Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maestrophil

Policy reversal

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I have yet to see any statement that they believe the policy was bad. You are projecting your thoughts and feelings onto them. Nor do I see a retraction that the policy did come via revelation. 

You are right.  They loved the policy and that is why they removed it.  Makes perfect sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

You declared Him fickle because He doesn’t act in a way you would like. 

Following him today is no difficult then it was yesterday. When He says to do something one way do it. When He tells you to do it some other way do it.

there is absolutely nothing in this policy change that makes it more difficult to follow Him

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why do you have so little hope and faith?

I have plenty of hope and faith in God.  I have very little in the general membership given their reactions to so many restored doctrines and laws.

As for my faith in the leaders - the intermediaries between God and the membership? That depends on which one they are trying to make happy in their decisions - the membership or God.

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

 

 I don't believe that there was a good reason for the original policy to be in place.  I think it was a grave error.  So I can't really help members understand why we had it for three years.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Are you sure?  Think about this hypothetically speaking.  If the church did want to reverse its policy on how it treats same sex couples, what kind of fanfare does the church typically try to invite when making policy reversals?  Would the church be expected to apologize for all the past teachings and rhetoric?  How would you expect the church to handle a change of this significance if it were to make that kind of change?   

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you sure?  Think about this hypothetically speaking.  If the church did want to reverse its policy on how it treats same sex couples, what kind of fanfare does the church typically try to invite when making policy reversals?  Would the church be expected to apologize for all the past teachings and rhetoric?  How would you expect the church to handle a change of this significance if it were to make that kind of change?   

Announcing it in conference. It would not have to even be an apology. It would just be that it is now allowed which does not automatically mean it was wrong for it to be forbidden yesterday.

I would be overjoyed if such a change took place but I doubt it is coming.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

edit

Edited by provoman

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

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

If they are repentant...

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

We can't possibly know that yet.  I think it's still being analyzed and interpreted. It still has not even been put in force as of yet.  I'd imagine that one sentence may be more specifically explained and I hope local leaders will receive more instructions regarding it.

But as of now, none of us should be saying anything is definite.  Everything is pretty much speculation regarding that part of the announcement (that one specific sentence). 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

You declared Him fickle because He doesn’t act in a way you would like. 

Following him today is no difficult then it was yesterday. When He says to do something one way do it. When He tells you to do it some other way do it.

there is absolutely nothing in this policy change that makes it more difficult to follow Him

You seem to struggle with the qualities of understanding and empathy.  You excel, however in obedience.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

If they are repentant...

And members in same sex relationships can be repentant just as those in heterosexual relationships.  They are to be treated in "the same way" now (those who enter heterosexual relationships and those who enter homosexual relationships/marriages).  My reading is this is referring to fornication or adultery within those relationships, but as I just posted....that's speculation just like anything else at this point.

Maybe some clarification is coming.  That happened with the original policy as well.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.

The change in designation of gay marriage from apostasy to serious transgression moves it from mandatory excommunication to possible excommunication.

There will certainly continue to be gay married couples who are excommunicated.

But I believe that there are a significant (and growing) number of bishops who will choose not to discipline a legally married gay couple attending church in their ward (as long as the couple is seeking to be faithful in other church teachings).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

For those who think this fluidity of policy demonstrates a breakdown in communication between Deity and Church leaders, I invite you to consider the encounter between Jesus and the woman from Canaan who sought His blessing for her possessed daughter.  (Matthew 15)

He first declined to speak to her directly, but told His disciples to tell her He wasn’t sent to the Gentiles, but only the Jews.  

She took no offense, but persisted and “worshipped Him.”

He responded by speaking to her and compared her to a dog.

She took no offense, but called His analogy “truth.”

Only then was the miracle given.  Jesus acknowledged her great faith and granted her the desire of her heart.  Her daughter was healed in that very moment.

l invite you to consider that our journey of conversion will, of necessity, include instances where we hear things and experience things that are upsetting to us and just seem “wrong” (I wasn’t sent to you, my blessing you would be like giving my childrens’ food to a dog).  At those time whether we allow our reaction to be driven by our faith and hope or our fear, doubt and anger determines our progress on that journey. 

The Cannanite woman was required to overcome these “wrongs” committed by Jesus to prove her faith and hope not to Jesus, but to herself. And while some might believe her child was the innocent hostage of these tests of her mother’s faith, I have no doubt she was in His loving arms regardless of how her mother reacted and whether or not she was healed.

How many of us will abandon our journey the first time we perceive God, or His Son, or a Church leader does something “wrong” and thereby loose the opportunity to have the desire of our heart.  How many of us will persist, “worship Him,” call the “wrong” “truth” and be granted the desire of our heart?

 

This is a great example and application.  Thank you!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The change in designation of gay marriage from apostasy to serious transgression moves it from mandatory excommunication to possible excommunication.

There will certainly continue to be gay married couples who are excommunicated.

But I believe that there are a significant (and growing) number of bishops who will choose not to discipline a legally married gay couple attending church in their ward (as long as the couple is seeking to be faithful in other church teachings).

If they will do their ministering I will give them a pass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The change in designation of gay marriage from apostasy to serious transgression moves it from mandatory excommunication to possible excommunication.

There will certainly continue to be gay married couples who are excommunicated.

But I believe that there are a significant (and growing) number of bishops who will choose not to discipline a legally married gay couple attending church in their ward (as long as the couple is seeking to be faithful in other church teachings).

I actually believe there will be no Bishops who would desire to excommunicate a couple in a SSM if they are truly loyal and committed to each other and committed to attending and serving.  I have heard of couples like this already who are welcomed and loved in their wards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And members in same sex relationships can be repentant just as those in heterosexual relationships.  They are to be treated in "the same way" now (those who enter heterosexual relationships and those who enter homosexual relationships/marriages).  My reading is this is referring to fornication or adultery within those relationships, but as I just posted....that's speculation just like anything else at this point.

Maybe some clarification is coming.  That happened with the original policy as well.

I don't think an actively gay couple who intends to stay married is going to be repentant of homosexual sex (still considered a sexual sin) and can be excommunicated for unrepentant homosexual sex.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes 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?  

I definitely see those implications in the announcement. I just find it nearly impossible to believe those implications are intended. I'll be happy to be wrong about it, but I think it's more likely leaders didn't consider all the possible consequences of the statement. Church leaders and PR are often held up as amazing wordsmiths and great intellects who have thought through every scenario but I think we give them too much credit. I see the church bumbling through announcements and policies and see little evidence that they are better at it than other organizations. It's hard for me to imagine the current church is intending to open the door in the way you suggest and see it much more likely that they opened that door by accident.

Having said that, the door is open and the language is there to be read as you are proposing, so maybe it doesn't matter if the door was opened intentionally or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But I believe that there are a significant (and growing) number of bishops who will choose not to discipline a legally married gay couple attending church in their ward (as long as the couple is seeking to be faithful in other church teachings).

Unrepentant sexual sin (homosexual sex) is simply not going to fly.  I think you guys are reading WAY beyond the mark here.  They are comparing it to all other sexual sin - is a bishop not going to excommunicate someone who is unrepentant in their sexual sin?  Of course they will. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

I don't think an actively gay couple who intends to stay married is going to be repentant of homosexual sex (still considered a sexual sin) and can be excommunicated for unrepentant homosexual sex.

At least now it won' t be 'required' that they will be excommunicated.  And they can maintain their integrity if they choose to be involved in church.  IT would be hard to be labeled apostate and participate in any way and not feel wrong about that, I should think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

I don't think an actively gay couple who intends to stay married is going to be repentant of homosexual sex (still considered a sexual sin) and can be excommunicated for unrepentant homosexual sex.

That's what we don't know yet.  Does it mean the same as unrepentant "heterosexual sex"?

What do you believe this sentence is referring to?

Quote

 Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If they will do their ministering I will give them a pass.

If they show up for their week on clean the building day I'm good. ;)  Actually I joke.  I haven't been available myself to clean the building.  I'm a jerk.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think its interesting, because the church has never articulated a clear argument for why sexual behavior is sinful when conducted within same sex marriage relationships, and not sinful in heterosexual marriage relationships.  The church just hasn't talked about the vacuum of a strong moral/ethical argument on these grounds.  

So I'm wondering, if the church were to reverse policy on this particular issue, and treat same sex marriages the same as heterosexual marriages, then I see this change as compatible with the "doctrines" of the law of chastity.  Fidelity has always been defined as between married couples.  I'm not saying that I know the church is making this change, I suspect it was just a poorly worded section of this announcement, however, I'm hopeful that they are will make this shift because it makes a whole lot of sense to me.  

They may revise it.  They did that with the original policy.

If they leave it in, I hope there's more instruction for local leaders than to just treat those in homosexual relationships "in the same way" as those in heterosexual relationships regarding immorality.  That leaves a lot open for local leaders to interpret.

What about gays who choose to date?  Are they to be treated in the same way as heterosexual couples who are dating?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Unrepentant sexual sin (homosexual sex) is simply not going to fly.  I think you guys are reading WAY beyond the mark here.  They are comparing it to all other sexual sin - is a bishop not going to excommunicate someone who is unrepentant in their sexual sin?  Of course they will. 

Not true at all!  I know many members in my ward who are living unmarried with their partners in sexual traditional relationships. They don’t have temple recommends, but are not excommunicated.

  • Like 2

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...