Apparently new policy is no longer

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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:

 

No backtracking; no capitulating.

In fact, if you read Sky's post more clearly, the brother said they actually put Elder's Nelson's quote in a different seminary manual. In other words, President Nelson's "revelatory" language is still being taught to seminary students they just moved it to a place where it would fit better and be less controversial. 

Hardly backtracking; hardly capitulating.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

The church requires couples living together to be married before being baptized. I know no such who attend regularly but if they exist, they are in the same category.

Hate was too strong a word I admit that.

If I had chosen a lifestyle of remaining unmarried while fathering children I would never allow my children to attend our church.

Being gay is not a chosen lifestyle but having children while being gay is a chosen lifestyle.

I cannot fail them the idea of sending my children to a church which opposes a lifestyle which I have freely chosen.

It would be like a conservative sending their children to a communist School. Why would anyone do that?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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

Is anyone aside from he who is quoted by Sky saying the Church is backtracking or capitulating?  I think a few of us have said something like, "it might be that the Church will do away with the policy".  But it was some guy who apparently knew who suggested they took the story about Pres Nelson out because it would cause contention.

[CV75]

1 hour 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.

While the bishop’s judgement might be questioned, I do see a difference policy-wise between your situation and that of a child raised by a gay parent or couple: the practical hope based in our doctrine that your parents could turn things around and get married according to the tenets and definition of Mormonism. I think it wise not to place a child in a dilemma where he cannot even hope to see his parents married, and wait until he is of age to commit to baptism and disavow ssm. I think it both realistic and wonderful that the Church recognizes adult relationships as otherwise fairly stable and evolving for the best outcome (given their standing in the Church) for the sake of the child’s home and upbringing.

To paraphrase mfb, “Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents [are in, and have placed their children in, a hopeless situation] is beyond me.”

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

No backtracking; no capitulating.

In fact, if you read Sky's post more clearly, the brother said they actually put Elder's Nelson's quote in a different seminary manual. In other words, President Nelson's "revelatory" language is still being taught to seminary students they just moved it to a place where it would fit better and be less controversial. 

Hardly backtracking; hardly capitulating.

So it's in the D&C seminary manual but not the which one?  I suppose I got which manual we were talking about confused.  I dont' know why it's not capitulating to those who disagree if they took it out because of the controversy.  But if you don't see that as capitulating, so be it.  I'm not sure it matters if there is any backtracking or capitulating (even if it seems clear there was some capitulating to me). 

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The church requires couples living together to be married before being baptized. I know no such who attend regularly but if they exist, they are in the same category.

Hate was too strong a word I admit that.

If I had chosen a lifestyle of remaining unmarried while fathering children I would never allow my children to attend our church.

Being gay is not a chosen lifestyle but having children while being gay is a chosen lifestyle.

I cannot fail them the idea of sending my children to a church which opposes a lifestyle which I have freely chosen.

It would be like a conservative sending their children to a communist School. Why would anyone do that?

They would have to hate their children...

[mfbukowski]

1 hour 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.

Thanks.

Sorry you had to go through that.

You were blessed that they turned it around but gay couples are not in that situation.

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So it's in the D&C seminary manual but not the which one?  I suppose I got which manual we were talking about confused.  I dont' know why it's not capitulating to those who disagree if they took it out because of the controversy.  But if you don't see that as capitulating, so be it.  I'm not sure it matters if there is any backtracking or capitulating (even if it seems clear there was some capitulating to me). 

It used to be here:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-core-document/doctrinal-topics?lang=eng

in the Prophets and Revelation section. They moved it to the D&C Student Manual, as I understand it. I cannot see it in there as of yet (again this information is based on the report provided in Sky's post).

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

No backtracking; no capitulating.

In fact, if you read Sky's post more clearly, the brother said they actually put Elder's Nelson's quote in a different seminary manual. In other words, President Nelson's "revelatory" language is still being taught to seminary students they just moved it to a place where it would fit better and be less controversial. 

Hardly backtracking; hardly capitulating.

We'll have to see if it's (still) there when we get to the D&C year of seminary.

What's interesting from Sky's post is the acknowledgement that it the policy could be a source of contention among seminary students and teachers.

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, rockpond said:

We'll have to see if it's (still) there when we get to the D&C year of seminary.

What's interesting from Sky's post is the acknowledgement that it the policy could be a source of contention among seminary students and teachers.

I suppose...but I am not sure that's any more interesting then saying water is wet. We live in the end of times where homosexuality was prophesied to be embraced and practiced. I am not sure it is interesting to note that some LDS haven been beguiled by trends of the time and find the Church's current teachings as controversial.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

It used to be here:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-core-document/doctrinal-topics?lang=eng

in the Prophets and Revelation section. They moved it to the D&C Student Manual, as I understand it. I cannot see it in there as of yet (again this information is based on the report provided in Sky's post).

It'll be interesting to see what happens.  If it was too controversial today, what will make it less so when the D&C manual is to come out? 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

We live in the end of times where homosexuality was prophesied to be embraced and practiced.

What prophecies do you have in mind?

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, stemelbow said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens.  If it was too controversial today, what will make it less so when the D&C manual is to come out? 

I don't think its a matter of time, so much as it is a matter of context. Just like my example above was not the appropriate place for President Obama to make the race comments he did, I think they are saying they found a better context to use President Nelson's statement. If you read the section it used to be in, it would feel a little bit pigeon holed to include it there.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I suppose...but I am not sure that's any more interesting then saying water is wet. We live in the end of times where homosexuality was prophesied to be embraced and practiced. I am not sure it is interesting to note that some LDS haven been beguiled by trends of the time and find the Church's current teachings as controversial.

Oh, it's far more interesting than wet water.

If we can't get the next generation on board with the Church's treatment of our LGBT brothers and sisters, we'll have to face some tough choices.

"Beguiled by the trends of the time"  Funny.  Insulting.  But also funny.

[stemelbow]

Just now, Mystery Meat said:

I don't think its a matter of time, so much as it is a matter of context. Just like my example above was not the appropriate place for President Obama to make the race comments he did, I think they are saying they found a better context to use President Nelson's statement. If you read the section it used to be in, it would feel a little bit pigeon holed to include it there.

Interesting.  What context will make it less controversial?  What if he's wrong about it not being controversial in the D&C?  Will they too take it out of that?  I guess we'll see. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens.  If it was too controversial today, what will make it less so when the D&C manual is to come out? 

Yeah... unlikely to be any less controversial.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't think its a matter of time, so much as it is a matter of context. Just like my example above was not the appropriate place for President Obama to make the race comments he did, I think they are saying they found a better context to use President Nelson's statement. If you read the section it used to be in, it would feel a little bit pigeon holed to include it there.

Hmmm... I don't think that the problem with the policy and claimed revelation is a contextual issue.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting.  What context will make it less controversial?  What if he's wrong about it not being controversial in the D&C?  Will they too take it out of that?  I guess we'll see. 

Until there is a second witness to the policy as revelation from God, such a claim ought to be left out of all manuals.

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What prophecies do you have in mind?

 

2 Timothy 3

 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,unthankful, unholy,

 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

 

2 Timothy 3

 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,unthankful, unholy,

 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Telling a gay person to live a celibate life is telling them to turn away from their natural affection.

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, rockpond said:

Telling a gay person to live a celibate life is telling them to turn away from their natural affection.

No, its telling them to turn away from the "Natural Man."

[Mystery Meat]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Oh, it's far more interesting than wet water.

If we can't get the next generation on board with the Church's treatment of our LGBT brothers and sisters, we'll have to face some tough choices.

"Beguiled by the trends of the time"  Funny.  Insulting.  But also funny.

If we can't get the next generation on board, they (the next generation) will have to make some tough choices. In that, I agree. As for the Church, picking eternal truth is always an easy decision.

[Jeanne]

If this is going to be  in the end an actual revelation..please don't keep this from the teens.  Some of us have been there and done that already with things we were kept in the dark about.  Let's not repeat it. 

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting.  What context will make it less controversial?  What if he's wrong about it not being controversial in the D&C?  Will they too take it out of that?  I guess we'll see. 

It will be interesting to see if it is removed from that manual as well.  If it is left in, it will then be interesting to see if they get the same backlash or reaction that they received with this manual.

This next generation is much more accepting of their gay friends and gay marriage (from what I've seen with discussions in our ward).  This isn't just with the youth in our church, but with youth in general now.  So, this topic will not be well received by many of the youth (and also some of their parents aren't happy about this new policy either).   Looks like the leaders are wisely treading lightly here regarding this issue.

.

Edited September 8, 2016 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 “Why anyone would want their children to be taught that their parents [are in, and have placed their children in, a hopeless situation] is beyond me.”

I like your addition

When these topics arise, I think that is the exact phrase we who understand the church policy, need to trumpet from the housetops

With that perspective, I just cannot understand why others don't see this as totally obvious.