Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CA Steve

Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Non-sequitur.

If there is nothing wrong with them making mistakes, it doesn't matter does it?  We will find out when we see how it goes.

It does matter because they are still claiming that two contradicting policies both came to them through revelation as the will of the Lord.  Why should I place any trust in their revelations if they can't seem to decipher between true and false revelations?

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is there to apologize for?

That whole concept still reflects the notion that they SHOULD be infallible.  That concept is what is in error.

Every policy has served its purpose at the time it was made, and then changed appropriately when the policy was no longer needed.

Were they "mistakes"?  I don't think so but let's suppose for the sake of argument that they were.

What does that show?  That prophets are fallible.

Why is this news to anyone?

Have they led anyone "astray"?  No but certainly some have GONE astray misunderstanding this important principle.  They needed no leadership in going astray on their own.

There are some people that so earnestly want to do what God asks of them, they see these men as the mouthpiece of God and think that somehow these men should know the will of God better than themselves.  It is only through experience that individuals learn to not trust such pronouncements as coming from God.  In fact, they are only coming from the men running the Church.  Evidently "revelation" does not mean it came from the heavens, it only means that those present all agreed it was the best decision from their perspective.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Analytics said:

That line of reasoning goes on to say that it doesn't matter whether the President of the Church is right or wrong because, in the words of Marion G. Romney, "if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

Even if the president of the church is merely nearly infallible with mundane things (but would not and could not "lead the church astray"), we should treat the words of the prophet as if they were infallible. 

No, that is not in my line of reasoning. I am speaking of leading astray in President Woodruff’s terms. I think Marion G. Romney, and as he represents President Grant, meant to convey the same principle (that the Prophet will be removed if he leads people to reject the revelations, withhold their sustaining votes, and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants), which is just the opposite of falsely prophesying with impunity or enabling a cultish, abusive relationship as @SouthernMo incorrectly suggests. This not about every word the prophet says. The prophet's fallibility is a given in all instances.

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

So we now have a "revelation" that was published in November of 2015.  And a "revelation" that was announced in April of 2019 that reversed the 2015 "revelation".  Did the first "revelation" lead us astray and the second was God correcting it?

Not at all. This has been discussed quite thoroughly in a now-closed thread. If you can remember and rephrase or find my comments about that I’ll give you a virtual nickel! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is there to apologize for?

That whole concept still reflects the notion that they SHOULD be infallible.  That concept is what is in error.

Every policy has served its purpose at the time it was made, and then changed appropriately when the policy was no longer needed.

Were they "mistakes"?  I don't think so but let's suppose for the sake of argument that they were.

What does that show?  That prophets are fallible.

Why is this news to anyone?

Have they led anyone "astray"?  No but certainly some have GONE astray misunderstanding this important principle.  They needed no leadership in going astray on their own.

Of course, bringing up other topics opens up debate, but since you asked:

1. They could have apologized for preaching racism in church-wide venues (such as General Conference). I’m thinking of reasons given for the priesthood ban and prohibitions on interracial marriage. They did disavow those theories on the priesthood ban, which is a great start.

2. More significantly, they could have apologized for the priesthood ban itself.

3. They could have apologized for encouraging gay men to enter heterosexual marriages. I know BYU promoted conversion therapy for gay men, but I’m not sure if the church itself did. If they did, that’s another opportunity for apology.

4. They could have apologized for any harm that the recent exclusion policy may have caused.

I’m sure there are plenty of other examples, but these are what came to mind.

I’m not suggesting that it’s practical for an institution to apologize for every mistake. However, where there is a hurt community, an apology could go a long way towards healing.

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, california boy said:

When later events make it pretty clear that God was not involved in the decision...

But what makes this “clear” is debatable.

I don’t know if either, both, or neither was a mistake. Haven’t received a witness. 

I see one possibility as there were two revelations given by God with the intent to remind members it is their responsibility to get a personal witness. 

There is also the possibility that one is an error allowed by God for the same reason. 

The Lord would be allowing prophets to lead us astray if we weren’t remind of their fallibility and our need for personal witness to understand our path. 

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It does matter because they are still claiming that two contradicting policies both came to them through revelation as the will of the Lord.  Why should I place any trust in their revelations if they can't seem to decipher between true and false revelations?

Is the ocean smooth and placid, or is it fraught with storms and watery mountains and canyons and dangerous waves and tides?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

No, that is not in my line of reasoning. I am speaking of leading astray in President Woodruff’s terms. I think Marion G. Romney, and as he represents President Grant, meant to convey the same principle (that the Prophet will be removed if he leads people to reject the revelations, withhold their sustaining votes, and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants), which is just the opposite of falsely prophesying with impunity or enabling a cultish, abusive relationship as @SouthernMo incorrectly suggests. This not about every word the prophet says. The prophet's fallibility is a given in all instances.

 

Not at all. This has been discussed quite thoroughly in a now-closed thread. If you can remember and rephrase or find my comments about that I’ll give you a virtual nickel! :)

My comments are also in the closed thread, where I quoted Nelson referring to the original policy as “the will of God,” and giving a general narrative of how it was manifest. Then, in the press release on the recent change to the policy, the mind of God was specifically appealed to.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, california boy said:

podcast is certainly worth listening to and really reveals the nuances in arriving at both the decision to institute the policy and to appeal that same policy a little over 3 years later.

Are there sources provided for these nuances?  How strong are they if so?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not at all. This has been discussed quite thoroughly in a now-closed thread. If you can remember and rephrase or find my comments about that I’ll give you a virtual nickel! :)

I followed that thread and don't recall anything that countered the point that one of the two contradicting "revelations" has/had to be leading us astray.  The two policies are in opposition and are both claimed to be the revealed will of the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

My comments are also in the closed thread, where I quoted Nelson referring to the original policy as “the will of God,” and giving a general narrative of how it was manifest. Then, in the press release on the recent change to the policy, the mind of God was specifically appealed to.

Yes, God can certainly change His policy instructions as circumstances and conditions change. Sometimes within 3 years or so as with the missions to preach to the Gentiles after Christ's ascension.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I followed that thread and don't recall anything that countered the point that one of the two contradicting "revelations" has/had to be leading us astray.  The two policies are in opposition and are both claimed to be the revealed will of the Lord.

I invite you to re-read the thread and hone in on my comments.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I see one possibility as there were two revelations given by God with the intent to remind members it is their responsibility to get a personal witness. 

There is also the possibility that one is an error allowed by God for the same reason. 

The Lord would be allowing prophets to lead us astray if we weren’t remind of their fallibility and our need for personal witness to understand our path. 

If that's the case, there was a lot of collateral damage in teaching that point.  Seems like there could have been a better way.

And the Lord allowing a prophet to lead us astray to teach us prophetic fallibility goes against what Pres. Woodruff taught about it not being part of the plan for the Lord to let the prophet lead us astray.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It does matter because they are still claiming that two contradicting policies both came to them through revelation as the will of the Lord.  Why should I place any trust in their revelations if they can't seem to decipher between true and false revelations?

Can't you see you keep repeating the same question over and over?

You should NOT place any trust in their revelations- get your own!!   Did you listen to conference ??

If your revelations cohere with theirs, go for it.

Like your Mommie said- if one of your friends  prophets told you to jump off a bridge would you?  Obviously you would not because here you are questioning, so I see this all as contradictory

Converts have to face this eventuality from the beginning and understand that if God can tell them the church is "true" they can verify any other principles in the church for themselves.

They actually believe Moroni 10, James 1 and all the other scriptures which tell them to figure things out for themselves and - for me at least- tend to ignore old Mormon culture of infallibility- if it ever was a scriptural principle.

And I will stick with the Moroni test and ask God if things are true, thank you very much.  :)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is the ocean smooth and placid, or is it fraught with storms and watery mountains and canyons and dangerous waves and tides?

Dangerous waves and tides.  Obviously.  But if our 15 prophets, seers, and apostles can't decipher between true and false revelation, they don't seem particularly useful in helping to navigate us through the storms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I invite you to re-read the thread and hone in on my comments.

Not going to happen.  I already know the answer.  If you don't wish to weigh in here - I respect that.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

You should NOT place any trust in their revelations- get your own!!   Did you listen to conference ??

If your revelations cohere with theirs, go for it.

Yes, you are correct. And I'm comfortable getting my own.  I knew the Nov 2015 policy was not the revealed will of God.  And, apparently, I knew it before our prophet realized it whilst he was leading the church astray.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, God can certainly change His policy instructions as circumstances and conditions change. Sometimes within 3 years or so as with the missions to preach to the Gentiles after Christ's ascension.

Ok. I remember your position now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

Yes, you are correct. And I'm comfortable getting my own.  I knew the Nov 2015 policy was not the revealed will of God.  And, apparently, I knew it before our prophet realized it whilst he was leading the church astray.

I think it’s important to remember that the Wilford Woodruff quote about god never allowing the church to be lead astray is a single one-time quote, and I’m not sure how important a venue it was given in. Yes, it’s been quoted forever, but it appears to be unproven inherited wisdom at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/5/2019 at 3:09 PM, jkwilliams said:

I was living in Virginia when the policy change came out. My religious background had not come up much at all at work, so I was surprised at how many people approached me asking for some kind of explanation. All I could do was say I knew as much as they did and disagreed with the policy. One of my coworkers was a gay woman who is a salt-of-the-earth type. Previously, she had told me how she and her spouse always invited the missionaries in when they knocked on her door and even had them over for dinner a few times. When she heard about the policy, she thought it must be a misunderstanding, that the church wouldn't do something like that. I will never forget the shock and sorrow on her face as I explained that she'd understood correctly. If my anecdotal experience is worth anything, people who had either a positive opinion or no opinion about the church suddenly saw the church in a much more negative light. 

When it was first reveled (the policy), I disagreed then. I also knew then it would be changed, as good men when they see error (especially their own) always seek to change that error. What is so odd, is why would someone want their child baptized into a Church that teaches the lifestyle is sinful? I would not care if the Catholic or any Evangelical Church allowed my children or grandchildren to be baptized, if their goal was to teach them that my beliefs, or lifestyle is in error. Of course, our (my) Church does teach that my use language, when I get angry from, 10 years in the Army, and 23 in Law-Enforcement, leaks out. Or my failure to always keep the Sabbath Day Holy, and every other sinful weakness I have had in my adult life. Come to think of it, this is why my children and grandchildren, were baptized, because the Church is not meant to “teach correct principles, that we may govern our actions”. It is my desire that those I love, live better lives, and why I try each day to be a better example that the day before. I need the reinforcement of right and wrong found in scripture, and taught, each week, as I have so many fewer days ahead than behind me. I have had some serious illnesses as of late, and three very bad falls in just over a week, so I need to be more loving, more studious, more Holy. So, I need a Faith that tells me the truth, not one that will seek to help me cover my sins, before the fall that kills me. 

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are some people that so earnestly want to do what God asks of them, they see these men as the mouthpiece of God and think that somehow these men should know the will of God better than themselves.  It is only through experience that individuals learn to not trust such pronouncements as coming from God.  In fact, they are only coming from the men running the Church.  Evidently "revelation" does not mean it came from the heavens, it only means that those present all agreed it was the best decision from their perspective.  

Yes I agree.

They need to ask God for themselves.  

The prophets teach us to get our own testimonies but no one does it.

So if the prophets ARE infallible AND people do not follow them to get their own testimonies, that tells me that those people do not follow the prophets while they still think the prophets are infallible.

That is called a "contradiction". ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think it’s important to remember that the Wilford Woodruff quote about god never allowing the church to be lead astray is a single one-time quote, and I’m not sure how important a venue it was given in. Yes, it’s been quoted forever, but it appears to be unproven inherited wisdom at this point.

I agree with this.  I'm making the point here about how this latest incident proves the Woodruff statement to be false (at least in any general applicability) because I'm tired of being told that the prophet can't lead us astray.  Clearly the prophet can.  And has.  And just did once again without any expression of remorse or acknowledgement of error.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think it’s important to remember that the Wilford Woodruff quote about god never allowing the church to be lead astray is a single one-time quote, and I’m not sure how important a venue it was given in. Yes, it’s been quoted forever, but it appears to be unproven inherited wisdom at this point.

.... and then we have the song....  sung in primary....

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It does matter because they are still claiming that two contradicting policies both came to them through revelation as the will of the Lord.  Why should I place any trust in their revelations if they can't seem to decipher between true and false revelations?

Policies in general are often changed and reversed once other means to obtain the same objective are revealed. In this case the objectives were and are to promulgate the doctrine of marriage as structured in the Church covenants and 2) parental commitment to support their children and the Church as united on this particular point. Then and now, same-sex marriage is addressed separately from the type of civil marriage the Church condones and also from cohabitation. Then and now, exceptions were to be expected.

We have many examples of the Lord from the D&C alone implementing and reversing directives, policies, etc. based on conditionality (e.g. finances, completion/publication of the Book of Mormon) and expediency (translation, the Manifesto, the redemption of Zion, etc.), and in the Bible we have an example from His own mission plan (He preached not to the Gentiles, but then reversed it through Peter).

Given that the Brethren are as fallible as Peter was in opening up the preaching to the Gentiles, fallibility is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If that's the case, there was a lot of collateral damage in teaching that point.  Seems like there could have been a better way.

And the Lord allowing a prophet to lead us astray to teach us prophetic fallibility goes against what Pres. Woodruff taught about it not being part of the plan for the Lord to let the prophet lead us astray.

I don't think it means what you think it does.

The saying goes, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church… to lead the children of men astray from the oracles [messages, messengers] of God and from their duty.” The Lord will not permit the President of the Church to get the members to reject the revelations, withhold their sustaining votes, and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants. This is why President Woodruff spent so much time on the subject in connection with issuing the Manifesto, leading the saints not to go astray on that point. Given the fallibility of the prophets, at least they will not lead the members in rejecting the revelations, the prophets and their individual covenant duties, all of which lead us unto Christ.

Not only does God does intervene directly, He also allows others to intervene in righteousness, which is reflected in the kind of thing the sealing power can do, as demonstrated in 4 Nephi. The President of the Church can be removed out of his place by God personally (we typically conceptualize this mechanism as death), but the Lord has also given us a means to do it by those with the sealing power (107:81-84). Checks and balances, including common consent.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think it’s important to remember that the Wilford Woodruff quote about god never allowing the church to be lead astray is a single one-time quote, and I’m not sure how important a venue it was given in. Yes, it’s been quoted forever, but it appears to be unproven inherited wisdom at this point.

I think it was important because it was encouraging people to sustain the revelations, brethren (including himself) and keeping their covenants, and asserting that he would not lead them to do otherwise, even passively or by failing to exhort and entreat them.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...