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

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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?

If secret revelations are valid, what about that secret revelation that the church could never abandon polygamy?

[consiglieri]

So President Nelson announced last night the new policy change was the result of revelation to President Monson?

This is remarkable.

Let me make sure I have the chronology straight:

1. The LDS Church without knowledge of the general laity included the new policy in the Church Handbook of Instructions.  The Church made no announcement of the new policy, and no announcement that it was received by revelation, even though General Conference was just one month previous to its inclusion in the CHI.

2. On November 5, 2015, the new policy was leaked, creating a good deal of controversy among the Mormon (and non-Mormon) community. 

3. On November 6, 2015, an interview of Elder Christofferson was released by the LDS Church in which various reasons were given for the new policy.  None of those reasons included revelation.

4. On November 13, 2015, a First Presidency letter was issued "clarifying" the new policy.  No mention of revelation was made.

5. On January 9, 2016, two months later, President Nelson gives a talk in which he claims the new policy was received by revelation to President Monson.

At no time before January 9, 2016 was any claim made that this new policy was received by revelation.

 

I just want to make sure I have the facts straight.

Please correct me if I have anything wrong.

I think there was an article on the Church News webpage shortly after the leak, as well, in which no revelation was claimed for the new policy.  Does anybody know the date for this?

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

If secret revelations are valid, what about that secret revelation that the church could never abandon polygamy?

It hasn't abandoned polygamy; it's still right there in Section 132 of the D&C. But God has commanded us not to live it in mortality right now.

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord."  (D&C 56: 4)

 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The process being described by the faithful here as the means of modern revelation sounds no different than what I would expect to find in the leading council of the SDA church or some similar council based church leadership structure:

1) Identify an issue
2) Discuss possible solution
3) Pray a bunch
4) Implement what you feel impressed to do

Or do you believe they don't pray and ponder over the same issues? That they do a rock, scissors, paper approach? The SDA church in particular seems to be making very wise decisions concerning the direction of their organization.

 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So President Nelson announced last night the new policy change was the result of revelation to President Monson?

This is remarkable.

Let me make sure I have the chronology straight:

1. The LDS Church without knowledge of the general laity included the new policy in the Church Handbook of Instructions.  The Church made no announcement of the new policy, and no announcement that it was received by revelation, even though General Conference was just one month previous to its inclusion in the CHI.

2. On November 5, 2015, the new policy was leaked, creating a good deal of controversy among the Mormon (and non-Mormon) community. 

3. On November 6, 2015, an interview of Elder Christofferson was released by the LDS Church in which various reasons were given for the new policy.  None of those reasons included revelation.

4. On November 13, 2015, a First Presidency letter was issued "clarifying" the new policy.  No mention of revelation was made.

5. On January 9, 2016, two months later, President Nelson gives a talk in which he claims the new policy was received by revelation to President Monson.

At no time before January 9, 2016 was any claim made that this new policy was received by revelation.

 

I just want to make sure I have the facts straight.

Please correct me if I have anything wrong.

I think there was an article on the Church News webpage shortly after the leak, as well, in which no revelation was claimed for the new policy.  Does anybody know the date for this?

One important point to get out of this, then, is revelation is not foolproof by any means.  To design something that was the policy written in the handbook that needed the clarification, to the extent in which it came, speaks clearly on what is revelation.  It seems to be feeling, impression, idea, and an ok from others.  I don't mean to say revelation is bad because of this.  It is what it is.  We'll get further light and knowledge some day, as others press upon us, and things will open up. 

[consiglieri]

I think what we are witnessing is myth-making in action.

The 2-month late announcement of a revelation suggests more about the continued controversy of the policy than its source.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

The process being described by the faithful here as the means of modern revelation sounds no different than what I would expect to find in the leading council of the SDA church or some similar council based church leadership structure:

1) Identify an issue
2) Discuss possible solution
3) Pray a bunch
4) Implement what you feel impressed to do

Or do you believe they don't pray and ponder over the same issues? That they do a rock, scissors, paper approach? The SDA church in particular seems to be making very wise decisions concerning the direction of their organization.

 

I think that's about right.  And no doubt every organization, SDA or otherwise, will run on similar methods.  Revelation can be had by any.  Not bad.  I suppose it's possible with that as the base, we can still think other forms of revelation still come now and then.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What it disconcerting to many is that over the span of 15 years over 100 revelations were received and recorded as "Thus saith the Lord..." for the direction of the church, and since that time there has not been  a single "Thus saith the Lord..." even for OD 1 and OD 2. And "feelings" and "impressions" are the standard which we should follow.

Can you not see how that would concern people?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think what we are witnessing is myth-making in action.

The 2-month late announcement of a revelation suggests more about the continued controversy of the policy than its source.

Sure.  It didn't go away quite like they anticipated.  I can see a day when someone else will have to say it was not by revelation. 

[Senator]

7 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." 

I think you have the tallest rameumptom of them all.

Impressive!

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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

Yes, there are quite a few revisions.  For example, the original article stated:

"If God is silent on Same Sex Marriage, why aren’t we? Surely there are greater injustices in the world than people who want to legitimise their commitment to each other. If we’ve learnt anything from repetition in scripture, it’s that pride is the worst sin. Maybe God is not silent – it’s just that our vanity is stopping us from hearing what He is really trying to say!"

Now it states:

"If God is silent on Same Sex Marriage, why aren’t we? – Our ‘speculation’ on this matter is hurting innocent people and simply needs to stop! Likewise this new policy against children being deprived of ordinances is abhorrent and in direct contradiction to our revelations and it needs to be rescinded."

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

I know... I was just looking for an excuse to say something... LOL

[Senator]

10 hours 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.

 

 

 

Rockpond,

While I must say that I do not agree with you position, I do however respect your decision, without any need for upbraid.

If you have been genuine in you quest for understanding, than you simply have done what Brigham Young said should be done by every member of the church.

It is a disappointment nonetheless.

However, you are not done yet......

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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

Yes, there are some clarifications.  But not, IMO, for the better.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think what we are witnessing is myth-making in action.

The 2-month late announcement of a revelation suggests more about the continued controversy of the policy than its source.

I don't see any need for a worldwide announcement of a policy that was going to affect a very small minority of church members. They would have been made aware of it through their Bishops as needed.

Church leaders receive revelation every day on various matters concerning the administration of the church.

[Senator]

It appears to me by E. Nelsen's discription, that what took place at how this revelation was received, that it is very much akin to the

revelation on the priesthood.

I'm looking forward to the announcement of this as an Official Declaration.

[smac97]

.

[Jeanne]

10 hours 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.

 

 

My heart goes out to you and your family.  I admire your integrity and trust that the darkness will be a journey to bright light. Do what is best for you.

[Rain]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So President Nelson announced last night the new policy change was the result of revelation to President Monson?

This is remarkable.

Let me make sure I have the chronology straight:

1. The LDS Church without knowledge of the general laity included the new policy in the Church Handbook of Instructions.  The Church made no announcement of the new policy, and no announcement that it was received by revelation, even though General Conference was just one month previous to its inclusion in the CHI.

2. On November 5, 2015, the new policy was leaked, creating a good deal of controversy among the Mormon (and non-Mormon) community. 

3. On November 6, 2015, an interview of Elder Christofferson was released by the LDS Church in which various reasons were given for the new policy.  None of those reasons included revelation.

4. On November 13, 2015, a First Presidency letter was issued "clarifying" the new policy.  No mention of revelation was made.

5. On January 9, 2016, two months later, President Nelson gives a talk in which he claims the new policy was received by revelation to President Monson.

At no time before January 9, 2016 was any claim made that this new policy was received by revelation.

 

I just want to make sure I have the facts straight.

Please correct me if I have anything wrong.

I think there was an article on the Church News webpage shortly after the leak, as well, in which no revelation was claimed for the new policy.  Does anybody know the date for this?

Really?

Sometimes when I tell people about the events leading up to my marriage I say that DH and I met in a family home evening group in Logan, UT. We both went on missions and got married 4 years later.

If I later tell them that I knew we would marry because of revelation 4 years before he asked me, that we wrote each other on our missions till I felt the Spirit telling me I needed to concentrate on our missions, that the Spirit told me when and where he would ask me before he knew he would ask at all, no one tells me, "you didn't tell me everything up front so I am finding it hard to believe you."

When I was the RS homemaking counselor I didn’t go around saying, "we've prayed and received revelation that we should have this activity", but that's what happened a lot. And if I had gone around being that obnoxious then I would have been described as holier than thou. 

This church stands on revelation from the Lord about his church. To think that the leaders didn’t pray over this issue and receive revelation over it only because they didn’t mention it ignores the whole history and teachings of the church.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think what we are witnessing is myth-making in action.

The 2-month late announcement of a revelation suggests more about the continued controversy of the policy than its source.

There are so many things done in the kingdom by revelation and no requirement that each action be heralded publicly as a revelation. When President Nelson describes the backstory for a policy or action as a revelatory process and revelation. no big deal! Adding a revelation to the canon would follow a more formal procedure.

[Jeanne]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah..I tried to access this and couldn't.  I am late to the thread.

[Mystery Meat]

10 hours 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.

My only advice would be to remember that the Lord is not the source of feelings of darkness. So if darkness is what you felt, be mindful of the source. It took me a long time to learn that, recognize it, and put it into practical application. Once I did, however, it changed my life.

[Bob Crockett]

41 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think what we are witnessing is myth-making in action.

The 2-month late announcement of a revelation suggests more about the continued controversy of the policy than its source.

The Mormon fundamentalists quibble a lot about what is and what is not revelation when OD 1 was issued.  It can't be revelation because it wasn't added to the D&C as a section, delays, not spoken with "thus saith the Lord" etc.  Much of their doctrine is built around this argument.   So is yours.  

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

Really?

Sometimes when I tell people about the events leading up to my marriage I say that DH and I met in a family home evening group in Logan, UT. We both went on missions and got married 4 years later.

If I later tell them that I knew we would marry because of revelation 4 years before he asked me, that we wrote each other on our missions till I felt the Spirit telling me I needed to concentrate on our missions, that the Spirit told me when and where he would ask me before he knew he would ask at all, no one tells me, "you didn't tell me everything up front so I am finding it hard to believe you."

When I was the RS homemaking counselor I didn’t go around saying, "we've prayed and received revelation that we should have this activity", but that's what happened a lot. And if I had gone around being that obnoxious then I would have been described as holier than thou. 

This church stands on revelation from the Lord about his church. To think that the leaders didn’t pray over this issue and receive revelation over it only because they didn’t mention it ignores the whole history and teachings of the church.

Every Church works the way you describe though.  I think that's the issue.  We claim revelation but as it gets described our revelation is no more revelation than many other Church's revelation.  We all feel impressed to do certain things and we do them, whether we are LDS or not. 

[smac97]

Quote

 

It appears to me by E. Nelsen's discription, that what took place at how this revelation was received, that it is very much akin to the

revelation on the priesthood.

I'm looking forward to the announcement of this as an Official Declaration.

 

What are your thoughts if it ends up not being canonized?

Personally, I would like to see a canonized revelation on the subject of same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage.  I think there are some members of the Church who have bought into the notion that there really isn't a scriptural basis for condemning homosexual conduct as sin, or that "same-sex marriage" can be a holy thing allowed or endorsed by God.  A revelation on the subject would be painful for many Saints, and would probably cause some people to leave the Church.  But it would also put an end to speculation, the scripture-wresting, and so on.  Nevertheless, I am confident that the Brethren are aware of differing opinions in the Church on these issues, that they are discussing these issues with each other, that they are seeking divine guidance on these issues, and that if a revelation is not forthcoming, it will not be because the Brethren have refused to make these issues objects of discussion, study, pondering, fasting, praying, and so on.

The Brethren are not all grouped together in some sort of echo chamber in Salt Lake.  They are out and about constantly.  They are in direct and constant communication with each other, with members of the quorums of seventies, who are in direct and constant communication with stake presidents, mission presidents and district presidents, who are in direct and constant communication with bishops and branch presidents, who are in direct and constant communication with members of their wards/branches.

The Brethren also function in quorums.  Note that Elder Nelson's talk last night debunks the notion expressed in some quarters that there are "factions" amongst the Twelve, and that the recent changes to the CHI were an attempt by one of these factions to establish as doctrine or entrenched policy the faction's worldview (that homosexual conduct is sinful, and that same-sex marriage is incompatible with fellowship in the Church) before the members of that faction die off.  Instead, we have statements indicating unanimity amongst the Brethren, and also that the unanimity arose from confirming revelation to the members of the Twelve.  The function of quorums in the Church is important.  Quorums operate as a bulwark against the risk of one individual leader characterizing his personal opinion as a revealed truth and then presenting it to the entirety of the Church.  Decisions arising from quorums, particularly from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, can therefore provide quite a bit of comfort to the membership of the church.  I'm not saying the decisions of these quorums are utterly without flaw or defect, but in terms of "broad strokes" the Brethren are getting things right, and are likely to continue to get things substantially right while they function in quorums.

Thanks,

-Smac