LDS Church is succumbing to pressure to "tweak" edict

[JakeStarkey]

Follow the earlier discussion at LDS church and children of LGBT couples: Jesus weeps | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum on the Board.

-----

Rumors began this week that the church’s 15-man leadership — three in a body called The First Presidency and 12 in a lower-level unit called the Quorum of the Apostles — might change the document following the uproar.

The Salt Lake Tribute on Wednesday cited excommunicated activist John Dehlin as saying a major church governing group “sent out a memo to regional leaders, saying that ‘there will be additional clarification on these changes from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] in the coming days,'” the Tribune quoted Dehlin as saying.

“Many Mormons are calling on their church leaders to modify this new policy on same-sex couples — particularly the limitations affecting the children — and soon,” the Tribune reported.

The piece, by plugged-in Salt Lake City religion reporter Peggy Fletcher Stack, focused on experts who see a huge difference between a “policy” — which is how leaders described the change last week — and “doctrine.” Mormons plan to quit over church’s new policy banning baptism in gay families

 

[Steven_R]

Times change, cultural standards evolve. The church, every institution really, can either adapt to that or wither and die on the vine as the humans that make up the church decide they can go somewhere else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Leaving Mormon church over ‘cruel’ policy on gays’ kids (COMMENTARY)

The Religion News Service carries an article by a LDS member who resigned over the policy.

----

(RNS) I just did something I thought I would never do. I resigned my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) and asked that my name be removed from the records.

Even at the height of church involvement in the passage of Proposition 8 in California, I never seriously considered removing my name. It just didn’t matter that much to me. Spiritually and emotionally, I left the church I grew up in decades ago. And despite being a “known gay activist” to the church, I was never excommunicated, so my name remained on the church rolls as a member. Not anymore.

. . .
My sister’s response echoes the reaction of thousands of faithful Mormons. My mom, who died in 2003, would have been one of them. When I would ask her how she reconciled her faith, which condemned me, and her love for me, she would say, “God gave me you and my testimony. I know my job is to love both. He’ll figure out the rest.”

Today, God, and my beloved mother, weep.
more at Leaving Mormon church over 'cruel' policy on gays' kids (COMMENTARY) - Religion News Service

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Times change, cultural standards evolve. The church, every institution really, can either adapt to that or wither and die on the vine as the humans that make up the church decide they can go somewhere else.

That's the thing. Religion isn't supposed to evolve. If it does it's of Man and not God.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Follow the earlier discussion at LDS church and children of LGBT couples: Jesus weeps | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum on the Board.

-----

Rumors began this week that the church’s 15-man leadership — three in a body called The First Presidency and 12 in a lower-level unit called the Quorum of the Apostles — might change the document following the uproar.

The Salt Lake Tribute on Wednesday cited excommunicated activist John Dehlin as saying a major church governing group “sent out a memo to regional leaders, saying that ‘there will be additional clarification on these changes from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] in the coming days,'” the Tribune quoted Dehlin as saying.

“Many Mormons are calling on their church leaders to modify this new policy on same-sex couples — particularly the limitations affecting the children — and soon,” the Tribune reported.

The piece, by plugged-in Salt Lake City religion reporter Peggy Fletcher Stack, focused on experts who see a huge difference between a “policy” — which is how leaders described the change last week — and “doctrine.” Mormons plan to quit over church’s new policy banning baptism in gay families

The beauty of the Mormon Church; if they ever need to change their beliefs or doctrines, they can just say they found some new golden plates in the woods, and NO you may NOT see them!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Salt Lake Tribute on Wednesday cited excommunicated activist John Dehlin as saying…

Why would anyone cite him? He doesn't have any authority to speak for the church, and when he tried to falsely claim and exercise such authority, he used it to speak against the church. That's why he was excommunicated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Salt Lake Tribute on Wednesday cited excommunicated activist John Dehlin as saying…

Why would anyone cite him? He doesn't have any authority to speak for the church, and when he tried to falsely claim and exercise such authority, he used it to speak against the church. That's why he was excommunicated.

John Dehlin never claimed authority to speak for the church. He did speak for the disaffected. He certainly has every right to speak out on this issue. The pressure to tweak the policy grows.

 

[Spinster]

Times change, cultural standards evolve. The church, every institution really, can either adapt to that or wither and die on the vine as the humans that make up the church decide they can go somewhere else.

That's the thing. Religion isn't supposed to evolve. If it does it's of Man and not God.

The only thing, Delta, you've ever said I actually agree with. Wonders never cease.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Times change, cultural standards evolve. The church, every institution really, can either adapt to that or wither and die on the vine as the humans that make up the church decide they can go somewhere else.

That's the thing. Religion isn't supposed to evolve. If it does it's of Man and not God.

The only thing, Delta, you've ever said I actually agree with. Wonders never cease.

Lots of the time I'm just amusing myself messing with people.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

John Dehlin never claimed authority to speak for the church. He did speak for the disaffected. He certainly has every right to speak out on this issue. The pressure to tweak the policy grows.

He certainly has a right to speak his mind. However,there is no reason why anyone should give him any credence with regard to the church. He's someone who, while still nominally a member, and while publicly identifying as a member, made a profession of publicly coming out against the essential doctrines and policies of the church. As he obviously didn't believe these doctrines and policies, if he were honest, he would have left the church of his own accord, rather than waiting to be excommunicated.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Times change, cultural standards evolve. The church, every institution really, can either adapt to that or wither and die on the vine as the humans that make up the church decide they can go somewhere else.

That's the thing. Religion isn't supposed to evolve. If it does it's of Man and not God.

Exactly. It's particularly important in this religion. It is a matter of established doctrine that we are led by a prophet who receives instruction from God. God may changes his policies somewhat, in accordance with the needs of the times, but there are underlying principles that he will not alter, and there is no mortal authority to alter them. It is pointless to try to protest, and put pressure on our mortal leaders to change this or any other policy—they don't have the authority to do so. Only God has that authority.

From the point of view of someone who understands the doctrines of this church, and who believes in them, this policy makes perfect sense to me. Among the crucial doctrines are some important values regarding marriage, family, and the proper place for sexual intimacy. Homosexuality is an affront to these values, and “gay marriage” an exceptionally foul mockery of that which we hold sacred. It really isn't possible to willingly have anything to do with it, and at the same time, be a faithful member of this church.

Even if not by their own will, children who are caught up in this evil really aren't in a position to freely accept and participate in the gospel. The policy isn't about punishing anyone. It is the “parents” who are harming the children, not the church, and as long as the children remain under the authority of these “parents”, there is really nothing the church can do for them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

John Dehlin never claimed authority to speak for the church. He did speak for the disaffected. He certainly has every right to speak out on this issue. The pressure to tweak the policy grows.

He certainly has a right to speak his mind. However,there is no reason why anyone should give him any credence with regard to the church. He's someone who, while still nominally a member, and while publicly identifying as a member, made a profession of publicly coming out against the essential doctrines and policies of the church. As he obviously didn't believe these doctrines and policies, if he were honest, he would have left the church of his own accord, rather than waiting to be excommunicated.

Anyone with a thinking mind gives John cred when talking about the LDS and trying to retain its membership. He was honest about his feelings and was handled for it. The world a long time ago to check the church's left hand when its right hand is held out in friendship.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So polygamy was not an eternal doctrine that would not be altered because there was "no mortal authority to alter them. It is pointless to try to protest, and put pressure on our mortal leaders to change this or any other policy—they don't have the authority to do so. Only God has that authority." So if God changed the 'policy' on polygamy or blacks and the priesthood, He certainly can and will change it on the children of LGBT. We will see tweaks with a short time, possibly a few weeks.

"'gay marriage' [maybe be] an exceptionally foul mockery of that which we hold sacred", but to hold children responsible for their parents' decision is a foul mockery of a church that is family and child centered.

Of course children are in a moral situation to accept baptism and priesthood and other ordinances if so offered. This policy is about harming children not protecting them.

 

[Spinster]

Times change, cultural standards evolve. The church, every institution really, can either adapt to that or wither and die on the vine as the humans that make up the church decide they can go somewhere else.

That's the thing. Religion isn't supposed to evolve. If it does it's of Man and not God.

The only thing, Delta, you've ever said I actually agree with. Wonders never cease.

Lots of the time I'm just amusing myself messing with people.

That's sick behavior. That's considered in forum parlance, but it's still sick.

 

[September]

Times change, cultural standards evolve. The church, every institution really, can either adapt to that or wither and die on the vine as the humans that make up the church decide they can go somewhere else.

That's the thing. Religion isn't supposed to evolve. If it does it's of Man and not God.

All religion is of Man... even when it is inspired and affected by God(s) or perceived God(s).

Evolution isn't just biological, it is cultural too... so as Man grows and evolves, so will our spiritual/ religious systems. I mean think about it. One cannot expect the many religions of Man to remain completely unaffected when Man ascends beyond the realm of Earth to inhabit other worlds.

​

 

[Steven_R]

Times change, cultural standards evolve. The church, every institution really, can either adapt to that or wither and die on the vine as the humans that make up the church decide they can go somewhere else.

That's the thing. Religion isn't supposed to evolve. If it does it's of Man and not God.

You misunderstand my comment. The Word of God may be unchanging, but churches are really just another organization. If the church is no longer meeting the needs or expectations of the congregants, they go somewhere else to fill that need and the church becomes obsolete.

And it isn't like churches don't change doctrine all the time as it is. Until 2013, black skin was considered to be a curse from God according to the LDS dogma. Says so right in the book of Mormon. (2 Nephi 5:21) And the LDS leadership used that to essentially keep blacks as second class members (can't have black preachers...but any white can at age 12). Society changed, we decided race really wasn't all that important and eventually the people in charge of the LDS church had to change or simply risk people saying "this isn't the church we want anymore" and see them going out the door.

 

[JakeStarkey]

National news have reported hundreds of resignations already, which probably means several times those "hundreds".

 

[Steven_R]

National news have reported hundreds of resignations already, which probably means several times those "hundreds".

Kind of reminds me of Second Vatican. how the reforms left many Catholic fundamentalists angry and they left the church. The just continued on into the 21st century.

I do wonder what other changes I'll see in my lifetime. Married priests? Female priests instead of just nuns?

 

[JakeStarkey]

National news have reported hundreds of resignations already, which probably means several times those "hundreds".

Kind of reminds me of Second Vatican. how the reforms left many Catholic fundamentalists angry and they left the church. The just continued on into the 21st century.

I do wonder what other changes I'll see in my lifetime. Married priests? Female priests instead of just nuns?

The LDS Mormons will have female priesthood within twenty years, I think. When that happens, major changes on LGBT issues should occur quickly.

The polygamy and racial issues of the LDS church in the past give evidence that the above predictions are not unreasonable.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's funny how the so called tweaking is exactly how the faithful members were saying the policy was going to be implemented in the first place.

Faithful member: This policy applies to the children living with same sex couples and local leaders can be inspired by the Spirit as necessary

Critic: no it doesn't! It extends to all children with a parent in a same sex couple even if they don't live with the parent and the strict language has to be followed with no allowance from the Spirit.

Church clarifying: This policy applies to the children living with same sex couples and local leaders can be inspired by the Spirit as necessary

Critics: Look how awesome we are! All our activism forced the Church to change the policy!

Faithful member: what the...?