Fether

Church policy change on same sex marriage

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Catholics have taken that option, in the U.S. And, indeed, the vast majority of comments issued, even by the Pope, are not infallible. Special declarations of an infallible dictate come somewhat rarely. Likewise, even within my branch of Protestantism that believes in modern revelation and prophesy (Pentecostal/Charismatic), we test the spirits. It would not be too strange for individual members, even when leadership has not called a particular utterance into question, to reject it as "in the flesh" (i.e. not from God). LDS are not really suppose to have the option--unless there is opportunity to sustain (or not). Am I understanding right?

LDS are VERY big into asking the Spirit for confirmation/denial/peace if these are from God.  Take every doctrine or idea or policy to the Lord and ask Him to speak to you.  For theological ideas, there is actually a faith amount of variety within LDS Christian circles-- you don't have to agree 100% with the guy sitting in the next pew over.  For policy decisions, there's also variety, as very much illustrated by this LGBT-child thing.  You can (after consulting the Lord) choose to agree, disagree & stay, or disagree & leave.  

For an illustrative example: there's a policy that states "in the USA, if you legal get married outside of the temple, you must wait a year before getting sealed in the temple."  I very much disagree with this policy, and (after my own conversations with Lord) don't find it to be of Him.  Yes, I see the reasoning behind it, but find it does more harm than good.  And I can say that quite openly and be an LDS Christian 100% in good standing. 

Now if I were to usurp the pulpit and start yelling "This isn't the Lord's Church because of this temple policy!" and make a giant stink about it, then there would be some issues.  But that's due to the gaint stink rather than just disagreeing.  

(I hope that actually addressed your question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, anyone wanna comment on how this news was released . . . A glurgey, warm-fuzzy article about how awesome Leadership Session was, that just sort of drops this bombshell in at the tail end?

It shouldn't have been a bombshell. The fact that it is only goes to show how messed up modern thinking is, even church-side.

The reality is that anyone who had a major problem with or rejoiced over the previous policy was looking at it in a severely short-sighted non-eternal-perspective way. The reality is that anyone who is either rejoicing or has a major problem with the new policy is looking at it in a severely short-sighted non-eternal-perspective way.

When looked at with an eternal perspective, nothing has really changed. There are those who rebel against God and there are those who humble themselves.

Whether one calls egregious sin "apostasy" or not is irrelevant eternally. It is what it is. And we will, individually, stand accountable for ourselves and our attitudes towards God -- humble and committed, or prideful and faithless.

Do people really believe that someone in open sexual rebellion against God in their thoughts and actions is any closer to or further from exaltation now because of this policy change, or the previous change...or the previous, or the previous, or the previous?

Do people really believe that when all is said and done that a faithful, humble, individual's salvation rests upon their parent's choices and actions? Isn't the truth of this taught in our most basic articles of faith?

The people treating this as a bombshell and some stupendous announcement apparently have no understanding of the basic principles of the gospel -- specifically agency, the Atonement, and that an all-knowing, all-loving, perfectly just God is no respector of persons.

The church could instigate a policy that no one gets baptized for the next 100 years and it would mean nothing in the end. We will all stand before God the same, our work completed, our agency intact, and receive that which is just and right. How do these policies, really, affect that?

Only, of course, in how we react to them -- on the one hand with short-sighted selfishness and pride, or on the other hand with an eternally-minded humility and faith.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Just_A_Guy I am one of those who are dancing along with @MarginOfError for the change because I didn't agree with the policy. However, as a former journalist, the Church needs to fire quite a few people. Seriously.

Edited by Suzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

For an illustrative example: there's a policy that states "in the USA, if you legal get married outside of the temple, you must wait a year before getting sealed in the temple."  I very much disagree with this policy, and (after my own conversations with Lord) don't find it to be of Him.  Yes, I see the reasoning behind it, but find it does more harm than good.  And I can say that quite openly and be an LDS Christian 100% in good standing.

If by which you mean that you can still hold a temple recommend and participate in ordinances, then sure. But our goal should be much greater than merely keeping a temple recommend. We should be striving to be in harmony at all times with the Spirit. Publicly berating and questioning policy decisions in this manner is very obviously not in harmony with the building of the kingdom and the sustaining of our leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 11 And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?
 12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been my experience that some children whine and carry on when they have to go to bed, and then they whine and carry on when they have to get out of bed.

Perhaps this tendency carries over into adulthood in other matters, like Church policies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Catholics have taken that option, in the U.S. And, indeed, the vast majority of comments issued, even by the Pope, are not infallible. Special declarations of an infallible dictate come somewhat rarely. Likewise, even within my branch of Protestantism that believes in modern revelation and prophesy (Pentecostal/Charismatic), we test the spirits. It would not be too strange for individual members, even when leadership has not called a particular utterance into question, to reject it as "in the flesh" (i.e. not from God). LDS are not really suppose to have the option--unless there is opportunity to sustain (or not). Am I understanding right?

We always have that option... because we are flawed humans.  We are suppose to gain a testimony (aka spiritual witness) that God has called our leaders.  This is done by taking the things they say and praying about them.  But the scriptures are full of times that we are required to act on faith with things we do not understand.

When we encounter things we do not understand we can be like Nephi who stated "I do not understand all things, but I know God loveth is children." someone that held fast to what he knew and was ready to learn and be corrected about what he did not know or misunderstood.  Or we can be like Laman and Lemuel who were always murmuring and complaining about how they did not understand and how hard the things they were being asked to do where.   The difference might not seem like much at first but they lead to wildly different ends..

I do not understand why the changes were made either time.  I see it as going more restrictive three years ago (First Presidency approval, Mandatory Discipline ) and then back to less restrictive on how we implement certain practices.  Doctrine has not changed.  And the more restrictive practices can still happen.  Kids can still be denied baptism if there family life is not conductive to the gospel, and Discipline can still happen.  It is just that the person who makes that call is once again the Local Leader.

While I will repeat that I do not know why the changes were made... I can see possibilities that are well in line with God being in control.  Top of the list is God's sifting of the membership. Something we are explicitly told the Lord is going to do even if we do not know how he is going to do it.

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
22 hours ago, Suzie said:

Some people talk about a legal standpoint, perhaps in an attempt to understand a move they are struggling to comprehend but the Church clearly mentioned "continuous revelation" from God so no legal angle here

This is a perfectly reasonable and rational statement when curiously observing the shiny bauble that Satan is showing in his right hand while being oblivious of the Lord moving against the knife in Satan's left hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong on this...but it seems that on this issue our churches, and indeed most of Christianity (at least those branches that hold to scriptural belief and practice), the real decision is whether or not we will hold to God's will on sex or not. Is sex to be reserved between a married woman and her husband or not? The culture says no. Men love men, women love women, and couples fall out of love. I suspect most of us here agree on this...and we say with Joshua, "As for me and my house we will serve the LORD."

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Phineas said:

What if we end up with an ordinary General Conference?  That will be a shocker.

Can I still hold out hope that they'll announce revelation banning cheap toilet paper from all Church buildings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I could be wrong on this...but it seems that on this issue our churches, and indeed most of Christianity (at least those branches that hold to scriptural belief and practice), the real decision is whether or not we will hold to God's will on sex or not. Is sex to be reserved between a married woman and her husband or not? The culture says no. Men love men, women love women, and couples fall out of love. I suspect most of us here agree on this...and we say with Joshua, "As for me and my house we will serve the LORD."

"...but it seems that on this issue our churches, and indeed most of Christianity..."

Are you missing a word or am I reading this incorrectly? I want to ask "most of Christianity" what? Did you want to say "agree"? The sentence structure is driving me crazy.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

Lawyer-speak.

Reminds me of the surgeon who happened upon the scene of a terrible accident that had left nothing intact except for the body of a man (sans head), a pair of glasses, and a horse’s rear end.  The surgeon miraculously saved the man’s life, and that man now serves on the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I could be wrong on this...but it seems that on this issue our churches, and indeed most of Christianity (at least those branches that hold to scriptural belief and practice), the real decision is whether or not we will hold to God's will on sex or not. Is sex to be reserved between a married woman and her husband or not? The culture says no. Men love men, women love women, and couples fall out of love. I suspect most of us here agree on this...and we say with Joshua, "As for me and my house we will serve the LORD."

Yes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Reminds me of the surgeon who happened upon the scene of a terrible accident that had left nothing intact except for the body of a man (sans head), a pair of glasses, and a horse’s rear end.  The surgeon miraculously saved the man’s life, and that man now serves on the Supreme Court.

Just sent that (slightly modified) to my son in Chicago touring the law school. Bet he likes it. (The joke, I mean. Pretty sure he already likes the school.)

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 1:59 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Or, as a quippy answer to any Christian taking issue with our changing revelations:

"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" - Jesus 
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" - Jesus (A few chapters later)
 

Or a more recent version of the same principle

Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 56:4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read every post to this thread and I do not see what I think concerns all of us.  Is this a precursor to homosexuality being permitted in the church?  I don't get how same sex marriage can be ok but same sex sex is not.  Next thing you know they're gonna say that it's time to have women bishops and stake presidents.  I don't know about you guys, but I have a problems with going against the grain of the Holy Bible.  I already sin, that is something I am always working on.  But as a church?  Sorry guys, but same sex marriage is as sick and depraved as homosexuality.  IMO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 1:59 PM, MormonGator said:

@Vort/ @Just_A_Guy-If I was a single man living with my girlfriend out of wedlock, would I be excommunicated? Honest question, not a challenge. 

I am neither, but you could face anywhere from informal suspension to disfellowship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Maureen said:

"...but it seems that on this issue our churches, and indeed most of Christianity..."

Are you missing a word or am I reading this incorrectly? I want to ask "most of Christianity" what? Did you want to say "agree"? The sentence structure is driving me crazy.

M.

The word "for" is missing. "... but it seems that on this issue FOR our churches ... the real decision is ... "

If I could type as fast as I think, when I am posting, this might be a different world . . . :::sigh::: 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now