Policies on Same Gender Marriage remain unchanged

[rockpond]

I was looking up something in Handbook 1 yesterday when I noticed that we now have a new revision:  May 2019 (online version).

At the time of the First Presidency announcement that the policies regarding same gender marriage would be reversed (4 April 2019) we were on the March 2019 revision.  And we were on that revision for at least a month or two after the announcement.  

So I decided to check out the new wording for the two sections that would have been impacted by that April 4th announcement.  But, they are still the same as before:

 

The news release stated:  "Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline."

Section 6.7.3.4 still defines same-gender marriage as apostasy and still requires church discipline in such instances.

 

The news release also stated:  "At the direction of the First Presidency, President Oaks shared that effective immediately, children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender may be baptized without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents give permission for the baptism and understand both the doctrine that a baptized child will be taught and the covenants he or she will be expected to make."

Section 16.13 has not been changed and still prohibits blessing children of same-gender couples.  And the section still requires First Presidency approval to baptize, confirm, ordain, or recommend for missionary service the children of these couples.

 

As a side note, the original (circa 5 Nov 2015) language that does not limit the policy to children whose custodial parents are in the same-gender relationship has remained the published policy with a link to the First Presidency letter that added that qualification.

 

I'm curious why they would make the announcement that this policy would be removed and then, nearly four months later and AFTER a revision of the handbook, still have all of the old language remain.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm curious why they would make the announcement that this policy would be removed and then, nearly four months later and AFTER a revision of the handbook, still have all of the old language remain.

After the change from home teaching to ministering and the merging of elders and high priests quorums how long did it take for those changes to be reflected in the handbook?  Several months if I remember right.  It takes time for the changes in wording in English to be drafted then approved.  Then the changes would need to be translated into all the other languages that the handbook is published in, then approved.  After that it can be published.

Edited August 21, 2019 by ksfisher

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

After the change from home teaching to ministering and the merging of elders and high priests quorums how long did it take for those changes to be reflected in the handbook?  Several months if I remember right.  It takes time for the changes in wording in English to be drafted then approved.  Then the changes would need to be translated into all the other languages that the handbook is published in, then approved.  After that it can be published.

Fair enough... they couldn't make the May revision.  We're now approaching 5 months since the announcement and possibly longer since the decision was made.

Although, it seems to me the easiest route is to just delete the paragraphs they added in November 2015.

[Tacenda]

And it appears the church leaders aren't getting the message not to use SSA, instead of that someone is gay. 

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/lds-president-oaks-speaks-to-parents-about-being-united-in/article_f476dd3b-5d09-5cff-8bb4-5c58c004193f.html?fbclid=IwAR3-Y50J_-jHjCm_ADvp9OaD3dUaWoSOpEHER0KP4VGJQoDrCPLhSsnuVPU

[ksfisher]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And it appears the church leaders aren't getting the message not to use SSA

 

Who has forbidden it? 

[JAHS]

I am pretty sure all church leaders got the official signed memo that they can refer to until the Handbook changes are made.

[Amulek]

47 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And it appears the church leaders aren't getting the message not to use SSA, instead of that someone is gay. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it probably has something to do with the fact that those most vocally opposed to the church's use of language are the ones who want to tear down the church's teachings regarding same sex behavior and are (if we're being honest) pushing for the church to adopt their preferred terminology largely to gain a rhetorical advantage. To those people all I can say is, "I'm sorry that the apostles and prophets see through what you are obviously trying to do and refuse to accommodate your every demand." 

 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I am pretty sure all church leaders got the official signed memo that they can refer to until the Handbook changes are made.

Nope.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I am pretty sure all church leaders got the official signed memo that they can refer to until the Handbook changes are made.

Nope.

Well they should have gotten it. I know my Bishop did. If not they certainly heard it at conference.
The Church news states:

"The new policies have been sent to priesthood leaders worldwide and will be included in online updates to the Church Handbook for leaders."
Church to allow baby blessings, baptisms of children of LGBT parents, no longer defines same-gender marriage by a member as ‘apostasy’

[JLHPROF]

"Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we stillconsider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline."

The wording choice is interesting. Does it say it can no longer be characterized as apostasy at all or only for the purposes of discipline?  Kind of like polygamy is a felony but for the purposes of prosecution we don't consider it worth pressing charges.

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we stillconsider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline."

The wording choice is interesting. Does it say it can no longer be characterized as apostasy at all or only for the purposes of discipline?  Kind of like polygamy is a felony but for the purposes of prosecution we don't consider it worth pressing charges.

I think that's just a reference to the handbook which just has same-gender marriage in the list of things that qualify as apostasy.  And, that definition of apostasy is in the section about when church discipline is mandatory.

 

The wording that I find the most interesting is the beginning of that quote:  "Previously, our handbook characterized..."  WAIT!  The handbook did this?  Because I remember President Nelson saying that it came from countless meetings wherein the Lord's guidance was sought and President Monson approved their work indicating that the will of the Lord had been reached.  Or something to that effect.  It's odd that what President Nelson called a revelatory experience for the apostles and prophet is now something that they just happened to find in the handbook and needed to change.

It should say:  Previously, we characterized... or Previously, the Lord characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy.

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that's just a reference to the handbook which just has same-gender marriage in the list of things that qualify as apostasy.  And, that definition of apostasy is in the section about when church discipline is mandatory.

 

The wording that I find the most interesting is the beginning of that quote:  "Previously, our handbook characterized..."  WAIT!  The handbook did this?  Because I remember President Nelson saying that it came from countless meetings wherein the Lord's guidance was sought and President Monson approved their work indicating that the will of the Lord had been reached.  Or something to that effect.  It's odd that what President Nelson called a revelatory experience for the apostles and prophet is now something that they just happened to find in the handbook and needed to change.

It should say:  Previously, we characterized... or Previously, the Lord characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy.

Your interpolation that they found it in the handbook one day and decided to change it is yours alone and is not suggested or implied by the text.

Offender for a word.............

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Offender for a word.............

Ad somethingum ...

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Your interpolation that they found it in the handbook one day and decided to change it is yours alone and is not suggested or implied by the text.

Offender for a word.............

I didn’t suggest that it was anyone else’s interpolation so the natural assumption is that it was mine - the author of the post.  But thanks for pointing out the obvious. 

The phrase “offender for a word” is incorrectly applied here as I have neither given nor taken offense.  I called the language interesting as they placed their own work into a third person context.  And I suggested what I felt would be more accurate. 

[The Nehor]

On 8/21/2019 at 11:04 PM, rockpond said:

I didn’t suggest that it was anyone else’s interpolation so the natural assumption is that it was mine - the author of the post.  But thanks for pointing out the obvious. 

The phrase “offender for a word” is incorrectly applied here as I have neither given nor taken offense.  I called the language interesting as they placed their own work into a third person context.  And I suggested what I felt would be more accurate. 

Liar.

You libeled the prophet by suggesting that he lied about countless meeting discussing it and instead he just found it in the handbook one day and changed it. You did this because he correctly said that the handbook previously said something else which it did and does not imply there were no meetings or revelations. So you were making him an offender for a word. Dead on accurate.

Now you are backtracking and saying you were quibbling about his verbiage. Kind of pathetic really.

 

Nehor is on a small break.  ~Mods

[Amulek]

On 8/21/2019 at 10:33 AM, rockpond said:

I'm curious why they would make the announcement that this policy would be removed and then, nearly four months later and AFTER a revision of the handbook, still have all of the old language remain.

As others have mentioned, it takes a while for handbook revisions to be discussed, approved, translated, and (ultimately) posted online. 

Also, I'm highly doubtful that they simply intend on reverting the handbook back to it's previous state.

They may change the section on discipline to not expressly convey that entering a same sex marriage is apostate behavior (even though it totally is), but they will still want to make it clear that SSM is considered a serious sin and that those entering into such a union will be subject to church discipline. That may involve more changes to the handbook than a simple revert. 

Plus, even though this is technically just an internal handbook change, the reality is that whatever they settle on will, invariably, be leaked to the public. So, they may want to take a little extra time to be sure they 'get it right' so they don't have to keep coming back and revisiting it over and over again just to appease our critics. 

 

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Liar.

You libeled the prophet by suggesting that he lied about countless meeting discussing it and instead he just found it in the handbook one day and changed it. You did this because he correctly said that the handbook previously said something else which it did and does not imply there were no meetings or revelations. So you were making him an offender for a word. Dead on accurate.

Now you are backtracking and saying you were quibbling about his verbiage. Kind of pathetic really.

I did no such thing.  Kindly re-read what I wrote.  I said the choice of language was interesting.  I did not say that he lied about anything.  You need to retract your post.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

As others have mentioned, it takes a while for handbook revisions to be discussed, approved, translated, and (ultimately) posted online. 

Also, I'm highly doubtful that they simply intend on reverting the handbook back to it's previous state.

This could be.

 

Quote

They may change the section on discipline to not expressly convey that entering a same sex marriage is apostate behavior (even though it totally is), but they will still want to make it clear that SSM is considered a serious sin and that those entering into such a union will be subject to church discipline. That may involve more changes to the handbook than a simple revert. 

Right now it states that those who enter a same gender marriage will be subject to church discipline as same gender marriage equals apostasy.  What you are describing here (bold added by me) doesn't really seem like a change.

 

Quote

Plus, even though this is technically just an internal handbook change, the reality is that whatever they settle on will, invariably, be leaked to the public. So, they may want to take a little extra time to be sure they 'get it right' so they don't have to keep coming back and revisiting it over and over again just to appease our critics. 

Or they could work to "get it right" since they are sending it to tens of thousands of church leaders who will use it to administer and minister in their callings.  I think that's the more important reason.

Edited August 22, 2019 by rockpond

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I did no such thing.  Kindly re-read what I wrote.  I said the choice of language was interesting.  I did not say that he lied about anything.  You need to retract your post.

Nope.

 

20 hours ago, rockpond said:

 It's odd that what President Nelson called a revelatory experience for the apostles and prophet is now something that they just happened to find in the handbook and needed to change.

“that they just happened” is the phrase people use when they are insinuating deception. You were offensive and I playacted as if I was the evil twin of President Nelson getting offended by it. Then you got huffy and offended. Go figure.

At least there is symmetry.

Edited August 23, 2019 by The Nehor

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope.

Again.  You are wrong...

Quote

“that they just happened” is the phrase people use when they are insinuating deception. You were offensive and I playacted as if I was the evil twin of President Nelson getting offended by it. Then you got huffy and offended. Go figure.

At least there is symmetry.

Here's the full context of what I wrote:

Quote

 

"The wording that I find the most interesting is the beginning of that quote:  "Previously, our handbook characterized..."  WAIT!  The handbook did this?  Because I remember President Nelson saying that it came from countless meetings wherein the Lord's guidance was sought and President Monson approved their work indicating that the will of the Lord had been reached.  Or something to that effect.  It's odd that what President Nelson called a revelatory experience for the apostles and prophet is now something that they just happened to find in the handbook and needed to change.

It should say:  Previously, we characterized... or Previously, the Lord characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy."

 

Note the end line which I have bolded.

I was obviously saying that I found it odd that they would characterize the revelatory experience with the phrase:  "Previously, our handbook characterized..."   If I was trying to say that they were lying about their experience, why would I have said this?

My final line acknowledges the assumption that they (the Q12 and FP) and/or the Lord were the ones that made such a characterization.  If I was calling him a liar I wouldn't have suggested how they should have written in to indicate the revelation they felt they received.

 

Now, kindly retract your post.  I have not lied and you have taken offense for no valid reason.

Edited August 23, 2019 by rockpond

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Quote

They may change the section on discipline to not expressly convey that entering a same sex marriage is apostate behavior (even though it totally is), but they will still want to make it clear that SSM is considered a serious sin and that those entering into such a union will be subject to church discipline. That may involve more changes to the handbook than a simple revert. 

Right now it states that those who enter a same gender marriage will be subject to church discipline as same gender marriage equals apostasy.  What you are describing here (bold added by me) doesn't really seem like a change.

Well, what did you think was going to change? Here's what President Oaks stated in the newsroom piece originally linked:

Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

To me, it sounds like they are just going to start treating SSM as an immoral relationship akin to how we would treat a heterosexual couple who decided to live together without being married. An individual in such a position would eventually be counseled to change their behavior and, if they refused to do so, would ultimately be subject to church discipline - only it would be for 'immoral conduct' rather than for 'apostasy.' 

Personally, it seems like an unnecessary hoop that the church has elected to jump through here. When an individual enters into a same sex marriage he is making a formal, public declaration that he does not intend to follow the teachings of the church. That sounds a whole lot like apostasy to me. But if it makes people happier to think such a person was disciplined merely for being involved in an 'inappropriate relationship' rather than for 'apostasy,' well, so be it.

 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Quote

Plus, even though this is technically just an internal handbook change, the reality is that whatever they settle on will, invariably, be leaked to the public. So, they may want to take a little extra time to be sure they 'get it right' so they don't have to keep coming back and revisiting it over and over again just to appease our critics. 

Or they could work to "get it right" since they are sending it to tens of thousands of church leaders who will use it to administer and minister in their callings.  I think that's the more important reason.

Well, the point I was making (as it relates to the OP and how long it's taking) is that they aren't just sending it out to church leaders. They are effectively sending it out for worldwide publication. And because of that reality they need to be more circumspect in how they chose to phrase things because whatever they write is not only going to be consumed by the intended target audience (i.e., church leaders); it's also going to be picked over and scrutinized with lawyer-like precision by hostile critics. 

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, what did you think was going to change? Here's what President Oaks stated in the newsroom piece originally linked:

Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

To me, it sounds like they are just going to start treating SSM as an immoral relationship akin to how we would treat a heterosexual couple who decided to live together without being married. An individual in such a position would eventually be counseled to change their behavior and, if they refused to do so, would ultimately be subject to church discipline - only it would be for 'immoral conduct' rather than for 'apostasy.' 

Personally, it seems like an unnecessary hoop that the church has elected to jump through here. When an individual enters into a same sex marriage he is making a formal, public declaration that he does not intend to follow the teachings of the church. That sounds a whole lot like apostasy to me. But if it makes people happier to think such a person was disciplined merely for being involved in an 'inappropriate relationship' rather than for 'apostasy,' well, so be it.

Actually, in Handbook 1, the terms you mention here are dealt with in two different sections:   Section 6.7.2 identifies when a disciplinary council MAY be necessary.  Within that there is a subsection titled Serious Transgression.  Per that subsection, serious transgressions include adultery, fornication, and homosexual relations (among other things).  Section 6.7.3 identifies when a disciplinary council is MANDATORY.  Within section 6.7.3 is the section defining apostasy.  That’s where same-gender marriage currently is listed. 

So, knowing the handbook, the language in the news release seems to imply that the intent is to move gay marriage from the mandatory discipline category to the possible discipline category (speaking of formal disciplinary councils).

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

 

Well, the point I was making (as it relates to the OP and how long it's taking) is that they aren't just sending it out to church leaders. They are effectively sending it out for worldwide publication. And because of that reality they need to be more circumspect in how they chose to phrase things because whatever they write is not only going to be consumed by the intended target audience (i.e., church leaders); it's also going to be picked over and scrutinized with lawyer-like precision by hostile critics. 

 

Would those be the critics who argued in favor of reversing this policy for over three years before the Lord told the prophet to reverse it?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Personally, it seems like an unnecessary hoop that the church has elected to jump through here. When an individual enters into a same sex marriage he is making a formal, public declaration that he does not intend to follow the teachings of the church. That sounds a whole lot like apostasy to me.

I think SS marriage has become normalized enough in our culture and many others, it is no longer inherently viewed by many as a political or otherwise statement either of activism or opposition (where people get married at least in part to demonstrate a principle, etc).  I see apostasy as a term better reserved for an active, intentional opposition to the Gospel, not just something someone would do even if the Gospel or Church didn't exist.

I am not saying things like getting baptized or doing whatever formally recognizes one as a member in another faith is not apostasy, I just believe the baggage attached to the word these days can lead to confusion when the word is more broadly defined.  There is a difference between resigning from the Church and joining another faith; one is a oppositional action, the other is a constructive action.  Responding to them in the same way because one result of both actions is the same (loss of membership in .The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) isn't always appropriate, imo.

This modification allows leaders to focus on what is the most motivating reason someone participates in SSM, imo.  If there is no intent to make a public statement against the Church, there is no need imo to have discussions about their possible issues with the Church, for example.  Otoh, if part of the reasoning of marriage is to show opposition to the Church's view of homosexual behaviour and relationships, then it makes sense if there is interaction with church leaders to have that as part of the discussion.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Again.  You are wrong...

Here's the full context of what I wrote:

Note the end line which I have bolded.

I was obviously saying that I found it odd that they would characterize the revelatory experience with the phrase:  "Previously, our handbook characterized..."   If I was trying to say that they were lying about their experience, why would I have said this?

My final line acknowledges the assumption that they (the Q12 and FP) and/or the Lord were the ones that made such a characterization.  If I was calling him a liar I wouldn't have suggested how they should have written in to indicate the revelation they felt they received.

 

Now, kindly retract your post.  I have not lied and you have taken offense for no valid reason.

Nope.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nope.

So you are standing by calling me a liar after I’ve shown you that you have misunderstood my words and are claiming that I said something I didn’t actually say?  Nice.