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

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

He only asks us, “Will ye also go away?” when others have answered their own question, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” by murmuring and walking no more with Him. It is a question that those who murmur and walk away ask the faithful who remain, but it is so antithetical to the Lord's questions that there is no acknowledgement of its validity.

A much abused New Testament story.

[rongo]

How so abused?

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

You're right, Spencer.

Discrimination against one group is always a good reason to discriminate against another.

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

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.  

And you have yet to respond to my question.

Should we not be at least somewhat cautious of a purported revelation allegedly received by a man who may have dementia?

[consiglieri]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You seem to be drifting afield here.

No.  He is sorting through the extraneous facts to locate and identity the relevant inquiry.

The part of the story that is missing.

[consiglieri]

28 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You are changing your argument.

Glad to know you are conceding that the church is not denying baptism to anyone.

Now we can talk about whether there is any injustice is requiring minors to wait until they are ready.

This is nonsense.

Your argument that delaying baptism till the next life is acceptable would undo the entire missionary program of the Church.

[consiglieri]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

How so abused?

In that it is commonly used to support the proposition that the LDS Church can do nothing so wrong or teach anything so reprehensible as to justify criticism or disaffection.

The Old Testament story of Abraham and Isaac is used to similar ends.

Which President Nelson did not fail to bring up in his talk Sunday evening . . .

[busybee]

52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Should have left it how it started -

Men were told they "will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex except your lawful wife or wives who are given you by the holy priesthood."
Women were told they "will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex save your lawful husband, given you by the holy priesthood."

This was done separately by gender and specified priesthood necessity, and left no room in that format for homosexual claims to sneak in.

But you know there would be those who would say that because it only mentions the opposite sex, that it doesn't, as such,forbid intercourse with members of the same sex. There will always be 'wrestlers' who will twist things to suit their agendas.

[Danzo]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is nonsense.

Your argument that delaying baptism till the next life is acceptable would undo the entire missionary program of the Church.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense, it is one of the best features of the restored gospel.  God doesn't punish us just because a particular action wasn't performed in time.  

The missionary program is actually enhanced.

[BlueDreams]

 

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Rockpond, I am beyond late in this thread. I just don't move that quickly when discussion's on something is a little deeper and this thread blew up quick. First, you're right, I don't get it, nor have I walked in your shoes. I watched the Nelsons' talks yesterday and was generally edified. I found answers to things that I needed and I did feel the spirit from the portion that is in question currently and that left you feeling darkness or at least a lack of the spirit. I've thought about what made the experience different. You're generally thoughtful, very obviously enjoy many moments with the spirit, etc. And I don't really want to cirtique your experience but note my own that as I've read/scanned several pages of this feel like they've created a divergent experience.

Personally, my assumptions generally start with the assumption that the prophet and apostle act first in love and care and through revelation. To me this wasn't the first declaration of a revelatory process but a continuation. I'd heard so implicitly several times before. Part of this is also meeting a few of them, albeit briefly, personally. It's not just that their apostolic call was confirmed each and every time (it wasn't...except once). But that their character is/was in what appeared a conscientious effort to stop for all and welcome all even when inconvenient. Some things inferred an earnest humility and beyond endearing sense of love. Like when Elder Anderson visited our mission for a stake splitting. He was new at the time and I didn't remember what he looked like. There were a bunch of men and some women in the front and I was trying to figure out which one was the apostle. I had my bet on this guy who had an authoritative presence until this pip-squeak of a man walked in with his wife. It was a small pre-group meeting of about 40 or 50 YSA's and we were only a couple rows from the front, so I could hear him when he caught eye of us 2 sisters. His eyes glittered and he pointed to his wife like he was pointing out rock stars and said look, missionaries!. Immediately I knew he had to be the apostle. So it's not an assumption I make in blind faith, but of having the spirit confirm that they are genuinely good men who work to stay attuned to the spirit and consistently seek direction for the church. They may not do so perfectly, but I can't say I follow or interpret my own revelation correctly 100% of the time. 

The other big assumption, was that my earnest study and prayer led me to a different conclusion about both SSM and what it will look like to have a more accepting environment in the church body toward LGBT. And I do mean earnest. This issue has fascinated me for about a decade as well. I remember wanting to approve for SSM a decade ago, the logical argument for them were appealing and held weight, and just couldn't...and that's kinda the story of the next decade for me. I feel that I've learned more compassion, I've felt some of my immature beliefs alter to compassion and often a deep respect for the beautiful faiths I've heard from several LGBT brothers and sisters through their experiences, and I eagerly seek out more, etc. But I still don't agree that SSM has an eternal place. I believe sisterhood and brotherhood do...but I don't think the eternal significance will translate in the way SSM would suggest. And I do think that it's in conflict with the LDS perspective that entail gender essentialist underpinnings....views that just as my compassion and respect for LGBT experiences expanded, so did the essential nature of both men and women in partnership as companions did as well. And it feels extremely central to the eschatological structure of our religion...ergo there would be nothing simple about acceptance of SSM.

So when something hard, like the policy change, came about that initially led to confusion, I feel like these main assumptions drastically effected my reaction in the long run. I don't think the apostles/prophet were blind to the pain it would cause. I don't think they could have fully gauged the immediate effect it did have, but I assumed that they were trying to find a balance between doctrinal and practice boundaries....one that would  hurt now or hurt later. But at some point it would hurt. I wasn't willing to go down hypotheticals because it felt incomplete and I assumed, based on Christofferson's words, that the scope was a lot smaller than many were assuming. I didn't assume the clarifications should have been read as "clarifications." I didn't think that this would magically go away or lessen in a year or 2 (but who knows what it'll look like in a decade or 3). And I assumed that this wasn't a rash decision, though the revealing it could have definitely been more preemptively taken care of better. So when Nelson says it was a policy guided by revelation these assumptions that have built up over a decade of time and particularly in the last 4-6 years or so allowed me to hear a spiritual confirmation to what Nelson described. I assumed nothing less.

I don't expect you to read my experience as some indictment to your own. But as I've watched this dialogue unfold on both sides I've seen this very large gulf form on even basic experiences. I've never watched just how much the exact same experience introduced at the exact same time could receive and be interpreted so drastically different. I hope it would give a moment to walk in mine....which isn't a blind faith but is one that accepts their choice on this and still feels able to sustain them in it.....even though it pained me as well initially. 

         one last thing, about Sis. Nelson's talk that you interpreted as this:

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

Let's also not forget that Pres. Nelson's talk was preceded by his wife's admonition to pray away the gay.

We're moving backwards.

I didn't hear this at all when I was listening. The exact words were  "perhaps we need our sexual feelings to be in harmony with eternal laws" when asking the Lord for spiritual gifts. It was far more general the gay and didn't assume that ones "gayness" per se could be prayed away. My first thought was of my own experiences, and the several wrestlings I've had with God about my own heterosexual desires....sometimes that was a gift I was to seek and received and sometimes it wasn't and I was barking up the wrong gift tree. I then thought of my brother and his very hetero concerns and that this would definitely be a gift worth praying for. Then, mainly cuz I read this comment, I thought within LGBT which the conclusions for being in harmony doesn't necessitate that their gay feelings went away. To me this read as jumping to conclusions. And didn't actually match what she said or was getting at. 

Anywho, I've written too much. I wish you well in your journey and pray that you do not remove yourself from the things that also very obviously spiritually feed you. Even if my assumptions are wrong and your projectory is right I think it is still essential to not leave something that very apparently feeds your soul. I think of Jane Manning James, who watched something that felt implicitly wrong...and stayed. I think of Orson Pratt who vocalized it...but remained faithful in his call. And I think of Tom Christofferson and his summary of where else would he go, inspite of the pain, this faith "has the words of eternal life." This is not my painful choice to make, my area of dissonance and discomfort, but it has been for several others. I would suggest reading those who've made it work and even thrived, in spite of the areas that made it at times painful.

  

With luv,

BD

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Some of us think Mormonism (or indeed any religious tradition) should place more value on conscience than unquestioning obedience to church leaders. 

Some of us think that is a strawman.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

No.

You are reaching.  

You really think whether you are obeying the law of chastity depends on what legal jurisdiction you are in?

Can you give me any citation for that?

I didn't say anything about that. All I said was that legal and lawful mean the same thing. 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Some of us think that is a strawman.

Did I miss something? Is the anti-gay-marriage group in the church cool with the pro-gay-marriage group continuing to honor what their conscience tells them is right?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

So it's okay to treat people unjustly in this life because God will make it all better in the hereafter?

This is the basis of millions of mischiefs.

No. It makes it okay to obey God who sees the end from the beginning and knows how to turn what seems to some unfair to his glory and to the exaltation of his children.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Did I miss something? Is the anti-gay-marriage group in the church cool with the pro-gay-marriage group continuing to honor what their conscience tells them is right?

No, I just have never mastered this unquestioning obedience I am constantly accused of. God is probably sick of my endless questions. He even answers some of them.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

No, I just have never mastered this unquestioning obedience I am constantly accused of. God is probably sick of my endless questions. He even answers some of them.

Getting in line behind this would require me to abandon my conscience and unquestioningly obey. I would regard that as an immoral act. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Gray

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Getting in line behind this would require me to abandon my conscience and unquestioningly obey. I would regard that as an immoral act. 

I suggest a third option by humbling yourself before God and begging him to reveal his will to you. Seeking to become a law unto yourself does not end well.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Rockpond, I am beyond late in this thread. I just don't move that quickly when discussion's on something is a little deeper and this thread blew up quick. First, you're right, I don't get it, nor have I walked in your shoes. I watched the Nelsons' talks yesterday and was generally edified. I found answers to things that I needed and I did feel the spirit from the portion that is in question currently and that left you feeling darkness or at least a lack of the spirit. I've thought about what made the experience different. You're generally thoughtful, very obviously enjoy many moments with the spirit, etc. And I don't really want to cirtique your experience butnote my own that as I've read/scanned several pages of this feel like they've created a divergent experience.

Personally, my assumptions generally start with the assumption that the prophet and apostle act first in love and care and through revelation. To me this wasn't the first declaration of a revelatory process but a continuation. I'd heard so implicitly several times before. Part of this is also meeting a few of them, albeit briefly, personally. It's not just that their apostolic call was confirmed each and every time (it wasn't...except once). But that their character is/was in what appeared a conscientious effort to stop for all and welcome all even when inconvenient. Some things inferred an earnest humility and beyond endearing sense of love. Like when Elder Anderson visited our mission for a stake splitting. He was new at the time and I didn't remember what he looked like. There were a bunch of men and some women in the front and I was trying to figure out which one was the apostle. I had my bet on this guy who had an authoritative presence until this pip-squeak of a man walked in with his wife. It was a small pre-group meeting of about 40 or 50 YSA's and we were only a couple rows from the front, so I could hear him when he caught eye of us 2 sisters. His eyes glittered and he pointed to his wife like he was pointing out rock stars and said look, missionaries!. Immediately I knew he had to be the apostle. So it's not an assumption I make in blind faith, but of having the spirit confirm that they are genuinely good men who work to stay attuned to the spirit and consistently seek direction for the church. They may not do so perfectly, but I can't say I follow or interpret my own revelation correctly 100% of the time. 

The other big assumption, was that my earnest study and prayer led me to a different conclusion about both SSM and what it will look like to have a more accepting environment in the church body toward LGBT. And I do mean earnest. This issue has fascinated me for about a decade as well. I remember wanting to approve for SSM a decade ago, the logical argument for them were appealing and held weight, and just couldn't...and that's kinda the story of the next decade for me. I feel that I've learned more compassion, I've felt some of my immature beliefs alter to compassion and often a deep respect for the beautiful faiths I've heard from several LGBT brothers and sisters through their experiences, and I eagerly seek out more, etc. But I still don't agree that SSM has an eternal place. I believe sisterhood and brotherhood do...but I don't think the eternal significance will translate in the way SSM would suggest. And I do think that it's in conflict with the LDS perspective that entail gender essentialist underpinnings....views that just as my compassion and respect for LGBT experiences expanded, so did the essential nature of both men and women in partnership as companions did as well. And it feels extremely central to the eschatological structure of our religion...ergo there would be nothing simple about acceptance of SSM.

So when something hard, like the policy change, came about that initially led to confusion, I feel like these main assumptions drastically effected my reaction in the long run. I don't think the apostles/prophet were blind to the pain it would cause. I don't think they could have fully gauged the immediate effect it did have, but I assumed that they were trying to find a balance between doctrinal and practice boundaries....one that would  hurt now or hurt later. But at some point it would hurt. I wasn't willing to go down hypotheticals because it felt incomplete and I assumed, based on Christofferson's words, that the scope was a lot smaller than many were assuming. I didn't assume the clarifications should have been read as "clarifications." I didn't think that this would magically go away or lessen in a year or 2 (but who knows what it'll look like in a decade or 3). And I assumed that this wasn't a rash decision, though the revealing it could have definitely been more preemptively taken care of better. So when Nelson says it was a policy guided by revelation these assumptions that have built up over a decade of time and particularly in the last 4-6 years or so allowed me to hear a spiritual confirmation to what Nelson described. I assumed nothing less.

I don't expect you to read my experience as some indictment to your own. But as I've watched this dialogue unfold on both sides I've seen this very large gulf form on even basic experiences. I've never watched just how much the exact same experience introduced at the exact same time could receive and be interpreted so drastically different. I hope it would give a moment to walk in mine....which isn't a blind faith but is one that accepts their choice on this and still feels able to sustain them in it.....even though it pained me as well initially. 

         one last thing, about Sis. Nelson's talk that you interpreted as this:

I didn't hear this at all when I was listening. The exact words were  "perhaps we need our sexual feelings to be in harmony with eternal laws" when asking the Lord for spiritual gifts. It was far more general the gay and didn't assume that ones "gayness" per se could be prayed away. My first thought was of my own experiences, and the several wrestlings I've had with God about my own heterosexual desires....sometimes that was a gift I was to seek and received and sometimes it wasn't and I was barking up the wrong gift tree. I then thought of my brother and his very hetero concerns and that this would definitely be a gift worth praying for. Then, mainly cuz I read this comment, I thought within LGBT which the conclusions for being in harmony doesn't necessitate that their gay feelings went away. To me this read as jumping to conclusions. And didn't actually match what she said or was getting at. 

Anywho, I've written too much. I wish you well in your journey and pray that you do not remove yourself from the things that also very obviously spiritually feed you. Even if my assumptions are wrong and your projectory is right I think it is still essential to not leave something that very apparently feeds your soul. I think of Jane Manning James, who watched something that felt implicitly wrong...and stayed. I think of Orson Pratt who vocalized it...but remained faithful in his call. And I think of Tom Christofferson and his summary of where else would he go, inspite of the pain, this faith "has the words of eternal life." This is not my painful choice to make, my area of dissonance and discomfort, but it has been for several others. I would suggest reading those who've made it work and even thrived, in spite of the areas that made it at times painful.

  

With luv,

BD

Thank you for your understanding and compassion.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I suggest a third option by humbling yourself before God and begging him to reveal his will to you. Seeking to become a law unto yourself does not end well.

I don't believe God works like that. But even going by an orthodox Mormon paradigm, I feel what you would call the spirit regarding the rightness of committed, monogomous gay marriage. And I feel only darkness and confusion regarding the policies enacted by the Q15 on this issue. That should be enough of a confirmation for any orthodox Mormon.

What I have come to find as I have changed my approach to spirituality is that I still feel spiritual confirmation of whatever I feel to be right. So I can't regard that as a discrete, literal message from God, because the kinds of things that are confirmed have changed over the years as my beliefs have changed. In the church we tend to use the spirit as a kind of divining rod for finding truth. While it's a valuable feeling that shouldn't be ignored, I don't think it works like that at all. 

I feel the spirit more regularly now than I ever did. I believe that is because I am acting in harmony with what I feel deep down to be true, whereas before I was trying to make orthodoxy work when I felt uneasy about many of the precepts of orthodoxy. 

In fact, I feel the spirit strongly as I write this. You may feel the opposite as you read it, because you don't feel that my approach is right. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Gray

[consiglieri]

36 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Actually, it makes a lot of sense, it is one of the best features of the restored gospel.  God doesn't punish us just because a particular action wasn't performed in time.  

The missionary program is actually enhanced.

To me it is a mass of confusion.

[consiglieri]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Some of us think that is a strawman.

Some of us without a conscience . . .

 

[consiglieri]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I suggest a third option by humbling yourself before God and begging him to reveal his will to you. Seeking to become a law unto yourself does not end well.

Your third option is just a reframing of your first option.

There really are only two.

Either blind obedience to the dictates of Church leaders or something else.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I rejoice in the solidifying of the Church's position against gay marriage and female priesthood ordination in recent months. I think these actions have made it much more difficult for future Church leaders to "undo" them in a manner similar to OD1 and OD2. Doing so would be much more problematic for active, believing, rank-and-file members. I look at it as similar to burning the ships on the shore to make it clear that there's no going back.

I think the heartbreak of those who have hoped that the Church would de-classify homosexuality as a sin (or at least allow it within civil gay marriage), allow female priesthood ordination, etc., is comparable to what *I* would be feeling if the Church had fulfilled *their* wishes. 

That should give all of us some sympathy and empathy for those who feel like their heart was ripped out by the Church's "digging in" on these issues. 

Well, I certainly could sympathize with you since I know what it feels like to have your church preach against something you feel very strongly about.

I need to ask about your second sentence above... it reads (to me) as if you think that OD1 and OD2 were negative things.  But, I doubt that is what you meant.  Wouldn't future official declarations from the Prophet and Apostles be good things?  Or are you just saying that unraveling current Church positions on gay marriage and female ordination would be challenging to accept?  (Which, again, I'd be able to understand.)

Please remember that when you say "active, believing, rank & file members" that describes most of us here... and we represent a large, disparate array of thoughts & convictions on various matters.

And one more point:  You have framed my position and that of many others as hoping the Church would "de-classify homosexuality as a sin".  Earlier, in a post he has now deleted, Scott referred to it as a "political disagreement" that I have with the Brethren.  You might consider that those are not accurate descriptions of where I stand.  To state it that way is not a demonstration of sympathy or empathy.*

*I write that realizing that I have much to improve on how I frame the beliefs and positions of those who are different from me, as well.

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by rockpond

[CV75]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

In that it is commonly used to support the proposition that the LDS Church can do nothing so wrong or teach anything so reprehensible as to justify criticism or disaffection.

Except in this case I'm using it to show that this question posed to the faithful by someone who murmurs and walks away is not the same kind of question the Lord asks anyone. He never asks, “What will it take for you to go away?” or, “Who can hear it and not walk away?”

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Some of us without a conscience . . .

 

When did mocking the handicapped become acceptable?