Apparently new policy is no longer

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Well when that goes into effect, let us know. 

I'll be curious though if sometime down the road whenever this policy actually takes affect (as in we have some cases in practice that this policy applies to) there is some tug-of-war (not sure what that would mean) between the Church and gay parents, would this policy have been effective?  If not, then the policy, in this way too, becomes useless.   

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

The policy is already useful in that it clearly identifies entering into gay "marriage" as an act of apostasy. This direction was necessitated by the Obergefell decision of last year. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well when that goes into effect, let us know. 

I'll be curious though if sometime down the road whenever this policy actually takes affect (as in we have some cases in practice that this policy applies to) there is some tug-of-war (not sure what that would mean) between the Church and gay parents, would this policy have been effective?  If not, then the policy, in this way too, becomes useless.   

Hopefully the leaders will realize what a horrible idea it was to even attempt to implement this policy and it'll be removed.  I believe this will happen eventually (or it'll just be ignored and not followed).  It's been a PR nightmare for the church so far (and rightly so).

Edited September 15, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well when that goes into effect, let us know. 

I'll be curious though if sometime down the road whenever this policy actually takes affect (as in we have some cases in practice that this policy applies to) there is some tug-of-war (not sure what that would mean) between the Church and gay parents, would this policy have been effective?  If not, then the policy, in this way too, becomes useless.   

What do you mean by "when it goes into effect"? It's already in effect. It covers any future cases that might occur that it addresses. It standardizes the action that local leaders must take if anything of this nature should arise in the future. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The policy is already useful in that it clearly identifies entering into gay "marriage" as an act of apostasy. This direction was necessitated by the Obergefell decision of last year. 

Fair enough. The one part has a purpose.  Even if I disagree with that. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What do you mean by "when it goes into effect"? It's already in effect. It covers any future cases that might occur that it addresses. It standardizes the action that local leaders must take if anything if this nature should arise in the future. 

I mean when there is a case out there of a child whose circumstances demand the implementation of this policy and the local leader doesn't decide against the policy. 

But I get ya.  Thanks. 

[Teancum]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

a priori assumptions.  You have no evidence of your bold proclamations above.  It is no more valid than someone who does not believe these men receive revelations from Jesus saying they are pretty sure you are wrong.

Such comments do little to foster discussions.  But this it typical.

[Teancum]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

No it's not. This is the PR position. The real reason is the Church cannot send a message to its active members that homosexual marriage is ok.  Thus the restriction on the children and the required repudiation. This is similar to the approach the church takes on plural marriage families (which in and of itself is ironic).  It was not about the children. It was about showing a heavy hand to the members that the Church would not tolerate plural marriage or sympathy towards it. 

 

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

Has there ever been a case -- even before the Nov. Policy -- where a custodial parent who had entered into gay marriage had requested that his/her child be baptized? 

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Has there ever been a case -- even before the Nov. Policy -- where a custodial parent who had entered into gay marriage had requested that his/her child be baptized? 

I can't answer that question other than to say "I don't know".

My response that you quoted was in reply to Scott stating that he doubted if any children had been affected prior to the church releasing a clarification.  He was wrong because children in joint custody situations were being affected.

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Come on Scott.  That's a pretty huge assumption not in evidence, even for you.
I do sustain our leaders, but there has been no evidence provided that the Savior said anything on the subject.  Even if I believe Pres. Nelson's claim of revelation, there is no evidence the Savior had anything to do with it.
IF it was a revelation it was almost certainly a Holy Ghost feeling of confirmation.  No evidence that this was like Lorenzo Snow being instructed by Christ to form a new First Presidency.

Not even the accounts of OD2 being received feature the Savior - just the manifestation of the HG.  I'd be surprised if this even reached that level of clarity.

Edited September 15, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ksfisher]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Come on Scott.  That's a pretty huge assumption not in evidence, even for you.
I do sustain our leaders, but there has been no evidence provided that the Savior said anything on the subject.  Even if I believe Pres. Nelson's claim of revelation, there is no evidence the Savior had anything to do with it.
IF it was a revelation it was almost certainly a Holy Ghost feeling of confirmation.  No evidence that this was like Lorenzo Snow being instructed by Christ to form a new First Presidency.

Not even the accounts of OD2 being received feature the Savior - just the manifestation of the HG.  I'd be surprised if this even reached that level of clarity.

I find your call for evidence strange.  What evidence do we have that God the Father and His Son appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove?  What evidence do we have, to cite your example, that the Savior did appear to Lorenzo Snow?  What evidence do we have that many of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants really did come from God?

For all of these examples we have only the word of one person. 

Paul teaches us that in this life we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7).  I have faith that the Lord speaks to us today through His prophets, seers, and revelators. 

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I find your call for evidence strange.  What evidence do we have that God the Father and His Son appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove?  What evidence do we have, to cite your example, that the Savior did appear to Lorenzo Snow?  What evidence do we have that many of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants really did come from God?

For all of these examples we have only the word of one person. 

Paul teaches us that in this life we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7).  I have faith that the Lord speaks to us today through His prophets, seers, and revelators. 

Well a statement from our living Prophet, President Monson, would be nice to hear when he receives a revelation.  So far though, he's been silent on the topic (at least in making any type of public statement).

.

Edited September 15, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well a statement from our living Prophet, President Monson, would be nice to hear when he receives a revelation.  So far though, he's been silent on the topic.

I doubt that even that would be good enough for some.

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I find your call for evidence strange.  What evidence do we have that God the Father and His Son appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove?  What evidence do we have, to cite your example, that the Savior did appear to Lorenzo Snow?  What evidence do we have that many of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants really did come from God?

For all of these examples we have only the word of one person.

Paul teaches us that in this life we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7).  I have faith that the Lord speaks to us today through His prophets, seers, and revelators.

I'd settle for the evidence of one person's testimony.
Which of the prophets of our dispensation stated that they received direct instruction from Jesus Christ himself?  Joseph did.  Lorenzo Snow did.

If President Monson were to state that he had spent the night with the Lord I think a large number of members would think he was going senile.  Just my opinion.
 

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I doubt that even that would be good enough for some.

True.
Every time a GA even hints that something came by revelation the skeptic members get all up in arms.

Personally I'd take it more on faith that they actually received a revelation if we had the revelation presented.  Taking the GA's word that the feelings they felt after praying came from God is hardly going to carry the same weight as reading let's say D&C 121 for example.
Imagine if the prophets and apostles had never recorded their revelations in history as they do today.  We'd have no standard works at all.

[CV75]

8 hours 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. 

Inundated? It is hard to for me to carry on a conversation with a hyperbolist. And standing by your “reasoning” hasn’t much to do with the purpose of dialogue as far as I’m concerned.

It doesn’t take an inundation to call for a policy. The early communications on the policy noted that among other things in the evolving social environment, questions on how to deal with it had been asked. If you want to discuss these communications, please pull them out and I’ll be happy to engage, but not with hyperbole.

And policy management involves making exceptions as extenuating circumstances present themselves. A confluence of hyperbole and rigidity don’t get too far.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Come on Scott.  That's a pretty huge assumption not in evidence, even for you.
I do sustain our leaders, but there has been no evidence provided that the Savior said anything on the subject.  Even if I believe Pres. Nelson's claim of revelation, there is no evidence the Savior had anything to do with it.
IF it was a revelation it was almost certainly a Holy Ghost feeling of confirmation.  No evidence that this was like Lorenzo Snow being instructed by Christ to form a new First Presidency.

Not even the accounts of OD2 being received feature the Savior - just the manifestation of the HG.  I'd be surprised if this even reached that level of clarity.

To me, President Nelson's eyewitness affirmation as a participant in the process constitutes significant evidence. It is not an assumption. It is a direct declaration made in a public place.

Quote

I do sustain our leaders, but there has been no evidence provided that the Savior said anything on the subject.  Even if I believe Pres. Nelson's claim of revelation, there is no evidence the Savior had anything to do with it.

This is a weird statement. Who would divine revelation be coming from, if not the Savior?

Edited September 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

No it's not. This is the PR position. The real reason is the Church cannot send a message to its active members that homosexual marriage is ok.  Thus the restriction on the children and the required repudiation. This is similar to the approach the church takes on plural marriage families (which in and of itself is ironic).  It was not about the children. It was about showing a heavy hand to the members that the Church would not tolerate plural marriage or sympathy towards it. 

 

There probably isome truth to this.  Why initiate a policy that addresses a very small handful and suffer a lot of bad PR and internal problems in the Church?  I just don't see what the Church gained from it.  Just address each individual case when it came up.   The Church does not have to do this to show that its against gay marriage.   Lots of other churches are against gay marriage and not taking this route and they don't need to.  For me, the policy does not bother me too much as I am not gay nor do I even know anyone personally who this affects.  However is someone asked me to defend the position by the Church I could not defend it.  There too many unanswered questions and I think the Church in the long run will suffer more negatives from it than any positives that might come.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Inundated? It is hard to for me to carry on a conversation with a hyperbolist. And standing by your “reasoning” hasn’t much to do with the purpose of dialogue as far as I’m concerned.

 

It doesn’t take an inundation to call for a policy. The early communications on the policy noted that among other things in the evolving social environment, questions on how to deal with it had been asked. If you want to discuss these communications, please pull them out and I’ll be happy to engage, but not with hyperbole.

 

And policy management involves making exceptions as extenuating circumstances present themselves. A confluence of hyperbole and rigidity don’t get too far.

 

I get ya.  Sorry for the word choice.  I agree it was too strong.  How about any news on such communication at all? 

[california boy]

Interesting how differently other churches are dealing with this issue.

 

Quote

 

Archbishop of Wales: Sex Between Gay People in Committed Relationships is Perfectly ‘Proper’

“What all this shows is that within the Scriptures themselves, there are radical shifts in understanding in what it means to discern the will of God. It absolutely will not do to quote texts from parts of the Bible in a simplistic way without reference to their contexts, said Morgan.

“What all this amounts to is that one cannot argue that there is one accepted traditional way of interpreting Scripture that is true and orthodox and all else is modern revisionism, culturally conditioned. Scripture itself is diverse and theological views held in some biblical books are reshaped in the light of experience by other writers….

“So taking the Bible as a whole and taking what it says very seriously may lead us into a very different view of same-sex relationships than the one traditionally upheld by the Church…..

“Given that each of the passages purported to be about homosexuality can be interpreted in more than one way, we come to the fundamental question as to whether taking the Bible as a whole, we can come to the same conclusions about committed, faithful, loving, same-sex relationships as we did about slavery.

“We are not thereby abandoning the Bible but trying to interpret it in a way that is consistent with the main thrust of the ministry of Jesus, who went out of His way to minister to those who were excluded, marginalised, and abandoned by His society because they were regarded as impure and unholy by the religious leaders of His day, either because of their gender, age, morality or sexuality. Taking Holy Scripture seriously means paying attention to Jesus’ ministry of inclusivity.”

 

 

 

I am not suggesting that the Mormon church adopt the same view.  I am only presenting how another church is dealing with the same issue and their justification for doing so.  They feel they are not abandoning the scriptures but are trying to interpret in a way that is more consistent with the teachings of Christ.  I realize the Mormon church believes it speaks to Christ directly about these issues.  Or at least some do.  

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

There probably isome truth to this.  Why initiate a policy that addresses a very small handful and suffer a lot of bad PR and internal problems in the Church?  I just don't see what the Church gained from it.  Just address each individual case when it came up.   The Church does not have to do this to show that its against gay marriage.   Lots of other churches are against gay marriage and not taking this route and they don't need to.  For me, the policy does not bother me too much as I am not gay nor do I even know anyone personally who this affects.  However is someone asked me to defend the position by the Church I could not defend it.  There too many unanswered questions and I think the Church in the long run will suffer more negatives from it than any positives that might come.

The policy is fundamentally an internal guideline to aid priesthood leaders and was never intended as a public proclamation. It ensures uniformity in how local-level Church leaders deal with these cases (members entering into gay "marriages" and the resulting domestic consequences) by providing the leaders with guidance. It precludes the propensity for "leadership roulette" that apostates and other critics are wont to complain about. I personally can justify it for that reason alone.

And at the end of the day, the policy did not alter the existing doctrine and position of the Church one iota, though it no doubt frustrated some individuals who had been engaging in wishful thinking that the Church would be knuckling under to social pressure.

If you have trouble defending it, perhaps it would be useful for you to read (or review, if you have already read them) the statements from general Church leaders and Public Affairs staff addressing some of the questions and criticisms.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

... though it no doubt frustrated some individuals who had been engaging in wishful thinking that the Church would be knuckling under to social pressure.

Many of us believe that the full acceptance of our LGBT brothers and sisters (including their marriages) is not a matter of "social pressure" but a principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I had a dialogue with you much earlier in the thread in which I worked to understand your thoughts on this policy.  And I believe I do now understand and respect your position.  I hope you'll grant that same courtesy to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Many of us believe that the full acceptance of our LGBT brothers and sisters (including their marriages) is not a matter of "social pressure" but a principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I had a dialogue with you much earlier in the thread in which I worked to understand your thoughts on this policy.  And I believe I do now understand and respect your position.  I hope you'll grant that same courtesy to me.

I won't beat you up over it, but I honestly can't entertain the thought that what you call "full acceptance" could ever transpire given that the teachings of the prophets and the apostles has been so clear and consistent on this matter.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I won't beat you up over it, but I honestly can't entertain the thought that what you call "full acceptance" could ever transpire give that the teachings of the prophets and the apostles has been so clear and consistent on this matter.

I understand you feel/believe that way.  I'm asking that you understand that it is not an issue of "social pressure" but of gospel principle for me.  I'm tired of the constant comments implying people like me want the church to cave to social pressure.  I NEVER want the church to cave into outside pressure.  Never.