Policy reversal

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I would assume that people who live together with no plans to marry and no legitimate excuse not to marry are being excommunicated. .

You'd assume wrong then.  I know of several couples in our stake who are not married, but living together....most of them (possibly all?) are part member couples.  None of them have been excommunicated.

I have found that there are actually much, much less excommunications than even 10 or 15 years ago.  I feel the leaders really do not want to excommunicate members and don't want local leaders seeking members out to discipline.  Many of these members living "in sin" contribute to their wards and even hold callings.

[Storm Rider]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think that's because many more members are affected in some way regarding this issue.  Many have family members or dear friends who are gay (or even work acquaintances).  I'm not sure how many church members actually have family members or dear friends who live polygamy.  It's not that we don't care about them, it's just human nature to care about things that personally touch our own lives.  I do hope that policy is done away with though too.

This is the hand wringing and whining I was talking about However, I bet dollars to donuts that you cannot find more than a very, extremely small group of members who know a  married gay couple (they have been excommunicated) and were the sole parents of children they wanted to raise in the Church. I always said that all of this hand wringing was about children that did not exist, but I met a couple in our ward that told me they knew of one such couple. I never questioned them about it and took them at their word. 

This topic is not about people who know gay people - it only addressed a very small group of people. I suspect that it is well under 100 children that were affected. However, the response was as if the Church was Pharah and had sent soldiers out into the night to slay the firstborn of every family in the USA. It is silly; it was offensive; and it was unnecessary, but so goes the Gay Agenda in the USA. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This is the hand wringing and whining I was talking about However, I bet dollars to donuts that you cannot find more than a very, extremely small group of members who know a  married gay couple (they have been excommunicated) and were the sole parents of children they wanted to raise in the Church. I always said that all of this hand wringing was about children that did not exist, but I met a couple in our ward that told me they knew of one such couple. I never questioned them about it and took them at their word. 

It's not just specifically about knowing a member who is in a SSM with children.  It's knowing and loving someone who is a member and who is gay (or even not a member who is gay).  This hurt many of them and also caused pain for those who loved and cared about them.  If you can't try to understand that, then I don't know what else to say to you. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

It's not just specifically knowing a member who is in a SSM with children.  It's knowing and loving someone who is a member and who is gay (or even not a member who is gay).  This hurt many of them and also caused pain for those who loved and cared about them.  If you can't try to understand that, then I don't know what else to say here to you. 

ALarson, there is pain, true pain, and then there are alligator tears shouted to the high heavens, lying on the ground, screaming about the offense they have endured.....and then getting up and walking away when the cameras and reporters have left the room. A gay friend that has been physically abused while out walking the dog endures real pain. A declaration that children of gay parents cannot be baptized...yet they don't know any children in a such a situation, but they flop around on the ground screaming about this new pain is not even in the same realm of the first example. However, it is about the media darlings of the gay community and about children. More importantly, it is about the evil Mormon Church and everyone those evil people need to be punished. 

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You'd assume wrong then.  I know of several couples in our stake who are not married, but living together....most of them (possibly all?) are part member couples.  None of them have been excommunicated.

I have found that there are actually much, much less excommunications than even 10 or 15 years ago.  I feel the leaders really do not want to excommunicate members and don't want local leaders seeking members out to discipline.  Many of these members living "in sin" contribute to their wards and even hold callings.

I think you are making assumptions as to why they are not excommunicated.  If the spouse absolutely refuses, is it best to separate or stay together for the children?  As long as the active member is willing to marry (which I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t be) then there will be more leniency.  

I don’t know why everybody is arguing that sexual sin is not grounds for excom. Of course it is, and I don’t think my assumption is incorrect, but again local leaders have final say.

Edited April 4, 2019 by pogi

[Joshua Valentine]

7 hours ago, alter idem said:

Where was it promoted as a 'revelation'?  I never heard any leader call it a 'revelation', just you.

We have lots of things in the church that are policies and practices and they are often changed and modified.

Surely nothing but a claim to revelation should ever be used to justify denying baptism. And yet, it seems like that statement is oxymoronic - would an actual revelation ever deny a person baptism simply because of their parents´ ¨sins¨ (even less so in a church that teaches that we are not judged or condemned for Adam´s sin but only our own)?

Saying that such denials were simply policy seems to put the wrong directly on the prophets (avoiding using God as a scapegoat) and does not actually help any cause of defending the leadership - if they can put into practice gospel-denying policies, without consulting God, then how are they to be trusted?

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

But you’re avoiding (or missing) the main question: if there are blessings that come in this life from being baptized, why would a loving god deny those blessings to some?

I don’t think you understand the concept of the work for the dead. The entire point is to ensure that those who have died without the gospel will be able to obtain the fullness of blessings as the living.

why did God deny the priesthood from most of Israel? Why were the gentiles denied the gospel for thousands of years?

the truth is they weren’t because the work for the dead will give them the blessings of they are faithful.

God controls the timing to maximize His ministry and possibly for other reasons I don’t know.

 

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Hopefully what has happened will be discussed in conference.  Announcing it now allows the drama to cool for a couple of days so it isn't the only thing people are focused on, while we can choose to anticipation further teaching in a few days time.  If it doesn't happen, I will be very disappointed.

I hope President Nelson wears a 🌈 tie.

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

ALarson, there is pain, true pain, and then there are alligator tears shouted to the high heavens, lying on the ground, screaming about the offense they have endured.....and then getting up and walking away when the cameras and reporters have left the room. A gay friend that has been physically abused while out walking the dog endures real pain. A declaration that children of gay parents cannot be baptized...yet they don't know any children in a such a situation, but they flop around on the ground screaming about this new pain is not even in the same realm of the first example. However, it is about the media darlings of the gay community and about children. More importantly, it is about the evil Mormon Church and everyone those evil people need to be punished. 

You're certainly dramatic about all of this and appear to be very bitter.  Your posts are ugly and filled with hatred, IMO.  I'm sorry you feel the way you do about this issue, but my experience has been very different from yours.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you are making assumptions as to why they are not excommunicated.

Not really since I'm personally acquainted with several of them (one of the couples live in our ward).  

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

ALarson, there is pain, true pain, and then there are alligator tears shouted to the high heavens, lying on the ground, screaming about the offense they have endured.....and then getting up and walking away when the cameras and reporters have left the room. A gay friend that has been physically abused while out walking the dog endures real pain. A declaration that children of gay parents cannot be baptized...yet they don't know any children in a such a situation, but they flop around on the ground screaming about this new pain is not even in the same realm of the first example. However, it is about the media darlings of the gay community and about children. More importantly, it is about the evil Mormon Church and everyone those evil people need to be punished. 

Dang.  There’s more to this story.  You don’t see this kind of vitriol without something specific fueling it.  

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not really since I'm personally acquainted with several of them (one of the couples live in our ward).  

Ok.  Fill me in.  Why aren’t they excommunicated?  Have they had a disciplinary counsel?  Are they unrepentant?

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

You're certainly dramatic about all of this and appear to be very bitter.  Your posts are ugly and filled with hatred.  I'm sorry you feel the way you do about this issue, but my experience has been very different from yours.

LOL - you really do like to throw that out. What I reject - not hate, not bitter - is deceit. I reject the Gay Agenda. I reject the media that has forced this issue down the throats of society and consistently mislead the citizenry by only focus on the rosy, rainbow filled skies of poor, downtrodden gay people just desperate to love one another and being denied by the evil Christian churches and society at large. Never once is it permissible to actually talk about the health risks, the emotional devastation of the gay lifestyle. Not criticism of any kind is allowed - it is all unicorns and love. 

There is a world of difference between the propaganda and actual relationships with gay individuals. I have known those who struggle with their sexuality; those who have completely lost themselves in five minute relationships; and those who have been married multiple times. I have known those who have killed themselves while living their life to the fullest in San Francisco. This is not a way of life that brings eternal happiness. I have yet to see any sinful behavior that leads to joy and happiness.  

[Storm Rider]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Dang.  There’s more to this story.  You don’t see this kind of vitriol without something specific fueling it.  

Oh, a toady. I refuse to drink the Kool-aid.  Ya gotta be original - never good to just follow for followings sake. 

[Maureen]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

You are welcome to write President Oaks and ask him. 

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but, he actually is not welcomed to do that.

Your Church's Handbook states:

Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters....

M.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You seem to struggle with the qualities of understanding and empathy.  You excel, however in obedience.

You would be wrong on all accounts

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

everyone in this thread is probably going to hell for it including me. Hope everyone is having a good day.

Well, not anymore now you informed me about hell.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Calm

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

You would be wrong on all accounts

I know I’m not wrong on the first two.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

The reason for the policy seems to be to promulgate the doctrine of marriage as structured in the Church covenants, and to establish parental commitment to support their children and the Church as being together on this particular point. Because marriage is both a civil and a sacramental covenant, same-sex marriage is addressed separately from forms of marriage the Church condones and also from cohabitation.

If that's true then reversing the policy now is nonsensical.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So they may still be excommunicated, it hasn't shifted to no excommunication (a leader could theoretically if far out of the norm and goes by their own guidelines, excommunicate teens or those who break the WoW or some such things, which is always possible in a leader given human nature).

It will be interesting to see if it ends up being treated the same as fornication, if inactive, generally ignore; if active, disfellowship at least, or if it is treated more like adultery.

The big shift is before a disciplinary meeting was mandatory, now it's up to the discretion of local leaders.

[lostindc]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL - you really do like to throw that out. What I reject - not hate, not bitter - is deceit. I reject the Gay Agenda. I reject the media that has forced this issue down the throats of society and consistently mislead the citizenry by only focus on the rosy, rainbow filled skies of poor, downtrodden gay people just desperate to love one another and being denied by the evil Christian churches and society at large. Never once is it permissible to actually talk about the health risks, the emotional devastation of the gay lifestyle. Not criticism of any kind is allowed - it is all unicorns and love. 

There is a world of difference between the propaganda and actual relationships with gay individuals. I have known those who struggle with their sexuality; those who have completely lost themselves in five minute relationships; and those who have been married multiple times. I have known those who have killed themselves while living their life to the fullest in San Francisco. This is not a way of life that brings eternal happiness. I have yet to see any sinful behavior that leads to joy and happiness.  

Dude, you might have posted one of the lowest posts I’ve read in my many years on this board.  One day, you may wake up and find a complete 180 on all LGBT policies in the church and your hatred and energy spent rationalizing this bigotry will be for nothing.  

Either way, you woke up today and found a significant policy reversal from the prophet and this is on the heels of significant public pressure.  Four years and many quotes claiming the policy is divinely driven full of clear confirmations only to have it reversed overnight.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think an actively gay couple who intends to stay married is going to be repentant of homosexual sex (still considered a sexual sin) and can be excommunicated for unrepentant homosexual sex.

It may end up being treated the same as an unmarried couple who is unable to obtain a divorce because their country does not allow it or makes it too expensive or impractical for an individual to get, and therefore with mutual assent of their previous partner/legal spouse, they are raising a family with another person. (I see it as a different situation if it wasn't a mutual separation, but the one just walked out).

I hear various stories on how such couples are treated, have no clue if there is an official policy, but the situation feels similar to me (children living in a family where parents that can't be married in terms of what matches Church standards of morality; children would be significantly harmed if parents split up).

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, TheRedHen said:

In the end this affects maybe 30 people worldwide, so I think I'll move on.

In a practical matter, you may be right. But the implications on the organization’s leadership is more prominent here than the impact on the small group.

But what if the church came out with a policy that encouraged members to punch black Jews who are also dwarfs?  So few people would be affected by this, so perhaps you would just ignore it, and celebrate the policy as a revelation from God. Or would you wonder what the h*** the leaders of our church are thinking?

[jpv]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You think God revoked his will because Church members were in rebellion?  I can buy that.

I wonder how many more pieces of God's will are going to be removed because we as a Church can't accept them.  The problem is according to D&C we lose a blessing every time God revokes his will and law.

We really are modern day Israel.  And if we keep rejecting God's will he will keep revoking and giving us lesser laws.  So much for last dispensation.  We'll need another at this rate.

Do you think we'd lose a blessing if the ban of baptism for children of polygamists was lifted too?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

If it’s in the exact “same” way as heterosexuals can be disciplined (or purpose), it’ll be for cheating or sex before marriage.  It depends on how literal the leadership meant that part to be.

Or it will be treated simply as behaviour unattached to the question of sexual orientation...thus anyone of any orientation engaging in fornication, adultery, or homosexual sexual behaviour is considered as participating in immoral behavior.

An analogy would be people not being judged differently in terms of the Word of Wisdom based on their history with it or genetic predispositions, but simply on whether or not they were drinking and smoking and if they expressed the intent to continue to do so or the intent to try and stop.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Calm