Apparently new policy is no longer

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wish you wouldn't put a quote line from me at the top when you are responding to someone else.

I know it's probably a software glitch, but it sends a notification to me when it happens, and I click on it only to discover it is not directed to me.

If you hover over the quote line, there is a little square that appears. When you see that, you have the capability of deleting the quote line. At least that's how it works for me.

Scott, I apologize. You're right, it is a glitch and I still can't get it to delete, but it's only on this thread. Thanks for being a good sport.

 

 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Bad counsel.  As the policy does not originate with your bishop, or any bishop, it's not within a bishops perogative to ignore the policy.   I would hope that anyone giving counsel to priesthood leaders would give counsel consistent with the handbook and the known wishes of the President of the church, who is the earthly source of the priesthood keys that the bishop exercizes.  

Anything else would seem to be rebellion against proper priesthood authority.

Okay... so I take it that you fall in the "no exceptions camp".

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Okay... so I take it that you fall in the "no exceptions camp".

Lots of confusion here on this thread!  

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay... so I take it that you fall in the "no exceptions camp".

Exeptions, to any policy, need to come from the office where the policy originated.  16.13 makes it clear that the office in this case is the Office of the First Presidency.  

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Lots of confusion here on this thread!  

Handbook 1, 16.13 seems very clearly written.  I don't think that it is the source of the confusion.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Handbook 1, 16.13 seems very clearly written.  I don't think that it is the source of the confusion.

I agree and that's the point I've been trying to make to CV75 and Scott.  However, they both seem to believe there will be exceptions made on a case by case basis and that the policy need not always be followed and won't always apply.  That's does not agree with how the policy is stated in the handbook or the directions we have received in response to questions we've had.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Because you stated it like you can't understand why people are opposed to this new policy and if we just understood it, we'd know there would be exceptions, that baptizing a child in a home with gay parents will be handled on a case by case basis and sometimes the policy won't apply or need to be followed.  That's not accurate if you have read the handbook and listened to how this policy is to be carried out.

I've asked you for cases where this has happened to back up your claims and so far you've given none, so I have to assume that this is just your opinion and not fact.  

I would hope that there would be exceptions given.   Do you know of a child baptized since the policy who lives full time in a household where their parents are in a gay relationship?  I would imagine this would not go unnoticed if it had happened and I also imagine the leaders would not be happy that the policy was not followed.

My various comments on exceptions to the policy are merely a clarification of what I believe, as an aside to your question to another poster here: Posted yesterday at 02:29 PM

I believe in exceptions for the extenuating circumstances I can think of (and that there are some I haven’t thought of), and that any decision is made on a case by case basis. I explained that the basis of my belief is experience and observation and knowing how Church policy works. It would be naïve to suppose that extenuating circumstances are impossible or do not exist.

Now I all covered this here, and am left to wonder why you are fixated on it: Posted 7 hours ago

And I feel I understand why some are opposed to the new policy, but my remarks about exceptions have nothing to do with my justifications for it or my encouragement to understand a few facts about it and open one's mind to a good-faith interpretation of those facts.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My various comments on exceptions to the policy are merely a clarification of what I believe, as an aside to your question to another poster here: Posted yesterday at 02:29 PM

Thanks for clarifying that it was just your opinion.

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I believe in exceptions for the extenuating circumstances I can think of (and that there are some I haven’t thought of), and that any decision is made on a case by case basis. I explained that the basis of my belief is experience and observation and knowing how Church policy works. It would be naïve to suppose that extenuating circumstances are impossible or do not exist.

I actually happen to agree with you that hopefully there will be exceptions made.  But from what I can tell, the leaders did not give direction to allow for any exceptions and the policy was not written in such a way that one can interpret it to mean each case will be considered separately.  But let's hope local leaders will do just that when deciding whether a child can be baptized or not.

.

Edited September 14, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for clarifying that it was just your opinion.

I actually happen to agree with you that hopefully there will be exceptions made.  But from what I can tell, the leaders did not give direction to allow for any exceptions and the policy was not written in such a way that one can interpret it to mean each case will be considered separately.  But let's hope local leaders will do just that when deciding whether a child can be baptized or not.

Oh, not "just" my opinion... LOL

As long as parents ask their children to be baptized, and as long as bishops hear those questions, I don't see how in practice it can be anything but a case-by-case scenario.

Putting that aside for the actual policy, the various scriptures I shared seem to justify it on the basis of membership in Zion, parental stewardship, accountability and qualifications for baptism (and I didn't mention the rights of administering spiritual keys), and I haven't gotten any push-back about the policy being consistently aligned with canon.

Edited September 14, 2016 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Scott, I apologize. You're right, it is a glitch and I still can't get it to delete, but it's only on this thread. Thanks for being a good sport.

 

 

No worries.

I've had my own share of problems with the quote function since the board software was "upgraded."

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree and that's the point I've been trying to make to CV75 and Scott.  However, they both seem to believe there will be exceptions made on a case by case basis and that the policy need not always be followed and won't always apply.  That's does not agree with how the policy is stated in the handbook or the directions we have received in response to questions we've had.

It appears you were looking for theoretical loopholes and reasons not to abide by the policy even before there had been any occasion to invoke it. If you asked the question with that sort of attitude, I'm not surprised that the answer would be no.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Why wait until a problem arises?  Are you serious?  Have you not been paying attention to the grief, heartache and anger that this policy has caused both within and outside the church?  It is unfortunate that the foresight you speak of, the prophet had not foreseen THAT when the whole thing seems totally unnecessary.  Things could have been handled on a case by case basis.  It seems like a prophet would have had the foresight to see that.  Unless, of course, the whole intent of the policy was to stir up animosity and anger towards the church by member and nonmembers alike.  And that is what prophets do as you say.

It seems that throughout the ages it has been the lot of prophets to draw anger, criticism, animosity, and worse for saying and doing things that were not popular among certain segments of society but nevertheless were in accordance with the mind and will of God. A prophet who would be dissuaded by social pressure from fulfilling his divinely directed role would not be worthy of his calling and may even incur the chastening of God, as did Jonah and, to a far less servere degree, Joseph Smith.

I think it quite reasonable to suppose that the prophets and apostles anticipated that this policy would not make them particularly popular, but they determined to press forward and fear God rather than man.

[california boy]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems that throughout the ages it has been the lot of prophets to draw anger, criticism, animosity, and worse for saying and doing things that were not popular among certain segments of society but nevertheless were in accordance with the mind and will of God. A prophet who would be dissuaded by social pressure from fulfilling his divinely directed role would not be worthy of his calling and may even incur the chastening of God, as did Jonah and, to a far less servere degree, Joseph Smith.

I think it quite reasonable to suppose that the prophets and apostles anticipated that this policy would not make them particularly popular, but they determined to press forward and fear God rather than man.

I don't fault the church leaders for pushing forward their policy.  And I certainly would never suggest that church leaders should fear the popularity of men.  I have from the beginning stated that the church can treat it's members any way they want.  I only question the value of such a policy other than simply to draw anger, criticism animosity and worse.  

I am as skeptical as you seem to be that these circumstances that the policy addresses is really a problem in the church now or in the foreseeable future.  I don't see gay married couples with children flocking to the church in any great numbers wanting their children to be baptized now or in the future.  Do you?  I am hard pressed to understand why each situation could  not have been evaluated by the local leader just like every other baptism where there are parents not living the gospel.  The only conclusion I can draw from all of this is that the main objective of this policy is to do exactly what you stated, to draw anger, criticism, animosity and worse from both within the church and without.  If that was their goal, then I would say "Job Well Done."  

Just curious to know what you feel is the objective of this policy is if you question that there may be very few cases where married gay couples want their children baptized in the church?  Is it a sheep/goat or wheat/tare thing?

[Scott Lloyd]

Regarding exceptions to the policy, I ran across the following a short while ago when I was reviewing Michael Otterson's Public Affairs statement posted last November, when the new policy was making headlines:

Quote

Of course, there are always situations that fall outside general guidelines and principles, which is why local leaders may ask for guidance from more senior leaders in particular cases where they may have questions.

This, to me, strongly implies that there could be exceptions made in instances where extenuating circumstances are present.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't fault the church leaders for pushing forward their policy.  And I certainly would never suggest that church leaders should fear the popularity of men.  I have from the beginning stated that the church can treat it's members any way they want.  I only question the value of such a policy other than simply to draw anger, criticism animosity and worse.  

I am as skeptical as you seem to be that these circumstances that the policy addresses is really a problem in the church now or in the foreseeable future.  I don't see gay married couples with children flocking to the church in any great numbers wanting their children to be baptized now or in the future.  Do you?  I am hard pressed to understand why each situation could  not have been evaluated by the local leader just like every other baptism where there are parents not living the gospel.  The only conclusion I can draw from all of this is that the main objective of this policy is to do exactly what you stated, to draw anger, criticism, animosity and worse from both within the church and without.  If that was their goal, then I would say "Job Well Done."  

Just curious to know what you feel is the objective of this policy is if you question that there may be very few cases where married gay couples want their children baptized in the church?  Is it a sheep/goat or wheat/tare thing?

I think this is answered in the Michael Otterson Public Affairs statement I just now cited in my last post (the boldface emphasis is mine):
 

Quote

 

With same-sex marriage now legal in the United States and some other nations, the Church felt the need specifically to address such marriages in the Handbook to draw a firm line and encourage consistency among local leaders. In particular, Church leaders are concerned for children–whether biologically born to one of the partners, adopted or medically conceived. In reality, very few same-sex couples would bring children for the formal Church ordinance of naming and blessing, since this creates a formal membership record. But Church leaders want to avoid putting little children in a potential tug-of-war between same-sex couples at home and teachings and activities at church.

 

This sensitivity to family circumstances is practiced elsewhere. For example, the Church doesn’t baptize minor children without parental consent, even if the children want to be associated with their LDS friends. A married man or woman isn’t baptized if the spouse objects. Missionaries don’t proselytize in most Muslim countries or in Israel, where there are particular sensitivities with family. In some African and other nations where polygamy is practiced, anyone whose parents practice polygamy needs special permission for baptism so they know that a practice that is culturally acceptable for many in the region is not acceptable in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

 

Of course, there are always situations that fall outside general guidelines and principles, which is why local leaders may ask for guidance from more senior leaders in particular cases where they may have questions.

 

The vast majority of Church members understand that there has been no doctrinal change with regard to LGBT issues.  Church doctrine is consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. There is a strong tendency today for many to talk of Jesus Christ as if His teachings on love were somehow inconsistent with his teachings on divine commandments. Of course the Savior’s love was never withheld from anyone and His words on the cross exemplify that. But, He also expressed love by teaching clear doctrine and standing firmly against sin with sometimes-tough lessons for which people rejected Him. That is where Church leaders stand today – holding firm to the doctrinal position of right and wrong, while extending love to all people. Church members who believe in modern prophets and apostles understand and appreciate the intent of their leaders to guide the Church through the complexities of diverse societies and rapidly changing social circumstances.

 

 

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think this is answered in the Michael Otterson Public Affairs statement I just now cited in my last post (the boldface emphasis is mine):
 

 

Fair enough.  We will leave it at that.

[Storm Rider]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't fault the church leaders for pushing forward their policy.  And I certainly would never suggest that church leaders should fear the popularity of men.  I have from the beginning stated that the church can treat it's members any way they want.  I only question the value of such a policy other than simply to draw anger, criticism animosity and worse.  

I am as skeptical as you seem to be that these circumstances that the policy addresses is really a problem in the church now or in the foreseeable future.  I don't see gay married couples with children flocking to the church in any great numbers wanting their children to be baptized now or in the future.  Do you?  I am hard pressed to understand why each situation could  not have been evaluated by the local leader just like every other baptism where there are parents not living the gospel.  The only conclusion I can draw from all of this is that the main objective of this policy is to do exactly what you stated, to draw anger, criticism, animosity and worse from both within the church and without.  If that was their goal, then I would say "Job Well Done."  

Just curious to know what you feel is the objective of this policy is if you question that there may be very few cases where married gay couples want their children baptized in the church?  Is it a sheep/goat or wheat/tare thing?

Cal and I agree on this.  The policy simply does not apply except to imaginary children that will never exist.  When raising our children I often told them to never state the obvious.  From the very first I just did not understand this part of the policy.  Conversely, I did think the policy to declare those to be actively involved in a committed relationship to be in a state of apostasy.  

I still do not understand why this topic of imaginary children not allowed to be baptized until they reach an age of maturity appears to only be discussed at an emotional level.  Many are ready to throw themselves on their sword because they fear a poor child will not allowed to be baptized for a very short period of time.  It is worth contemplating why and how this is so often a hook for those pushing an agenda and why it is so effective with Americans in general.

God's honest truth, I haven't a clue as to why it was stated in the policy.  I still don't see how it added anything to the policy except to get bleeding hearts to bleed all over themselves repeatedly, uncontrollably, and incessantly. 

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Storm Rider

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It appears you were looking for theoretical loopholes and reasons not to abide by the policy even before there had been any occasion to invoke it. If you asked the question with that sort of attitude, I'm not surprised that the answer would be no.

I was mainly disagreeing with CV75's statements that there would be allowances for children under 18 who live in a household with parents who are in a gay relationship regarding their baptism.  I have not seen any evidence that this will be the case.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding exceptions to the policy, I ran across the following a short while ago when I was reviewing Michael Otterson's Public Affairs statement posted last November, when the new policy was making headlines:

This, to me, strongly implies that there could be exceptions made in instances where extenuating circumstances are present.

I have also seen an occasional exception made for the same policy as applied to polygamous families, one of which was discussed in terms of the newer policy by a Sister who had been one of those exceptions.  Another one, I recently heard about where the young man eventually went on a mission fully supported by all members of his polygamous family (or so it was reported by one ofthesister wives who sees him as her own son).  I see no reason it would be more strict for families with parents in a SSM relationship.

[Bobbieaware]

59 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal and I agree on this.  The policy simply does not apply except to imaginary children that will never exist.  When raising our children I often told them to never state the obvious.  From the very first I just did not understand this part of the policy.  Conversely, I did think the policy to declare those to be actively involved in a committed relationship to be in a state of apostasy.  

I still do not understand why this topic of imaginary children not allowed to be baptized until they reach an age of maturity appears to only be discussed at an emotional level.  Many are ready to throw themselves on their sword because they fear a poor child will not allowed to be baptized for a very short period of time.  It is worth contemplating why and how this is so often a hook for those pushing an agenda and why it is so effective with Americans in general.

God's honest truth, I haven't not a clue as to why it was stated in the policy.  I still don't see how it added anything to the policy except to get bleeding hearts to bleed all over themselves repeatedly, uncontrollably, and incessantly. 

 

It was a good thing it was stated in the policy, if for no other reason than that many of those members who have faith the present leaders of the Church are inspired of God have come out into the open in their defense and thereby have been made manifest; and, conversely, many of those members who are shakey in faith the leaders of the Church are inspired of God have come out into the open with criticism and have thereby also been made manifest. As Patrick Henry once wisely said,  (paraphrasing) It's best to know the actual reality of a situation, no matter how unpleasant to contemplate, rather than suffer under delusion.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Storm Rider]

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

It was a good thing it was stated in the policy, if for no other reason than that many of those members who have faith the present leaders of the Church are inspired of God have come out into the open in their defense and thereby have been made manifest; and, conversely, many of those members who are shakey in faith the leaders of the Church are inspired of God have come out into the open with criticism and have thereby also been made manifest. As Patrick Henry once wisely said,  (paraphrasing) It's best to know the actual reality of a situation, no matter how unpleasant to contemplate, rather than suffer under delusion.

I don't like to stir a pot just to keep it stirred up.  Unnecessary contention is never a preferred choice in any situation UNLESS one is looking for contention.

As I said above, these children do not exist nor will, I think, they ever exist.  The Church is very clear what is sin and what is not and it should be clear.  I cannot imagine any gay couple wanting to raise their children in the Church when their way of life is so clearly condemned.  

I am not bothered by the policy, but I see how others are bothered even though their concerns, imo, are without merit because the children don't exist.  Yet, the topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this site and, I assume, many others.  The children do not exist and no child is harmed by the policy.  

I have no problem fighting about things that have real consequences, but this problem is not that.  It is all hypothetical.   

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have also seen an occasional exception made for the same policy as applied to polygamous families, one of which was discussed in terms of the newer policy by a Sister who had been one of those exceptions.  Another one, I recently heard about where the young man eventually went on a mission fully supported by all members of his polygamous family (or so it was reported by one ofthesister wives who sees him as her own son).  I see no reason it would be more strict for families with parents in a SSM relationship.

Thanks Calm for these examples, as they are very encouraging.  I'm assuming these were youth who were already baptized members of the church, but if not, that's even more encouraging!

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't like to stir a pot just to keep it stirred up.  Unnecessary contention is never a preferred choice in any situation UNLESS one is looking for contention.

As I said above, these children do not exist nor will, I think, they ever exist.  The Church is very clear what is sin and what is not and it should be clear.  I cannot imagine any gay couple wanting to raise their children in the Church when their way of life is so clearly condemned.  

I am not bothered by the policy, but I see how others are bothered even though their concerns, imo, are without merit because the children don't exist.  Yet, the topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this site and, I assume, many others.  The children do not exist and no child is harmed by the policy.  

I have no problem fighting about things that have real consequences, but this problem is not that.  It is all hypothetical.   

I believe there is a very good reason why the leaders chose to bring the hypothetical scenario into the open. I trust the leaders of the Church enough to believe that, after much prayer and serious consideration. the Spirit inspired them to know the best thing to do was bring the scenario out into the open before hostile parties did. Under the influence of the Spirit, they understood that if they didn't speak to the hypothetical it could very possibly come back to haunt and embarrass the Church when the critical and faithless would bring the hypothetical into the public forum, complete with accusations that the leaders are hiding something because they feared bad publicity and a resultant public outcry. My testimony is that our leaders are inspired so as to be able to spot and anticipate the cunning wiles and machinations of the adversary, in this case knowing by being forthright a potential diabolical strategy would be thwarted. You see, I actually believe the leaders of the Church are true prophets of God, so I don't go around with a mind filled with perplexity, wondering why and how the General Authoritirs could have slipped up so badly. Finally, I also believe the leaders knew full-well that in being forthright some critical members would come out in opposition, but with faith in the Lord who inspired them they boldly spoke the truth with an inspired resolve to let the chips fall where they may.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

AL, In both cases, the exception granted was to be baptized.  The young man later went on a mission...but by then he was 18 so an exception wouldn't have been needed.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Calm

[Paloma]

On 14/09/2016 at 0:36 AM, Storm Rider said:

Jeanne, did you ever read the Bible about Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in Matt 15:21 - 28?

 ¶Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

I am curious Jeanne what you think of Jesus calling this woman a dog?  Is this the same judge you think will be more than firm with his prophets and apostles?  Was not this woman calling to Jesus with a real problem?  Her daughter, not herself, but her child was, at first, totally ignored by Jesus.  Would you say that Jesus turned his back on her?  I would; he clearly ignored her.

Who does the Church serve?  All those who seek after Jesus Christ; those who respond to his invitation to repent and enter the waters of baptism.  

I am curious to hear your response.  

 

I'm not Jeanne, but i certainly see a very different way of understanding the biblical passage you quote above.

When Jesus "answered her not a word" in verse 23, I don't see that as His not hearing and not caring.  I see Jesus watching a situation unfold, and, seeing the Canaanite woman's faith, already wanting to confirm her faith, answer her need, and also to teach his disciples about His inclusive love for all people that would become evident to them gradually (culminating in Peter's "aha moment' through that vision he received in Acts 10).

Jesus' disciples responded to the woman predictably and in line with Jewish culture of the day when they said, "Send her away!"

Then, when he said both to the woman and to his listening disciples, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel", Jesus was expressing what He knew was understood about the scope of ministry for the Jewish Messiah.  I picture Him saying this as He looks at the woman with all the love and invitation in His eyes that embolden her to worship Him and say "Lord, help me".  (And I imagine that His disciples are beginning to feel quite astonished and aghast.)

And so, when He said "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs", I think that again He is expressing what was a standard belief for Jews, and what was no doubt known by the non-Jews like this woman.  I believe that Jesus here is both testing the woman's faith (all the time with a warm and loving regard), and showing an early glimpse to His disciples that a seismic shift is coming that will rock their traditional way of understanding God whom they'd seen as exclusively theirs.  

Then I see her responding to Jesus' acceptance of her despite the apparently harsh words (that speak to the situation of Jews and Gentiles, but that she senses don't relate to her because she sees Him for who He is, and knows that He is her Saviour too).  And so she responds, in line with His way of expressing this Jewish exclusivity that was real within that culture, but that never applied when Jesus saw genuine faith in people that were not Jewish.  She says, "Truth, Lord, yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table".  

And then Jesus said:  "O woman, great is thy faith;  be it unto thee even as thou will."

And I think the fact that "her daughter was made whole from that very hour" is a wonderful, miraculous outcome that Jesus had intended all along.

I see this whole exchange as a really tender moment, and can only imagine how beautiful and joy-filled it was for both Jesus and this woman of faith who was so convinced and courageous.

 

(I'm editing this to say that I've just reread what I wrote, and realize that you, Storm Rider,  saw Jesus as "ignoring" the woman.  In my response, I said that I didn't see Jesus as not hearing and as not caring for the woman.  I don't want to misrepresent you ... nor do I want to suggest that you said Jesus neither heard nor cared.  And I can see that in your understanding of Jesus "ignoring' the woman, you are not suggesting that Jesus is not good or loving.  But I do think that my view of the passage is different from yours, and wanted to describe how I see it.)

(And, though I'm not Jeanne, I want to imagine that we may even see this passage similarly!)

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Paloma