Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maestrophil

Policy reversal

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It caused much pain for many members and some left the church over the policy (not to mention the bad PR that took place for the church over it).  I believe most members were not strongly in favor of it, but did try to believe it was a revelation.

Now many will wonder if it was and will question what the purpose was for this short lived policy.

It was a trickle. If we are going to sift the church we need something bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Then they should rephrase it, IMO.  Saying that those entering a homosexual relationship will be "treated in the same way" as those entering a homosexual relationship means (to me) that they should not commit fornication or adultery.  Why say they will be treated "in the same way" if that's not true?

Because it sounds better for the church? This is nothing new. 

Share this post


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

Based on the previous sentence that same sex marriage is still a serious sin.

Then the two sentences are conflicting, IMO.  It should be clarified or rephrased.  

So it's a sin to enter a SSM, but if one does then they will be treated the same regarding sexual morality as those entering a heterosexual marriage (ie. as long as they remain faithful to their spouse)?

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I agree. With my children I am constantly trying to come up with ways to trip them up and get the to leave me. 

Any tips for the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post

I've got a bad feeling about this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, USU78 said:

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Buckle up, it is going to be an exciting ride. :vader:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Don't you believe Pres. Nelson and other leaders were inspired to make this change?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I read it that as long as they marry and remain faithful to their spouse (gay members), they are not being immoral and are "treated in the same way" as those in heterosexual relationships:

Another very positive step.

You need to read the sentences before it

 

"While we still consider such a marriage[same-sex marriage] to be a serious transgression,"

Same-sex marriage is a trangression. 

Edited by provoman

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I agree that no can come up with a good reason that would satisfy you.

None of the reasons that were given ever made much sense (IMO).  It's like members were straining to come up with any good reason for this policy.  All of them pretty much fell apart when they were analyzed (IMO).

That's why it's so great that it's been removed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Don't you believe Pres. Nelson and other leaders were inspired to make this change?

ALarson, do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, provoman said:

You need to read the sentences before it

 

"While we still consider such a marriage[same-sex marriage] to be a serious transgression,"

I saw that and I think there needs to be clarification.  As those two are stated, I think they are conflicting or at least confusing:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71724-policy-reversal/?do=findComment&comment=1209896562

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Anijen said:

ALarson, do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Yes.  But I also believe they are fallible men who make mistakes at times (and take their personal, strong feelings as being an actual revelation when it's just their strong human feelings...as happens with other humans as well).  This was one of those times, IMO.  I think it's revealing that President Monson never publicly stated that this was a revelation.  Many members wondered about that (who discussed the policy with me).

I'm thrilled this has been corrected and the policy has been removed. 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then the two sentences are conflicting, IMO.  It should be clarified or rephrased.  

So it's a sin to enter a SSM, but if one does then they will be treated the same regarding sexual morality as those entering a heterosexual marriage (ie. as long as they remain faithful to their spouse)?

I think you are missing the mark

 

Edited by provoman

Share this post


Link to post

😊I  rest my case...I am happy but I rest my case on so many things that have come from this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

None of the reasons that were given ever made much sense (IMO).  It's like members were straining to come up with any good reason for this policy.  All of them pretty much fell apart when they were analyzed (IMO).

That's why it's so great that it's been removed.

Two things
1. How many families does this really affect? Will same sex married couples really want their child to be a member of a religion that won't let them be a member of? 
2. There is still going to be a conflict when the child tries to be faithful to church doctrines while their parents will not agree that their same sex marriage is a sin. How can these parents support what their child is being taught?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I think you are missing the mark

 

I disagree.  Both sentences are clearly stated, but are conflicting or at the very least are confusing, IMO:

Quote

While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

How do you interpret the second sentence if not how I did:

Quote

So it's a sin to enter a SSM, but if one does then they will be treated the same regarding sexual morality as those entering a heterosexual marriage (ie. as long as they remain faithful to their spouse)?

What does "in the same way" mean to you?

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

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

Both were clearly wrong.  as wrong as wrong could be.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

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

Or Israel having a King, or Preisthood to all worthy males. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

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

Yup.  Another mistake 😉

It just took longer to correct it!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Looks like it served its purpose and can go away now.

You must mean it separated the wheat/tares...at the cost of little kids...yeah, it did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

I disagree.  Both sentences are clearly stated, but are conflicting or at the very least are confusing:

How do you interpret the second sentence if not how I did:

What does "in the same way" mean to you?

From President Oaks:

"These changes do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  But I also believe they are fallible men who make mistakes at times (and take their personal, strong feelings as being an actual revelation when it's just their strong human feelings...as happens with other humans as well).  This was one of those times, IMO. 

I'm thrilled this has been corrected and the policy has been removed. 

I wonder, will they change the similar policy regarding children of Polygamous parents?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  But I also believe they are fallible men who make mistakes at times (and take their personal, strong feelings as being an actual revelation when it's just their strong human feelings).  This was one of those times, IMO. 

I'm thrilled this has been corrected and the policy has been removed. 

So in your opinion they are only Prophets and Revelators when they are inspired with issues that you agree with, but they are not when their revelations disagree with issues you are for?

If a leader says it was revelation and you say it was not revelation but strong feelings, how exactly is that sustaining them?

In the Church there has been many times when revelation has been reversed. Here, it appears to be reversed, but you cannot accept it as revelation because you obviously have a personal issue against their decisions regarding this topic. I do not accept your rationalization of sustaining church leaders and at the same time not sustaining them. You either do or you do not. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

In light of this help me see how involved Jesus really is in decision making?

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...