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

[blueglass]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Again, ambiguous.

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

President Nelson Encourages LDS Millennials to Be Morally Courageous

Obviously an addition to the Church Handbook for “the purposes of Church discipline” was necessary in 2015

 

But you didn't answer why the 2016 talk is missing, and why the 2019 talk showed up right away. 

Why was church discipline obviously necessary? 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

 

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

They have stated that same gender marriage will no longer be classified as apostasy.  That is a reversal because part of the Nov 2015 policy was adding same gender marriage to the list of what is apostasy.  Taking it off that list is a reversal.

The Nov 2015 policy also required FP approval for children of gay parents to be baptized.  With the this year's change they have moved approval back to the local bishop.  That's where it was before - thus it is a reversal of the Nov 2015 policy.

If and when they actually put it into the handbook we'll see how it turns out but based on what they have said in April and September of this year, it is a reversal of the Nov 2015 policy.

Edited September 22, 2019 by rockpond

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, blueglass said:

But you didn't answer why the 2016 talk is missing, and why the 2019 talk showed up right away.

Because the 2016 talk implied that the policy itself was revealed and reflected the mind and will of the Lord.  Now that it is being reversed, they need to erase that implication from the annals of church history.

Now it is just some policy that they found in the handbook, discovered it was causing heartache, confusion, and tears so they magnanimously prayed to have it changed.

Yeah for seers and revelators!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

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

You are at 17 posts, when you get 8 more for 25 you can edit...and get rep points. Though you show 7 rep points already and I am curious as to how you got them. 

One of the mysteries of life, I guess. 

A quick way to up posts is to go to Social Hall and add a few posts to the three word story thread. 

Edited September 22, 2019 by Calm

[Daniel2]

On 9/19/2019 at 2:39 PM, BlueDreams said:

2.) a number of the beliefs presented about the church aren't actually the beliefs it professes. Either they're more nuanced or simply incorrect. Which creates a bit of a strawman in the post and one that could inadevertently augment the pain they're talking about. Both in the families and for LDS LGBTQ+ people individually. 

3.) in a similar line continually calling it "the mormon church" mixed with an extreme representation of its members isn't likely to create bridges or mend wounds. It's more likely to shut down conversation for people trying to reach some sort of middle ground with their family. 

4.) The way it presents suicide in UT in general. And the assumptions about it, the LDS faith, and LGBTQ people in UT are way too broad-brushed and possibly even false/based off common belief, but not what the research and numbers are currently actually indicating. Personally, as a therapist in UT working heavily with LDS populations, I've dealt with many many people struggling with suicidal ideation and a few attempts (luckily so far no completed deaths). So far only 1 was LGBTQ. All of their reasons were more complex than one single issue or concern. It makes me uncomfortable to use a story of a woman to paint a picture about suicide when it's likely they (Kat) don't know exactly what occurred to trigger her death.  Especially since I knew the family of the woman they're talking about who passed away (NOT one of my clients, to be clear). I do understand that the person is likely trying to humanize the pain....but that can be done in a way that may not actually be helpful. 

 

I tried to quote both Smac's and BlueDream's responses here, but only one saved... my following comments are for portions of both BlueDream’s post and also meant for Smac’s 'review' (and dismissive approach):

I think if I understand part of what you're both saying is that the article's author loses credibility because a) Latter-day Saints would consider her descriptions of the doctrines of the LDS church to be inaccurate and b) she fails to use terminology the Church and it's membership prefer and connect with.   Because members of the LDS church don't see her words as an accurate or honest portrayal of their lives, beliefs, values, and experiences, she's easy to dismiss and disregard as an unreliable source, at least so far as her criticisms are concerned.

I wonder if others can see how that works in reverse just as much, if not more so, when applying that same standard in reverse:

Consider how gay and lesbian couples regard the level of credibility (or lack thereof) that the LDS Church and it's leadership have, with regards to understanding and accurately portraying OUR lives and experiences.  Given that how the Church has historically described--actually, misrepresented, demeaned, devalued, and condemned the LGBT experience, including our families, relationships, and fought against equal rights for those of us that have embraced a 'pro-LGBT' experience, and given how the LDS Church and it's leadership declined to use terminology that was either preferred or even reflective of us, our families, marriages, and our life experiences:

a) how concerned do you think that author feels about making a few minor mistakes in how she describes church doctrines?

b) how much do you think many must regard the credibility of the LDS church to speak authoritatively or even accurately about anything related to the pro-LGBT experience?

Not saying one is right and one is wrong... but it's telling how Mormons dismiss this author for misrepresenting Mormonism, but don't see any issues at all with how LDS leaders distort and misrepresent LGBT relationships and lives.

D

Edited September 23, 2019 by Daniel2

[BlueDreams]

9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I tried to quote both Smac's and BlueDream's responses here, but only one saved... these comments are meant for his 'review' (and dismissive approach):

D

Hi daniel, i just want to make sure i’m understandIng you. Is the entire post meant to respond to Smac, me, or both of us? 

 

Thanks,

BD

Edited September 22, 2019 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?

I think they did the best they could as human beings.  To me it is irrelevant if it was right or wrong, a revelation or somebody goofing up.  In what context can we even now judge "right or wrong" on this subject except what the spirit ("your gut") tells you?   Different strokes for different folks is not even relevant here because we are all on different journeys coming from different backgrounds, all trying to learn how to love each other.  Some need tough love and others need to be coddled.  Some take everything literally and some take everything as linguistic flux, a sea of text with its own tides acting independently being constantly re-interpreted anew.  THAT's the way I see things.

We are not going to do better in this life than following the prophet AFTER we confirm personally and get our own testimonies of whatever they decide.

No Jim Jones stuff is possible in this church if we actually do what we are taught- and that is NOT blind obedience.  You read the scriptures and wait for a revelation that the scriptures are "true" for you, and then every word out of anyone's mouth should be examined intellectually and spiritually- if you don't get a testimony of the principle, you would be a fool to follow it.

Never go against your conscience for anything.  I can't imagine why anyone even debates that.

Converts get that, "lifers" don't.  Converts know that the gold plates and all the stories are crazy UNTIL God blesses them with a testimony that this is the path for them.   You have to be raised in the church to take all the stories without even examining them.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

But let me tell you this, when the Lord zaps you it is the most amazing experience mankind can know.    There's no going back.  And it's not because Mommie told you it was true.  You know for yourself.

You learn not to believe anyone or anything except the spirit.

Edited September 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think they did the best they could as human beings.  To me it is irrelevant if it was right or wrong, a revelation or somebody goofing up.

We are not going to do better in this life than following the prophet AFTER we confirm personally and get our own testimonies of whatever they decide.

No Jim Jones stuff is possible in this church if we actually do what we are taught- and that is NOT blind obedience.  You read the scriptures and wait for a revelation that the scriptures are "true" for you, and then every word out of anyone's mouth should be examined intellectually and spiritually- if you don't get a testimony of the principle, you would be a fool to follow it.

Never go against your conscience for anything.  I can't imagine why anyone even debates that.

Converts get that, "lifers" don't.  Converts know that the gold plates and all the stories are crazy UNTIL God blesses them with a testimony that this is the path for them.   You have to be raised in the church to take all the stories without even examining them.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

But let me tell you this, when the Lord zaps you it is the most amazing experience mankind can know.    There's no going back.  And it's not because Mommie told you it was true.  You know for yourself.

You learn not to believe anyone or anything except the spirit.

So for those of us who sincerely felt that this policy was wrong.  That it did not reflect the mind and will of the Lord.  That it needed to be changed.

What are we supposed to do with your statement that "We are not going to do better in this life than following the prophet AFTER we confirm personally and get our own testimonies of whatever they decide"?

What happens when the spiritual confirmation I get is that they prophet is wrong?  What is your suggestion then?

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours 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." 
 

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)?

 

Who would know what President Monson felt except president Monson? 

Were they simply sustaining his decision as the "will of the Lord"?   But what exactly was the feeling saying?

In my experience, in that situation, it almost doesn't matter.  It is not exactly like you feel legal logic pour into your brain with exact phrasing of precisely what the Lord means except "YES- go this way!"

Of course I am hardly an apostle

My point is that it is not so simple and what is beyond words cannot be sliced and diced with words.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

 

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

No, there IS a policy.   They have passed the decision on down to the Bishops.  THAT is the policy. 

LISTEN to what he says.  Punch up the video- start at minute 28 of the video.  By minute 34 or so, it's all over.  So all this takes is about 6 minutes

Here is what he says- essentially- I guess there is a transcript also- but this is my summary

This is not a quote- I am using a quote box simply to divide my interpretation of what he says from the rest of the post.

Quote

 

A time came when it was clear that the policy had to be "adjusted"

The initial major concern in creating the policy was to reduce friction between parents and children of LGBT couples.   Therefore it was decided to not baptize these children without approval

THAT was the policy!  It remains in effect!

They were overwhelmed with requests from LGBT couples ALL of which were approved, upon the conditions in the policy originally.  They felt "grieved" that the response was so huge.  They continued praying

It seems to me that primarily for administrative reasons, it became clear that instead of sending letters to the First Presidency, it would be necessary to "adjust the policy" and have Bishops administer it.

Now if the parents accept the same conditions as before, the child will be approved for baptism at the usual age.

 

So yes the policy remains, and was simply tweaked in administration- so that instead of involving the First Presidency in the process, now the Bishop can make the decision.

If you don't see this it is because you don't want to.

Edited September 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think they did the best they could as human beings.  To me it is irrelevant if it was right or wrong, a revelation or somebody goofing up.  In what context can we even now judge "right or wrong" on this subject except what the spirit ("your gut") tells you?   Different strokes for different folks is not even relevant here because we are all on different journeys coming from different backgrounds, all trying to learn how to love each other.  Some need tough love and others need to be coddled.  Some take everything literally and some take everything as linguistic flux, a sea of text with its own tides acting independently being constantly re-interpreted anew.  THAT's the way I see things.

We are not going to do better in this life than following the prophet AFTER we confirm personally and get our own testimonies of whatever they decide.

No Jim Jones stuff is possible in this church if we actually do what we are taught- and that is NOT blind obedience.  You read the scriptures and wait for a revelation that the scriptures are "true" for you, and then every word out of anyone's mouth should be examined intellectually and spiritually- if you don't get a testimony of the principle, you would be a fool to follow it.

Never go against your conscience for anything.  I can't imagine why anyone even debates that.

Converts get that, "lifers" don't.  Converts know that the gold plates and all the stories are crazy UNTIL God blesses them with a testimony that this is the path for them.   You have to be raised in the church to take all the stories without even examining them.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

But let me tell you this, when the Lord zaps you it is the most amazing experience mankind can know.    There's no going back.  And it's not because Mommie told you it was true.  You know for yourself.

You learn not to believe anyone or anything except the spirit.

Well, I'm a lifer and I haven't been zapped! Maybe your life before wasn't all that you'd hoped? And maybe when you were being fellowshipped it felt wonderful. Now try leaving the church and see what you get, or are a lost cause, I guarantee you won't get the fellowshipping much. 

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I'm a lifer and I haven't been zapped! Maybe your life before wasn't all that you'd hoped? And maybe when you were being fellowshipped it felt wonderful. Now try leaving the church and see what you get, or are a lost cause, I guarantee you won't get the fellowshipping much. 

I was converted before I had even gone to church or met a Mormon.  And as I said it is common for lifers to NOT be zapped because they are just following what they were taught as a child.  But everyone needs to become a "convert" at some point- or leave.

I was converted by philosophy and reading doctrine.  Honest.

My life was about searching for a church consistent with my philosophical views so no, it was not "all I wanted", so I was determined to either find the right church or start my own.  The theology was intact in my mind.   I can show you hand written dated notes that show I was thinking 40 years ago exactly what I write here now.

I don't care about fellowshipping - I would never join a church for such a reason.  Yes I like the community and having friends- it is what life is all about!  But you can get fellowship as a Buddhist or an Evangelical or a Jew or a Parsi or any other faith.

Edited September 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, there IS a policy.   They have passed the decision on down to the Bishops.  THAT is the policy. 

That was the previous policy.  So they have simply reversed or removed the Nov 2015 policy (which policy was declared by a prophet, seer, and apostle to have been reflective of the mind and will of the Lord and sustained through spiritual confirmation by the other prophets, seers, and revelatory). 

You can pretend that these words by men we sustain who hold the keys and claim the titles they do are meaningless (as you seem to be doing) but where does that leave us and the church?

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Who would know what President Monson felt except president Monson? 

Well, unless you maybe believe that Pres. Nelson was mistaken or misunderstood, Pres. Monson actually declared "the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord" and then each of the Apostles "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation".   So, Pres. Monson spoke and expressed or "declared" what the Lord had revealed for those present to hear and witness.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by JulieM

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So for those of us who sincerely felt that this policy was wrong.  That it did not reflect the mind and will of the Lord.  That it needed to be changed.

What are we supposed to do with your statement that "We are not going to do better in this life than following the prophet AFTER we confirm personally and get our own testimonies of whatever they decide"?

What happens when the spiritual confirmation I get is that they prophet is wrong?  What is your suggestion then?

 

Leave the church, obviously

The Lord has another path for you that you need to follow.  I have said this repeatedly here.  There are many paths to the Lord- I am just certain that this church has more truth in it than any other.  If you can't see that, you have a different path

I think that in the end you will understand why you needed to leave, 

Not everyone has the same circumstances- if I had been raised LDS I probably would not be a member myself because I simply would not have taken the path I did take.   

I certainly would not have gotten anything from the BYU philosophy department while I was an atheist communist- which is a path I needed to go through to learn that was totally the WRONG path for me.   I needed to examine my assumptions as an atheist and I found them to not be consistent with my philosophical beliefs.

"Us and the church"?   What does that mean?  It leaves me just fine, thank you very much, and I wish the same for you.

Edited September 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That was the previous policy.  So they have simply reversed or removed the Nov 2015 policy (which policy was declared by a prophet, seer, and apostle to have been reflective of the mind and will of the Lord and sustained through spiritual confirmation by the other prophets, seers, and revelatory). 

You can pretend that these words by men we sustain who hold the keys and claim the titles they do are meaningless (as you seem to be doing) but where does that leave us and the church?

I don't know where you are getting this.  It is not a "previous policy"- no where are those words used that I can find.  It is addressed as an "adjusted policy" and that is precisely how I see it as well.  There STILL needs to be administrative approval for baptizing a child of an LGBT couple.

I never said their titles were "meaningless", perhaps you need to do more listening and reading and listening to what is actually being said.  You seem to be conflating different ideas here

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Leave the church, obviously

The Lord has another path for you that you need to follow.  I have said this repeatedly here.  There are many paths to the Lord- I am just certain that this church has more truth in it than any other.  If you can't see that, you have a different path

I think that in the end you will understand why you needed to leave, 

Not everyone has the same circumstances- if I had been raised LDS I probably would not be a member myself because I simply would not have taken the path I did take.   

I certainly would not have gotten anything from the BYU philosophy department while I was an atheist communist- which is a path I needed to go through to learn that was totally the WRONG path for me.   I needed to examine my assumptions as an atheist and I found them to not be consistent with my philosophical beliefs.

Leave the church because an apostle may have falsely declared something to be the revealed will of God?

No.  Not the right path for me. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know where you are getting this.  It is not a "previous policy"- no where are those words used that I can find.  It is addressed as an "adjusted policy" and that is precisely how I see it as well.  There STILL needs to be administrative approval for baptizing a child of an LGBT couple.

Prior to Nov 2015, who had the priesthood keys to approve all baptisms within a ward?  The Bishop.  We have returned to that.  It is a reversal or removal of the Nov 2015 policy. 

Prior to Nov 2015, was same gender marriage specifically classified as apostasy?  No.  We have now returned to that.  It is a reversal or removal of the Nov 2015 policy. 

So I’ll ask the question again: if you believe that God revealed a need for the policy than what happened to that need now that the policy is being reversed or removed?

 

Quote

I never said their titles were "meaningless", perhaps you need to do more listening and reading and listening to what is actually being said.  You seem to be conflating different ideas here

The “meaningless” adjective referred to their words (not their titles) which seems to me to be what you are arguing. 

Edited September 22, 2019 by rockpond

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, unless you maybe believe that Pres. Nelson was mistaken or misunderstood, Pres. Monson actually declared "the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord" and then each of the Apostles "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation".   So, Pres. Monson spoke and expressed or "declared" what the Lord had revealed for those present to hear and witness.

 

 

You can't define any of these terms objectively.

There was a policy to make the baptisms subject to administrative decision and all agreed that that was a "good idea".

Fine.

They got deluged by requests and passed the decisions to the Bishops.

I don't know how you guys keep inserting all this emotionally laden stuff into it to give it a negative spin.  Your efforts make no sense to me and the more you protest it, I am beginning to think you doth "protest too much"

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Leave the church because an apostle may have falsely declared something to be the revealed will of God?

No.  Not the right path for me. 

Well good then, we agree.  I see that "may have" and to me that indicates a little softness there in your position.

So quit crabbing about it.

  In your opinion there was a mistake.  In mine there was not.

We can agree to disagree and move on with life.    I have no problem with anything Presidents Monson OR Nelson said.  I see it as an inspired way to avoid family contact and always have.  If anyone cared they could actually look up what I said in 2015- and it would be the same.

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So I’ll ask the question again: if you believe that God revealed a need for the policy than what happened to that need now that the policy is being reversed or removed?

 

The parents still have to agree that their kids will be taught principles showing that their parents are living sinfully and that the parents don't mind that.  The parents will be visited monthly as well and it will be assumed that they are ok with listening to "ministering" which teaches- in their own homes- that their lifestyle is not the will of the Lord.

IF I were gay I would never accept that.  I cannot imagine why they got as many requests for that kind of treatment from the parents.

If I were gay and found it to be not immoral in any way or even the will of the Lord that God made me gay- would you accept your kids being taught that?

I have never gotten it, but it is still there.  Not spelled out- but implied all the way through that section of the video

OK I am about done with this thread, thanks for the discussion.  I guess we can agree to disagree if you still want to carry it on.

[sunstoned]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You can't define any of these terms objectively.

There was a policy to make the baptisms subject to administrative decision and all agreed that that was a "good idea".

Fine.

They got deluged by requests and passed the decisions to the Bishops.

I don't know how you guys keep inserting all this emotionally laden stuff into it to give it a negative spin.  Your efforts make no sense to me and the more you protest it, I am beginning to think you doth "protest too much"

Your version of this narrative keeps leaving out the the part about Nelson declaring the POX a revelation. He did so very clearly.  Now that revelation has been totally reversed.  Some members might be okay with this whiplash, but many are finding it troubling. 

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Your version of this narrative keeps leaving out the the part about Nelson declaring the POX a revelation. He did so very clearly.  Now that revelation has been totally reversed.  Some members might be okay with this whiplash, but many are finding it troubling. 

I don't know what POX means.

I see no reversal.  Gay parents still have to petition the Bishop for permission to have their children baptized and agree to things I would never agree to do.  Why on earth would you WANT your child to be taught you are living in sin when your belief is that you have a glorious valid marriage before God??   I don't get it.

Perhaps you did not read the previous posts?

What do you mean by a "revelation"?   Something that cannot be changed?   Was the Old Testament and Mosaic law a "revelation"?

Do you believe prophets are infallible?

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

5 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Again, ambiguous.

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

President Nelson Encourages LDS Millennials to Be Morally Courageous

Obviously an addition to the Church Handbook for “the purposes of Church discipline” was necessary in 2015

 

But you didn't answer why the 2016 talk is missing, and why the 2019 talk showed up right away. 

 

Because you didn’t ask me why.  Assertions were made as if they were a true statements.  And now I’m being asked to answer a question that is simply begging the question:   Was the 2016 talk ever “missing”?  Did it ever appear on one of the sites that you assert it should be posted on, and was later removed for the reasons you suppose?   Why ask "why" if there is no reason to ask why to begin with?

This was your original post:

6 hours 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/

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

So you looked on the BYU (Provo) Speeches web site and didn’t find the talk.  You also looked on the BYU Hawaii web site and didn’t find the talk.  And because you didn’t find it, you think that’s proof that it was either withheld or removed because the church doesn’t like what it says, right?

 But did you notice that this isn’t merely a campus speech, but a “Worldwide Devotional"?  Worldwide devotionals are posted on the church’s worldwide site, not on the campus web sites.  And the truth is that specific devotional address has been posted on the church’s web site ever since it was given in January 2016 and it hasn’t been taken down.  The link I posted above is to the main worldwide devotional page, and you can change the year filter to 2016 and find the devotional address from Elder Nelson ("Becoming True Millennials").  And if you look at the church news link I included in my previous post (this link:  President Nelson Encourages LDS Millennials to Be Morally Courageous), down toward the middle of the article next to President Nelson’s photo you’ll see a caption “RELATED LINKS”, with the bullet point:  Watch President Nelson's full address.  That’s another link to the worldwide devotionals page on the Church's web site, and the full transcript of the talk is posted there with the video included.

And better yet, with the wonders of the internet, we can use the “Wayback Machine” web site and prove that the speech has been posted on the Church's web site since January 2016.  You can look here to see the lds.org web site as it appeared on January 20th 2016, and look here to see the BYU Hawaii web site as it appeared in January 2016.  Notice that the lds.org site shows that the devotional address was posted in January 2016 and it has never been removed since, (because it's still there!) and that the BYU Hawaii site shows that it was never posted to that site to begin with.

So this proves that the missing speech claim is a false claim.  So far I’m not seeing where any of these claims hold any merit.

5 hours ago, blueglass said:

Why was church discipline obviously necessary? 

What I said was, “Obviously an addition to the Church Handbook for 'the purposes of Church discipline' was necessary in 2015”.  The reason it was necessary is stated in the original news article from November 12, 2015:  Elder Christofferson Says Handbook Changes Regarding Same-Sex Marriages Help Protect Children, because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in a number of places throughout the world.  The church handbook needed updating to "mandate Church discipline for same-sex couples".  That hasn’t changed.  Only the classification under church disciplinary procedures has changed. 

 

 

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

5 hours ago, InCognitus said:

 

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

They have stated that same gender marriage will no longer be classified as apostasy.  That is a reversal because part of the Nov 2015 policy was adding same gender marriage to the list of what is apostasy.  Taking it off that list is a reversal.

The Nov 2015 policy also required FP approval for children of gay parents to be baptized.  With the this year's change they have moved approval back to the local bishop.  That's where it was before - thus it is a reversal of the Nov 2015 policy.

If and when they actually put it into the handbook we'll see how it turns out but based on what they have said in April and September of this year, it is a reversal of the Nov 2015 policy.

Edited 4 hours ago by rockpond

What was changed in 2015 was the mandate for Church discipline for same-sex couples who become married.  That mandate has not been reversed.  

But a mandate for Church discipline also requires a classification for how the situation is treated.  In the 2015 statement the situation was classified as apostasy, but it has since been reclassified to immoral conduct, the same as it would be in heterosexual or homosexual relationships.    Church disciplinary action for apostasy also dictates how to handle baptisms of children of parents in those situations.  And since the classification as apostasy has been changed to immoral conduct, the requirement regarding the baptism of children has also changed.  I view that as a reclassification, not a "reversal", since the mandate for church discipline has not been reversed.  But I can see how you might view the baptism situation as a reversal.  But that's simply the difference on how the baptism of children is handled under either of those classifications.