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

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Some revelation is made public and some is not. Some is revealed later. This is standard procedure in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Arguing that we do not have any of the "not to be revealed" revelations of prophets from long ago is just proof that the prophets did their job.

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is not like the church receives revelations from God on a regular basis.

Actually we do.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I tend to like things down in writing. It eliminates confusion lets me perform mental gymnastics to twist it to say what it did not and discount it in some form.

Fixed that for ya.

[Stargazer]

24 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.

I am not your spiritual advisor, but I believe you have insulated yourself sufficiently from the spirit that you may at this time have become insensate to its promptings.   I suggest you conduct an experiment in logic.  Consider everything that the Lord has commanded and said regarding homosexuality throughout all of recorded history.  The Lord has never, ever expressed any form of approval of it.  Would it not seem completely out of character for the Lord to now all of a sudden express approval in any form?  I don't think anyone can say it would be in character to do so.  That's logic, and if logic says it, perhaps the Spirit would confirm the revelation that is at the root of the new policy, IF you were to leave off your own worldly convictions and seek the mind and will of the Lord Himself.  I remember being scared to get the word in my patriarchal blessing that I would serve a mission, when I had previously convinced myself that I would not go on one due to my self-perceived lack of qualifications to do so.  How easy it would have been for me to reject that blessing based on my preconceived conviction that I could not serve a mission!  And if I had done so, I would have severely handicapped my spiritual growth in the future, for my mission taught me many important things.  

A friend of mine was so very convinced as to the wrongness of the 1978 revelation on the Priesthood, that the first time he walked past a sealing room in the temple and saw a black man kneeling at the altar opposite a white woman was the last straw.  He tore up his temple recommend and became completely inactive.  As a favor to his wife he didn't resign from the Church, but his actions caused his children to become estranged from the Church and to go off into paths far from the gospel.  He later softened and started returning to the Church, but severe and possibly irreparable damage had been done to himself and to his children.  

I suggest you should think and ponder very carefully before you do something foolish based on worldly mores that you have erroneously concluded are godly.

[Rain]

6 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

Elder Bednar in his book "Increase in Learning" describes doctrine as "a truth of salvation revealed by a loving Heavenly Father. Gospel doctrines are eternal, do not change, and pertain to the eternal progression and exaltation..." Examples he listed: nature of the Godhead, the plan of happiness and the atonement.

A principle is "a doctrinal based guideline for the righteous exercise of moral agency. Principles provide direction. Correct principles always are based upon and arise from doctrines, do not change, and answer the question of what? Many principles can grow out of and be associated with a single doctrine." Example given - doctrine plan of happiness and obedience, service and progression principles.

"Applications are the actual behaviors, action steps, practices, or procedures by which gospel doctrines and principles are enacted in our lives...applications appropriately  can vary according to needs and circumstances."

Not trying to hide anything with the ellipses, just slowly typing on my phone and it is bedtime.

One of the reasons it is important not to call the application a doctrine is people get a sense of what doctrine is though they cannot always define it well. If an application changes then many will be thrown by it if they understood it to be doctrine. Yes, an application may come from a doctrine, as I believe these changes do, but they are not doctrine according to my understanding and I felt it was important to make that distinction for some reason.

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

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

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

 

So we seem to be conflating "revelation" as meaning (A) guidance from God to the Presiding High Priest which is binding on the entirety of the Church, and (B) guidance from God to the Presiding High Priest which is binding on the entirety of the Church and which is canonized in the Scriptures.

Put another way, some folks are saying that "revelation" under Definition (A) doesn't count as "revelation" until and unless it is formally canonized (Definition (B)).

Here is an interesting blog entry on this topic.  The blogger makes some interesting points, as do some commenters.

Thanks,

-Smac

[salgare]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

PCalm,

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.

Perhaps not enough of the fringe resigned and they decided to shake the tree again?

[Gillebre]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Ask yourself this question: What is the worst possible outcome of you leaving the Church (and taking your family with you)? What's the worst that could happen?

I liken it to a bet. What comes of the bet they made with the life they lived?

A Church member who chooses to believe, and it all turns out to be true. They gain everything.

A Church member who chooses to believe, but it all turns out to be false. They lose nothing.

A Church member who chooses not to believe, but it all turns out to be true. They lose everything.

A Church member who chooses not to believe, but it all turns out to be false anyway. They gain nothing.

 

What's the smart bet with your life (and that of your family)? Are you prepared to lay aside what you stand to gain by holding on versus what you stand to lose by giving up? Is it worth it?

Edited January 11, 2016 by Gillebre

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, salgare said:

Perhaps not enough of the fringe resigned and they decided to shake the tree again?

There is scriptural support for that.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Gillebre said:

Ask yourself this question: What is the worst possible outcome of you leaving the Church (and taking your family with you)? What's the worst that could happen?

I liken it to a bet.

A Church member who chooses to believe, and it all turns out to be true. What comes of the bet they made with the life they lived? They gain everything.

A Church member who chooses to believe, but it all turns out to be false. What comes of the bet they made with the life they lived? They lose nothing.

A Church member who chooses not to believe, but it all turns out to be true. What comes of the bet they made with the life they lived? They lose everything.

A Church member who chooses not to believe, but it all turns out to be false anyway. What comes of the bet they made with the life they lived? They gain nothing.

 

What's the smart bet with your life (and that of your family)? Are you prepared to lay aside what you stand to gain by holding on versus what you stand to lose by giving up? Is it worth it?

This is called "Pascal's Wager," is it not?

[Gillebre]

Yes. I believe I heard it from Elder Robbins in a devotional broadcast setting.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

This may change the dialogue a bit.  Something I came across that appears to have been actually posted less than an hour after the link that Smac posted went up that makes me think the author hadn't seen this yet.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2016/01/god-is-silent-on-same-sex-marriage-how-opinion-becomes-doctrine/

 

Well, this is interesting.  The above link is now dead.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

34 minutes ago, salgare said:

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.

It happened at least twice during the Savior's earthly ministry.  

When Jesus asked his apostles who they thought he was, Peter revealed what he had had revealed to himself:

Quote

 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

...

 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Matthew 16:15-20

It was revealed and confirmed that he was the Messiah, but they weren't to tell anyone.

Afterwards, when Jesus took Peter, James and John took to Mt. Carmel for the Transfiguration, he made it very clear to them that they were to keep what they had seen hidden:

Quote

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. 

-- Matthew 17:9

[Stargazer]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Speak for yourself.  I don't know about you, but I've had personal revelation in which I actually heard God's words.

[salgare]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is scriptural support for that.

Nehor, It seems none of those here who I assume are orthodox Mormons seem willing to post to this thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66765-philosophies-of-men/

Is the author of that article with the Givens some they hope to shake out?  I'm so confused about this.

Edited January 11, 2016 by salgare

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, this is interesting.  The above link is now dead.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, good thing I haven't refreshed the page it's on, then!  I have the text in case anyone wants to read it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Speak for yourself.  I don't know about you, but I've had personal revelation in which I actually heard God's words.

Same, and I'm loath to jump to the conclusion that prophets somehow experience less revelation than I do.

[salgare]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It happened at least twice during the Savior's earthly ministry. 

These were not revelations from God TO THE CHURCH for a policy of such impact.  Sorry Stargazer, justifying it all you want, I don't buy it.

eta:

for those wanting to listen to just this section of the talk jump to 45:30

Edited January 11, 2016 by salgare

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, salgare said:

Nehor, It seems none of those here who I assume are orthodox Mormons seem willing to post to this thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66765-philosophies-of-men/

Is the author of that critical along with the Givens some they hope to shake out?  I'm so confused about this.

"For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;"

"And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall."

These Book of Mormon verses are written to members of the Church, not to Joe Schmo on the street. Only members read it.

As to the other thread I read over it but it just did not interest me.

Edit: I should say there are things in the Church and even the gospel I do not personally like. I think the same is true for most people. I just try to realize the flaw is in me and not the gospel. I need tinkering. God does not need me to tinker with the gospel.

Edited January 11, 2016 by The Nehor

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, good thing I haven't refreshed the page it's on, then!  I have the text in case anyone wants to read it.

I also fisked several portions of the post here.

I'd like to think that the post was pulled because the author thought better of it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, salgare said:

Is the author of that critical along with the Givens some they hope to shake out?  I'm so confused about this.

Just in case in helps further the dialogue, I'm personally confused by your question. What is a 'critical'? Who are 'they'? What does it mean 'to shake out'? What is 'this'?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

I'm afraid you're going to find what I'm about to say troubling, but I mean it in the best possible spirit.

Rather than allowing this to be a catalyst for your leaving the Church, perhaps what you should do is let it occasion some very serious soul-searching on your part, including entertaining the possibility that it is you that has been wrong all along on this matter.

It will ultimately be your choice, of course, but if I were in a similar situation -- if I were on the verge of leaving the Church because I didn't like an action that had been taken by its leaders -- I would hope I would do some heavy duty introspection before departing and drawing my family along with me.

You asked for advice; this is mine. I would hope someone would care enough to be as direct with me were I in a similar situation.

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[salgare]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As to the other thread I read over it but it just did not interest me.

Ouch, and as I'm assuming this is true for all the orthodox regulars here as no one showed any interest.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, salgare said:

These were not revelations from God TO THE CHURCH for a policy of such impact.  Sorry Stargazer, justifying it all you want, I don't buy it.

!!!!!  You literally made me drop my jaw in amazement.  Are you freaking kidding me?  God to the Chief Apostle: "Jesus is the Christ."  A special witness receives his witness, and that's "witness", as in something he's expected to actually reveal to others as the Spirit dictates, and this ISN'T TO THE CHURCH as well as to the World?  Same with the Transfiguration!  It was something they were to testify of, but just not yet.

Of course you wouldn't buy it.  It destroys your case, and since you cannot bear to have your case destroyed, naturally it must be denied -- in the face of all logic.

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

 

I dare say that throughout the ages, the kind of revelation we are talking about here -- spiritual impressions attended by quiet feelings of confidence -- has been a great deal more common than the spectacular, earth-shattering, spoken-word kind of thing that some seem to demand of prophets and apostles. It's the spoken-word revelation that gets recorded -- and thus gets the most attention -- so I fear some insist on that being the standard for all revelation. In this, they err.

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd