Policy reversal

[rockpond]

Just now, Benjamin Seeker said:

 

OK, I didn't quite have it right. It's actually completely explicit. Here is the pertinent paragraph in the original address by President Nelson, given on Jan. 10, 2016.

"This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation." (my bolding)

Here is the link to the address: https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-true-millennials?lang=eng

Also, if you go back and look at some of the online discussions, you'll see that this particular paragraph was published and retracted in online seminary materials multiple times, though I believe it was not included when all was said and done.  

 

So what do you believe was declared by President Monson in that moment?  Just the acknowledgment that they were unanimous?  Did he dictate the first policy?  The clarified policy?  Something else?

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Not true.  Children under 18 who live in a home where their parents are living polygamy are still not "allowed to be baptized".  As far as I know that hasn't been changed (but it may be coming).

At least the children under 18 who live in a home where their parents are in a SSM are now able to be baptized when they were not in recent years.

You completely ignored what I just wrote.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Funny how people ignore the second part of the verse.

And how many who recognize the second part that still doubt that both the command and revocation can be revelation 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Avatar4321

[Storm Rider]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe we are called to minister to the one, not the ninety and nine.

I love the distortion of scripture to smugly support a position - it gratifies the self-righteous pharisee in each of us. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So what do you believe was declared by President Monson in that moment?  Just the acknowledgment that they were unanimous?  Did he dictate the first policy?  The clarified policy?  Something else?

I think Pres. Nelson believed that Pres. Monson gave some kind of revelatory statement. Nelson said, " the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord," and then each of them had a spiritual confirmation or at least Nelson believed they all did, that it was the will of God.

As far as what Monson said in that moment? I would guess the first unclarified policy, considering it was released without going through editing even though it seemed to need it so badly (if I'm remembering the behind the scenes story accurately), but that is just a guess.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Benjamin Seeker

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, halconero said:

I fully accept both the original policy a revelation, and this most recent policy a revelation. This story illustrates my sentiments on the fundamental purpose of both.

Except that story has been greatly embellished if it happened at all (it's been called a "tall tale").  But, the moral of it is a good one, true story or not.

We should accept this change as a good change and support it.  I actually celebrate this change!

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Storm Rider]

I have never believed or thought that a policy is revelation. Policies of the church are created by its leaders to meet their objectives for church governance as they think is best. We a revelation happens - as in a church-wide revelation - it is different. It is either signed by the the FP and the Q12 and released or it is added to scripture. 

[10THAmendment]

13 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

I've been there.  What got me through it was the realization that I shouldn't put my trust in the arm of flesh:

2 Nephi 28:31 [Thus saith the Lord:] Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. 

The prophets’ arms are made out of flesh, just like ours.

That concept has helped me through this whole process. But the thing I can't shake off is if we can't trust the prophet what really makes this church any different than the rest? The church's bold statement has always been that this is the only true church on the face of the planet led by the only person on earth that speaks for God. The church's foundation falls apart for me when that only person misspeaks for God all the time.

I have tried to keep an open mind and heart. I'm not anti, I admit I don't know all of the answers. But I just don't see how we are different than anyone else.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Stand back everybody - there will be a deluge of baptisms from all of these children belonging to the gay community that were desperate to be baptised. Undoubtedly, there will be a great need for thousands of new church buildings to accommodate these thousands, if not millions of people. 

Or, it might mean absolutely nothing with miniscule numbers of baptisms that had been delayed. So the real impact has always been - that hurt my feelings and the Church is so mean they should be killed and destroyed because they do not think like me. 

What ugly unloving thing to say. I know someone whose grandchildren were affected by this. The announcement itself says we are to mourn with those who mourn. 

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but most of that is tied to a desire to not do it again. Getting legally married into a relationship that is currently sinful by definition makes it much less likely leniency will be offered.

I think a lot of it is ignored. Or sometimes there is just disfellowshipment or withholding temple recommends.  I heard stories of local leaders after the 2015 policy seeking out gay couples to ask them to resign or be excommunicated. That should hopefully stop now.

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If homosexual sex in a homosexual marriage is deemed less sinful than homosexual sex outside of marriage, but it's still a transgression, then this change could have just created a subset (or subclass?) of LDS who are in a homosexual marriages and retain their membership and are able to attend, but can't have callings or otherwise participate.  And certainly they can't get Temple Recommends.

I don't know how many people like this there are, but it could mean interesting times are ahead...

The statement says it considers "same-gender marriage by a member to be a serious transgression".  So its not really talking about sex within the confines of same sex marriages.  It calls the actual marriage itself a transgression, so couldn't that be referring to the ceremony of marriage, or the transaction of getting married.  So its not saying that the act of sex within that marriage is a transgression, but just the marriage act itself?  Its somewhat confusing, but the way I'm reading it, there isn't a statement talking about sex within the confines of the same sex marriage as being sinful or even a transgression.  Thoughts?  

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but most of that is tied to a desire to not do it again.

And those who are in a same sex relationship can have a desire to not commit fornication again and same with those in a SSM who commit adultery (have a desire to not cheat again).  That's what treating them in the same way may mean.  

 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

And how many who recognize the second part that still doubt that both the command and revocycan be revelation 

Well I suppose it's like D&C 132 and OD1 show the command, the revocation, and don't change the doctrine.

None of which addresses the problem that the cause of both revocations could be our sinful refusal to accept the command.  Or the rule in the D&C that revoking a command removes a blessing due to lack of obedience.

My biggest issue is the assumption by members that no matter what "God" tells us to do it represents progression, never the opposite.  If we think everything we do is right we never pause to evaluate or reach out to God for confirmation.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I love the distortion of scripture to smugly support a position - it gratifies the self-righteous pharisee in each of us. 

It actually wasn't a distortion.  And what of your post that callously mocked the pain felt by those who were directly impacted by this policy, even though they may have been few in number... what did that accomplish?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And those who are in a same sex relationship can have a desire to not commit fornication again and same with those in a SSM who commit adultery (have a desire to not cheat again).  That's what treating them in the same way may mean.  

 

No it definitely does not “may mean” that.

[mnn727]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Does that even matter?

Yeah, I think it does.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The statement says it considers "same-gender marriage by a member to be a serious transgression".  So its not really talking about sex within the confines of same sex marriages.  It calls the actual marriage itself a transgression, so couldn't that be referring to the ceremony of marriage, or the transaction of getting married.  So its not saying that the act of sex within that marriage is a transgression, but just the marriage act itself?  Its somewhat confusing, but the way I'm reading it, there isn't a statement talking about sex within the confines of the same sex marriage as being sinful or even a transgression.  Thoughts?  

Yes, and the statement also allows for cannibalism because it did not specifically single it out.

[juliann]

I've posted this before, but I think it describes what has happened, 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

The Doctrine of Christ

By Elder D. Todd Christofferson

Quote

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”^6

^{footnote 6}  J. Reuben Clark Jr., “Church Leaders’ Words,” 10. Of the story his father told him about Brigham Young, President Clark further wrote:“I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle—that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’“How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in the voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest” (“Church Leaders’ Words,” 10).

We have a responsibility to determine what is good if we are members. But along with that is being able to express the testimony of the HG in a responsible manner. The HG doesn't speak in anger, skepticism, hatred, and relentless negativity. If anything, the internet is making it possible for the body of members to bear testimony in numbers and be heard. That wasn't available during the priesthood ban, if only it could have been corrected in 3 years.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think Pres. Nelson believed that Pres. Monson gave some kind of revelatory statement. Nelson said, " the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord," and then each of them had a spiritual confirmation or at least Nelson believed they all did, that it was the will of God.

As far as what Monson said in that moment? I would guess the first unclarified policy, considering it was released without going through editing even though it seemed to need it so badly (if I'm remembering the behind the scenes story accurately), but that is just a guess.

So this is what President Monson uttered as the mind and will of the Lord?...

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be  baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1.  The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No it definitely does not “may mean” that.

Then what does it mean to treat them "in the same way" regarding immoral conduct? (Those in homosexual relationships AND those in heterosexual relationships) 

I  believe it very like "may mean" what I described.  But I'm open to your interpretation of what this sentence means:

Quote

Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

What "immoral conduct" in heterosexual relationships are they referring to if not fornication or adultery?

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[mnn727]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

  Many otherwise faithful members left after the policy change.    

Who? no one here. It was pretty much a non-issue. 

I guess if someone was looking for an excuse to leave, it was as good as any.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Then what does it mean to treat them "in the same way" regarding immoral conduct? (Those in homosexual relationships AND those in heterosexual relationships) 

I  believe it very like "may mean" what I described.  But I'm open to your interpretation of this sentence means:

What "immoral conduct" in heterosexual relationships are they referring to if not fornication or adultery?

All same sex relations are sin even if they are not explicitly fornication because a legal marriage exists. Except for that proviso they will be treated the same.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

"Knowing that we can be loved exactly as we are gives us all the best opportunity for growing into the healthiest of people."

Mr. Rogers

Not that I disagree but what does that have to do with anything we are discussing?

[Lemuel]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From President Nelson, Oct 2014:

"The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!"

 

From President Nelson, April 2018:

"When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church."

 

Elder Rasband, Oct 2018:

"I add my witness to the messages of President Russell M. Nelson and Elder Quentin L. Cook given moments ago of the harmony and unanimity of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I know these revelatory announcements are the mind and the will of the Lord and will bless and strengthen individuals, families, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for generations to come."

From the Ensign, 1995: https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1995/12/apostasy-restoration-and-lessons-in-faith?lang=eng

Quote

History shows, in fact, that after the first century, church16 leaders, in order to decide important issues, could not (and did not) appeal to heaven for authoritative direction because they did not possess the keys of the kingdom. There were still honorable people on the earth who received personal inspiration for their individual lives. But the church was run largely by men who gathered in councils and held debates, letting their decisions rest on the collected wisdom of mortal beings.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So this is what President Monson uttered as the mind and will of the Lord?...

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be  baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1.  The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

 

Maybe. or something very similar that this was based on.