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

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I just finished listening.  Not feeling any spiritual confirmation on this one.  Just darkness.  So, yes, a "bridge too far".

Enjoy your church folks.  I'm gonna have to figure out a graceful exit for me and my family.

I'm sorry to hear that.  I just finished up a meeting with my family in which we discussed this issue at some length.  I read to my children the article linked to in the OP.  I then explained the context (the recent changes in the CHI).  We then talked about it a bit, including the Law of Chastity, the revelatory nature of the leadership of the Church, the rapidly changing social mores, the profound importance of loving people with same-sex attraction who identify as homosexual / gay / lesbian, etc., the importance of treating such people with kindness and respect, the importance of valuing them as fellow children of Heavenly Father, and yet still adhering to the teachings of ancient and modern prophets and apostles and resisting the temptation to go along with what the world is saying (demanding?) we should do.

It was a very nice meeting.  My children expressed their thoughts and asked several questions.  More to the point, the Spirit was there.  As we discussed this issue, as we discussed Elder Nelson's remarks and the Church's position on the Law of Chastity as it relates to same-sex conduct, the Spirit was there.

I wish you and your family the best, and I hope at some point you reconsider and return to fellowship in the Church.

Sincerely,

-Smac

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Interesting that the revealed "mind and will of God" was so confusing.  I thought God was not the author of confusion.  Also interesting that the prophets, seers, and revelators didn't feel a need to share such a revelation with the general membership of the church until they were publicly outed by an "apostate".

Wonder how they'll recover from this one.

It wasn't confusing at all to me and most members. There's nothing to recover from. The policy was expected to affect a very small minority of the church members, so there was no need to announce it to the world. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I just finished listening.  Not feeling any spiritual confirmation on this one.  Just darkness.  So, yes, a "bridge too far".

Enjoy your church folks.  I'm gonna have to figure out a graceful exit for me and my family.

 

 

Not even going to give it any time?  Surprises me that this is your response even though I know you have been thinking and likely praying about it for since it occurred.  Saddens me too.  I hope you will reconsider and at least spend a few days more in contemplation about it.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

... the profound importance of loving people with same-sex attraction who identify as homosexual / gay / lesbian, etc., the importance of treating such people with kindness and respect, the importance of valuing them as fellow children of Heavenly Father,..

Sorry, I can't reconcile what you've written above with the current policy direction of the Church.  If God wants me to turn off my brain and spirit on this one, He'll have to let me know.

The Church is losing its way.  I've tried to stay as long as I can.  I'm not sure how to weather this one.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Interestingly enough, just yesterday the Trib posted the following article:

Well, the Church has provided some measure of "specifics" now.

I wonder if this may end up being a "bridge too far" (or a "last straw" - pick your metaphor) for some members of the Church (such as those who has supposed/hoped that the change in the CHI was merely a procedural change rather than a revelatory/doctrinal development).

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Just to be clear. There is nothing that says this was doctrine, just that the CHI change was received by revelation.  When I listened to it he shared first about how the change in missionary age was by revelation as well. What I get from what he said was this was a policy change (NOT said as such, but in context it seems like that is what he was saying) received by revelation after weighing a multitude of potential scenerios.

That in no way makes it lesser in my eyes. Just that at this point we shouldn't call it doctrine without more information, but from what I have learned from Elder Bednar about what doctrine is, the changes in the CHI don't fit the definition. These wouldn't be principles either, but perhaps aplications.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Rain

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I remember Milgrom's article well, thinking that, well, any sin can be explained away.  But I missed the replies. 

Actually, Bob, Milgrom (zikrono lebraka) made a conclusive case for the prohibition of homosexual conduct among Israelites (Jews), and that is the Orthodox law.  However, Milgrom also made the case that the gentiles may do whatever they like -- no prohibition for them.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I tend to like things down in writing. It eliminates confusion.

Im just satisfied when the Lord speaks. And the Spirit made it obvious this policy was a direction from the Lord after it was introduced. Probably why the faithful members knew exactly what it was meant to do while others were struggling to interpret it in the worst possible way

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sorry, I can't reconcile what you've written above with the current policy direction of the Church.  If God wants me to turn off my brain and spirit on this one, He'll have to let me know.

The Church is losing its way.  I've tried to stay as long as I can.  I'm not sure how to weather this one.

I can reconcile these things.  I recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about such things, but I reject the characterization that God wants us to turn off our brains and Spirit on this issue.  

I don't think the Church is losing its way.  I think the Church is continuing in the way it has always been going, that the World is straying ever further from that path.

Again, I wish you and your family the best.  I hope you have a change of heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, smac97 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."

What passes for revelation these days...

Quote

President Monson received the instructions regarding the decision directly from God. 

However if this is true, I'd love to know what God said to his prophet.

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I eagerly await its inclusion into our D&C at the next General Conference.

Edited January 11, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Rain]

That was a beautiful talk. Too bad most of it will be forgotten or never listened too because of a small part of it will be the focus.

Rockpond - I'm really sad to see you go as well. As he talked about the process I felt more enlightened about the necessity of the change. I felt of their great love for those who this affects. It brought great peace to me.  I had hoped for you and others to feel this way as well.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not even going to give it any time?  Surprises me that this is your response even though I know you have been thinking and likely praying about it for since it occurred.  Saddens me too.  I hope you will reconsider and at least spend a few days more in contemplation about it.

Calm,

I knew the Church had lost its way when the Nov 13 letter came out.  But I love my ward, I love the amazing spirit I feel there on Sundays.  I love my bishop and serving with him.  I love the great experiences I have in church, with the gospel, in my calling.  The great spirit that is there in when I'm doing temple recommend renewals.  I could go on and on.

It hurts, literally, to give that up.  But it also hurts to stay.  I was hopeful that we'd distance ourselves from this policy in the coming months but with this, it seems that we won't or can't.

What am I supposed to do?  I can't be a party to this.  Can't raise my kids letting them think I'm okay with this.  Can't tell my friends and neighbors that I support this as a Mormon.  I have a hard time sitting on that stand every week thinking that ward members may assume I am on board with this atrocity.

Not sure how much further the church can move away from the gospel principles that are profoundly important to me and still have me as a member.  And yet, today was an incredibly uplifting, spiritual day at church.

I welcome advice.

[salgare]

At least with the lowering of missionary age "revelation" was announced publicly over the pulpit of GC.  I think they have just wanted long enough to let things settle down a bit and are now trying to replace in our memories how this was revealed through private channels and not intended for the ears of the general membership.

I'd question how often God gives instruction/revelation to/for THE CHURCH which is held and handled in private channels.

 

 

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

However if this is true, I'd love to know what God said to his prophet.

We don't get that kind of information anymore.

[Hamba Tuhan]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Also interesting that the prophets, seers, and revelators didn't feel a need to share such a revelation with the general membership of the church until they were publicly outed by an "apostate".

Except that we have been repeatedly taught that most revelation to the prophets is not shared directly. For example, from Pres. Kimball:

Quote

There are those who would assume that with the printing and binding of these sacred records, that would be the “end of the prophets.” But again we testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day. We testify also that there is, since 1830 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and will continue to be, so long as time shall last, a prophet, recognized of God and his people, who will continue to interpret the mind and will of the Lord.

 

10 minutes ago, salgare said:

I'd question how often God gives instruction/revelation to/for THE CHURCH which is held and handled in private channels.

See above. Also from Pres. Faust:

Quote

This process of continuous revelation comes to the Church very frequently. President Wilford Woodruff stated, “This power is in the bosom of Almighty God, and he imparts it to his servants the prophets as they stand in need of it day by day to build up Zion.”

Neither of you needs to accept these points, but I did want to point out that none of this is surprising or unusual.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

Just to be clear. There is nothing that says this was doctrine, just that the CHI change was received by revelation.  When I listened to it he shared first about how the change in missionary age was by revelation as well. What I get from what he said was this was a policy change (NOT said as such, but in context it seems like that is what he was saying) received by revelation after weighing a multitude of potential scenerios.

That in no way makes it lesser in my eyes. Just that at this point we shouldn't call it doctrine without more information, but from what I have learned from Elder Bednar about what doctrine is, the changes in the CHI dot fit the definition. These wouldn't be principles either, but perhaps aplications.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are proposing here.  Here's an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

Quote

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40).

So are the recent changes in the CHI "doctrine?"  Well, the changes pertain to several important teachings, such as the Law of Chastity, the nature and significance of marriage and family, and a few others.  But these things, as important as they are, are nonetheless "subordinate" to the "doctrine of Christ" (that he is the Messiah, the Redeemer).

I can see what you mean about the changes being "applications" of doctrinal principles, rather than "principles" per se.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We don't get that kind of information anymore.

That's because all the other information describe the revelation Pres. Monson received the same as the President Nelson's - a spiritual confirmation.

God's actual words haven't been heard in years.  It's all about feelings now.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are proposing here.  Here's an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

So are the recent changes in the CHI "doctrine?"  Well, the changes pertain to several important teachings, such as the Law of Chastity, the nature and significance of marriage and family, and a few others.  But these things, as important as they are, are nonetheless "subordinate" to the "doctrine of Christ" (that he is the Messiah, the Redeemer).

I can see what you mean about the changes being "applications" of doctrinal principles, rather than "principles" per se.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe church members wouldn't have to keep doing mental gymnastics with the definitions of doctrines, principles, policies, etc if we'd just stick to the actual Doctrine of Christ.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

"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."

What passes for revelation these days...

It passed for revelation in the old days, too:

Quote

 

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

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by smac97

[VideoGameJunkie]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I just finished listening.  Not feeling any spiritual confirmation on this one.  Just darkness.  So, yes, a "bridge too far".

Enjoy your church folks.  I'm gonna have to figure out a graceful exit for me and my family.

 

 

Don't throw away you or your family's chance at eternal life.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Except that we have been repeatedly taught that most revelation to the prophets is not shared directly. For example, from Pres. Kimball:

 

See above.

So prophets of old received revelations and recorded them in scripture (a rather challenging process given their writing tools).  Prophets of today receive revelations and hide them in vaults even though dissemination is easier than it ever has been in history?  Interesting.

[salgare]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Except that we have been repeatedly taught that most revelation to the prophets is not shared directly. For example, from Pres. Kimball:

 

See above.

From 1977, really?

[california boy]

Receiving a revelation from God seems to be a really big deal to me.  I hope that it is recorded and becomes clear Mormon doctrine and scripture.  To treat it otherwise would be an insult to God.  It is not like the church receives revelations from God on a regular basis.  I thought the last revelation was the one President Kimball received.  I am kinda surprised that this revelation was so casually announced.  It seems like it should be more important than just having it mentioned in a talk.  I would think it would be in 72pt type on the home page of the church's website.  

Does anyone have any thoughts why a revelation from God to his prophet is being underplayed so much by the church??

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Receiving a revelation from God seems to be a really big deal to me.  I hope that it is recorded and becomes clear Mormon doctrine and scripture.  To treat it otherwise would be an insult to God.  It is not like the church receives revelations from God on a regular basis.  I thought the last revelation was the one President Kimball received.  I am kinda surprised that this revelation was so casually announced.  It seems like it should be more important than just having it mentioned in a talk.  I would think it would be in 72pt type on the home page of the church's website.  

Does anyone have any thoughts why a revelation from God to his prophet is being underplayed so much by the church??

Excellent question.  It was a revelation from God but the letter FROM PRES. MONSON didn't bother to mention that fact.  We had to wait until a fireside directed at a minority population of the church mentioned it.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Maybe church members wouldn't have to keep doing mental gymnastics with the definitions of doctrines, principles, policies, etc if we'd just stick to the actual Doctrine of Christ.

Again, I wish you and your family the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Does anyone have any thoughts why a revelation from God to his prophet is being underplayed so much by the church??

Revelation is a daily event in the Church. None of this will surprise most Church members. From the same sermon of Pres. Kimball again:

Quote

In our day, as in times past, many people expect that if there be revelation it will come with awe-inspiring, earth-shaking display. For many it is hard to accept as revelation those numerous ones in Moses’ time, in Joseph’s time, and in our own year—those revelations which come to prophets as deep, unassailable impressions settling down on the prophet’s mind and heart as dew from heaven or as the dawn dissipates the darkness of night.

Expecting the spectacular, one may not be fully alerted to the constant flow of revealed communication. I say, in the deepest of humility, but also by the power and force of a burning testimony in my soul, that from the prophet of the Restoration to the prophet of our own year, the communication line is unbroken, the authority is continuous, and light, brilliant and penetrating, continues to shine. The sound of the voice of the Lord is a continuous melody and a thunderous appeal. For nearly a century and a half there has been no interruption.

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan