NOM

New podcast just up at Radio Free Mormon.

Bill Reel and I dissect President Nelson's BYU talk from last Tuesday.

https://radiofreemormon.org/2019/09/7446/

I hope you like it!

All the Best!

--RFM

Looking forward to listening to this one on the commute home today. I was just telling a friend that it blows my mind how Nelson and the other COBlers just keep bringing these sensitive topics up over and over and they just need to shut up and leave them alone. Every time they bring these things up and talk about them they look worse and make it worse for TSCC. I guess it provides great fodder for us NOMs and ExMos. So many cringe worthy events for the church PR dept!

Well, I'll be rearranging my que for the commute home today...

I thought it was a great episode. I am curious to see how this all plays out.

I was intrigued by Bill Reel's musing on whether the policy has actually been revoked. I reread what Oaks said about it:

Effective immediately, children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender may be baptized without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents give permission for the baptism and understand both the doctrine that a baptized child will be taught and the covenants he or she will be expected to make.

and

Previously, our Handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

These seem more like undoing the policy to me, but I see Bill's point. Everything to do with this is such a crapshow.

I both read the transcript and listened to the talk. Then I listened to the podcast. I think both of them Bill and RFM are unnecessary loquacious but enjoyed the podcast and recommend it. It is interesting to see Nelson try to extricate himself from a mess of his own making. I am reminded of tar baby. Only this time it is tar baby with an ego the size of Russia. It is actually a tragic and cautionary tale.

The 2015 policy decision to exclude the children of same-sex couples from Church membership was made solely out of anger toward the Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriage. To claim it was made out of love of God is a lie. It was a decision based on anger and the policy reversal was made because it caused members to leave and brought the Church much bad publicity.

Instead, President Nelson should have apologized for claiming this horrendous policy as a revelation back in 2016. The web grows increasingly tangled when you decide to deceive, making it as Asa said, "tragic and cautionary tale".

blazerb wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:25 pm

I thought it was a great episode. I am curious to see how this all plays out.

I was intrigued by Bill Reel's musing on whether the policy has actually been revoked. I reread what Oaks said about it:

Effective immediately, children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender may be baptized without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents give permission for the baptism and understand both the doctrine that a baptized child will be taught and the covenants he or she will be expected to make.

and

Previously, our Handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

These seem more like undoing the policy to me, but I see Bill's point. Everything to do with this is such a crapshow.

Per other posts on here, They have yet to actually revise the CHI to take out the instructions that people who enter into same sex marriages are to be labeled as apostates. So the question is the church really that slow in revising their manuals, or are they trying to have it both ways, Look good in public, but keep the option ready in the back end.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:55 am

Per other posts on here, They have yet to actually revise the CHI to take out the instructions that people who enter into same sex marriages are to be labeled as apostates. So the question is the church really that slow in revising their manuals, or are they trying to have it both ways, Look good in public, but keep the option ready in the back end.

Good point. They could quietly sneak the reversal back into the handbook as easily as they inserted the policy. Heck, I've got a few free minutes today. I'll do it for them if they ask.

Listened yesterday on my commute and one of the points made that really hit home was that Nelson is putting the decision making/responsibility/future blame on the bishops. This means the policy (which still exists) will be inconsistently and unfairly applied across the church but that the first presidency can also avoid conflict and accountability.

I found Nelson’s talk so offensive. Pray that I’m a prophet! It’s not my fault the doctrine, I mean, policy was in place-I begged God not to do it! Don’t listen to anyone but us. Even as a TBM I would have been rolling my eyes at the gas lighting and appeals to authority but as an apostate I just couldn’t believe people weren’t seeing through him.

moksha wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:10 am

The 2015 policy decision to exclude the children of same-sex couples from Church membership was made solely out of anger toward the Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriage. To claim it was made out of love of God is a lie. It was a decision based on anger and the policy reversal was made because it caused members to leave and brought the Church much bad publicity.

Instead, President Nelson should have apologized for claiming this horrendous policy as a revelation back in 2016. The web grows increasingly tangled when you decide to deceive, making it as Asa said, "tragic and cautionary tale".

And this is what bothers me the most. When these guys can not man up so to speak and call it like it is. Only the most ardent TBM would look at this as an act of love.

I have to take responsibility for may actions every day. Why do these guys get to take a pass and blame god. Owning up to your mistakes is hard at first but you will feel a lot better in the long run.

Bill refers to many dozens of suicides as a direct result of the 2015 policy. Is there any way to verify this?

1smartdodog wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:06 am

Why do these guys get to take a pass and blame god. Owning up to your mistakes is hard at first but you will feel a lot better in the long run.

"Pride goeth before a fall"..... that's what I hear anyway.

Bill also commented on the use of the word "perhaps." I am fascinated by how this word is used, both by leaders and apologists, along with its analogs like," it might be," “may have,” “another possibility,” “possible explanations,” etc. As much as anything else the church seems to be in the plausible deniability business.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:38 pm

Bill refers to many dozens of suicides as a direct result of the 2015 policy. Is there any way to verify this?

Nope, there never is, It's jut anecdotal guesswork, and the political environment in Utah makes it this sort of reporting much worse.