Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

Interpreter Podcast: Dehlin is an "idiot" for leaking the 11/5 policy. Also, "we don't hide policies."

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Ha-ha... after all, i asked first :) !

No, no you haven't tried yet! :)

I would but I asked you first -- and I am interested in what you come up with for a revealed doctrine that has not changed regarding gay members.

I'm not interested in playing your games.  You have a great day (and I mean that :) )!!!

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes.  Divorce as I quoted.  The Church no longer looks at women who remarry as committing adultery.  So Christ through his prophet removed that sinful behavior.  I am assuming that Christ was ok with divorce no longer being considered adultery.  And I am assuming that adulltery is still a serious moral sin.

I wasn't thinking of modern context, but comparisons between Old and New Testaments.  With the intent to then compare biblical context to modern context.

You are correct with the modern context.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I'm not interested in playing your games.  You have a great day (and I mean that :) )!!!

Not a game, as I am having trouble coming up with any revealed doctrine specifically regarding gay members at all, so I can't (so far) identify any that have changed. You pointed out the former policy about apostasy and ssm, but that was not doctrine. Counsel has certainly changed over the years for gay members coming to leaders for help, but that doesn't count either. But I will keep an open mind about it. I think when we can get to specifics, we can diffuse a lot of the divisive emotionalizing that comes with the kinds of gross generalization and inaccuracy we've seen in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes.  Divorce as I quoted.  The Church no longer looks at women who remarry as committing adultery.  So Christ through his prophet removed that sinful behavior.  I am assuming that Christ was ok with divorce no longer being considered adultery.  And I am assuming that adulltery is still a serious moral sin.

I don't believe the restored Church of Jesus Christ has ever looked at women who remarry as committing adultery.  Saints divorced and remarried in the early days of the church, with the blessing of their leaders--Brigham Young was lenient with allowing divorces, some church leaders were married to divorced women.   I've only seen a fundamentalist, Ogden Kraut, make this claim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, CV75 said:

See above re: “Which church is true?” and “Do these answers sound weak?”

 

I don’t think a change in revealed instruction, especially concerning policy, is an indicator that one or the other was not a revelation after all. Policies, especially effective ones, by nature change, and should change.

 

As I noted above, “all this” and "this issue" when taken as a broad, general and unfocused subject, is too imprecise to be staking any all-encompassing prediction on, especially to the point of divisiveness. Being a personal emotional choice and tactic, divisiveness is enabled by generalizing and doesn’t help discussion of a particular subject. That is why a discussion board can be helpful in teasing through the details together, where we will likely find more reasoned agreement than disagreement. MDDB means "More Disciplined Discussion Board" right?

 

And I do not consider you being on the outside looking in, as you have demonstrated to have been very much a part of and invested in this discussion!

 

Do you believe that the prophet has received a revelation from God concerning gay marriage?  If so, can you tell me when and where that revelation was declaired?

I am an outsider looking in.  It doesn't mean that I am not interested in the subjects that are brought up and how members of the Church react and feel about them.  I may no longer be a member of the Church nor have any desire to return to the Church.  But that doesn't mean that I have no interest in the Church and its teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Calm said:

I wasn't thinking of modern context, but comparisons between Old and New Testaments.  With the intent to then compare biblical context to modern context.

You are correct with the modern context.

The modern context is really the only one that matters don't you think?  Especially since SSM is not ever discussed in any scripture, and for good reason, it is a modern context of marriage.  So while you can use both the Old and New Testament to refer to the morality of homosuality outside of marriage, you can't really use the Old and New Testament in todays context of gay relationships within to confines of marriage.  There is no prohibiting of gay marrriage in all of scripture.  And in all fairness, while the Church has taken a strong stand against gay marriage, there is no modern revelation on that subject either.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that as any kind of proof that God accepts gay marriage and that the Church is wrong on their position.  I am only stating that it appears no revelation concerning the issue as been announced.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, alter idem said:

I don't believe the restored Church of Jesus Christ has ever looked at women who remarry as committing adultery.  Saints divorced and remarried in the early days of the church, with the blessing of their leaders--Brigham Young was lenient with allowing divorces, some church leaders were married to divorced women.   I've only seen a fundamentalist, Ogden Kraut, make this claim.

Which means what?  That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always ignored the teachings of Christ on divorce?  I can agree with that.  The question is why has the Church not gone along with the teachings of Christ when in some areas, even a hint that He might imply something is taken as exact proof of acceptance.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you believe that the prophet has received a revelation from God concerning gay marriage?  If so, can you tell me when and where that revelation was declaired?

I am an outsider looking in.  It doesn't mean that I am not interested in the subjects that are brought up and how members of the Church react and feel about them.  I may no longer be a member of the Church nor have any desire to return to the Church.  But that doesn't mean that I have no interest in the Church and its teachings.

Yes, and I refer you to the quotes from Church leaders concerning the role of revelation for the former policy and its retraction, shared elsewhere in this thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/3/2019 at 12:50 PM, Calm said:

Hmmm....you want to know my opinion of "think tanks"?

Yuck! Don't get me started on those. Anyone who thinks those are useful are likely to think Ayn Rand is an important thinker, that pineapple belongs on a pizza or that ponytails look good on a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, and I refer you to the quotes from Church leaders concerning the role of revelation for the former policy and its retraction, shared elsewhere in this thread.

 

Oh you mean President Nelson saying that the 2015 revelation was from God and now gay couples are apostates and their children not allowed baptism and any other ordinance until they are 18?  That is proof that God has revealed that He disapproves of gay marriage?

Well now the current and latest revelation is that gay couples are not apostates and their children are allow baptism and any other ordinance.  Wow.  Sounds like proof that God changed His mind about gay marriage.

 

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Oh you mean President Nelson saying that the 2015 revelation was from God and now gay couples are apostates and their children not allowed baptism and any other ordinance until they are 18?  That is proof that God has revealed that He disapproves of gay marriage?

Well now the current and latest revelation is that gay couples are not apostates and their children are allow baptism and any other ordinance.  Wow.  Sounds like proof that God changed His mind about gay marriage.

Not about gay marriage per se, but only about how to address His position on marriage on a Church policy level. Stay tuned! :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/14/2019 at 5:06 AM, california boy said:

Do you believe that the prophet has received a revelation from God concerning gay marriage?  If so, can you tell me when and where that revelation was declaired?

I am an outsider looking in.  It doesn't mean that I am not interested in the subjects that are brought up and how members of the Church react and feel about them.  I may no longer be a member of the Church nor have any desire to return to the Church.  But that doesn't mean that I have no interest in the Church and its teachings.

The scriptures do not mention gay marriage, as it was never known until this time in history, but we do have revelation concerning marriage.  The Proclamation to the World on the Family is revelation and it states that 'marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God' It was declared in the Women's general meeting in 1995.  It reiterates and supports doctrine found in the Old Testament and the Pearl of Great Price(both books of scripture which we believe are revelation from God), which tell us that God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden and gave them two commandments--one of those was to multiply and replenish the earth, which means to bear children.  The union was to meant to produce a posterity and so that the man and the woman could become 'one flesh' before God.  It states 'therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh'.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/14/2019 at 5:36 AM, california boy said:

Which means what?  That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always ignored the teachings of Christ on divorce?  I can agree with that.  The question is why has the Church not gone along with the teachings of Christ when in some areas, even a hint that He might imply something is taken as exact proof of acceptance.

God's standard was that marriage should be for eternity.  But over time, the people were not able to live to this standard.  Because of this, Moses suffered or allowed the imperfect children of Israel to divorce, and for the same reason, the church today allows for divorce.  Because we are not to a level of righteousness that we as a people can be held to that standard.  It's not a matter of ignoring Jesus, and the truth is, many people remain in unhappy marriages because they want to live this standard.  But, many can't do that and it is a matter of the Savior recognizing that we as a collective church cannot live up to this standard at this time. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, alter idem said:

God's standard was that marriage should be for eternity.  But over time, the people were not able to live to this standard.  Because of this, Moses suffered or allowed the imperfect children of Israel to divorce, and for the same reason, the church today allows for divorce.  Because we are not to a level of righteousness that we as a people can be held to that standard.  It's not a matter of ignoring Jesus, and the truth is, many people remain in unhappy marriages because they want to live this standard.  But, many can't do that and it is a matter of the Savior recognizing that we as a collective church cannot live up to this standard at this time. 

Even including past Prophets?  (Interesting thoughts!)

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Even including past Prophets?  (Interesting thoughts!)

Yes,  I don't think it's right to hold them to a different standard than the rest of us, when it comes to the ability to divorce when a marriage is irreconcilable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, alter idem said:

The Proclamation to the World on the Family is revelation...

How do you define revelation?  If it was revelation from God, you would think that President Hinckley might have stated such when he introduced it and that the FP and Q12 would not have taken credit for it:

"In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation:

“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim..."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Even including past Prophets?  (Interesting thoughts!)

I believe at least two modern prophets (Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith) were divorced from plural wives (in the sense that they were at that time involved in plural marriage), though from what I have read it is the women who chose to divorce.  I do not believe it is right for anyone to refuse to grant a divorce if one's partner is seeking one (though have no problem with asking them to do counseling or other forms of reconciliation beforehand).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe at least two modern prophets (Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith) were divorced from plural wives, though from what I have read it is the women who chose to divorce.  I do not believe it is right for anyone to refuse to grant a divorce if one's partner is seeking one (though have no problem with asking them to do counseling or other forms of reconciliation beforehand).

Yes, it was mostly plural wives who divorced past Prophets.

However, Joseph F. Smith and his first wife divorced (Levira):

Quote

On April 5, 1859, Smith married his sixteen-year-old cousin, Levira Annette Clark Smith, daughter of Samuel H. Smith. When Joseph F. Smith left on his mission to England the next year, his companion for the journey was Levira's brother, Samuel. Smith and Levira had no children. Seven years later (1866), Brigham Young directed Smith to take a plural wife. Levira gave her permission and was present at the marriage of Smith and Julina Lambson (who became the mother of future president Joseph Fielding Smith) -- a longtime friend of hers. Levira became disenchanted with the plural marriage arrangement and divorced Smith in 1868 and moved to California.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, it was mostly plural wives who divorced past Prophets.

However, Joseph F. Smith and his first wife divorced (Levira):

 

But it occurred after he had other wives, so the plurality of wives may have been a fundamental issue for her where it wouldn't be for most divorces as we think of them.

Does anyone feel comfortable with the idea of forcing a woman or man to stay in a marriage they do not want to be in?  I can see it as acceptable only if it is understood as such from the beginning, penalties (including cultural) for adultery are identical for both (too often women were forced to stay in loveless marriages without companionship while their husbands had mistresses without difficulty), and there was the option of separate households of some sort if reconciliation was impossible though much better if they could live as friends at least (though in cases where there is mental illness that might be impossible).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How do you define revelation?  If it was revelation from God, you would think that President Hinckley might have stated such when he introduced it and that the FP and Q12 would not have taken credit for it:

"In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation:

“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim..."

 

Revelation is knowledge from God and it comes in different ways.  We have a Prophet and Quorum of 12 who receive revelation.  Even when the Prophet shares a revelation, the Quorum also are charged to receive revelation in order to ratify it, such as the vision by Joseph F. Smith in D&C 138--but in the instance of the Proclamation, I'd be surprised if the Prophet did not counsel with his Quorum and counselors in making this Proclamation.   They 'took credit' for it because they were a part of this revelatory process; they are all Special Witnesses for the Lord Jesus Christ and this is part of their calling as Apostles.  I believe that the Proclamation is an example of Prophets, called of God to reveal his will to the world, as doing so through a solemn proclamation and warning.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it occurred after he had other wives, so the plurality of wives may have been a fundamental issue for her where it wouldn't be for most divorces as we think of them.

Yes (as I posted above) it was after he took another wife that they divorced.

There's was different only in that it was a legal divorce (they were legally married since she was his first wife).  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Yes (as I posted above) it was after he took another wife that they divorced.

There's was different only in that it was a legal divorce (they were legally married since she was his first wife).  

I see your point now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, it was mostly plural wives who divorced past Prophets.

However, Joseph F. Smith and his first wife divorced (Levira):

 

It was mostly plural wives, because likely they were the ones most unhappy in marriage--not surprising.  Brigham Young was more lenient with women wanting to divorce--as was the case with Levira, Joseph's cousin and first wife--they had problems in their relationship and bringing a plural wife in made it worse.  While Levira loved Julina, her sister wife, when Julina was able to have a child, and she was not, I think the marriage became intolerable for her and she left and moved to California.   Joseph F. Smith later married a divorced woman--Alice M. Kimball, who had children from her previous marriage.  Men and women who divorced and remarried were not accused of committing adultery.  Brigham Young was more lenient with women who wanted to divorce,  and less so with men.  They had to have real cause.

 

I think this is a more compassionate way to deal with us--rather than refuse to allow divorce which commits some to live a miserable existence.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, alter idem said:

 

Revelation is knowledge from God and it comes in different ways.  We have a Prophet and Quorum of 12 who receive revelation.  Even when the Prophet shares a revelation, the Quorum also are charged to receive revelation in order to ratify it, such as the vision by Joseph F. Smith in D&C 138--but in the instance of the Proclamation, I'd be surprised if the Prophet did not counsel with his Quorum and counselors in making this Proclamation.   They 'took credit' for it because they were a part of this revelatory process; they are all Special Witnesses for the Lord Jesus Christ and this is part of their calling as Apostles.  I believe that the Proclamation is an example of Prophets, called of God to reveal his will to the world, as doing so through a solemn proclamation and warning.

 

I think the fact that the Prophet and Apostles claimed the words as their own is an important distinction.

But, I believe it contains great counsel and I'll continue to live by its precepts.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think the fact that the Prophet and Apostles claimed the words as their own is an important distinction.

But, I believe it contains great counsel and I'll continue to live by its precepts.

It is proper to claim these words as their own, in the same spirit as found here:

"In speaking of these wondrous things I shall use my own words, though you may think they are the words of scripture, words spoken by other Apostles and prophets.

"True it is they were first proclaimed by others, but they are now mine, for the Holy Spirit of God has borne witness to me that they are true, and it is now as though the Lord had revealed them to me in the first instance. I have thereby heard his voice and know his word."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/04/the-purifying-power-of-gethsemane?lang=eng

I've heard the same phrasing from the Brethren many other times as well, but i choose this example because it was ten years before the Proclamation came out.

  • Like 1

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...