Apparently new policy is no longer

[Calm]

I think the lack of canonization of the policy might be part of the reluctance or at the very least the lack of multiple sources.  Has anyone else in a position of determining doctrine officially or unofficially confirmed it?  They rewrote the Gospel Principles manual to remove older and single sourced quotations and focused much more on using scripture and iirc, someone familiar with curriculum writing at the time said this was now policy for manuals though that was a number of years ago and may have changed (hope not).  On the other hand, they are trying to deal with non-doctrinal controversies that are current issues for members.  So it seems to me they are attempting to walk a tightrope balanced between answering important, current questions and keeping the work solidly grounded in scripture not only to avoid false or unfounded speculation, but teach by example what members should also do in their studies.

[rockpond]

I agree with Calm.

 

I think it makes sense to remove the November policy from the seminary manual as an example of prophetic revelation because to date there has been published statements regarding the policy from two apostles, the first presidency, and the Michael Otterson.

Only one of those statements identified the policy as sourced in direct revelation.  Without a second witness, it wouldn't make sense to include it in the seminary manual.

[BCSpace]

That gay Mormon couples are considered apostates and subject to possible church discipline is somehow a new policy is news to me.  It's been that way for many many years. The only change in policy was not allowing their children to be baptized.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

That gay Mormon couples are considered apostates and subject to possible church discipline is somehow a new policy is news to me.  It's been that way for many many years. The only change in policy was not allowing their children to be baptized.

More like not allowing them to be taught to hate their parents, in my opinion.

Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents were sinners is beyond me.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, BCSpace said:

That gay Mormon couples are considered apostates and subject to possible church discipline is somehow a new policy is news to me.  It's been that way for many many years. The only change in policy was not allowing their children to be baptized.

This statement is just factually incorrect.  PM me if you'd like to understand what changes were made to the handbook, I don't want to derail the thread. 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

More like not allowing them to be taught to hate their parents, in my opinion.

Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents were sinners is beyond me.

It seems that there are gay parents who have a more expansive view of the church than you. 

[Buckeye]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

More like not allowing them to be taught to hate their parents, in my opinion.

Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents were sinners is beyond me.

This is ridiculous. The policy prevents children from being baptized. It doesn't prevent them from attending services or being taught that some of the parents' behaviors are contrary to church doctrine. And if your logic were sound, it would follow that similar restrictions should be placed on children whose parents commit adultery, embezzle money from their employer, deal drugs, or do any number of other behaviors that the church teaches are sinful. Baptisms for children of record would plummet.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

More like not allowing them to be taught to hate their parents, in my opinion.

Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents were sinners is beyond me.

Absurd statements.

So you're suggesting the church teaches people to hate gays? Interesting defense.

We are all taught we are sinners. My children learn at church that I sin. This isn't shocking and as long as the church isn't teaching that we "hate" sinners, like you suggest, then there isn't a problem. Unwed parents take their children to church, right? Is that so hard for you to conceive? Why would any unwed parent do that when it will be obvious to the kids that the parents are sinning? Why would anyone who breaks the word of wisdom want their children to go to church. Your logic is just terrible.

 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

“What the deletion means remains an open question.” I think the overall lesson objective remains the same.

 

That's fine.  But if the policy was not by revelation, then that really brings into question the whole teaching. 

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

More like not allowing them to be taught to hate their parents, in my opinion.

Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents were sinners is beyond me.

Shoot.  With that idea (children hate parents who sin) all of us parents are in trouble.  Just last week my son looked at me like I was the devil when I screamed out an obscenity as I wacked my thumb with the hammer. 

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the lack of canonization of the policy might be part of the reluctance or at the very least the lack of multiple sources.  Has anyone else in a position of determining doctrine officially or unofficially confirmed it?  They rewrote the Gospel Principles manual to remove older and single sourced quotations and focused much more on using scripture and iirc, someone familiar with curriculum writing at the time said this was now policy for manuals though that was a number of years ago and may have changed (hope not).  On the other hand, they are trying to deal with non-doctrinal controversies that are current issues for members.  So it seems to me they are attempting to walk a tightrope balanced between answering important, current questions and keeping the work solidly grounded in scripture not only to avoid false or unfounded speculation, but teach by example what members should also do in their studies.

Certainly possible.  I'm feeling more and more curious, though, if someone at least said, "you know what?  This policy could change.  We might find it wise to get rid of it quite soon.  There's no need to use it for a lesson manual.  We better proceed with caution." 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's fine.  But if the policy was not by revelation, then that really brings into question the whole teaching. 

The lesson objective would not be in question, and the definitions still hold. Including or excluding the policy in the lesson as an object lesson or example of some sort is not an indicator of its actual status (and policy can be revealed, right?); its inclusion should be based on focusing on and meeting the lesson objectives while teaching and learning by the Spirit.

I think Elder Nelson's remarks might be used as a good example of how the Lord brings unanimity among the First Presidency and Twelve in coming up with decisions, whether they be categorized (by who?) policy, revelation, practice, or a combination of any of these.

[6EQUJ5]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

More like not allowing them to be taught to hate their parents, in my opinion.

Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents were sinners is beyond me.

This x1000

During my childhood my mom and step dad were unmarried, mom completely inactive (step dad not a member at that time), and living together. Somehow I got involved with primary and was eventually baptized but I can say that it was horrible to be at Church when the law of chastity was discussed.  I knew my mom was sinning but it was hard to have this driven into my head over and over again.  They turned things around and my step dad was baptized but it was rough going for me for a while.

In a lot of ways I don't think the bishop should have allowed me to be baptized.  Just like you say, it is difficult for a child to be taught their parents are sinning -- especially when the sin is so serious.

Edited September 8, 2016 by 6EQUJ5

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This x1000

During my childhood my mom and step dad were unmarried, mom completely inactive (step dad not a member at that time), and living together. Somehow I got involved with primary and was eventually baptized but I can say that it was horrible to be at Church when the law of chastity was discussed.  I knew my mom was sinning but it was hard to have this driven into my head over and over again.  They turned things around and my step dad was baptized but it was rough going for me for a while.

In a lot of ways I don't think the bishop should have allowed me to be baptized.  Just like you say, it is difficult for a child to be taught their parents are sinning -- especially when the sin is so serious.

How do you think your story would have turned out had your bishop told you that you couldn't be baptized?  Would you have kept attending?

How about when you turned 12 and the bishop said that you couldn't receive the priesthood or pass the sacrament with the other boys your age?  Would you have kept attending?  Would your step-dad have been baptized?

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This x1000

During my childhood my mom and step dad were unmarried, mom completely inactive (step dad not a member at that time), and living together. Somehow I got involved with primary and was eventually baptized but I can say that it was horrible to be at Church when the law of chastity was discussed.  I knew my mom was sinning but it was hard to have this driven into my head over and over again.  They turned things around and my step dad was baptized but it was rough going for me for a while.

In a lot of ways I don't think the bishop should have allowed me to be baptized.  Just like you say, it is difficult for a child to be taught their parents are sinning -- especially when the sin is so serious.

For some reason I knew my parents were sinners too--Church taught me so.  I mean they were married and all that, but they sinned sometimes flagrantly.   But somehow I largely gave those two evil ones a pass growing up.  I knew them too much and wanted to love sinners anyway.  I can't imagine Church being a place to teach children to hold sins against their parents.  It should be a place to accept sinners sin, and love them anyway. 

[Five Solas]

19 hours ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4325258-155/lord-giveth-and-new-manual-taketh

The trib is reporting that it's confirmed the new policy will be out of the coming manual.  That's a good thing.  What does that say about revelation, policy?

Perhaps it says the Salt Lake Tribune has become a vital mouthpiece for the LDS Church and every faithful member ought to consider getting a subscription to stay abreast of all the revelating.... 

;0)

--Erik

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This x1000

During my childhood my mom and step dad were unmarried, mom completely inactive (step dad not a member at that time), and living together. Somehow I got involved with primary and was eventually baptized but I can say that it was horrible to be at Church when the law of chastity was discussed.  I knew my mom was sinning but it was hard to have this driven into my head over and over again.  They turned things around and my step dad was baptized but it was rough going for me for a while.

 

Sounds like you learned a beautiful lesson of how the atonement works and how the process of repentance and forgiveness can change lives.  

I wonder if you would have learned this if the church leaders had not allowed you to be baptized and had excommunicated your parents for apostasy?

.

Edited September 8, 2016 by ALarson

[Sky]

For further explanation...I came across this information through a friend of a friend. I can't confirm its authenticity, but I'm leaning towards this being credible. Take for what it's worth: 

"I emailed the church at ces-manuals@ldschurch.org (the email address listed at the beginning of the manual) to inquire about the removal of Elder Nelson's quote, etc. I received a personal call and voice mail from a Brother Kelly Haws, associate administrator for seminaries and institutes of religion, at church headquarters. In his message he said, "we are in the process of updating some of our lessons digitally and hence some of these changes that you've seen on the digital versions. I think we'll get back around to teaching some of these things as we finish writing these lessons digitally." Then, we spoke in person on the phone tonight. Here are the highlights of what he said: 1) "Digital first" versions allow us to make adjustments and changes more quickly and less costly, 2) Upon further conversation, we decided to include Elder Nelson's quote in the Doctrine & Covenants seminary manual instead because we thought it would fit better...it is maybe a better fit to use at a later time, 3) When we posted it (Elder Nelson's quote), it got an immediate response and attention, 4) We deleted it because we did not want to cause contention or distract from the lesson (he repeated this several times during our conversation in various forms)...we didn't want to spark contention...we didn't want to distract from the lesson or cause unnecessary contention, 5) We are not backing away from the position of the church or what the prophets/apostles are teaching, 6) There is no retraction, 7) At least to my knowledge, there are no changes or retractions from what Elder Nelson stated in his talk."

 

 

[Mystery Meat]

7 minutes ago, Sky said:

For further explanation...I came across this information through a friend of a friend. I can't confirm its authenticity, but I'm leaning towards this being credible. Take for what it's worth: 

"I emailed the church at ces-manuals@ldschurch.org (the email address listed at the beginning of the manual) to inquire about the removal of Elder Nelson's quote, etc. I received a personal call and voice mail from a Brother Kelly Haws, associate administrator for seminaries and institutes of religion, at church headquarters. In his message he said, "we are in the process of updating some of our lessons digitally and hence some of these changes that you've seen on the digital versions. I think we'll get back around to teaching some of these things as we finish writing these lessons digitally." Then, we spoke in person on the phone tonight. Here are the highlights of what he said: 1) "Digital first" versions allow us to make adjustments and changes more quickly and less costly, 2) Upon further conversation, we decided to include Elder Nelson's quote in the Doctrine & Covenants seminary manual instead because we thought it would fit better...it is maybe a better fit to use at a later time, 3) When we posted it (Elder Nelson's quote), it got an immediate response and attention, 4) We deleted it because we did not want to cause contention or distract from the lesson (he repeated this several times during our conversation in various forms)...we didn't want to spark contention...we didn't want to distract from the lesson or cause unnecessary contention, 5) We are not backing away from the position of the church or what the prophets/apostles are teaching, 6) There is no retraction, 7) At least to my knowledge, there are no changes or retractions from what Elder Nelson stated in his talk."

 

 

This makes sense to me. The Church's position is abundantly clear. President Nelson was not just lying or exaggerating in order to elevate the policy to revelation - at the very least he (and other members of the 15) believe it was actual revelation. More than anything else, I think leaving it in the manual would have a been a distraction or a source of contention. Removing it allows the doctrine to be taught in such a way as to avoid distractions from what really matters.

Some of you may recall a few years back President Obama gave a press conference about health care. It was his big appeal to get his legislation passed. For 55 minutes he did an effective job of communicating his message. At the very end of his press conference, a reporter asked about the arrest of a black Columbia professor. President Obama railed against the cops and made some pretty divisive remarks. The next day no one discussed what should have been a high point for his ACA push. Instead every news station was discussing race relations.

I think in this context, the Church is trying to avoid a similar situation. Teach the principles. Keep it simple. Avoid distractions.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

This is ridiculous. The policy prevents children from being baptized. It doesn't prevent them from attending services or being taught that some of the parents' behaviors are contrary to church doctrine. And if your logic were sound, it would follow that similar restrictions should be placed on children whose parents commit adultery, embezzle money from their employer, deal drugs, or do any number of other behaviors that the church teaches are sinful. Baptisms for children of record would plummet.

False dichotomy.

Embezzlement is not a lifestyle you are allegedly born into

Interesting you would compare being gay to crimes.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

This statement is just factually incorrect.  PM me if you'd like to understand what changes were made to the handbook, I don't want to derail the thread. 

“…this thing was not done in a corner.” Let’s talk about policy questions openly!

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Sky said:

For further explanation...I came across this information through a friend of a friend. I can't confirm its authenticity, but I'm leaning towards this being credible. Take for what it's worth: 

"I emailed the church at ces-manuals@ldschurch.org (the email address listed at the beginning of the manual) to inquire about the removal of Elder Nelson's quote, etc. I received a personal call and voice mail from a Brother Kelly Haws, associate administrator for seminaries and institutes of religion, at church headquarters. In his message he said, "we are in the process of updating some of our lessons digitally and hence some of these changes that you've seen on the digital versions. I think we'll get back around to teaching some of these things as we finish writing these lessons digitally." Then, we spoke in person on the phone tonight. Here are the highlights of what he said: 1) "Digital first" versions allow us to make adjustments and changes more quickly and less costly, 2) Upon further conversation, we decided to include Elder Nelson's quote in the Doctrine & Covenants seminary manual instead because we thought it would fit better...it is maybe a better fit to use at a later time, 3) When we posted it (Elder Nelson's quote), it got an immediate response and attention, 4) We deleted it because we did not want to cause contention or distract from the lesson (he repeated this several times during our conversation in various forms)...we didn't want to spark contention...we didn't want to distract from the lesson or cause unnecessary contention, 5) We are not backing away from the position of the church or what the prophets/apostles are teaching, 6) There is no retraction, 7) At least to my knowledge, there are no changes or retractions from what Elder Nelson stated in his talk."

 

 

Good.  Hopefully any retractions will come officially. 

[Avatar4321]

So nothing has really changed but we are told the church is backtracking and capitulating.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said:

So nothing has really changed but we are told the church is backtracking and capitulating.

No backtracking by the Church as yet, but according to Sky's information there's been some amount of capitulating.  They took the Pres Nelson part out because in part of the backlash it seems:

Quote

3) When we posted it (Elder Nelson's quote), it got an immediate response and attention, 4) We deleted it because we did not want to cause contention or distract from the lesson (he repeated this several times during our conversation in various forms)...we didn't want to spark contention...we didn't want to distract from the lesson or cause unnecessary contention,

 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So nothing has really changed but we are told the church is backtracking and capitulating.

We're being told that the church is backtracking and capitulating by people who want the church to backtrack and capitulate.