Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CA Steve

Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

You misunderstood me. G-d is the ocean here. How He is perceived depends on the vantage point of the perceiver. Move two paces to your left or three years to your right, your perception changes.

The leakers and their masters poisoned perception of the policy as originally promulgated. The change creates distinctions without appreciable differences. G-d didn't move.

This isn't an anthrocentric universe. Only perceptions have changed because a new perspective occasioned by the leakers and their masters arose.

In other words: G-d is nimble. If five righteous are found, destruction is forstalled, perhaps forever.

Edited by USU78

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Do you need me to point out the posts I've placed in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes 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.

Few things:

First: Who are you to speak for President Woodruff?  To define what he meant by 'lead astray'?  What makes your interpretation of his words and what he meant any more or less authoritative than anyone else's?

 

Second: You call my analogy incorrect.  You may certainly not agree with my perspective, but you're not in a position to determine what is correct and incorrect when it comes to others' perspectives.

Third: Despite many defending the fallibility of prophets, no one - not anyone who also believes the orthodoxy behind President Woodruff's quote has ever given me an example of a prophet's leadership or revelatory fallibility.  Second, even if someone gave me an example of a prophet's leadership or revelatory mistake, I have never, never heard a prophet admit a mistake.  So - I am left to believe one of three options:

1) The latter day prophets acknowledge to themselves that they have made mistakes, but refuse to admit them.  Maybe I should try to be more like the prophets...?

2) The latter day prophets do not believe they have ever made mistakes, and as such they believe they are actually infallible, yet claim fallibility in public.  Maybe to appear more folksy and less papal?...?

3) God has removed the agency of prophets so that he controls them to make sure they don't lead anyone astray (which would make them infallible).

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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". ;)

 

You'll be happy to know that I did ask God for myself and I did go out and get my own testimony.

You'll be even more happy to know that I agree that the prophets are fallible, and that because I have my own testimony, it is impossible for a Mormon prophet to lead me astray.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Policies in general are often changed and reversed once other means to obtain the same objective are revealed.

So in this case the "other means" were simply to NOT have the policy.  We needed two revelations to accomplish that?

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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).

In the examples you give, a purpose was served by the directive, etc.  I don't see the purpose in this... at least not one that made it worth all the negative results.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.”

Well in this case, the prophet did exactly that.  He led people astray from the oracles and from their duty.  Those who knew it wasn't the will of God and/or wasn't in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ left.  Others were excommunicated.  Some were not permitted to be baptized.

If that isn't being led astray, I don't know what is.

And now, after a little over three years the policy is removed for the same reasons it was implemented.  (ETA:  Technically it hasn't been removed yet... it is still in the online version of the handbook as of Monday.)

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Do you need me to point out the posts I've placed in this thread?

You can do whatever you like.  If you don't want to respond to me - don't.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You'll be happy to know that I did ask God for myself and I did go out and get my own testimony.

You'll be even more happy to know that I agree that the prophets are fallible, and that because I have my own testimony, it is impossible for a Mormon prophet to lead me astray.

Good

Then why are you here?

Oh I get it you're evangelizing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Well in this case, the prophet did exactly that.  He led people astray from the oracles and from their duty.  Those who knew it wasn't the will of God and/or wasn't in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ left.  Others were excommunicated.  Some were not permitted to be baptized.

If that isn't being led astray, I don't know what is.

And now, after a little over three years the policy is removed for the same reasons it was implemented.  (ETA:  Technically it hasn't been removed yet... it is still in the online version of the handbook as of Monday.)

So those who left etcetera were led astray?

It was a mistake for them to leave?

To believe in individual testimonies that may conflict, you have to believe that God leads us to the path he wants us to be in

We will all rise to the glory we deserve and that is for him to figure out.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Third: Despite many defending the fallibility of prophets, no one - not anyone who also believes the orthodoxy behind President Woodruff's quote has ever given me an example of a prophet's leadership or revelatory fallibility.  Second, even if someone gave me an example of a prophet's leadership or revelatory mistake, I have never, never heard a prophet admit a mistake.  

Omgosh.

Self contradictory.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

No matter what happens, there is always a way anything can be explained if you take logic out of the equation.  There must have been a reason blacks were denied priesthood blessings for more than. a century.  There must have been a reason to deceive gays into marrying someone of the opposite sex telling them a promise came from God that never came from Him.  There must have been a reason to go against so many principles of the gospel to lash out against a Supreme Court decision that didn't go their way no matter how destructive it was to those involved. (If you listen to the podcast, you will understand where this is coming from.). Now telling us that the reason for doing away with the policy was because of the harm it was having on the children, the same rational the policy was initiated in the first place.

I am not someone who feels a need to tell someone what they should believe in or what they. should have faith in.  But I am someone who clearly states very specific reasons why I no longer have any belief in some kind of special privledged communication with God these men have over any other person.  There is simply no data to support such a conclusion other than tossing out logic and choosing just to believe at any cost.  Which may be just fine for many people.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Omgosh.

Self contradictory.

Not following?

Or maybe you’re agreeing  with my point that one cannot both believe the Woodruff orthodoxy and think a prophet is fallible?

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So those who left etcetera were led astray?

Yes, members are being led astray.  President Nelson taught that the policy in Nov of 2015 was the will of God.  Now,  President Oaks is teaching that the policy is not the will of God.  Both claiming that it was received by revelation.

I don't know whether it was a mistake for anyone to leave.

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

To believe in individual testimonies that may conflict, you have to believe that God leads us to the path he wants us to be in

We will all rise to the glory we deserve and that is for him to figure out.

These are great statements.  If true though, what is the point of having a prophet claiming revelation from God if we are only supposed to go directly to God since the prophets can't seem to get revelation right?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Absolutely.  The basis of the material comes from actual quotes given by church leaders in an official capacity.  It is incredibly shocking to hear the exact words of President Nelson.  He gives a stirring unquestioning explanation that does everthing it can do to support his narrative of how this "revelation" came about.  It is the words of the leaders themselves that make this whole episode such a head scratcher.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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". ;)

 

I happen to agree with what you are saying here.  The message is clear, receive knowledge from God yourselves and don't look to the prophet who is leading the church.  

The odd thing is that those who rejected the Oct 2015 policy and some chose to leave over this issue are actually more in touch with God and His will than those who took up the standard to defend the policy as if it was a revelation from God.  It turns out some of the most stalwart members of the church are actually not all that in tune with God.  It was more important to them to defend the claims of President Nelson than to find out if what he claimed came from God was actually true.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, california boy said:

Absolutely.  The basis of the material comes from actual quotes given by church leaders in an official capacity.  It is incredibly shocking to hear the exact words of President Nelson.  He gives a stirring unquestioning explanation that does everthing it can do to support his narrative of how this "revelation" came about.  It is the words of the leaders themselves that make this whole episode such a head scratcher.  

Do you remember what it was from?  Perhaps already cited in the thread (I vaguely remember some reference)?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you remember what it was from?  Perhaps already cited in the thread (I vaguely remember some reference)?

Specifically, it was the words President Nelson gave on how the revelation came about at that young adult fireside at BYU.  The other quotes come from all kinds of other sources including talks, official press releases, letters from the First Presidency, Q & A interview on the policy, etc.  All of the material is from official Church sources.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Few things:

First: Who are you to speak for President Woodruff?  To define what he meant by 'lead astray'?  What makes your interpretation of his words and what he meant any more or less authoritative than anyone else's?

 

Second: You call my analogy incorrect.  You may certainly not agree with my perspective, but you're not in a position to determine what is correct and incorrect when it comes to others' perspectives.

Third: Despite many defending the fallibility of prophets, no one - not anyone who also believes the orthodoxy behind President Woodruff's quote has ever given me an example of a prophet's leadership or revelatory fallibility.  Second, even if someone gave me an example of a prophet's leadership or revelatory mistake, I have never, never heard a prophet admit a mistake.  So - I am left to believe one of three options:

1) The latter day prophets acknowledge to themselves that they have made mistakes, but refuse to admit them.  Maybe I should try to be more like the prophets...?

2) The latter day prophets do not believe they have ever made mistakes, and as such they believe they are actually infallible, yet claim fallibility in public.  Maybe to appear more folksy and less papal?...?

3) God has removed the agency of prophets so that he controls them to make sure they don't lead anyone astray (which would make them infallible).

I am CV75 and can speak for President Woodruff by sharing my understanding of his words and what he meant without any appeal to authority but the actual record.

A perspective and an analogy can both be incorrect. You need to come up with an analogy that accurately portrays the properties of President Woodruff’s statement and meaning that I provided. Otherwise you are creating a straw man or a false analogy.

Why would you need examples of a prophet’s leadership or revelatory fallacy when the point is, whatever he does, the Lord would remove him once he leads the Church astray in the manner described in President Woodruff’s statement. I’ve seen plenty of disabled prophets fade into the background during their waning years, but they did not lead the Church astray, unless you want to believe that every time a prophet dies, it is because he has led the Church astray. That is not very solid ground.

RE: your option 1, Why would a prophet admit his mistakes, which aren’t important enough to lead the Church astray, and why is "refusal" the only stance you say he takes with regards to that? Why would he admit leading the Church astray for that matter, which is important but for which we have the Lord and due process to remove him? Equating mistakes with leading astray is not very solid ground, either, and as with prophets dying because they led the Church astray, results from black-and-white thinking and where external authority (or the fear of it, which is only the other side of the coin) is the only thing that carries any weight for what one thinks. Your options 2 and 3 even more extreme. A fourth and more balanced option is what I’ve been describing.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, members are being led astray.  President Nelson taught that the policy in Nov of 2015 was the will of God.  Now,  President Oaks is teaching that the policy is not the will of God.  Both claiming that it was received by revelation.

I don't know whether it was a mistake for anyone to leave.

These are great statements.  If true though, what is the point of having a prophet claiming revelation from God if we are only supposed to go directly to God since the prophets can't seem to get revelation right?

They give us the paradigms to accept or reject, by our own confirmation experiments as defined in Alma and Moroni.

That is what a convert does with the whole set of paradigms, to find out that joining the church is God's will for them.

But you missed my first point.

Saying that those who left were led astray, means that leaving was incorrect. The prophets did not lead them to leave, their leaving was their own decision.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They give us the paradigms to accept or reject, by our own confirmation experiments as defined in Alma and Moroni.

That is what a convert does with the whole set of paradigms, to find out that joining the church is God's will for them.

But you missed my first point.

Saying that those who left were led astray, means that leaving was incorrect. The prophets did not lead them to leave, their leaving was their own decision.

Leaving was their decision because they recognized that the Church was pronouncing "revelation" that was at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Turns out they were right and the prophet had led the church astray.  Or he's leading the church astray now.  Pick one but you can't have it both ways... the policy can't be both right and wrong.  It can't be both God's will and NOT God's will.

And it's true that the prophet and apostles give us paradigms to accept or reject.  Great.  So do a lot of people.  What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you remember what it was from?  Perhaps already cited in the thread (I vaguely remember some reference)?

President Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles made the following comments Sunday, January 10, 2016, during a devotional for Mormons ages 18 to 30. The broadcast originated from the campus of Brigham Young University-Hawaii and can be viewed on LDS.org.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively. And then, we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries, and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process. And so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-nelson-handbook-change

 

I think it is insightful to note that when critics talk about this, they describe it as whether apostles and prophets can be trusted when they say that the prophet "declares the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord" on a specific issue. But when apologists talk about it, they describe it as whether apostles and prophets claim to be infallible. 

Edited by Analytics

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

del

I'm getting upset and shouldn't be posting.

Edited by rockpond

Share this post


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

It can't be both God's will and NOT God's will.

Sure it can.  If God's Will takes into account how humans receive his Will including how that changes with choices made, revelations that give and then take or take and then give don't have to be seen as contradictory, but appropriate for the time and place even when just a short distance of time separates them...because humans' attitudes and interpretations can change overnight.

I am not saying one of these is not a mistake, I am saying I don't see it as so inherently black and white.  I have seen too often needs changing almost overnight for ndividuals, families, wards.  Why not churchwide?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

You weren't supposed to assume they were right, you were supposed to pray and get the answer for yourself.

Seriously?  Who hasn't always been saying who says it now that you are supposed to pray and get answers for yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

I guess my statement was more for other readers than you. ;)

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...