Policy reversal

[Rivers]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We aren’t talking about how many sealing rooms should be designed into the 175th temple. 

We’re talking about the teaching that God’s Will was to deny blessings and baptism to children because of who their parents were.  And that God looked upon the marriage of two gay people as an act of apostasy.  This isn’t some run of the mill day-to-day working of the church. This was the first claimed revelation regarding how God’s will for his gay children in this dispensation.  And this policy caused a lot of pain and anguish among good people. 

I guess I just never felt this was something to make a huge fuss over.  Elder Christopherson’s explanation made sense to me.  But there’s no need to argue about it anymore.  The policy is over.  

[Oliblish]

59 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Little "r" revelation. 

This is the first time I have heard anyone refer to this revelation as being little "r".  Was anyone saying this before today's reversal?  Is there really any kind of doctrine that defines the difference between Capital "R" and Little "R" revelations?  

President Nelson said that this was revelation from God to President Monson.  He stated that all of the First Presidency and Quorum of the twelve felt a confirmation of this.  If that isn't a Capital "R" Revelation then I don't know what is.

 

[Oliblish]

 

Does that sound like a revelation with a small “r”?

11 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Yes.

Wow.  So what is the latest example of a Revelation with a Capital "R" in your view?  Has there been one in the last two decades?

 

[Wade Englund]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In January of 2016 I was told that this policy was the revealed will of God to our Prophet.

Now I’m being told that it was probably God just saying:  “try it and see what happens”. 

I see no problem with both the original and the change in policy being considered as revelation or Revelation.

As for why the change in revelation? I don't know the mind of God, and even if I did, God's ways are oft foolishness to men.

Nevertheless, I recall a modern institution of a policy and a change that occurred over matter of days if not months, the results of which may provide some insights for why changes may occur. I have in mind the two times Joseph Smith requested that Martin Harris be allowed to show the manuscript to family members and others,  but the requests were denied (Joseph was "commanded" otherwise). Finally, on the third request permission was granted,  We all know how that turned out. (see HERE)  We get somewhat of a glimpse unto God's thinking on the matter in D&C 3

I am not suggesting that the same, in principle, applies in the case at hand. However, it is possible that the original policy was beneficial to the parent[child relationship, but because the parents and others raised such a stink, the Lord may have decided to let people have their way, and this to underscore the warning: "Be careful what you ask for...."

Who knows? Certainly not me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I guess I just never felt this was something to make a huge fuss over.  Elder Christopherson’s explanation made sense to me.  But there’s no need to argue about it anymore.  The policy is over.  

Elder Christofferson’s explanation did not make sense to me.  And since it had serious impacts on members and their families, I wouldn’t say that it isn’t something to make a “huge fuss over”.  Per Pres. Oaks’ remarks about the reversal, it seems that the policy was causing hate and contention. 

Like you, I see no reason to argue over the policy that is now gone but there is reason to discuss what this incident teaches us about the revelatory process and how our prophet and apostles lead the church. 

[Wade Englund]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

12 apostles and an entire planet to teach.  Seems like an issue of limited resources so He sent them to the House of Israel first.  Or maybe they misunderstood the message and Peter’s vision cleared it up. 

So... in 2015 were we just too tight on resources to be able to allow gay married couples and their children full fellowship in the church?

I don't think the issue with the 12 Apostles was a matter of resources. I mean, it wasn't as though they suddenly became resource rich following the death of Christ. Rather, I think it had more to do with fulfilling prophesy ("first shall be last...")  and a reasonable transition from the Old to the New law, from exclusively house of Israel to open to the world..

But, even if it were an issue of resources, that wouldn't reasonably mean that because that was the case there, it would be the case in every other revealed policy.

As I indicate in another post, I don't know God's mind on this matter. However, I suspect that His reasons will appear as foolish to the minds of men, though I trust in Him rather than the arm of flesh,  which is why I am at peace and be still with the expected tempest tossed over the change ,and the storm-taged seas of the original policy,  if not the  billows that blew long and hard during the same-sex marriage debate.

In short, I feel no inclination to steady the Ark, nor do I feel a need to chasten those who are so inclined or who wish to agitate and gnash their teeth. 

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited April 5, 2019 by Wade Englund

[6EQUJ5]

24 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I see no problem with both the original and the change in policy being considered as revelation or Revelation.

Do you see revelation and policy as a key and lock?  In that one is designed for the other in perfect harmony?  If not, why not?

26 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

However, it is possible that the original policy was beneficial to the parent[child relationship, but because the parents and others raised such a stink, the Lord may have decided to let people have their way, and this to underscore the warning: "Be careful what you ask for...."

The real question here is, who called the locksmith?

[california boy]

I am just wondering how all of you who so adamantly defended the REASON for the policy "to protect the children" feel about the rescinding of the policy now? If you truly believed that as the reason for the policy, aren't church leaders now throwing those poor children under the bus just to get rid of an unpopular revelation?  

[Wade Englund]

8 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Do you see revelation and policy as a key and lock?  In that one is designed for the other in perfect harmony?  If not, why not?

No, because the analogy fails to take into account the flux capacitor.

8 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

The real question here is, who called the locksmith?

I would think it would be, "Who is on first?"

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

[Wade Englund]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am just wondering how all of you who so adamantly defended the REASON for the policy "to protect the children" feel about the rescinding of the policy now? If you truly believed that as the reason for the policy, aren't church leaders now throwing those poor children under the bus just to get rid of an unpopular revelation?  

If you understood what the children were being protected from, and how they were being protected, you would realize how little your questions make sense.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am just wondering how all of you who so adamantly defended the REASON for the policy "to protect the children" feel about the rescinding of the policy now? If you truly believed that as the reason for the policy, aren't church leaders now throwing those poor children under the bus just to get rid of an unpopular revelation?  

That assumes, imo, that there would be no effect on the reason for the policy however people reacted.  No agency affecting outcome.  That it was either a success or failure solely based on the policy itself and not the responses of people to it.

For whatever reason, few people are expressing outrage over the policy being applied to children of polygamy (even if when asked they state they disagree with it).  And given stories I have heard, the policy seems a success.  I have only heard a few stories, but those now adults have for the most part been positive about the Church process, whether they were granted an exception or had to wait.

Otoh, many people have chosen to feel outrage over the policy in regards to children of gay parents.  This may be in part due to the choices of those who leaked it and then they or others pushed the fear factor up rather than counseling waiting to see how it would be applied before imagining the worst (I include here media that tends to sensationalize news as much as possible to get people paying attention to them)..  This may be in part due to the reaction of some members who saw any strong negative emotion attached to the policy as insincere and as having an agenda to attack the Church rather than being concerned about the impact on actual children and other loved ones.  There may be a dozen other factors that could have played out a myriad of ways, but ended up saddling this policy, unlike the polygamy version, with enough emotional baggage it became more detrimental to the children than protective.  It may even have been in part due to poor reactions of leaders.  Perhaps they made faulty assumptions on how people would react and didn't act when they should have or acted when they shouldn't have and thus added to the fuel.  I don't know enough to judge what the crucial choices were, if leaders had acted a certain way, it would have been enough to provide enough balance even if others intentionally tried to promote feelings of doubt and distrust of each other, etc.

  If the majority of voices are telling kids the Church doesn't care about them, is intentionally preventing them from coming to Christ, that is going to take them to a very different place than if they are primarily hearing the Church doesn't want to get between them and their parents while they are young and dependent on those parents.

God can turn anything to our good, imo, but only if we allow him to do so.  If instead we (and I include leaders in this) insist on taking our own path, any policy can be turned to our detriment no matter how inspired originally.  I think there are likely a few things that God is going to insist on in order to achieve his ultimate ends (for example, I think a restoration had to happen, I don't believe only Joseph Smith could achieve it, he could have said no...perhaps someone else was even called to do so before him who rejected that role) and in most other cases, he allows greater impact of agency.  That doesn't mean the Church and its members are either heading to hell with all their choices or moving towards exaltation.  I see us as likely moving forward in many areas and moving backwards in others, and just staying the same in yet more...just as happens with individual humans and smaller communities like families.

What this teaches me is I need to first and foremost concern myself with my relationship with God and finding out what he wants of me.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

As Scott Lloyd often would say when people questioned the claims of revelation on this policy, "are you calling President Nelson a liar when he declared the policy to be a revelation?"

And I would say the same thing today. I’ve not seen anything from President Nelson by way of disavowal or retraction of that earlier declaration. I believed him then, and I still do. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

I am just wondering how all of you who so adamantly defended the REASON for the policy "to protect the children" feel about the rescinding of the policy now? If you truly believed that as the reason for the policy, aren't church leaders now throwing those poor children under the bus just to get rid of an unpopular revelation?  

I don’t believe they are, because, you see, recision of the policy is not without conditions. Going forward, gay  parents who want their children baptized will be clearly told the doctrines of the Church regarding marriage, family and the law of chastity — doctrines the child is apt to learn at church — and the covenants the child will be entering into through baptism. Such parents who want their infant children blessed in the Church will be given to understand that members of the congregation will be contacting the child periodically and at the appropriate time, baptism of the child will be proposed. In effect, such parents will be expected to pledge not to hinder the spiritual progress of the child and, if they do hinder it, I would think the sin would be upon the heads of the parents, not the child, for the failure of the child to make such progress. 

What if the parents refuse to agree to these conditions? Well, it seems to me the bishop has the option to withhold the ordinance on a case by case basis. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Rivers]

2 hours ago, Oliblish said:

 

Does that sound like a revelation with a small “r”?

Wow.  So what is the latest example of a Revelation with a Capital "R" in your view?  Has there been one in the last two decades?

 

Lifting of the priesthood ban was the last big “R” in my view.  That was a canonized while the 2015 policy was just a temporary inclusion in the handbook.  

Edited April 5, 2019 by Rivers

[Rivers]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t believe they are, because, you see, recision of the policy is not without conditions. Going forward, gay  parents who want their children baptized will be clearly told the doctrines of the Church regarding marriage and family — doctrines the child is apt to learn at church — and the covenants the child will be entering into through baptism. Such parents who want their infant children blessed in the Church will be given to understand that members of the congregation will be contacting the child periodically and at the appropriate time, baptism of the child will be proposed. In effect, such parents will be required to pledge not to hinder the spiritual progress of the child and, if they do hinder it, I would think the sin would be upon the heads of the parents, not the child, for the failure of the child to make such progress. 

What if the parents refuse to agree to these conditions? Well, it seems to me the bishop has the option to withhold the ordinance on a case by case basis. 

So the principle behind the policy still exists.  We’re now going about it in a different/better way.   Makes sense to me.

[canard78]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It needn't have been wrong or not a revelation to be reversed. Anyone remember plural marriage?

This must be approaching something of a record... I think I've got pairs of socks that have lasted longer than this policy.

If you believe Russel Nelson is divinely inspired then we're looking at the leaders being inspired to introduce it and then inspired to revoke it in about 3 1/2 years. What was particularly critical for the whole world membership to be subjected to this policy for 2016, 2017 and 2018? What is different about 2019 in the world or church compared to 2016-2019.

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

 

Nevertheless, I recall a modern institution of a policy and a change that occurred over matter of days if not months, the results of which may provide some insights for why changes may occur. I have in mind the two times Joseph Smith requested that Martin Harris be allowed to show the manuscript to family members and others,  but the requests were denied (Joseph was "commanded" otherwise). Finally, on the third request permission was granted,  We all know how that turned out. (see HERE)  We get somewhat of a glimpse unto God's thinking on the matter in D&C 3

I am not suggesting that the same, in principle, applies in the case at hand. However, it is possible that the original policy was beneficial to the parent[child relationship, but because the parents and others raised such a stink, the Lord may have decided to let people have their way, and this to underscore the warning: "Be careful what you ask for...."

Interesting point. But the better interpretation is that the brethren - not members - pushed for a foolish policy and the Lord let them see the consequence. 

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

For those who may struggle with revealed policies being changed within 3 years, it may be comforting to recall that early into Christ's 3-year mission, he ordained the twelve and commissioned them to not go unto the Gentiles, but only go to the house of Israel (Mt. 10:5-6). About 3 years later, Peter had the vision that opened the door to the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles. (Acts 10)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The missionary work was no reversal.  That was a progression.  There was no missionary work going on before Christ ordained the twelve.  They started with the local population, then expanded out.   Contrast that with today. The church position  on gay marriage was well known.  The harsh policy of exclusion (POX) in 2015 was a harsh doubling down that went as far as to exclude innocent children. Then three years later, under extreme social pressure, the "revelation" was totally reversed.   Policy wise, the church is now back where is was prior to 2015.  Hopefully something was learned about transparency and throwing around the "revelation" term.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I would say the same thing today. I’ve not seen anything from President Nelson by way of disavowal or retraction of that earlier declaration. I believed him then, and I still do. 

Then you would have to believe this reversal also came by revelation  (whether they claim it or not).

The  alternative is that the leaders are disobeying God by violating the revelation you believe came.

Must be easy to just assume that no matter what they do or say it's always revelation unless they specifically say that it isn't.  Saves needing an opinion.

[provoman]

12 hours ago, Maureen said:

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.

Yes I am aware of that and even thought about adding "but it will probably be referred to your Stake President"

[USU78]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

I know some very wonderful Christlike people who are gay.  Do you really believe it would desecrate their loving Father’s house if they were allowed entrance to marry the person they love (if it’s a SSM)?

I honestly believe He would welcome them with open arms if they were his sincere and loyal followers.

I don’t know if that day will ever come, but we are closer today than we were before.

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

No unclean thing ...

Etc, etc.

Self-deception is still deception.

And I'm gratified you admit your advocacy for temple desecration. Makes things clear.

Edited April 5, 2019 by USU78

[provoman]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Then you would have to believe this reversal also came by revelation  (whether they claim it or not).

The  alternative is that the leaders are disobeying God by violating the revelation you believe came.

Must be easy to just assume that no matter what they do or say it's always revelation unless they specifically say that it isn't.  Saves needing an opinion.

Oaks did claim it was revelation, but without having used the word revelation I am sure a debate will ensue.

It is uncharitable, though, against Scott to suggest he has no opinion.

[JulieM]

31 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

No unclean thing ...

None of us are perfect or without sin.  Are you?  

Do you desecrate the temple then when you enter it?

You have expressed you believe the leaders were inspired to take this step.  Why do you have a bad feeling about it being a step towards allowing SSM into the temple but also feel it’s right?

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

If you understood what the children were being protected from, and how they were being protected, you would realize how little your questions make sense.

So, they only needed protection for 3 years?  Why not now?

Can you explain what they were protected from for the few years the policy was in place?

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I am just wondering how all of you who so adamantly defended the REASON for the policy "to protect the children" feel about the rescinding of the policy now? If you truly believed that as the reason for the policy, aren't church leaders now throwing those poor children under the bus just to get rid of an unpopular revelation?  

I think this will prove to be an issue with some situations as they originally feared it would be and I think there will be some children that will have a difficult time with their parents supporting their membership.  On the other hand the hate, the hurt, and the discontent the policy generated among church members was a worse thing thing that is happening now so church leaders had to choose the way of the lesser of two evils so to speak. And I still think the number of children the original policy would have applied to would have been very small.