Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maestrophil

Policy reversal

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I see the type of pride that has been warned about in the Book of Mormon. The type of pride that makes one's opinion superior to the Prophets, as if their prideful voices holds equal or greater weight than the Lords chosen Prophets. They see weakness in the Lord's anointed servants, but see only superiority in their prideful opinions. Perhaps the sifting has started.

  • "Both were clearly wrong.  as wrong as wrong could be."
  • "Yup.  Another mistake 😉 It just took longer to correct it!"
  • "😊I  rest my case...I am happy but I rest my case on so many things that have come from this."

The thing about pride is that we tend to see a lot more of it in others than we do ourselves.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not really.  I have to believe the wording of this was very carefully considered and analyzed before it was released.  "Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way" is pretty clear.

How to you interpret that sentence?

It is a really good change.  That is if a young adult who is gay engages in sexual relations of some sort, it is to be treated no differently than if a heterosexual young adult so engages.  THat is a far cry from treating homosexual activity as far more egregious and sinful than heterosexual.  It is clearly a step in the right direction and a step towards allowing LGBTQ people to fully engage in Church.  

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Maybe I am.  I read the whole thing already.  Do you see any sections that could contradict my wishful thinking?  

"These changes do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage..."

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

indeed. how hollow was the policy?  It was nothing more than an assault on people who were LGBTQ or were sympathizers.  That perhaps is the most troubling aspect of it.  IT's good it's reversed, but seriously, what a mess it created.  Many otherwise faithful members left after the policy change.  I doubt there's much reconciling now.  It all feels so hollow.  

Remember, the policy wasn't intended to be made public; it was just supposed to be in handbook 1 but was leaked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

I just got a news notification on my phone that the church has just announced it is allowing the baptism of children of LGBTQ people.  

 

What repercussions will this have?  Will there be those who return to the church now?  I wonder if it is a d$%ned if you do d#$ned if you don't proposition.  

Edited to add link:  https://www.ksl.com/article/46524616/church-to-allow-baptisms-blessings-for-children-of-lgbt-parents-updates-handbook-regarding-apostasy

 

Yay!!! Hallelujah!

There are many members rejoicing that this awful policy has been reversed and corrected to be more in keeping with what a loving Father would want for all his children.

So happy!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, provoman said:

"These changes do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage..."

Treating immoral conduct either homosexual or heterosexual in the same way, in terms of discipline, is a big change. I realize it says nothing about the doctrine related to marriage.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

Remember, the policy wasn't intended to be made public; it was just supposed to be in handbook 1 but was leaked.

I do remember and made note of that earlier in the thread.  Still...

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

Calling you to the Twelve?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

How does a policy change supersede a revelation?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not really.  I have to believe the wording of this was very carefully considered and analyzed before it was released.  "Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way" is pretty clear.

How to you interpret that sentence?

It is a really good change.  That is if a young adult who is gay engages in sexual relations of some sort, it is to be treated no differently than if a heterosexual young adult so engages.  THat is a far cry from treating homosexual activity as far more egregious and sinful than heterosexual.  It is clearly a step in the right direction and a step towards allowing LGBTQ people to fully engage in Church.  

Good point, this should end the categorization of homosexual immoral conduct as a greater sin than heterosexual conduct.  That should reduce the stigma that this kind of conduct requires extra special repentance.  Nice, I hadn't even thought of that.  

What do you think about the possibility that this sentence is condoning same sex conduct within the confines of same sex marriage?  Is that even possible that we might have just seen the church make a much bigger step towards equality than I had even imagined possible.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, provoman said:

"These changes do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage..."

I recognize they said that qualifying sentence.  But, the church will never admit to "changing doctrine".  I can't think of any examples in our vast history of changes that the church labels as a change in doctrine.  Can you?  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How does a policy change supersede a revelation?

This is not without precedent.  See: Word of Wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Treating immoral conduct either homosexual or heterosexual in the same way, in terms of discipline, is a big change. I realize it says nothing about the doctrine related to marriage.  

Exactly.  No change in doctrine, but most definitely a change in severity (apostasy vs. transgression) and in the manner gay members entering a relationship will be treated (in the same manner as those entering a heterosexual relationship regarding immorality).

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

indeed. how hollow was the policy?  It was nothing more than an assault on people who were LGBTQ or were sympathizers.  That perhaps is the most troubling aspect of it.  IT's good it's reversed, but seriously, what a mess it created.  Many otherwise faithful members left after the policy change.  I doubt there's much reconciling now.  It all feels so hollow.  

I am feeling quite emotional over this announcement. When I first saw it, I was like, "Oh, another April Fools joke". But having it be real, is causing such mixed emotions. I'm happy but sad at the same time. Like how unnecessary this was to have happened. I remember the day the policy came out publicly and how upset my son was over it. He actually was so disgusted by it that it led him down a road of being so anti against the church that I have to caution him against speaking out around almost all of his friends that are TBM so as to not distance himself from them. 

Also, the feelings of those that may have taken their lives over the policy, this is the biggest "heart sick" for me, I think the church needs to apologise like they should have over the PH ban, and so many other wrong revelations/policies. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good point, this should end the categorization of homosexual immoral conduct as a greater sin than heterosexual conduct.  That should reduce the stigma that this kind of conduct requires extra special repentance.  Nice, I hadn't even thought of that.  

What do you think about the possibility that this sentence is condoning same sex conduct within the confines of same sex marriage?  Is that even possible that we might have just seen the church make a much bigger step towards equality than I had even imagined possible.  

I don't see it condoning sex conduct within the confines of same sex marriage.  Some day, and this added clarification would be a step towards that.  I think it'll come though.  

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I see the type of pride that has been warned about in the Book of Mormon. The type of pride that makes one's opinion superior to the Prophets, as if their prideful voices holds equal or greater weight than the Lords chosen Prophets. They see weakness in the Lord's anointed servants, but see only superiority in their prideful opinions. Perhaps the sifting has started.

  • "Both were clearly wrong.  as wrong as wrong could be."
  • "Yup.  Another mistake 😉 It just took longer to correct it!"
  • "😊I  rest my case...I am happy but I rest my case on so many things that have come from this."

Clearly everyone who views it differently than you is guilty of the sin of pride. If only we could abandon our pridefulness and come into harmony with your views.

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How does a policy change supersede a revelation?

 

 

Edited by Lemuel
bad formatting

Share this post


Link to post

 

Quote

There have also been ministering angels in the Church which were of Satan appearing as an angel of light. A sister in the state of New York had a vision, who said it was told her that if she would go to a certain place in the woods, an angel would appear to her. She went at the appointed time, and saw a glorious personage descending, arrayed in white, with sandy colored hair; he commenced and told her to fear God, and said that her husband was called to do great things, but that he must not go more than one hundred miles from home, or he would not return; whereas God had called him to go to the ends of the earth, and he has since been more than one thousand miles from home, and is yet alive. Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation. (Joseph Smith, HC vol 4, ch. 33)

3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see it condoning sex conduct within the confines of same sex marriage.  Some day, and this added clarification would be a step towards that.  I think it'll come though.  

Yeah, its probably wishful thinking on my part, but I'm really hoping that there is a slight chance that I'm right.  It would be amazing! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The responses to this event, in this very thread and from all sides of the argument, are...fascinating.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I recognize they said that qualifying sentence.  But, the church will never admit to "changing doctrine".  I can't think of any examples in our vast history of changes that the church labels as a change in doctrine.  Can you?  

As the Doctrine of marriage remains, the present "chang" should not be veiwed as the Church "honoring" same-sex marriages.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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

I was wondering that myself.

is there a reason not to? How will people react to that?

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I am feeling quite emotional over this announcement. When I first saw it, I was like, "Oh, another April Fools joke". But having it be real, is causing such mixed emotions. I'm happy but sad at the same time. Like how unnecessary this was to have happened. I remember the day the policy came out publicly and how upset my son was over it. He actually was so disgusted by it that it led him down a road of being so anti against the church that I have to caution him against speaking out around almost all of his friends that are TBM so as to not distance himself from them. 

Also, the feelings of those that may have taken their lives over the policy, this is the biggest "heart sick" for me, I think the church needs to apologise like they should have over the PH ban, and so many other wrong revelations/policies. 

Thanks for sharing.  These are great points.  Someday, we can hope for a more honest, repentant and vulnerable church.  I don't know if we'll ever see it, but how amazing would it be.  

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...