Policy reversal

[provoman]

1 minute ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Does anyone understand what that second sentence means?  Talk about a change, then say "instead", and talk about something happening the same way?  Hopefully I'm just dumb and having a hard time reading...

The "Instead" is read in conjuction with the first sentence.

 

Immoral conduct is immoral conduct; Immoral conduct may subject a person to Church discipline.

[provoman]

 

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

President Nelson referred to it that way (while President Monson was still alive)

Do you have a link or specific talk?

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Does anyone understand what that second sentence means?  Talk about a change, then say "instead", and talk about something happening the same way?  Hopefully I'm just dumb and having a hard time reading...

I read it that as long as they marry and remain faithful to their spouse (gay members), they are not being immoral and are "treated in the same way" as those in heterosexual relationships:

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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

Another very positive step.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Don't you mean more fallible than the rest of us?  I mean many of us knew it was a stupid idea...How could they not have seen it?  It seems like emotion and reaction got in the way.  But then again it was called a revelation too.  

I am not so convinced it was a stupid idea.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not what I was thinking but it is literally a damned interpretation.

Yet it seems the most probable straightforward explanation. 

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I just got a news notification on my phone that the church has just announced it is allowing the baptism of children of LGBTQ people.  

 

What repercussions will this have?  Will there be those who return to the church now?  I wonder if it is a d$%ned if you do d#$ned if you don't proposition.  

Edited to add link:  https://www.ksl.com/article/46524616/church-to-allow-baptisms-blessings-for-children-of-lgbt-parents-updates-handbook-regarding-apostasy

 

I think the move is a good overall move for the Church. In reality I don't know how many kids this will affect, but if there are any wishing to get baptized, I hope they do, and am glad they can embrace the good news of the gospel.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I read it that as long as they remain faithful to their spouse (gay members who enter a SSM or those who are dating), they are not being immoral as described "treated in the same way"):

Another very positive step.

Yeah............no. Unless there is a huge change in this next conference.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Do you have a link or specific talk?

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2016/01/policy-or-revelation/index.html

 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-nelson-handbook-change

[stemelbow]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I am not so convinced it was a stupid idea.

And you never will be.  But...well.  It very much was a really stupid idea.  And perhaps just as stupid was calling it revelation.  But I suppose I'm happy enough to note there is room for believers to feel like the policy was good for a short season.  although I doubt anyone can reasonably provide a good reason for it.  REvelation and to protect families was the explanation.  Those seems as hollow as anything now. 

 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not so convinced it was a stupid idea.

It caused much pain for many members and some left the church over the policy (not to mention the bad PR that took place for the church over it).  I believe most members were not strongly in favor of it, but did try to believe it was a revelation.

Now many will wonder if it was and will question what the purpose was for this short lived policy.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, alter idem said:

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

Yeah, me and President Nelson.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not what I was thinking but it is literally a damned interpretation.

Not a darned or fetching interpretation?

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Don't you mean more fallible than the rest of us?  I mean many of us knew it was a stupid idea...How could they not have seen it?  It seems like emotion and reaction got in the way.  But then again it was called a revelation too.  

Well, YMMV. Some people were defending it from the beginning, and others no doubt would have liked the church to take it even further.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

It caused much pain for many members and some left the church over the policy (not to mention the bad PR that too place for the church over it).  I believe most members were not strongly in favor of it, but did try to believe it was a revelation.

Now many will wonder if it was and will question what the purpose was for this short lived policy.

Maybe the church needed to weed us out.  "we need to get rid of some of these members.  Let's come up with this really poorly constructed policy change, try and sneak it into the handbook so we look sneaky and foolish, and then claim stupid things like 'its revelation' and "we want to protect families'.  That should get rid of a few of these fools."

Sorry.  I'm feeling such a mix of emotions on this.  I think frustration is winning out right now.  

[Lemuel]

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-true-millennials?lang=eng

 

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

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. 

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah............no. Unless there is a huge change in this next conference.

Then, they need to clarify what this statement means:

Quote

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

"will be treated in the same way" is pretty clear.  How do you interpret it?

[Gray]

Just now, ALarson said:

Then, they need to clarify what this statement means:

"will be treated in the same way" is pretty clear.  How do you interpret it?

I'm pretty sure they don't actually mean treated the same way. They mean they will treat committed monogamous gay couples like they treat straight fornicators and adulterers. It's not the same, but at least the incoherent "apostate" label no longer applies.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then, they need to clarify what this statement means:

"will be treated in the same way" is pretty clear.  How do you interpret it?

Based on the previous sentence that same sex marriage is still a serious sin.

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Only Russell M. Nelson called it a "revelation".  The current Prophet (Thomas S. Monson) never spoke of this new policy publicly to members (as far as I know)....we did not hear from him as far as I know regarding anything about it.

It always felt odd to me too.

To be fair, Monson was likely unable to talk about it in front of a group of people.  SOme speculated this policy change was pushed by Oaks and Nelson, since Monson was out of it.  I guess it still could have been even though it's been changed when these two are at the height of their power.  I mean it was THAT bad.  

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And you never will be.  But...well.  It very much was a really stupid idea.  And perhaps just as stupid was calling it revelation.  But I suppose I'm happy enough to note there is room for believers to feel like the policy was good for a short season.  although I doubt anyone can reasonably provide a good reason for it.  REvelation and to protect families was the explanation.  Those seems as hollow as anything now. 

 

I agree that no can come up with a good reason that would satisfy you.

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe the church needed to weed us out.  "we need to get rid of some of these members.  Let's come up with this really poorly constructed policy change, try and sneak it into the handbook so we look sneaky and foolish, and then claim stupid things like 'its revelation' and "we want to protect families'.  That should get rid of a few of these fools."

Sorry.  I'm feeling such a mix of emotions on this.  I think frustration is winning out right now.  

HE READS MINDS!!! BURN THE WITCH!!!

[CA Steve]

24 minutes 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.

Here is a link to LDS.org from 2016 explaining it was a revelation.

President Nelson Explains Origins of the Handbook Change

The pertinent part is:

 

Quote

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.

So yes, it was promoted as a revelation.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not a darned or fetching interpretation?

I am not from Utah and find the use of those expressions both sad and pathetic.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I agree that no can come up with a good reason that would satisfy you.

HE READS MINDS!!! BURN THE WITCH!!!

I agree. With my children I am constantly trying to come up with ways to trip them up and get the to leave me. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm pretty sure they don't actually mean treated the same way.

Then they should rephrase it, IMO.  Saying that those entering a homosexual relationship will be "treated in the same way" as those entering a homosexual relationship means (to me) that they should not commit fornication or adultery.  Why say they will be treated "in the same way" if that's not true?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To be fair, Monson was likely unable to talk about it in front of a group of people.

He spoke publicly many times after the policy was leaked, but never addressed it or mentioned that it was a revelation.