What Comes Next Now Ssm Is Legal In Utah....

[rockpond]

If you're an active member of the church and listen to conference, read the Ensign, or are familiar with the Family Proclamation, then this shouldn't even be a question.

In addition, the Doctrine and Covenants is very specific about male-female marriage only, and we are not at liberty to "interpret" it beyond that.

You said that there is "plentiful and specific revelation on this matter". I assumed by matter you were referring to homosexuality and SSM.

Generically referring to our entire body of official church publications is not identifying the plentiful and specific revelations that you say exist.

The Proclamation is not a revelation.

p.s. Yes, I am an active member of the church. I read the Ensign, listen to conference, and have a copy of the Proclamation on display in my home.

[rockpond]

The ban itself has never been identified as a mistake. The man made reasons for the ban have.

At what point where all of the reasons identified as a mistake?

[thesometimesaint]

At what point where all of the reasons identified as a mistake?

http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[rockpond]

http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

So, would the following be a true statement:

For about 160 years, God allowed for his prophets and apostles to promulgate false teachings with respect to a group of his children, their fellowship in the church, and access to the temple?

[jwhitlock]

The lessons we can learn from it do apply.

 

Then perhaps you should openly tell us what you think those lessons are, rather than continuing with these leading yes/no questions.

[thesometimesaint]

There has never, in our Church, been a ban as to membership or fellowship. There WAS a ban on Priesthood. The Temple is all about Priesthood.

BTW Women to this day can't hold the Priesthood, but very much function in the Church.

[jwhitlock]

The Proclamation is not a revelation.

 

 

Wrong. The prophetic nature of a declaration identifies it as the mind and the will of the Lord concerning the doctrine of Family, and as such it is revelatory in nature.

 

Otherwise, when same sex marriage has been talked about in conference or in the Ensign, it has always been in the context of it NOT being consistent with the will of the Lord. This can be found by a simple search on the church web site, where you will find President Hinckley talking about it in October 1999 (Why We Do Some of the Things We Do), Elder Oaks talking about it in October 2013 (No Other Gods), President Hinckley talking about it in October 1998 (What are People Asking About Us?), President Hinckley talking about it in October 1995 (Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World) and so on and so on and so on.

 

Do you actually believe that they don't talk about this specifically anywhere? If so, you really don't pay any attention to conference and to what is coming out of Salt Lake.

 

The position of the church and its leaders have been consistent and clear and direct on this subject, and they have spoken about it many times. To try to downplay it in the manner you do because it conflicts with the viewpoint of the world you embrace is to deny clear evidence to the contrary.

[thesometimesaint]

Wrong. The prophetic nature of a declaration identifies it as the mind and the will of the Lord concerning the doctrine of Family, and as such it is revelatory in nature.

 

Otherwise, when same sex marriage has been talked about in conference or in the Ensign, it has always been in the context of it NOT being consistent with the will of the Lord. This can be found by a simple search on the church web site, where you will find President Hinckley talking about it in October 1999 (Why We Do Some of the Things We Do), Elder Oaks talking about it in October 2013 (No Other Gods), President Hinckley talking about it in October 1998 (What are People Asking About Us?), President Hinckley talking about it in October 1995 (Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World) and so on and so on and so on.

 

Do you actually believe that they don't talk about this specifically anywhere? If so, you really don't pay any attention to conference and to what is coming out of Salt Lake.

 

The position of the church and its leaders have been consistent and clear and direct on this subject, and they have spoken about it many times. To try to downplay it in the manner you do because it conflicts with the viewpoint of the world you embrace is to deny clear evidence to the contrary.

 

tPotF is not a accepted Revelation. Maybe in April GC but not yet.

[rockpond]

There has never, in our Church, been a ban as to membership or fellowship. There WAS a ban on Priesthood. The Temple is all about Priesthood.

BTW Women to this day can't hold the Priesthood, but very much function in the Church.

Are you saying that those of African descent enjoyed "full fellowship" in the church prior to 1978?

[rockpond]

Then perhaps you should openly tell us what you think those lessons are, rather than continuing with these leading yes/no questions.

I thought that the purpose here was to dialogue, not throw our opinions at each other.

[rockpond]

Wrong. The prophetic nature of a declaration identifies it as the mind and the will of the Lord concerning the doctrine of Family, and as such it is revelatory in nature.

Otherwise, when same sex marriage has been talked about in conference or in the Ensign, it has always been in the context of it NOT being consistent with the will of the Lord. This can be found by a simple search on the church web site, where you will find President Hinckley talking about it in October 1999 (Why We Do Some of the Things We Do), Elder Oaks talking about it in October 2013 (No Other Gods), President Hinckley talking about it in October 1998 (What are People Asking About Us?), President Hinckley talking about it in October 1995 (Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World) and so on and so on and so on.

Do you actually believe that they don't talk about this specifically anywhere? If so, you really don't pay any attention to conference and to what is coming out of Salt Lake.

The position of the church and its leaders have been consistent and clear and direct on this subject, and they have spoken about it many times. To try to downplay it in the manner you do because it conflicts with the viewpoint of the world you embrace is to deny clear evidence to the contrary.

No. They definitely talk about it specifically in conference, the Ensign, and other publications. But see, now you've retreated to "the position of the church and its leaders" rather than revelation. You still haven't identified revelation from God that provides us with His will for His homosexual children.

If you are going to say that everything the prophets and apostles teach in conference or church publications is the mind and will of the Lord, than how do you explain the disavowal and condemnation of what was taught from 1852 to at least 1949 regarding the temple and priesthood ban?

And for the record, it's not the world's view that I embrace. It's what my personal testimony, faith, and spiritual promptings demand of me.

[Calm]

Are you saying that those of African descent enjoyed "full fellowship" in the church prior to 1978?

I went looking to see if I could find a definition of full fellowship...as far as I can tell, it means baptized and fully active and living all the commandments to the best of their ability.

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying that those of African descent enjoyed "full fellowship" in the church prior to 1978?

 

Yes they did. Holding the Priesthood isn't nor ever has been a requirement for fellowship. That being said it was the rare few blacks that toughed it out and stood with the Church in those gratefully gone days. 

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cherry

[rockpond]

I went looking to see if I could find a definition of full fellowship...as far as I can tell, it means baptized and fully active and living all the commandments to the best of their ability.

Someone who is disfellowshipped is still baptized and encouraged to be fully active. They cannot, however, hold a temple recommend or exercise the priesthood. (Handbook 1, 6.9.2)

That's the best definition I could find.

[Calm]

Full fellowship was used to describe women both before and after temple endowed...so it seems to be tied more to being able to be active among the Saints and participating outside the temple, with or without the priesthood.

[rockpond]

Okay... So blacks enjoyed "full fellowship" prior to 1978 as we followed the "mind and will of the Lord" on the matter and yet they couldn't be sealed, exercise priesthood in their homes, we have disavowed all that was taught to justify the ban, and we're grateful that those days are gone.

Glad that's all cleared up.

[Calm]

I don't know. I've always used the term to mean that people took full advantage of all the blessings available to them...full fellowship was more of a comment on someone's desire to be a Saint IMO than what opportunities were available to them.

It makes no sense for example to say a woman can never be in full fellowship because she can't hold the Priesthood.

I really would be interested to know if there is an official definition.

[thesometimesaint]

Okay... So blacks enjoyed "full fellowship" prior to 1978 as we followed the "mind and will of the Lord" on the matter and yet they couldn't be sealed, exercise priesthood in their homes, we have disavowed all that was taught to justify the ban, and we're grateful that those days are gone.

Glad that's all cleared up.

 

It WAS a weird situation to be in. I never agreed with the Ban. But it isn't my or your Church. It is the Church we belong to.

 

I too am glad that it is in our past. Most of today's members aren't old enough to remember the ban. We(they) have moved on to bigger fish to fry.

[jwhitlock]

tPotF is not a accepted Revelation. Maybe in April GC but not yet.

 

What does "accepted" revelation have to do with it? It sidesteps the fact that the Proclamation bears all the hallmarks of inspired prophetic counsel, which makes it revelation.

[jwhitlock]

No. They definitely talk about it specifically in conference, the Ensign, and other publications. But see, now you've retreated to "the position of the church and its leaders" rather than revelation. You still haven't identified revelation from God that provides us with His will for His homosexual children.

If you are going to say that everything the prophets and apostles teach in conference or church publications is the mind and will of the Lord, than how do you explain the disavowal and condemnation of what was taught from 1852 to at least 1949 regarding the temple and priesthood ban?

And for the record, it's not the world's view that I embrace. It's what my personal testimony, faith, and spiritual promptings demand of me.

 

When the statements on SSM and homosexual behavior have been so consistent, for so long, in so many official venues, by so many people who we accept as prophets, seers, and revelators, then it's disingenuous to say that somehow no revelation was ever involved on the subject. To even infer that is to basically deny that our leadership really receives revelation, except perhaps on rare occasions. It also avoids the revelatory nature of inspiration, according to the Doctrine and Covenants which states that when our leaders speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, it is revelation.

 

Of course, if you really don't think the Spirit is ever present at General Conference, then you might have a point. But you would be in direct contradiction to what many of the rest of us experience every six months.

 

I never even inferred that everything that is taught is the mind and will of the Lord. However, in this particular case, because of the many and consistent statements on the subject, it is clear that it is the mind and will of the Lord. And in reality, there is a great deal of the mind and will of the Lord revealed during General Conference - though you apparently disagree, because you attempt to downplay that.

 

As a "faithful" member, I find it disturbing that you continue to try to cast doubt on the concept of inspiration and revelation coming from the leadership of the church - especially when it contradicts what you have felt "prompted" with in your own life. Inasmuch as your viewpoints on SSM mirror those of the world, and are in contradiction with the prophetic revelation we've received on the subject, I would suggest that it's pretty clear one side or the other is wrong.

 

I'll let others decide if they'd rather follow you or the prophets in this particular matter.

[jwhitlock]

This is actually rather interesting. We have members of the church evidently saying that because something is just inspired, or because it has been merely consistently stated over and over by multiple men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, it doesn't really count as revelation.

 

And all in the name of discounting the revelatory nature of we as a church believe in, because it contradicts a very worldly viewpoint.

[jwhitlock]

Okay... So blacks enjoyed "full fellowship" prior to 1978 as we followed the "mind and will of the Lord" on the matter and yet they couldn't be sealed, exercise priesthood in their homes, we have disavowed all that was taught to justify the ban, and we're grateful that those days are gone.

Glad that's all cleared up.

 

By the way, President McKay petitioned the Lord a number of times about lifting the ban, and was told by the Lord (if you believe he was a prophet) to let it stand and finally, not to bother Him about it anymore.

 

So the Lord specifically wanted the ban to stay in place, which means that we have NOT disavowed everything that was used to keep the ban in place. We have simply disavowed the more speculative reasons that had been given for its existence.

 

The priesthood ban situation was a bit more complex than you realize, which also means it is not very similar to the church's position on SSM and homosexual behavior. That particular position is very clear and very simple.

[jwhitlock]

I thought that the purpose here was to dialogue, not throw our opinions at each other.

 

No, I'm really just tired of you sidestepping all the reasons that are given for why the priesthood ban is irrelevant, and then keeping on asking the same invalid yes/no questions. So why don't you just come right out and be clear about specifically why you think the priesthood ban proves that the brethren are also somehow mistaken on the subject of SSM.

[rockpond]

When the statements on SSM and homosexual behavior have been so consistent, for so long, in so many official venues, by so many people who we accept as prophets, seers, and revelators, then it's disingenuous to say that somehow no revelation was ever involved on the subject. To even infer that is to basically deny that our leadership really receives revelation, except perhaps on rare occasions. It also avoids the revelatory nature of inspiration, according to the Doctrine and Covenants which states that when our leaders speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, it is revelation.

Of course, if you really don't think the Spirit is ever present at General Conference, then you might have a point. But you would be in direct contradiction to what many of the rest of us experience every six months.

I never even inferred that everything that is taught is the mind and will of the Lord. However, in this particular case, because of the many and consistent statements on the subject, it is clear that it is the mind and will of the Lord. And in reality, there is a great deal of the mind and will of the Lord revealed during General Conference - though you apparently disagree, because you attempt to downplay that.

As a "faithful" member, I find it disturbing that you continue to try to cast doubt on the concept of inspiration and revelation coming from the leadership of the church - especially when it contradicts what you have felt "prompted" with in your own life. Inasmuch as your viewpoints on SSM mirror those of the world, and are in contradiction with the prophetic revelation we've received on the subject, I would suggest that it's pretty clear one side or the other is wrong.

I'll let others decide if they'd rather follow you or the prophets in this particular matter.

I certainly don't want people to follow me over the prophets.

And while I feel the spirit during conference, I don't see the same consistency with respect to the church's teachings on homosexuality that you see. So, no, I don't see that we've been given revelation on God's will for his homosexual children. And you haven't identified anything that claims to be revelation from God on the matter.

How long... How many decades... were the prophets and apostles consistent on reasons for the temple and priesthood ban? Much longer than we've been talking about SSM. If those teachings are also revelation how can they be disavowed and condemned? If those teachings were not revelation than why would you consider teachings on homosexuality to be revelation when both were taught by prophets and apostles in their official capacity?

I may be wrong in my beliefs on the matter but I don't think it's incorrect or unfaithful to hope for revelation on a subject that is so clearly troublesome for many members of the church.

If we're going to share what we find disturbing, I find it disturbing when members insist that a church which believes in continuing revelation cannot change receive revelation in this matter because we already feel we have all the answers.

[rockpond]

By the way, President McKay petitioned the Lord a number of times about lifting the ban, and was told by the Lord (if you believe he was a prophet) to let it stand and finally, not to bother Him about it anymore.

So the Lord specifically wanted the ban to stay in place, which means that we have NOT disavowed everything that was used to keep the ban in place. We have simply disavowed the more speculative reasons that had been given for its existence.

The priesthood ban situation was a bit more complex than you realize, which also means it is not very similar to the church's position on SSM and homosexual behavior. That particular position is very clear and very simple.

That's not my recollection of what happened when President McKay prayed about the ban but I don't have the biography at my disposal. Do you have the specific quote on it?

He was, as I recall, the first to identify the ban as a policy, rather than a "doctrine". I suppose that was the first step in getting to where we are now and definitely a reversal from the 1949 first presidency letter.

You see the church's position on homosexuality and SSM as very simply and clear. I don't. It doesn't fit well with my understanding of God's plan for us.