Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maestrophil

Policy reversal

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We aren’t talking about how many sealing rooms should be designed into the 175th temple. 

We’re talking about the teaching that God’s Will was to deny blessings and baptism to children because of who their parents were.  And that God looked upon the marriage of two gay people as an act of apostasy.  This isn’t some run of the mill day-to-day working of the church. This was the first claimed revelation regarding how God’s will for his gay children in this dispensation.  And this policy caused a lot of pain and anguish among good people. 

I guess I just never felt this was something to make a huge fuss over.  Elder Christopherson’s explanation made sense to me.  But there’s no need to argue about it anymore.  The policy is over.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Little "r" revelation. 

This is the first time I have heard anyone refer to this revelation as being little "r".  Was anyone saying this before today's reversal?  Is there really any kind of doctrine that defines the difference between Capital "R" and Little "R" revelations?  

President Nelson said that this was revelation from God to President Monson.  He stated that all of the First Presidency and Quorum of the twelve felt a confirmation of this.  If that isn't a Capital "R" Revelation then I don't know what is.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Does that sound like a revelation with a small “r”?

11 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Yes.

Wow.  So what is the latest example of a Revelation with a Capital "R" in your view?  Has there been one in the last two decades?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In January of 2016 I was told that this policy was the revealed will of God to our Prophet.

Now I’m being told that it was probably God just saying:  “try it and see what happens”. 

I see no problem with both the original and the change in policy being considered as revelation or Revelation.

As for why the change in revelation? I don't know the mind of God, and even if I did, God's ways are oft foolishness to men.

Nevertheless, I recall a modern institution of a policy and a change that occurred over matter of days if not months, the results of which may provide some insights for why changes may occur. I have in mind the two times Joseph Smith requested that Martin Harris be allowed to show the manuscript to family members and others,  but the requests were denied (Joseph was "commanded" otherwise). Finally, on the third request permission was granted,  We all know how that turned out. (see HERE)  We get somewhat of a glimpse unto God's thinking on the matter in D&C 3

I am not suggesting that the same, in principle, applies in the case at hand. However, it is possible that the original policy was beneficial to the parent[child relationship, but because the parents and others raised such a stink, the Lord may have decided to let people have their way, and this to underscore the warning: "Be careful what you ask for...."

Who knows? Certainly not me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I guess I just never felt this was something to make a huge fuss over.  Elder Christopherson’s explanation made sense to me.  But there’s no need to argue about it anymore.  The policy is over.  

Elder Christofferson’s explanation did not make sense to me.  And since it had serious impacts on members and their families, I wouldn’t say that it isn’t something to make a “huge fuss over”.  Per Pres. Oaks’ remarks about the reversal, it seems that the policy was causing hate and contention. 

Like you, I see no reason to argue over the policy that is now gone but there is reason to discuss what this incident teaches us about the revelatory process and how our prophet and apostles lead the church. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

12 apostles and an entire planet to teach.  Seems like an issue of limited resources so He sent them to the House of Israel first.  Or maybe they misunderstood the message and Peter’s vision cleared it up. 

So... in 2015 were we just too tight on resources to be able to allow gay married couples and their children full fellowship in the church?

I don't think the issue with the 12 Apostles was a matter of resources. I mean, it wasn't as though they suddenly became resource rich following the death of Christ. Rather, I think it had more to do with fulfilling prophesy ("first shall be last...")  and a reasonable transition from the Old to the New law, from exclusively house of Israel to open to the world..

But, even if it were an issue of resources, that wouldn't reasonably mean that because that was the case there, it would be the case in every other revealed policy.

As I indicate in another post, I don't know God's mind on this matter. However, I suspect that His reasons will appear as foolish to the minds of men, though I trust in Him rather than the arm of flesh,  which is why I am at peace and be still with the expected tempest tossed over the change ,and the storm-taged seas of the original policy,  if not the  billows that blew long and hard during the same-sex marriage debate.

In short, I feel no inclination to steady the Ark, nor do I feel a need to chasten those who are so inclined or who wish to agitate and gnash their teeth. 

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited by Wade Englund
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I see no problem with both the original and the change in policy being considered as revelation or Revelation.

Do you see revelation and policy as a key and lock?  In that one is designed for the other in perfect harmony?  If not, why not?

26 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

However, it is possible that the original policy was beneficial to the parent[child relationship, but because the parents and others raised such a stink, the Lord may have decided to let people have their way, and this to underscore the warning: "Be careful what you ask for...."

The real question here is, who called the locksmith?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Do you see revelation and policy as a key and lock?  In that one is designed for the other in perfect harmony?  If not, why not?

No, because the analogy fails to take into account the flux capacitor.

8 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

The real question here is, who called the locksmith?

I would think it would be, "Who is on first?"

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am just wondering how all of you who so adamantly defended the REASON for the policy "to protect the children" feel about the rescinding of the policy now? If you truly believed that as the reason for the policy, aren't church leaders now throwing those poor children under the bus just to get rid of an unpopular revelation?  

If you understood what the children were being protected from, and how they were being protected, you would realize how little your questions make sense.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

As Scott Lloyd often would say when people questioned the claims of revelation on this policy, "are you calling President Nelson a liar when he declared the policy to be a revelation?"

And I would say the same thing today. I’ve not seen anything from President Nelson by way of disavowal or retraction of that earlier declaration. I believed him then, and I still do. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

Does that sound like a revelation with a small “r”?

Wow.  So what is the latest example of a Revelation with a Capital "R" in your view?  Has there been one in the last two decades?

 

Lifting of the priesthood ban was the last big “R” in my view.  That was a canonized while the 2015 policy was just a temporary inclusion in the handbook.  

Edited by Rivers

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t believe they are, because, you see, recision of the policy is not without conditions. Going forward, gay  parents who want their children baptized will be clearly told the doctrines of the Church regarding marriage and family — doctrines the child is apt to learn at church — and the covenants the child will be entering into through baptism. Such parents who want their infant children blessed in the Church will be given to understand that members of the congregation will be contacting the child periodically and at the appropriate time, baptism of the child will be proposed. In effect, such parents will be required to pledge not to hinder the spiritual progress of the child and, if they do hinder it, I would think the sin would be upon the heads of the parents, not the child, for the failure of the child to make such progress. 

What if the parents refuse to agree to these conditions? Well, it seems to me the bishop has the option to withhold the ordinance on a case by case basis. 

So the principle behind the policy still exists.  We’re now going about it in a different/better way.   Makes sense to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It needn't have been wrong or not a revelation to be reversed. Anyone remember plural marriage?

This must be approaching something of a record... I think I've got pairs of socks that have lasted longer than this policy.

If you believe Russel Nelson is divinely inspired then we're looking at the leaders being inspired to introduce it and then inspired to revoke it in about 3 1/2 years. What was particularly critical for the whole world membership to be subjected to this policy for 2016, 2017 and 2018? What is different about 2019 in the world or church compared to 2016-2019.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

 

Nevertheless, I recall a modern institution of a policy and a change that occurred over matter of days if not months, the results of which may provide some insights for why changes may occur. I have in mind the two times Joseph Smith requested that Martin Harris be allowed to show the manuscript to family members and others,  but the requests were denied (Joseph was "commanded" otherwise). Finally, on the third request permission was granted,  We all know how that turned out. (see HERE)  We get somewhat of a glimpse unto God's thinking on the matter in D&C 3

I am not suggesting that the same, in principle, applies in the case at hand. However, it is possible that the original policy was beneficial to the parent[child relationship, but because the parents and others raised such a stink, the Lord may have decided to let people have their way, and this to underscore the warning: "Be careful what you ask for...."

Interesting point. But the better interpretation is that the brethren - not members - pushed for a foolish policy and the Lord let them see the consequence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

For those who may struggle with revealed policies being changed within 3 years, it may be comforting to recall that early into Christ's 3-year mission, he ordained the twelve and commissioned them to not go unto the Gentiles, but only go to the house of Israel (Mt. 10:5-6). About 3 years later, Peter had the vision that opened the door to the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles. (Acts 10)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The missionary work was no reversal.  That was a progression.  There was no missionary work going on before Christ ordained the twelve.  They started with the local population, then expanded out.   Contrast that with today. The church position  on gay marriage was well known.  The harsh policy of exclusion (POX) in 2015 was a harsh doubling down that went as far as to exclude innocent children. Then three years later, under extreme social pressure, the "revelation" was totally reversed.   Policy wise, the church is now back where is was prior to 2015.  Hopefully something was learned about transparency and throwing around the "revelation" term.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Maureen said:

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but, he actually is not welcomed to do that.

Your Church's Handbook states:

Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters....

M.

Yes I am aware of that and even thought about adding "but it will probably be referred to your Stake President"

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, JulieM said:

I know some very wonderful Christlike people who are gay.  Do you really believe it would desecrate their loving Father’s house if they were allowed entrance to marry the person they love (if it’s a SSM)?

I honestly believe He would welcome them with open arms if they were his sincere and loyal followers.

I don’t know if that day will ever come, but we are closer today than we were before.

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

No unclean thing ...

Etc, etc.

Self-deception is still deception.

And I'm gratified you admit your advocacy for temple desecration. Makes things clear.

Edited by USU78
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Then you would have to believe this reversal also came by revelation  (whether they claim it or not).

The  alternative is that the leaders are disobeying God by violating the revelation you believe came.

Must be easy to just assume that no matter what they do or say it's always revelation unless they specifically say that it isn't.  Saves needing an opinion.

Oaks did claim it was revelation, but without having used the word revelation I am sure a debate will ensue.

It is uncharitable, though, against Scott to suggest he has no opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

No unclean thing ...

None of us are perfect or without sin.  Are you?  

Do you desecrate the temple then when you enter it?

You have expressed you believe the leaders were inspired to take this step.  Why do you have a bad feeling about it being a step towards allowing SSM into the temple but also feel it’s right?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

If you understood what the children were being protected from, and how they were being protected, you would realize how little your questions make sense.

So, they only needed protection for 3 years?  Why not now?

Can you explain what they were protected from for the few years the policy was in place?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

I am just wondering how all of you who so adamantly defended the REASON for the policy "to protect the children" feel about the rescinding of the policy now? If you truly believed that as the reason for the policy, aren't church leaders now throwing those poor children under the bus just to get rid of an unpopular revelation?  

I think this will prove to be an issue with some situations as they originally feared it would be and I think there will be some children that will have a difficult time with their parents supporting their membership.  On the other hand the hate, the hurt, and the discontent the policy generated among church members was a worse thing thing that is happening now so church leaders had to choose the way of the lesser of two evils so to speak. And I still think the number of children the original policy would have applied to would have been very small.  

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...