smac97 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, rockpond said: Okay... so you're saying that President Monson's declaration about the mind/will of the Lord might have been just regarding principles? What principles would those have been if not things in the policy? Well, I was not there. Perhaps that the competing interests (preserving the Lord's will on the Law of Chastity, particularly as pertaining to the innovation of same-sex marriage, and also love and concern for the feelings and welfare of gay members and their children) can be reconciled? Or as Elder Christofferson put it, that the Church must "yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; {while} at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained"? That even though, as Elder Christofferson put it, “same-sex marriage {is} a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline," the Church can nevertheless make what accommodations it can without going against revealed doctrines. That, as Elder Christofferson put it, "[t]here’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ"? That the Church should submit to the laws of the land as far as the legalization of same-sex marriage, but that, as Elder Christofferson put it, same-sex marriage "is not a right that exists in the Church"? That the Church needs to educate its members about, as Elder Christofferson put it, "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord"? And, per this June 2015 letter from the First Presidency, that "[c]hanges in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established"? Thanks, -Smac Edited September 18, 2019 by smac97 3 Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 58 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I think there can be a relatively stable mediation between what a prophet says and what one believes God says, and maybe a restoration of actual common consent could be a part of that. We restore "actual common consent" every six months. Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 59 minutes ago, rockpond said: I agree. It's also indicative of one of my struggles with the modern church: We profess a belief in a fallible prophet and common consent but there doesn't seem to be an acceptable way to actually point out a possible error by a current prophet. I disagree. I think we may differ in what "point{ing} out" means. For some, it seems to require loud public denunciations of the Brethren, a la Sam Young or Jeremy Runnells or Kate Kelly. For some, to "point out" seems to be functionally equivalent with "to publicly disparage and humiliate and undermine and discredit." The phrase "pound of flesh" comes to mind. For those that do not have such aims, there are ways "to actually point out a possible error by a current prophet." Thanks, -Smac Edited September 18, 2019 by smac97 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) dup Edited September 18, 2019 by rockpond Link to comment
Maestrophil Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 53 minutes ago, rockpond said: You just said the the "something" was to enact the policy... that has now been changed. So did the Lord change His mind? Or did the prophet misunderstand Him the first time? That is what I am saying - I don't know, nor do you. It does appear that He did - so the question then becomes, "is that ok?" Is it OK that God would enact or inspire a policy that would cause pain? Is it possible that he would have a purpose we don't know that makes the pain worth it for the longer/better understanding He has for all his children and His Kingdon? Is it OK for God to change His mind? Could what we see as 'changing His mind' simply be a matter of strategic timing based on His plans? Can one answer NO to any of the above and not have it matter in terms of determining if a thing is from God? Since I am not God, and I choose to believe that the Q15 are prophets - then I can answer yes to the above questions and be good with that. I totally get that some with a different frame of reference can not. Edited September 18, 2019 by Maestrophil me no can spell 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, I was not there. Perhaps that the competing interests (preserving the Lord's will on the Law of Chastity, particularly as pertaining to the innovation of same-sex marriage, and also love and concern for the feelings and welfare of gay members and their children) can be reconciled? Or as Elder Christofferson put it, that the Church must "yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; {while} at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained"? That even though, as Elder Christofferson put it, “same-sex marriage {is} a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline," the Church can nevertheless make what accommodations it can without going against revealed doctrines. That, as Elder Christofferson put it, "[t]here’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ"? That the Church should submit to the laws of the land as far as the legalization of same-sex marriage, but that, as Elder Christofferson put it, same-sex marriage "is not a right that exists in the Church"? That the Church needs to educate its members about, as Elder Christofferson put it, "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord"? And, per this June 2015 letter from the First Presidency, that "[c]hanges in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established"? Thanks, -Smac This description makes the actual policy not a matter of revelation but an attempt to convert principles into a policy. And then, if I understand you correctly, the mind and will of the Lord that the prophet declared was only with respect to the principles NOT the actual policy that the apostles had been working on and fasting/praying over? Link to comment
sjdawg Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 22 hours ago, cinepro said: As for President Nelson being dishonest, I think you've missed the entire point. The point being that he isn't dishonest, he is fallible. Mormon Prophets are only fallible in theory. In practice, it is almost treason for Mormons to admit to any mistakes from Prophets 1 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) On 9/17/2019 at 1:51 PM, smac97 said: No, we can't change "the laws." God can, but we cannot. The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine." This article summarizes things this way: Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article: The problem is that any time there's a doctrine we don't like we rename it application and toss it out. Oh, and even God can't change eternal law. He is as subject to it as we are. Edited September 18, 2019 by JLHPROF 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: That is what I am saying - I don't know, nor do you. It does appear that He did - so the question then becomes, "is that ok?" I don't believe in a God that is that fickle. I think that when we see a change like this it indicates that most likely we aren't understanding Him. 3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: Is it OK that God would enact or inspire a policy that would cause pain? Yes. 3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: Is it possible that he would have a purpose we don't know that makes the pain worth it for the longer/better understanding He has for all his children and His Kingdon? Yes 3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: Is it OK for God to change His mind? Seems inconsistent with the attributes that we attribute to Him. 3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: Could what we see as 'changing His mind' simply be a matter of strategic timing based on His plans? In some cases, possibly. But that doesn't seem to make any sense to me in this case. 3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: Can one answer NO to any of the above and not have it matter in terms of determining if a thing is from God? For some, probably. Not for me since I believe God is not the author of confusion. 3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: Since I am not God, and I choose to believe that the Q15 are prophets - then I can answer yes to the above questions and be good with that. I totally get that some with a different frame of reference can not. Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: This description makes the actual policy not a matter of revelation but an attempt to convert principles into a policy. First, I am just speculating. I think the efforts of the Brethren could certainly have been "a matter of revelation." Second, I am not sure what you mean by "the actual policy not {being} a matter of revelation." 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: And then, if I understand you correctly, the mind and will of the Lord that the prophet declared was only with respect to the principles NOT the actual policy that the apostles had been working on and fasting/praying over? No, not really. Again, I am just speculating. Moreover, the policy itself was patterned after the one the Church has had in place since the 1920s as pertaining to polygamists and their children. So I don't think this has ever been a situation where the "policy" was "revealed," but instead may have been ratified or authorized through revelation. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The problem is that any time there's a doctrine we don't like we rename it application and toss it out. Not really. Can you identify any "doctrine" that has been "rename{d}" and "toss{ed}" as you describe? 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Oh, and even God can't change eternal law. He is as subject to it as we are. Agreed. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Maestrophil Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't believe in a God that is that fickle. I think that when we see a change like this it indicates that most likely we aren't understanding Him. You and I seem to be on the same page then. I think we are not understanding Him. I often do not. But I chose to maintain faith that one day, with further light and knowledge, I will - on this issue as well as others. 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes. Yes Seems inconsistent with the attributes that we attribute to Him. Unless, as you said - it is not inconsistency at all - if to Him there is a purpose that we don't see. 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: In some cases, possibly. But that doesn't seem to make any sense to me in this case. Again, it makes no sense to you. I understand, and sympathize. And respect that difficult and possibly painful position for you. 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: For some, probably. Not for me since I believe God is not the author of confusion. As we have established - YOU or ME being confused, does not necessarily mean that God is confused - he might be steering the ship right where it needs to be - or not - I don't claim to know or interpret truth for others. I am just trying my best to honor and understand the truth, as I know you are as well. 🙂 1 Link to comment
sjdawg Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: And that what then-Elder Nelson referenced as "the mind and will of the Lord" declared by Pres. Monson was something broader than the specific wording of the 2015 policies. I am thrilled that I no longer have to go through the mental gymnastics required to justify believing in all that Mormonism offers Edited September 18, 2019 by sjdawg Link to comment
Maestrophil Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, sjdawg said: I am thrilled that I no longer have to go through the mental gymnastics required to justify believing in all that Mormonism offers If believing caused you so much effort and distress, then I am glad for you that you no longer feel it. Unfortunately, however, your comment does come across as very condescending to those of us who do chose to exercise faith. 3 Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, sjdawg said: I am thrilled that I no longer have to go through the mental gymnastics required to justify believing in all that Mormonism offers I am not persuaded that thoughtful and reasoned introspection and analysis merits disparagements like "mental gymnastics." I have long enjoyed the rich doctrinal and cosmological and commonsensical concepts found in the Restored Gospel. But I will concede that accepting it is, in the end, primarily a matter of faith. I also concede that I do not have all the answers. I also concede that the leaders of the Church, both local and general, are not perfect. That's the way of things. "For we see through a glass, darkly" and all that (1 Cor. 13:12). But I just can't bring myself to emphasize the gaps in my understanding as being more significant and persuasive than the revealed truths I have accepted pursuant to spiritual experiences. Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Not really. Can you identify any "doctrine" that has been "rename{d}" and "toss{ed}" as you describe? Not without being told "that wasn't ever doctrine". Hence the problem. Link to comment
sjdawg Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 13 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: If believing caused you so much effort and distress, then I am glad for you that you no longer feel it. Unfortunately, however, your comment does come across as very condescending to those of us who do chose to exercise faith. Thank you. My comment did come across as condescending and I apologize to any who found it offensive. 3 Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Quote Not really. Can you identify any "doctrine" that has been "rename{d}" and "toss{ed}" as you describe? Not without being told "that wasn't ever doctrine". Such as? 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Hence the problem. Again, not really. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Maestrophil Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, sjdawg said: Thank you. My comment did come across as condescending and I apologize to any who found it offensive. Apology accepted. 🙂 1 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: Such as? Again, not really. Thanks, -Smac Plural marriage, temple ceremonies, garment design, the priesthood ban, the offices of seventy or presiding patriarch, adam-god, united order... All at some point had the prophet or first presidency declare them as doctrine revealed from heaven (revelation), and in some case declare them and mandatory and unchanging. Now they are all reduced to application or false. Makes it hard to accept anything today's prophet calls doctrine. It will likely be changed. 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Plural marriage, D&C 132 is still there. We still believe in this "doctrine." 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: temple ceremonies, garment design, The question was: Can you identify any "doctrine" that has been "rename{d}" and "toss{ed}" as you describe? Changes to the temple ceremony and garment design do not seem to be at all equivalent to tossing doctrines. 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: the priesthood ban, This one is a mixed bag, but I'll grant this one. That said, the ban appears to lack a revelatory provenance, later characterizations of it as such notwithstanding. 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: the offices of seventy or presiding patriarch, Again, how is this an example of doctrine-tossing? 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: adam-god, Again, this one is a mixed bag, but I'll grant this one. 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: united order... Still there. Still doctrine. 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: All at some point had the prophet or first presidency declare them as doctrine revealed from heaven (revelation), Kinda. 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: and in some case declare them and mandatory and unchanging. Which ones? 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Now they are all reduced to application or false. Not really. 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Makes it hard to accept anything today's prophet calls doctrine. It will likely be changed. I don't think it's that hard. As an attorney, there are plenty of ambiguities in common law, statutory law, constitutional law, and so on. But those ambiguities are on the fringes. And those ambiguities do not negate the many, many well-settled principles of common law / statutory law / constitutional law. For example, there is currently a dispute in the courts as to whether decorating a bespoke wedding cake is "speech." That's an interesting question, but not one that "makes it hard" to acknowledge that the Constitution still exists, that the courts have addressed such issues in well-known cases, and so on. All-or-nothing approaches to the law are seldom effective. And it seems unnecessary to reject the entire body of law because it has ambiguities in some applications. Similarly, I think the Restored Gospel requires faith. And effort to study and understand. And humility. And forgiveness. And patience and "longsuffering." Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
bluebell Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Plural marriage, temple ceremonies, garment design, the priesthood ban, the offices of seventy or presiding patriarch, adam-god, united order... All at some point had the prophet or first presidency declare them as doctrine revealed from heaven (revelation), and in some case declare them and mandatory and unchanging. Now they are all reduced to application or false. Makes it hard to accept anything today's prophet calls doctrine. It will likely be changed. And don’t forget the law of circumcision. It was also once declared to be mandatory and everlasting as well. 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: And don’t forget the law of circumcision. It was also once declared to be mandatory and everlasting as well. Not really. See here (emphasis added): Quote The new and everlasting covenant is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The sum of all gospel covenants that God makes with mankind is called "the new and everlasting covenant" and consists of several individual covenants, each of which is called "a new and an everlasting covenant." It is "new" when given to a person or a people for the first time, and "everlasting" because the gospel of Jesus Christ and Plan of Salvation existed before the world was formed and will exist forever (MD, pp. 479-80). ... All covenants between God and mankind are part of the new and everlasting covenant (D&C 22;132:6-7). Thus, celestial marriage is a new and an everlasting covenant (D&C 132:4) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Some covenants, such as baptism, have force in all dispensations. Other covenants are made for special purposes in particular dispensations; circumcision as a sign of a covenant is of this type (MD, p. 479). The same eternal covenant conditions may be established through other ritual signs at other times. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
sjdawg Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 17 minutes ago, bluebell said: And don’t forget the law of circumcision. It was also once declared to be mandatory and everlasting as well. I have a hard time believing in a God who cares whether or not men have foreskins. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 25 minutes ago, bluebell said: And don’t forget the law of circumcision. It was also once declared to be mandatory and everlasting as well. 7 minutes ago, sjdawg said: I have a hard time believing in a God who cares whether or not men have foreskins. My sense is that what was “everlasting” about circumcision was not the ritual itself but the covenant it was intended to represent. The practice of circumcision was not limited to the Israelites. My theory is that God appropriated a practice that was somewhat well-known already among ancient peoples and made of it a temporary symbol of the covenant in order to impress upon the minds of the people the seriousness of the covenant. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts