Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe either works for him in all probability, since gay married couples are still in violation of the law of Chastity and will likely be excommunicated if they make it about opposition to the Gospel or wish to come into full fellowship where it will be part of the repentance process.

But I haven't received any witness about it, so I based this on reasoning.

Either way works for him?  So why did He tell the prophet to institute a policy that would cause so many people to leave and others to be excommunicated if He really didn’t care?  

Why did God tell the prophet that we need to protect the children with this policy and then say:  never mind, it’s not really needed?

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Either way works for him?  So why did He tell the prophet to institute a policy that would cause so many people to leave and others to be excommunicated if He really didn’t care?  

Why did God tell the prophet that we need to protect the children with this policy and then say:  never mind, it’s not really needed?

I am not saying he didn't care. I don't see "never mind" as an likely interpretation of what God communicated (more likely "the general membership or maybe the population most affected by these policies have chosen the path they prefer out of the paths that were offered them, you need to work with them in that way").  I am saying it is likely he can work both ways.  I see him as having a number of things to achieve.  Somethings could have been achieved with the policy in place and possibly were, somethings can be achieved with it at its current spot.

I think the first option was to allow the Church to protect by using a more global approach working with parents and family members.  When more parents and extended family members and possibly leaders ended up refusing to take that opportunity (mostly Imo because of antis framing the context so negatively and the media often going along with it and then people accepting that as a given while refusing to consider the Church leadership was being honest in wanting to make it easier on families, not harder), then God was okay with the Church shifting the responsibility to protect children more fully on to parents and local leaders' shoulders as it seems many members want.

Since his local leaders have been instructed to pay attention to educating parents on implications of baptism, etc., this also protects the children, but makes it harder Imo on families and local leaders to do so.  They are the ones who will be dealing with resolving family conflict rather than being able to push it off to central leadership policy.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

I've read somewhere, maybe here, that it was the church's way to weed out the members that weren't all in. Much like polygamy caused a sort of Refiner's Fire scenario.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Isn’t excommunicating people who the Lord doesn’t want excommunicated mean that we are in apostasy?

No, I don’t believe so. Being wrong and being in apostasy aren’t the same thing. 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I don’t believe so. Being wrong and being in apostasy aren’t the same thing. 

Being wrong isn't apostasy either?  It seems that anything mentioned here as possible apostasy or the church going astray is ruled out.... "nope, it's not that either".

 

 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've read somewhere, maybe here, that it was the church's way to weed out the members that weren't all in. Much like polygamy caused a sort of Refiner's Fire scenario.

I don't think it is a bad idea to put people in positions where they have to take a serious introspective look where they examine their assumptions and the implications of them and make choices about where they want to go in the future.  Too often we make choices on autopilot.  I think much of life needs to be done that way eventually to allow us to put the energy that frees up into studying out the more difficult questions.  But autopilot should be reserved for the easy questions like do I eat healthy, do I exercise, do I avoid criminal activity, do I stop myself from going to anger that might lead to abuse of my spouse or kids?  The necessay day to day stuff can be decided and turned into routine.  But fundamental questions about life and what we want out of it for ourselves and others need to be fully examined imo before putting aside as "answered".

Now what meets that "fully examined" depends on the person.  I do believe for many that includes personal revelation, but I think it wise we challenge ourselves when revelation easily confirms what we know. I don't tend to trust "easy revelation" any more than I trust "easygrace", though I realize that some observing what I see as revelation moments in my life my perceive them as "easy" when I know they are true revelations for me as deeply as I know the sun rises every day and will continue to do so in my life barring a cosmic event.

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not saying he didn't care. I don't see "never mind" as an likely interpretation of what God communicated (more likely "the general membership or maybe the population most affected by these policies have chosen the path they prefer out of the paths that were offered them, you need to work with them in that way").  I am saying it is likely he can work both ways.  I see him as having a number of things to achieve.  Somethings could have been achieved with the policy in place and possibly were, somethings can be achieved with it at its current spot.

I think the first option was to allow the Church to protect by using a more global approach working with parents and family members.  When more parents and extended family members and possibly leaders ended up refusing to take that opportunity (mostly Imo because of antis framing the context so negatively and the media often going along with it and then people accepting that as a given while refusing to consider the Church leadership was being honest in wanting to make it easier on families, not harder), then God was okay with the Church shifting the responsibility to protect children more fully on to parents and local leaders' shoulders as it seems many members want.

Since his local leaders have been instructed to pay attention to educating parents on implications of baptism, etc., this also protects the children, but makes it harder Imo on families and local leaders to do so.  They are the ones who will be dealing with resolving family conflict rather than being able to push it off to central leadership policy.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the general membership or maybe the population most affected by these policies have chosen the path they prefer out of the paths that were offered them"?  They didn't have the option of choosing the path they "prefer".

What things do you feel were achieved with the policy in place?  I see nothing positive and so I'm comfortably judging this "revelation" by its fruits.

What is your evidence that "more parents and extended family members and possibly leaders ended up refusing to take that opportunity"?

And how about gay marriage being defined as apostasy?  Why did God want it that way in 2015 but doesn't want gay marriage being defined as apostasy now?

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Being wrong isn't apostasy either?  It seems that anything mentioned here as possible apostasy or the church going astray is ruled out.... "nope, it's not that either".

 

 

Because there seems to be a desire to remove it from context and turn it into an easy on/off checklist...and human life doesn't operate that way.

For example, black and white "killing others is wrong, wrong, wrong"....until you get to cases of self defense where there is no other way, maybe war, maybe not war if the ones ordering it are obviously evil...but who defines obvious, maybe killing in the sense of not trying to keep alive when one could is okay when it comes to horrible quality of life, maybe capital punishment is appropriate and maybe it isn't (if a community does not have the ability to keep a murderer behind bars, is it better to prevent further murders for sure by killing them or better not to take life as a community to protect the community's soul and instead risk physical and emotional harm to innocents and their families...

Could go on and on with different contexts  of killing that are not so clearly wrong.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the general membership or maybe the population most affected by these policies have chosen the path they prefer out of the paths that were offered them"?  They didn't have the option of choosing the path they "prefer".

They do if it is God directing things and inspiring based on people's desires.

Think Samuel giving Israel a king because God directed it based on the nation's desires or Christ "tarrying" because the people desiring he not go when it was time for him to leave.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because there seems to be a desire to remove it from context and turn it into an easy on/off checklist...and human life doesn't operate that way.

For example, black and white "killing others is wrong, wrong, wrong"....until you get to cases of self defense where there is no other way, maybe war, maybe not war if the ones ordering it are obviously evil...but who defines obvious, maybe killing in the sense of not trying to keep alive when one could is okay when it comes to horrible quality of life, maybe capital punishment is appropriate and maybe it isn't (if a community does not have the ability to keep a murderer behind bars, is it better to prevent further murders for sure by killing them or better not to take life as a community to protect the community's soul and instead risk physical and emotional harm to innocents and their families...

Could go on and on with different contexts  of killing that are not so clearly wrong.

Understood.  But so far, in this thread, every possible definition of "astray" has been ruled out including the prophet being wrong regarding the will of God and terminating the saving ordinances or church members unjustly.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

They do if it is God directing things and inspiring based on people's desires.

Think Samuel giving Israel a king because God directed it based on the nation's desires or Christ "tarrying" because the people desiring he not go when it was time for him to leave.

So your belief here is that the original "revelation" is what God really wanted.  Then, since members didn't like it, God told the prophet to stop excommunicating gay couples and to let their children be members of the church?

If that was the case, why have President Oaks tell the members this:  "The very positive policies announced this morning should help affected families. In addition, our members’ efforts to show more understanding, compassion and love should increase respect and understanding among all people of goodwill. We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today. We are optimistic that a majority of people — whatever their beliefs and orientations — long for better understanding and less contentious communications. That is surely our desire, and we seek the help of our members and others to attain it."

That explanation doesn't seem to align with the theory that the reversal of the original "revelation" was because of our refusal to fully accept it.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you ask being open to receiving a yes?

I don't ask that question about murdering my neighbor; though I suppose if someone felt the need to be completely open to such a response it may be worthwhile, but why? I don't ask that question about if I should have married my wife or if I really should be attached to someone else. I don't ask that question about Jesus Christ not really being the Son of God. I don't ask that question about so many things and I don't think I should or that anyone else should either. 

There is a false premise that we need to be open to all things at all times. The problem with that proposal is that it never allows for knowledge of truth or taking a position for that matter. God was pretty clear about those that were lukewarm; I see no need to encourage the saints to be lukewarm either. I believe that we learn truth - what is the purpose of the life? If you find that answer, then what role does homosexuality play except for being a pursuit of carnal man? It plays no role; none. In fact, it is in direct conflict with the purpose of creation. Does any theologian have any premise that God made a mistake in his creation and that it really wasn't about propagating? I have never heard or read one to propose anything that comes close to it. 

[Calm]

Quote

So your belief here is that the original "revelation" is what God really wanted.

No

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Understood.  But so far, in this thread, every possible definition of "astray" has been ruled out including the prophet being wrong regarding the will of God and terminating the saving ordinances or church members unjustly.

I believe leadership would be in apostasy if they started selling Church positions or if they stopped welfar and instead say the money should given to paying leaders instead.  Temples being turned into mansions for leaders would be another sign, imo.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe leadership would be in apostasy if they started selling Church positions or if they stopped welfar and instead say the money should given to paying leaders instead.  Temples being turned into mansions for leaders would be another sign, imo.

Well, since they don't disclose finances, we wouldn't necessarily know about the first part. 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

No

Okay... that's how I understood your comparisons.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay... that's how I understood your comparisons.

I am thinking possibilities, not relative certainties.  And one of the possibilities is Pres. Nelson misrepresented either the first policy or the second, but plenty of others are posting that as a certainty so my mind wanders into other avenues.

I haven't had a witness on it, my mind is still in ponder mode therefore.  It is not something that bears on my fundamental assumptions or even less fundamental ones nor directly impacts me, so I also accept that I may never get an answer until I get to the next life and get let in on the endless tapestry and not just my small corner of it.

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

I don't know anything about anything but I do wonder about pulpit pounders when it comes to issues of homosexuality.  Too often it turns out to be a case of projection identification. 

I think that since God is not static it would do us well to remain flexible as well.  Never say never.   Just my opinion.  What would it hurt, to admit we know very little and to remain flexible, still following the prophets?

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am thinking possibilities, not relative certainties.  And one of the possibilities is Pres. Nelson misrepresented either the first policy or the second, but plenty of others are posting that as a certainty so my mind wanders into other avenues.

I haven't had a witness on it, my mind is still in ponder mode therefore.  It is not something that bears on my fundamental assumptions or even less fundamental ones nor directly impacts me, so I also accept that I may never get an answer until I get to the next life and get let in on the endless tapestry and not just my small corner of it.

 

When I let go of some of the emotion, I see it this way:  The Brethren have stated that revelation/will of God is understood when all 15 of them reach agreement on a particular topic.  So I think it's quite possible that President Nelson considers the 2015 policy to be revelation because all present agreed that it was the best way to proceed after the Obergefell decision by SCOTUS.

That explanation seems to best fit all of the available data.

Then, seeing how troubling the 2015 policy has been for members and the church in general, I think the 15 may very well have discussed the matter again and came to a consensus that it should be repealed.  Again, because it was all of the FP+Q12 in agreement, it is deemed revelation per the current definition being provided by the Brethren.

The problem with this, for me, is that none of it really feels like God's will.

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

How can any of this even be argued about further, since Pres. Monson was not in any shape to receive a revelation in the first place and not all 12 were even aware of it. President Nelson didn't speak truthfully according to RadioFreeMormon that received information from Greg Prince.

To the extent we actually know anything about the inner workings of the foremost General Authorities.  

Are you privy to a judicial decree that formally declared Thomas S. Monson to be entirely non compis mentis, for example? Mostly these things are surmisals based on hearsay. IIRC, President Monson was still showing up for General Conference and even speaking in 2015. He wasn't playing rugby or designing interstellar cruise rockets, but he had some level of functionality. 

And while we hear that certain GA's were shut out of the November 2015 Policy,  I don't know if we have it on record directly from THEM. (I  stand ready to be corrected). 

The critics are approximately as fallible as the General Authorities,  in my view.  Best to maintain some sense of reserve. 

[Anonymous Mormon]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

IPresident Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles made the following comments Sunday, January 10, 2016, during a devotional for Mormons ages 18 to 30. The broadcast originated from the campus of Brigham Young University-Hawaii and can be viewed on LDS.org.

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. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process. And so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

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

 

I think it is insightful to note that when critics talk about this, they describe it as whether apostles and prophets can be trusted when they say that the prophet "declares the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord" on a specific issue. But when apologists talk about it, they describe it as whether apostles and prophets claim to be infallible. 

This entire thread seems to have devolved into the same 8 people who are saying over and over that the prophet got it wrong, therefore he is fallible, therefore he can't be trusted, therefore he isn't receiving revelation from God, therefore the church is not true, therefore the Lord doesn't exist. (note: some stop at the 4th or 5th point, but some are going for all 7 of these).

The entire premise of their argument is that the prophet 'got it wrong' and did not reveal the will of the Lord. However, there is another possibility - and that is that as President Nelson said:
President Thomas S. Monson did indeed declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord.

 

In a similar way the Lord in answer to Alma's prayer on what to do with those who didn't follow the precepts taught by the prophet said, "Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward" (Alma 26:32). I would be willing to bet that in Alma's time when the first excommunications ever in the church happened, there were many who said, "But the will of the Lord isn't to push any away or to kick any out." But they were wrong.

The Lord further said in 3 Nephi that those who weren't worthy shouldn't partake of the baptismal covenant, "Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name" (3 Nephi 18:30). And why did the Lord want these people to attend church (not be cast out) but not to be full members? He did not want them to "be numbered among my people, that [they] may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered." (v 31)

For years the church had this same policy about children in homes of polygamist families and no one ever raised a stink about it. But as soon as it was homosexual families everyone was up in arms. This is because homosexuality is a trendy thing to defend in our culture but polygamy is not. It is curious to me that polygamy is still illegal and no one seems to be concerned about protecting the rights of polygamists, but now SSM is legal and everyone is out to defend gay marriage rights.

The Lord is just and works on his own time table. He sends billions of people to this earth to families where they will never have a chance to hear the gospel or have a chance to be baptized. The majority of the human family will have their ordinances performed for them when they are in the next life. I don't believe that it would be contradictory for the Lord to make someone wait until they are legally an adult to be baptized. And there are cases where some people who really want to be baptized sooner could have been, as this policy allowed exceptions under First Presidency approval. And in the mean time, these children were not cast out from among us in the church but were invited to attend and be ministered unto and prayed for.

Now why might the Lord want such a strict policy in place? Because of the conspiring hearts of men - because there are/were/would be some cases where Same-sex married couples would want their children to be baptized only to pursue an agenda to get SSM approved within the church. And it is totally possible that to the Lord (who cannot look upon sin with allowance) that SSM is a sin and will never condone this behavior and does not want the potential for children to be used as props in an effort to 'destroy my people.'

So, if the Lord revealed this policy, why did He then change the policy? Why the sudden 'flip-flop' that everyone is complaining about? One potential reason is explained in D&C 58:

30 Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments?

31 Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?

32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.

 

And it further explained it in D&C 56:6:

For behold, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants ... in consequence of the stiffneckedness of my people which are in [the Church], and their rebellions.

 

It is fully possible, that based upon the push back of stiff-necked and rebellious people both in and out of the church, the Lord has relaxed his standard on this. If no one had complained about this policy, just like no one complained about the polygamy policy, it would have been a non-issue and still be on the books, just like the polygamy policy. And frankly, just about no one would have cared because the few people who were affected by it could have received First Presidency exemptions if they were serious seekers of baptism. And I don't think the Lord was opposed to it being this way and it might have actually been his preference.

I don't know the mind of the Lord, so I can't say for sure that the above is the full case. I have one or two other theories along the lines others have shared, so I can't say for sure. But I highly suspect the above is the case.

And one thing I do know, is that I trust President Nelson and if he says that he received this via revelation then it was via revelation. 

And I know the above will not be popular with most of those posting on this thread, as they will not be content to hear that actively engaging in homosexual (even if married) behavior is a sin. And they won't be happy until the church accepts fully the children of those in SSM. And allows baptism to those adults in SSM. And of course we can't have second class citizen in the church so in their view the church must allow for SSM sealings in the temple. And until this happens they have an ax to grind and will fight tooth and nail against the church.

And ironically if each step above were to happen (which is not likely), they would use the very thing they have been fighting and begging for as a club to hammer against those with testimonies to show proof that the church is not true and that the prophets don't receive revelation. Because based upon the majority of the comments in this thread, those who were pushing the hardest to change this policy are not celebrating with joy that the policy changed, but instead using it to attack everyone that believes. Because they don't actually believe and just want to destroy the testimony of others.

I personally do believe in prophecy. And I believe in prophets receiving the will of the Lord to lead the church. I do NOT think it was coincidence that the prophet Pres HInckley received the Proclamation on the Family before most of us had ever been dragged into or even heard of the SSM marriage debate. I do NOT think it was coincidence that the church fought proposition 8 and squarely planted itself in the sights of the pro-gay rights lobby. I do think the Lord could have wanted the Nov 2015 policy and then would allow it to change because of the stiffneckendess of the world.  I also definitely believe that the Lord who gives revelation to the leaders of the church said the following:

4...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

And I believe that the opposition the church sees on this issue is going to continue to increase in intensity until the Second Coming of the Lord.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

When I let go of some of the emotion, I see it this way:  The Brethren have stated that revelation/will of God is understood when all 15 of them reach agreement on a particular topic.  So I think it's quite possible that President Nelson considers the 2015 policy to be revelation because all present agreed that it was the best way to proceed after the Obergefell decision by SCOTUS.

That explanation seems to best fit all of the available data.

Then, seeing how troubling the 2015 policy has been for members and the church in general, I think the 15 may very well have discussed the matter again and came to a consensus that it should be repealed.  Again, because it was all of the FP+Q12 in agreement, it is deemed revelation per the current definition being provided by the Brethren.

The problem with this, for me, is that none of it really feels like God's will.

A possibility, so far I would judge it as most likely of the ones that assume God's Will was not done at least once.

I think it would be very easy to have leaders extrapolate from the policy on polygamous families, look at the past 70+ years (forget when it was put in place, but I think in the 30s, though it could have been later) and see it as successful and therefore be in agreement as a quorum on using it in what they saw as a similar situation.

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the general membership or maybe the population most affected by these policies have chosen the path they prefer out of the paths that were offered them"?  They didn't have the option of choosing the path they "prefer".

What things do you feel were achieved with the policy in place?  I see nothing positive and so I'm comfortably judging this "revelation" by its fruits.

What is your evidence that "more parents and extended family members and possibly leaders ended up refusing to take that opportunity"?

And how about gay marriage being defined as apostasy?  Why did God want it that way in 2015 but doesn't want gay marriage being defined as apostasy now?

 

I am seeing this through more of a Occam's razor lens.  I believe the November 2015 policy was a not-so-well-thought-out reaction to the SCOTUS Gay Marrage decision that was handed down in June of 2015.  The policy caused a lot of damage, and it backfired. There serious push back from both members and general public.  It was a PR nightmare.  Three years later, this "revelation" was reversed and walked back.  It had nothing to do with God.  God doesn't flip flop.  Men do.  To me this is the most simple and viable explanation.  It only gets convoluted and complicated when trying to salvage Russell Nelson's "it was a revelation" story and frame it in a faithful perspective. When you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Occam's razor lens. 

Anyone who applies Occam's razor to human behaviour isn't really paying attention to how humans behave.

We are not machines, we are not simple animals.

example:  people know tobacco has a big risk of killing them, they smoke cigarettes, sometimes in huge amounts and then they get put through painful, expensive cancer treatments to extend what are often painful  lives.  Surely any intelligent being should be using Occam's razor lens to figure out doctors should not be wasting time or resources on finding treatments, because smokers have to have a desire to die...desire to die is the only simplest explanation for why people willingly, even eagerly at times choose behaviours they know may kill them. (2/3 smokers will die early if they do not quit).

Edited April 25, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Because there seems to be a desire to remove it from context and turn it into an easy on/off checklist...and human life doesn't operate that way.

For example, black and white "killing others is wrong, wrong, wrong"....until you get to cases of self defense where there is no other way, maybe war, maybe not war if the ones ordering it are obviously evil...but who defines obvious, maybe killing in the sense of not trying to keep alive when one could is okay when it comes to horrible quality of life, maybe capital punishment is appropriate and maybe it isn't (if a community does not have the ability to keep a murderer behind bars, is it better to prevent further murders for sure by killing them or better not to take life as a community to protect the community's soul and instead risk physical and emotional harm to innocents and their families...

Could go on and on with different contexts  of killing that are not so clearly wrong.

I actually think this was the major flaw in the 2015 policy.  It made every situation a black and white issue.  All gay children under age were denied baptism no matter what the nuances of the situation was.  All gay couples were apostates no matter what their situation was.  This "first revelation" took all of the wisdom and compassion for the individual family completely out of the equation and made a cookie cutter demand across the board.  Perhaps that is why so many members got a different answer from God when they prayed about this "revelation".

To use your analogy it made all murder no matter what the situation the same.