LDS Apostle: Policy on same-sex couples was revelation from God

[consiglieri]

41 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I just meant that NOW we are receiving the info that this was a revelation.  Why wasn't this a revelation when they came out with the policy in the first place?

I think the reason for that is because we weren't supposed to know about the policy when it came out.

It was only after it was leaked that the Church began using different venues to provide explanations.

It just took two months to get around to declaring it was received by revelation.

That's all.

[JAHS]

52 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And some of them may be in your congregations.  This has affected everyone.  Sure there are people who are flagrant about damning the church..but blaming them doesn't change anything.

 Blaming the church leaders doesn't change anything either, if we regard them as mouthpieces for God on earth. I am in a Bishopric in my ward and I have heard nothing derogatory coming from any members about this once they understand the reason for it and the Bishop let people know he was willing to discuss it with them. It certainly hasn't affected me in a bad way; aren't I part of everyone?

[Bobbieaware]

40 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You are back to a personal revelation not being valid.  That doesn't work.  Who is to say that revelation from Monson is valid?  Some will feel the spirit..some won't and yet the Holy Ghost is there to reveal such.  If this was revelation from Pres. Monson...where has it been for 2 months??  Should be a big deal  and there are excellent, wonderful human beings are are just as susceptable to the spirit that are not pretending..this is like saying if Monson says that the sky is purple today..it is..and so be it. 

God is the one to say which revelations are true and which ones are not. By personal revelation, I know President Monson's revelation was a true and that those who say it wasn't are deceived. You disagree. You have a perfect right to disagree. The day of judgment will put all questions such as this one to rest. So let's be patient and wait for the day when we will learn from God's own mouth whether or not Thomas S. Momson did indeed received a divine revelation on the subject at hand, or if the poster known as rockpond is right. But there is one thing we already know for sure, and that is that both can't be right.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[consiglieri]

38 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Sounds to me like it went through the correct channels. Common consent is not a vote from general membership.

This is a disturbing trend--rewriting Church history and practice to claim common consent is not a vote from general membership.

More and more power and authority are being consolidated into the hands of a very few.

This generally leads to bad things . . .

[consiglieri]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the FP/Q12 having received a sustaining vote from the membership of the Church?  Are you suggesting that there has been some critical mass reached (or that it will be reached) where a substantial portion (a majority?) of the Saints do not sustain the FP/Q12?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think your line of reasoning lends support to the idea that the name of the church should really be The Church of Thomas Monson of Latter-day Apostles.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the FP/Q12 having received a sustaining vote from the membership of the Church?  Are you suggesting that there has been some critical mass reached (or that it will be reached) where a substantial portion (a majority?) of the Saints do not sustain the FP/Q12?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sustaining them in their callings is not the same as agreeing with everything they say and do.

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the reason for that is because we weren't supposed to know about the policy when it came out.

It was only after it was leaked that the Church began using different venues to provide explanations.

It just took two months to get around to declaring it was received by revelation.

That's all.

I think it is assumed by most members that revelation is involved in everything they do. Before any meetings they have to discuss such things they pray to God to have His will revealed to them.  If I didn't believe that and trust them I wouldn't sustain them each year at Conference.

[consiglieri]

By this next post, I have no intention of making fun of anybody or making light of anybody's mental or physical condition.

But the thought has occurred to me that claim of revelation is not being made by the prophet.

Instead, the president of the Q12 is claiming the prophet received this revelation and the 12 sustained it.

Am I the only one concerned that President Nelson is claiming this revelation was received by the prophet, whose mental and physical abilities have been on the decline?

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

 Blaming the church leaders doesn't change anything either, if we regard them as mouthpieces for God on earth. I am in a Bishopric in my ward and I have heard nothing derogatory coming from any members about this once they understand the reason for it and the Bishop let people know he was willing to discuss it with them. It certainly hasn't affected me in a bad way; aren't I part of everyone?

I'm in the bishopric in my ward as well.  I've heard derogatory comments coming from members.  And we've had members stand at the pulpit in fast & testimony meeting, in tears, about how they and their loved ones are hurting from this policy.

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the FP/Q12 having received a sustaining vote from the membership of the Church?  Are you suggesting that there has been some critical mass reached (or that it will be reached) where a substantial portion (a majority?) of the Saints do not sustain the FP/Q12?

Thanks,

-Smac

The difference is that they have some sort of guideline and knowledge in their perception of revelation..and a voice.  They might not agree  but it changes the accountability.  This is why I understand and feel for what Rockpond is going through. 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Jeanne

[BookofMormonLuvr]

According to LDS historians Joseph wanted to kick Sidney out of the Presidency and the church voted against that- wouldn't that be an example of the people rejecting something the Prophet wanted to do while still sustaining him in his calling?

BTW, as a reminder, I actually support the policy in question- but this ode to revelation at this late hour is questionable. How come Bro. Christofferson never mentioned it in his clarification interview?

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the reason for that is because we weren't supposed to know about the policy when it came out.

It was only after it was leaked that the Church began using different venues to provide explanations.

It just took two months to get around to declaring it was received by revelation.

That's all.

Sustaining them in their callings is not the same as agreeing with everything they say and do.

This is true Rockpond..but this time they didn't even get a chance to raise their hands.

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the reason for that is because we weren't supposed to know about the policy when it came out.

It was only after it was leaked that the Church began using different venues to provide explanations.

It just took two months to get around to declaring it was received by revelation.

That's all.

I agree...I am still waiting for everybody to just blame Dehlin for all this...again. 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you just explained why millions are leaving organized religion every year.  A lot of people no longer trust what churches teach as being the will of God. There are just too many problems with doctrine lining up with what is hard for them to deny.

Hello Cal, I agree that it is an issue.  For some it is tiresome to deal with predicaments where leaders don't really act at the level of inspiration or actions that we expect.  At the same time, we try not to judge their humanity while we do expect them to lead the Church in ways of righteousness.  

For me, the entire issue of SSM and children and ordinances, etc. is a non-issue.  It is not that I don't think they are very important issues, but I think that the entire dust-up has been a farce and had zero direct impact on the people the new policy addressed.  Those that wail and gnash their teeth over it are just looking for an opportunity to be offended.  Enough said - the topic is boring and when someone wants to go one direction it is not likely anyone is listening or will change their minds.  Leave them in the hands of God and let him guide them.

If I could say one thing to the Brethren it is to be silent.  Never, ever make a policy for governing the Church unless that policy begins with, "Thus saith God...."  If they cannot use that language then the policy is the result of their own minds and it should not be a policy.  They can speak from the pulpit about their wishes and desires, but do not call it policy or revelation.  We are Church that is built almost completely revelation; nothing is more fundamental or is as important to us as the fact that we believe that God still talks to individuals and to prophets, in particular.  

Finally, each leader of the Church bears the weight of their own actions.  They will either be condemned or exalted in the same manner that each of us will be - do we rely and thirst after righteousness and being God's disciple or not.  

Lastly, fire everyone in the PR department - we don't need a PR department or anyone else to spin a topic.  What is needed is that same thing that has always needed and wanted - leaders that seek God's will and are inspired by God to act solely at his direction.  If God is not talking then there is no policy or revelation to record or being before the body of the Church or its local leaders.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Storm Rider

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You are back to a personal revelation not being valid.  That doesn't work.  Who is to say that revelation from Monson is valid?  Some will feel the spirit..some won't and yet the Holy Ghost is there to reveal such.  If this was revelation from Pres. Monson...where has it been for 2 months??  Should be a big deal  and there are excellent, wonderful human beings are are just as susceptable to the spirit that are not pretending..this is like saying if Monson says that the sky is purple today..it is..and so be it. 

 I just hope some souls out there won't take their lives, that believe President Monson. Thinking they can't live up to what is asked them.  Hopefully not one soul, but if the past is an example...too late 

[Jeanne]

Just now, Tacenda said:

 I just hope some souls out there won't take their lives, that believe President Monson. Thinking they can't live up to what is asked them.  Hopefully not one soul, but if the past is an example...too late 

There were people with hope..my hope is that somehow..they keep hoping and know that there are people in the world that gives them great value.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

For me, the entire issue of SSM and children and ordinances, etc. is a non-issue.  It is not that I don't think they are important issues, but I think that the entire dust-up was a farce and had zero impact on the people the new policy addressed.  Those that wail and gnash their teeth over it are just looking for an opportunity to be offended.  

I dread another opportunity to be offended. But it still hurts, each and every time. I don't want to feel alienated from the church leadership. But they've lost my confidence completely now. 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Gray

[cinepro]

I find the whole matter to be fascinating, because it's an example of the Church leaders introducing a policy revelation and a number of LDS having the Holy Ghost tell them that the policy revelation is not "good".  LDS are taught that if something is "good", they will have warm, peaceful, spiritual feelings about it.  And if it is "bad", they will have a "dark and confused" feeling.

 

Well, apparently a bunch of LDS have had "dark" and "confused" feelings about the policy revelation, and they're simply doing what they've been taught to do all their lives when that happens.  They reject it.  I wouldn't want to be the Church leader who has to convince them that in this specific case, they should ignore what the spirit is telling them and just go with what their leaders say.

Edited January 11, 2016 by cinepro

[consiglieri]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I dread another opportunity to be offended. But it still hurts, each and every time. I don't want to feel alienated from the church leadership. But they've lost my confidence completely now. 

Though it may be of little consolation, Gray, at least you can know you are not alone.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I find the whole matter to be fascinating, because it's an example of the Church leaders introducing a policy revelation and a number of LDS having the Holy Ghost tell them that the policy revelation is not "good".  LDS are taught that if something is "good", they will have warm, peaceful, spiritual feelings about it.  And if it is "bad", they will have a "dark and confused" feeling.

 

Well, apparently a bunch of LDS have had "dark" and "confused" feelings about the policy revelation, and they're simply doing what they've been taught to do all their lives when that happens.  They reject it.  I wouldn't want to be the Church leader who has to convince them that in this specific case, they should ignore what the spirit is telling them and just go with what their leaders say.

Perhaps we should look forward to several recitals next General Conference of the Marion Romney story about how President Grant told him to do whatever the prophet says, even if you think it is wrong, and you will be blessed for it.

[Sleeper Cell]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

By this next post, I have no intention of making fun of anybody or making light of anybody's mental or physical condition.

But the thought has occurred to me that claim of revelation is not being made by the prophet.

Instead, the president of the Q12 is claiming the prophet received this revelation and the 12 sustained it.

Am I the only one concerned that President Nelson is claiming this revelation was received by the prophet, whose mental and physical abilities have been on the decline?

Am I the only one who wonders if you would have expressed this same concern, had President Nelson claimed that President Monson had received a revelation reversing this policy or, say, endorsing ssm?  

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the reason for that is because we weren't supposed to know about the policy when it came out.

It was only after it was leaked that the Church began using different venues to provide explanations.

It just took two months to get around to declaring it was received by revelation.

That's all.

According to President Nelson, and I believe him, this policy is the result of revelation that followed extensive study and analysis of the “questions that have arisen,” as Elder Cristofferson called them.

There was no need to preface or emphasize its revelatory origin to its original, intended audience. After that, emphasizing its revelatory origin in the early days of media and public reaction would not have answered the question of the day, which was “why that was necessary” The Church addressed the questions respectfully a with relevancy. To say, "It was revelation" would not have answered those questions. And anyone asking these questions would have a) understood it came by revelation; b) doubted it came by revelation; c) didn't consider whether it came by revelation or not; or d) wouldn't have been helped with a discourse on revelation so as to understand what revelation means in the LDS Church.

With the passage of time, we will now sometimes hear of rationale and sometime hear of revelation, and sometimes both, depending on the context for which such statements are made.

Edited January 11, 2016 by CV75

[smac97]

Jeanne,

> If JS and Moroni wrote things down...it is knowledge/revelation.  

==And if they didn't write things down, it's *also* revelation.

==And if they write revealed knowledge down but don't disseminate the specific writing to the Saints, it's still revelation.

> By "after the fact"  I meant that after the policy was put in place in November..it doesn't become an official revelation until last night..

==I don't think that's right.  I wrote a rather extensive post about "doctrines" and "principles" and "applications."  Did you read it?

> and that isn't even from Pres. Monson himself.  

==Are you suggesting that the President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles is . . . a renegade?  That he is acting at odds with President Monson?  That he is in a state of rebellion?  I'm not sure what you are saying here.

> The people in the church are not getting things straignt..

==What does *that* mean?  Are you accusing the Brethren of dishonesty?

> and if they do..it is late.  

==It is?  What metric are you using to determine such a thing?

> One can write things down all day..but is it a policy??  Or the kind of revelation that JS got time and time again...written down.  People..this is silly.  

==I think you are not giving the Brethren a fair shake.  Really.  I also don't think you have given much effort to studying and understanding The Law of Common Consent and other salient portions of the Gospel.  If you had, I don't think your argument would be reduced to something as vague and feelzy as "this is silly."

> What has happened here is that people are hurting on a common sense issue that requires compassion.  

==Agreed.  I don't think Elder Nelson, or any of the other Brethren, have demonstrated a *lack* of compassion.  Are you suggesting othewise?  If so, CFR.

> Could any of you...outside all that we have all talked about for two months..sit down as a Bishop..look two people in the eye with a baby cradled in their arms and say..No..we can't not have your child blessed.  Seriously..could you do that?  

==Yes.  It would be sad and difficult, but I could and would do it.  I would likewise tell an unmarried couple who wanted to join the Church that they will first have to get married or else stop living with each other.  The pain comes not from the Law of Chastity, but from the couple's inability/unwillingness to adhere to it.

==Church leaders can and do face tough circumstances like this.  All.  The.  Time.  I have personally participated in disciplinary councils where the individual *really* does not want to be disfellowshipped or excommunicated, but who has engaged in conduct that might require such discipline.  These are unpleasant duties, but they are also necessary duties.

==So with respect, I'm not going to be able to agree with a line of reasoning essentially that "We can't administer or not administer the ordinances of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, or otherwise manage the affairs of the Church and apply its doctrines and policies, if doing so hurts someone's feelings."  That seems to be what you are proposing.  And that is simply not a workable course of conduct.

> This is probably a question that goes through many peoples minds as they try to understand.  

==The key phrase here is "try to understand."  I don't think there is enough of this "try[ing] to understand" thing.  The Church cannot function when its doctrines and policies and such are administered based on . . . emotion.  The Feelz.  Christ did not forgive the woman taken in adultery.  He showed compassion and love.  But in the moment, with that poor woman lying before him on the ground, covered in dust and tears, terrified that she was about to be killed for her transgression . . . He did not forgive her.  He did not disregard the Gospel.  He applied it.  He did *not* say "Hey, that whole adultery thing is just fine.  Keep going with it!  Celebrate it!  You're all good!"  Instead, with love and with concern for her, He said: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

==I suppose it would've been easier for him to disregard her sin.  But doing so would mean that the Lord is not really serious when He speaks of things like obedience, faith, repentence, The Law of Chastity, and so on.  So He applies the Gospel and requires His followers to adhere to it.  And He has commanded His servants to do the same in his stead.  It is hard for those servants to do such things.  It really is.  I have personally observed good and decent men grapple with meting out church discipline.  But they do it.  

> What kind of revelation is that?  Is it really a revelation from God or something that will shift the stance of this horrific policy?  

=="Horrific?"  Really?

> And blaming people for not know for sure is contradicting to the nature of personal revelation.  

==I do not understand this statement.

> There are so many things that could be revealed..other than this.  

==And yet the Lord has revealed . . . this.

> There shouild be no policy for being loving and welcoming to this church..

==Agreed.  But we're not talking about "being loving and welcoming."  We are speaking of administering the Ordinances of God, in which ordinances "the power of godliness is manifest."  (D&C 84:20).

==So how do you propose for all this to work out?  What about a person who has violated the Law of Chastity, who doesn't attend Church, who doesn't pay tithing, but who really, really wants to get married in the Temple.  Are you going to present his as a sob story and insist that the Church disregard what it understands to be the Lord's will about standards of temple worthiness?  Are you going to accuse the Brethren of not "being loving and welcoming" if such a fellow is first required to adhere to the same standards of behavior that are required for all other Latter-day Saints wanting to attend the temple?

> If we want revelations..ask God about ISIS..about real things that affect ALL of us!  Being kind doesn't need policy or revelation.  I see this as another way the church is covering its mistakes..and IMO it is a costly mistake.

==So you appear to be accusing Elder Nelson of lying.  He's not telling the truth.  His remarks last night were merely "another way the church is covering its mistakes."  And you are saying all of this publicly to the world.

==This is not, I think, how the Saints are supposed to behave.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Am I the only one who wonders if you would have expressed this same concern, had President Nelson claimed that President Monson had received a revelation reversing this policy or, say, endorsing ssm?  

You know..that is a real good question.  I would be anxious to find out too how that would have went..especially those on the board here who are supportive of this revelation,

[Zakuska]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

> If we want revelations..ask God about ISIS..about real things that affect ALL of us!  Being kind doesn't need policy or revelation.  I see this as another way the church is covering its mistakes..and IMO it is a costly mistake.

==So you appear to be accusing Elder Nelson of lying.  He's not telling the truth.  His remarks last night were merely "another way the church is covering its mistakes."  And you are saying all of this publicly to the world.

==This is not, I think, how the Saints are supposed to behave.

Thanks,

-Smac

Paul rebuked Peter Publicly for far less.

Gal 4

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Zakuska