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

[Nevo]

Well, that's disappointing. I guess I'll file this "revelation" in the same category as Adam-God and denying blacks the priesthood and hope it doesn't take the Church 50 to 100+ years to undo the damage.

[salgare]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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'?

I'm getting in a rush again, I'm sorry I meant "article"

[Rain]

11 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.

I haven't even read it. We are all given only so much time. I choose to do other things rather than read every single thread. Your challenge here gives me no reason to have more interest in it. Now maybe if you had asked nicely...

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 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.

I strongly suspect it all gets recorded, but as Pres Packer taught in a CES devotional when I was studying in America in the late 90s, not all of it gets shared directly, though we can certainly see the outlines of it in the policies, procedures and warnings that emanate therefrom.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, salgare said:

I'm getting in a rush again, I'm sorry I meant "article"

OK, well that helps a bit, but I'm still confused by your question. Again, just FWIW.

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Actually we do.

 

Well this just confuses me even more.  There have been endless threads and posts on "the Proclamation on the Family" whether it was a revelation or not.  The church has been very careful to not call it a revelation, yet a policy change in the church handbook gets the official seal of being a revelation from God?

It still seems to me that if the prophet gets a revelation from God, it should be a big deal.  You seriously don't hear that said very often.  For me it is the first time since the revelation on the priesthood.  I guess I missed the missionary age being declared a revelation.  Can anyone else think of a time when the church declared that the prophet of God received a revelation from God??  What other doctrines since President Kimball have been officially called a revelation from God?

[salgare]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Thanks Nehor ... I have no issues with this statement.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, salgare said:

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

It is not meant as an insult. While I do read some about the development of thought and philosophical development and the like it is not one of my favorite hobbies. I have tried to read the philosophy "greats" in the past but I find the whole field pretty dull. So I will leave it to those who enjoy it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

25 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.

Can you email it to me? rscott@deseretnews.com

(Or would that count as "spying"?)

[salgare]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

You have got to be kidding me.  Guilt the gift that keeps on giving.  Oh and checkout 47:45 into the talk of this OP.  I noticed you never replied to my comments in your thread on youth.  Conveniently it got locked.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Well this just confuses me even more.  There have been endless threads and posts on "the Proclamation on the Family" whether it was a revelation or not.  The church has been very careful to not call it a revelation, yet a policy change in the church handbook gets the official seal of being a revelation from God?

It still seems to me that if the prophet gets a revelation from God, it should be a big deal.  You seriously don't hear that said very often.  For me it is the first time since the revelation on the priesthood.  I guess I missed the missionary age being declared a revelation.  Can anyone else think of a time when the church declared that the prophet of God received a revelation from God??  What other doctrines since President Kimball have been officially called a revelation from God?

The proclamation was probably not revelation. I am sure it was prepared under the influence of the Spirit but it was written as a reaffirmation of things long taught. Nothing new was revealed so I am not sure I would call it revelation. Maybe God revealed that the reaffirmation was needed but that does not make the reaffirmation a revelation.

In this case it was a new policy that we have never had before. If God directed it it was revealed as the will of God which pretty much makes it revelation.

[Gillebre]

salgare, I think if it was guilt Scott was trying to leverage you'd see a lot more of 'and you should feel horrible for even thinking about leaving' and less of 'consider the impact of the choice you are thinking about making'. That's what I got out of it anyway.

What if it was all true and someone you knew blew it because they just didn't give more thought to the possibility of their own error? Wouldn't that be a terrible tragedy to know one lost so much because of a failure to explore all the possibilities (especially when, from a believer's point of view, so much is at stake with that choice)?

What you see as guilt I see as an attempt to make sure he's completely certain about the choice he considers making.

Eternity is a long time to contemplate the choices we made, so let's make sure they were the right ones. I believe that's what Scott was ultimately getting at.

[california boy]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The proclamation was probably not revelation. I am sure it was prepared under the influence of the Spirit but it was written as a reaffirmation of things long taught. Nothing new was revealed so I am not sure I would call it revelation. Maybe God revealed that the reaffirmation was needed but that does not make the reaffirmation a revelation.

In this case it was a new policy that we have never had before. If God directed it it was revealed as the will of God which pretty much makes it revelation.

So is this the first time since 1978 that the church has called something officially a revelation from God to his Prophet?  Was the missionary age change called a revelation from God?  Any others?  I am just trying to get a perspective on how big of deal this is.  

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

 

So from your fisking, I get a general idea of the content: more drivel along the lines of what we have already heard ad nauseam. 

Never mind, Stargazer.

P.S.

Oops, I just got a notification of your email. Thanks for sending it.

Like Smac, I hope the author had it removed because he thought better of it.

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[salgare]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

Well it's good to know that this one was only of passing interest for a sentence 45 minutes into a talk to students in a devotional.

[The Nehor]

Just now, california boy said:

So is this the first time since 1978 that the church has called something officially a revelation from God to his Prophet?  Was the missionary age change called a revelation from God?  Any others?  I am just trying to get a perspective on how big of deal this is.  

I have no idea how often they "officially" announce that something is a revelation. I don't spend a lot of time looking for that.

Yes, the missionary age change was revelation. I have no idea if that revelation came out of the blue or circumstances led the apostles to seek the change or whether the prophet was praying about it and presented it to the Twelve or how it happened.

It is a big deal in the sense that this policy is, for now, the revealed direction of God. It may change as things change and is no longer needed or needs to be revised but such a change will also come by revelation.

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you email it to me? rscott@deseretnews.com

(Or would that count as "spying"?)

Done

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am just trying to get a perspective on how big of deal this is.  

This is not a big deal in any contextualised way since one of the very first and most basic things LDS missionaries teach to investigators is that God leads and guides His Church through continual revelation to the prophets and apostles. It may however feel like a bigger deal than it is to those who dislike the content and/or implications of this particular piece of revelation.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Avatar4321]

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.

The problem is it's not the church that has departed from gosel principles.

And yet we've warned you again and again this path you were on. How many times have we quoted the keys Joseph gave us? Heck there is an entire section in his manual about it:

 

Quote

 

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”⁵

Joseph Smith taught the importance of sustaining our Church leaders: “That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, . . . that man is in the high road to apostasy.”

Heber C. Kimball, while serving as a counselor to President Brigham Young, reported: “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.” https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng

You have a choice before you. Jesus is still the Christ. Joseph was still a prophet. President Monson still is a prophet. Leaving the Church will not change that. All you will end up doing is cutting yourself off from the kingdom. And why? Because the brethren received a revelation completely in line with other revelations and policies that have been taken throughout the history of the world and you don't like it.

Is the Book of Mormon any less the word of God? Is the Bible? No it's not.

Like I said, you need to make a choice. Follow the Holy Spirit and continue growing as a disciple of Jesus Christ. Continue partaking the fruit of the tree of life. Or walk away ashamed like so many did in that vision. And by doing so become a livonf testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet who warned about the path to apostasy.

Neither I nor any of my brethren want to see you walk away. But the Choice must ultimately be yours. I recommend some serious scripture study, fasting, and prayer. Read the Book of Mormon with your family all the way through. And cast out the devil before making any decisions so you can be confident you are not under his influence.

If you still decide to leave, we will wait for you to return and welcome you back with open arms. But I beg you as a friend, do not go. Exercise faith in God and trust Him. Wait on Him and you will receive your witness.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

salgare, I think if it was guilt Scott was trying to leverage you'd see a lot more of 'and you should feel horrible for even thinking about leaving' and less of 'consider the impact of the choice you are thinking about making'. That's what I got out of it anyway.

What if it was all true and someone you knew blew it because they just didn't give more thought to the possibility of their own error? Wouldn't that be a terrible tragedy to know one lost so much because of a failure to explore all the possibilities (especially when, from a believer's point of view, so much is at stake with that choice)?

What you see as guilt I see as an attempt to make sure he's completely certain about the choice he considers making.

Eternity is a long time to contemplate the choices we made, so let's make sure they were the right ones. I believe that's what Scott was ultimately getting at.

Thanks for understanding me, Gillebre. I hope rockpond does.

 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour 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??

The Church is continually receiving revelation at all levels of the Church. From the prophet to the lay member.

[salgare]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

OK, well that helps a bit, but I'm still confused by your question. Again, just FWIW.

The article starts out as a review of a Givens book.  mfb supports Givens and elaborates on his philosophies.  I asked if Givens would really support mfb's philosophies and if we could label those philosphies Nuanced Mormonism (New Mormonism).  I suggested Orthodox Mormons would struggle with this New Mormonism.  He maintains there is no such thing as Orthodox Mormonism.

I would assume both of these men are on the fringes of the inner-group whom are still the majority Chapel/Orthodox Mormons.  Nehor suggested shaking the tree was aimed at the fringes.

This is what is so confusing to me about the current state of apologetics and where the church is going to go with this long term.

With no one here willing to touch that thread, I assume both of these men are also on the fringe of this historically Orthodox group of regulars.

[Avatar4321]

56 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.

As have I. It's impressed me so much and completely changed my life.

[california boy]

I understand that the church believes it is lead by revelation.  But what doesn't happen very often is declaring something to be a revelation from God to his Prophet.  I keep asking for other examples, but no one is responding.  I will just shut up now.  It appears I am asking for clarification on something that is not clear.  I thought declaring something to be a revelation from God to his prophet was a big event.   No one else seems to think this is a huge deal.  

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

No one else seems to think this is a huge deal.

Correct.