Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Actually I think you would have to make that count 15 out of 18. Five places that you did not include just used the word "Mormon" and while that can refer to members, in these cases I think it is meant to be shorthand for "Mormon Church".

Regardless of how we want to position ourselves in the broader community, I do not see media sources widely adapting the use of any other name beside "Mormons" or "The Mormon Church", especially in news article titles. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"   is simply too long a replacement for "Mormons" or "The Mormon Church", especially when you think about how many people read new sources on small mobile devices. Add into that the fact that even if a source choose to use the longer name, they will still have to add "also known as the "Mormon Church", it becomes an easy decision how to write it using the shorter and much more commonly known appellation.

Peggy Fletcher Stack had a good point on this regarding the church's request that after first identifying the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" , subsequent references to the church could be shortened to "The Church of Jesus Christ". To paraphrase she said that was unacceptable because that would indicate her article endorsed the LDS church as "THE" church of Jesus Christ, an implication she was not trying to make.

Of course I realize that - hence their preference for "Mormon Church." I personally kind see the shorthand version of LDS Church to be OK for repeated use in an article after an introduction, but the Church sees it differently. However, personally I would not squabble over it, as I see it like calling us the Saints, which I'm sure they won't like either.

[ALarson]

On 4/5/2019 at 8:15 PM, Calm said:

Another blog that I am posting because it appears to have some background info on what may have led to the timing of the 2015 policy in regards to apostasy:

http://davidson-law.net/blog/2019/04/04/changes-in-policy/?fbclid=IwAR2o1WTRwk8aCLQVsOhcjYpA5tpkwAjQSoZ-Vc6_wXk6YajHpfCgtNuUprY

Calm, Scott also posted this on the now locked thread.  I asked if he knew who the author of this blog was and he suggested I ask you here.  Do you know?

Also, is there any documentation that the story regarding the Stake President in Seattle is actually what prompted the original policy?  Do you know?

[jkwilliams]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/06/trauma-is-a-slow-burn-mormons-seek-healing-as-church-eases-anti-lgbt-policy

[Calm]

I believe Michael Davidson (guest blogger on Millennial Star), goes by name of Michael on this blog which is hosted at Davidson-law.net.

Looking for confirmation of accuracy.  There were some publicized events involving the stake the previous year which would be consistent.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I believe Michael Davidson (guest blogger on Millennial Star), goes by name of Michael on this blog which is hosted at Davidson-law.net.

Looking for confirmation of accuracy.  There were some publicized events involving the stake the previous year which would be consistent.

Thanks Calm.  

It's honestly hard for me to believe that the church leaders would have written the original policy (and put it in the church handbook) for the entire church based on the actions of just one Stake President.  But maybe?

Here's the part of the blog in question:

Quote

Let’s put some of the discussion in context.  In the summer of 2015, there was a young lesbian couple who were attending a ward in the Seattle Washington North Stake.  They got engaged and announced their intention to be married publicly.  According to their blog entries about this matter, this resulted in a series of conversations with their bishop and their stake president in which they were told in no uncertain terms that they would face church discipline if they went ahead with their plans to marry.  These blog posts created a great stir in some quarters, and I suspect that the bishop and stake president involved received communications of varying degrees of politeness in response. 

Then, something unusual and unexpected seemed to happen.  According to a further blog post, this lesbian couple reported that their stake president had a change of heart! He reportedly told them that he would not allow them to be disciplined for getting married, and that for as long as he was stake president, no one in their stake would be disciplined for contracting a gay marriage.  This blog post went viral, but someone told this lesbian couple that sharing such a thing would likely get their stake president in trouble with Salt Lake, and so they password protected the post (the password was “gay” and was easily guessed by a friend of yours truly) in hopes that they could erase the potential for blowback on the stake president for taking a position that was obviously in contradiction of Church teachings.

At the time, I argued in several places that entering into a gay marriage was something that would mandate Church discipline, for apostasy and otherwise.  I have previously talked about apostasy on the virtual pages of the Millennial Star in a post entitled “Apostasy for Dummies.”  At the time, there were four potentially relevant and independent grounds for apostasy, including acting in “clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.”  It is clear that the Church has spoken against same sex marriage for some time.  There is no equivocation on the subject.  And so, to enter into such a marriage is to act in clear, open, and deliberate defiance of Church teachings.  There is no two ways about it.

Furthermore, discipline is mandated in cases in which there is a pattern of serious transgressions or publicly engaging in a serious transgression.  Contracting a same sex marriage is a serious transgression, as is any sexual congress associated therewith.  As a result, getting married (which is a public act legally) is, by definition, publicly engaging in a serious transgression that would require discipline even if one did not go into whether or not any physical breaking of the law of chastity were involved.

Frankly, by allegedly asserting that he would not allow disciplinary councils in any cases in which someone contracted a same sex marriage, the president of the Seattle Washington North Stake was taking a stand that was clearly contradicted by the instructions he was given as stake president by the Church.  To add fuel to the fire, I was aware of similar stands being taken by stake presidents in California and other places.

About six weeks after this last blog post was published by this lesbian couple, a member of the stake high council of the Seattle Washington North Stake at the time leaked updated language from the Church Handbook to to likeminded folks on the internet, which was then published broadly.  This new language included two basic changes, one being that the definition of apostasy was expanded to specifically include entering into a same sex marriage and the second being that the legal children of people entering into such marriages or similar relationships would be treated by the Church in the same way as children of polygamous families.

http://davidson-law.net/blog/2019/04/04/changes-in-policy/?fbclid=IwAR0sijVdxrLtS4Vw_Af9WlnJ7Anf-DqhZ-0L6YZ5Jz_r8DRjNMYmuGfrDm8

 

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/06/trauma-is-a-slow-burn-mormons-seek-healing-as-church-eases-anti-lgbt-policy

This made me sad to read.  It certainly puts some faces behind the answers to many of the questions asked regarding who this policy may have hurt.  I'd imagine it's just a small representation too.  

 

[davidsonlaw]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

Calm, Scott also posted this on the now locked thread.  I asked if he knew who the author of this blog was and he suggested I ask you here.  Do you know?

Also, is there any documentation that the story regarding the Stake President in Seattle is actually what prompted the original policy?  Do you know?

Hi.  I'm the author of the post and davidson-law.net is my site.  Good to meet you.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, davidsonlaw said:

Hi.  I'm the author of the post and davidson-law.net is my site.  Good to meet you.

Hey!  Nice to "meet" you too!!  (And welcome!)

Do you have any sources or documentation that what took place in Seattle caused the old policy to be written and inserted into the church handbook?  

Thanks in advance for any info 👍

Edited April 8, 2019 by ALarson

[davidsonlaw]

So, here's the link to the archive of the apology by one of the lesbian ladies involved.  I avoided naming too many names.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160810040944/http://www.lattergaysaints.com/an-apology

Whether this triggered the 2015 policy or not isn't something I can prove definitely, but the timing of it is suggestive.  As I also mentioned, the Seattle stake wasn't a lone actor in this.  During the same time period, there were reports of similar lack of action by several stake presidents in some closed facebook groups, a couple of which I confirmed in correspondence with the stake presidents involved. All told, I was aware of at least a dozen stake presidents who were actively looking the other way on these issues, ostensibly out of love.  So, when November 2015 rolled around, I assumed that there was a critical mass of SP's and bishops, and I expect that I was only aware of some of them, that were sufficiently off the reservation that a course correction was needed.  

[Teancum]

On 4/6/2019 at 6:21 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Greg Smith's treatise (FairMormon link above) is the most thoughtful, sensible writing I have yet seen on this subject since the news broke two days ago. 

It was well written and well thought out, from a believers stand point, which is what I would expect from Greg. I enjoyed reading it even though I am more skeptical.

[davidsonlaw]

Here is an archive of the infamous blog post.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160812051441/http://www.lattergaysaints.com/a-step-in-the-gay-direction/

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, davidsonlaw said:

Whether this triggered the 2015 policy or not isn't something I can prove definitely, but the timing of it is suggestive.  As I also mentioned, the Seattle stake wasn't a lone actor in this

Thank you so much for this (and for providing some more information....I'll take a look).  I do hope it was just more than one isolated incident that would have caused such an over reaction (IMO) and erroneous reaction (again, my opinion) by the church leaders which now has been corrected.  I applaud them for taking the right steps to make it right.

Thanks again for coming here and answering my questions!  Hope you stick around  

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Quoted by ALarson:  To add fuel to the fire, I was aware of similar stands being taken by stake presidents in California and other places.

I would doubt one occasion would have triggered it.  Releasing that SP or bishop if a heart to heart didn't change their view would have been easy.

otoh, if this stance had been seen popping up in several places and expanding...

[davidsonlaw]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

otoh, if this stance had been seen popping up in several places and expanding...

I was just a guy watching things on facebook and saw evidence of it in a dozen stakes.  There was probably more that I didn't see.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, davidsonlaw said:

I was just a guy watching things on facebook and saw evidence of it in a dozen stakes.  There was probably more that I didn't see.

I am assuming you are Michael Davidson, the blog write, given your alias?  Thank you for stopping in and clarifying.  Always clearer when not second, third, fourthhand.  

Add-on:  somehow missed previous posts...ignore all but thank you.  

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

All told, I was aware of at least a dozen stake presidents who were actively looking the other way on these issues, ostensibly out of love.

And if you knew of a dozen, there was likely at least two dozen who were actively looking the other way.  As this approach was discussed publicly and privately and more SPs heard about it, if nothing had been done by SL leadership, it is easy imo to for people---including local leaders---- to assume this was an acceptable choice for local leaders to make.  And thus more would be pushing, more leaders would accept this view, etc. etc.

When one starts thinking of the upheaval that replacing two dozen stake presidents would involve (assuming that is close to those considering this approach and who would be committed to it enough that even instruction to change would not work if given some time to get set in doing it that way), issuing a policy that removes that option of perception from leadership (gay marriage does not require disciplinary concern/action) would seem to me to normally be a less disruptive approach.

The choice to attach exceptions only for various child blessings to this form of apostasy and not others outside the already existing plural marriage apostasy guidelines, the leak, the choice to push the drama of the child blessings condition by certain activists, the choice by certain media to view this as big news...I believe that pushed it to being disruptive more than not having the apostasy policy itself in the long run.  But that is speculation and not something I can prove.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if you knew of a dozen, there was likely at least two dozen who were actively looking the other way.

Really?  (I'm honestly asking if you think that was true).

How did we get to dozens wanting to enter SSM, remain active in the church and baptize their children, from many claiming this policy didn't really affect any members at all because there are no children really affected or gay members who wanted to marry and stay active (or very, very few)?

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

Quote

When we started the [L-T] outreach the year before, it had been shared that there would be no disciplinary action for those not seeking it. This was the message that gave space for anyone to come back, the main one I had been marketing. This new message left me in a bit of shock. I pushed back, asking him to go to the Stake President to, hopefully, get some clarification.

 

I can see the value of having the rule of no action unless sought out in place, I can also see some potential harm...

As in leaders not following through on consequences of sin tend to create a picture that such is trivial.  If it is not trivial after all but has an significant impact on a person whether or not they see it as such, I think that has a lot of potential for spiritual and emotional harm even if judgment itself is dependent on knowledge of God's law.

Having the web archive link led to 403 censor block, so the above quote is from the "infamous blog".

It is really strange when the original post isn't censored, but quoting gets hit...

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

@ALarson, can't get it to quote you or copy...

I don't mean dozens of individuals participating in gay marriage, I mean two dozen leaders making the personal choice if someone were to appear in the stewardship participating in gay marriage, they would choose not to act, but rather ignore the occurrence, possibly even give the individual callings as described above in the case of her premarriage gay relationship

I may have been wrong in interpretation and what Davidson meant by "actively" was not just stating publicly they would look the other way or telling others they would that was then shared publicly, but he was speaking of actual cases where there was a gay marriage or pending one.  If so, I have no clue.

There is a difference between those participating in gay marriage actively attending church and those participating in gay marriage who want their children to be baptized.  The second is possibly a subset of the first ( some parents wouldn't be actively attending of course).  There could be a couple a dozen of the first and only a handful of the second.  Davidson's blog refers to the first in terms of hearing reports, I believe,

And given the number of bishops and SPs out there, if it is possible to consider at all without appearing off the rails (mentally disturbed), I can see a small percentage going that route, in either direction (creating a local standard of going for more action as well as going for less than recommended by guidelines)

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, davidsonlaw said:

So, here's the link to the archive of the apology by one of the lesbian ladies involved.  I avoided naming too many names.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160810040944/http://www.lattergaysaints.com/an-apology

Whether this triggered the 2015 policy or not isn't something I can prove definitely, but the timing of it is suggestive.  As I also mentioned, the Seattle stake wasn't a lone actor in this.  During the same time period, there were reports of similar lack of action by several stake presidents in some closed facebook groups, a couple of which I confirmed in correspondence with the stake presidents involved. All told, I was aware of at least a dozen stake presidents who were actively looking the other way on these issues, ostensibly out of love.  So, when November 2015 rolled around, I assumed that there was a critical mass of SP's and bishops, and I expect that I was only aware of some of them, that were sufficiently off the reservation that a course correction was needed.  

Thank you for posting this.  Also, welcome to the forum.

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Really?  (I'm honestly asking if you think that was true).

How did we get to dozens wanting to enter SSM, remain active in the church and baptize their children, from many claiming this policy didn't really affect any members at all because there are no children really affected or gay members who wanted to marry and stay active (or very, very few)?

Conceivably,  there may have been "dozens" of Stake Presidents,  actively looking the other way while known LGBT members, perhaps many or most inactive or less-active, were in varying sorts of proscribed relationships. 

Those Stake Presidents perhaps  were being relatively outspoken (within what they hoped were discreet venues) that they intended to pursue "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policies with respect to such members. At least so long as such members were not being called to significant ward or stake callings,  were usually on the margins of ward life, etcetera. 

This still might have been a concern to General Authorities,  as it implied a quiescent attitude toward LGBTQIA  issues which would make it difficult to continue to sound forth a clear message about living the Law of Chastity.  

I am speculating here. But understand this: much of the corporate world now insists that managers be LGBTQIA-friendly, that they permit LGBT employees to be "out-and-open" in the workplace.  Stake Presidents,  it is my impression, tend to be drawn from the same demographic of people who are also going to hold responsible positions in corporate management.  

Whatever the private religious feelings of a Latter-Day Saint in a management position in many-perhaps most-corporate enterprises today, they must work with LGBTQIA  persons,  cheerfully and productively. I suspect this shapes how they would want to interact with known LGBT persons who, for whatever reasons,  retain some semblance of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 

So, while admitting that I am only speculating: it would not surprise me that a significant number of Stake Presidents might have felt that in the contemporary climate of 2015, ignoring the relationship status of LGBTQIA  would be a good idea.  While the General Authorities,  who tend to be a generation or two removed from the current workforce culture, might still see it a greater priority to continue to enforce a more rigid moral code. 

[Calm]

Interesting point.

There is probably research somewhere that demonstrates how attitudes towards others developed in one interaction can influence interactions in other, even quite different venues, but too tired to look that up tonight.

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Interesting point.

There is probably research somewhere that demonstrates how attitudes towards others developed in one interaction can influence interactions in other, even quite different venues, but too tired to look that up tonight.

See "symbolic interactionism", a sociological paradigm.  

[davidsonlaw]

11 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Conceivably,  there may have been "dozens" of Stake Presidents,  actively looking the other way while known LGBT members, perhaps many or most inactive or less-active, were in varying sorts of proscribed relationships. 

The Seattle North Stake was the most well publicized of these, as they were very open about what they were doing, and were inviting in people like Mitch Mayne to speak and train them.  They were actively inviting lgbt folks to be active and engaged at Church.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but they were doing so in a manner in which they promised these individuals that they would turn a blind eye to their extracurricular activities, but when their invitations were received by many and the Obergafell decision came down, they were faced with a number of people who were planning on getting married, not just sitting in the pews holding hands.  Many of these people had callings in the wards and stake.  So, there was a new problem: they had been agreeing to look the other way, but the more these people were brought into full activity and were talking about and getting married, when does it become impossible to look the other way?  This is particularly true when the line drawn by the Church had been crossed a long way before.  

The stake presidents that I ended up hearing about were those who took the "in for a penny, in for a pound" approach.  Having crossed lines, and looked the other way, they decided that that would just keep looking the other way.  This intensified the need for correction, IMHO.

I do think that your observation about stake presidents often working in corporate positions that require more tolerance is well said.  There is probably some truth to that and it goes a long way to explaining why we see this in some places, particularly in hotspots like Seattle, San Francisco and (perhaps surprisingly) Salt Lake City.

In the day, I exchanged a series of emails with a stake president in the bay area that held an officer level position in a tech company there.  When I asked him about certain activities he was allowing at the stake center, he responded with "these people live in my stake, I have to minister to them."  I agreed that he did, but I questioned whether that meant turning a blind eye to serious violations of the law of chastity.  He said, in essence, that it was the only way to get some to come, but he didn't have any answer then to how they could transition from ignoring the sin to helping people to repent of it.  

There was a post in the Mormons Building Bridges facebook page recently that should break people's hearts.  A man had just been excommunicated for being married to another man.  His complaint, in part, was valid.  When he got married, the stake president came and brought a generous gift.  The marriage was performed by a high priest from the stake.  The SP made a short speech at the reception wishing the couple well and expressing joy at their happiness, and yet six months later this same man presided at their excommunication.  I am not sad that the individual was excommunicated given his actions, but I am sad that the stake president made it harder due to trying to straddle that fence.

[Analytics]

Consiglieri, (aka Radio Free Mormon) did an excellent podcast on this topic. Judging from the mega thread the issues on this are pretty obvious to everyone. However, Consig does a great job of articulating how the policy was put in place 3 years ago by revelation for the children, and was then reversed this month, again by revelation and again for the children.

https://radiofreemormon.org/2019/04/radio-free-mormon-063-president-nelson-jumps-the-shark/