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

[Bobbieaware]

47 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?

Because the loyal and faithful members of the Church have access to the Spirit of revelation (the very same Spirit of revelation that inspires and guides the leaders of the Church), there is no need for the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to always have to specify when what they teach or announce is a revelation from God. For example, right from the very first time I read the Family Proclamation I knew it was a revelation from God, and this because the Spirit of revelation testified to me --in no uncertain terms -- it was so. In the same way, I knew the policy regarding the children of gay married couples was also a revelation before Elder Nelson made the announcement yesterday.

The Doctrine and Covenants warns it's the wicked and slothful members of the Church who need to be constantly molly coddled by having to be commanded in all things. But, thankfully, because there are so many active members of the Churvh who enjoy the Spirit of revelation in their lives, the leaders of the Church are able to disseminate the revelations they receive to the faithful without having to, as it were, cram it down their throats. By this brilliant methodology, the Lord is able to lead and guide the Chuch by revelation, but without the leaders having to act like authoritarian despots who need to constantly resort to heavy handed tactics in order to keep the rank and file members of the Churvh "in line." 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[salgare]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

 

 

Maybe what you are troubled with is does that make this policy being declared a revelation make it impossible to be associated with imperfect leaders and later denied?

[salgare]

30 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

Are you on the historical side of the fence or starting to side with the New Mormonism?

[salgare]

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Because the loyal and faithful members of the Church have access to the Spirit of revelation (the very same Spirit of revelation that inspires and guides the leaders of the Church), there is no need for the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to always have to specify when what they teach or announce is a revelation from God. For example, right from the very first time I read the Family Proclamation I knew it was a revelation from God, and this because the Spirit of revelation testified to me --in no uncertain terms -- it was so.

Nehor suggested up thread the Proclamation on the Family was probably not revelation.  Hamba agreed

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

Please save it as I would like to read it as I didn't get all the way through it.

[Avatar4321]

7 minutes ago, salgare said:

Are you on the historical side of the fence or starting to side with the New Mormonism?

There is no debate. The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. If it wasn't then it would be a complete and utter fraud. I wouldn't waste my time with it then.

That's the beauty of the Book of Mormon. There is no third option. It's either true or it's not. And the Lord provided a way for us to know for ourselves. By recieving our own revelation.

If revelation had ceased in this Church we would not be winning converts to the Book of Mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Nehor suggested up thread the Proclamation on the Family was probably not revelation.  Hamba agreed

I think this has been discussed here before.

The proclamation was not a revelation in the sense of declaring new doctrine; its content reflects knowledge, belief and doctrine that had long been had among the Latter-day Saints.

The revelatory aspect of the proclamation is that the Brethren were divinely inspired to issue it in the form that it took and under the circumstances that were existing at the time it was announced.

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

I don't think that it is written anywhere that if the FP&Q12 get a revelation on something that they MUST publicize the fact.  

And as to wanting a revelation for everything, there is that pesky scripture in the D&C about being commanded in all things.  We can't take inspired guidance at face value, we MUST have an explicit revelation or it isn't good enough?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Please save it as I would like to read it as I didn't get all the way through it.

In part it carries forth the narrative that consig tried to pass off on us a couple of weeks ago about the family proclamation having been nothing more than a legal maneuver in a case in Hawaii. (The author is going off the same Laura Compton article that consig was relying on.)

Of course, a consultation with the FairMormon answers page gave us President Packer's eyewitness account: that the proclamation grew out of U.N. conferences on the family that some Church representatives had attended at which marriage had never even been mentioned.

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

I would assume both of these men are on the fringes of the inner-group whom are still the majority Chapel/Orthodox Mormons. 

OK, that makes a bit more sense now, especially after having gone back and read the exchange amongst Rockpond, you, and eventually The Nehor. For what it's worth, I find the whole 'chapel Mormon' appellation inaccurate and misleading. In my experience, Latter-day Saints find unity wherever they find the spirit of revelation and the shared reality of personal experience as members of the Church. As an example, our former bishop who moved to America last year had all kinds of crazy ideas, in my opinion, and we spent many long lunch breaks together (he also worked at the university) discussing them. But in the end none of that mattered -- nor did my 'crazy ideas' matter to him -- because we both know from personal experience that the Restoration occurred, that the Book of Mormon comes from God, that revelation is real and drives the Church on at every level, that priesthood authority has been restored and is operative in our lives, etc.

I haven't read the thread you referred to because, well, limited time and interest, but I've read enough of Mark's posts to know that I don't find anything heterodox about his faith or what he writes even if it's different to what I might write/express, and I certainly don't consider him on the fringes of anything. He knows the same things I know, and it doesn't matter how he knows them or even in what idiom he chooses to express them. He's my brother in faith and testimony.

Quote

Nehor suggested shaking the tree was aimed at the fringes.

To be fair, you made this suggestion, and The Nehor merely acknowledged that there is scriptural support for such a thing.

Quote

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.

I could be wrong, but I suspect you might feel less confused if you were to see the Church, rather then scheming in some way, to simply be fulfilling its divine mandate to teach and and defend truth as revealed through prophets since the beginning of time.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Nehor suggested up thread the Proclamation on the Family was probably not revelation.  Hamba agreed

I know it's the historian in me coming out, but I think a more accurate description would be that Nehor acknowledged that the Proclamation on the Family is just a 'reaffirmation' of previous revelation, though possibly inspired by revelation to draft and release it.

And this is the first time in this thread that I've commented on this topic, so I haven't technically agreed, though I do.

[Stargazer]

23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I know it's the historian in me coming out, but I think a more accurate description would be that Nehor acknowledged that the Proclamation on the Family is just a 'reaffirmation' of previous revelation, though possibly inspired by revelation to draft and release it.

And this is the first time in this thread that I've commented on this topic, so I haven't technically agreed, though I do.

I think I've said that I believe the Proclamation to be revelation, but to be more exact, I believe that the Proclamation represents a compendium or consolidation of revealed knowledge concerning the family.

[Tacenda]

Does anyone remember very recently on the news the leaders showing great compassion for gays?  Or refresh my memory, it had to have been within the last week or so.  Maybe it was a way to buffer this announcement.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Because the loyal and faithful members of the Church have access to the Spirit of revelation (the very same Spirit of revelation that inspires and guides the leaders of the Church), there is no need for the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to always have to specify when what they teach or announce is a revelation from God. For example, right from the very first time I read the Family Proclamation I knew it was a revelation from God, and this because the Spirit of revelation testified to me --in no uncertain terms -- it was so. In the same way, I knew the policy regarding the children of gay married couples was also a revelation before Elder Nelson made the announcement yesterday.

The Doctrine and Covenants warns it's the wicked and slothful members of the Church who need to be constantly molly coddled by having to be commanded in all things. But, thankfully, because there are so many active members of the Churvh who enjoy the Spirit of revelation in their lives, the leaders of the Church are able to disseminate the revelations they receive to the faithful without having to, as it were, cram it down their throats. By this brilliant methodology, the Lord is able to lead and guide the Chuch by revelation, but without the leaders having to act like authoritarian despots who need to constantly resort to heavy handed tactics in order to keep the rank and file members of the Churvh "in line." 

But for a long time on this board there have been discussions on whether something is doctrine or policy.  So you can see, or I can see the difference.

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, salgare said:

Nehor suggested up thread the Proclamation on the Family was probably not revelation.  Hamba agreed

For a believing member of the Chuch to suggest the Family Proclamation was not produced under the inspiration of Spirit of God (revelation) is ridiculous The word of the Lord (revelation from God) is truth, therefore I would be keenly interested to see any believing member point out any portion of the Family Proclamation that isn't divine truth (revelation).

Revelation from God comes in different ways: For example, if living prophets of God choose to formally reiterate truths that have been previously revealed to other prophets, that doesn't mean the formal reiteration of truth is not a true manifestation of the Spirit of revelation. Just because the prophet Nephi testified to the divine sonship of Christ some 1,000 years before Moroni did does not mean Moroni's testimony of Christ was any less a revelatory than was Nephi's.

 45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ. (D&C 84)

Edited January 11, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

The change in the CHI is not in writing?

And Elder Nelson has now publicly declared the change to have been the result of revelation.  So what "confusion" do you think exists?

Let me be clear that I am not looking for a scrap here.  I'm not looking to argue.  I just want to understand.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

We are held to what is actually written down in the Scriptures.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Directly concerning the issue of SSM. We make covenants with God to be legally and lawfully married before engaging in sex. With SSM now legal in all 50 states it could lead some to be confused about where we stand on the issue.

[busybee]

7 hours 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.

The revelations of old may have been written down, but they weren't disseminated immediately. How long did it take for the scriptures (both ancient and modern) to be compiled and made available to the general population? If people are not going to listen to the voice of the living prophet declaring what has been revealed to him, what makes you think they will accept the same revelations more readily just because they have them written down. 

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

We are held to what is actually written down in the Scriptures.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Directly concerning the issue of SSM. We make covenants with God to be legally and lawfully married before engaging in sex. With SSM now legal in all 50 states it could lead some to be confused about where we stand on the issue.

This link also says, “Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7)…”

There are also commandments, which touch upon both revelation and doctrine. For example, the commandments Lehi and Nephi received, and how they received them in the first few books of 1 Nephi. 1 Nephi 2:1-2 is the first example of prophetic revelation and doctrine in connection with commandments that did not arise from a scriptural text.

Faith and reason come together to sustain this policy as revelation as President Nelson described it because “…intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.” Also because we are “crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time…”

Edited January 11, 2016 by CV75

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But for a long time on this board there have been discussions on whether something is doctrine or policy.  So you can see, or I can see the difference.

Policy is how the revelations of God's truth are practically applied in the real world. But there are times when a Church policy must of necessity come by revelation. The policy on how to handle the gay marriage issue in the Church is one of these. When new unprecedented problems arise, new revelation if often needed.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[stemelbow]

I'd suggest the leaders can be wrong even if it is claimed by revelation.  no one sees through clear glass and so it's possible they are all wrong.

I think the policy is wrong via my own personal effort with God and the Spirit.  I'm not sure why they feel differently, and it doesn't matter.  I have to learn to trust God over others.

The Church will come around eventually.  I can't leave on these grounds.  I don't want to be on the outside when the Church finally fixes this.

[Glenn101]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd suggest the leaders can be wrong even if it is claimed by revelation.  no one sees through clear glass and so it's possible they are all wrong.

I think the policy is wrong via my own personal effort with God and the Spirit.  I'm not sure why they feel differently, and it doesn't matter.  I have to learn to trust God over others.

The Church will come around eventually.  I can't leave on these grounds.  I don't want to be on the outside when the Church finally fixes this.

The problem is that you have not been authorized to receive revelation for the Church. I do not see the church "finally coming around."  I foresee that the church membership will become more and more polarized as other issues arise where the Brethren stand firm against the ways of the world as more and more people are deceived by the adversary into believing that the ways of the world are right and the church, i.e. the General Authorities, just is not changing properly and going with the tidal flow.

 

At some point, you will have to either stand with the Brethren, or decide on an exit strategy, much as rockpond has declared.

 

Glenn

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Glenn101 said:

The problem is that you have not been authorized to receive revelation for the Church. I do not see the church "finally coming around."  I foresee that the church membership will become more and more polarized as other issues arise where the Brethren stand firm against the ways of the world as more and more people are deceived by the adversary into believing that the ways of the world are right and the church, i.e. the General Authorities, just is not changing properly and going with the tidal flow.

 

At some point, you will have to either stand with the Brethren, or decide on an exit strategy, much as rockpond has declared.

 

Glenn

I can stand with the Brethren and disagree on a certain policy.  I don't see why that's a problem at all. 

I didn't claim revelation for the Church.  I claimed hope for the Church though.

[thesometimesaint]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This link also says, “Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7)…”

There are also commandments, which touch upon both revelation and doctrine. For example, the commandments Lehi and Nephi received, and how they received them in the first few books of 1 Nephi. 1 Nephi 2:1-2 is the first example of prophetic revelation and doctrine in connection with commandments that did not arise from a scriptural text.

Faith and reason come together to sustain this policy as revelation as President Nelson described it because “…intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.” Also because we are “crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time…”

Not a problem for me. I just like things written down. Last I looked 1Nephi is written down Scripture.

Edited January 11, 2016 by thesometimesaint
Context

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Well this is interesting. The link is now live again. I wonder if some "clarifications" were made to it? 

God is Silent on Same Sex Marriage – How Opinion Turns into Doctrine

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

There is no debate. The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. If it wasn't then it would be a complete and utter fraud. I wouldn't waste my time with it then.

That's the beauty of the Book of Mormon. There is no third option. It's either true or it's not. And the Lord provided a way for us to know for ourselves. By recieving our own revelation.

If revelation had ceased in this Church we would not be winning converts to the Book of Mormon.

There are third and fourth and fifth options, and many more.