Policy regarding children of gay parents is gone!

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Oh my! Say it isn’t so. 🙄

It isn't so.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Growing up the person leading the meeting would typically say "The sacrament will now be passed to the members of the Church",  Don't remember any mention of 8 year olds.  This was before 1972.  I do remember when this policy was changed to be less concerned about whether a person was a member or not.  This statement by James E. Faust may very well have been that clarifying statement.  

Pres Smith died in July 1972. Since he was the one doing the instruction in the quote I posted, it makes sense if the change came after his death or at least the official public rejection. And that would match with an October 72 clarification by James Faust. 

Looks like Brother Faust was then just appointed Assistant to the Quorum of the 12 according to wiki

Edited December 15, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

They did in my wards, and my friends and colleagues told me the same in their singles and married wards.

I knew it was the same in the wards when I was in the military.

What does “pushed the leadership” mean? Torches and pitchforks outside the Church Office Building? Petition drives? Organized letter writing campaigns? Press conferences? What? 
 

Many of us, including me, were wishing for the “long-promised day” when there would be a change. Doesn’t mean we  “pushed the leadership.”

Edited December 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pres Smith died in July 1972. Since he was the one doing the instruction in the quote I posted, it makes sense if the change came after his death or at least the official public rejection. And that would match with an October 72 clarification by James Faust. 

Looks like Brother Faust was then just appointed Assistant to the Quorum of the 12 according to wiki

He was identified as a regional representative in the New Era piece I cited. 
 

Doctrines of Salvation, if I recall correctly, is a compilation of writings and discourses. The passage you cited might have been somewhat old by the time the book (it’s a three-volume work, as I recall) was published. 
 

And I’m not sure whether it ever had the imprimatur of being a Church publication as opposed to being merely one of numerous books that have been written by General Authorities under their own auspices over the years. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He was identified as a regional representative in the New Era piece I cited. 
 

Doctrines of Salvation, if I recall correctly, is a compilation of writings and discourses. The passage you cited might have been somewhat old by the time the book (it’s a three-volume work, as I recall) was published. 
 

And I’m not sure whether it ever had the imprimatur of being a Church publication as opposed to being merely one of numerous books that have been written by General Authorities under their own auspices over the years. 

DoS was published by bookcraft and I found nothing to indicate it was considered authoritative by leadership. By local leaders and members otoh....

Also since it was a compilation, it would be helpful to track down what that part was taken from. 

Not sure I still have a copy since it is available online, but will check and see if there is any indication of where it came from. 

I would not be surprised if this was one of the “unwritten order” things. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

DoS was published by bookcraft and I found nothing to indicate it was considered authoritative by leadership. By local leaders and members otoh....

Also since it was a compilation, it would be helpful to track down what that part was taken from. 

Not sure I still have a copy since it is available online, but will check and see if there is any indication of where it came from. 

I would not be surprised if this was one of the “unwritten order” things. 

It’s still in the Deseret Book catalog. I just checked. 
 

I’m fairly sure it was published years before President Smith became Church president. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

Just checking in.  So happy and pleased that Pres. Nelson and/or Apostles have heard the voices of their membership and those who influenced and better PR for the church and the gay/lesbian conciliation in realizing that the Lord perhaps ....made a mistake.  I am feeling positive again that said revelations are part and parcel with what can be retained in member and even perhaps and relevance pertaining to what Jesus has actually taught.    This is good news!  But please....try not to explain it as a desire and actual conversation with the spirit and Pres. Nelson.   Is it not evidence enough that the midnight conversations of a prophet and God has heard the voice of those  who have really acknowledge a truth at a cost of some lives and division of families.  How hard was that to see?

Edited December 15, 2019 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

DoS was published by bookcraft and I found nothing to indicate it was considered authoritative by leadership. By local leaders and members otoh....

Also since it was a compilation, it would be helpful to track down what that part was taken from. 

Not sure I still have a copy since it is available online, but will check and see if there is any indication of where it came from. 

I would not be surprised if this was one of the “unwritten order” things. 

Locale may have had something to do with it. In the wards I attended while growing up, I recall that attendance by non-members would have been a rare thing, so making a point each week of announcing that the sacrament was for members would scarcely have been necessary. When I was on my mission (mid-‘70s) and at BYU, the practice as reflected in the Faust quote I cited was the order of the day. 
 

I still say making the announcement in meetings has never been the standard or even predominate practice Churchwide, although I don’t doubt it occurred here and there. 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Locale may have had something to do with it. In the wards I attended while growing up, I recall that attendance by non-members would have been a rare thing, so making a point each week of announcing that the sacrament was for members would scarcely have been necessary. When I was on my mission (mid-‘70s) and at BYU, the practice as reflected in the Faust quote I cited was the order of the day. 
 

I still say making the announcement in meetings has never been the standard or even predominate practice Churchwide, although I don’t doubt it occurred here and there. 

 

I especially remember hearing it said it on my mission in Austria in the early 70s, so it may have been done more in the mission field. I am sure it was not a practice that was backed up by an official letter from the First presidency, but most likely, like you suggest, a policy implemented by various Stakes and Bishops. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I especially remember hearing it said it on my mission in Austria in the early 70s, so it may have been done more in the mission field. I am sure it was not a practice that was backed up by an official letter from the First presidency, but most likely, like you suggest, a policy implemented by various Stakes and Bishops. 

I have an Austrian friend saying the same thing.  He remembers it being discontinued by a 1st Pres. Letter, but is not certain about that.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

It isn't so.

I meant say someone did not really say this. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Growing up the person leading the meeting would typically say "The sacrament will now be passed to the members of the Church",  Don't remember any mention of 8 year olds.  This was before 1972.  I do remember when this policy was changed to be less concerned about whether a person was a member or not.  This statement by James E. Faust may very well have been that clarifying statement.  

My recollection, too....age 73. 

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Growing up the person leading the meeting would typically say "The sacrament will now be passed to the members of the Church",  Don't remember any mention of 8 year olds.  This was before 1972.  I do remember when this policy was changed to be less concerned about whether a person was a member or not.  This statement by James E. Faust may very well have been that clarifying statement.  

My recollection, too....age 73. 

That 8 year old thing I heard while on that Austrian mission. It was probably not a church wide thing. I can understand the reasoning behind it though. Any child under 8 would not be unworthy to partake because they would not be considered sinful. 

Edited December 16, 2019 by JAHS

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Growing up the person leading the meeting would typically say "The sacrament will now be passed to the members of the Church",  Don't remember any mention of 8 year olds.  This was before 1972.  I do remember when this policy was changed to be less concerned about whether a person was a member or not.  This statement by James E. Faust may very well have been that clarifying statement.  

The Lord describes it to be done after baptism.  Whether that constitutes a restriction is up for interpretation. 

I think it technically does but the Church errs on the side of inclusiveness and making people feel welcome. That's probably a good thing.

But as an ordinance it only applies after baptism.

[JamesBYoung]

I remember the statement of the Sacrament to be passed to members of the Church until the mid-70s.

I don't remember comments about children under eight.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My recollection, too....age 73. 

What state did you grow up in?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

What state did you grow up in?

New Mexico.

[Calm]

Thanks.

My husband, an Oremite, doesn't remember anything like that.

Another friend from Maine says he doesn't think it happened in that area.

 

[Calm]

A friend reported they were still seeing instructing nonmembers not to partake in France in early 90s.

[Peppermint Patty]

On 12/13/2019 at 11:56 AM, bluebell said:

That section would have been handy a few weeks ago in my ward when one of the older members stood up in EQ and talked about how everyone needs to be careful with what minerals they take into their bodies because some can cause homosexuality.  

It would have been very helpful a couple of months ago when our Stake Patriarch cautioned us against giving our children soy products because it's a leading source of homosexuality 🙄 due to the high estrogen content in soy.  We all just sat there in silence not knowing what to say.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

It would have been very helpful a couple of months ago when our Stake Patriarch cautioned us against giving our children soy products because it's a leading source of homosexuality 🙄 due to the high estrogen content in soy.  We all just sat there in silence not knowing what to say.

Yes!  Because what can anyone say in a quick response to such ignorance in a church setting??  

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Just checking in.  So happy and pleased that Pres. Nelson and/or Apostles have heard the voices of their membership and those who influenced and better PR for the church and the gay/lesbian conciliation in realizing that the Lord perhaps ....made a mistake.  I am feeling positive again that said revelations are part and parcel with what can be retained in member and even perhaps and relevance pertaining to what Jesus has actually taught.    This is good news!  But please....try not to explain it as a desire and actual conversation with the spirit and Pres. Nelson.   Is it not evidence enough that the midnight conversations of a prophet and God has heard the voice of those  who have really acknowledge a truth at a cost of some lives and division of families.  How hard was that to see?

Are you okay? That was pretty incoherent. Hoping you were just tired.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes!  Because what can anyone say in a quick response to such ignorance in a church setting??  

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 11:29 AM, rockpond said:

A new revision to Handbook 1 has been published:  "December 2019".

The section which previously contained the "Nov 2015" policy related to children of gay parents has now been deleted in its entirety.

The section defining same-gender marriage as apostasy remains unchanged despite the 4-April FP statement to the contrary.  But perhaps this change will come soon.

A new section was added, Section 17, titled "Church Participation".  In that section, it explains that minors may be baptized with permission from custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s).  And that the custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s) should understand the Church doctrine their child will be taught and support the child in making and keeping the baptismal covenant.

Section 17 also states, regarding church attendance, that we should avoid "making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics that detract from meetings focused on the Savior."

 

I think these are good changes and I'm really glad to see the Nov 2015 policy finally removed from the handbook.

It's gone! And in just a tad over 8 months from when it was announced. Impressive  

I'm glad it's gone. That policy was a stain on the church. Unfortunately it will be a while before it is forgotten.

I remember talking to my SP after the policy came out and I confidently told him it wouldn't last long. He thought I was nuts. God had just given a revelation and it wouldn't be changed. Now it's changed...again...but the damage is done. For many, trust in leaders is lost, or at least more conditional.

 

[Jeanne]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are you okay? That was pretty incoherent. Hoping you were just tired.

Yes...I was tired.  When I read this over I knew my brain was thinking faster than I could type.  We will just let it be.  My daughter has been very sick and dealing with that...so when I check in..yeah..I am a confused woman..worried, afraid and alone.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Jeanne