Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maestrophil

Policy reversal

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, alter idem said:

As a member of the church, I never thought they were infallible.  It's not taught, it's not in the scriptures, it even goes against our scriptures--so why we get accused of thinking this way, I don't know.  All I can figure is that some now former members did not understand this and incorrectly viewed leaders as perfect and always receiving revelation on every little decision made and they assumed that these leaders are never able to use their agency to make any decisions within their callings.  I guess that's why they are so befuddled whenever there is change, their thinking is so rigid.

From your statement, you clearly think they made a mistake.  I believe you and those who think like you are incorrect.  It wasn't a 'mistake', I believe this was a policy decision which was made for very good reasons.  Unfortunately,  critics and busy bodies misrepresented the policy to the point that it was perceived as discriminatory, rather than as it really was--an obvious position of respect and recognition of the right of parents to live as they choose and not have their minor children being taught that their lifestyle choices are wrong.   The church does not wish to undermine non-member parents and their right to raise  their children as they see fit without the interference of adopted religious beliefs which would undermine their authority and position in their children's lives.

Unfortunately with the poisoning of the well by those who constantly work to undermine the church, the policy came to be viewed as doing more harm than good.  That does not mean it was a poor decision in the first place.

If you can articulate a coherent reason for the policy, I'm all ears. I haven't heard one yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Totally up to the bishop, although I think adultery is more likely to result in harsher consequences than sex outside of marriage

So they may still be excommunicated, it hasn't shifted to no excommunication (a leader could theoretically if far out of the norm and goes by their own guidelines, excommunicate teens or those who break the WoW or some such things, which is always possible in a leader given human nature).

It will be interesting to see if it ends up being treated the same as fornication, if inactive, generally ignore; if active, disfellowship at least, or if it is treated more like adultery.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I find this whole thing troubling because it feels like leadership by opinion poll, rather than the Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Buffy said:

I find this whole thing troubling because it feels like leadership by opinion poll, rather than the Spirit.

I think the Brethren are trying to strike the best balance between retaining membership and holding to the tenets of the restored gospel as they best understand them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, halconero said:

I fully accept both the original policy a revelation, and this most recent policy a revelation. This story illustrates my sentiments on the fundamental purpose of both.

I hate the idea of tests just for the purpose of testing...as this story comes across as in how it is told (and many others are as well).  Using the wording "you've passed" ignores what may have been the actual purpose, a chance to learn something new.  Maybe BY hadn't reached the level of humility and it was necessary for him to have that moment of internal conflict so he could see what was really most important to him and thus, that act of choice allowed him to progress to the next step.  He passed an obstacle in his way, not just clarified for the record his level of humility and faithfulness.

Back on subject....pet peeve, sorry for derail.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I believe we are called to minister to the one, not the ninety and nine.

What happens to the ninety and nine then?

My view...everyone of the 99 are also the one in some way.  We should never ignore the needs of the many as if we do, they will definitely end up being a "one" on their own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You’re a hoot. I know one couple - active. Unmarried. They have kids.  Not excommunicated.

Are they sleeping together?  I’ve never asked. Maybe they had their kids via artificial Insemination and sleep in one bed just to cuddle.  They live together, don’t feel the need to get married, but sure are strict about not having sex.

You'd be surprised at how many couples still live together after breaking up or divorce (sometimes with their new spouse!), who do it purely for their children or for financial reasons.  I don't know the scenario JulieM is talking about, but that could be a possibility.  Don't read between the lines as to what I am saying or implying. 

Quote

 Is this seriously the scenario you envision for these kinds of couples?  Because if so, you’re right - maybe everyone who is unrepentant about sexual sin is excommunicated.

No, the scenario I envision is marriage.  Why not?  If there is no legitimate reason not to marry, then I will continue to emphasize that there is grounds for excommunication for sexual immorality and/or apostasy for not heeding their priesthood leaders counsel.  Whether or not this actually happens is always up to the Stake President, but lets not pretend like excommunication is any more "required" for apostasy then for sexual immorality.  If the couple in your example is unremoursful, unrepentant and blatantly dismissive of their priesthood leaders counsel in open rebellion, then they are both guilty of sexual immorality AND apostasy and are still not excommunicated.  I would wager that 99% of Stake Presidents would excommunicate in that scenario.  But neither of us know what has been discussed behind closed doors with the Stake President, so don't pretend like you know better than me what is going on. 

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Buffy said:

I find this whole thing troubling because it feels like leadership by opinion poll, rather than the Spirit.

Hopefully what has happened will be discussed in conference.  Announcing it now allows the drama to cool for a couple of days so it isn't the only thing people are focused on, while we can choose to anticipate further teaching in a few days time.  If it doesn't happen, I will be very disappointed.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hopefully what has happened will be discussed in conference.  Announcing it now allows the drama to cool for a couple of days so it isn't the only thing people are focused on, while we can choose to anticipation further teaching in a few days time.  If it doesn't happen, I will be very disappointed.

That would set a wonderful new precedent. I hope they do.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, provoman said:

You are welcome to write President Oaks and ask him. 

That is an enormous dodge. We ALL know we have been told NOT to write GA's and their ilk with questions. Rolls eyes!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

 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.

The reasoning for the policy was explained in 2015. There was no time limit set at that time, so your point about it being for three years could not have been, nor now can be explained. The reasoning for the amended policy (which likewise lacks an expiration date) is well-explained in the Church Newsroom article.

Did anyone in authority ever explain, whether before or in retrospect, why Peter overrode Jesus’ policy to preach only to the Jews some 3 years later?

I don't see much if any salient difference in the reasoning between 2015's and today's version of the policy, just as there wasn't a difference in reasoning between the preaching to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. All the pertinent reasoning is based in consistent doctrine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

A long time. Eternity even.

And Scott Loydd said he wouldn't see same sex marriage in Utah in his lifetime...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I agree with you that its unlikely, but my optimism for a future where this is possible, has me holding out some hope.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

What happens to the ninety and nine then?

My view...everyone of the 99 are also the one in some way.  We should never ignore the needs of the many as if we do, they will definitely end up being a "one" on their own.

I agree, there are times in our lives when we are all "the one".  But I think @Storm Rider's dismissive comments based on the few people impacted by the policy were off the mark.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you can articulate a coherent reason for the policy, I'm all ears. I haven't heard one yet.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

The reason for the policy seems to be to promulgate the doctrine of marriage as structured in the Church covenants, and to establish parental commitment to support their children and the Church as being together on this particular point. Because marriage is both a civil and a sacramental covenant, same-sex marriage is addressed separately from forms of marriage the Church condones and also from cohabitation.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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?

What about students at BYU, can they show affection to a member of the same sex, without being in violation of the honor code?  Lots of questions...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

Yes, I think I remember seeing this; however, there is not the wringing of hands and alligator tears that we all hear and see over anything related to the LGBTQ folks. They have a bullhorn louder than any other group in the world. 

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like the camel is getting its nose under the tent after all. Once the church has to deal with gay parents on their terms—as when same-sex marriage was successfully re-framed as a civil-rights matter—the game is up. It’s only a matter of time, now, before the church tries to encompass homosexuality doctrinally; however, the results aren’t going to be pretty, no matter what your personal feelings are.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The reasoning for the policy was explained in 2015. There was no time limit set at that time, so your point about it being for three years could not have been, nor now can be explained. The reasoning for the amended policy (which likewise lacks an expiration date) is well-explained in the Church Newsroom article.

Did anyone in authority ever explain, whether before or in retrospect, why Peter overrode Jesus’ policy to preach only to the Jews some 3 years later?

I don't see much if any salient difference in the reasoning between 2015's and today's version of the policy, just as there wasn't a difference in reasoning between the preaching to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. All the pertinent reasoning is based in consistent doctrine.

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make @CV75.

I've stated that I think the Q12 and FP were, in 2015, trying to do what they felt best for the church in light of the legalization of gay marriage and questions that may have raised within church administration.

I believe they then clarified it after it was leaked and the members' reaction helped them realize that the original version was flawed and/or overreaching.

Now, I think they have looked at the existing policy and realized that it needs to be reversed.  I'm not sure of the reasons other than the one that I can find in Pres. Oaks' statement that they want to "reduce the hate and contention" which is certainly a wonderful goal and a good reason to reverse this policy.

If President Nelson would like to explain why the Lord wanted this policy in place and why He has now instructed them to remove it, I welcome that.  If not, I'll have to be content that we are now moving in the right direction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, they did not respond within six hours of the change in the middle of what is most people’s work day. Clearly they are hiding.......

You're right.  Silly me.  It's not like they have a history of prolific posting on this board, on all manner of topics, at all times of day, all days of the week.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

People left this earth prematurely over these LGBT policies.  Unfortunately, this four year experiment carried with it the most serious of impacts.  

I am saddened to say that I know individuals that killed themselves over the Church’s approach to LGBT policies and I am afraid this is one of the policies that really impacted many.

I am thankful the policy changed, but I am sickened that the policy even existed.  There’s blood on the hands of that policy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yes, I think I remember seeing this; however, there is not the wringing of hands and alligator tears that we all hear and see over anything related to the LGBTQ folks.

I think that's because many more members are affected in some way regarding this issue.  Many have family members or dear friends who are gay (or even work acquaintances).  I'm not sure how many church members actually have family members or dear friends who live polygamy.  It's not that we don't care about them, it's just human nature to care about things that personally touch our own lives.  I do hope that policy is done away with though too.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, TheRedHen said:

God is the same today, tomorrow and forever.  Man is not.  Would you be happier if polygamy was still around?  How about not eating the flesh of pigs and deer?  In the end this affects maybe 30 people worldwide, so I think I'll move on.

Are you talking about the 30 suicides?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Conspicuous by their absence from this thread are two staunch defenders (on this board) of the original policy: @Scott Lloyd and @smac97

I haven't seen smac around here for quite some time, but maybe he will pop in and post regarding this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, TheRedHen said:

God is the same today, tomorrow and forever.  Man is not.  Would you be happier if polygamy was still around?  How about not eating the flesh of pigs and deer?  In the end this affects maybe 30 people worldwide, so I think I'll move on.

That is definitely not true.  It affects many, many more (there's probably just 30 here on this board discussing it and more here reading about it).  

Edited by ALarson

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...