Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maestrophil

Policy reversal

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, provoman said:

You and hope for things appear to want to quibble about what "doctrine" is/means.

Can you define what church doctrine is?

 

8 minutes ago, provoman said:

As for the second sentence, as I stated I think you are missing the mark.

Keeping it vague?  So, you don't want to interpret that specific sentence regarding the very exact wording (regarding treating those entering a homosexual relationship in the same way as those entering a heterosexual relationship).  Interesting....

On the face of it (as stated), it appears to be referring to fornication and adultery (should be treated the same for both types of relationships).

But I don't blame you for not wanting to answer, as I think it's confusing and hopefully some clarification will be coming from our leaders.  Local leadership definitely need to know what that sentence means exactly.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


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

How in the world you rationalize the question of who can and cannot be baptized as some sort of policy shift is baffling. The LDS church teaches and teaches how central and important ordinances and baptism are. How central they are to our salvation.

Yet, when practices around who is allowed to be baptized are changed, you and others are quick to minimize and trivialize these changes.

Except there haven’t been any changes to who is allowed to be baptized. Everyone is allowed to be baptized. In fact everyone is going to get that opportunity whether in this life or the next. The only question is when.Except there haven’t been any changes to who is allowed to be baptized. Everyone is allowed to be baptized. In fact everyone is going to get that opportunity weather in this life or the next. The only question is when.

Edited by Avatar4321

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Its not like there is no scriptural precedent...

That argument only works if your opponent also believes in the scriptures.  I'm not that guy.  I look at it very differently; namely - that the so-called "scriptural precedent", combined with this event, is further evidence that the Divine (if such a thing exists) has no hand in any of this.

5 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

No, God never says, "Oops! My bad." But that doesn't mean he doesn't rescind or reverse or alter based on the wickedness of the children of men.

Well, if that's what's happening here, it's high time to stock up on water barrels, vacuum-sealed cans of wheat, bottled peaches, and 9MM ammo!  The end is NIGH!

May I suggest a tent city as a possible refuge?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

My gay sister left the church. I suspect this may be a nice gesture, but I doubt she’s coming back.

It's possible if the policy didn't make her leave, something else eventually would cause that to happen anyway. She would still not be able to marry anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

No, God never says, "Oops! My bad." But that doesn't mean he doesn't rescind or reverse or alter based on the wickedness of the children of men.

It happened with Moses. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Can you define what doctrine?

 

So, you don't want to interpret that specific sentence regarding the very exact wording (regarding treating those entering a homosexual relationship in the same way as those entering a heterosexual relationship).  Interesting....

But I don't blame you as I think it's confusing and hopefully some clarification will be coming from our leaders.  Local leadership definitely need to know what that means exactly.

I think its interesting, because the church has never articulated a clear argument for why sexual behavior is sinful when conducted within same sex marriage relationships, and not sinful in heterosexual marriage relationships.  The church just hasn't talked about the vacuum of a strong moral/ethical argument on these grounds.  

So I'm wondering, if the church were to reverse policy on this particular issue, and treat same sex marriages the same as heterosexual marriages, then I see this change as compatible with the "doctrines" of the law of chastity.  Fidelity has always been defined as between married couples.  I'm not saying that I know the church is making this change, I suspect it was just a poorly worded section of this announcement, however, I'm hopeful that they are will make this shift because it makes a whole lot of sense to me.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Except there haven’t been any changes to who is allowed to be baptized. Everyone is allowed to be baptized. 

Not true.  Children under 18 who live in a home where their parents are living polygamy are still not "allowed to be baptized".  As far as I know that hasn't been changed (but it may be coming).

At least the children under 18 who live in a home where their parents are in a SSM are now able to be baptized when they were not in recent years.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That argument only works if your opponent also believes in the scriptures.  I'm not that guy.  I look at it very differently; namely - that the so-called "scriptural precedent", combined with this event, is further evidence that the Divine (if such a thing exists) has no hand in any of this.

Well, if that's what's happening here, it's high time to stock up on water barrels, vacuum-sealed cans of wheat, bottled peaches, and 9MM ammo!  The end is NIGH!

May I suggest a tent city as a possible refuge?

Fools mock.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Calling you to the Twelve?

It might feel like a relief from all the chaos in my current calling......but I imagine the relief would be short-lived.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The LDS church will one day allow same sex couples the privilege of marrying in the temple. The “doctrine” will change.

Without a doubt.

This reversal means that gay couples will now be able to retain their membership and their children can be blessed, baptized, receive the priesthood, and participate in temple ordinances.

We can ask ourselves... how long will take before members start to doubt the doctrine that keeps that family from being sealed in the temple?

Hastening.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

Without a doubt.

This reversal means that gay couples will now be able to retain their membership and their children can be blessed, baptized, receive the priesthood, and participate in temple ordinances.

We can ask ourselves... how long will take before members start to doubt the doctrine that keeps that family from being sealed in the temple?

Hastening.

A long time. Eternity even.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Fools mock.

Oh, lighten up, Francis.  You can't even see another perspective in this whole thing.  You are so convinced of the righteousness of your position that your ability to step into the shoes of another is dead and buried.  Moreover, it appears that you are thoroughly suspending your critical analysis skills when it comes to this issue.  There are a variety of ways to look at the evidence, but you have a predetermined conclusion so you twist your interpretation until it makes a pretzel look like a straight line.  Face it; you aren't John the Baptist or Abinidi.  If God is really behind these things, and if you truly believe that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are actually Prophets, Seers & Revelators, then setting yourself up as the voice in the wilderness is nothing but hubris on your part.  Let their words stand alone if God is only using them to condemn the less righteous or the wicked to eternal damnation; you have no role there.

Edited by ttribe
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Mystery Meat said:

A long time. Eternity even.

Highly doubtful.  I'd put it at 20-30 years max.  It only took 3.5 years to realize how bad the 2018 policy was.  I believe it was Jan 2016 when President Nelson claimed that it was revelation to President Monson.  Now its gone.  Pretty quick expiration date on that revelation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

For every parent who had a LGBT child take their life over the past three and a half years where that suicide had any causality from the Church's policy, the Church has with this admitted such was in vain.  Sad.  Sad that we place belief in the myth of a true church and God talking to these men above the lives of their precious kids.  My heart goes out to each of these parents as they wrestle with the unnecessary loss of their child because of a POS policy claimed to have been the mind and will of God. 

Edited by DBMormon

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

Highly doubtful.  I'd put it at 20-30 years max.  It only took 3.5 years to realize how bad the 2018 policy was.  I believe it was Jan 2016 when President Nelson claimed that it was revelation to President Monson.  Now its gone.  Pretty quick expiration date on that revelation.

I have yet to see any statement that they believe the policy was bad. You are projecting your thoughts and feelings onto them. Nor do I see a retraction that the policy did come via revelation. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord." DC 56:4

Funny how people ignore the second part of the verse.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe the church needed to weed us out.  "we need to get rid of some of these members.  Let's come up with this really poorly constructed policy change, try and sneak it into the handbook so we look sneaky and foolish, and then claim stupid things like 'its revelation' and "we want to protect families'.  That should get rid of a few of these fools."

Sorry.  I'm feeling such a mix of emotions on this.  I think frustration is winning out right now.  

here this will cheer you up!

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Funny how people ignore the second part of the verse.

I suspect this was referring to a specific incident but maybe whoever is rebellious will have to answer for it

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Addicted to puerile hand-wringing just a little bit?

He's upset he wasn't "in the know" and his alleged inside contacts failed to mention this

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Duncan said:

He's upset he wasn't "in the know" and his alleged inside contacts failed to mention this

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2019/03/mormon-discussion-329-take-your-vitamin-pills-and-get-some-rest/ 

Notice #24

24.  There are now concrete discussions occurring asking how we move towards more inclusivity towards LGBTQ members.

Share this post


Link to post

"Knowing that we can be loved exactly as we are gives us all the best opportunity for growing into the healthiest of people."

Mr. Rogers

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I have yet to see any statement that they believe the policy was bad. You are projecting your thoughts and feelings onto them. Nor do I see a retraction that the policy did come via revelation. 

I'm sorry, I don't believe in a God that is fickle enough to have wanted such a policy in place for three years.

Will those couples that were excommunicated be reinstated?  Will individuals and families that were harmed be reached out to?  If there was a reason for the policy to be in place for three years, I think those who claimed it to be God's will ought help the members understand why.

Otherwise, I am forced to conclude that this was one of Holland's "wrong roads" that the Church had to go down.  The end result might be good but the wrong road was bad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I have yet to see any statement that they believe the policy was bad.

Why the change if it was a good policy?  Why not keep it in the handbook if it's a good policy for church members?

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Tacenda said:

"Knowing that we can be loved exactly as we are gives us all the best opportunity for growing into the healthiest of people."

Mr. Rogers

I love Mr. Rogers...well put, Tacenda!!! 

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...