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

[smac97]

Quote

 

As a "revelation."

I think President Nelson just answered that question for the LDS Church.

 

I'm looking for a reasoned, respectful, good-faith discussion of this topic.  So you will understand why I will decline to respond to [the substance of] your post.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 11, 2016 by smac97

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It seems to me the LDS Church has established a protocol for introducing new policy/doctrine without the need for a sustaining vote of the members.

Of course; it established this from the very start: When you look at what does require the “protocol” of a sustaining vote by the general membership, new policy and teachings have never always required common consent from more than the responsible quorum. They are covered by the sustaining vote of the responsible Church authorities.

Nothing new here!

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm looking for a reasoned, respectful, good-faith discussion of this topic.  So you will understand why I will decline to respond to your post.

Thanks,

-Smac

Umm, I think you just did.  

Thanks,

--Consiglieri

 

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps an illustration can help: God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

To further illustrate here is  an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

With these things in mind, how would you characterize the recent changes tot he CHI?  As a "doctrine," a "principle" or an "application?"

For me, I think the Word of Wisdom is "doctrine."  The "principles" we glean from the Word of Wisdom pertain to healthy living, abstaining from certain specified things (coffee, tea, tobacco), and so on.  The "application" of the Word of Wisdom will proscribe things like heroin and cocaine, because using such substances cannot be squared with either the "principles" or the "doctrine" arising from the Word of Wisdom.

As pertaining to the issue of homosexual conduct and/or same-sex marriage, I think there are "doctrines" in play, such as the Law of Chastity and various concepts pertaining to the nature and purpose of marriage.  From these we can/should/must glean "principles," and then develop appropriate "applications."

Is pornography specifically prohibited in scripture?  No, but using it cannot be squared with the Law of Chastity (any more than using heroin can be squared with the Word of Wisdom).  Plus it has been specifically and emphatically and repeatedly condemned by modern prophets and apostles.  So the "application" of the Law of Chastity to the viewing of pornography is fairly clear-cut, even though we're speaking of principally of "application" (of a "principle" gleaned from a "doctrine").

So how would we apply these principles to homosexual conduct and/or same-sex marriage.  If a Latter-day Saint, acting with sincerity and in good faith, with a desire to discern and understand and submit to the will of God, studies the scriptures and the messages of modern prophets and apostles, I think he/she will be able to develop "applications" based on "principles" gleaned from "doctrine."  And when this process is complete, I think such a person will find himself/herself standing with the Brethren on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for you reply and I think your WOW example is good..I just have a hard time with the inconsistency and where LDS people need to go for actual revelation.  If JS..and Moroni all wrote these things down..why not today's church?  Lately it has always been "after the fact"  that we hear from apostles.  But I do appreciate and respect your info and thoughts.

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just finishing listening to the devotional, and in several places he mentions that the youth of today, or the millennials as he calls them, are the chosen generation.  I think every generation since the church began has probably been referred to that.  But it has power to change them, so it's all good.  

I don't think the church will make any announcement about this devotional, per say. It just seems more of the same, revelation from a prophet in the sense that it was given plenty of prayer and fasting among the twelve.  And President Monson had the final say.  I believe, they needed to step it up and show the seriousness of the policy, and that it's more than mere policy.  

No..No...No!!  I was in the special generation!! 

[Zakuska]

Just now, Jeanne said:

No..No...No!!  I was in the special generation!! 

Me too...

 

 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Me too...

 

 

I watched this video often with my kids.  And saw the first play with the same Jimmy on stage. It's a sweet memory.    

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I watched this video often with my kids.  And saw the first play with the same Jimmy on stage. It's a sweet memory.    

Me too.  Just a memory.

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Going forward, is this how we should expect new "revelation" to be announced in the LDS Church?

At a YSA devotional by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve?

Two months after the fact?

A desperate attempt to try to solidify their authority ... as it slowly slips away from them.

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The perceived large outcry is coming mostly from church critics. Those directly affected by the policy is very small. And the concerns of those directly affected have been answered. 

The outcry might be coming from so called critics.  But there are many, like me, active church members who are silently checking out of the church spiritually and emotionally -- even if we are physically still there.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Understood, but his post wasn't about other churches.  It wasn't about who could receive revelation.  It was implying the leaders of the church were dishonest because if the change had really come from a revelation everyone would been told about it.  

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

All I am saying is the fact President Nelson felt this was important enough to address at a YSA devotional suggests his impression that the controversy has not gone away.

And the fact he addressed it specifically to the Young Adults is further suggestive of what segment of LDS Church membership is finding the new policy most problematic.

The critics don't want to let it go away. They will milk it for every thing they can get out of it just to make the church look bad. That's why President Nelson is talking to the youth about it, whose testimonies of the Gospel are still young. 

[Gray]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Sorry, I can't reconcile what you've written above with the current policy direction of the Church.  If God wants me to turn off my brain and spirit on this one, He'll have to let me know.

The Church is losing its way.  I've tried to stay as long as I can.  I'm not sure how to weather this one.

The people with the 15 most senior callings in the church are not "the church." But I agree that they have lost their way on this issue. 

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

I noticed that too. The whole process outlined in the D&C has been circumvented.  

Just another section of the D&C that we've ditched in favor of the demand for unquestioning fealty to the men in the red chairs.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The critics don't want to let it go away. They will milk it for every thing they can get out of it just to make the church look bad. That's why President Nelson is talking to the youth about it, whose testimonies of the Gospel are still young. 

I love the way you just keep blaming the critics..haven't you any other response?

[smac97]

So here's the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on "common consent":

Quote

Common consent is a fundamental principle of decision making at all levels in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In selecting new officers and making administrative decisions, Church leaders are instructed to seek the will of God. Once the Lord makes his will known and a decision is reached, the matter is brought before the appropriate quorum or body of Church members, who are asked to sustain or oppose the action.

Based on Elder Nelson's remarks last night, it appears that President Monson did not craft the changes to the CHI and impose them by fiat.  He presented the issue to the Quorum of the Twelve, who sustained the action.

So for those who think the Law of Common Consent was not followed as regarding the changes to the CHI, could you explain your position in light of what Elder Nelson said?

Back to the EOM:

Quote

 

The principle of common consent has functioned in the Church since its inception, though the actual practices incorporating this principle have evolved significantly. The revelation on LDS Church government, received when it was organized in April 1830, states: "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church" (D&C 20:65). This instruction was reemphasized three months later: "All things shall be done by common consent in the church" (D&C 26:2). LDS practices may have been influenced in these earliest years by the Book of Mormon model of theocratic government that conducted its "business by the voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:25-26), and by biblical example (e.g., Ex. 24:3; Num. 27:19).

Evidence from accounts of some early meetings and conferences indicates that many of the New England leaders of the Church felt that the membership should be directly involved in decision-making meetings, including making motions on policy issues, following standard parliamentary procedure for public meetings, and voting to finalize decisions. Individual members sometimes exercised the prerogative to call a meeting, and once it was in session, anyone had the right to address the group. The conduct of their meetings followed the congregational model that was familiar to them. However, before long early Latter-day Saints began to realize that having a prophet as their leader was a reality that must be recognized in decision making, and that they could not follow the traditional congregational model without denying the authority and revelations that God had bestowed on Joseph Smith, these being the essential features of the Restoration that brought them together in the Church.

An incident in September 1830, wherein Hiram Page claimed to have received revelations for the direction of the Church, brought the issue into focus. The confusion of Oliver Cowdery and other Church members that was caused by Page's claim to be a second revelator provided the occasion for a revelation through Joseph Smith clarifying the distinctive role of Joseph as the prophet. This revelation also indicated that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church" (D&C 28:13). As the authority of Joseph Smith and his successors in the office of President of the Church was clarified over the following years by subsequent revelations (D&C 107:65-67, 91-92), the principle that the sustaining voice of the members of the Church should be sought was also repeatedly reaffirmed (D&C 38:34;42:11;102:9;124:144). As priesthood councils and priesthood quorums were introduced into the Church organization, general discussion of policy issues and decision making became more their responsibility in council meetings, and less an agenda item for conferences, which in turn focused more on preaching the gospel.

 

The cynics amongst us will, I think, discount the early Church's gradual refinement of its understanding of the concept of "common consent."  However, I think that process was helpful in the founding days of the Church as preparation for the inevitable time when such "hands-on" application of the the Law of Common Consent would no longer be feasible (such as, say, administering the affairs of an international Church numbering in the millions in 2016).

Back to the EOM:

Quote

Today the Church continues to operate by divine revelation and common consent. Callings to positions of Church service at all levels of the organization and ordination to the priesthood are made by the inspiration of authorized leaders and are then brought before the appropriate body of members to be sustained or opposed. Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way. This procedure is also followed in accepting important revelations and scriptural additions.

This sounds about right.

More:

Quote

In a much less visible but equally important practice, decision makers at all levels present policy decisions and callings to priesthood councils for their comment and approval. At the local level a bishop will ordinarily discuss decisions with his counselors in the bishopric before presenting a matter to the ward membership for a sustaining vote. On many policy and program decisions the bishopric will consult with the ward council and work for consensus in that group before taking action. Following the same pattern, the stake president consults with his counselors in the stake presidency and then with the high council. The First Presidency consults in this same way on matters of general Church policy and action in regular meetings with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

This appears to be what happened hear.  The "level" of changes to the CHI is church-wide.  The people with stewardship over the entirety of the Church are, as I understand it, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  These two groups came together and, through application of the Law of Common Consent, sustained President Monson's action.

Now there some relatively few people in the Church who disagree with this action.  However, I think it is erroneous to suppose that such people have some sort of "veto power" in this matter.  Again from the EOM:

Quote

Unanimity is the ideal for all these decision processes because of the importance of unity in the Church: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). The three presiding quorums over the whole Church are of equal authority within their own spheres (D&C 107:22-26), but their decisions are of "the same power or validity" only when made "by the unanimous voice" of the quorum (D&C 107:27). Many important decisions take shape over what seem like long periods because achieving unanimity is highly valued by the quorums.

Because of the emphasis on divine and prophetic leadership and because of well-established norms and values in decision-making procedures, public dissent on a proposed calling or policy is unusual. There are, however, mechanisms for accommodating dissent. Normally, if one or more members find the proposed action objectionable, the dissenting member or members are asked to meet with the presiding officer privately to make known the reason for the question or objection. After considering the objections, presiding officers are free to pursue whatever decision they believe to be right.

Our "voice" in this matter is our sustaining vote.  

Here are some further resources about the Law of Common Consent:

The D&C Manual (emphasis added):

Quote

 

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

 

I wonder if the changes to the CHI fit within the parameters of the bolded section above.  I could see it going either way.  

Church History Study Guide:

Quote

 

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2—What Does “Common Consent” Mean?

In an earlier revelation the Lord declared, “No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church” (D&C 20:65). The principle of requiring all ordinations and callings to be sustained by the Church members has become known as the law of common consent (D&C 26:2). Speaking about common consent, Elder Mark E. Petersen, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained: “This rules out cultists of all kinds, false teachers and false leaders of every description, and puts the Lord’s people on notice that there is but one clear directing voice in the Church, and that is the voice of the prophet, r, and revelator duly chosen by revelation and accepted by the vote of the people in the general conference of the Church” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1974, 82; orEnsign,May 1974, 56).

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke of how important that sustaining vote is to the leaders of the Church: “I especially thank you for sustaining your leaders, whatever their personal sense of limitation may be. This morning, in common consent, you volunteered to uphold—or more literally ‘hold up’—the presiding officers of the kingdom, those who bear the keys and responsibility for the work, not one man of whom sought the position or feels equal to the task. And even when Jeffrey Holland’s name is proposed as the last and the least of the newly ordained, your arm goes lovingly to the square. And you say to Brother Holland through his tears and his nights of walking the floor: ‘You lean on us. Lean on us out here in Omaha and Ontario and Osaka, where we have never even n you and scarcely know who you are. But you are one of the “Brethren,” so you are no stranger or foreigner to us, but a fellow citizen in the household of God. You will be prayed for in our family, and you will hold a place within our hearts. Our strength shall be your strength. Our faith will build your faith. Your work will be our work’” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 41–42; orEnsign,Nov. 1994, 32).

 

Sperry Symposium Article (I was going to post excerpts, but it's too long and too worth a read in its entirety).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Bobbieware, would you call Rockpond wicked and slothful?  If one has access to revelation...it has to agree with the Church.  Personal revelation can be accessed by love and compassion for others..Christlike.  Why study any scripture if personal revelation dictates our conscience with sincere prayer?  Sounds like everyone is wicked and slothful if they don't agree.

Thanks, Jeanne.  The more I grow in the church the more I realize the simple truth of John 14:26.  I have to rely on the Spirit to learn truth, above all:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[Zakuska]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The cynics amongst us will, I think, discount the early Church's gradual refinement of its understanding of the concept of "common consent."  However, I think that process was helpful in the founding days of the Church as preparation for the inevitable time when such "hands-on" application of the the Law of Common Consent would no longer be feasible (such as, say, administering the affairs of an international Church numbering in the millions in 2016).

Complete cop out smac97. God administers a Universal church by "Law of Common Consent"...  Numbering as the sands of the sea.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Zakuska

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

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.

When I said I felt darkness, I was referring to the feeling of a LACK of confirmation from the Spirit.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

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.

Thank you, Jeanne.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

 

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......

Thank you.

[consiglieri]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

Understood, but his post wasn't about other churches.  It wasn't about who could receive revelation.  It was implying the leaders of the church were dishonest because if the change had really come from a revelation everyone would been told about it.  

The one post I did about it just set forth the facts of the matter.

The chronology suggests that calling this a revelation was a post hoc attempt to solidify support among the faithful.

Facts are stubborn things.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

I think you have the tallest rameumptom of them all.

Impressive!

Please do elaborate as I haven't the faintest idea what you're getting at.

[rockpond]

2 hours 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?

Yep... very interesting that neither Elder Christofferson's interview now the FP letter of Nov 13 bothered to refer to it as revelation.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

To the "the church is too big for common consent among the membership" argument...

Perhaps, that is because the General Church has overstepped its authority and regulated the Stakes to something lessor than what they should be.. The leading quorums of the church are to handle missionary work, ecclesiastical matters in unorganized areas, and to resolve disciplinary actions in dispute at the Stake level. They were not the be the end all and be all, and the Stakes were meant to have much more autonomy. Each with their own Presiding High Priest and High Council, which are now just really seen as perfunctory in the church.