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

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

These men spent some substantial time with the risen Savior, but did not recognize Him.  Once he disappeared, the most emphatic point of the experience, the one that made that they immediately spoke of upon recognizing who He was, was "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"  It was the burning heart (elsewhere described as a "still small voice") that was what these men immediately recollected.  

Quote

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".

Yes.  The "whisperings of the Spirit" is, in the LDS paradigm, an accepted form of revelation.  Joseph chose to marry Mary because of a dream, and later to flee into Egypt because of a dream.  In contrast, Laman and Lemuel were visited by an angel and given instructions, but reverted to complaining about their situations as soon as he left.

I think a dream is just as legitimate a means of God giving revelation as a whisper of the Spirit.  And also just as legitimate as an angel, or a vision of Christ himself.  I am not persuaded that it is for us to pick and choose the manner by which the Lord communicates.  I don't think we can say that "I'm not going to obey God until and unless an angel descends from heaven and gives me something in writing and signed by God himself.  Then I'll . . . consider it."  

God's children in the Latter Days are, in the main, not going to receive revelatory confirmation of that book through an angelic visitation.  Rather, the Lord has characterized the process this way: "For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him power, that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground; and their speech shall whisper out of the dust."  (2 Nephi 26:16)

"Whisperings."  "Did not our heart burn within us?"  "And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice."  "But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right."  "Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest."  

There are times for grand and glorious visions.  And times for a voice from heaven.  And times for the "still small voice."  The Lord will manifest His will to us in His own way.  I will not dismiss such communications because of some sort of ad hoc objection to what is being communicated.  

Quote

 No, what passes for revelation these days is not actually revelation. 

Yes, it is.

Quote

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. 

Says someone I don't know.  Online.  Speaking from behind a pseudonym.

So I can listen to that, or I can listen to the public statements of the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

I'll leave you to guess which voice I find more persuasive.

Quote

If God directly tells Pres. Monson something and Pres. Monson tells us the Lord communicated it to him, that is revelation.

Elder Nelson said: "Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation," he said. "It was our privilege as apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson."

The unadulterated because-I-say-so declaration of an self-selected anonymous online poster who is presuming to set himself up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to the Lord's anointed is just never going to be as persuasive as the public declaration of the President of the Quorum of the Twelve speaking in that capacity and in a formal setting.

Quote

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.

First, who are you quoting when you put the phrase "feels good" in quotes?

Second, Elder Nelson characterized the event this way: 

Quote

 

“The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord had directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. Then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will,” Nelson said.

“This prophetic process was followed in 2012, in the change with minimum age in missionaries, and again with the recent addition to the Church’s handbook, consequence to legalization of same-sex marriages in some countries.

“Filled with compassion for all, and especially the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter, ever mindful of God’s plan for eternal life for each of his children.

“We considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the Temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

“And then, when the Lord inspired his prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord, and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege, as apostles, to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson, revelation from the Lord to his servants. It was a sacred process.”

 

The Brethren discussed this issue at length.

The Brethren met repeatedly in the Temple "in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration."

President Monson then "declare[d] the mind of the Lord, and the will of the Lord."

The Brethren, functioning as a quorum, each felt "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation."

The Brethren then "sustain[ed] what had been revealed to President Monson."

President Nelson, speaking in his official capacity and in a formal setting, described "what had been revealed to President Monson" as "revelation from the Lord to his servants."

The foregoing events were described by Elder Nelson as "a sacred process."

So should we listen to Elder Nelson, or to the contentions of some self-selected anonymous usurper?

For me, the answer to that question is rather self-evident.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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!

That is a fair point. For some, it would seem they are not as much concerned with the well-being of children as they are with the "rights" of parents of those children.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Brethren met repeatedly in the Temple "in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration."
------->
President Monson then "declare[d] the mind of the Lord, and the will of the Lord."

The Brethren, functioning as a quorum, each felt "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation."

 

 

You don't see the missing step here do you?  I put an arrow to show where it should go.

[smac97]

Quote

You don't see the missing step here do you?  I put an arrow to show where it should go.

I'm not sure Elder Nelson intending (or is obligated) to provide a minute-by-minute account of the process.

So what do you think is missing?  Don't be coy.  Just spit it out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure Elder Nelson intending (or is obligated) to provide a minute-by-minute account of the process.

So what do you think is missing?  Don't be coy.  Just spit it out.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not being coy.

The question I am asking is HOW President Monson received " the mind of the Lord, and the will of the Lord."  What method did God use to direct his prophet?

Step 1 shows the GA's asking.
Step 2 shows Pres. Monson declaring God's answer.

Somewhere in between 1 & 2 God had to communicate in some manner or method with President Monson.  And as you so clearly pointed out, God can communicate in many ways - spoken word, visitation, dreams, visions, and even feelings.  But I stand by my belief that of all the methods of revelation in all of the gospel, feelings are the most subject to interference from the receiver.  And feelings seem to be all we get these days. 

If God SPOKE to President Monson as he spoke to earlier prophets (which is always my hope) I would like to know exactly what was said.  If President Monson asked about "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios" and just felt like a specific course was right, I believe it could be from God and he could be inspired, but more personal interpretation of feelings as God's will could easily have happened.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The question I am asking is HOW President Monson received " the mind of the Lord, and the will of the Lord."  What method did God use to direct his prophet?

You will probably never be told.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You will probably never be told.

Oh believe me, I have.

And yet I stay the course, in hope that one day we will see the veil part as it did in scripture and Church History.

Edited January 12, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh believe me, I have.

And yet I stay the course, ...

You seem to be drifting afield here.

[smac97]

.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh believe me, I have.

And yet I stay the course, in hope that one day we will see the veil part as it did in scripture and Church History.

As you like.  Now let's stop talking about individuals in this thread and get back on topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

.

A single period. A rather enigmatic message. Is it to be interpreted as "I don't want to keep this back-and-forth going all night"?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A single period. A rather enigmatic message. Is it to be interpreted as "I don't want to keep this back-and-forth going all night"?

It is to be interpreted this way: The new format of the board sometimes messes up the "Quote" feature in that it sticks in a quote from a post which I have already quoted and responded to, and the only way to get rid of it is to re-publish it.  So I delete all the text and replace it with a ".".

Not very enigmatic, I'm afraid.  

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is to be interpreted this way: The new format of the board sometimes messes up the "Quote" feature in that it sticks in a quote from a post which I have already quoted and responded to, and the only way to get rid of it is to re-publish it.  So I delete all the text and replace it with a ".".

Not very enigmatic, I'm afraid.  

-Smac

I've had that happen to me as well. Now I know how to remedy it (I think).

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  Now let's stop talking about individuals in this thread and get back on topic.

Agreed.  When you and Scott finish discussing board glitches feel free to respond to my post on the nature of the revelation being claimed in the topic of this thread. 
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66782-lds-apostle-policy-on-same-sex-couples-was-revelation-from-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209578297

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not being coy.

The question I am asking is HOW President Monson received " the mind of the Lord, and the will of the Lord."  What method did God use to direct his prophet?

Step 1 shows the GA's asking.
Step 2 shows Pres. Monson declaring God's answer.Somewhere in between 1 & 2 God had to communicate in some manner or method with President Monson. 

Yep.  And I'm content with not knowing the particulars.  I would not find a "voice" any more or less legitimate than "the still small voice," particularly when we are speaking of that experience being independently confirmed by an entire quorum of highly experienced, very spiritual men, who have prepared themselves through study, discussion, fasting, prayer, temple attendance, and so on.

Quote

And as you so clearly pointed out, God can communicate in many ways - spoken word, visitation, dreams, visions, and even feelings.  But I stand by my belief that of all the methods of revelation in all of the gospel, feelings are the most subject to interference from the receiver.  And feelings seem to be all we get these days. 

How do you account, then, for the entirety of the Quorum of the Twelve receiving their own spiritual confirmations of what President Monson had communicated to them?  What do you make of that part of Elder Nelson's description?  Are they all collectively deluded?  Has President Monson beaten them into submission?  Are they the Stepford Twelve?  Are they so weak-willed, so devoid of character and integrity that they reflexively sustain anything coming out of President Monson's mouth?  What are you saying here?

Quote

If God SPOKE to President Monson as he spoke to earlier prophets (which is always my hope) I would like to know exactly what was said.

What if communicating "exactly what was said" was not part of the equation?  Isn't it rather presumptuous for us to demand such things of the Lord's anointed?

I'd be happy with more information, I suppose.  But I think the Brethren are willing to share quite a bit.  I'm willing to trust them to share what they feel is appropriate.  As it stands, I think the Brethren may be quite justified in reserving the more sacred aspects of President Monson's experience.  We have people on this very board who I think are eager to pounce on, parse out, and find fault with anything and everything coming from the Brethren.  Surely there is a balance to be struck between conveying the will of the Lord to the Saints and not casting . . . well, you know.

Quote

If President Monson asked about "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios" and just felt like a specific course was right, I believe it could be from God and he could be inspired, but more personal interpretation of feelings as God's will could easily have happened.

If this is so, then how do you account for twelve other men receiving their own spiritual confirmations about what happened?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 12, 2016 by smac97

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Zakuska said:

According to the laws of the Land Gay couples are Legally and Lawefully Married.

For it to be "in the Temple" as you pretended it would need to say... "Legally and Lawefully Sealed".

Or are you under the false impresion that we perform "seculare weddings" in our temples?

Zak---All I can say is I wish I can be present when you stand before the Lord and you try to lawyer your way through your judgement.  "Now the law did not technically say this Jesus.  And you did not use this exact word.  Don't be mad or blame or judge me because you were not perfectly clear to my standards Lord"  Come on Zakuska.  You know in your gut what the law of Chastity is about and though you may try to find a technically on a message board, when you stand before the Lord and you look right into his eyes you will not be trying to play games with the revealed laws of God.  None of us can.  We know when we stand before God, we will have to be completely honest with ourselves because there is nothing to hide from Him and he knows our thoughts and heart.  And he knows when we are lying to ourselves or deceiving ourselves.  You may not be guilty of breaking the law of chastity personally but this kind of playing games with the commandments and revelations by looking for technical things to exempt one from the laws can be very dangerous.  Be careful

Edited January 12, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  And I'm content with not knowing the particulars.  I would not find a "voice" any more or less legitimate than "the still small voice," particularly when we are speaking of that experience being independently confirmed by an entire quorum of highly experienced, very spiritual men, who have prepared themselves through study, discussion, fasting, prayer, temple attendance, and so on.

How do you account, then, for the entirety of the Quorum of the Twelve receiving their own spiritual confirmations of what President Monson had communicated to them?  What do you make of that part of Elder Nelson's description?  Are they all collectively deluded?  Has President Monson beaten them into submission?  Are they the Stepford Twelve?  Are they so weak-willed, so devoid of character and integrity that they reflexively sustain anything coming out of President Monson's mouth?  What are you saying here?

What if communicating "exactly what was said" was not part of the equation?  Isn't it rather presumptuous for us to demand such things of the Lord's anointed?

I'd be happy with more information, I suppose.  But I think the Brethren are willing to share quite a bit.  I'm willing to trust them to share what they feel is appropriate.

If this is so, then how do you account for twelve other men receiving their own spiritual confirmations about what happened?

Thanks,

-Smac

In this regard, something taught by Elder Dallin H. Oaks has application. He has spoken and written of the Lord's bestowing revelation in His own time and in His own way.

Here's an excerpt I really like:

 

Quote

 

First, we should recognize that the Lord will speak to us through the Spirit in His own time and in His own way. Many people do not understand this principle. They believe that when they are ready and when it suits their convenience, they can call upon the Lord and He will immediately respond, even in the precise way they have prescribed. Revelation does not come that way. ...

 

About 35 years ago, when I was president of Brigham Young University, we were making plans to persuade the president of the United States to speak at the university. We had particular times that would suit our convenience, and we had in mind some things we wanted him to say and do while he was there. But all of us were wise enough to know that we could not contact the highest authority in the United States and invite him to come to the BYU campus—even to speak to 26,000 people—and put conditions on his appearance.

We knew that in inviting the president, we had to say in effect, “We will welcome you whenever you can come and for whatever time you choose to be here and for whatever you choose to say and do while you are here. We will accommodate our schedules and our arrangements entirely to your visit.”

Now, if that’s the way a community of 26,000 people must approach the highest authority of a nation, it should not be surprising that one person—however important—is in no position to put conditions upon or to impose personal timing upon a visit or communication from the Highest Authority in the universe.

Indeed, this is the principle the Lord revealed to His children in the great revelation printed in the 88th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Lord said, “Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (verse 63).

Next, the Lord declared that if our eye is single to His glory, our whole body will be filled with light and we will be able to comprehend all things. Then, His instruction continued with this great promise: “Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will” (verse 68; emphasis added).

The principle stated in that revelation applies to every communication from our Heavenly Father. We cannot force spiritual things.

In most cases, “his own way” is not the thunderous interruption or the blinding light but what the scriptures call the “still small voice” (1 Kings 19:12; 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 85:6). Some have misunderstood this principle. As a result, some have looked exclusively for the great manifestations recorded in the scriptures and have failed to recognize the “still small voice” that is given to them. This is like making up our minds that we will learn only from a teacher who shouts and that we will refuse to listen to even the wisest teaching that comes in a whisper.

We need to know that the Lord rarely speaks loudly. His messages almost always come in a whisper.

 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 We have people on this very board who I think are eager to pounce on, parse out, and find fault with anything and everything coming from the Brethren.  Surely there is a balance to be struck between conveying the will of the Lord to the Saints and not casting . . . well, you know.

Now this I agree with.

[Hamba Tuhan]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've had that happen to me as well. Now I know how to remedy it (I think).

I've had success with selecting everything by pressing Ctrl+A and then deleting it.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's simply than that.  I will not entrust people who regularly demonstrate contempt, ridicule, and hatred for things I hold sacred with such such personal and sensitive information.

Had you a proclivity toward showing some measure of respect for things sacred to me and mine, my position might have been different.  As it is, however . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

What have I done to not show respect?  Disagreed with you?

I'm an active, faithful, believing and serving member of the same church as you.  Doesn't that show some degree of respect for what is sacred to you?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've had success with selecting everything by pressing Ctrl+A and then deleting it.

Yes, that's worked for me too.  But then I am unable to use the "quote" feature.  That is, I delete the content of Post A, then I click on the "Quote" button below Post B, only to have nothing happen.  If I reload the page and click on the "Quote" button below Post B, the content from Post A comes up, and continues to come up until I publish the quote and then re-start with Post B.

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

.

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What have I done to not show respect?  Disagreed with you?

I'm an active, faithful, believing and serving member of the same church as you.  Doesn't that show some degree of respect for what is sacred to you?

We've already spent too much time talking about individuals.  I'm not inclined to share with you much in the way of my personal views on things which are deeply personal and sacred to me.  Let's leave it at that and move on.

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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).

I apparently missed a reply from you... I don't know how to keep up with this thread and don't know how to tell the new software to notify me when (and only when) someone has replied to (quoted) me.

With all due respect, you have no idea what acting wisely or unwisely looks like for me.  And to suggest that I haven't been humble or softened my heart after what I've gone through over the last decade is offensive.

I wonder how some here would feel if they were in my shoes (not that my shoes are unique but clearly I'm in the minority).  I spent over eight hours faithfully serving in my calling on Sunday.  Renewed two recommends, interviewed on youth, extended a calling, set apart six people.  All wonderfully spiritual and uplifting experiences.  I'm not trying to toot my own horn, just explaining that I was feeling quite edified by the Spirit and while cleaning up dinner talked to my wife about something (unrelated to this) that I felt prompted to pray about this week, asking her to join me in prayer, before taking it to the Bishop to counsel with him.

Then after putting my kids to bed, I had my heart ripped out while listening to President Nelson and his wife (who's damaging message has been overshadowed).  I have no control over what direction the Spirit has given me to live by.  And it hasn't been easy, it's required a lot of humility.  Sometimes, apparently, more than I can muster.

I'm going to try to reduce my involvement in this thread.  Far too many messages for me to keep up. If you reply and want a response from me, please consider sending me a PM.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You still proclaim yourself as "active, faithful, believing and serving" when you have announced your intention to discard your membership over what is essentially a political disagreement?

That does not compute.

Let's not do such computations.  I don't want this thread to be about the personal life and decisions of RockPond.  Let's discuss the subject at hand.

Still love ya, Scott!

-Smac