Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

 

Thanks....I hadn't looked into it much,  I admit.  I value your opinion on it 👍

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

You stated:  "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." 

The policy dictated the children could not be baptized or receive the priesthood until they became adults and disavowed their parents.  It also mandated the termination of covenants and ordinances for gay couples by declaring their marriage to be apostasy.

If this policy was not authorized by the Lord than it had corrupted principles of the gospel (baptism) and made unauthorized changes in priesthood ordinances.

 

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

It’s a matter of semantics. Whether you want to call it a reversal, a retraction or a restoration, I see it as, I said, a “positive evolution in how disparate interests have learned to watch out for the children's' interests” at each stage before and after. As the understanding of the policy users changes, the meaning of the extant policy changes, so yes, I see that as an evolution of policy also.

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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?

RE: needing protection now: You are challenging a assertion I did not make. See: Posted 2 hours ago

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.

RE: not infallible: Of course the leaders are fallible, sometimes make mistakes and are human. i don't think this is an example of that. In the interest of efficiency, I invite you to read the rest of my posts in this thread for more of my personal insights you might ask about, considering how the Q&A typically flows.

[MiserereNobis]

Hey all, I just started a thread on apostasy and the removal of the president. I thought it an interesting concept to take a wider audience than just those who are viewing this thread.

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It’s a matter of semantics. Whether you want to call it a reversal, a retraction or a restoration, I see it as, I said, a “positive evolution in how disparate interests have learned to watch out for the children's' interests” at each stage before and after. As the understanding of the policy users changes, the meaning of the extant policy changes, so yes, I see that as an evolution of policy also.

You can throw all the language you want at it.  But, that won't change the fact that we went back to where we were four years ago.  The same place we were before the policy.  You are calling that an evolution.  I disagree on the grounds that an evolution implies some sort of advance, not a retreat to where we were before. 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You can throw all the language you want at it.  But, that won't change the fact that we went back to where we were four years ago.  The same place we were before the policy.  You are calling that an evolution.  I disagree on the grounds that an evolution implies some sort of advance, not a retreat to where we were before. 

So can you, and you do!

One fact from a narrow semantic is an awfully simplistic way to frame it, too! And comfortable for some.

And yes, we have advanced based on a number of facts and well-considered conditions.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You can throw all the language you want at it.  But, that won't change the fact that we went back to where we were four years ago.  The same place we were before the policy. 

This.  I can see that nothing has changed other than some damage that was done (PR, etc.) and many were hurt.

Once again, I give the leaders credit for stepping back and making things right.  It's just too bad that it happened and that there ever was the policy in the first place, IMO.  

Edited April 25, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

5 hours 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 can think of lots of things that would be leading astray.  The problem is they are more extreme, obvious (temples into brothels is another that had occurred to me, but didn't post for obvious reason it is so obvious).

You probably want to know about things that are a higher probability, little things that move us more and more into apostasy.  Things that are within our reach without much movement.  The problem is those kinds of things depend on context.  I do believe completely excluding a group of people (not just one or a few based on a misunderstanding of their worthiness) permanently from ordinances based on something besides worthiness or behaviour could be apostasy, but context is everything.  I don't see delaying baptism until a leader believes someone is capable of a fuller commitment because of unusual conditions as inherent apostasy.  I don't see excluding someone because behaviour is believed to be immoral is inherent apostasy.  Context is very important in borderline cases of potential apostasy.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

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

There have been local leaders intentionally leading people astray in the modern age (there was a case reported while we were in Russia of a Eastern European leader who refused to be released and not only tried to take the congregation with him, but claimed the property of the local church as well; there was the French apostasy). 

I may be just naive about the effectiveness of communication and ability to travel as well as recognition of international law and the authority of churches nowadays as opposed to back then, but it seems to me we have some major technological and social safeguards that they did not have back then such that apostasy at the local level is much easier to control for such that apostasy from the grassroots won't influence midlevel leadership in anyway close to what it could back then.  A midlevel leader can today pick up a phone, send an email and get an instant response, including top leaders hopping on a plane and being wherever they need to be in a few days at most.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

Except it didn't since it allowed for exceptions.  Those who truly desired baptism could take the avenue of speaking to their local leader, convincing him of their sincere desire (hopefully not hard) and then he would appeal for an exception in their case.

So the analogy works.

And I know a bishop who appealed for an exception and got one.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Calm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

 

I am not someone who feels a need to tell someone what they should believe in or what they. should have faith in.  But I am someone who clearly states very specific reasons why I no longer have any belief in some kind of special privledged communication with God these men have over any other person.  There is simply no data to support such a conclusion other than tossing out logic and choosing just to believe at any cost.  Which may be just fine for many people.

They are men, flawed men, as there is no other kind of men, or women for that matter, called upon to lead a Church with millions of members worldwide. Sometimes they receive visions, sometimes promptings, or what they feel are promotings from the Holy Ghost. Or they are simply putting their Faith is the Words of God, already in print, therefore they believe it is the word and will of God. Words that make clear it is from “Prophets of God”. The scriptures are clear that a Prophet can indeed change the “mind and will of God”, just as Moses changed God’s desire to kill the Israelites, and to raise up another people. Simply put, as the Apostle Paul said, “in this life we see through a glass darkly”. When this policy came out, I did not think it fair, and posted here how I felt, and that I knew it would change. Be it common sense, or because good men always seek to correct error, even their own, especially their own. What is your solution, billions of Churches, each going their own way? When protesters outside conference were being asked questions, they spoke of how unfair it was for children. 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. 

So my friend, what do you want of us? What Church would like to see? One of my closest friends whom I served with in many callings (sadly gone now) who “came out of the closet”, leaving a 25 year marriage and 5 children, I asked of him a singular question. If the Church accepted Gay marriage, would those who are Gay, live by the same laws of Chasity that currently our youth are asked to abide by, would they. His answer was, “Bill, I love you, but don’t be naive, there is no waiting for marriage, no such world exists”. So, are we to have one code of contact for one group, and a different for another? In the Temple, almost everything surrounding activities is the union between man and wife, and bringing forth an eternal family and righteous posterity. The command to “multiply and replenish the earth”, so what is to be done, what do “you” wish the Church to be? 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

So can you, and you do!

One fact from a narrow semantic is an awfully simplistic way to frame it, too! And comfortable for some.

And yes, we have advanced based on a number of facts and well-considered conditions.

CFR:  What are the facts that show we've advanced?

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

CFR:  What are the facts that show we've advanced?

Since my references and what I consider will probably be assessed as opinion, I'll say it's my opinion

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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).

Agreed.  People are not machines and we are higher than most animals.  We all make mistakes.  I make many mistakes every day.  I also try to acknowledge my mistakes and I try to take responsibility for them.  However,  like the vast majority of people, I have never claimed to speak for God.  I have never stood up in a young adult meeting and gone into great detail on how God has talked to me and the other 15 apostles about what needs to happen with regards to setting discriminatory policies.  Nelson make it very clear that the November 5 policy was a revelation. He doubled down on this.  No other GA did.  Yet three years latter this revelation was walked back and reversed.  The was no apology, no acknowledgement a mistake being made.  No remorse for the countless damage this policy caused.  I my opinion (and I expect be be banded for this)  Nelson and others cause great damage by pushing this huge mistake of a policy.  And by not acknowledging that this was a mistake, the are effectively throwing God under the bus. The arrogance of this is astounding.  This is also a prime example of leaders making uninspired decisions and passing them off as speaking for God.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  People are not machines and we are higher than most animals.  We all make mistakes.  I make many mistakes every day.  I also try to acknowledge my mistakes and I try to take responsibility for them.  However,  like the vast majority of people, I have never claimed to speak for God.  I have never stood up in a young adult meeting and gone into great detail on how God has talked to me and the other 15 apostles about what needs to happen with regards to setting discriminatory policies.  Nelson make it very clear that the November 5 policy was a revelation. He doubled down on this.  No other GA did.  Yet three years latter this revelation was walked back and reversed.  The was no apology, no acknowledgement a mistake being made.  No remorse for the countless damage this policy caused.  I my opinion (and I expect be be banded for this)  Nelson and others cause great damage by pushing this huge mistake of a policy.  And by not acknowledging that this was a mistake, the are effectively throwing God under the bus. The arrogance of this is astounding.  This is also a prime example of leaders making uninspired decisions and passing them off as speaking for God.

I don't have a problem with this stated as an opinion.  Given certain assumptions, it is a reasonable inference, imo.  But it depends on those assumptions being correct and I don't believe someone can say for certain that they are.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

You can throw all the language you want at it.  But, that won't change the fact that we went back to where we were four years ago.  The same place we were before the policy.  You are calling that an evolution.  I disagree on the grounds that an evolution implies some sort of advance, not a retreat to where we were before. 

But no, this is what I'm calling evolution: "...a case-by-case social arrangement than with a blanket barrier-and-access arrangement." and " ...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." Posted 7 hours ago

It seems that you are really disagreeing on grounds that you view the policy today is the same as 2014 and hasn't evolved, even though is some ways it is not the same.

Here's a suggestion: provide the policy from 2014 side-by-side with today's policy and we'll see what has changed. Can you find them?

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But no, this is what I'm calling evolution: "...a case-by-case social arrangement than with a blanket barrier-and-access arrangement." and " ...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." Posted 7 hours ago

It seems that you are really disagreeing on grounds that you view the policy today is the same as 2014 and hasn't evolved, even though is some ways it is not the same.

Here's a suggestion: provide the policy from 2014 side-by-side with today's policy and we'll see what has changed. Can you find them?

The "case-by-case social arrangement" is what we had before and again what we have now: parents were/are to be asked by their local priesthood leaders to give consent for minors to be baptized and the local priesthood leaders interview and authorize baptisms.

No new policy has been given, just a reversal of the Nov 2015 policy.

In what ways do you believe today's policy is different than the 2014 policy?

 

ETA...

I just checked and the online handbook has still not been changed.  It currently reflects the Nov 2015 policies on baptism and apostasy.

But here is the section that was there before and, I assume, will remain:

16.3.6

Minors

A minor child, as defined by local laws, may be baptized and confirmed only when both of the following conditions are met:

1. Consent has been given by the custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The person who conducts the baptism and confirmation interview may ask for this consent to be in writing if he feels it will help prevent misunderstandings.

2. The person who conducts the baptism and confirmation interview discerns that there is clear evidence that the child understands the baptismal covenant and will make every effort to keep it through obeying the commandments, including faithfully attending Church meetings.

Edited April 25, 2019 by rockpond

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Except it didn't since it allowed for exceptions.  Those who truly desired baptism could take the avenue of speaking to their local leader, convincing him of their sincere desire (hopefully not hard) and then he would appeal for an exception in their case.

So the analogy works.

And I know a bishop who appealed for an exception and got one.

Wait.  Are you saying that the 2015 policy allowed the bishop and parents to make the decision to baptize a child of a gay couple???  Do you have any examples of a child of gay parents being allowed to be baptized before their 18th birthday?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wait.  Are you saying that the 2015 policy allowed the bishop and parents to make the decision to baptize a child of a gay couple???  Do you have any examples of a child of gay parents being allowed to be baptized before their 18th birthday?

I'm not aware of any instructions coming from Salt Lake (to local leaders) allowing for this to take place.  If it did happen, I believe it was most likely local leaders doing this on their own.  I am personally not aware of any leaders who made an exception and baptized the child of a gay couple.

I know my Bishop and Stake President were both relieved they were never faced with this decision (to go against the policy as written).  They are also both hugely relieved that the policy has been reversed now.

Edited April 25, 2019 by ALarson

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

They are men, flawed men, as there is no other kind of men, or women for that matter, called upon to lead a Church with millions of members worldwide. Sometimes they receive visions, sometimes promptings, or what they feel are promotings from the Holy Ghost. Or they are simply putting their Faith is the Words of God, already in print, therefore they believe it is the word and will of God. Words that make clear it is from “Prophets of God”. The scriptures are clear that a Prophet can indeed change the “mind and will of God”, just as Moses changed God’s desire to kill the Israelites, and to raise up another people. Simply put, as the Apostle Paul said, “in this life we see through a glass darkly”. When this policy came out, I did not think it fair, and posted here how I felt, and that I knew it would change. Be it common sense, or because good men always seek to correct error, even their own, especially their own. What is your solution, billions of Churches, each going their own way? When protesters outside conference were being asked questions, they spoke of how unfair it was for children. 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. 

So my friend, what do you want of us? What Church would like to see? One of my closest friends whom I served with in many callings (sadly gone now) who “came out of the closet”, leaving a 25 year marriage and 5 children, I asked of him a singular question. If the Church accepted Gay marriage, would those who are Gay, live by the same laws of Chasity that currently our youth are asked to abide by, would they. His answer was, “Bill, I love you, but don’t be naive, there is no waiting for marriage, no such world exists”. So, are we to have one code of contact for one group, and a different for another? In the Temple, almost everything surrounding activities is the union between man and wife, and bringing forth an eternal family and righteous posterity. The command to “multiply and replenish the earth”, so what is to be done, what do “you” wish the Church to be? 

My opinion?  What I would want the church leaders to say when then have made policy decisions is that they carefully prayed about their decision and are all in agreement that is the action the church should take.  They should ask the members to seek guidance from the Lord on how that policy will affect them personally and then choose a course of action for their own lives.  What they should quit doing is claiming a revelation from God.  Claiming a promise or policy came from God simply because everyone agrees on a decision is using a trump card that is not theirs to play.

You give two antidotal people responding to a question and THEN make those answers speak for everyone who is gay.  Is that really fair? Personally I find it offensive to be grouped into those two peoples beliefs just because I am gay.

 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wait.  Are you saying that the 2015 policy allowed the bishop and parents to make the decision to baptize a child of a gay couple???  Do you have any examples of a child of gay parents being allowed to be baptized before their 18th birthday?

I know of an exception, won't share the name of the bishop who granted/appealed it.

The process was the parents and child go to the bishop and expressed a desire to be baptized.  The bishop agreed.  The bishop submitted an appeal just as they do for children wanting to be baptized in the case of polygynous families and women wanting a second sealing without the first being canceled.  There are likely other policies bishops write appeals for, those are the two off the top of my head.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  People are not machines and we are higher than most animals.  We all make mistakes.  I make many mistakes every day.  I also try to acknowledge my mistakes and I try to take responsibility for them.  However,  like the vast majority of people, I have never claimed to speak for God.  I have never stood up in a young adult meeting and gone into great detail on how God has talked to me and the other 15 apostles about what needs to happen with regards to setting discriminatory policies.  Nelson make it very clear that the November 5 policy was a revelation. He doubled down on this.  No other GA did.  Yet three years latter this revelation was walked back and reversed.  The was no apology, no acknowledgement a mistake being made.  No remorse for the countless damage this policy caused.  I my opinion (and I expect be be banded for this)  Nelson and others cause great damage by pushing this huge mistake of a policy.  And by not acknowledging that this was a mistake, the are effectively throwing God under the bus. The arrogance of this is astounding.  This is also a prime example of leaders making uninspired decisions and passing them off as speaking for God.

This is exactly the issue I have when Church leaders make claims of divine revelation from God that later proves to be totally not true.  They aren't just men making mistakes.  They are involking the name of God simply because they feel good about a decision.  This is especially problematic when others pray about that same decision and get a personal witness that no such policy came from God and it contradicts numerous principles the Church stands for.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  People are not machines and we are higher than most animals.  We all make mistakes.  I make many mistakes every day.  I also try to acknowledge my mistakes and I try to take responsibility for them.  However,  like the vast majority of people, I have never claimed to speak for God.  I have never stood up in a young adult meeting and gone into great detail on how God has talked to me and the other 15 apostles about what needs to happen with regards to setting discriminatory policies.  Nelson make it very clear that the November 5 policy was a revelation. He doubled down on this.  No other GA did.  Yet three years latter this revelation was walked back and reversed.  The was no apology, no acknowledgement a mistake being made.  No remorse for the countless damage this policy caused.  I my opinion (and I expect be be banded for this)  Nelson and others cause great damage by pushing this huge mistake of a policy.  And by not acknowledging that this was a mistake, the are effectively throwing God under the bus. The arrogance of this is astounding.  This is also a prime example of leaders making uninspired decisions and passing them off as speaking for God.

Many don't realize that doing that breaks the commandments big time. I think it's probably a huge gripe with God. Think how you'd feel if someone spoke for you and got it wrong. I think this has to end, the church's authority etc. it's got to end because of the harm done because of it. I know many that have suffered at the hands of someone that says they speak for God. 

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know of an exception, won't share the name of the bishop who granted/appealed it.

The process was the parents and child go to the bishop and expressed a desire to be baptized.  The bishop agreed.  The bishop submitted an appeal just as they do for children wanting to be baptized in the case of polygynous families and women wanting a second sealing without the first being canceled.  There are likely other policies bishops write appeals for, those are the two off the top of my head.

Just to be clear, you are saying that a child of an apostate gay couple was allowed to be baptized before their 18th birthday?  Who approved the baptism and why were they granted the baptism over all the other children of gay couples?

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Many don't realize that doing that breaks the commandments big time. I think it's probably a huge gripe with God. Think how you'd feel if someone spoke for you and got it wrong. I think this has to end, the church's authority etc. it's got to end because of the harm done because of it. I know many that have suffered at the hands of someone that says they speak for God. 

As in "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". It seems like a pretty big deal to God.