The November policy change was reaffirmed as revelation in the Oct. Ensign

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And after I've gone to the Lord for confirmation and the answer is that it is not revelation?

If not..what would one mean by studying it out in your mind and with prayer..why do this if the confirmation is only right for others?  I believe any individual inside and outside the church can go to our Heavenly Father with a sincere heart and have a personal conversation that will relate an answer to our questions or at least quite our thoughts. If not this would make prayer of no use and I can't see that.  You have only done what you have been asked to do.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

I think it'll be a different criticism coming from the voices within the general membership.  Not even a large minority, but they'll be the loudest and harshest IMO.

I am not suggesting that there won't be significant criticism or pressure.  Likely more than we have received for a hundred years or whenever they started seating Utahn senators and we became seen as an odd, but conservative part of American society.  I just think suggesting the future will make any past "pressure" look like a Sunday picnic given that people were jailed, families lost their homes or were even torn apart by the government's actions, and many died makes that suggestion unrealistic.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

What is the momentum with the Catholic Church under Pope Francis? They are feeling the heat, too.

They will have to build a lot more jails if they start throwing ministers and members who reject gay marriage into jail, given the number of Catholics, Protestants who have not altered their teachings, and various other religious organizations that publicly refuse acceptance.  LDS will be a small percentage of the group and while highly visible, how can the government justify singling us out?  It won't be manageable imo and to take it to that extreme (jailing, killings) will turn public opinion as we would become martyrs.

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not suggesting that there won't be significant criticism or pressure.  Likely more than we have received for a hundred years or whenever we became seen as an odd, but conservative part of American society.  I just think suggesting the future will make any past "pressure" look like a Sunday picnic given that people were jailed, families lost their homes or were even torn apart by the government's actions, and many died makes that suggestion unrealistic.

Right.  Although I've seen something interesting lately.  People from others Faiths who see their own leadership capitulate are now looking for places that are "steadfast"...I've heard the Mormons mentioned more than a couple times from them as possible alternatives. People want standards, whether they realize it or not. 

We may have to give up BYU football over this.  But seriously, who cares? 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

They will have to build a lot more jails if they start throwing ministers and members who reject gay marriage into jail, given the number of Catholics, Protestants who have not altered their teachings, and various other religious organizations that publicly refuse acceptance.  LDS will be a small percentage of the group and while highly visible, how can the government justify singling us out?  It won't be manageable imo and to take it to that extreme (jailing, killings) will turn public opinion as we would become martyrs.

Maybe you're right, and we have nothing at all to worry about. 

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR.

 

Handbook 1

 

16.3.9

Children Whose Parents Have Practiced or Are Practicing Plural Marriage Children of parents who have practiced or are practicing plural marriage contrary to the law must receive approval from the First Presidency before they may be baptized and confirmed. The mission president may request this approval from the Office of the First Presidency when he is satisfied that all three of the following requirements are met: 1.  The children accept the teachings and doctrines of the Church. 2.  The children repudiate the teachings upon which their parents based their practice of plural marriage. 3.  Minor children are not living in a home where polygamy is being taught or practiced.

Edited October 1, 2016 by rockpond
added the text from the handbook

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

"Some revelations are of God, some are of men, and some are of the devil."

I know that some today argue that David Whitmer misquoted Joseph Smith on this, but I don't think he did. At least I don't have a problem with the above quote, because I find it to be true to life. 

Or, said another way:

 

 

So, if you've taken this to God, and feel that you have received revelation on this, then you must next determine whether your revelation could be "your own spirit moved very much" and you "imagined that it was the Spirit of God." Are you sure that you accurately discerned "the suggestions of your own spirit and the voice of the Spirit of God?" 

If you can honestly answer that to you it was definitely God and not your own predilection, then you need to decide what you do with that. Has God told you that the Church is false, then, since he has revealed the truth to you and not to his apostles? 

What you do with that is your decision to make. You are discussing, by and large, with people here whose spiritual determinations are the exact opposite as yours. 

The answer is that they make mistakes.  And this particular one has not been verified (by a second witness) to have been revealed of God as His will.  I sustain these Brethren and hope that we'll get out of the current hole we are in... together.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Maybe you're right, and we have nothing at all to worry about. 

That is rather an overstatement of my position.  I don't think hyperbole is helpful, whether it is suggesting pressure of the level of destruction of families (as opposed to disapproval of their formation) and deaths as a result of persecution will be seen as a "Sunday Picnic" (about the only thing of that level would be torture and genocide imo) or protraying lesser concern as no concern at all.

What are you trying to achieve by implying my position is so dismissive of any concern rather than focusing on what I believe is an significant overstatement?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Handbook 1

 

16.3.9

Children Whose Parents Have Practiced or Are Practicing Plural Marriage Children of parents who have practiced or are practicing plural marriage contrary to the law must receive approval from the First Presidency before they may be baptized and confirmed. The mission president may request this approval from the Office of the First Presidency when he is satisfied that all three of the following requirements are met: 1.  The children accept the teachings and doctrines of the Church. 2.  The children repudiate the teachings upon which their parents based their practice of plural marriage. 3.  Minor children are not living in a home where polygamy is being taught or practiced.

Call me obtuse, but I don't see a lot of difference between this and the policy vis a vis children in homes where parents are engaged in homsexual behavior, including gay "marriage."

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

What are you trying to achieve by implying my position is so dismissive of any concern rather than focusing on what I believe is an significant overstatement?

What am I trying to achieve? Simply expressing my opinion. To me, it isn't extreme. I can see why you think that it is, and that's okay, too.

What consequences do you think the Church or Church institutions (schools, etc.) will realistically face? If not the draconian, glass half-empty ones I foresee, what exactly do you think will/might happen?

Do you think we have anything to worry about at all?

Edited October 1, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Call me obtuse, but I don't see a lot of difference between this and the policy vis a vis children in homes where parents are engaged in homsexual behavior, including gay "marriage."

The difference is that COPs (children of polygamy) can be baptized before they are 18. Rare and difficult, but possible. In the US, this includes an interview with an apostle (I have had ward members that have been through this). 

[Calm]

And I don't see anything that says something specific to areas where it is legal...though it certainly could be inferred.  I have heard baptism is delayed and families told not to be dismantled in areas where polygamy is legal (reported by members living there, not anything official or that I can link to, sorry), have not heard of children being allowed a go ahead when parents are not, nor anyone bringing this actually happening up as evidence when this correlation between the policies was brought up, whichwould surprise me if it was happening.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The answer is that they make mistakes.  

You can't authoritatively say that this is "the answer." Your answer, yes. 

From another perspective, you are the one making a mistake, and have not accurately discerned your answer.

Both can't be right. One of us is wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Right.  Although I've seen something interesting lately.  People from others Faiths who see their own leadership capitulate are now looking for places that are "steadfast"...I've heard the Mormons mentioned more than a couple times from them as possible alternatives. People want standards, whether they realize it or not. 

We may have to give up BYU football over this.  But seriously, who cares? 

If people can accept the Word of Wisdom, tithing, three-Sunday meeting blocks and fasting once a month, surely they can come to tolerate if not aaccept BYU football.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

The difference is that COPs (children of polygamy) can be baptized before they are 18. Rare and difficult, but possible. In the US, this includes an interview with an apostle (I have had ward members that have been through this). 

"Rare and difficult" being the operative terms. Those qualifiers could be applied to virtually anything as most anything is subject to an appeal to a higher authority, including last November's policy.

[Daniel2]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Call me obtuse, but I don't see a lot of difference between this and the policy vis a vis children in homes where parents are engaged in homsexual behavior, including gay "marriage."

You are being obtuse.

The phrase "contrary to the law" makes ALL the difference.

Additionally, from what I understand, the LGBT policy only applies to homes presided over by same-sex couples who are legally MARRIED (it doesn't say anything about whether or not there's homosexual behavior by any parent/s).

Edited October 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[rongo]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

If people can accept the Word of Wisdom, tithing, three-Sunday meeting blocks and fasting once a month, surely they can come to tolerate if not aaccept BYU football.

It's not the people who "can accept the Word of Wisdom, tithing, three-Sunday meeting blocks and fasting once a month" that may kill BYU sports. Rather, it will be people who don't accept those and many other things. 

It appears that BYU's inclusion in the Big12 is now dead because of pressure from activist groups. That isn't a huge problem, but these same groups are agitating to get schools to refuse to schedule to play BYU *at all* (regardless of conference affiliation or independence). If that momentum picks up steam, then BYU sports will be done. If no one will play them for fear of the activists, then there is no athletic program. As mentioned, this will be from people who are not accepting our unique standards and practices. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Rare and difficult" being the operative terms. Those qualifiers could be applied to virtually anything as most anything is subject to an appeal to a higher authority, including last November's policy.

It doesn't appear to me that the Brethren will budge on these individual applications. It appears to me that the whole point of the November policy change is to make crystal clear that homosexuality is not and never will be acceptable in the Church. The number of hyopothetical children affected is so small that it is clear (to me) that this policy is to send a message, and not to address any existing problem. Others have suggested that this is insisted on by Church legal counsel to preempt litigation, but that doesn't seem credible to me. 

With respect to COPs, there is accepted and standard procedure. The appointment for an interview with an apostle must be planned months in advance, due to their schedules. I know people in Arizona and Utah who have had baptisms approved under this.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

What am I trying to achieve? Simply expressing my opinion. To me, it isn't extreme. I can see why you think that it is, and that's okay, too.

What consequences do you think the Church or Church institutions (schools, etc.) will realistically face? If not the draconian, glass half-empty ones I foresee, what exactly do you think will/might happen?

Your opinion about my opinion?  What evidence have you ever had that I have suggested we don't need to have any concern over reactions to our position on gay marriage?

As to what I actually see as probable consequences (I accept others as realistic, if not probable, even if I reject massive jailing, assaults, or genocide as unrealistic) I suspect marriages no longer allowed in the temple, only sealings as a very high probability; BYU and other religious educational organizations losing accreditation and possibly any tax exemption as possible, but not likely very soon...depends on next Supreme Court appointments; and possibly much in the future if things don't settled down to a more balanced approach, those refusing to publicly accept gay marriage as a valid form of marriage being excluded from serving in government jobs outside of the military grunt level.  Much less likely and even more in the future, charitable donations to organizations listed as religious, but antigay marriage being denied as tax deductions, but that is a much more complicated legal proceeding, so low probability.

If people startgetting jailed or murdered in mob attacks, there will be a lot more going wrong in our country than the gay marriage debate.  

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

The difference is that COPs (children of polygamy) can be baptized before they are 18. Rare and difficult, but possible. In the US, this includes an interview with an apostle (I have had ward members that have been through this). 

And where is the documentation that this exception can't take place with children of gay parents?

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your opinion about my opinion?  

No, just my opinion about my opinion.  I was merely sharing what I think, and what I'm concerned about. 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

And where is the documentation that this exception can't take place with children of gay parents?

I am not aware of any. The handbook change says that exceptions can be applied for, but I don't think any will be granted. Not in the current climate with the whiplash over the policy and explanations about it.

That's just my opinion about my opinion, though . . .  

[Johnnie Cake]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-senate-candidate-calls-gay-teen-suicide-victim-a-murderer

This young man lived in my town. When people see this on the news and then read more about the church's policy that the OP is about, I think the consequence of it will be pretty bad. 

People will see the church in a bad light. We've already seen that many church members have left over it. I'm really surprised that it is in the Ensign now.

 

No one should surprised that the more zealous members will pick up on the churches talking points and then regurgitate them in settings like this Neanderthal member did.  But as disgusting as this mans statements are he is just repeating what his church teaches him...and taking them to the bigoted teaching logical conclusions.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, just my opinion about my opinion.  I was merely sharing what I think, and what I'm concerned about. 

Then please don't respond to me ("maybe you are right") as if you think that is what I am thinking.

[Tacenda]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

No one should surprised that the more zealous members will pick up on the churches talking points and then regurgitate them in settings like this Neanderthal member did.  But as disgusting as this mans statements are he is just repeating what his church teaches him...and taking them to the bigoted teaching logical conclusions.

No, the church doesn't go as far as this guy, when he said that this young man was a sinner for being homosexual. The church makes clear that they aren't sinners, only when they act on it. If that were the case I think the suicides would skyrocket. Thank the Lord that the church hasn't said this. And they say over and over that homosexuality doesn't make them a sinner.