Why A Meeting For The Ssm Letters?

[Mystery Meat]

Warn of what?

 

The Lord's position on the matter.

[stemelbow]

I am with the Prophets, so no its not.

akin to saying the prophets are infallible? Seems possible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So a statement from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles, summarizing their consistent and firm stand on a moral issue over decades doesn't reflect the will of the Lord?

 

Really?

 

That is amazing to me- that a believing member would make such a claim.

Cease to be amazed and see beyond the claims. There you will see who you are dealing with.

[Russell C McGregor]

I see the purpose of the special reading of the letter (in separate meetings with adults and youth) as further reinforcement of the church's current position on the matter.

Current and continuing.

Let's be clear on that point.

They're losing the hearts and minds of a growing number of members on this issue.

Are they?

If that's the case, then there's a growing number of members who need to repent.

 I assume they realize this.  The letter and attachments... the request for a special reading (even though the letter contains nothing new) is the continued attempt to get members to stop "defecting" on this issue.

You mean -- apostatising?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The Lord's position on the matter.

That seems like clarifying. Warning is more of an "if/then" thing.

[stemelbow]

So a statement from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles, summarizing their consistent and firm stand on a moral issue over decades doesn't reflect the will of the Lord?

 

Really?

 

That is amazing to me- that a believing member would make such a claim.

Tell that to the current first presidency and Council of the Twelve who has supported the rejection of teachings from former First Presidencies and Councils of the Twelve Apostles when they had summarized their consistent and firm stand on "a moral issue over decades".

But it's all behind us now. Or is it? Maybe there is yet corrections to come as further light and knowledge comes down upon us.

[rockpond]

So a statement from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles, summarizing their consistent and firm stand on a moral issue over decades doesn't reflect the will of the Lord?

 

Really?

 

That is amazing to me- that a believing member would make such a claim.

 

First, it hasn't been consistent for decades.

 

Second, prophets are fallible.

 

Third, there has been no revelation identified explaining the will of the Lord on this matter.

 

Fourth, there are too many examples in our history of similar statements turning out to not be the will of the Lord for me to accept this one without revelation to back it up.

[DJBrown]

Tell that to the current first presidency and Council of the Twelve who has supported the rejection of teachings from former First Presidencies and Councils of the Twelve Apostles when they had summarized their consistent and firm stand on "a moral issue over decades".

But it's all behind us now. Or is it? Maybe there is yet corrections to come as further light and knowledge comes down upon us.

 

Please provide one instance of this First Presidency rejecting teachings from previous statements from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve apostles.  

 

You do realize that this argument attempts to place you above the prophets?  That is what second guessing is.

[DJBrown]

First, it hasn't been consistent for decades.

 

Second, prophets are fallible.

 

Third, there has been no revelation identified explaining the will of the Lord on this matter.

 

Fourth, there are too many examples in our history of similar statements turning out to not be the will of the Lord for me to accept this one without revelation to back it up.

 

Not consistent for decades?  When was the last time the church's position on marriage was something other than an institution instituted by God between one man and one woman?

 

And are you the one who determines what teaching or policy is wrong?  That is a dangerous practice.

 

Seriously- you are claiming there has been no revelation identified explaining the will of the Lord on homosexuality, including same-sex marriage?

 

CFR on your fourth point- a combined statement from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve on doctrine that was wrong.

[DJBrown]

akin to saying the prophets are infallible? Seems possible.

 

Let's see.....

 

On one hand, we have the consistent teaching of prophets on morality and homosexuality as well as the scriptures.  On the other hand, we have a new doctrine advocated by Hollywood, corrupt politicians, the pornography community, atheists, and those who support abortion rights and many other godless ideas.  

 

I have no idea how a member of our church who claims to believe in the restoration of the gospel could take this position.  

 

What else may the church and scriptures be wrong about?  The reality of God?  The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?  The atonement of Christ?  Life after death?  Eternal families?

[rockpond]

Not consistent for decades?  When was the last time the church's position on marriage was something other than an institution instituted by God between one man and one woman?

 

And are you the one who determines what teaching or policy is wrong?  That is a dangerous practice.

 

Seriously- you are claiming there has been no revelation identified explaining the will of the Lord on homosexuality, including same-sex marriage?

 

CFR on your fourth point- a combined statement from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve on doctrine that was wrong.

 

The Church's & Brethrens' teachings on homosexuality have not been consistent for decades.

 

No, I'm not the one who determines that a teaching or policy is wrong.

 

If you are aware of a revelation from the Lord explaining his will regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, please let me know.  I'd love to read it.

 

In response to your CFR:  I said "similar statements"... we have letters from the FP regarding race-based doctrine that have now been publicly disavowed by the church.  The 1969 FP letter comes to mind as one example.

 

If you want to understand where I am coming from on this, please read this blog post:  https://medium.com/@ungewissen/missing-church-in-july-928e90931ee1

 

I didn't write it but I think it is a good summary of my thoughts and feelings on the subject.

[stemelbow]

Please provide one instance of this First Presidency rejecting teachings from previous statements from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve apostles.  

 

You do realize that this argument attempts to place you above the prophets?  That is what second guessing is.

The first Presidency and Apostles repeatedly and consistently preached the reasons for the Priesthood ban being less valiant in the pre-existent world, a curse put upon those of African decent. They even put out a First Presidency letter in 1949 saying as much.

 

 

The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

and

 

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

Later the First Presidency and Twelve have suggested those teachings were wrong.

In 1978 after the June announcement of revelation on the matter, Elder McConkie:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

And the essay from a couple of years ago:

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

So there's a pretty good example, being one of some others, wherein the consistent teaching of the leaders was reversed, suggesting they spoke presumptuously and were wrong in times past. There's no reason to think more light and knowledge can not come and cause us to shift in a very significant way again.

Edited July 1, 2015 by stemelbow

[DJBrown]

That seems like clarifying. Warning is more of an "if/then" thing.

 

From the counsel to church leaders on LDS.org regarding the supreme court ruling:

 

"As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them."

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Not consistent for decades?  When was the last time the church's position on marriage was something other than an institution instituted by God between one man and one woman?

 

And are you the one who determines what teaching or policy is wrong?  That is a dangerous practice.

 

Seriously- you are claiming there has been no revelation identified explaining the will of the Lord on homosexuality, including same-sex marriage?

 

CFR on your fourth point- a combined statement from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve on doctrine that was wrong.

This is the problem that arises when:

"The Law was done away with."

combines with...

"Modern Revelation"

They don't look to the Law AS the revelation on the matter.

Tricky balance to strike.

Acknowledging the eternal Laws of God found in the Law, instead of accepting the tradition of the Law being done away with, clears up a whole bunch of issues.

 

[DJBrown]

The Church's & Brethrens' teachings on homosexuality have not been consistent for decades.

 

No, I'm not the one who determines that a teaching or policy is wrong.

 

If you are aware of a revelation from the Lord explaining his will regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, please let me know.  I'd love to read it.

 

In response to your CFR:  I said "similar statements"... we have letters from the FP regarding race-based doctrine that have now been publicly disavowed by the church.  The 1969 FP letter comes to mind as one example.

 

If you want to understand where I am coming from on this, please read this blog post:  https://medium.com/@ungewissen/missing-church-in-july-928e90931ee1

 

I didn't write it but I think it is a good summary of my thoughts and feelings on the subject.

 

 

The race issue is not what many are making it out to be.  The First Presidency has not disavowed previous statements by the First Presidency.  I find nothing wrong with the 1969 statement.  We should be very careful in making the conclusion that the prophets were wrong on this in the past.  

 

The recent essay does not say that the policy was wrong.  It says that we don't really understand it.  That is a big difference.  

 

Please explain the inconsistencies you see in the teachings of the church on homosexuality over time.

 

As far as same-sex marriage, you need not look any further than the statement yesterday from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Members who are comfortable insisting such a statement is not the will of the Lord have a very big problem, in my opinion.

[Jeanne]

Please..have a meeting..get everyone one together and then some..make sure that have a Q & A afterwards and then have another meeting next week for an essay topic..make this meeting for twelve and up..respect, listen, and ask questions.  If the church is true..then testimonies can with stand it right?  Just be honest..discuss..get bored whatever but if this isn't even a new prophecy of sorts or retaining the same commandment of the leaders..just be honest..please just say "I don't know" if you don't..or "I believe"  but keep your thoughts and your minds clear and fearless.  For those who have members in their family that have SSA..let them know that no matter what their lives are as precious as they ever were.   Nothing wrong with a meeting..there are some people who may never have a voice until now and will be surprised as to how the church/leaders think.

[Russell C McGregor]

First, it hasn't been consistent for decades.

Call for references, please, that the Church has ever been in favour of, or even undecided about, same sex "marriage."

The Family: A Proclamation to the World was published twenty (20) years ago. That's two decades.

It is unequivocal, clear and authoritative. More than that, it is dispositive.

Anyone who reads and understands it has a choice: either they can accept that the door is closed against same sex "marriage," or they can abandon any claim of being a faithful Latter-day Saint. Tertium non datur.

 

Second, prophets are fallible.

This is true.

And so are self-appointed ark-steadiers.

In my experience, prophets, though fallible, are usually right.

While the ark-steadiers are usually wrong; especially when they imagine that they know better than the prophets.

Third, there has been no revelation identified explaining the will of the Lord on this matter.

 

Fourth, there are too many examples in our history of similar statements turning out to not be the will of the Lord for me to accept this one without revelation to back it up.

So you think the brethren are wrong by default, unless revelation shows them to be otherwise.

We, the Latter-day Saints, accept that they are usually right, unless revelation shows them to be otherwise.

I thought you might like to know that.

[DJBrown]

The first Presidency and Apostles repeatedly and consistently preached the reasons for the Priesthood ban being less valiant in the pre-existent world, a curse put upon those of African decent. They even put out a First Presidency letter in 1949 saying as much.

 

 

and

 

Later the First Presidency and Twelve have suggested those teachings were wrong.

In 1978 after the June announcement of revelation on the matter, Elder McConkie:

And the essay from a couple of years ago:

So there's a pretty good example, being one of some others, wherein the consistent teaching of the leaders was reversed, suggesting they spoke presumptuously and were wrong in times past. There's no reason to think more light and knowledge can not come and cause us to shift in a very significant way again.

 

You are not reading this carefully.  The statement says that none of the explanations was the official position of the church.  Those explanations were never presented as official positions of the church.  And those explanations are not the same thing as the policy or doctrine.  Those explanations are just that- attempts at explaining the reasons for the Lord's will.  Big difference.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You are not reading this carefully.  The statement says that none of the explanations was the official position of the church.  Those explanations were never presented as official positions of the church.  And those explanations are not the same thing as the policy or doctrine.  Those explanations are just that- attempts at explaining the reasons for the Lord's will.  Big difference.

An official document from the First Presidency isn't official enough?

Edited July 1, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[DJBrown]

An official document from the First Presidency isn't official enough?

 

 

CFR on that statement.  You are getting explanations confused with official doctrine and policy.  There are many explanations for the doctrine and policies of the church.  Not all of those explanations are correct.  But those explanations are not the doctrines and policies.  Understand?

[rockpond]

The race issue is not what many are making it out to be.  The First Presidency has not disavowed previous statements by the First Presidency.  I find nothing wrong with the 1969 statement.  We should be very careful in making the conclusion that the prophets were wrong on this in the past.  

 

The recent essay does not say that the policy was wrong.  It says that we don't really understand it.  That is a big difference.  

 

Please explain the inconsistencies you see in the teachings of the church on homosexuality over time.

 

As far as same-sex marriage, you need not look any further than the statement yesterday from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Members who are comfortable insisting such a statement is not the will of the Lord have a very big problem, in my opinion.

 

The recent essay, endorsed by the Church, as disavowed all previous teachings regarding race.  That would include the 1969 FP letter.  I'm not making the conclusion that the teachings were wrong, the Church has made that conclusion.  And published it in the essay.

 

Here's a summary of changing views on homosexuality:  http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2011/09/evolving-lds-views-on-homosexuality/

 

Our Church's changing support for non-discrimination ordinances is also an example.

 

I'm not sure that the recent statement isn't the will of the Lord, I'm saying that we don't have revelation to back it up so we don't know if the Brethren are teaching their best understanding and opinions or the actual will of the Lord.

 

I have to keep praying and doing what the Spirit teaches.  I assume you are doing the same.

[rockpond]

Call for references, please, that the Church has ever been in favour of, or even undecided about, same sex "marriage."

The Family: A Proclamation to the World was published twenty (20) years ago. That's two decades.

It is unequivocal, clear and authoritative. More than that, it is dispositive.

Anyone who reads and understands it has a choice: either they can accept that the door is closed against same sex "marriage," or they can abandon any claim of being a faithful Latter-day Saint. Tertium non datur.

 

This is true.

And so are self-appointed ark-steadiers.

In my experience, prophets, though fallible, are usually right.

While the ark-steadiers are usually wrong; especially when they imagine that they know better than the prophets.

So you think the brethren are wrong by default, unless revelation shows them to be otherwise.

We, the Latter-day Saints, accept that they are usually right, unless revelation shows them to be otherwise.

I thought you might like to know that.

 

I didn't claim that the Church has ever been in favor of SSM.

 

I believe that as a Latter-day Saint I am called to follow Christ, to listen to the Brethren, to pray about their teachings, and to seek the Spirit and heed it.  I do my best.

[DJBrown]

The recent essay, endorsed by the Church, as disavowed all previous teachings regarding race.  That would include the 1969 FP letter.  I'm not making the conclusion that the teachings were wrong, the Church has made that conclusion.  And published it in the essay.

 

Here's a summary of changing views on homosexuality:  http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2011/09/evolving-lds-views-on-homosexuality/

 

Our Church's changing support for non-discrimination ordinances is also an example.

 

I'm not sure that the recent statement isn't the will of the Lord, I'm saying that we don't have revelation to back it up so we don't know if the Brethren are teaching their best understanding and opinions or the actual will of the Lord.

 

I have to keep praying and doing what the Spirit teaches.  I assume you are doing the same.

 

The recent essay certainly did not disavow all previous teachings regarding race.  I can hardly think of a greater overstatement.  

 

What, exactly, did the recent essay reject from the 1969 statement?  

 

By the way, the recent essay is not a statement from the First Presidency.  It is a little funny that you are rejecting official statements on the grounds of essays, even when those essays don't actually reject official First Presidency statements.

[Duncan]

I get the impression that LDS who think there will be a change in this policy and doctrine in the future do not truly have an open mind.  They believe they are right and the brethren are wrong.

 

Just sayin.

 

 

I think you're just jealous that I am eating cake and lots of it to celebrate Canada Day and you're not so, I don't see your point

[rockpond]

The recent essay certainly did not disavow all previous teachings regarding race.  I can hardly think of a greater overstatement.  

 

What, exactly, did the recent essay reject from the 1969 statement?  

 

By the way, the recent essay is not a statement from the First Presidency.  It is a little funny that you are rejecting official statements on the grounds of essays, even when those essays don't actually reject official First Presidency statements.

 

The essays are officially published by the Church.  Do you believe that they do not have the backing of the FP?

 

The Race and the Priesthood essay actually did "disavow all previous teachings regarding race".  Here is the statement:

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.

 

All of those "theories" mentioned were taught by past prophets and apostles as doctrine.  From the 1969 FP letter:  "Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”  The 1969 letter also attributes the teaching to Joseph Smith, which is incorrect.