scriptures and they condemn the gay lifestyle....full stop. The Gay Agenda does not accept this and so we have an uproar.  

Of course, not a single tear has been shed for those children of polygamous households. Why? Well, let's just say they don't meet the demands of the Left and those who support their agenda of chaos. They are not Gay, they are not feminists and they are mostly white folks so who cares about them - they are just a nuisance and should be forgotten as they do not measure up as really important to all this whining and hand-wringing that the Left loves to do for their persecuted, specially, hand-picked groups of loved ones.  

 

On that note, let’s just burn everything and everyone down because everything and everyone is terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What I am saying is this whole thing has been a farce by the Left. Two gay parents who are raising children actively in the church and who want their children to be raised in the Church are as rare as hen's teeth. They are there, but they are extremely, extremely rare. So then what was all the hoopla about? The Church of Jesus Christ teaches the scriptures and they condemn the gay lifestyle....full stop. The Gay Agenda does not accept this and so we have an uproar.  

Of course, not a single tear has been shed for those children of polygamous households. Why? Well, let's just say they don't meet the demands of the Left and those who support their agenda of chaos. They are not Gay, they are not feminists and they are mostly white folks so who cares about them - they are just a nuisance and should be forgotten as they do not measure up as really important to all this whining and hand-wringing that the Left loves to do for their persecuted, specially, hand-picked groups of loved ones.  

 

Just today I was saying I hope the church also changes it’s policy in regards to children of polygamous households to align with this update. When I found out that the church bars the baptism of those children, I was mad (true, no crying though).

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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

My brother is not part of the church.  I like to say he didn't leave the church but the church left him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

This reversal means that gay couples will now be able to retain their membership...

I don't know if this has been addressed (trying to keep up!), but I don't think that is accurate.  They will likely be excommunicated just like any other person unrepentantly living in sexual sin.  The only difference is that they won't be excommunicated for apostasy anymore.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Of course, not a single tear has been shed for those children of polygamous households. Why? Well, let's just say they don't meet the demands of the Left and those who support their agenda of chaos. They are not Gay, they are not feminists and they are mostly white folks so who cares about them - they are just a nuisance and should be forgotten as they do not measure up as really important to all this whining and hand-wringing that the Left loves to do for their persecuted, specially, hand-picked groups of loved ones.  

I actually have spoken out before about the tragedy arising from the legacy of polygamy and how we, as a church, should take more responsibility to address a situation that our teachings helped to create.  And I believe that the policy regarding children of polygamists should be reversed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

The Lord has already decided that some will not receive the ordinance till the next life. Who am I to say it’s not a just decision?

the Lord has also commissioned us to preach the gospel to the living and prepare the world for His  arrival. I think obeying is a better plan than not

But you’re avoiding (or missing) the main question: if there are blessings that come in this life from being baptized, why would a loving god deny those blessings to some?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems the two emerging explanations @Mystery Meat @The Nehor(besides the church just screwed up) are 1) that the policy was put in place to get rid of the fickle members or 2) that the Lord rescinded the divine policy to placate the fickle members. So either God is trying to get rid of, or accommodate the fickle members. Is this humorous to anyone else?

That idea was ascribed to me. I mocked it. I do not believe that makes me responsible for it.

Also, everyone in this thread is probably going to hell for it including me. Hope everyone is having a good day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They are now transgressions.  Will SSM alone be a reason for church discipline?  I highly doubt it moving forward.

But, if those relationships are treated in the same manner as heterosexual relationships/marriage (regarding immoral behavior), then they can be disciplined for the same sins (fornication and adultery).  That makes the most sense from reading that sentence (for me at least).

I guess we will  just wait and see if there's more instruction or clarification regarding that one sentence.

I agree with your reading of the announcement, and I'm surprised more people aren't picking up on the significance of this potential change in policy if we are interpreting it correctly. 

So do you think that same sex married couples will be considered worthy and eligible for callings and or even temple recommends, if they are faithful to their spouse?  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm sorry, I don't believe in a God that is fickle enough to have wanted such a policy in place for three years.

Will those couples that were excommunicated be reinstated?  Will individuals and families that were harmed be reached out to?  If there was a reason for the policy to be in place for three years, I think those who claimed it to be God's will ought help the members understand why.

Otherwise, I am forced to conclude that this was one of Holland's "wrong roads" that the Church had to go down.  The end result might be good but the wrong road was bad.

I think you ought to be able to help members understand the change from the perspective of those who made the policy and now changed it. That would truly be the balm of Gilead.

There may have not been a reason for the policy to be in place for three years (there was no time limit stated in it), but there was a reason for it to be put in place in 2015 and now there is a reason for it to have been amended. I think this article explains things pretty well: https://www.lds.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

The underlying doctrine isn't changing. Policies and initiatives, no matter how inspired, are more flexible in nature and are bound to change. It doesn't force someone to conclude that the original policy was wrong, bad, or misconceived from the start.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with your reading of the announcement, and I'm surprised more people aren't picking up on the significance of this potential change in policy if we are interpreting it correctly. 

So do you think that same sex married couples will be considered worthy and eligible for callings and or even temple recommends, if they are faithful to their spouse?  

If there was any possibility they were saying that then the headline would not be about the children of gay couples and a relatively obscure policy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...