President Nelson's Devotional: "The Love and Laws of God"

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think they expected some backlash. I think they may have been surprised at how many petitioned them for an exception. I would have been blindsided. I would assume very very few would have wanted their children baptized. I also believe there was a genuine concern that well-meaning bishops would baptize at mom or dad’s request and that the other parent in a same gender relationship would object after the fact. It has always been a requirement in my memory to get permission of both parents (assuming both have custody) but it was usually verbal and enforcement on making sure to get both was lax.

I think they quietly took another tact. Going forward the church wants scanned copies or baby blessing and baptism forms with the signatures of all custodial parents. Same effect, much less visible. Minor annoyance to us poor overworked clerks who have to collect the signatures but we will bear up.

I think it was a good learning experience at many levels of the church and I do not doubt both changes were inspired.

Now I just wish they would update the stupid handbook so we know how much of it was rescinded.

I think there is a shift going on and it has happened throughout my lifetime. The gospel went first to the honorable and upright of the feast and all but a few spurned the invitation. Now we seem to be collecting the derelicts. Look at the massive increase in support for the disabled, the mentally unwell, and the weak. Missionary opportunities are expanding. I do not believe we were ever generally dismissive or uncaring about those in pain but they seem to be the focus now. Just a personal suspicion that the wedding feast is gathering weirdos now like the parable. After all I am here now.

It was a policy, it received a response and needed to be adjusted, and was.

I have no clue why this is a big deal.  Course correction, as happens in any human enterprise daily.    Just another case of us teaching that prophets are fallible with no one listening, and assuming Protestant definitions.  That's why they don't have any.

We teach that they are fallible and no one believes it and then get upset that they are not what we never claimed they were.

I guess it's the primary song which people misinterpret.    Yes the attitudes used to be different but guess what- times change.

It's called "progression".   If God progresses, why would we think we are better than God or that 15 men are?  Yes I have read McConkie on this and I can tell you why he is wrong in my opinion, should anyone want to bring that up.

God is immanent and interacts with the universe and universal law through self-determination.  That is a preview.  Self-determination is the voluntary acceptance of laws, not the involuntary acceptance of laws by necessity.  It is seeing laws as covenants instead of something which destroys our agency.  God accepts gravity perhaps because he has covenanted not to violate natural law even if he wanted to, yet he retains the capability of doing so.   It is why we stop at a stop sign at 3 AM.

[Jake Starkey]

"church body" in context is self defining.  Do you think differently, Contributor?

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It was a policy, it received a response and needed to be adjusted, and was.

I have no clue why this is a big deal. 

Because it was represented as being a revelation (at least that's my opinion regarding why some are making more over these changes).  I think if it had simply been referred to as just a policy (by all the leaders), then changes would have been more foreseeable.  Members haven't heard a Prophet declare anything to be a revelation for awhile, so most took this more seriously, IMO.   I tend to believe that President Nelson loves the word revelation and that's what inspiration is to him (which I do respect).....but to others, they think of revelation with a capital "R" like when Joseph Smith used the word (and they were voted on and added to our scriptures).

I am pleased with the changes and honestly hope to see more  

Edited September 21, 2019 by ALarson

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think they expected some backlash. I think they may have been surprised at how many petitioned them for an exception. I would have been blindsided. I would assume very very few would have wanted their children baptized. I also believe there was a genuine concern that well-meaning bishops would baptize at mom or dad’s request and that the other parent in a same gender relationship would object after the fact. It has always been a requirement in my memory to get permission of both parents (assuming both have custody) but it was usually verbal and enforcement on making sure to get both was lax.

I think they quietly took another tact. Going forward the church wants scanned copies or baby blessing and baptism forms with the signatures of all custodial parents. Same effect, much less visible. Minor annoyance to us poor overworked clerks who have to collect the signatures but we will bear up.

I think it was a good learning experience at many levels of the church and I do not doubt both changes were inspired.

Now I just wish they would update the stupid handbook so we know how much of it was rescinded.

I think there is a shift going on and it has happened throughout my lifetime. The gospel went first to the honorable and upright of the feast and all but a few spurned the invitation. Now we seem to be collecting the derelicts. Look at the massive increase in support for the disabled, the mentally unwell, and the weak. Missionary opportunities are expanding. I do not believe we were ever generally dismissive or uncaring about those in pain but they seem to be the focus now. Just a personal suspicion that the wedding feast is gathering weirdos now like the parable. After all I am here now.

I think the Prophet and Apostles maybe overestimated the spirituality of the membership.  I think we have a vocal group who are active believers, but they are also firmly rooted in the culture of our modern 'progressive'  society.  They are easily offended, they are left leaning in their politics and they are easily swayed by emotional messages and they took the bait, hook, line and sinker--and they choked on it. It was an uproar. Even the example of many thinking the leaders were insensitive, cruel, homophobic, etc. showed they were being influenced by the critics, rather than saying, 'wait a minute,  these are our leaders--we know them, they aren't like that!'  We know they are men who strive to be righteous, charitable, who would not have done something to harm us, but to protect the church and the members.  Personally, I was surprised by the backlash, but I think it's because I'm from the older generation now and so the culture doesn't have as much influence on me as it does on younger people.  I think the rescinding was because of the negative response of the people, NOT because the church leaders made a wrong decision.  We may, down the road, see an outcome from it that won't be in the best interests of the church, as well.  IMO.

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I think the Prophet and Apostles maybe overestimated the spirituality of the membership.

Or maybe they underestimated it.  Many seemed to be inspired to know or feel that as originally written, the policy was not correct or what God would desire for his children.  That’s just another way to look at what’s transpired here and why the changes, corrections and evolution took place.  
 

I’ve posted the personal experience I had with another member of my YW presidency.  She’s honestly one of the most spiritual, dedicated and inspired members I know.  She anguished over the original policy and knew it wasn’t inspired as written (she has a child who is gay). I would never say or believe it was because she wasn’t spiritual enough and she definitely was in tune to what needed to be done, imo.  I’m grateful for church leaders who are willing to do the right thing on this difficult issue and I support even more changes if they happen.  

Edited September 21, 2019 by JulieM

[california boy]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think they expected some backlash. I think they may have been surprised at how many petitioned them for an exception. I would have been blindsided. I would assume very very few would have wanted their children baptized. I also believe there was a genuine concern that well-meaning bishops would baptize at mom or dad’s request and that the other parent in a same gender relationship would object after the fact. It has always been a requirement in my memory to get permission of both parents (assuming both have custody) but it was usually verbal and enforcement on making sure to get both was lax.

I think they quietly took another tact. Going forward the church wants scanned copies or baby blessing and baptism forms with the signatures of all custodial parents. Same effect, much less visible. Minor annoyance to us poor overworked clerks who have to collect the signatures but we will bear up.

I think it was a good learning experience at many levels of the church and I do not doubt both changes were inspired.

Now I just wish they would update the stupid handbook so we know how much of it was rescinded.

I think there is a shift going on and it has happened throughout my lifetime. The gospel went first to the honorable and upright of the feast and all but a few spurned the invitation. Now we seem to be collecting the derelicts. Look at the massive increase in support for the disabled, the mentally unwell, and the weak. Missionary opportunities are expanding. I do not believe we were ever generally dismissive or uncaring about those in pain but they seem to be the focus now. Just a personal suspicion that the wedding feast is gathering weirdos now like the parable. After all I am here now.

Thanks for your response. It is always interesting to hear your point of view.  I have a different take on things, but isn't that why we have this board?  To listen to other points of view?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Doesn't matter why they say it.  It's still wrong.  God requires love, but not only love.

Satan is truly crafty getting people to ignore God's gospel in favor of a disneyfied, undefined version of Christianity.

Sorry, but personally I am not seeing a lot of love coming from organized religion.  I see a lot of politics that is pretty divisive and self serving.  I think there is a reason why some are trying to remind religion that love for one another is key to the message that Christ taught and maybe it is time religion gets back to those basic principles taught by Christ.

Satan is truly. crafty.  It seems to me that he has managed to twist religion away from the teachings of Christ and instead replaced it with a political machine supporting one of the most immoral leaders this country has ever had.  Religion has become divisive and has no problem pitting people against each other. That is sad.  Not feeing a lot of love coming from religion in todays world.  The article that Tacenda posted is a very real reality for many people.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Because it was represented as being a revelation (at least that's my opinion regarding why some are making more over these changes).  I think if it had simply been referred to as just a policy (by all the leaders), then changes would have been more foreseeable.  Members haven't heard a Prophet declare anything to be a revelation for awhile, so most took this more seriously, IMO.   I tend to believe that President Nelson loves the word revelation and that's what inspiration is to him (which I do respect).....but to others, they think of revelation with a capital "R" like when Joseph Smith used the word (and they were voted on and added to our scriptures).

I think the problem comes when we assume too much about exactly what was revealed, or if there was revelation at all in the specifics of the policy.  What exactly was represented as being a revelation?

Here are some of the original 2015 articles:

Elder Christofferson Says Handbook Changes Regarding Same-Sex Marriages Help Protect Children (12 November 2015)

Understanding the Handbook (13 November 2015)

Treat Children with “Utmost Respect and Love,” Writes the First Presidency in Letter regarding Same-Sex Marriage Policy (23 November 2015)

In the article above, there is a statement about revelation, but it pertains only to the doctrine that “families are eternal in nature and purpose”.   It goes on to state that this revealed doctrine (that families are eternal in nature and purpose) is why the church handbook was updated to include language warranting “a Church disciplinary council” when adults choose to enter into same gender marriages or a “similar relationship”.  But the article does not say that the specific policy that was put into the handbook was given by revelation.

Here’s a link to the updated policy.   President Oaks, 4 April 2019.

In this article, Elder Oaks makes it clear that this classification change was for “the purposes of Church discipline”.  He says:

"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."

I am not aware of any statement from church leaders maintaining that the “policies” of the church (in general) are revealed.  I know that the leaders of the church work under the inspiration of the Spirit, but most of the time the Lord reveals to us the principles and then lets us work out on our own the details on how to administer the affair of the church.  Occasionally there are some trials and revisions as time goes on, and perhaps even with the Lord stepping in with a revelation to help us out later on.   That's exactly how it worked in the New Testament church with regard to the issue of circumcision (and other matters) related to new Gentile converts.   Peter's revelation came in Acts chapter 10, and he didn't understand it fully at first.  And it took him and the other leaders a long time to work out all the details on what that revelation meant and how to implement the change, and they had to work through some of that in the council held in Acts chapter 15, and even at that time more revelation came to them.  The initial revelation was about a big change, but the details of the implementation were not given initially, but they came gradually through time.

There are similar examples in the restored church with implementing the law of consecration and the implementation of work for the dead.  A revelation was given initially, and then the Lord let them work though how that was to be implemented for a time, and then gave them further help on those issues as time went on.  So I'm not sure what all the controversy is about. 

I see the change in 2015 as an inspired response to the legalization of same sex marriage and the need to update the church disciplinary council procedures to accommodate those situations.  Beyond that, I can only speculate as to the reason behind the original policy decisions. The definition of apostasy, as it applies to church discipline (found here), includes language about individuals who "subscribes to the teachings of apostate groups that engage in practices contrary to Church doctrine, such as polygamy".  In such cases the children of parents who affiliate with such groups are not allowed to be baptized without review.  I believe that is in part to protect the parent/child relationship, and not to punish the individuals (children) involved, and I think that's what the policy decision was intended to do.  I also think it's natural to view same-sex marriage as an aberrant marriage practice, and so it might have seemed proper to put it in the same category as polygamous marriages, and therefore it is easy to see how that could have been the original choice for disciplinary council classification purposes.

But there are also many reasons that the classification of apostasy would not apply to same-sex marriages in most cases.  Apostasy involves “repeated, clear and OPEN PUBLIC opposition to the Church, its leaders and its doctrine”.  Apostasy is not merely a member of the church engaging in behavior that is contrary to church doctrine, it is the open and public teaching of false doctrine or persuading others to oppose leaders of the church and its doctrines.   While the individuals involved in a same-sex marriage are definitely acting contrary to the teachings of the church, they may not necessarily be involved in “repeated, clear and open public opposition to the Church, its leaders and its doctrine”.  Of course involvement in some so-called “gay rights” groups might require it to be classified this way, but it certainly doesn’t apply in every case.  The new adjustment to the disciplinary council classification makes more sense and provides more options, so it makes total sense to me.

Those are my two cents (well, maybe $1.98).

 

 

 

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think the problem comes when we assume too much about exactly what was revealed, or if there was revelation at all in the specifics of the policy.  What exactly was represented as being a revelation?

I am not aware of any statement from church leaders maintaining that the “policies” of the church (in general) are revealed.

Maybe not all policies but Pres. Nelson (as an Apostle) related that this specific policy was revealed and was a revelation (iirc). 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Because it was represented as being a revelation (at least that's my opinion regarding why some are making more over these changes).  I think if it had simply been referred to as just a policy (by all the leaders), then changes would have been more foreseeable.  Members haven't heard a Prophet declare anything to be a revelation for awhile, so most took this more seriously, IMO.   I tend to believe that President Nelson loves the word revelation and that's what inspiration is to him (which I do respect).....but to others, they think of revelation with a capital "R" like when Joseph Smith used the word (and they were voted on and added to our scriptures).

I am pleased with the changes and honestly hope to see more  

I see the terms as interchangeable quite frankly.

The fact that a policy was needed could be construed as a revelation.

Tweaking the policy could be construed as inspiration if you want to make that distinction.

You're simply can't slice and dice these terms so fine that it makes sense. Again it could be totally understood as a revelation that a policy was needed.

Clearly it was.

And so a policy was made, thereby fulfilling the requirement of the Revelation that a policy was needed.

The policy itself was then later tweaked.

If you want to make that distinction, to me the Revelation was that a policy was required, not the content of the policy necessarily.

We are not to be commanded in all things but make our own decisions. Sometimes those need to to be tweaked.

 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Maybe not all policies but Pres. Nelson (as an Apostle) related that this specific policy was revealed and was a revelation (iirc). 

And he was wrong.

Can we all move on now?

The policy wasn't a revelation.  The adjustment wasn't a revelation.  They came up with a course of action, agreed on it, took it to the Lord in prayer, and felt good about proceeding.

The negative effects were greater than anticipated so they repeated the pattern with the update.

I don't believe for a second God proactively directed them to do any of it.  He let them do the best they could.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Maybe not all policies but Pres. Nelson (as an Apostle) related that this specific policy was revealed and was a revelation (iirc). 

Highly ambiguous.

I think the need for a policy was a revelation.

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

29 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Maybe not all policies but Pres. Nelson (as an Apostle) related that this specific policy was revealed and was a revelation (iirc). 

Highly ambiguous.

I think the need for a policy was a revelation.

My thoughts exactly.  

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Highly ambiguous.

I disagree.  I think it was stated very clearly and the process was specifically related.

Do you believe the policy was not revealed or was a revelation as Pres. Nelson has stated?

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Highly ambiguous.

I disagree.  I think it was stated very clearly and the process was specifically related.

Do you believe the policy was not revealed or was a revelation as Pres. Nelson has stated?

Julie, can you provide a reference where an unambiguous statement is made about a revelation given regarding the policy itself?

If you are thinking of President Nelson's recent devotional address, the transcript of that talk is available online here.

For the initial 2015 policy, he states that they "discussed at length and prayed about fervently over a long period of time" to "find a way to reduce friction between gay or lesbian parents and their children."  He then discusses their reasoning for selection of the policy (i.e. "we did not want to put young children in the position of having to choose between beliefs and behavior they learned at home and what they were taught at Church. We wanted to facilitate harmony in the home and avoid pitting children and parents against each other").   He details out their reasoning, but he does not indicate that the reasoning was the direct result of revelation, even though they had been praying about the matter.  So I consider this to be an ambiguous statement.

He then uses similar language about praying and supplication to the Lord regarding the recent change in policy.  But here he uses specific language regarding the change:  

"As a result of our continued supplication, we recently felt directed to adjust the policy such that the baptism of children of LGBT parents may be authorized by bishops without First Presidency approval, if the custodial parents request the baptism and understand that a child will be taught about sacred covenants to be made at baptism."

What exactly do you have in mind?

 

[JulieM]

43 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Julie, can you provide a reference where an unambiguous statement is made about a revelation given regarding the policy itself?

Maybe read through these:

https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-apostle-policy-on-same-sex-couples-revelation-from-god

"Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation," he said. "It was our privilege as apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson."

"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." 
 

Or, are you really saying that it was only a revelation that a policy was needed?  And that the leaders mistakenly believed what they prayed about was a revelation (the policy they published)?

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by JulieM

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Maybe read through these:

https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-apostle-policy-on-same-sex-couples-revelation-from-god

"Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation," he said. "It was our privilege as apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson."

"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." 

 

Pres Nelson is alone responsible for the upgrade from handbook policy to revelation.  Due to the contradiction with current policy, it didn't make the cut to upload this BYU-Hawaii Jan 2016 talk to the BYU talks list.

https://speeches.byu.edu/speakers/russell-m-nelson/

Looks like it also didn't make the cut to the local BYU-Hawaii devotionals page either.

https://devotional.byuh.edu/speechfilter?field_speech_type_value=All&field_speech_date_value=4&field_speech_date_value_month=1

Edited September 22, 2019 by blueglass

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

I think the Prophet and Apostles maybe overestimated the spirituality of the membership.  I think we have a vocal group who are active believers, but they are also firmly rooted in the culture of our modern 'progressive'  society.  They are easily offended, they are left leaning in their politics and they are easily swayed by emotional messages and they took the bait, hook, line and sinker--and they choked on it. It was an uproar. 

I think they underestimated the spirituality of the membership.

My opposition to this policy had nothing to do with "modern progressive society" nor left leaning politics.  It had EVERYTHING to do with my understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ and my feeling that He certainly did not approve of this policy.

Edited September 22, 2019 by rockpond

[blueglass]

On 9/18/2019 at 2:28 AM, rchorse said:

I haven't read through the whole thread, so maybe this has been covered. My experience is that God reveals general principles and not the intricate details of how things should be implemented. In this case, I believe that God revealed that precautions needed to be taken with baptizing children coming from households with parents in a same-sex marriage. The principle was to protect children from conflicts between family and church. The details of the best way to do this came from the leadership of the church (imperfect men). Hence the need for ongoing refinement of the policies.

God has never revealed a step-by-step action plan to me in my life. What He has done is reveal a need to take action or make improvements and then leave the implementation up to me. When I get details of the implementation wrong, He has given me further light to make corrections. That doesn't mean there was no revelation to begin with. What it means is that revelation is not like getting an email detailing all the exact steps that should be taking and the exact wording that should be used. I suppose sometimes it can be, but I think that kind of revelation is rare.

With over 50% of the millenial members who attend our church in favor of lgbtq marriages and lgbtq allies what is to be done to protect their children from confusion and distress?  Fully half or more of future leadership in the church does not believe the current prophet had a revelation to upgrade President Monson's policy to revelation? 

Someone needs to look out for and have empathy for our current church Historian first quorum of the seventy, Elder Steven Snow who when asked last month about the Nov policy revelation declared he "was very disappointed" and thought that leading with an amendment to he handbook "did not seem well thought out", "did not make sense to me - it was hard for [him]". 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Maybe not all policies but Pres. Nelson (as an Apostle) related that this specific policy was revealed and was a revelation (iirc). 

Yes.  That was in his January 2016 YSA devotional.  He said that it came as a result of the prophetic process and referred to revelation.

But, he was just vague enough, that now we are seeing several people on this thread back off the revelation claim and say that it must have been a revelation to "do something" or some other type of more general revelation but not the specific policy.

What was cast as a revelation several years ago is now being re-cast as something else.  But, for me, it was quite clear that President Nelson wanted his audience to believe that the policy was revealed and reflected the mind and will of the Lord.

Now it's just a policy in the handbook that they prayed to have changed.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Highly ambiguous.

I think the need for a policy was a revelation.

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

My thoughts exactly.  

 

And now they have reversed the policy.  What happened to the revealed need?  Gone?  Resolved?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Pres Nelson is alone responsible for the upgrade from handbook policy to revelation.  Due to the contradiction with current policy, it didn't make the cut to upload this BYU-Hawaii Jan 2016 talk to the BYU talks list.

https://speeches.byu.edu/speakers/russell-m-nelson/

 

Again, ambiguous.

The church news article on that event can be found here:

President Nelson Encourages LDS Millennials to Be Morally Courageous

And the complete video of that address can be found here:

Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults: Russell M. Nelson (2016-01-10)

In that devotional, he said something very similar to what he said last Tuesday.  Starting at around the 45:26 mark, he says:

"This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries.  And again with 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 privileged as apostles, to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson."

While it is clear that they labored over how to handle certain matters, it is not clear exactly what was revealed.  Obviously an addition to the Church Handbook for “the purposes of Church discipline” was necessary in 2015, but whether a revelation included the classification of "apostasy" or not is not spelled out in that address.  And the confirmation by the Spirit of the addition to the handbook would be sufficient, I would think.  

But I don't have a problem with it even if the Lord revealed it specifically that way previously, and then changed it later after the pleadings from the First Presidency.  Haven't we seen other examples in the scriptures where prophets have petitioned the Lord to make some considerations for specific circumstances?   Abraham's pleadings with the Lord come to mind, and I can think of others.

 

 

 

And even if it was the specific policy o

 

[blueglass]

With the policy reversal - Hailing all ward membership clerks.  After the church asked IT to change familysearch.org to allow for entering same-sex marriages as a pilot to see how this would function for MLS, can someone confirm how this process works for blessings and baptisms today?  Who is listed as parents and does it list the same-gender couple as married or no?  If mandatory disciplinary action on same-sex married couples in our church has stopped - thank Yahweh, then we should have new MLS records indicating these relationships.  Can anyone confirm?

 

 

[InCognitus]

Just now, InCognitus said:

And even if it was the specific policy o

Hmmm.... how do we edit these things?   That's not supposed to be there!   

[InCognitus]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And now they have reversed the policy.  What happened to the revealed need?  Gone?  Resolved?

 

What exactly was reversed?  It was simply reclassified for church disciplinary purposes.