Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change

[CV75]

11 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You indicate here that if you caught a prophet lying about revelation he received, you would accept that as a sign that he has led the church astray and into apostasy?  Am I understanding this one example correctly?

I would take it as a sign that he was attempting to lead the Church the astray, if his intent (assuming I knew that too) was to get the saints to reject the oracles and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants. He might also be disciplined, whatever his intent, if he were caught in any aspect of transgression related to his attempt and intentions.

11 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

One of the challenges of removing a prophet through a disciplinary process is that President Woodruff provided a pretext for the prophet to prove that he is not in apostasy. If I accused President Nelson of apostasy (no matter what the specifics are), I can imagine a disciplinary process put in play to which his response would be: “I can’t be in apostasy because the lord wouldn’t allow it!”  By nature of his office - it can be argued - it is impossible for the prophet to go into apostasy because he decides what is and is not apostasy.

While certainly not a perfect comparison (and I am NOT going to engage in a political debate), some defenders of a certain US President indicate that because he leads the executive branch, the president cannot obstruct justice.

I see no such pretext in his statement, which seems to be an awfully silly and weak one to argue. If God removes him personally, or if there are the necessary witnesses with enough facts that he was attempting to get the saints to reject the oracles and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants, he has no argument. If he is in apostasy (Handbook definition), he has no argument, either, no matter his "defense."

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would take it as a sign that he was attempting to lead the Church the astray, if his intent (assuming I knew that too) was to get the saints to reject the oracles and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants. He might also be disciplined, whatever his intent, if he were caught in any aspect of transgression related to his attempt and intentions.

I see no such pretext in his statement, which seems to be an awfully silly and weak one to argue. If God removes him personally, or if there are the necessary witnesses with enough facts that he was attempting to get the saints to reject the oracles and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants, he has no argument. If he is in apostasy (Handbook definition), he has no argument, either, no matter his "defense."

Is your definition of apostasy as it could happen today different from the apostasy that LDS claim happened following the death of the original apostles?

I ask because don’t believe anyone after Christ’s death was attempting to lead anyone astray intentionally. Yet - we call that an apostasy.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

God doesn't flip flop.

It seems to me that this is at the heart of many critics complaints about the policy changes - namely that God never says X and then, at some point in the future, turns around and says NOT X. 

Except, of course, there are plenty of examples throughout history where God has done exactly that.

God tells the prophet he will destroy Nineveh, but then he changes his mind. God tells his covenant people: NO BACON! But then turns around later and (in mercy) declares: YES BACON! Etc., etc.

There are certainly eternal truths that God never waivers on, but when it comes to policies and procedures where nothing so weighty is concerned, God seems to not be nearly as hung up about the details as mortal men tend to be.

 

[bluebell]

10 hours 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".

 

 

Of  course being fallible isn't apostasy.  I'm really surprised that you believe it is.  I don't believe the church is going to go astray (and I don't believe that God will allow a prophet to lead it astray or into apostasy) because the scriptures have prophesied that it wouldn't.  That's why I always rule apostasy out.

It's not odd or weird that members of the church believe the theological claims of the church.

[MustardSeed]

I don’t understand why it’s so impossible to consider that the policy may have been initially instated as a swift reaction to a PR crisis.  

It makes perfect logical sense in my mind.  

I think (no proof) that the leadership was quite divided on whether or not the initial policy was correct and that President Monson called the shot.  No need to say why this is my point of view, but that’s my narrative. 

Im ok with all of it.  Hated the policy but the process- I totally get it.  I’m pretty settled on this whole issue.  

Ive had leaders friends and family PLENTY of times claim to be inspired about stuff.  I know why they make the claim. I understand it.  I’m very careful to always ask God myself and to act according to my personal answer. 

I’m sure as pie not expecting SSM to be sanctioned in the LDS church.  I don’t believe the policy change was a precursor to anything.  But I also believe God isn’t nearly as disgusted by his homosexual children as some here are. I have no CFR for a single sentence I’ve written. It’s all feeling and assumption.  Carry on. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by MustardSeed

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of  course being fallible isn't apostasy.  I'm really surprised that you believe it is.  I don't believe the church is going to go astray (and I don't believe that God will allow a prophet to lead it astray or into apostasy) because the scriptures have prophesied that it wouldn't.  That's why I always rule apostasy out.

It's not odd or weird that members of the church believe the theological claims of the church.

I wasn't talking about fallibility.  I accept leader fallibility without considering it apostasy.

The question was:  Is being wrong about the will of God with respect to saving ordinances (the denial/delay of baptism and the termination of covenants through excommunication) considered "leading the church astray".  It sounds like your answer is "no".  Which is fine.

I'm just saying that it doesn't seem like we can find much that qualifies as "leading astray" so under those definitions, Pres. Woodruff can't be wrong.  Although @Calm suggested that selling priesthood offices, giving welfare funds as payment to leaders, or letting leaders use temples as private mansions would qualify.

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t understand why it’s so impossible to consider that the policy may have been initially instated as a swift reaction to a PR crisis.  

It makes perfect logical sense in my mind.  

I think (no proof) that the leadership was quite divided on whether or not the initial policy was correct and that President Monson called the shot.  No need to say why this is my point of view, but that’s my narrative. 

Im ok with all of it.  Hated the policy but the process- I totally get it.  I’m pretty settled on this whole issue.  

Ive had leaders friends and family PLENTY of times claim to be inspired about stuff.  I know why they make the claim. I understand it.  I’m very careful to always ask God myself and to act according to my personal answer. 

I’m sure as pie not expecting SSM to be sanctioned in the LDS church.  I don’t believe the policy change was a precursor to anything.  But I also believe God isn’t nearly as disgusted by his homosexual children as some here are. I have no CFR for a single sentence I’ve written. It’s all feeling and assumption.  Carry on. 

I don't think there was a PR crisis but I think there may have been a lot of questions/concerns raised from local leadership about whether legally married gay couples could/would be disciplined.  And it makes sense to me that they wanted or needed to address it.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Is your definition of apostasy as it could happen today different from the apostasy that LDS claim happened following the death of the original apostles?

I ask because don’t believe anyone after Christ’s death was attempting to lead anyone astray intentionally. Yet - we call that an apostasy. 

I use a few definitions of apostasy. You mentioned the Great Apostasy. There is also personal apostasy, the Handbook usage for disciplinary purposes, dwindling in a tradition of unbelief (Helaman 15:15) and intentional/ conspiratorial (1 Nephi 13:8). I think the causes of the Great Apostasy involved personal apostasy, traditions of unbelief, intent and conspiracy (including the ravenous wolves and persecuting and executing the apostles and saints), no one to exercise the keys (inlcuding revelation), and media conditions.

I think traditions of unbelief, media conditions, absence of keys including revelation (and other circumstances) are largely unintentional on the part of those dealing with the circumstances they have been dealt, and that personal apostasy, taking things away from the gospel, leading the Church astray, “wolfism” and conspiracy are intentional.

I think the Lord permitted the Great Apostasy in line with John 12:24 in principle. But since the Restoration, that condition will no more return than Jesus’ death, and President Woodruff describes the means by which He prevents that from happening, inasmuch as “astray” can be said to mean “Great Apostasy.”

[CV75]

12 hours 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?

The policy still protects the children, more with a case-by-case social arrangement than with a blanket barrier-and-access arrangement. This reflects the positive evolution in how disparate interests have learned to watch out for the children's' interests. The Lord saw fit to do it that way, commensurate with the wherewithal of adults on both sides of ssm to deal with these special circumstances.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

The policy still protects the children, more with a case-by-case social arrangement than with a blanket barrier-and-access arrangement. This reflects the positive evolution in how disparate interests have learned to watch out for the children's' interests. The Lord saw fit to do it that way, commensurate with the wherewithal of adults on both sides of ssm to deal with these special circumstances.

A positive evolution?  Tough to call it an evolution since we just went back to the way it was done before November of 2015.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

See above as to God's reasoning for changing policies. It was apostasy as defined in the Handbook for disciplinary purposes. It is still a more classical personal apostasy (serious transgression requiring discipline) and general apostasy (communal/national transgression of the covenant).

[CV75]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

A positive evolution?  Tough to call it an evolution since we just went back to the way it was done before November of 2015.

The policy still protects children, so there is no evolution on that point. It protects them in a different way, which is evolution on that point. The circumstances changed, and so did "the way it was done."

[CV75]

Question: Since Multiple News Agencies Are No Longer Reporting On the Policy Change, why?

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The policy still protects children, so there is no evolution on that point. It protects them in a different way, which is evolution on that point. The circumstances changed, and so did "the way it was done."

It protects them in the same way that they were protected prior to Nov 2015.  Not an evolution.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't talking about fallibility.  I accept leader fallibility without considering it apostasy.

The question was:  Is being wrong about the will of God with respect to saving ordinances (the denial/delay of baptism and the termination of covenants through excommunication) considered "leading the church astray".  It sounds like your answer is "no".  Which is fine.

I'm just saying that it doesn't seem like we can find much that qualifies as "leading astray" so under those definitions, Pres. Woodruff can't be wrong.  Although @Calm suggested that selling priesthood offices, giving welfare funds as payment to leaders, or letting leaders use temples as private mansions would qualify.

I don't know how being wrong about severing someone's ordinances that shouldn't be severed would be any more egregious than being wrong about not severing someone's blessings that should have them severed.  I think our teachings about how the Holy Spirit of Promise get's the deciding vote on that covers leadership fallibility in making those calls.

As for what defines apostasy, if we assume the same definition for our church going astray as when the original church went astray, lds.org defines it as when leaders of the church "corrupt the principles of the gospel and make unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances." 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As for what defines apostasy, if we assume the same definition for our church going astray as when the original church went astray, lds.org defines it as when leaders of the church "corrupt the principles of the gospel and make unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances." 

Well, if they didn't receive clear revelation back in November 2015, than what they did could qualify as having gone astray.  It all hinges on whether or not the prophet received the revelation.  Sadly, he never said one way or the other.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don't think there was a PR crisis but I think there may have been a lot of questions/concerns raised from local leadership about whether legally married gay couples could/would be disciplined.  And it makes sense to me that they wanted or needed to address it.

I thought the policy had been a buried one that was brought to light by a whistle blower and that it forced a formal statement? 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I thought the policy had been a buried one that was brought to light by a whistle blower and that it forced a formal statement? 

I don't know if anyone ever nailed down exactly when the policy was put into the online version of Handbook 1.  But, I don't think it was more than a few days before someone who had access to the handbook, shared the new policy via social media and/or with John Dehlin (I'm a little fuzzy on how exactly it came to light).  Some have said that an email went out to local leaders notifying them of the new policy insertion.  I was a counselor in a bishopric at the time and never received such an email.   My bishop didn't seem to be aware of one at the time either.  So we did not know about the addition of the new policies until the were leaked.

I agree with you that their formal statement, the interview with Elder Christofferson, and the FP letter to modify the policy a week later were all a result of the "leak".

But, the policy itself arose out of the Obergefell decision according to President Nelson.

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't know if anyone ever nailed down exactly when the policy was put into the online version of Handbook 1.  But, I don't think it was more than a few days before someone who had access to the handbook, shared the new policy via social media and/or with John Dehlin (I'm a little fuzzy on how exactly it came to light).  Some have said that an email went out to local leaders notifying them of the new policy insertion.  I was a counselor in a bishopric at the time and never received such an email.   My bishop didn't seem to be aware of one at the time either.  So we did not know about the addition of the new policies until the were leaked.

I agree with you that their formal statement, the interview with Elder Christofferson, and the FP letter to modify the policy a week later were all a result of the "leak".

But, the policy itself arose out of the Obergefell decision according to President Nelson.

I've read elsewhere that some believe the policy was reversed for legal reasons (because of the new legislature passed).  Do you know anything about that or have an opinion regarding it?  That the church's legal team wanted to avoid any lawsuits, etc. in the future.  I haven't looked into that angle, but wondered if there's anything to it or if it's just a coincidence that the policy change was announced within days of the new legislation.

Quote

Troy Williams is the executive director of civil rights group Equality Utah. He's gay, and he's left the LDS church. He and others were celebrating a victory this week that gave LGBTQ people the same protections as others in new legislation.

The governor of Utah signed an LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime statute that was voted on almost - with a overwhelming majority of this conservative legislature.

EATON: They didn't expect to be celebrating again just a few days later. The church had reversed course on a controversial 2015 policy concerning same-sex couples. He says now it's time to re-evaluate.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/05/710169588/lds-church-adjusts-policy-on-lgbt-couples

 

This bill referred to was signed by the Governor on April 2, 2019 and approved by the state Senate and House in early to mid March, 2019, I believe (the policy reversal was announced on April 4).

Edited April 25, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It protects them in the same way that they were protected prior to Nov 2015.  Not an evolution.

It certainly is an evolution, since the circumstances and needs changed. "What circumstances?" you may ask. One might point to the changing social/political/cultural climates which influenced the kinds of questions members and local leaders were asking, requiring concrete guidance (though policies also allow for exceptions). Note this dovetails with emphasizing the family-centered, Church-supported approach to doctrinal and practical matters where the saints are relying more and more upon the Gift of the Holy (see the "In coming days..." thread about that). As climates change and settle in over time only to stimulate yet further changes, the questions and answers change (let's see the next round of policies!) and less explicit guidance is required for old questions (just as guidance for questions that arise during another climate).

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, if they didn't receive clear revelation back in November 2015, than what they did could qualify as having gone astray. 

How so?  What gospel principles or ordinances did the 2015 policy change?    

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've read elsewhere that some believe the policy was reversed for legal reasons (because of the new legislature passed).  Do you know anything about that or have an opinion regarding it?  That the church's legal team wanted to avoid any lawsuits, etc. in the future.  I haven't looked into that angle, but wondered if there's anything to it or if it's just a coincidence that the policy change was announced within days of the new legislation.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/05/710169588/lds-church-adjusts-policy-on-lgbt-couples

This bill referred to was signed by the Governor on April 2, 2019 and approved by the state Senate and House in early to mid March, 2019, I believe (the policy reversal was announced on April 4).

I don't think it's all about Utah...

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've read elsewhere that some believe the policy was reversed for legal reasons (because of the new legislature passed).  Do you know anything about that or have an opinion regarding it?  That the church's legal team wanted to avoid any lawsuits, etc. in the future.  I haven't looked into that angle, but wondered if there's anything to it or if it's just a coincidence that the policy change was announced within days of the new legislation.

I'm not sure how that hate crime legislation would factor into the policy reversal.  I don't see any connection or any reason that one would drive the other.

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It certainly is an evolution, since the circumstances and needs changed. "What circumstances?" you may ask. One might point to the changing social/political/cultural climates which influenced the kinds of questions members and local leaders were asking, requiring concrete guidance (though policies also allow for exceptions). Note this dovetails with emphasizing the family-centered, Church-supported approach to doctrinal and practical matters where the saints are relying more and more upon the Gift of the Holy (see the "In coming days..." thread about that). As climates change and settle in over time only to stimulate yet further changes, the questions and answers change (let's see the next round of policies!) and less explicit guidance is required for old questions (just as guidance for questions that arise during another climate).

Circumstances may have changed but in terms of policy, we have gone back to where we were in October of 2015.  Not sure how that can be seen as an evolution.  The world may have evolved somewhat in those 3+ years but we went back to where we previously were in terms of policy and teaching.  It was a reversal not a new policy.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It certainly is an evolution, since the circumstances and needs changed. "What circumstances?" you may ask.

Nothing really changed regarding the reason mainly given for the policy in the first place.  (To protect the children.)

Why did they need protection 3 years ago, but not now?  

It's amazing to me to see the lengths some will go to here in order to absolutely not even consider that since our leaders are fallible, this is one of the times where a mistake was made....an error in judgment or an over reaction that went horribly.  It's admirable that it's been corrected and that's where the real focus should be, IMO.  I applaud our leaders for making this right.

What do you personally believe the statement "The leaders are not infallible" means, if not that they sometimes make mistakes and are human?

Edited April 25, 2019 by ALarson