Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just to be clear, you are saying that a child of an apostate gay couple was allowed to be baptized before their 18th birthday?  Who approved the baptism and why were they granted the baptism over all the other children of gay couples?

First Presidency would be the ones to give the final approval, but the bishop who is the one who makes the appeal and therefore would have to approve it as well.

Are you not aware of how exceptions to policies are sometimes granted?

Quote

Neither is the proper way. Judges in Israel (bishops and stake presidents) consider each individual circumstance that comes to their attention. Then, under the spirit of revelation, if they feel it appropriate, they can write to the First Presidency requesting an exception to policy.

(I served as a bishop, and did this myself. Approval for the requested exception was granted, but would have normally been contrary to the handbook’s policies. The situation was unique and required a unique response.)

Policy in the Church, then, is not a one-size-fits all, no-exceptions type of thing. It is general guidance that revelation may supersede.

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2019/04/05/a-look-at-the-churchs-change-of-policy-on-same-sex-couples-and-their-children#more-20998

It is possible I misunderstood and it might have been for Priesthood ordination or something else, but my memory of the conversation was we were talking about baptism at the time, so when he said 'I was involved in getting an exception', I assumed he was continuing to talk about baptisms.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

First Presidency would be the ones to give the final approval, but the bishop who is the one who makes the appealwould have to approve it as well.

Are you not aware of how exceptions to policies are often granted?

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2019/04/05/a-look-at-the-churchs-change-of-policy-on-same-sex-couples-and-their-children#more-20998

I didn't realize the First Presidency could go against a revelation from God.  What made this case special over all the other children of apostate gay parents?  I would really love to know what it took to go against this "revelation"

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The "case-by-case social arrangement" is what we had before and again what we have now: parents were/are to be asked by their local priesthood leaders to give consent for minors to be baptized and the local priesthood leaders interview and authorize baptisms.

No new policy has been given, just a reversal of the Nov 2015 policy.

In what ways do you believe today's policy is different than the 2014 policy?

 

ETA...

I just checked and the online handbook has still not been changed.  It currently reflects the Nov 2015 policies on baptism and apostasy.

But here is the section that was there before and, I assume, will remain:

16.3.6

Minors

A minor child, as defined by local laws, may be baptized and confirmed only when both of the following conditions are met:

  1. Consent has been given by the custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The person who conducts the baptism and confirmation interview may ask for this consent to be in writing if he feels it will help prevent misunderstandings.

  2. The person who conducts the baptism and confirmation interview discerns that there is clear evidence that the child understands the baptismal covenant and will make every effort to keep it through obeying the commandments, including faithfully attending Church meetings.

Now that the conversation has entered fact-finding/checking mode, I think it best to wait until any new instructions are in writing to compare with 2014 references rather than make assumptions about their presumed specifics.

But since societal mores, expectations and pressures on this subject have changed rapidly, and doctrinal standards have not, and considering the continued 4-decade practice to “simply and reduce”, conceptualizing and handling case-by-case arrangements will have unavoidably changed, and I suppose the same holds for any forthcoming printed guidance.

It can be said that the Restored Church is no different than the Primitive Church, and in the same breath that it has evolved in many ways. In the same way, my observation is not so black-and-white, and you take exception to the evolved part. If you consider how you would have handled what you consider to be the same guidance 4 years ago and today, you will acknowledge that what you take to be guidance today has changed from what you took it to be back then.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, california boy said:

My opinion?  What I would want the church leaders to say when then have made policy decisions is that they carefully prayed about their decision and are all in agreement that is the action the church should take.  They should ask the members to seek guidance from the Lord on how that policy will affect them personally and then choose a course of action for their own lives.  What they should quit doing is claiming a revelation from God.  Claiming a promise or policy came from God simply because everyone agrees on a decision is using a trump card that is not theirs to play.

You give two antidotal people responding to a question and THEN make those answers speak for everyone who is gay.  Is that really fair? Personally I find it offensive to be grouped into those two peoples beliefs just because I am gay.

 

I was speaking the truth, that inspiration comes from many sources, and I did not, nor ever have suggested that the two examples reflect how all who are Gay feel. You know me better than this from countless discussions you and I have had, but if it makes you feel better to make the accusation, that I did so. Then I am glad you had the opportunity to say so, don’t worry about me, or the truth, I am grown and won’t crumble. 

Prophets and Apostles in every age have been flawed, as scripture makes apparent. Be it a vision, be it promptings from the Holy Ghost, or by the written word, each means it was inspired. When men are in error, if they are good men, they will correct that error. But apparently this point I made was lost in the two stories I listed, because you did not care for them. This, I guess while you accusing me of being stereotypical, and dismissive. But, again...which group(s) are we or Church leaders supposed to listen to yelling at us every six months on our way to worship God, “according to our own dictates”. Those who wave garments, those who drag out scripture on the ground with a rope, those who hold signs telling us we are all going to hell, those who are Gay and blame us for the death of their children, those who want the Priesthood for women, those who just use their mouths as weapons, yelling profanity, those who don’t like the politics they accuse of, please tell me; which one?  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, california boy said:

I didn't realize the First Presidency could go against a revelation from God.  What made this case special over all the other children of apostate gay parents?  I would really love to know what it took to go against this "revelation"

Yeah, not seeing your likely assumptions (based on how you have been framing your comments, especially this one) opened to the idea so it would just be a debate with you.  Not interested in debates.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now that the conversation has entered fact-finding/checking mode, I think it best to wait until any new instructions are in writing to compare with 2014 references rather than make assumptions about their presumed specifics.

But since societal mores, expectations and pressures on this subject have changed rapidly, and doctrinal standards have not, and considering the continued 4-decade practice to “simply and reduce”, conceptualizing and handling case-by-case arrangements will have unavoidably changed, and I suppose the same holds for any forthcoming printed guidance.

It can be said that the Restored Church is no different than the Primitive Church, and in the same breath that it has evolved in many ways. In the same way, my observation is not so black-and-white, and you take exception to the evolved part. If you consider how you would have handled what you consider to be the same guidance 4 years ago and today, you will acknowledge that what you take to be guidance today has changed from what you took it to be back then.

No.  I don’t acknowledge that.  With the policy reversal, the guidance has not changed.  Nor has it evolved.  

Yes, we’re in fact finding/checking.  I have provided facts.  You have not.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Calm said:

First Presidency would be the ones to give the final approval, but the bishop who is the one who makes the appeal and therefore would have to approve it as well.

More info from former and current bishops and personal (not mine) experience on exceptions in general.

There is a generic form to submit such requests as well as some for specifics (these were not itemized, but given another comment I am assuming temple and sealing ordinances are involved as likely the most common exceptions asked for).  Also the SP is involved in the appeal/approval process as well in most cases.

Restoration of excommunicated deceased family member may be appealed by family directly to the FP, at least in the relatively recent past.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I was speaking the truth, that inspiration comes from many sources, and I did not, nor ever have suggested that the two examples reflect how all who are Gay feel. You know me better than this from countless discussions you and I have had, but if it makes you feel better to make the accusation, that I did so. Then I am glad you had the opportunity to say so, don’t worry about me, or the truth, I am grown and won’t crumble. 

Prophets and Apostles in every age have been flawed, as scripture makes apparent. Be it a vision, be it promptings from the Holy Ghost, or by the written word, each means it was inspired. When men are in error, if they are good men, they will correct that error. But apparently this point I made was lost in the two stories I listed, because you did not care for them. This, I guess while you accusing me of being stereotypical, and dismissive. But, again...which group(s) are we or Church leaders supposed to listen to yelling at us every six months on our way to worship God, “according to our own dictates”. Those who wave garments, those who drag out scripture on the ground with a rope, those who hold signs telling us we are all going to hell, those who are Gay and blame us for the death of their children, those who want the Priesthood for women, those who just use their mouths as weapons, yelling profanity, those who don’t like the politics they accuse of, please tell me; which one?  

I guess I don't understand the reason you bring the antidote up other than yes, there are a lot of individuals who don't agree with your beliefs and the choices you made.  I know a little about that as well.  I don't see the point of mentioning every derogatory comment made about me being gay by those of religious faith.  It happens.  But I don't believe it is the way the majority of people think or treat me.  

I apologize if I misinterpreted your reasons for bringing up the two examples.  Still not that clear.  But I don't think you posted those comments to be hurtful.

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Calm said:

Yeah, not seeing your likely assumptions (based on how you have been framing your comments, especially this one) opened to the idea so it would just be a debate with you.  Not interested in debates.

Sorry, I shouldn't have framed the question in such a confrontational tone.  I was just interested in what it would take to get an exception to the policy.  

I am not even sure why I am discussing this policy so much.  I have always felt that the church could institute any policy it wants.  I think the way this has all been handled by church leadership is just bringing up my own personal issues I have with church leaders.  Maybe I should lurk more and comment less at this point.  

Link to comment

@california boy: Bill asked an interesting question which might have been glossed over, (and which might derail this thread if dwelt upon too long). 

He suggested based upon anecdotal stories that gay culture is such that even now that same-sex marriage is a viable secular option, gay people would not normally wait, chastely, for marriage before engaging in sexual behavior.  

Years ago,  a Christian talk show played an extended clip of a Christian gay spokesperson talking about how homosexual males tend to favor committed relationships with flexible or permeable borders. He explicitly said that as homosexual Christians are accepted in the churches, they will have to help Christianity redifine "fidelity in marriage" to be accepting of committed-but-open marriages.  

Again, some half-remembered Christian gay-marriage advocate from circa 2005/6 doesn't get to speak for all gays, everywhere. But: IS this relaxed attitude towards chastity, fidelity, etcetera a common aspect of gay culture, in your opinion? Would acceptance of persons in same-sex marriages mean Christians would be receiving into fellowship significant numbers of people who would not respect traditional boundaries of moral behavior, who might seek to redefine it? 

Sorry to put you on the spot but: your thoughts? It's one of the peripheral issues which I have heard Evangelical Christians raise in objecting to accepting couples in same-sex marriage.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

@california boy: Bill asked an interesting question which might have been glossed over, (and which might derail this thread if dwelt upon too long). 

He suggested based upon anecdotal stories that gay culture is such that even now that same-sex marriage is a viable secular option, gay people would not normally wait, chastely, for marriage before engaging in sexual behavior.  

Years ago,  a Christian talk show played an extended clip of a Christian gay spokesperson talking about how homosexual males tend to favor committed relationships with flexible or permeable borders. He explicitly said that as homosexual Christians are accepted in the churches, they will have to help Christianity redifine "fidelity in marriage" to be accepting of committed-but-open marriages.  

Again, some half-remembered Christian gay-marriage advocate from circa 2005/6 doesn't get to speak for all gays, everywhere. But: IS this relaxed attitude towards chastity, fidelity, etcetera a common aspect of gay culture, in your opinion? Would acceptance of persons in same-sex marriages mean Christians would be receiving into fellowship significant numbers of people who would not respect traditional boundaries of moral behavior, who might seek to redefine it? 

Sorry to put you on the spot but: your thoughts? It's one of the peripheral issues which I have heard Evangelical Christians raise in objecting to accepting couples in same-sex marriage.  

Sure all of those things are a part of gay culture.  And all of those things are a part of straight culture as well.

I think there are real reasons for these attitudes and a lot of these attitudes I believe come directly from Evangelical Christians and organized religion in general.  Many gays come from a religious background. Maybe they believed too much what religion is constantly telling them.  I mean if you are going to go to hell because you are gay or even because you are in a married relationship, then what difference does it make how many sex partners you have?  You are told over and over again that there is no place in heaven for you.  This is also true of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,  

I think there are real reasons why it has become a part of straight culture as well even though those reasons might be a bit different.  The straight community doesn't value marriage much at all.  Religion tried to prevent gays from being married, so just how important is marriage anyway.  If gays don't need to get married, then why should straight couples?  Rampant divorce and streams of sexual partners before and after marriage also contribute to the things you mentioned are also a part of straight relationships.  Very small percentage of straight couples are virgins when they marrry.  To some extent, the only people left that really value marriage in the traditional sense are those who think they might have a chance of going to heaven.  

And then there is the ever increasing number of people just walking away from organized religion because religion has changed.  It seems to be more political and less concerned with lifting people up and being inclusive to all that seek Christ.  There certainly are a lot of people who don't feel like the Church wants them in their congregations.  I certainly don't.  That message has been given loud and clear to me.  After all, I was an apostate until just a couple of weeks ago.  Now I don't know what I am.  Maybe still an apostate, the Church just doesn't call me that any more.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  I don’t acknowledge that.  With the policy reversal, the guidance has not changed.  Nor has it evolved.  

Yes, we’re in fact finding/checking.  I have provided facts.  You have not.

You have asserted a simplistic interpretation and called it a fact. And you did not provide the facts I was asking for, aren't you waiting for them to come out?

Did “apostasy” apply to someone in a ssm before November 2015? No. Did it apply to him after? Yes. Does it apply now? No. But that was for Handbook purposes to facilitate discipline. And “apostasy” also applies on a personal level to “serious transgression” and this continued without disruption. Discipline for serious transgression as treated in the Handbook has also applied all along without disruption. And someone in personal apostasy /serious transgression over ssm could have leveraged it into the Handbook usage of “apostasy” before November 2015 as well as now. So, in a sense the policy has evolved and, in a sense, it has it not.

Does Church discipline and bishopric approval for baptizing children of ss couples serve as both barrier-and-access and social arrangements? Of course they do, and this did not change during the 3-year policy, except that the new policy was primarily barrier-and-access with room for case-by-case exceptions. Now the policy is more of a social arrangement. So in that way it changed, and in the other way it did not.

First Presidency approval is always required, whether under the former policy by signing a paper or as before and now, under delegation of those keys. Did things change or did they not? Both: the changes reflect an evolution of responses (a policy is a response to an extant, proven or anticipated need) under different circumstances, governed under First Presidency approval.

At what point before November 2015 did you view, understand and treat the Church’s Handbook guidance on ssm / serious transgression exactly the same way as you do today? At what point did you take it differently before that? Maybe you haven’t evolved, but the conditions before and after 2015 have, and so the policy within that broader ethos has also changed.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

At what point before November 2015 did you view, understand and treat the Church’s Handbook guidance on ssm / serious transgression exactly the same way as you do today?

You can't seriously believe that this was the purpose for the original policy.  The great majority of church members don't even read or have access to the current handbook.  There are certainly more effective ways to stress the importance of the Church's Handbook when training local leaders than going to such extreme lengths as implementing this policy and calling it a revelation (only to reverse it a short time later).  Doing that could actually have the opposite effect and cause members to believe whatever is in the handbook isn't that important because it can be easily changed in just a short amount of time.

I believe most all members of the church feel the same about the handbook today as they did 4 years ago.  There's been no evolution at all regarding that, IMO.

It's weird that you just can't at least consider that this is one of the times the leaders made a mistake and then corrected it.  You do know what fallible means, right?  Our leaders are human and do have human emotions and reactions just as all others do.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You have asserted a simplistic interpretation and called it a fact. And you did not provide the facts I was asking for, aren't you waiting for them to come out?

The facts I was referring to are the handbook statements and President Oaks' statements on 4-April-2019.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But that was for Handbook purposes to facilitate discipline.

Which is what we're discussing:  policy.  Where is church policy found?  The handbook.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And “apostasy” also applies on a personal level to “serious transgression” and this continued without disruption.

You may consider it that way but the handbook does not define serious transgression as apostasy.  "Serious transgression" is defined in the handbook section 6.7.2 "When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary".  Apostasy (including SSM but not mentioning "serious transgression") is defined in the handbook section 6.7.1 "When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory".  You'll note how President Oaks makes reference to these terms in his 4-April statement:  "Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline."

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Does Church discipline and bishopric approval for baptizing children of ss couples serve as both barrier-and-access and social arrangements? Of course they do, and this did not change during the 3-year policy, except that the new policy was primarily barrier-and-access with room for case-by-case exceptions. Now the policy is more of a social arrangement.

Neither the handbook nor President Oaks has used these terms.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

First Presidency approval is always required, whether under the former policy by signing a paper or as before and now, under delegation of those keys.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

At what point before November 2015 did you view, understand and treat the Church’s Handbook guidance on ssm / serious transgression exactly the same way as you do today? At what point did you take it differently before that? Maybe you haven’t evolved, but the conditions before and after 2015 have, and so the policy within that broader ethos has also changed.

My understanding is that with the reversal of the policy, the Church's "new" policy regarding SSM/serious transgression is the same as it was prior to November 2015.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, ALarson said:

You can't seriously believe that this was the purpose for the original policy.  The great majority of church members don't even read or have access to the current handbook.  There are certainly more effective ways to stress the importance of the Church's Handbook when training local leaders than going to such extreme lengths as implementing this policy and calling it a revelation (only to reverse it a short time later).  Doing that could actually have the opposite effect and cause members to believe whatever is in the handbook isn't that important because it can be easily changed in just a short amount of time.

I believe most all members of the church feel the same about the handbook today as they did 4 years ago.  There's been no evolution at all regarding that, IMO.

It's weird that you just can't at least consider that this is one of the times the leaders made a mistake and then corrected it.  You do know what fallible means, right?  Our leaders are human and do have human emotions and reactions just as all others do.

This whole post is weird on a couple of levels, at the very least considering the post you are replying to.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

The facts I was referring to are the handbook statements and President Oaks' statements on 4-April-2019.

Which is what we're discussing:  policy.  Where is church policy found?  The handbook.

You may consider it that way but the handbook does not define serious transgression as apostasy.  "Serious transgression" is defined in the handbook section 6.7.2 "When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary".  Apostasy (including SSM but not mentioning "serious transgression") is defined in the handbook section 6.7.1 "When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory".  You'll note how President Oaks makes reference to these terms in his 4-April statement:  "Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline."

Neither the handbook nor President Oaks has used these terms.

Agreed.

My understanding is that with the reversal of the policy, the Church's "new" policy regarding SSM/serious transgression is the same as it was prior to November 2015.

I don’t see you quoting President Oaks anywhere in our exchange until your most recent post, and you only assumed the Handbook statement you provided would remain the same.

Maybe this will help: “Apostasy” by definition also applies to individuals when they “turn away from the principles of the gospel” (see https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng), which can include “serious transgression.” Both apostasy and serious transgression are covered in the Handbook. Apologies for confusing you.

Yes, I use my own terms to describe and explain the policies in the Handbook; you can too, and can use all the pejorative adjectives you wish!

Please answer my questions from the last paragraph. I won’t badger, and I understand that by evading it you don’t have to acknowledge or even consider the kind of policy evolution I’m describing.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This whole post is weird on a couple of levels, at the very least considering the post you are replying to.

I don’t see you quoting President Oaks anywhere in our exchange until your most recent post, and you only assumed the Handbook statement you provided would remain the same.

 

Maybe this will help: “Apostasy” by definition also applies to individuals when they “turn away from the principles of the gospel” (see https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng), which can include “serious transgression.” Both apostasy and serious transgression are covered in the Handbook. Apologies for confusing you.

 

Yes, I use my own terms to describe and explain the policies in the Handbook; you can too, and can use all the pejorative adjectives you wish!

 

Please answer my questions from the last paragraph. I won’t badger, and I understand that by evading it you don’t have to acknowledge or even consider the kind of policy evolution I’m describing.

 

I quoted President Oaks because his statement is all we’ve got with respect to the reversed policy. 

And, yes, both apostasy and serious transgression are covered in the handbook. I identified those sections.  From a policy perspective (which is what I understood us to be discussing), serious transgression “may” require church discipline.  Apostasy mandates church discipline.  So based on the handbook, removing SSM from the definition of apostasy and calling it serious transgression (as Pres. Oaks did) changes returns it to possible church discipline (where it was before 2015) rather than required discipline. 

I did my best to answer all your questions.  I did not understand the last one.  You’ll need to clarify or rephrase if you’d like an answer. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, ALarson said:

It's weird that you just can't at least consider that this is one of the times the leaders made a mistake and then corrected it.  You do know what fallible means, right?  Our leaders are human and do have human emotions and reactions just as all others do.

@ALarson I think that most who are responding to this thread and are not hostile to the church have acknowledged that the brethren are not infallible and can make mistakes, and that this could have been one of those.

Now I want to know if you and everyone else up in arms are willing to consider that maybe the Lord did indeed give his will the President Monson in the form of the Nov 2015 policy and the church is stiffnecked and rejected the Lord's will (D&C 56:6 & D&C 58:30-33)? Is that something that you are open to considering?

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Now I want to know if you and everyone else up in arms are willing to consider that maybe the Lord did indeed give his will the President Monson in the form of the Nov 2015 policy and the church is stiffnecked and rejected the Lord's will (D&C 56:6 & D&C 58:30-33)? Is that something that you are open to considering?

Where is the evidence that "the church" is stiffnecked and rejected the Lord's will?  It seemed to me that the vast majority of members accepted the policy and many accepted it as revelation.

Link to comment
On 4/25/2019 at 11:11 AM, rockpond said:

If this policy was not authorized by the Lord than it had corrupted principles of the gospel (baptism) and made unauthorized changes in priesthood ordinances.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one because I don't believe that the policy in any way corrupted the principles of the gospel or made unauthorized changes to any priesthood ordinances.  You have a unique way of looking it that is not shared by me and I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who doesn't see it as you do.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one because I don't believe that the policy in any way corrupted the principles of the gospel or made unauthorized changes to any priesthood ordinances.  You have a unique way of looking it that is not shared by me and I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who doesn't see it as you do.

Fair enough.  But I just want to be clear that I was saying IF it was NOT authorized by the Lord, then it corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes to priesthood ordinances.  I'm not saying you didn't understand that, I just want to be clear in the position I was taking.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where is the evidence that "the church" is stiffnecked and rejected the Lord's will?  It seemed to me that the vast majority of members accepted the policy and many accepted it as revelation.

Exhibit A - This thread. Tell me, do you think the word 'stiffnecked' & 'rebellious' (see D&C 56:6) might be apt descriptions for some of those posting. The last 5 pages of this thread have been post after post after post from people who are trying to say that the prophet doesn't actually get revelation, or messed this one up, or is just going off his whim in his decision making, and that he isn't directed by the Lord.

Exhibit B and onward - The other hundreds of posts and threads like this from active members of the church on this site and Facebook and Twitter all saying the same thing that they prophet got this wrong.

Now I am going to ask you as well. I concede and so have most others in this thread that the prophet is a fallible man and that I cannot say for sure if infallibility came into play in this process of reversing this decision. Are you @rockpond willing to concede that it is also possible that President Nelson spoke the truth and that this policy was the will of the Lord? And that the Lord actually wanted this policy in place for at least a period of time?

(note: I am not requiring with my question above that you agree that the Lord changed it because of the church's stiffneckedness - for starters I just want to know if you are open to it having actually been the 100% will of the Lord that was received by President Monson and that President Nelson spoke 100% truth in the BYU Hawaii devotional)

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

@ALarson I think that most who are responding to this thread and are not hostile to the church have acknowledged that the brethren are not infallible and can make mistakes, and that this could have been one of those.

Now I want to know if you and everyone else up in arms are willing to consider that maybe the Lord did indeed give his will the President Monson in the form of the Nov 2015 policy and the church is stiffnecked and rejected the Lord's will (D&C 56:6 & D&C 58:30-33)? Is that something that you are open to considering?

I'm neither hostile to the church nor am I up in arms regarding this.  I'm just trying to see this from a perspective of reason and giving my honest opinion.  The leaders can make mistakes just as any other human can.  I've applauded them for stepping back here and correcting what I believe was a mistake.  It's just odd to see most everyone agree that our leaders are definitely not infallible, but then watch as some go to such extreme lengths to deny this may have been one of those time an error was made.  

As far as anything regarding President Monson and this policy goes, we really never heard from him about it, so I honestly cannot comment on that (and won't make assumptions either).

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Exhibit A - This thread. Tell me, do you think the word 'stiffnecked' & 'rebellious' (see D&C 56:6) might be apt descriptions for some of those posting. The last 5 pages of this thread have been post after post after post from people who are trying to say that the prophet doesn't actually get revelation, or messed this one up, or is just going off his whim in his decision making, and that he isn't directed by the Lord.

Exhibit B and onward - The other hundreds of posts and threads like this from active members of the church on this site and Facebook and Twitter all saying the same thing that they prophet got this wrong.

Now I am going to ask you as well. I concede and so have most others in this thread that the prophet is a fallible man and that I cannot say for sure if infallibility came into play in this process of reversing this decision. Are you @rockpond willing to concede that it is also possible that President Nelson spoke the truth and that this policy was the will of the Lord? And that the Lord actually wanted this policy in place for at least a period of time?

(note: I am not requiring with my question above that you agree that the Lord changed it because of the church's stiffneckedness - for starters I just want to know if you are open to it having actually been the 100% will of the Lord that was received by President Monson and that President Nelson spoke 100% truth in the BYU Hawaii devotional)

A - I haven't noted anyone saying that the prophet doesn't get revelation.  There has been discussion that this was a mistake and may not have been directed by the Lord.  The Prophet that is said to have received the revelation never commented on it.  Given the relatively quick reversal without much and explanation, I don't find such discussion/questions surprising.

B - What percentage of active church members do you really think believe that the "prophet got this wrong"?  I imagine it to be very low.

To your question - it is possible that this was the will of the Lord but the spiritual confirmations I have received do not align with that.

Just to be fair - do you @Anonymous Mormon concede that it's possible that the original policy was not the will of the Lord?

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm neither hostile to the church nor am I up in arms regarding this.  I'm just trying to see this from a perspective of reason and giving my honest opinion.  The leaders can make mistakes just as any other human can.  I've applauded them for stepping back here and correcting what I believe was a mistake.  It's just odd to see most everyone agree that our leaders are definitely not infallible, but then watch as some go to such extreme lengths to deny this may have been one of those time an error was made.  

As far as anything regarding President Monson and this policy goes, we really never heard from him about it, so I honestly cannot comment on that (and won't make assumptions either).

In asking my question of you, I was responding to your question you posed here (which I believe everyone has been open to considering):

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

It's weird that you just can't at least consider that this is one of the times the leaders made a mistake and then corrected it.  You do know what fallible means, right?  Our leaders are human and do have human emotions and reactions just as all others do.

You evaded my last question, so let me rephrase it. Will you consider that President Nelson was 100% correct in his statement in the BYU Hawaii devotional and that the November 2015 policy was indeed the revealed will of the Lord?

 

Link to comment
Just now, rockpond said:

A - I haven't noted anyone saying that the prophet doesn't get revelation.  There has been discussion that this was a mistake and may not have been directed by the Lord.  The Prophet is said to have received the revelation never commented on it.  Given the relatively quick reversal without much and explanation, I don't find such discussion/questions surprising.

 B - What percentage of active church members do you really think believe that the "prophet got this wrong"?  I imagine it to be very low.

To your question - it is possible that this was the will of the Lord but the spiritual confirmations I have received do not align with that.

Just to be fair - do you @Anonymous Mormon concede that it's possible that the original policy was not the will of the Lord?

 

Thanks for the direct answer. Now I will return the favor:

>do you @Anonymous Mormon concede that it's possible that the original policy was not the will of the Lord?

 

I am completely open to the idea that the Lord let's us try things of our own accord (i.e., he doesn't command in all things) and that the Brethren went with this policy because they thought it was best. Then the Lord coached them to a better policy.

I am not open to conceding that this policy was in direct conflict or against the express will of the Lord, as I do not believe that the current 15 brethren are actively making any decisions that are directly in opposition to Christ's will for the church.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...