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

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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

I know that the very few people this actually affects have legitimate concerns about it, but the majority of the outcry is coming from people who are taking advantage of the situation to fan the flames of hate against the church and its leaders or to press their own agendas that are in direct conflict with church doctrines.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

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. 

I generally use Church (capital C) to refer to the corporate version and church (lower-case c) to refer to the gathering of saints.  The two continue to produce very different spiritual experiences for me.

[Jeanne]

Just now, JAHS said:

I know that the very few people this actually affects have legitimate concerns about it, but the majority of the outcry is coming from people who are taking advantage of the situation to fan the flames of hate against the church and its leaders or to press their own agendas that are in direct conflict with church doctrines.

And some of them may be in your congregations.  This has affected everyone.  Sure there are people who are flagrant about damning the church..but blaming them doesn't change anything.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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:

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:

This sounds about right.

More:

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:

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):

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:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

 

Based on my understanding of common consent and consistent with the quotes you provided ("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 don't believe that Common Consent means that only the 15 consent to something.  The "common" refers to the body of the Church.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I know that the very few people this actually affects have legitimate concerns about it, but the majority of the outcry is coming from people who are taking advantage of the situation to fan the flames of hate against the church and its leaders or to press their own agendas that are in direct conflict with church doctrines.

You seem to have missed the multitude of essays written by faithful members of their church regarding their opposition to this policy.  Hint:  The opposition isn't about fanning the flames of hate.

[filovirus]

45 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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.

Not sure I follow. I can find all revelations and teachings in today's church written down. I don't think there are any 'word of mouth' only teachings I am aware of. Can you elaborate on what you meant?

Wasn't learning about the policy change in November "[hear]ing from apostles"? I don't understand this "after the fact"  statement. Is it because people needed further clarification on how the inspiration to make the change came about? Should we expect the 12 to make a public statement every time a new policy comes about and how they got inspiration from the Lord?

[Zakuska]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Based on my understanding of common consent and consistent with the quotes you provided ("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 don't believe that Common Consent means that only the 15 consent to something.  The "common" refers to the body of the Church.

And yet this "Policy" change was not presented to the Body of the church at all. Like I said the process was completely subverted.

If we take a look the OT we see the law of common consent in action.  God gives a law through Moses, he brings it to the people and reads it and then they consent or not to live that law.  The first time the people did not give their consent. So Moses has to go back to God and bring back another law until the people consent to live that law given.

In our case with this "Policy" the Q15 simply "dictated" its implementation.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Zakuska

[Bobbieaware]

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.

First there is real personal revelation that actually comes from God, and then there that which pretends to be revelation from God but is actually counterfeit revelation  that's calculated to lead one astray. The scruptures often associate these false revelations with dark spiritual influences.  And while these dark spiritual influenced can make a powerful impression upon the human mind, they are still nonetheless false. The sincerely deceived are still deceived no matter how sincere they are.

But what we have is here is merely a point of disagreement between someone who believes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church of Jesus Christ on earth and someone else who doesn't. It's only reasonable to understand that if one believes the LDS Church is true, then he or she will think the way I do; but if one doesn't believe the LDS Church is true, then he or she will think the way you do. To each his or her own.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Not sure I follow. I can find all revelations and teachings in today's church written down. I don't think there are any 'word of mouth' only teachings I am aware of. Can you elaborate on what you meant?

Wasn't learning about the policy change in November "[hear]ing from apostles"? I don't understand this "after the fact"  statement. Is it because people needed further clarification on how the inspiration to make the change came about? Should we expect the 12 to make a public statement every time a new policy comes about and how they got inspiration from the Lord?

I just meant that NOW we are receiving the info that this was a revelation.  Why wasn't this a revelation when they came out with the policy in the first place?

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Based on my understanding of common consent and consistent with the quotes you provided ("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 don't believe that Common Consent means that only the 15 consent to something.  The "common" refers to the body of the Church.

Not always, and not in every instance. Plus, once the general membership sustains them into office we are bound by covenant to abide their decisions. Some of those decisions, such as adding to the canon, requires additional sustaining by the general membership but most things do not require it as we have delegated our common consent to the members of the decision-making quorums.

In adding to canon, we are adding to the testaments and covenants between the Lord and His people. In the case of policy, there is nothing being added to the canon. Especially in this case, where the marriage covenant hasn't changed at all.

We are bound to uphold policy in the sense that we uphold the operation of the kingdom.

[Zakuska]

6 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Should we expect the 12 to make a public statement every time a new policy comes about and how they got inspiration from the Lord?

According to the D&C, yes we should.

 D&C 26:2

[filovirus]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I just meant that NOW we are receiving the info that this was a revelation.  Why wasn't this a revelation when they came out with the policy in the first place?

It was.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

First there is real personal revelation that actually comes from God, and then there that which pretends to be revelation from God but is actually counterfeit revelation  that's calculated to lead one astray. The scruptures often associate these false revelations with dark spiritual influences.  And while these dark spiritual influenced can make a powerful impression upon the human mind, they are still nonetheless false. The sincerely deceived are still deceived no matter how sincere they are.

But what we have is here is merely a point of disagreement between someone who believes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church of Jesus Christ on earth and someone else who doesn't. It's only reasonable to understand that if one believes the LDS Church is true, then he or she will think the way I do; but if one doesn't believe the LDS Church is true, then he or she will think the way you do. To each his or her own.

You are back to a personal revelation not being valid.  That doesn't work.  Who is to say that revelation from Monson is valid?  Some will feel the spirit..some won't and yet the Holy Ghost is there to reveal such.  If this was revelation from Pres. Monson...where has it been for 2 months??  Should be a big deal  and there are excellent, wonderful human beings are are just as susceptable to the spirit that are not pretending..this is like saying if Monson says that the sky is purple today..it is..and so be it. 

[filovirus]

2 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

According to the D&C, yes we should.

 D&C 26:2

Sounds to me like it went through the correct channels. Common consent is not a vote from general membership.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, filovirus said:

It was.

 

4 minutes ago, filovirus said:

It was.

They didn't say so..nothing was said about talking to God.  It was a policy..one of many...earrings anyone??

[Zakuska]

12 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Common consent is not a vote from general membership.

You better go reread D&C 26.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng

 

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Zakuska

[smac97]

Jeanne,

Quote

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.

A few thoughts:

First, I am not persuaded that the Brethren are not keeping records of their meetings, their revelatory experiences, and so on.  To the contrary, ours is a record-keeping Church (see D&CC 21:1), so I am actually quite confident that such records are being kept.  

Second, I'm not sure I understand your concern about hearing from the Brethren "after the fact."  Could you clarify that?  It would seem that announcements about changes in policy, etc. will always be "after the fact."

Third, I posted some thoughts and resources about The Law of Common Consent.  I think we as Latter-day Saints need to collectively come to a better understanding about how this law works.

Fourth, I have participated in leadership meetings at the stake and ward levels (high council and bishopric).  At such meetings there are issues presented and discussed, and consensuses reached.  For example, in my ward the issue of scheduling the building came up a while back.  Our ward shares the building with a Japanese ward and a YSA ward.  The YSA ward asked to keep the 1:00 block permanently, as this facilitates their "Linger Longer" meals after their meetings.  The Japanese ward had, for some time, been meeting at 11:00, and our ward at 9:00.  The bishop of the Japanese ward advised our bishop that their ward would like to alternate between the 9:00 and 11:00 blocks each year.  Our bishop, who is the agent bishop for the building, spoke with his counselors about this issue, and then the next week presented these issues to our ward council.  Some wanted to keep the 9:00 schedule permanently, some wanted to cycle through all three schedules (including the 1:00 schedule), and some wanted to accommodate both the Japanese ward and the YSA ward by giving the 1:00 schedule to the YSA ward, and to alternate between 9:00 and 11:00.  Some of the women in the room spoke about possible concerns from young mothers who need to cope with eating/napping schedules for their children.  Others mentioned that older folks in our ward (we have quite a few) may have difficulty in doing home teaching and other assignments after church if we cycled through the 1:00 schedule.  Others felt that our ward had kept the 9:00 time for a very long time (17 years, I believe), and that we should just keep going with it.  After having considered and discussed the various options, the bishop stated that he felt the best course of action would be to accommodate both the Japanese ward and the YSA ward by letting YSA ward keep the 1:00 schedule, and to alternate between 9:00 and 11:00.  He asked if anyone opposed this, and nobody did.  The bishop notified the other bishops in the building and, a few months later (in November, I believe), he announced to the ward the scheduling change, and the following January the change was implemented by all three wards.  Prior to this the bishop did not seek out "public comment" or approval from individual ward members about this change.  He knew from past experience that most of the ward enjoyed meeting at 9:00, and he took that into account when going through the foregoing steps.  The bishop also did not communicate to the ward all of the various factors that had gone into the schedule change, or the points raised during the discussion, etc.  He did, however, notify the stake president in writing of the schedule change and the circumstances leading up to it.

So, was the Law of Common Consent followed in our ward?  I think so.  Why?  Because the members of the ward has sustained the bishop previously.  Because the members of the ward were represented by quorum and auxiliary leaders in the ward council when the schedule change was discussed.  Because the bishop listened to the ward council, and to the other wards' bishops, and also noted the general practice of rotating schedules as seen in most other multi-ward buildings in the Church, and so on.

I am confident that the Brethren have similar meetings and discussions.  And that they keep records of these meetings.  And that they also keep records when spiritual/revelatory experiences are presented to the quorum.  And that some of these meetings result in changes meriting the attention of the Church.  And that the results of these meetings are promulgated, even if the specific minutes and details are not (I am not sure such public airings are necessary, or even appropriate in many circumstances).  And that church members have the option of giving or withholding a sustaining vote at the next General Conference if they feel so inclined.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

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

no. There really isn't

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Sounds to me like it went through the correct channels. Common consent is not a vote from general membership.

And here we have it... the makings of the new 21st century definition of Common Consent.  It doesn't come from the body of the church, it's just the 15 men at the top.  If they announce something than we just assume that they have had a common consent.  Yeah for the Church!  So easy now.  We can save time and worry by not asking the body of the Christ to actually take matters to the Lord in prayer.  Just reaffirm your fealty to the Brethren.

[smac97]

Quote

And here we have it... the makings of the new 21st century definition of Common Consent.  It doesn't come from the body of the church, it's just the 15 men at the top.  If they announce something than we just assume that they have had a common consent.  Yeah for the Church!  So easy now.  We can save time and worry by not asking the body of the Christ to actually take matters to the Lord in prayer.  Just reaffirm your fealty to the Brethren.

What are your thoughts about the FP/Q12 having received a sustaining vote from the membership of the Church?  Are you suggesting that there has been some critical mass reached (or that it will be reached) where a substantial portion (a majority?) of the Saints do not sustain the FP/Q12?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

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.

Possible, but we'll never know for sure. That scenario would be less disturbing than the one presented in the talk, though. 

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I generally use Church (capital C) to refer to the corporate version and church (lower-case c) to refer to the gathering of saints.  The two continue to produce very different spiritual experiences for me.

I have the same experience. 

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

no. There really isn't

Of course there are. For instance, it could be completely ahistorical and yet authentic scripture inspired by God (like most of the Bible). If you want to start a new thread about that we could discuss it in detail. 

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Jeanne,

A few thoughts:

First, I am not persuaded that the Brethren are not keeping records of their meetings, their revelatory experiences, and so on.  To the contrary, ours is a record-keeping Church (see D&CC 21:1), so I am actually quite confident that such records are being kept.  

Second, I'm not sure I understand your concern about hearing from the Brethren "after the fact."  Could you clarify that?  It would seem that announcements about changes in policy, etc. will always be "after the fact."

Third, I posted some thoughts and resources about The Law of Common Consent.  I think we as Latter-day Saints need to collectively come to a better understanding about how this law works.

Fourth, I have participated in leadership meetings at the stake and ward levels (high council and bishopric).  At such meetings there are issues presented and discussed, and consensuses reached.  For example, in my ward the issue of scheduling the building came up a while back.  Our ward shares the building with a Japanese ward and a YSA ward.  The YSA ward asked to keep the 1:00 block permanently, as this facilitates their "Linger Longer" meals after their meetings.  The Japanese ward had, for some time, been meeting at 11:00, and our ward at 9:00.  The bishop of the Japanese ward advised our bishop that their ward would like to alternate between the 9:00 and 11:00 blocks each year.  Our bishop, who is the agent bishop for the building, spoke with his counselors about this issue, and then the next week presented these issues to our ward council.  Some wanted to keep the 9:00 schedule permanently, some wanted to cycle through all three schedules (including the 1:00 schedule), and some wanted to accommodate both the Japanese ward and the YSA ward by giving the 1:00 schedule to the YSA ward, and to alternate between 9:00 and 11:00.  Some of the women in the room spoke about possible concerns from young mothers who need to cope with eating/napping schedules for their children.  Others mentioned that older folks in our ward (we have quite a few) may have difficulty in doing home teaching and other assignments after church if we cycled through the 1:00 schedule.  Others felt that our ward had kept the 9:00 time for a very long time (17 years, I believe), and that we should just keep going with it.  After having considered and discussed the various options, the bishop stated that he felt the best course of action would be to accommodate both the Japanese ward and the YSA ward by letting YSA ward keep the 1:00 schedule, and to alternate between 9:00 and 11:00.  He asked if anyone opposed this, and nobody did.  The bishop notified the other bishops in the building and, a few months later (in November, I believe), he announced to the ward the scheduling change, and the following January the change was implemented by all three wards.  Prior to this the bishop did not seek out "public comment" or approval from individual ward members about this change.  He knew from past experience that most of the ward enjoyed meeting at 9:00, and he took that into account when going through the foregoing steps.  The bishop also did not communicate to the ward all of the various factors that had gone into the schedule change, or the points raised during the discussion, etc.  He did, however, notify the stake president in writing of the schedule change and the circumstances leading up to it.

So, was the Law of Common Consent followed in our ward?  I think so.  Why?  Because the members of the ward has sustained the bishop previously.  Because the members of the ward were represented by quorum and auxiliary leaders in the ward council when the schedule change was discussed.  Because the bishop listened to the ward council, and to the other wards' bishops, and also noted the general practice of rotating schedules as seen in most other multi-ward buildings in the Church, and so on.

I am confident that the Brethren have similar meetings and discussions.  And that they keep records of these meetings.  And that they also keep records when spiritual/revelatory experiences are presented to the quorum.  And that some of these meetings result in changes meriting the attention of the Church.  And that the results of these meetings are promulgated, even if the specific minutes and details are not (I am not sure such public airings are necessary, or even appropriate in many circumstances).  And that church members have the option of giving or withholding a sustaining vote at the next General Conference if they feel so inclined.  

Thanks,

-Smac

If JS and Moroni wrote things down...it is knowledge/revelation.  By "after the fact"  I meant that after the policy was put in place in November..it doesn't become an official revelation until last night..and that isn't even from Pres. Monson himself.  The people in the church are not getting things straignt..and if they do..it is late.  One can write things down all day..but is it a policy??  Or the kind of revelation that JS got time and time again...written down.  People..this is silly.  What has happened here is that people are hurting on a common sense issue that requires compassion.  Could any of you...outside all that we have all talked about for two months..sit down as a Bishop..look two people in the eye with a baby cradled in their arms and say..No..we can't not have your child blessed.  Seriously..could you do that?  This is probably a question that goes through many peoples minds as they try to understand.  What kind of revelation is that?  Is it really a revelation from God or something that will shift the stance of this horrific policy?  And blaming people for not know for sure is contradicting to the nature of personal revelation.  There are so many things that could be revealed..other than this.  There shouild be no policy for being loving and welcoming to this church..If we want revelations..ask God about ISIS..about real things that affect ALL of us!  Being kind doesn't need policy or revelation.  I see this as another way the church is covering its mistakes..and IMO it is a costly mistake.