Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maestrophil

Policy reversal

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, california boy said:

It does seem that the church uses the LGBT community as their own personal pawns to further their agenda and provide some kind of test for it's members.  

I find this quite uncharitable. Good people make bad decisions all the time. The likely scenario is that a bishop had a specific question about baptizing a specific child. The bishop asked the stake president, who asked an area authority, who appealed to the first presidency. They went through the decision-making process described and came to a decision they did for the reasons described back in 2015.

I’m more inclined to believe they acted in good faith rather than malice. I try and keep Matt 7:2 in mind when making judgements of people’s intent. “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

Edited by gurn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh brother.  

I'm with Julie.  Nevermind.

Your posts add nothing here, IMO unless you actually want to engage in a real conversation.   

Nothing is being added here,. Nothing can really be added here because this isn't the place or the way or the people where adding can be accomplished on this kind of matter.

 Lobbing talking-points  back and forth from entrenched positions gains nothing. It merely gives the illusion of conversation and a false sense of virtue.

My participation here isn't to change seemingly solidified or closed minds. I am fine with people having opposing views. I am at peace with the seemingly endless storms of controversy. I am just planting seeds and letting the vartious soil determine if the seeds take hold and eventually bear fruit or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Hey, I get that he most likely has no good answers for the questions he’s getting.  So he resorts to insults or put downs. 

I agree. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 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?  

No, because I really doubt this will affect any children, I didn't and still don't see lots of gay parents clamoring to have their children baptized.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't the strength to read through this entire thread; so if this has already been mentioned, I apologize.  

KSL carried this interesting interview last night.  It's interesting because neither of these men betrays any hint of anger or bitterness toward the Church--at least I'm not picking up on it.  It's difficult to imagine how they've emerged "on the other side" of the policy with such a positive attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, mnn727 said:

No, because I really doubt this will affect any children, I didn't and still don't see lots of gay parents clamoring to have their children baptized.

Then the reasons given (protecting the children) weren't valid in your opinion?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

I've Never seen it.I would ask if their Bishop has been informed and if so, has the Bishop asked the member to come in.

I do know of one case (when I was Ward Clerk) that there was something going on that would require the Bishop to investigate more, the person was asked to come in but never would come in and eventually moved out of the Ward with no interview. The Bishop could only notate it on the persons record. SO until you claim nothing has ever been done, I suggest you find out "the rest of the story"

I'm not sure what either you or southernmo are talking about.  In the last 20 or 25 years, I've not seen couples who are living together searched out and called in for discipline.  Even if they are active,  we've had several in this position who were semi active and we were working to get them church--nothing was ever done about their unmarried, living together status--they were aware that to get a temple recommend they'd have to go through the repentance process and get married or one would have to move out, but that was up to them.  And the same goes for the no longer active SS couples I know.  They aren't searched out for disciplining---they are left alone. 

I think that's why the 'apostasy' label was dropped.  It shouldn't be any different for a SS couple or a hetero couple.  We leave them alone,  unless and until they come in to meet with their Bishop and want to go through the repentance process.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m fine personally seeking the mind and will of the Lord on my own. 

But what our prophet claims to be the revealed will of God isn’t unimportant.  It does matter. 

Just be careful how you interpret what “out prophet” tells us is the revealed will of God. And frankly, little bumps in the road like this particular matter are extremely valuable to test our resilience in the face of adversity.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

There is nothing wrong with supporting leaders in a policy designed to protect people, even if the enemies of the church want to pervert it into a weapon.

you want to alleviate pain? Bring people to Christ. Stop twisting things to drive a wedge between them

how is not allowing the children of same sex partners to become members bring people to Christ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you okay with people saying activists are using LGBT teens as their personal pawns to further their agenda?  Do you find that to be a reasonable conclusion?

Do you have an example of what you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, gurn said:

I find this quite uncharitable. Good people make bad decisions all the time. The likely scenario is that a bishop had a specific question about baptizing a specific child. The bishop asked the stake president, who asked an area authority, who appealed to the first presidency. They went through the decision-making process described and came to a decision they did for the reasons described back in 2015.

I’m more inclined to believe they acted in good faith rather than malice. I try and keep Matt 7:2 in mind when making judgements of people’s intent. “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

There is no doubt my personal experience with church leaders leads me to be less willing to not feel like I have been used as a pawn in the numerous policies that the church has decided to direct on towards the gay community.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

No, because I really doubt this will affect any children, I didn't and still don't see lots of gay parents clamoring to have their children baptized.

Oh I agree with you.  I don't think this policy was ever intended to actually affect the children of gay parents.  Like I have been saying, it feels more like the issue was used to make a statement against gay couples.

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are never going to convince me that denying baptism to young children of gay parents is part of the agenda of Christ.  I think that is why so many members as well as many outside the church had such issue with this policy.  It seemed completely contrary to the message of Christ.  

Let's hope the church has turned a corner on this issue and eventually realize that not everyone can be straight no matter how much the church wants them to be.  That all can be included in the body of Christ.

I was never convinced myself that the policy was part of the agenda of Christ so I don't think I would convince you of that.   I was never a fan of it but I also did not make a big deal of it based on the number of individuals that could be affects.  The policy is the same for children of polygamist families from what I understand.  It has not bothered me regarding that situation either because we are talking about such few people potentially being affected.  I don't know all the reason why the policy was made and I simply have not let it bother me or stress me out.  We all decide for ourselves what will bother us.  I decided this issue was not going to bother me.   Everyone can be included in the body of Christ as long as they are not living contrary to the teachings of Christ or being hostile to the body.  The Church must protect itself just as your body must protect itself in order to survive.

Share this post


Link to post

I find it interesting that the policy has been rescinded under President Nelson’s watch now that he has become the president of the church.  This being after he being the one to state the policy as a revelation.  Something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

So, if someone disagrees with you on this, it causes you pain?  (sincere question)

No. Lots of people disagree with me. 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Can't I support your decision (to marry who you chose to marry) and also support SSM?  (another sincere question).  

If you mean support SSM in temples, I'm not sure you can without one being lip-service.  A major part of my decision is my belief in the eternal nature of gender complementarity. How can you really support my decision while also hoping that the Doctrinal basis for my decision is repudiated? 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

And...I feel none of us you named deserve to be accused of mocking or labeling members naive, bigoted or foolish if they disagree with us (unless you can provide a source where one of us named did that).  I feel you should edit that post, but it's your choice of course....

I will edit it. 

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I think that's why the 'apostasy' label was dropped.  It shouldn't be any different for a SS couple or a hetero couple.  We leave them alone,  unless and until they come in to meet with their Bishop and want to go through the repentance process.

I am glad they dropped the apostasy part as it confuses what traditional apostasy is.  Engaging in acts like drug dealing, prostitution,  drinking beer, not honoring the sabbath, gay marriage, watching porn is not apostasy.  They have their own classification of sins or transgressions but apostasy is rebellion against the Church and authority itself.  The closest one can get to committing treason against the kingdom of God is apostasy.  Sinning against the holy ghost is the ultimate form of apostasy. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

I don't think you mean to hurt others, but I noted this post by you and saw it as an example of the kind of mischaracterization of the policy which I commented on earlier and which was upsetting to members who support our leaders;

 

In this post you characterized the policy as punishing and cruel, when from the remarks of Pres. Nelson regarding it, that was not its purpose at all, and to attribute this callous attitude to them is disconcerting--From his remarks, it's clear their reasons were the opposite.   To criticize church leaders in such a way causes pain and anguish for a lot of good members who supported their efforts. It also condemns members who supported the leaders and the policy as uncaring and punitive.

 

 

How is that a mischaracterization of the policy?

Quoting again what I wrote:  "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."

If my restating the documented points of the policy cause hurt to others is it me or is it the policy?  Should we just not speak of what the policy said?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh I agree with you.  I don't think this policy was ever intended to actually affect the children of gay parents.  Like I have been saying, it feels more like the issue was used to make a statement against gay couples.

So do you think the revelation wasn't heard correctly hence why so much misunderstanding?  Why would revelation be reversed so quickly?  

Share this post


Link to post

I find it interesting that the policy has been rescinded under President Nelson’s watch now that he has become the president of the church.  This being after he being the one to state the policy as a revelation.  Something to think about.  

Even though this is one is a course correction, I gladly welcome it has another great change from President Nelson.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JulieM said:

I’m sorry this thread has caused you pain.  I know no one would mean to do that.

But since you’ve specifically accused me, I’m going to issue a friendly CFR.  Where have I stated or done the above?

Thanks!

I specifically identified you as one who made the day harder for me. When ALarson asked me how, I was imprecise in my answer and have since edited it. I apologize for mischaracterizing what it was that made the day harder. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t think that anything I wrote here was mocking those who believe in the Church’s teachings on marriage. 

Likewise, I can’t set aside my beliefs on what I think God accepts when it comes to marriage. 

I completely support and celebrate the decisions you’ve made for how to follow the gospel.  At the same time, I’m grateful that we no longer consider gay marriage as equivalent to apostasy and that we are now welcoming their children into the church in full fellowship.

I truly am sorry for contributing to your pain, I’ll work on being more considerate in how I write posts here.

 

I can respect that. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/4/2019 at 12:14 PM, provoman said:

Do you have evidence of causality to such suicides?

personal conversations with those who tried but did not complete.  Conversations with Wendy Montgomery and her first hand reaching out to these families.  messages from people on reddit and other places where they speak about the Church's paradigm being a leading factor in their depression and suicidality 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Do you have an example of what you are talking about?

Are you saying you haven't actually seen this or you just want me to document?  I don't have a problem with either, but I prefer not to give more attention to such then necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/4/2019 at 10:32 AM, hope_for_things said:

This wording is very interesting, and potentially a huge shift.  I hate to get my hopes up, but the wording of a written statement like this, I'm sure is very carefully considered before they release these to the public.  Same sex marriage is not described as a "sin" but instead a "transgression".  Wow.  

And nowhere in this statement can I find any discussion about homosexual behavior, like the church typically has talked about in the past.  Could this possibly be the start of the church respecting and honoring same sex marriage as moral and not considering same sex marriage as a sin?   Am I just reading too much into this?  

Just and update to your post,

The BYU Honor code provides - which I acknowldge BYU practices/policies do not dictate practices/policies for the Church:

One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No. Lots of people disagree with me. 

If you mean support SSM in temples, I'm not sure you can without one being lip-service.  A major part of my decision is my belief in the eternal nature of gender complementarity. How can you really support my decision while also hoping that the Doctrinal basis for my decision is repudiated? 

I certainly understand and respect your beliefs, kllindley.  I also respect your reasons behind the decision you made.  

However, I do not see how same sex marriage being allowed in the temple some day, means I do not support your decision.  I think both can be feelings or beliefs and one does not repudiate the other, but maybe I'm missing something?  

52 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I will edit it. 

Thanks, kllindley.  I understand that this is an emotional and difficult topic....for you and for many on here.  I always love to hear your perspective.

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...