Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Will you consider that President Nelson was 100% correct in his statement in the BYU Hawaii devotional and that the November 2015 policy was indeed the revealed will of the Lord?

I believe he was sincere and that he believed it was a revelation.  But once again, we did not hear that from our then living Prophet, Thomas S. Monson, which many felt was odd if he had received an important revelation for the church members.  

Now Russell M. Nelson is the living Prophet and he has corrected what I believe was a mistake.  That's what I believe has happened here and I applaud the leaders for taking the step to make things right.

I certainly do not believe there was ever any ill intentions.  I understand our leaders are human with human emotions and feelings.....they can over react and then correct just like any of us are able to do.

Edited April 26, 2019 by ALarson

[Anonymous Mormon]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe he was sincere and that he believed it was a revelation.  But once again, we did not hear that from our then living Prophet, Thomas S. Monson, which many felt was odd if he had received an important revelation for the church members.  

Now Russell M. Nelson is the living Prophet and he has corrected what I believe was a mistake.  That's what I believe has happened here and I applaud the leaders for taking the step to make things right.

I certainly do not believe there was ever any ill intentions.  I understand our leaders are human with human emotions and feelings.....they can over react and then correct just like any of us are able to do.

Thanks. I appreciate the viewpoint and clarification.

I too agree that this might have been the case, as human leaders do make mistakes at all levels of the church.

However, I am also open to the possibility that the original policy was the preferred Will of the Lord and that the Lord is now softening it because many in the church are not willing to accept the higher/harder law. I personally think we sometimes mistake the Lord's mercy for our weaknesses and shortcomings as acceptance. Thus President Nelson feeling the strong need to preach repentance and change. Because we all can do better at being more stringent in our lives (especially me - constantly a battle)

[flameburns623]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Sure all of those things are a part of gay culture.  And all of those things are a part of straight culture as well.

I think there are real reasons for these attitudes and a lot of these attitudes I believe come directly from Evangelical Christians and organized religion in general.  Many gays come from a religious background. Maybe they believed too much what religion is constantly telling them.  I mean if you are going to go to hell because you are gay or even because you are in a married relationship, then what difference does it make how many sex partners you have?  You are told over and over again that there is no place in heaven for you.  This is also true of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,  

I think there are real reasons why it has become a part of straight culture as well even though those reasons might be a bit different.  The straight community doesn't value marriage much at all.  Religion tried to prevent gays from being married, so just how important is marriage anyway.  If gays don't need to get married, then why should straight couples?  Rampant divorce and streams of sexual partners before and after marriage also contribute to the things you mentioned are also a part of straight relationships.  Very small percentage of straight couples are virgins when they marrry.  To some extent, the only people left that really value marriage in the traditional sense are those who think they might have a chance of going to heaven.  

And then there is the ever increasing number of people just walking away from organized religion because religion has changed.  It seems to be more political and less concerned with lifting people up and being inclusive to all that seek Christ.  There certainly are a lot of people who don't feel like the Church wants them in their congregations.  I certainly don't.  That message has been given loud and clear to me.  After all, I was an apostate until just a couple of weeks ago.  Now I don't know what I am.  Maybe still an apostate, the Church just doesn't call me that any more.

Thanks for answering, CB. If it is of any interest to you,  the radio show which played the clip was called "Issues,  Etcetera", a Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod broadcast (the LC/MS is headquartered here in Saint Louis and has--or had--a radio station here). The program was once a very popular broadcast, and might still be although I think the Mission Synod sold their radio station. I haven't listened to the station since 2007 or so, so the broadcast I heard is many years ago.

(Just checked: Issues ETC has a website with extensive archives. But the older shows are not dated and would take me forever to sift through. Meanwhile this is off topic and would need it's own thread).

Thanks again for responding.  

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess I don't understand the reason you bring the antidote up other than yes, there are a lot of individuals who don't agree with your beliefs and the choices you made.  I know a little about that as well.  I don't see the point of mentioning every derogatory comment made about me being gay by those of religious faith.  It happens.  But I don't believe it is the way the majority of people think or treat me.  

I apologize if I misinterpreted your reasons for bringing up the two examples.  Still not that clear.  But I don't think you posted those comments to be hurtful.

 

I have a dog in this fight, and I am not throwing bombs from the cheap seats. As I said before I did not think policy a good choice, or even a good policy from the beginning, as children are innocent and pure. I am on record here, that I disapproved, and also on record here that the policy would change. Nothing I said, was meant to be hurtful, I was simply pointing out that that inspiration comes from many sources, including already accepted scripture. So “again”, be it from a vision, from promptings (or what one may consider such), or from scripture, all are inspiration. I wish my own child will, or was saved, I wish my weaknesses are all accepted by God. Even now, for those who are Gay, who allow their children to be baptized, those children will still be taught that proper relationships, are between man (husband) and wife (woman). In short they will be taught all of scripture, the Proclamation on the Family. It is not I, who offendeds, it is I who believes the word of God for those who live outside these principles. I am not expressing a my bigoted outlook to harm or to be “hurtful” to use your word. You used to say my daughter was lucky to have a father like me, for how close we are, what changed? My belief in the word of God has not changed, and my relationship with my daughter has not changed, and my stated belief that the policy concerning children would change. So when and where did the cordial exchanges between us change? I have not moved, my views have not changed, so when did the this happen? Did I change, or have you? I was thrilled that children of gay couples were allowed to be baptized, so “again” what changed? When did I become “hurtful” in your mind, and why did change so quickly? 

You do not need to answer, in fact I worry what the answer might be. I once thought of you as a friend, and spoke of yourself in the past as someone I considered a friend, but maybe, I was silly to think we were. I would never, knowingly set out to harm someone, and if I did so, please forgive me. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I quoted President Oaks because his statement is all we’ve got with respect to the reversed policy. 

And, yes, both apostasy and serious transgression are covered in the handbook. I identified those sections.  From a policy perspective (which is what I understood us to be discussing), serious transgression “may” require church discipline.  Apostasy mandates church discipline.  So based on the handbook, removing SSM from the definition of apostasy and calling it serious transgression (as Pres. Oaks did) changes returns it to possible church discipline (where it was before 2015) rather than required discipline. 

I did my best to answer all your questions.  I did not understand the last one.  You’ll need to clarify or rephrase if you’d like an answer. 

Thank you for doing your best. I see that you don't understand the last set of questions, which is consistent with how you responded to my other points.

You begin quoting President Oaks well after you claimed you did, seemingly in an effort to sidestep the requirement I identified to see how the policy is actually written for comparison with 2014 (was trying to accommodate the more transactional discussion you seem to prefer). You are then projecting that the instructions have not changed -- whether textually or in principle, I cannot tell; seems the former -- while I'm describing how in principle they have both changed and haven't changed, and doing so from two  perspectives (one as a user of the instructions, and two in recognizing the effects of changes in our environment on the meaning of the same set of instructions).

Edited April 26, 2019 by CV75

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I have a dog in this fight, and I am not throwing bombs from the cheap seats. As I said before I did not think policy a good choice, or even a good policy from the beginning, as children are innocent and pure. I am on record here, that I disapproved, and also on record here that the policy would change. Nothing I said, was meant to be hurtful, I was simply pointing out that that inspiration comes from many sources, including already accepted scripture. So “again”, be it from a vision, from promptings (or what one may consider such), or from scripture, all are inspiration. I wish my own child will, or was saved, I wish my weaknesses are all accepted by God. Even now, for those who are Gay, who allow their children to be baptized, those children will still be taught that proper relationships, are between man (husband) and wife (woman). In short they will be taught all of scripture, the Proclamation on the Family. It is not I, who offendeds, it is I who believes the word of God for those who live outside these principles. I am not expressing a my bigoted outlook to harm or to be “hurtful” to use your word. You used to say my daughter was lucky to have a father like me, for how close we are, what changed? My belief in the word of God has not changed, and my relationship with my daughter has not changed, and my stated belief that the policy concerning children would change. So when and where did the cordial exchanges between us change? I have not moved, my views have not changed, so when did the this happen? Did I change, or have you? I was thrilled that children of gay couples were allowed to be baptized, so “again” what changed? When did I become “hurtful” in your mind, and why did change so quickly? 

You do not need to answer, in fact I worry what the answer might be. I once thought of you as a friend, and spoke of yourself in the past as someone I considered a friend, but maybe, I was silly to think we were. I would never, knowingly set out to harm someone, and if I did so, please forgive me. 

 

I think you misunderstood what my problem was with your post.  My feelings for you have not changed one bit.  I do think your daugher is lucky to have you as a father.  I totally understand your reasons for your religious convictions and though they differ from mine slightly, I hold no ill will for you holding those beliefs.  I think you are a very kind and caring person.  

This is the problem I had with what you wrote

Quote

When asked if the change matters, the woman speaking for those who are Gay, acting as spokeswoman, she said nothing, because it did not matter. Nothing matters to those who hate the Church, nothing but total submission, and complete surrender, and giving into every demand, for those waving flags, shouting obscenities, holding signs, dragging Books of Mormon with rope on the ground, waving around garments, at those who are on their way to worship. 

No one is a spokesman for those who are gay. Not every gay person hates the church.  Not every gay person thinks the church should be beat into total submission. There are not hoards of gay people dragging Books of Mormon with a rope on the ground, waving around garments at those who are on their way to worship.   I certainly do not want to be lumped into those groups simply because I am gay.  The characterization of what you implied about gay people is what was so offensive to me. 

I am sure I took offense when none was intended.   It is actually because of the respect I have towards you that I was disappointed you would give someone like that any credence at all as a spokeswoman for those that are gay.  

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for doing your best. I see that you don't understand the last set of questions, which is consistent with how you responded to my other points.

You begin quoting President Oaks well after you claimed you did, seemingly in an effort to sidestep the requirement I identified to see how the policy is actually written for comparison with 2014 (was trying to accommodate the more transactional discussion you seem to prefer). You are then projecting that the instructions have not changed -- whether textually or in principle, I cannot tell; seems the former -- while I'm describing how in principle they have both changed and haven't changed, and doing so from two  perspectives (one as a user of the instructions, and two in recognizing the effects of changes in our environment on the meaning of the same set of instructions).

Yes, when discussing this policy, I prefer to stick to what is written in the handbook and what has been stated or published by the Brethren.  I'm not interested in your speculation about the "principle" of it or how you might choose to use the instructions.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you misunderstood what my problem was with your post.  My feelings for you have not changed one bit.  I do think your daugher is lucky to have you as a father.  I totally understand your reasons for your religious convictions and though they differ from mine slightly, I hold no ill will for you holding those beliefs.  I think you are a very kind and caring person.  

This is the problem I had with what you wrote

No one is a spokesman for those who are gay. Not every gay person hates the church.  Not every gay person thinks the church should be beat into total submission. There are not hoards of gay people dragging Books of Mormon with a rope on the ground, waving around garments at those who are on their way to worship.   I certainly do not want to be lumped into those groups simply because I am gay.  The characterization of what you implied about gay people is what was so offensive to me. 

I am sure I took offense when none was intended.   It is actually because of the respect I have towards you that I was disappointed you would give someone like that any credence at all as a spokeswoman for those that are gay.  

Thank you, but out of fear that others may be harmed, I think it best I do not comment in posts about Gay people and Church. I was not trying to lump, I was trying to ask, what voice or opinion should we listen too, every six months. Why, unlike so many other Faiths, can’t we worship in peace? 

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Thank you, but out of fear that others may be harmed, I think it best I do not comment in posts about Gay people and Church. I was not trying to lump, I was trying to ask, what voice or opinion should we listen too, every six months. Why, unlike so many other Faiths, can’t we worship in peace? 

When institutions do no more harm, then we can worship in peace.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, when discussing this policy, I prefer to stick to what is written in the handbook and what has been stated or published by the Brethren.  I'm not interested in your speculation about the "principle" of it or how you might choose to use the instructions.

But you are speculating about what will be in the Handbook after agreeing earlier what would be the best approach at this point, continuing to speculate.

Edited April 26, 2019 by CV75

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When institutions do no more harm, then we can worship in peace.

Help me out here, there are many groups who show up at every Conference. Are we causing harm because we believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture, are we doing harm for believing other books are scripture as well, is Temple worship and believing in sacred garments, doing harm, is the belief that we have Prophets and Apostles, doing harm? So what kind of Church do we need to be to worship in peace? I hope I am just misunderstanding this comment you made. 

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Help me out here, there are many groups who show up at every Conference. Are we causing harm because we believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture, are we doing harm for believing other books are scripture as well, is Temple worship and believing in sacred garments, doing harm, is the belief that we have Prophets and Apostles, doing harm? So what kind of Church do we need to be to worship in peace? I hope I am just misunderstanding this comment you made. 

I replied quite swiftly, I do that a lot, and you've probably noticed, I edit a lot!

But I stand by this because there has been harm in this church, whether it be unauthorized policies or requirements led by a prophet, or false revelations or information that is misleading the saints.

These can cause harm but hopefully one day all churches will lead to worshipping in peace. I know a lot of people that don't feel peace in church, just duty.

I'm sorry if this offends you Papa or anyone else. It's my feelings on the matter. And I'm not the smartest person and haven't researched the scriptures or nor have I read everything in church history. But I've seen enough to tell me that the churches out there need to repent, and not do harm.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Tacenda

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I replied quite swiftly, I do that a lot, and you've probably noticed, I edit a lot!

But I stand by this because there has been harm in this church, whether it be unauthorized policies or requirements led by a prophet, or false revelations or information that is misleading the saints.

These can cause harm but hopefully one day all churches will lead to worshipping in peace. I know a lot of people that don't feel peace in church, just duty.

I'm sorry if this offends you Papa or anyone else. It's my feelings on the matter. And I'm not the smartest person and haven't researched the scriptures or nor have I read everything in church history. But I've seen enough to tell me that the churches out there need to repent, and not do harm.

Does not offend me, or caus harm, unless heartache it what you mean? It would seem with this post you are passing judgement on almost every belief system. This is a “sentence or judgement”, that I don’t feel worthy to pass unilaterally. That is a position I am not arrogant enough to think I have the right, or moral superiority to make. Only God has the right to pass such judgement, a title which I do not hold. I have held many titles, but never worthy as Jesus Christ who can sit in the “judgement seat”. I am truly sorry for any who thinks themselves worthy to judge not only their fellow human beings, and even moreso to pass judgement on how they believe. So, if you feel you are worthy, then better you than me. I fear God, and will not assume to do so, despite being very well read on religious texts, despite my weaknesses is writing and expression. In my more limited world these days, most feel peace, much more than duty. But again, I am not their judge, nor do I wish to be. I will leave that to those who seem comfortable in that role, as I am not. One day, even in a PM, you can tell me how you found yourself able to pass such widespread judgements. 

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Does not offend me, or caus harm, unless heartache it what you mean? It would seem with this post you are passing judgement on almost every belief system. This is a “sentence or judgement”, that I don’t feel worthy to pass unilaterally. That is a position I am not arrogant enough to think I have the right, or moral superiority to make. Only God has the right to pass such judgement, a title which I do not hold. I have held many titles, but never worthy as Jesus Christ who can sit in the “judgement seat”. I am truly sorry for any who thinks themselves worthy to judge not only their fellow human beings, and even moreso to pass judgement on how they believe. So, if you feel you are worthy, then better you than me. I fear God, and will not assume to do so, despite being very well read on religious texts, despite my weaknesses is writing and expression. In my more limited world these days, most feel peace, much more than duty. But again, I am not their judge, nor do I wish to be. I will leave that to those who seem comfortable in that role, as I am not. One day, even in a PM, you can tell me how you found yourself able to pass such widespread judgements. 

Did I say which church, outside of our own? I said churches, do you agree there are harmful churches? I've seen it. Now would you agree that the November '15 policy may have done harm with the LGBTQ crowd? I've seen it. Also, do you agree that the racist policy on not allowing blacks to hold the PH was harmful? Well I've seen that as well.

I judge, but don't LDS judge in righteousness as well, are they also worthy of passing this judgement? I believe I'm right by saying what I have, but that doesn't mean I'm even near worthy like Jesus Christ to judge. 

Below is a c/p from the Ensign on righteous judging. In my heart I believe I'm right to judge what I have. https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2019/02/how-do-we-judge-righteous-judgment?lang=eng

In the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 7, we read, “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment” (Joseph Smith Translation, Matthew 7:2 [in Matthew 7:1, footnote a]). Joseph Smith made some of his changes to the biblical text not to reflect what was originally said or written but to give prophetic interpretation and help clarify the meaning of certain passages. That seems to be the case with the changes here, based on what other scriptures (3 Nephi 14:1, for example) and modern prophets have said about judging. According to Joseph Smith’s addition to this passage in Matthew, Jesus is not telling us never to judge. He is commanding us to make sure the judgments we make are righteous.

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Tacenda

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Did I say which church, outside of our own? I said churches, do you agree there are harmful churches? I've seen it. Now would you agree that the November '15, policy may have done harm with the LGBTQ crowd? I've seen it. Also, do you agree that the racist policy on not allowing blacks to hold the PH was harmful? Well I've seen that as well. I judge, but don't LDS judge in righteousness as well, are they also worthy of passing this judgement? I believe I'm right by saying what I have, but that doesn't mean I'm even near worthy like Jesus Christ to judge. 

Below is a c/p from the Ensigh on righteous judging. In my heart I believe I'm right to judge what I have. https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2019/02/how-do-we-judge-righteous-judgment?lang=eng

In the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 7, we read, “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment” (Joseph Smith Translation, Matthew 7:2 [in Matthew 7:1, footnote a]). Joseph Smith made some of his changes to the biblical text not to reflect what was originally said or written but to give prophetic interpretation and help clarify the meaning of certain passages. That seems to be the case with the changes here, based on what other scriptures (3 Nephi 14:1, for example) and modern prophets have said about judging. According to Joseph Smith’s addition to this passage in Matthew, Jesus is not telling us never to judge. He is commanding us to make sure the judgments we make are righteous.

 

Since I made it clear from the start I did not agree with the policy (when it was first stated), when it came out, and in this very thread. Also, Churches is plural, so how many did your single sentence mean? I am not a mind reader, been working on it, but not very good at it. Also how do you pass judgement on the Church, and then use Joseph Smith’s translation at the same time. Not long ago, I posted a thread about how I probably would not have joined the Church if the Priesthood Ban were still in effect. Got some backlash, called silly from many, but you missed it? You also ignored the groups I listed, telling me when we stop causing harm, then we can worship in peace. You then tell me you aren’t well read enough to judge what is scripture, and quote it. You have always known my positions on issues, we were somewhat friends. Now you have no idea of my comments, assign motives to me. At least be honest with yourself, I am a believer, and you live in constant doubt. I think the best thing is to ignore me. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Since I made it clear from the start I did not agree with the policy (when it was first stated), when it came out, and in this very thread. Also, Churches is plural, so how many did your single sentence mean? I am not a mind reader, been working on it, but not very good at it. Also how do you pass judgement on the Church, and then use Joseph Smith’s translation at the same time. Not long ago, I posted a thread about how I probably would not have joined the Church if the Priesthood Ban were still in effect. Got some backlash, called silly from many, but you missed it? You also ignored the groups I listed, telling me when we stop causing harm, then we can worship in peace. You then tell me you aren’t well read enough to judge what is scripture, and quote it. You have always known my positions on issues, we were somewhat friends. Now you have no idea of my comments, assign motives to me. At least be honest with yourself, I am a believer, and you live in constant doubt. I think the best thing is to ignore me. 

I am just justifying my judgement, said nothing about your views on the LGBTQ's, nor your views on the PH ban. I believe we believe mostly the same on both issues. That's all I got to say about that. 🙂

PS: It felt like you called me out, not me you. But I still love ya! 😄

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I am just justifying my judgement, said nothing about your views on the LGBTQ's, nor your views on the PH ban. I believe we believe mostly the same on both issues. That's all I got to say about that. 🙂

PS: It felt like you called me out, not me you. But I still love ya! 😄

Thank you, I have valued our friendship over the years, which I these remarks seemed puzzling, concerning these topics have seemed odd. So, on another thread, maybe we can endeavor to communicate better. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

But you are speculating about what will be in the Handbook after agreeing earlier what would be the best approach at this point, continuing to speculate.

I’m working from what the handbook currently says and what President Oaks instructed regarding the policy changes on 4-April.

I assume President Oaks was speaking from both a position of knowledge and authority regarding what will eventually be documented in the handbook. 

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

Fair enough.  But I just want to be clear that I was saying IF it was NOT authorized by the Lord, then it corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes to priesthood ordinances.  I'm not saying you didn't understand that, I just want to be clear in the position I was taking.

 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m working from what the handbook currently says and what President Oaks instructed regarding the policy changes on 4-April.

I assume President Oaks was speaking from both a position of knowledge and authority regarding what will eventually be documented in the handbook. 

Yes, which is not what you said is the best approach. I can't wait to see what actually comes out in print, can you?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, which is not what you said is the best approach. I can't wait to see what actually comes out in print, can you?

Yes, I’m looking forward to when the changes are actually made to the handbook. 

I don’t recall commenting on the best approach. I think the only approach we have at the moment is to use what is currently in the handbook coupled with what President Oaks said/wrote.