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

[Calm]

It seems to me that one of the primary reasons God has tied the ordinances to only being performed by those of proper authority for the covenant to be in place is to ensure the individual being baptised has the opportunity to learn the true teachings of the Gospel, both its doctrines and practices (not saying all are part of that truth, but focusing on what needs to be known well enough through word and deed to covenant by choice).  Desire is not sufficient even in the Spirit World, knowledge must be present as well even though it appears that many are waiting for thousands and thousands of years to have the same opportunity that some of us get after 8.  Surely by now, knowledge and desire are aligned for the long dead, but they still wait on authority.  Is God less merciful than those demanding children be allowed to be baptized in any situation if parents agree?  Yet he has said not yet to many more individuals in a highly supportive environment because the conditions he requires are not fully met.

This sufficient understanding does not even always happen within the structure of the Church, but it is more likely to imo.  Acknowledging that others' behaviour can interfere with sufficient access for a variety of reasons and not just whether permission is granted or not seems like an obvious given, but perhaps it is more disagreement over what types of behaviour and environments actually interfere sufficiently enough, delay is necessary and beneficial as opposed to burdensome.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Calm

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is much more involved in the obligations of teaching than just convincing a child they need baptism.

I am curious, Zak.  In the case of a child or spouse desiring baptism, but a parent or spouse refuses to give their acceptance/permission for the ordinance, do you still hold the Church in part responsible?  Fully?  Not at all?

And do Zak and Consig likewise object to the Church's added conditions placed on children from polygamous families?

I suspect . . . not.

And that inconsistency is . . . telling.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zakuska]

8 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Since the Church's definition of Chastity was settled long before same sex "marriage" even started to be a lunatic fringe fantasy, the claim that the brethren are trying to "elimnate" [sic] homosexual "spouses" is glaringly counterfactual.

Homosexual "spouses" were never included in order to be eliminated.

Do you really not understand something so elementary?

 

For the church to disambiguate the situation and keep its spying eyes inside the bedrooms of its parishioners is quite simple...

Law of chastity... "No sexuall relations before sealing, No sexuall relations with some one you are not sealed to".

Problem solved.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Zakuska

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, Zakuska said:

So you disagree with the Lord then...

Romans 9

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 

God raised Pharoah to reveal his name to the nations.

Yes, by demonstrating that Pharaoh's opposition to the Lord was doomed to failure.

If we apply the Zakuska argument to the situation in the time of Moses, we'd be arguing that Moses was uninspired because he was leading the Israelites to rebel against Pharaoh, the Lord's chosen mouthpiece.

But everyone less idiotic than that knows that Moses spoke for the Lord, and Pharaoh's power was thrown down.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, Zakuska said:

For the church to disambiguate the situation keep its spying eyes inside the bedrooms of its parishioners is quite simple...

Law of chastity... "No sexuall relations before sealing, No sexuall relations with some one you are not sealed to".

Problem solved.

There is no problem that needs to be solved.

Your "spying eyes" remark is offensive and disgusting.

Not to mention off-topic. But in character.

Nobody with two clues to rub together imagines that homosexual behaviour ever was or ever will be acceptable to the Lord.

The idea is an apostate falsehood.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Zakuska said:

CFR.

The law of chastity says exactly nothing about same sex relations.

Your CFR is in bad faith, but I'll play along anyway.

Gospel Principles, Chapter 39 ("The Law of Chastity"): 

Quote

Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin. Latter-day prophets have spoken about the dangers of homosexual behavior and about the Church’s concern for people who may have such inclinations. President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 91; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

There are dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of further examples of prophets and apostles characterizing same-sex conduct as violating The Law of Chastity.  There is no good faith argument to suggest otherwise.  Zilch.  Zip.  Nada.

The phrase "law of chastity" does not appear in the Standard Works.  The phrase apparently originates with modern prophets and apostles, and is used to generally refer to "sexual purity of men and women" and to summarize God's commandments in relation thereto.  It's rather odd, then, to see Zak deign to permit prophets and apostles, past and present, to originate a phrase, but then ignore them when they define it.

Hence the bad faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 12, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So true. Joseph Smith saw his brother Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom and he never got baptized in his earthly life.

He also saw his father who at that point never had died in his earthly life.

[Zakuska]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems to me that one of the primary reasons God has tied the ordinances to only being performed by those of proper authority for the covenant to be in place is to ensure the individual being baptised has the opportunity to learn the true teachings of the Gospel, both its doctrines and practices (not saying all are part of that truth, but focusing on what needs to be known well enough through word and deed to covenant by choice).  Desire is not sufficient even in the Spirit World, knowledge must be present as well even though it appears that many are waiting for thousands and thousands of years to have the same opportunity that some of us get after 8.  Surely by now, knowledge and desire are aligned for the long dead, but they still wait on authority.  Is God less merciful than those demanding children be allowed to be baptized in any situation if parents agree?  Yet he has said not yet to many more individuals in a highly supportive environment because the conditions he requires are not fully met.

This sufficient understanding does not even always happen within the structure of the Church, but it is more likely to imo.  Acknowledging that others' behaviour can interfere with sufficient access for a variety of reasons and not just whether permission is granted or not seems like an obvious given, but perhaps it is more disagreement over what types of behaviour and environments actually interfere sufficiently enough, delay is necessary and beneficial as opposed to burdensome.

There are thousands who were baptized and brought into the church who come from far... less than Ideal back stories.

More verses which call secular Officials "God's servants".

God refers to the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon as "my servant" (Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10).
"For the one in authority is God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:1-7 esp. 4).

 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Zakuska

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

For the church to disambiguate the situation and keep its spying eyes inside the bedrooms of its parishioners is quite simple...

Law of chastity... "No sexuall relations before sealing, No sexuall relations with some one you are not sealed to".

Problem solved.

Not really.  Heterosexual couples who are married but not sealed are allowed to engage in sexual activity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

I would say that's the spouse withholding permission that would be held accountable.  

Why do you think it is okay for the Church to allow the spouse to have such power over whether or not someone gets baptized?

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

So you disagree with the Lord then...

Romans 9

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 

God raised Pharoah to proclaim his Might and Name to the nations.

You are reaching

If even if there were a Pharaoh still ruling Egypt ( I don't believe a Pharaoh was ruling Egypt in Paul's time)

 

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

For the church to disambiguate the situation and keep its spying eyes inside the bedrooms of its parishioners is quite simple...

 

You can solve the problem by wearing a tinfoil hat to bed.

Just make sure you have tinfoil covering all the windows as well.

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Yes, by demonstrating that Pharaoh's opposition to the Lord was doomed to failure.

If we apply the Zakuska argument to the situation in the time of Moses, we'd be arguing that Moses was uninspired because he was leading the Israelites to rebel against Pharaoh, the Lord's chosen mouthpiece.

But everyone less idiotic than that knows that Moses spoke for the Lord, and Pharaoh's power was thrown down.

 

Here's another one:

Quote

 

 10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

 11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

 

By Zak's reckoning, because God allowed the wicked to burn alive innocent women and children, He was endorsing it (much like allowing the Pharoah to do X amounted to the Lord endorsing X).

-Smac

Edit to Add: I should note that I have friends and acquaintances who are faithful Latter-day Saints, but who are struggling, to varying degrees, with this issue.  I have counseled with some of them at some length about this issue.  But I have a hard time boarding the the Zak-and-Consig-and-Rockpond Hissyfit Express.  They don't like what Elder Nelson said?  No surprise there!  In fact, given their longstanding and constantly-expressed contempt for and ridicule of the Church and its leaders and doctrines, I would have been surprised - very surprised - if they had expressed agreement with it.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Zakuska said:

My CFR is that I know of no other Policy that has been claimed to have come by revelation.

Many sections of the D&C concerning Church operations are pure policy, not eternal doctrines.

[Sleeper Cell]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I didn't say anything about Pres. Monson's capacity.

You are correct.  My “clarification” referred to my response to consig’s page 10 post (which did).  Our conversation developed from my response.  Sorry I wasn’t more clear.  

[Avatar4321]

it seems to me that alot of the problem is people are unwilling to wait on the Lord. This is an eternal principle of the gospel. We are to wait on the Lord's timing in all things.

sometimes what we wait on the Lord for is baptism or another ordinance. Sometimes it's a testimony. I'm currently waiting on the Lord for a number of things including healing my wife's back and the state bar to approve my license.

sometimes we need to wait longer for the Lord for one thing than another. But we all need to wait for something. It is after our faith is tried and we submit to the Lords timing that the promised blessings come. We just cannot let our pride get in the way.

[Avatar4321]

it seems to me that alot of the problem is people are unwilling to wait on the Lord. This is an eternal principle of the gospel. We are to wait on the Lord's timing in all things.

sometimes what we wait on the Lord for is baptism or another ordinance. Sometimes it's a testimony. I'm currently waiting on the Lord for a number of things including healing my wife's back and the state bar to approve my license.

sometimes we need to wait longer for the Lord for one thing than another. But we all need to wait for something. It is after our faith is tried and we submit to the Lords timing that the promised blessings come. We just cannot let our pride get in the way.

[Sleeper Cell]

44 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

For the church to disambiguate the situation and keep its spying eyes inside the bedrooms of its parishioners is quite simple...

Zak, I am forced to agree with Russell.  This remark is offensive and disgusting.  Unlike him, I do not believe this is “in character.”  Your posts over the years have generally been thoughtful and reasonable. In short, you are better than this. 

[JLHPROF]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

It passed for revelation in the old days, too:

13 ¶And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.

15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him....

28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Do you likewise discount this experience?  Or are such types of revelatory experiences to be waived away only when the prophet receiving them is in his own country, among his own kin, and in his own house?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So Christ sat with them, performed ordinances with them, taught them the scriptures, spoke with them.  And this revelation made their hearts burn within them.

And you consider this the same level of revelation as when nobody appears, nobody speaks, nobody teaches, nobody visits, but someone still "feels something is right".  No, what passes for revelation these days is not actually revelation.  It may be called inspiration, or inspired confirmation, but it is not the word of the Lord unless the Lord is speaking or the Lord's mouthpiece is passing on what the Lord spoke to them. 

If God directly tells Pres. Monson something and Pres. Monson tells us the Lord communicated it to him, that is revelation.
If Pres. Monson "feels good" about a decision and his apostles agree, that is at best inspiration, and that's assuming that the Lord had anything to do with that feeling in the first place.

20 hours ago, Rain said:

When he spoke I understood him to say they each received confirmation in whatever way of President Monson's "revelation".

They did.
It was the nature of President Monson's revelation that didn't seem any more literal than their feelings of confirmation.  It may well have been the word and will of the Lord, but I question the term "revelation" when only feelings are concerned.  The word of the Lord is when the Lord speaks or speaks through his prophet.  Inspiration is when the prophet "feels" he knows what the Lord wants and tells us in his own words.  One requires a bit more faith than the other.

 

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

There are thousands who were baptized and brought into the church who come from far... less than Ideal back stories.

 

And probably billions who are not, who are in what appears to most people as the perfect place to accept the gospel, repent and be baptized...yet they apparently are waiting thousands of years instead of God making accomodations for them to get ordinances done as soon as they have the opportunity to learn.

Allowing God to set the standard of when it is appropriate seems wise since he is the one who best understands the what, how, why and when of His ordinances.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, omni said:

I apologize if Rockpond has already responded to you, but what makes you think he hasn't done some heavy duty introspection?  Rockpond does not strike me as someone who is rash or impulsive and clearly this issue (homosexuality within the church) has troubled him for some time.  

While I don't know Rockpond personally, I have no doubt this is something he's spent a great deal of time pondering and praying about.  Whatever direction he decides to go, I wish him the best.

 

It is possible, I suppose, to do a lot of pondering and praying and still act unwisely. Humbling oneself, softening one's heart, has to enter into the equation. He is probably not apt to take such advice from the likes of me, but there are times when one must bracket the individual giving the advice and weigh the advice itself on its own merit.

But it is rockpond's trial, and he must make the choices. I, too, wish him the best (though you and I might differ as to what "the best" would look like).

Edited January 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The problem is that you have not been authorized to receive revelation for the Church. I do not see the church "finally coming around."  I foresee that the church membership will become more and more polarized as other issues arise where the Brethren stand firm against the ways of the world as more and more people are deceived by the adversary into believing that the ways of the world are right and the church, i.e. the General Authorities, just is not changing properly and going with the tidal flow.

 

At some point, you will have to either stand with the Brethren, or decide on an exit strategy, much as rockpond has declared.

 

Glenn

See stem....your own spiritual confirmations are invalid if they don't line up with the leadership or those who agree with them.  Your answer is the flawed one.

[Teancum]

Can one apostle declared something a revelation for the church?

i don't think think so.   President Packer did this about the Proclamation on the Family and it was edited out.

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Lets suppose that a gay parent follows their obligations per the D&C and teaches their child they need to be baptized at age 8 but the church doesn't let them. If that child dies between the age of 8 and 18 who's fault is it that that child did not get baptized even though they where taught and wanted to?  

That would be the churches fault and the Lord will hold the leaders accountable for that.

I'm sure glad I'm not in their position.

 

 

Well, most people are probably nice enough not to say this but since you are trying to pin the blame on the church I will gladly say that it is the fault of the parent and the child will be held blameless.

[The Nehor]

People seem to be making a huge deal about how damning denying saving ordinances are due to circumstances. Would they also be shocked to know that parents can refuse permission for their children to be baptized? And the church goes along with it. How monstrous. Surely we must repeal this foul policy and no longer require parental permission. Anything that would delay a saving ordinance must be abolished!