https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/us/mormon-policy-reversal/index.html

"Now, each bishop has the choice of how to respond to same-sex marriage within his congregation -- a sin that once, technically, would necessitate excommunication. While the church states that same-sex marriage is still a "serious transgression," this policy will allow more liberal bishops to determine ecclesiastical discipline (or nondiscipline) on an individual basis. For many congregations, this will likely mean welcoming gay members and their families with open arms."

I live in a left-coast city where most members, especially the younger ones, have long adapted liberal social attitudes. The bishop at my local ward along with many in the pews teared up when addressing the 2015 policy. It was genuine.

The decision of whether or not to withhold a recommend because of WoW infractions, garment use, or "gospel standards" when it comes to dress, hairstyles or grooming (I remember a baptism where the length of the beard became an issue as it wouldn't fully submerge) is something that I believe has been happening for a while and never caused HQ to bat an eye.

But ward-to-ward and bishop-to-bishop discretion on the level of acceptance of non-traditional family units? That's going to be messy, especially given the number of Moridor members who visit while on business.

This will especially be difficult with bishop roulette.
A loving married family may get a pass on the marriage and relationship with the current bishop/stake president.
The next bishop/stake president put in place may have a serious problem against it and set up the court of love on the loophole of sexual transgression the reversal still says is a serious sin.
Even though they may be legally wed the sex is bad.

IMO this reversal does not go far enough to reverse any damage that can still happen to loving families.

This is going to be a disaster. I've seen new bishops and stake presidents flip things on a dime. I've also seen extreme abuses of discretion, as I'm sure others have as well.

This will be a form of torture for gay people, their kids, their families, their friends.

Back in the 1970s, a close friend of mine was attending BYU and got engaged. He and his fiancé attended different wards, so they had temple recommended interviews with two different bishops. I assume that the actual recommended interviews were one-on-one, but both bishops met with the couple. One bishop signed the recommended and wished them well. The other bishop refused (initially) to sign the recommended and scolded them for “trying to make a mockery of the house of the Lord.” My friend swore that the exact same things were revealed in both interviews.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

I don't know why anyone would expect inspiration/discretion to work more consistently for bishops when not even Monson and Nelson could agree on precisely this issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2019 01:01PM by Lot's Wife.

I think a lot has to do with the Stake President. If the leader rules with an iron fist, then expect the Bishop to tow the line. The most caring, workable Bishops that I experienced served much shorter time than the 5-6 year average.

I agree that the discretionary church policy is going to yield mixed results. Perhaps, the church will quietly update their policy after the hype settles down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2019 12:58PM by messygoop.

So basically the Mormon leadership are admitting that inspiration from the Holy Ghost to ensure God's wishes are followed is not happening and that the Bishops, ie Dentists, Insurance Agents, CEOs, Bankers, et al--are free to rule their own little kingdoms as their ego's choose free of that pesky need to claim inspiration.

Perhaps each Bishop should be furnished a pad and pen that lights up?

Does this mean the Mormons will bring back their Boy Scout program?

I doubt it, because the BSA's inclusion of gays and females is NOT the real reason the cult dropped its Scouting program. It was too expensive to sponsor and equip. The outings and activities, like all the other old Mormon activities and pageants, required too many man-hours. The corporation needs those man-hours to maintain its real estate holdings and run their offices--for free. In many wards, the Scout leaders were abusive, and the church was too vulnerable to expensive lawsuits.

One of my bishops gave a temple recommend to a KNOWN gay couple, before gay marriages became legal. The men sent out an engraved invitation to the entire ward and others, to attend an open house in honor of their receiving their temple endowments. It was an elaborate garden party, with great food, and live music. One partner wore a dark suit, and the other wore a white suit, a white panama hat, and a huge diamond ring, which was a gift from his partner. These men were older, and the oldest one died before gay marriages became legal. Some women went to the bishop to complain that he should not have given the couple a temple recommend. The bishop later told me about this, and that he told the complainers: "I see things as I see them, as a Mortal, and I simply ask the interview questions. How they answer my questions is up to them. It is up to The Lord to judge the answers, and to judge the people." I was a friend of the gay couple, and I appreciated what the bishop did. He was a Mormon ahead of his time!

"Discretionary enforcement." That bishop and his family would be pleased.