"Hold my root beer" - the Russell M. Nelson thread

[Goatnapper'96]

That makes me very happy. I thought that policy was a terrible idea and was worried that it would be around for a longer period of time.

Just proves the whole Church is false.

[Goatnapper'96]

what a cluster. Who the heck is driving the good ship Zion these days?

Ftr, I’m happy they got rid of it but sad it ever existed in the first place.

I thought the point of the original ban was a decent idea. My interpretation was the Church didn't want kids baptized where the homelife/family/parental situation did not support the baptism and continued participation in the Church. I kind of would have liked to see it expanded to other obvious situations where the support would be similar but for different reasons.

From what I read the Church is trying to be proactive as to what blessing and baptizing will mean so that later when representatives from the Church shows up we will have the moral highground to head off the next whining SoonerCoug.

[Moliere]

Ha. Just the kind of response I would expect from you.

[wuapinmon]

Like other policies I've recently commented on, this change in "policy" (which went against our doctrine, mind you) will end a lot of heartache and needless suffering. I'm glad this happened today, but I'm sad that we had to have this in the first place. I'm guessing that with a lot more fervent prayer, the Lord will change His mind on "lawfully wedded" spouses of either gender being alright with Him. Unlike Schopenhauer, I like an omniscient god who you have to convince to change His Will.

[Omaha 680]

It’s a modern day miracle! Children of LGBQ can now be blessed and baptized. I had to pull over and absorb all this new revelation.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-apostasy.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know this post is in jest but our good friend who is gay and (same sex) married and attempting to be active in the church in NYC literally called my wife weeping with joy over this announcement. The policy was bad and this announcement reverses that bad decision and goes a little farther in helping gay members who want to remain find a way to do so.

This should be great news for sincere people on any side of the issue.



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Goatnapper'96]

Like other policies I've recently commented on, this change in "policy" (which went against our doctrine, mind you) will end a lot of heartache and needless suffering. I'm glad this happened today, but I'm sad that we had to have this in the first place. I'm guessing that with a lot more fervent prayer, the Lord will change His mind on "lawfully wedded" spouses of either gender being alright with Him. Unlike Schopenhauer, I like an omniscient god who you have to convince to change His Will.

Come on back in the waters fully Wuap- the formal organization will one day catch up to where you and some (many? most?) of the membership are at! Just have faith that we and the Church are all assymptotes!

[Goatnapper'96]

I know this post is in jest but our good friend who is gay and (same sex) married and attempting to be active in the church in NYC literally called my wife weeping with joy over this announcement. The policy was bad and this announcement reverses that bad decision and goes a little farther in helping gay members who want to remain find a way to do so.

This should be great news for sincere people on any side of the issue.



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

That is the issue with top down. I think the policy was well meaning in principle- baptizing or blessing kids (giving the child a life long affiliation with the LDS Church) into the Church who come from home environments staunchly opposed to Church teachings on sin/transgression etc might not be a real good idea if we are concerned about the health of family relationships. However, here is a case where it might appear to be non-supporting in principle but it in fact it is supportive.

I can't recall all the administrative details but wasn't there local input and decision making opportunities that could have helped in a situation such as the one you cite? If not there should have been but I guess it is a moot point now.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know this post is in jest but our good friend who is gay and (same sex) married and attempting to be active in the church in NYC literally called my wife weeping with joy over this announcement. The policy was bad and this announcement reverses that bad decision and goes a little farther in helping gay members who want to remain find a way to do so.

This should be great news for sincere people on any side of the issue.

Well said.

This policy left a trail of carnage in its wake. Very sad that it happened, but thank heavens it has been reversed. Now Pres. Nelson is setting a precedent where it is OK to admit institutional mistakes without waiting decades. GOAT.

[clackamascoug]

In other dimensions - this happened twenty years ago - and never will happen. I guess it is what it will be.

[Jeff Lebowski]

In other dimensions - this happened twenty years ago - and never will happen. I guess it is what it will be.

Clack, there is only one dimension that counts here. Try to keep up.

[clackamascoug]

Clack, there is only one dimension that counts here. Try to keep up.

You're so myopic.

BTW - if the gates to hell have been thwarted for our LBGTH members - Coffee and Tea should be a no-brainer right?

[bluegoose]

Well said.

This policy left a trail of carnage in its wake. Very sad that it happened, but thank heavens it has been reversed. Now Pres. Nelson is setting a precedent where it is OK to admit institutional mistakes without waiting decades. GOAT.

Maybe I missed it and it should have interpretated as implied by the rapid turnaround, but I didn't notice any admission of mistake in the initial policy.

Also, was it an intentional omission that priesthood ordination was left off the list of now-acceptable ordinances?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Maybe I missed it and it should have interpretated as implied by the rapid turnaround, but I didn't notice any admission of mistake in the initial policy.

Also, was it an intentional omission that priesthood ordination was left off the list of now-acceptable ordinances?

I think it is clearly implied.

[MartyFunkhouser]

It’s a modern day miracle! Children of LGBQ can now be blessed and baptized. I had to pull over and absorb all this new revelation.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-apostasy.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait what happened to it being revelation and the policy being necessary to protect the children? Are we not protecting the children now? It would be nice if this change was accompanied by an acknowledgment, "yeah we screwed up before, sorry about that."

Also, what a load of bullshit the desnews only being willing to say that the policy was "perceived as painful among some supporters of the LBGT community."

This is as a change in the right direction, but also it highlights that the explanations for the policy in the first place were bullshit.

[Green Monstah]

I nearly resigned in 2015 over this. I sort of tried to get booted during a sacrament meeting where I admitted that I disagreed wholeheartedly with the policy change (the next F&T meeting, a few dudes rebuked my position without calling me out by name).

This is fantastic. Of all the reforms RMN has been part of so far, this is the greatest. I don't know that the Church will ever endorse or support gay marriage, but we should have never put up a barrier for kids.