busybee Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 4 hours ago, Zakuska said: Who ever accused the church of being consistant though? Its not like we really live be every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God and we pick and choose the parts we like and ignore the other parts. Its also interesting that a "POLICY" came by revelation. This is unprecedented the first time a "POLICY" has come by revelation. CFR that this is the first time that policy has come by revelation 1
filovirus Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, Zakuska said: A single 'Nay' vote can prevent someone from being installed in a calling. Perhaps the person who voted Nay knows that the person being installed as a Primary teacher is on the local "Child Molester" list and the Bishop shouldn't be giving them said calling. Yes. But not the same as an election. What you just pointed out is how the Lord works.
busybee Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 3 hours ago, rockpond said: The outcry might be coming from so called critics. But there are many, like me, active church members who are silently checking out of the church spiritually and emotionally -- even if we are physically still there. If it wasn;t this, then it would have been something else. Those who are 'checking out' will always find the proverbial straw. 2
Zakuska Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, busybee said: CFR that this is the first time that policy has come by revelation My CFR is that I know of no other Policy that has been claimed to have come by revelation. Even the Policy book says as much. These instructions can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an ...information in the handbooks or about issues that are not addressed should direct the [/quote] https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/introduction?lang=eng Edited January 11, 2016 by Zakuska
Jeanne Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said: Just to clarify, it is one thing for a person to reject a revelation because he doesn’t believe it is from God, quite another for a person to reject it on the grounds of President Monson’s declining physical and mental abilities. Especially if that person would have been quite willing to overlook these disabilities, had the revelation been more to their liking. I didn't say anything about Pres. Monson's capacity.
filovirus Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 11 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Common consent applies to sustaining of authorities and on very rare occasion the inclusion of things in the canon. Common consent does not apply to what is and what is not a revelation. That doesn't mean that, on occasion, a congregation may be asked to sustain a proclamation or some new revelation. As to canon, the Church has a view of canon that is quite different than anybody else's. To me, canon means nothing more than what 8-year-olds carry about in their quads on Sunday and what the Church has approved for missionaries and leaders to carry about. We believe in an open canon. As to sustaining of authorities, that is real. Brigham Young went to Cedar City to release a stake president involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, William Dame. Pres. Dame's stake would not sustain the release nor the new successor. In a rage, Brigham Young left Cedar City but left Dame in place. Moreover, common consent does not mean that you, virus, need to sustain him/her/it for them to be true. Correct. By withholding our sustaining vote, it does mean that we will not necessarily support them in their office and calling. But when we do sustain them, it means we believe they are in fact, leading the church through revelation. Now for those who believe the Brethren are leading the church astray, during the next GC, don't raise your hand to sustain them. Agency is the key.
Jeanne Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, busybee said: If it wasn;t this, then it would have been something else. Those who are 'checking out' will always find the proverbial straw. And those of you who will hang on will always find the proverbial straw.
busybee Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, rockpond said: Based on my understanding of common consent and consistent with the quotes you provided ("Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2)."). I don't believe that Common Consent means that only the 15 consent to something. The "common" refers to the body of the Church. I don't know where people get the impression that the church is a democracy. Either Pres. Thomas S. Monson is God's propheton the earth or he isn't. We don't get to vote on what the Lord instructs His prophets to do. We get to sustain them or not. Our 'vote' will not change what the Lord directs His prophets to do. I don't think common consent means what you think it does. Edited January 11, 2016 by busybee 1
Zakuska Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, busybee said: I don;t know where people get the impression that the church is a democracy. Either Pres. Thomas s. Monson is God;s propheton the earth or he isn't. WE don;t get to vote on what the Lord instructs His prophets to do. We get to sustain them or not. Our 'vote' will not change what the Lord directs His prophets to do. I don't think common consent means what you think it does. Go read section 26 of the D&C and come back and report. Quote The Government of the Church To better understand common consent, it is important first to understand the workings of the government of God. Elder Harold B. Lee described the government of the kingdom of God as a theocracy but also “something like a democracy.”[2] This description is a simple clarification of a seemingly complex and often misunderstood organization. Elder Lee highlighted two significant pillars in the Lord’s government: theocracy and democracy. The first pillar, theocracy, accents Christ’s undeniable position as head of the kingdom–the sole proprietor. The second pillar, democracy, emphasizes the people’s opportunity to participate in their government. This combination of terms, however, immediately raises questions from traditional political sciences. How can a theocracy also be described as a democracy? On the surface these terms not only seem incompatible but provoke a jealous power struggle. A democracy doesn’t seem to fit with a theocracy because of the world’s understanding and definition of democracy. But thankfully, when this term is properly understood, the powerful second pillar not only fits but is seen for the essential principle in gospel government and doctrine it is. The pillar of democracy that Elder Lee described in the Lord’s kingdom was something like a democracy. In a traditional democracy, power is vested in the people and they hold participatory rights. The role of the people under a conventional theocracy, on the other hand, is being part of the kingdom rather than of its governmental process and procedure. The Lord’s kingdom, unlike a conventional theocracy, allows the members to participate in its government. This unique combination in which all power is vested in the Lord (theocracy) with the participation of the people (democracy) has thus been called a theodemocracy,[3] which is a form of government in which the decisions for the kingdom of the Lord are His decisions but in which His people have been given the opportunity to exercise their presence in that kingdom. Members of the Lord’s kingdom exercise their democratic presence through the principle of common consent. https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/11-law-common-consent-dc-26-0 Edited January 11, 2016 by Zakuska 1
Gray Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 57 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: I doubt she used those terms. As I have said many times before, anybody who has served as a stake president knows there are many saints in the church who struggle with Same Sex Attraction and yet uphold their covenants. I've known one bishop personally and know of one general authority. It is those who leave and attack who lead to the public perception that the Church is picking on homosexuals. And they we get "pray away the gay" ridicule when, in fact, praying to withstand temptation is one-half of the Christian existence, the other half of which is surrendering to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It sounds a lot more Catholic than Mormon.
Gray Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said: It is clear to me that folks who turn against the brethren lose the spirit. I can see it on this very thread where critics who once loved the Church and everything about it (more or less) are now indistinguishable from bitter, anti-mormons in their mean spirited misrepresentations. Folks, remember this: By their fruits, ye shall know them. A very parochial outlook. As if only the ultra-orthodox have access to God. And as if the ultra-orthodox are never mean-spirited. Edited January 11, 2016 by Gray 4
HappyJackWagon Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said: Just to clarify, it is one thing for a person to reject a revelation because he doesn’t believe it is from God, quite another for a person to reject it on the grounds of President Monson’s declining physical and mental abilities. Especially if that person would have been quite willing to overlook these disabilities, had the revelation been more to their liking. I don't follow your reasoning. I'll be very upfront. I don't believe this policy is a revelation from God. I believe there are instances of past prophets confusing their will and understanding with God's (Priesthood ban, Adam/God, Blood Atonement etc) If other prophets can misunderstand God's will or are "products of their time and culture" why would it be unreasonable to think that could be possible now as well. This is a revelation received by a prophet who may suffer from dementia. I'm not saying this is the case but IF the prophet has failing mental acuity why would that NOT be a consideration when determining whether or not I accept the revelation? IF President Monson truly is suffering from dementia I feel it would be irresponsible to accept his "revelation" and promulgate it throughout the world. 3
busybee Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Zakuska said: My CFR is that I know of no other Policy that has been claimed to have come by revelation. Even the Policy book says as much. That quote in no way indicates that what is contained IN the handbook wasn't received by revelation, it indicates that those who may be using the handbook will be able to receive revelation as they use it.. The fact that YOU know of no other policy has no meaning in my life. Edited January 11, 2016 by busybee
RevTestament Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 I eagerly await its inclusion into our D&C at the next General Conference. 15 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I tend to like things down in writing. It eliminates confusion. ??? Why does the Lord need to give "new" revelation on this? He revealed His will over 3000 years ago. Why is a confirming revelation to modern apostles not good enough? Deuteronomy 23:17 17 ¶There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Paul says basically the same thing. The Lord has always considered homosexuality against his design and revealed will, and calls it an abomination in the Mosaic Law and in the New Testament. Do homosexuals really expect Him to change his mind on this and make what He has called abominable now acceptable? Although homosexuals can feel the confirming spirit regarding the gospel and feel His love, such is not a confirmation that their lifestyle is OK, but is a call to live the truth of the gospel. To progress in the gospel homosexuals must repent, and renounce this intended lifestyle before God much like adulterers or fornicators must. While I realize there are homosexuals who believe in the God of scripture, they simply must give up their desire to live the lifestyle in order to progress in the gospel. I realize this can be a "hard pill" to swallow for those who have embraced the lifestyle. I realize our modern society presents many challenges and "hardships" in living a truly Christian life. This is one, that if a brain becomes wired this way, is extremely "hard" to overcome. I also understand that the children of such couples presents a different issue - there may be room for change here in the future. I would hope that if there are SSM couples with children interested in the Church, they would allow the children to attend, but from reactions to the SSM issue, I doubt this is presently a large issue. For those with such strong SSA that traditional marriage just doesn't seem plausible, celibacy is always an option which allows continued standing in the church. I remained celibate all through college until meeting my wife. I got married in my thirties. While I know virginity is largely mocked in our society, if I can remain a virgin until a late marriage, so can others. I believe some people still remain celibate their whole lives. I love my wife and family, and didn't want to be a bachelor. My belief is I would continue to be a virgin if I never married because of my strong belief in abstinence unless one is committed to a married relationship in which one is also committed to the offspring. The love between man and wife is analogous to the love between the Lord and His Church, the woman. Just because someone has felt SSA, doesn't mean there is not a partner planned for that person. If one believes the gospel plan of the Lord, one should also believe that the Lord has a plan for each of us, and that if we pursue SSA, we might miss the intended plan for us.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: I suppose you may be right if you don't count the thousands who resigned over the new policy. You mean the "thousands" (meaning a few hundred) of non-members, ex-Mormons, ex'ed-Mormons, apostates-on-their-way-out and serial resigners who showed up for a publicity stunt? 1
busybee Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 27 minutes ago, Jeanne said: And those of you who will hang on will always find the proverbial straw. I guess you can call a witness from the Spirit and uncountable spiritual experiences that I have experienced proverbial straws if you wish to. To me they are far more.
Zakuska Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, RevTestament said: ??? Why does the Lord need to give "new" revelation on this? He revealed His will over 3000 years ago. Why is a confirming revelation to modern apostles not good enough? Deuteronomy 23:17 17 ¶There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. As far as its translated correcly... H6945 קָדֵשׁ qadesh (kaw-dashe') n-m. 1. a person set apart to idolatry (foreign gods). 2. (thus) "holy" only unto that idolatrous cult, but unholy to Yahweh. 3. (technically) a male shrine prostitute devoted to sexual idolatry. Basically there shall be no "prostitutes" among you (ie... those who give sex for money.) Says nothing about consentual loving sexually relations. Between those of opposite sex or same sex. Exspecially if they are legally married under the law. Edited January 11, 2016 by Zakuska 1
busybee Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, busybee said: Edited January 11, 2016 by busybee duplicate
Russell C McGregor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 4 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm looking for a reasoned, respectful, good-faith discussion of this topic. So you will understand why I will decline to respond to [the substance of] your post. Thanks, -Smac What substance? 1
Jeanne Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, busybee said: I guess you can call a witness from the Spirit and uncountable spiritual experiences that I have experienced proverbial straws if you wish to. To me they are far more. I am sure they mean much to you. This does not discount my own spiritual experiences. They are just as valid to me.
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 5 hours ago, Jeanne said: Why wasn't the policy declared a revelation to begin with? Why wasn't any of this mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon when God knew the future of His people? Because believe it or not it was not Mormon's job to declare policy changes over a Millenium in advance. 1
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: I think the hue-and-cry over this new policy suggests it is affecting more than "a very small minority of church members." If there is a loud noise in the midst of a crowd it does not mean most of the crowd make the noise. For some reasons apostates scream loud. I think it has to do with not getting enough attention as a child. 2
consiglieri Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If there is a loud noise in the midst of a crowd it does not mean most of the crowd make the noise. For some reasons apostates scream loud. I think it has to do with not getting enough attention as a child. Or with getting stabbed in the back. Over and over again.
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 5 hours ago, Zakuska said: I noticed that too. The whole process outlined in the D&C has been circumvented. Where was the complaint when we changed the missionary age? Or is it only necessary when people want to grandstand? It would have been the same as the last sustaining if they do. They would have been told to talk to their Stake President or Bishop. 1
Jeanne Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Because believe it or not it was not Mormon's job to declare policy changes over a Millenium in advance. And perhaps it is not Monson's job either,
Recommended Posts