Apparently new policy is no longer

[CV75]

11 hours 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.

This is what I was recalling but couldn't put my finger on it -- thank you!

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Thanks, Calm.  As I said before, this is encouraging.  

I guess time will tell if church leaders are also willing to make exceptions allowing the baptism of any minors living full time in a household where the parents are in a same sex relationship.  I'd imagine we'll hear about it if it happens!  

[Tacenda]

Just saw this Huff article on FB, if anyone is interested.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-leaders-theres-an-easy-fix-to-prevent-mormon-lgbt-teen-suicides_b_12012620.html

Edited September 15, 2016 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

13 hours 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:

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.

I agree.  And if I think about it, it really makes the policy a moot point, other than an effort to get a dig at gay people and their supporters.  how many children whose primary residence is with gay parents which parents want them baptized and the kids too want to be baptized and are not already baptized?  Church-wide?  Probably less than I can count on my two hands.  So a whole policy change to outline rules for less than 10 cases with the stipulation that any one of those ten cases can go against the policy anyway if local leaders decide to?

Sorry, the policy, in effect, becomes useless at this point.  It was already true that any one of the local leaders for those 10 cases throughout the world could have made their own determination for any particular instance.  Including all of the clarifications that came after the policy, the policy was ill-conceived at best and/or nothing but an attempt to hurt gay people and their supporters associated with the Church. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just saw this Huff article on FB, if anyone is interested.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-leaders-theres-an-easy-fix-to-prevent-mormon-lgbt-teen-suicides_b_12012620.html

Thanks Tacenda.  Unfortunately the piece you gave was full of it.  the 32 suicides number was not a count of teens who took their lives since the policy.  That was a number of teens over the course of years and some of which weren't in Utah.  It's unfortunate we see terrible reporting in articles like this.  But the larger problem is is the claim for an easy fix to prevent suicides.  That's just plain dumb.  Suicides will always be.  But with that said, I enjoy the spirit of offering a solution to a known problem.  Teen suicide in Utah is high.  gay teen suicide has always come at a high rate.  There has to be reasons, and if reasons are uncovered we can hopefully bring rates down and help each other. 

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  And if I think about it, it really makes the policy a moot point, other than an effort to get a dig at gay people and their supporters.  how many children whose primary residence is with gay parents which parents want them baptized and the kids too want to be baptized and are not already baptized?  Church-wide?  Probably less than I can count on my two hands.  So a whole policy change to outline rules for less than 10 cases with the stipulation that any one of those ten cases can go against the policy anyway if local leaders decide to?

Sorry, the policy, in effect, becomes useless at this point.  It was already true that any one of the local leaders for those 10 cases throughout the world could have made their own determination for any particular instance.  Including all of the clarifications that came after the policy, the policy was ill-conceived at best and/or nothing but an attempt to hurt gay people and their supporters associated with the Church. 

I agree. I've read the article at the link Scott posted (and also the additional letter linked to in the article).  The exceptions are for those in joint custody situations or for those who were already baptized (ie. receiving and advancing in the Priesthood).  There was quite the uproar (after the policy was leaked) from parents in joint custody situations who had been told their child wouldn't be allowed baptism or priesthood ordinations, etc.

The whole thing is a mess and I also feel that if all kinds of exceptions are going to be made (we'll see if this happens), the policy is a moot point. 

 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree. I've read the article at the link Scott posted (and also the additional letter linked to in the article).  The exceptions are for those in joint custody situations or for those who were already baptized (ie. receiving and advancing in the Priesthood).  There was quite the uproar (after the policy was leaked) from parents in joint custody situations who had been told their child wouldn't be allowed baptism or priesthood ordinations, etc.

The whole thing is a mess and I also feel that if all kinds of exceptions are going to be made (we'll see if this happens), the policy is a moot point. 

 

Sure.  What was it, a couple of days after the policy change was leaked, as they say, Elder Christofferson was out there trying to explain it.  Then, a week after that the Church offered a clarification that really back-tracked?  All those children who were already baptized and had a gay parent the clarification said, "provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld".  And some months later we have more from President Nelson. 

Really a pretty big mess if you think about it.  It seems like they thought the policy would go unnoticed or something and no one would complain at all.  Not a fine moment from the Church. 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  And if I think about it, it really makes the policy a moot point, other than an effort to get a dig at gay people and their supporters.  how many children whose primary residence is with gay parents which parents want them baptized and the kids too want to be baptized and are not already baptized?  Church-wide?  Probably less than I can count on my two hands.  So a whole policy change to outline rules for less than 10 cases with the stipulation that any one of those ten cases can go against the policy anyway if local leaders decide to?

Sorry, the policy, in effect, becomes useless at this point.  It was already true that any one of the local leaders for those 10 cases throughout the world could have made their own determination for any particular instance.  Including all of the clarifications that came after the policy, the policy was ill-conceived at best and/or nothing but an attempt to hurt gay people and their supporters associated with the Church. 

The policy helped those leaders who were asking the questions (I hearken back to the early communications about it). Just because you think they may have been few doesn't mean they are moot. Is that what you tell all the few-in-numbers? The motivations for the policy were also communicated, that you take them as an attempt to hurt is more a reflection of what you would do to others than what others would do to others, which is as much a scrambling of the the Golden Rule as your scrambling of the Church's motives!

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree. I've read the article at the link Scott posted (and also the additional letter linked to in the article).  The exceptions are for those in joint custody situations or for those who were already baptized (ie. receiving and advancing in the Priesthood).  There was quite the uproar (after the policy was leaked) from parents in joint custody situations who had been told their child wouldn't be allowed baptism or priesthood ordinations, etc.

The whole thing is a mess and I also feel that if all kinds of exceptions are going to be made (we'll see if this happens), the policy is a moot point.

Funny how we have 22 pages of mootness!

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  What was it, a couple of days after the policy change was leaked, as they say, Elder Christofferson was out there trying to explain it.  Then, a week after that the Church offered a clarification that really back-tracked?  All those children who were already baptized and had a gay parent the clarification said, "provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld".  And some months later we have more from President Nelson. 

Really a pretty big mess if you think about it.  It seems like they thought the policy would go unnoticed or something and no one would complain at all.  Not a fine moment from the Church. 

Yes, lots of quick damage control that didn't go that well, IMO. 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The policy helped those leaders who were asking the questions (I hearken back to the early communications about it). Just because you think they may have been few doesn't mean they are moot. Is that what you tell all the few-in-numbers? The motivations for the policy were also communicated, that you take them as an attempt to hurt is more a reflection of what you would do to others than what others would do to others, which is as much a scrambling of the the Golden Rule as your scrambling of the Church's motives!

Are you saying the Church was getting inundated by leaders who were asking what to do with kids whose primary residence was with gay parents which parents wanted them to be baptized? 

I stand by my reasoning regarding being a moot point.  If questions came from leaders, I'd wager not very many of them, if any, fit within the tight window of cases wherein the policy with it's clarifications even address.  That would make, as I said, the policy ill-conceived, at best. 

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, Paloma said:

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!)

 

First, there is no doubt that the Canaanite woman was demonstrating her extreme faith and this faith was acknowledged.  Second, you are doing a great deal of making assumptions about Jesus' thinking, his words, and his actions simply bowing to the cultural norms of the day.  It is possible, but I find it a weak foundation.

Jesus was clear in several places that he came to the House of Israel, God's covenant people.  He did not come to teach the world, but to the Jews.  It was not until later that he commanded the apostles to go into all the world to teach repentance and to be baptized.  

God, the Godhead, Jesus respond to faith regardless of who demonstrates it.  If we have faith they will respond.  

That does not negate the fact that Jesus knew his mission and recognized his covenant people first and last.  It was for this reason that those not of the covenant were called dogs and that he was not for them at the moment.  The woman showed her humility and her faith, which I think forced Jesus' action to respond with a miracle toward the woman's daughter.  

In reading the reviews of scholars most will recognize your words about the woman, but I don't know of any (the three I have read) support your position about Jesus.  It is not that you are incorrect, but that your timing is off.  

[Paloma]

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

 

 

Sorry that I can't seem to quote your response to me, Storm Rider.

I certainly agree with you that the time had not yet come for Jesus' wider ministry to the world to be fully communicated, understood and enacted, and I think that is the story of Acts in the Bible.

However, I don't see Jesus ever ignoring those beyond Judaism who came to Him in faith, and love to see all the glimpses of this in His ministry, whether they be the Canaanite woman (as in this passage), the Samaritan woman, or the Roman centurion ... and there are probably others that don't come to my mind at the moment.

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  And if I think about it, it really makes the policy a moot point, other than an effort to get a dig at gay people and their supporters.  how many children whose primary residence is with gay parents which parents want them baptized and the kids too want to be baptized and are not already baptized?  Church-wide?  Probably less than I can count on my two hands.  So a whole policy change to outline rules for less than 10 cases with the stipulation that any one of those ten cases can go against the policy anyway if local leaders decide to?

Sorry, the policy, in effect, becomes useless at this point.  It was already true that any one of the local leaders for those 10 cases throughout the world could have made their own determination for any particular instance.  Including all of the clarifications that came after the policy, the policy was ill-conceived at best and/or nothing but an attempt to hurt gay people and their supporters associated with the Church. 

It's not a moot point, nor is it useless. Local leaders are expected to follow the guidelines unless there are unusual or extenuating circumstances, at which time they are to raise the question with higher authorities. They are not to ignore the guidelines willy-nilly on their own initiative. That would be abusing the process or defying direction. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a moot point, nor is it useless. Local leaders are expected to follow the guidelines unless there are unusual or extenuating circumstances, at which time they are to raise the question with higher authorities. They are not to ignore the guidelines willy-nilly on their own initiative. That would be abusing the process. 

Of course it's a moot point to create a policy wherein there are so few possible cases and each of those cases would likely result in local leaders not following the policy; because let's face it, it is likely any particularly instance wherein a child who lives primarily with gay parents, whose parents support him for baptism, who hasn't already been baptized, will have every reason in the book for a local leader to decide against the policy. 

Show me an instance wherein this policy is followed including all of it's added explanation, and the local leader does not decide to go ahead with baptism. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Are you saying the Church was getting inundated by leaders who were asking what to do with kids whose primary residence was with gay parents which parents wanted them to be baptized? 

I stand by my reasoning regarding being a moot point.  If questions came from leaders, I'd wager not very many of them, if any, fit within the tight window of cases wherein the policy with it's clarifications even address.  That would make, as I said, the policy ill-conceived, at best. 

I think the Church was responding to a rash of faultfinding that emerged in public media, not all of it sincere (by that I mean some may have been pretending to be defending theoretical children but in actuality were angry that homosexual marriage was being defined as grounds for excommunication). 

I doubt that any cases were occurring where children were affected. I still doubt it. Thus far I've not heard of a single one. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the Church was responding to a rash of faultfinding that emerged in public media, not all of it sincere (by that I mean some may have been pretending to be defending theoretical children but in actuality were angry that homosexual marriage was being defined as grounds for excommunication). 

I doubt that any cases were occurring where children were affected. I still doubt it. Thus far I've not heard of a single one. 

There were several real cases where the child's baptism or ordination in the priesthood was planned within a week or a few weeks after the policy was leaked, where these families were told those would not be allowed to happen now.  Those were just some of the very real questions being asked.  It was good that the leaders clarified there would be exceptions made for those children involved in a joint custody situation or who were already baptized members.

.

Edited September 15, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course it's a moot point to create a policy wherein there are so few possible cases and each of those cases would likely result in local leaders not following the policy; because let's face it, it is likely any particularly instance wherein a child who lives primarily with gay parents, whose parents support him for baptism, who hasn't already been baptized, will have every reason in the book for a local leader to decide against the policy. 

Show me an instance wherein this policy is followed including all of it's added explanation, and the local leader does not decide to go ahead with baptism. 

Just because there may not have been any cases yet does not mean there could not be some in the future. As I've already stated, I believe the policy was instigated to head off future problems. For all we know it may have already done so by dissuading people in gay marriages from demanding baby blessings or baptism for the children in their custody. 

And as I've already said, a local leader is not to decide on his own to make an exception to the policy. He is to raise the matter with higher authority and follow the direction he is given. I should think his failure to do so would be viewed as a serious matter resulting, at the very least, in an immediate release from his calling. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just because there may not have been any cases yet does not mean there could not be some in the future. As I've already stated, I believe the policy was instigated to head off future problems. For all we know it may have already done so by dissuading people in gay marriages to demand baby blessings or baptism for the children in their custody. 

Ok, well.  When the policy is used, let me know.  As of now, all I can surmise is, it isn't used at all, and there is no purpose to it.  It's effect is pointless, and the only thing that has come of it is hurt feelings. 

if fifty years down the road the Church has not dealt better with gay families, well, then the Church will be in big trouble.  This policy won't matter at all by then because no one associated with gay families will have any desire to be a part of the Church. 

[Peppermint Patty]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 For all we know it may have already done so by dissuading people in gay marriages to demand baby blessings or baptism for the children in their custody. 

If this policy was crafted to dissuade people from wanting baby blessings or wanting children in their custody to be baptized, then I'm pretty sure the Savior would take issue.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Peppermint Patty

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the Church was responding to a rash of faultfinding that emerged in public media, not all of it sincere (by that I mean some may have been pretending to be defending theoretical children but in actuality were angry that homosexual marriage was being defined as grounds for excommunication). 

I doubt that any cases were occurring where children were affected. I still doubt it. Thus far I've not heard of a single one. 

Me neither.  But if that's the case, what's the point of the policy change at all?  if your explanation has merit then it feels like the policy change came in order to make a point to those who support gay rights, or are gay.  I'd agree with that.  As I said, the policy hasn't done one thing aside from create and fan the flames of bad feelings. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is what I was recalling but couldn't put my finger on it -- thank you!

Glad to have helped. 

This strikes me as common sense and self-evident for anyone acquainted with Church leadership patterns. 

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

If this policy was crafted to dissuade people from wanting baby blessings or wanting children in their custody to be baptized, then I'm pretty sure the Savior would take issue.

So true.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

If this policy was crafted to dissuade people from wanting baby blessings or wanting children in their custody to be baptized, then I'm pretty sure the Savior would take issue.

Since anointed servants of God were acting under revelation from the Savior when they instigated the policy in the first place, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Me neither.  But if that's the case, what's the point of the policy change at all?  if your explanation has merit then it feels like the policy change came in order to make a point to those who support gay rights, or are gay.  I'd agree with that.  As I said, the policy hasn't done one thing aside from create and fan the flames of bad feelings. 

Asked and answered. The purpose of the policy is to preclude any future tug-of-war involving innocent children between the Church of Jesus Christ on the one hand and individuals who have chosen to live their lives at odds with the clear teachings of the Church on the other. 

See the link I cited to the statement by Michael Otterson. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd