ALarson Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, Calm said: We cannot know how it would have been approached if the leak never happened. Since only some leaders had received notification, it seems fairly clear to me they were just getting going on the process of making it known. What the intended course was might have been significantly altered by the leak and public controversy. Well, this is the the best explanation I've seen, Calm. But, if it was a revelation received by President Monson and was printed in the handbook, I can't see why it wouldn't have been revealed to the members since it affects us, our family members and friends. Why stick it in a handbook where most members don't see it? If it was a revelation from God, for the church members, why not announce it to the members? 1
Calm Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 It might have been intended to be announced to members after all the leaders had been notified and trained. With the controversy and the various press releases, perhaps it was felt this was no longer needed or would add to the controversy or perhaps they felt local leaders would best know what their congregations would need (our bishop held a class, I haven't been able to get to church much lately so I don't know what else has been said and where), so either it was thought what was done was now enough or perhaps more is to come later on in small exposures over time. I assume there are many revelations from God that are not announced to the members if it is felt the impact of those revelations is limited to a small group as well as other reasons. They haven't come out and talked about children not being able to be baptized if a member of a plural marriage family in a general announcement ever that I can remember. The allowing of women to be sealed to husbands when dead wasn't announced across the pulpit iirc but was only put in the manuals for training. I would be surprised if that change wasn't made by revelation given the doctrine that is involved. Other changes in polices may have been revelations but limited to handbooks, manuals and training meetings. I am not saying that this reasoning should apply in this case given the controversy and interest about it, but it may have been judged that way...again hard to know. Maybe there was going to be a general announcement. I don't think there is really any way we can tell given the current circumstances. 3
Avatar4321 Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, california boy said: So that was the big revelation we were all waiting for. A policy change in a church handbook that only leaders of the church have access to. No public announcement, no official press release that the prophet had received a revelation from God. No headlines in the Deseret News. Just a quiet change in policy in the church handbook that became public by someone who isn't even a member of the church. Only to find out months later in a fireside by Elder Nelson that it was a REVELATION. Geeze, I thought we deserved something more than just that. It is insulting. To claim to receive a revelation from God and have it revealed to the world by Delins. I guess that says even more about how the church treats gays. As I have said countless times, I could care less what the church policies are about gay marriage but no one can deny this is not an important issue. To treat it with such disregard is disturbing. You needed a new revelation to know same sex marriage was wrong? Edited January 31, 2016 by Avatar4321 3
Avatar4321 Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 59 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well, this is the the best explanation I've seen, Calm. But, if it was a revelation received by President Monson and was printed in the handbook, I can't see why it wouldn't have been revealed to the members since it affects us, our family members and friends. Why stick it in a handbook where most members don't see it? If it was a revelation from God, for the church members, why not announce it to the members? Since when are they required to immediately announce publically when a Revelation has been received? They receive Revelation all the time and rarely need to announce it. They didn't publically announce any other revelation in the handbook. Why would this be different? 2
Avatar4321 Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 Interestingly today was a fifth Sunday and so we had a joint lesson in ph\rs with the youth. The topic was depression, anxiety, and ministering to others to prevent suicide. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Interestingly today was a fifth Sunday and so we had a joint lesson in ph\rs with the youth. The topic was depression, anxiety, and ministering to others to prevent suicide. Ours dealt in great measure with hearkening to the will of God as revealed through His servants.
ALarson Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Since when are they required to immediately announce publically when a Revelation has been received? They receive Revelation all the time and rarely need to announce it. They didn't publically announce any other revelation in the handbook. Our leaders receive revelation "all the time and rarely need to announce it"? Hmmmmm.....ok. Of course they don't "need" to announce anything, but with something of this magnitude and how it has affected so many, it seems odd to hide it away in a handbook where even many of the local leaders were not aware of it. It's too bad that it wasn't announced prior to John Dehlin seeing it and releasing its content. Edited January 31, 2016 by ALarson spelling
CV75 Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 2 hours ago, california boy said: So that was the big revelation we were all waiting for. Exactly what is the big revelation you are waiting for? Whatever it may be, the policy change is still no less one of many products of ongoing revelation and divine direction carried implemented under the direction of the First Presidency and Twelve. 2 hours ago, Jeanne said: Really. The members deserve more than this don't you think? Earrings anyone?? See http://www.deseretnews.com/article/793632/Just-one-set-of-earrings-for-Y-coeds.html?pg=all : "The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes," he said. "We do not, however, take any position on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings — one pair." Do you have a problem with a reasonable person of faith sustaining the idea that the LDS leaders take a position on such issues in response to having sought and received revelation on them? 1 hour ago, ALarson said: If President Monson received this revelation, why didn't he stand and announce it to the members (at General Conference or elsewhere)? Now that you mention it, there are as many valid kinds, topics, applications and means of publication and dissemination of revelation by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as there are the number of means of receiving revelation. This policy and the means of revelation involved with it easily aligns with any of them. 1
rodheadlee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Here's a letter a gay member of the church wrote to the apostles, but didn't send. It's full of subjectiveness, but interesting to see a gay man's perspective. http://snapshotsofchad.com/2016/01/29/dear-mormon-leaders/ 19 For the anatural bman is an cenemy to God, and has been from the dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he eyields to the enticings of the Holy fSpirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a jchild, ksubmissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. 4
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, ALarson said: Well, this is the the best explanation I've seen, Calm. But, if it was a revelation received by President Monson and was printed in the handbook, I can't see why it wouldn't have been revealed to the members since it affects us, our family members and friends. Why stick it in a handbook where most members don't see it? If it was a revelation from God, for the church members, why not announce it to the members? As LDS believe that the Lord leads His church through the Prophet, it can be safely assumed by the members that all that is contained in the handbook was received by revelation. These revelations are specifically for administering the affairs of the church. These policies are not general revelations that are pertinent to all members and so there is no need to make an announcement. Faithful LDS who sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 assume that they are leading the Church by a process of continued revelation. Edited January 31, 2016 by busybee 2
rodheadlee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 3 hours ago, california boy said: So that was the big revelation we were all waiting for. Speak for yourself. It was already abundantly clear to me via the Proclamation of the Family. The Prophet and Apostles reveal the Word of the Lord quite frequently but many refuse to listen. 1
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) Just as a matter of interest, this change has been, from what I can tell, a non-event in the church other than in the US. No mention here in the UK or in Ireland. Not a word from friends and family in South Africa either. My opinion is that this is because the gay rights lobby are far less pushy in these countries, and also that the critics are far less acerbic outside the US.. Edited January 31, 2016 by busybee 2
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Ours dealt in great measure with hearkening to the will of God as revealed through His servants. Ours dealt with becoming spiritually self-reliant
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 50 minutes ago, ALarson said: Our leaders receive revelation "all the time and rarely need to announce it"? Hmmmmm.....ok. Of course they don't "need" to announce anything, but with something of this magnitude and how it has affected so many, it seems odd to hide it away in a handbook where even many of the local leaders were not aware of it. It's too bad that it wasn't announced prior to John Dehlin seeing it and releasing its content. Where are these 'so many' that people keep talking about?? The number of people who will ACTUALLY be affected by the new policy is very low. 3
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 52 minutes ago, ALarson said: It's too bad that it wasn't announced prior to John Dehlin seeing it and releasing its content. It's too bad he didn't have the decorum to wait until it had been announced. 3
ALarson Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, busybee said: As LDS believe that the Lords leads His church through the Prophet, it can be safely assumed by the members that all that is contained in the handbook was received by revelation. These revelations are specifically for administering the affairs of the church. These policies are not general revelations that are pertinent to all members and so there is no need to make an announcement. So, you believe that this new policy is not "pertinent to all members"? You could not be more wrong. I doubt that there are very many members who do not have friends or family members who are gay or they will become acquainted with in the future. It was very "pertinent" as the reaction by both members and nonmembers has shown. I am actually very grateful to Dehlin for making it public. However, I do wish it had been released by the leaders and dealt with by them before that happened. It would have been nice to see how they planed on revealing it. Edited January 31, 2016 by ALarson
rodheadlee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 22 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Laman and Lemuel were often angry at Nephi as well. I'm not sure it vewent well for them No, it went like this: 1 Nephi 16: 2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken ahard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the bguilty taketh the ctruth to be hard, for it dcutteth them to the very center. 3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might awalk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us. Edited January 31, 2016 by rodheadlee to add verse and chapter number. 2
Avatar4321 Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Our leaders receive revelation "all the time and rarely need to announce it"? Hmmmmm.....ok. Of course they don't "need" to announce anything, but with something of this magnitude and how it has affected so many, it seems odd to hide it away in a handbook where even many of the local leaders were not aware of it. It's too bad that it wasn't announced prior to John Dehlin seeing it and releasing its content. Who exactly has it affected?
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: So, you believe that this new policy is not "pertinent to all members"? You could not be more wrong. I doubt that there are very many members who do not have friends or family members who are gay or they will become acquainted with in the future. It was very "pertinent" as the reaction by both members and nonmembers has shown. I am actually very grateful to Dehlin for making it public. However, I do wish it had been released by the leaders and dealt with by them before that happened. It would have been nice to see how they planed on revealing it. And how many of those members friends and family members who are gay are partners in a same sex marriage and want to raise their children in the LDS church? Those are the only people to whom this policy applies. The reaction shows how fickle people are. They say they sustain the Lord's prophets but as soon as they don't like something that the leaders are saying they turn on them. When the leaders explained the reason for the policy they are accused of all sorts of nefarious things. Like being the catalyst for teen suicides which the author of the blog referred to in the OP has now added to the list. Where are people screaming for John Dehlin to stand up and take accountability for his actions? No, you would rather express your gratitude to him for doing something which he had no right to do, and absolutely no other motive for doing other than to cause contention, and harm the Church. Where is his culpability in these alleged suicides? All in favour of John Dehlin please manifest by the uplifted hand. I don't recall hearing those words in General Conference. Perhaps I was asleep. 1
Teancum Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 52 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: 19 For the anatural bman is an cenemy to God, and has been from the dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he eyields to the enticings of the Holy fSpirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a jchild, ksubmissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. Why would God create humans,who we teach are His children, in such a way that they are his enemy? Edited January 31, 2016 by Teancum
Teancum Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said: Since when are they required to immediately announce publically when a Revelation has been received? They receive Revelation all the time and rarely need to announce it. They didn't publically announce any other revelation in the handbook. Why would this be different? Is common consent dead in the church....oh wait....yep.
Teancum Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Ours dealt in great measure with hearkening to the will of God as revealed through His servants. Ours dealt with proper sabbath day activities. Edited January 31, 2016 by Teancum
rodheadlee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 20 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I'm pretty sure the people who commit suicide regret the decision sometime in the afterlife. Probably if they see the pain it causes their living family members. This is true. I'm a suicide survivor. At 18 I killed myself over a lost love. Not only does it cause pain to your family your own mental pain does not stop at mortal death. At least for me it didn't. I knew I was dead and I thought I was all alone in the Outer Darkness. There was no light at the end of the tunnel, my grandmother was not there to greet me and I thought it was going to be like that for all eternity. I think teenagers think of all kinds of reasons to commit suicide. It's not something you can really recover from but at that age you just don't care, you don't understand the finality of it. I have only God, Jesus Christ and my families and friends prayers to thank that I was restored to life and i would never blame anyone but me for my actions.
Teancum Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 40 minutes ago, busybee said: As LDS believe that the Lord leads His church through the Prophet, it can be safely assumed by the members that all that is contained in the handbook was received by revelation. These revelations are specifically for administering the affairs of the church. These policies are not general revelations that are pertinent to all members and so there is no need to make an announcement. Faithful LDS who sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 assume that they are leading the Church by a process of continued revelation. I don't think that is a assumption. Why assume leaders on the one hand are always leading with revelation yet often when an apologist defends something leaders said or wrote in the past we then are told that they express their own opinions and not everything they do and say is revelation? Cant have it both ways. President McKay seemed to down play the priesthood ban when he called it policy. anything that is revelation and binding on the members pertains to the members and thus there is a need to present such items to the church body.
Teancum Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 36 minutes ago, busybee said: It's too bad he didn't have the decorum to wait until it had been announced. It's too bad the leaders just tried to slide it quietly into a handbook few have access to.
Recommended Posts