Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I already answered that here:

"I don't doubt that Elder Nelson believes this policy was a revelation, if that's what he stated.  But, who received this revelation?  President Monson?  That information was not given (unless I missed it and I'll read what he stated again.....)."

It sure would be nice if you didn't make me repeatedly ask the same questions (they are interrelated, after all).

Elder Nelson is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.  He was not merely stating his "opinion."  He stated that the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve concurred regarding the revelatory provenance of the policy changes.  So it's not just one prophet, seer and revelator.  It was all fifteen of them.  How do you reconcile this with your "feelings and beliefs?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

The term "apostate marriage" is a little disturbing. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

You may have missed my earlier post:

I don't think any other kind of apostasy so thoroughly engages the child's psyche as his parent's marriage and family (blood is thicker than mere teachings); apostate marriages so imitate the correct practice making them especially deceptive for the child to differentiate; and the other forms of apostasy would prevent the child from getting near the Church in the first place.

Thank you for the response.  I have to say though, that it sounds like these children would need  the gift of the Holy Ghost even more if they are in a situation where they are being "especially" deceived.  

Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

.

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The term "apostate marriage" is a little disturbing. 

Did someone use that term?  

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It sure would be nice if you didn't make me repeatedly ask the same questions (they are interrelated, after all).

Elder Nelson is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.  He was not merely stating his "opinion."  He stated that the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve concurred regarding the revelatory provenance of the policy changes.  So it's not just one prophet, seer and revelator.  It was all fifteen of them.  How do you reconcile this with your "feelings and beliefs?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry, I felt that I had answered your questions.

We've only heard from Elder Nelson on this (unless I've missed others stating the same?) and I believe he is relating his experience and beliefs.  I reconcile this with my belief that my experiences and beliefs don't always agree with every single teaching from church leaders, past and present.  And, I'm ok with that. 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did someone use that term?  

 

CV75 on the previous page

Quote

You may have missed my earlier post:

I don't think any other kind of apostasy so thoroughly engages the child's psyche as his parent's marriage and family (blood is thicker than mere teachings); apostate marriages so imitate the correct practice making them especially deceptive for the child to differentiate; and the other forms of apostasy would prevent the child from getting near the Church in the first place.

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sorry, I felt that I had answered your questions.

We've only heard from Elder Nelson on this (unless I've missed others stating the same?) and I believe he is relating his experience and beliefs.  I reconcile this with my belief that my experiences and beliefs don't always agree with every single teaching from church leaders, past and present.  And, I'm ok with that. 

We've had official communications regarding this policy from 5 men who are prophets/seers/revelators and another man (Otterson) who meets at least weekly with prophets/seers/revelators.  Of those 6 men, only one of them referred to the policy as a revelation, and it was two months later after everyone else had spoken.

Elder Christofferson who recorded an interview to explain the policy right after its release explained its origins but didn't mention revelation.

Brother Otterson wrote up an office release from the church and didn't mention revelation.

A week after the policy had been published to the world, the First President signed a letter about the policy and didn't mention revelation.

Two months later, Pres. Nelson tells the young single adults of the church that it was a revelation.

[Mystery Meat]

43 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks, Mystery Meat.  I appreciated the post you refer to above, in which you shared one way that you think certain members of the church could do better.  Great conversations begin with a single starting point and every journey starts somewhere, however small, so I value even the shortest of steps.

In answer to your request for me to post to one way I think the LGBT community could do better:

I think great care needs to be given to the attention and energy are given to suicides.  From what I have read by experts, this type of care needs to be given in how we approach discussing the topic to avoid glorifying the victims or saying things that could in any way shape or form characterize victims as martyrs, lest the discussions themselves lead to even more suicides. 

The message to those of our family members and friends who are suffering, for whatever reason, and who are plagued by thoughts of killing themselves should be one of support, love, and acceptance (as you described in your recommended post, for which I gave you a rep point, btw ), as well as the firm understanding that suicide is NEVER ok, even if a cause to die for seems like a romantic, noble, or just course of action.  Self-sacrifice is NOT the answer to bring about change, even for compassionate or worthwhile causes. 

IMO, any and all worthwhile movements should encourage its supporters to spend our valuable time and energy on this earth in educating, discussing, dialoguing, serving, and helping others to understand our views/cause.  NONE should romanticize suicide or uphold it's victims as people who chose a vialbe or admirable means of self-expression or a viable attempt to change the hearts and minds of others.

I also think the "It Gets Better" campaign is a great message for youth to hear, and I'd love to hear MORE of such messages addressing LGBT LDS youth by adult LGBT Mormons AND former Mormons through a flood of diverse channels.

Wow... this thread has grown to gargantuan levels after being away for just a few days... hard to keep up, but I will try.

Thank you, I think these are great suggestions.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We've had official communications regarding this policy from 5 men who are prophets/seers/revelators and another man (Otterson) who meets at least weekly with prophets/seers/revelators.  Of those 6 men, only one of them referred to the policy as a revelation, and it was two months later after everyone else had spoken.

Elder Christofferson who recorded an interview to explain the policy right after its release explained its origins but didn't mention revelation.

Brother Otterson wrote up an office release from the church and didn't mention revelation.

A week after the policy had been published to the world, the First President signed a letter about the policy and didn't mention revelation.

Two months later, Pres. Nelson tells the young single adults of the church that it was a revelation.

Thank you for this information and response.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sorry, I felt that I had answered your questions.

We've only heard from Elder Nelson on this (unless I've missed others stating the same?) and I believe he is relating his experience and beliefs.  I reconcile this with my belief that my experiences and beliefs don't always agree with every single teaching from church leaders, past and present.  And, I'm ok with that. 

You are not accurately representing what Elder Nelson said.  In his remarks he was not simply "relating his experience and beliefs."  Here's what he said:

Quote

“The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively,” he said. “And then, we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.”

This “prophetic process” — which also includes fasting, prayer, studying, pondering, counseling with each other as they wrestle with the issue — was followed in 2012 with the change in age for missionary service, as well as the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries, President Nelson said.

“Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter,” he said. “Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

“And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process. And so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.”

He described a "prophetic process" involving "The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

He described how they (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) "counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively."

He described the process of these quorums "counseling with each other as they wrestle with the issue."

He described how "we" (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) fasted, prayed, studied, and pondered, and were "filled with compassion for all, and especially the children."

He described how they (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."

He described how they (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration."

He described how President Monson was "inspired" by the Lord "to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord" to them (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).

He described how "each of [them]" (meaning the the counselors in The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation."

He described how the Apostles had the "privilege" to "sustain what had been revealed to President Monson."

You may not have been aware of Elder Nelson's remarks, and in so doing have repeatedly mischaracterized them as only "his experience and beliefs."  Now that we have rectified that, now that we have established that he was not speaking just of his own experience, but that of the First Presidency of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I ask again:  Elder Nelson is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.  He was not merely stating his "opinion."  He stated that the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve concurred regarding the revelatory provenance of the policy changes.  So it's not just one prophet, seer and revelator.  It was all fifteen of them.  How do you reconcile this with your "feelings and beliefs?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are not accurately representing what Elder Nelson said.  In his remarks he was not simply "relating his experience and beliefs."  Here's what he said:

He described a "prophetic process" involving "The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

He described how they (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) "counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively."

He described the process of these quorums "counseling with each other as they wrestle with the issue."

He described how "we" (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) fasted, prayed, studied, and pondered, and were "filled with compassion for all, and especially the children."

He described how they (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."

He described how they (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration."

He described how President Monson was "inspired" by the Lord "to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord" to them (meaning the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).

He described how "each of [them]" (meaning the the counselors in The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation."

He described how the Apostles had the "privilege" to "sustain what had been revealed to President Monson."

You may not have been aware of Elder Nelson's remarks, and in so doing have repeatedly mischaracterized them as only "his experience and beliefs."  Now that we have rectified that, now that we have established that he was not speaking just of his own experience, but that of the First Presidency of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I ask again:  Elder Nelson is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.  He was not merely stating his "opinion."  He stated that the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve concurred regarding the revelatory provenance of the policy changes.  So it's not just one prophet, seer and revelator.  It was all fifteen of them.  How do you reconcile this with your "feelings and beliefs?"

Thanks,

-Smac

All of which are his experiences and beliefs, correct?  Which above are not something he's relating from his experiences or beliefs?  I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to say here.  I'm not being critical of Pres. Nelson.

Where did I state that he was "merely" stating his "opinion"?

Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson

[deli_llama]

18 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

What is weak is talking about these children as if they are real.  It is a fantasy.  There are no active gay, married couples that attend church and desire to raise their children in the Church of Jesus Christ.  They don't exist.  Striving to put this in strictly emotional terms is good propaganda, but the reality is they have never existed and do not exist today.  

Your argument is weak because it is built strictly and solely on fantasy and emotion. 

I won't speak to everything you said, but in one thing you are most definitely incorrect—they do exist. 

In my immediate extended family I find exactly the very situation you say doesn't exist.  Lesbians, married, as active as the ward's culture and church policies allow for, have been for years, children in primary, wanted to keep raising their family in the church. (I also became close friends of a couple in a similar situation while I was their home teacher years back, only they stopped attending regularly after the policy change.)

I don't feel like actively participating in the church/homosexual threads here.  They seem to bring out the worst in everyone. I haven't in the past, probably won't in the future. But, I am getting a little tired of hearing/reading that "these" people don't exist. "These" people do exist. Blood of my blood; they exist.

It seems it is a position of ignorance you speak from with your proclamations. Just because you are not aware of any doesn't mean that your reality is, in fact, reality.  I can't do more than ask you to be a little more open to the idea that in real life these people do exist. 

Edited February 1, 2016 by deli_llama
Spelling and grammar.

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 I reconcile this with my belief that my experiences and beliefs don't always agree with every single teaching from church leaders, past and present.  And, I'm ok with that. 

My quote feature is being weird.  I tried to add this to my last reply, smac97.  

It's in response to your last question, again.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, deli_llama said:

I won't speak to everything you said, but in one thing you are most definitely incorrect—they do exist. 

In my immediate extended family I find exactly the very situation you say doesn't exist.  Lesbians, married, as active as the ward's culture and church policies allow for, have been for years, children in primary, wanted to keep raising their family in the church. (I also became close friends of a couple in a similar situation while I was their home teacher years back, only they stopped attending regularly after the policy change.)

I don't feel like actively participating in the church/homosexual threads here.  They seem to bring out the worst in everyone. I haven't in the past, probably won't in the future. But, I am getting a little tired of hearing/reading that "these" people don't exist. "These" people do exist. Blood of my blood; they exist.

It seems it is a position of ignorance you speak from with your proclamations. Just because you are not aware of any doesn't mean that your reality is, in fact, reality.  I can't do more than ask you to be a little more open to the idea that in real life these people do exist. 

Thank you for sharing that!

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

All of which are his experiences and beliefs, correct?  

Not solely his experiences and beliefs, no.  He made representations about the experiences of the entirety of The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  You are discounting his remarks by claiming that they reflect only his "experiences and beliefs."  That is not correct.

Quote

Which above are not something he's relating from his experiences or beliefs?  I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to say here.  I'm not being critical of Pres. Nelson.

You are disregarding Elder Nelson's remarks, you are specifically and publicly and categorically denying that the policy changes are revelatory, which directly contradicts what he and the entirety of The First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve has, through his remarks, declared to be revelation.

Are you now going to suggest that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, speaking in that capacity and at a public event, somehow lacks authority to speak on behalf of those quorums?

Are you now also going to suggest that he was lying or deluded when he made his remarks?  Or that he went rogue and misrepresented the experiences of the other men referenced in his remarks?

I am trying to understand your position. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thank you for the response.  I have to say though, that it sounds like these children would need  the gift of the Holy Ghost even more if they are in a situation where they are being "especially" deceived.  

It doesn't work that way. As i said in the same post:

"Speaking from experience, the Lord never abandoned me during the 5 years I had to wait before joining the Church (and I couldn't even attend Church!). I have been recompensed many times over for not having baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. and haven't missed out on anything; I never felt that I did. Friendship and support from members during those years, which I did not enjoy, in my mind would alleviate any undue concern for a child having the desire and testimony to be baptized. I fully expect the Lord to catch up with such children and give them every opportunity to join the Church. Just like he does with everyone else."

The Lord's attention and grace are not scarce commodities, even though the elect can be deceived.

Children are subject to the reality that is imprinted upon them as normal, especially if they have "good homes". Even when they rebel as most teens do, it requires some additional frontal lobe development before they can assess the validity of these imprints against conflicting religious teachings and covenants, and as we often see, some of these imprints can last a lifetime. So the policy of 18 years still acknowledges some significant risk. The Lord shows grace upon these folks too.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

CV75 on the previous page

My term "apostate marriage" may be disturbing to some, but it's my way of describing he policy stating that apostasy refers to members in a same-sex marriage. What's the problem?

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am confused.  Please feel free to disregard the following if you find it inappropriate or too nosy: The tenor of your posts is very hostile to the LDS Church.  I don't follow your posts or keep track of them, but I do not recall you ever speaking about the Church in anything other than unpleasant, critical, hostile words (I'm certainly open to correction about that, tho).  

So if you're not LDS, or a non-believing Latter-day Saint, I'm curious about the nature of the second question above.  The first one I get.  It's sociological.  One does not need to have a "testimony" of the Restored Gospel in order to ask it.  But the second one . . . that's a bit different.  It's like me, an observant Latter-day Saint, injecting myself into an argument amongst observant Catholics regarding the particulars of transubstantiation.  Such a discussion might involve differences of opinion about specific issues pertaining to this topic, but the topic itself is substantively agreed upon by the participants to the argument.  So wouldn't it be, well, a bit weird for Spencer the Mormon to wade into the controversy and weigh in on one side or the other about such a topic?  I have respect for the Catholic Church and its beliefs, but I do not believe in the concept of Transubstantiation.  So what would the point be of me weighing in on that concept?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you find my posts hostile, unpleasant, critical, etc because it seems to me that you find anything that challenges the position of the LDS Church as such and are highly sensitive and defensive of anything that is less than positive about the Church. You can correct me if you wish as you are polite enough above to grant that option to me.

Yes I post critically on some things and some not as much. I have worked hard on my tone and believe it has improved but am always open to suggestions.

I have been active LDS all my life, temple married, served a mission, served in numerous callings including bishop, high council, YM, ward mission leader EQ president, etc.

I think you would know this if you have read my posts.  You would also know I used to be a hobby apologist when about 8 years ago I found, for a variety of reason what I was defending and how I was doing it was indefensible and I could no longer do it.  Since that time I have tried to go slow and seek a path that God may want for me but I am a skeptic but still a truth seeker. I still attend the LDS Church. For two years I asked for no calling from my current leaders and explained why.  But recently I was asked to teach the HP Group once a month and felt I could do that.   And yes I stick to the lesson manual and don't deviate.

Maybe what you catch from me here is what I view as a place I can express my concerns and challenge things LDS because I don't feel I can do it openly in my ward or stake.  And I guess that makes me an anonymous coward. Oh well.

 I still hold open that the Church may be what it claims though I think it less and less likely. I do pray and do tall God that I am open to that.  My wife is active, two of my children are active, I have grandchildren who will likely be raised active so yes these things do concern me.

So the idea that the Holy Ghost may be withheld from a certain class at least intellectually noting how important I was taught the gift of the Holy Ghost is but to have lack of it sort of minimized like Scott's post does above does not make sense to me ESPECIALLY from a believing LDS person.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thank you for the response.  I have to say though, that it sounds like these children would need  the gift of the Holy Ghost even more if they are in a situation where they are being "especially" deceived.  

The problem here from my point of view is that the Gift of the Holy Ghost does not arrived fully developed at the moment of confirmation.  Children must develop their abilities to use it just as they would develop skills and talents in piano playing.  Part of this process may be receiving guidance from others in their own experiences, either through direct communication or conclusions the children may draw from watching their behaviour.  Conflicting messages of what is righteous behaviour, what is following God's commandments and what is choosing sin may lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Spirit acts and what the experience of the Spirit is.  It may also raise a distrust of the Spirit as the child may experience a certainty that their parents' marriage is the way things should be (I would hope that all children have this sense of security, though realize it is an ideal) while the Spirit is teaching that homosexual behaviour is sinful (assuming this doctrine of the Church is correct) and this distrust would, imo, lead to more rejection of the Spirit over time.

An analogy might be being taught dancing by a poor teacher and a good teacher at the same time (this analogy is based on my own opinion of what is good and what isn't and would be consistent with how the Church leadership may view the issue, but if you prefer to explore why the conflict itself might be inherently detrimental simply have two teachers teaching two different styles of dance without the poor/good qualifications).  The family chooses the poor teacher because this teacher is close by and will interfere with the family's activities the least and in their opinion is a beautiful dancer herself.  The good teacher is further away and holds a free teaching clinic open to anyone to drop in whenever and the student will have to use her own money and resources to get there on her own even though the family tells her they don't mind her making that choice and encourage her to do so as long as she continues to go to the teacher they chose for her as well.  The poor teacher sees the student daily and teaches an inappropriate position of hands and feet and other movements, telling the student that these will help her be more expressive and are ones that are most loved and admired by others and will help her get into the most prestigious schools, etc.  The good teacher sees the student when the student chooses and makes enough effort to get there and gives instruction as the student requests to the best of the student's ability, but each time the student returns to the original teacher, that teacher once more requires the student to use their hands and feet in the incorrect manner and tells the student that this will be the most helpful way to progress.  The student is applauded for her form by this teacher and told over and over again how great she is doing.  When the student chooses to go to the good teacher for instruction, the good teacher quietly attempts to correct the position and help the student achieve a better from while having to deal with the overdevelopment of the wrong muscles and movements, telling the student that in time she will see that this position give her stronger, more controlled and more graceful movements but the immediate experience is one of pain and loss of control because of the time spent developing the wrong muscles and movements.  The student ends up completely confuse over how to dance, hating the experience of conflict and drops dancing altogether as something that just isn't worth the effort.  Might it not have been better for the student to have delayed taking classes until she could choose which teacher she wanted to go to herself and devote her time fully to one of them?

(add-on:  I have not attempted here to include how the Holy Ghost interacts with someone who is not given the Gift so as to make what I see as problematic clear...I suppose one could add that the good (imo) teacher volunteers at the dancing school of the poor (imo) teacher and teaches when the students turn to listen to her when they have moments the other teacher is not giving them immediate direction or attempting to work in unison with other students and other distractions (to me) which allows all students access to helpful instruction, but it is still not the same type of intense and focused instruction that can be received in the good (imo) teacher's private studio)

Edited February 1, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

CV75 on the previous page

 

Boy, the search program doesn't work like it used to.

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thank you for the response.  I have to say though, that it sounds like these children would need  the gift of the Holy Ghost even more if they are in a situation where they are being "especially" deceived.  

That sounds like a complicated and difficult enough judgment that perhaps should be left to a judge in Israel, at some level, perhaps even apostles and prophets, no?

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not solely his experiences and beliefs, no.  He made representations about the experiences of the entirety of The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  You are discounting his remarks by claiming that they reflect only his "experiences and beliefs."  That is not correct.

You are disregarding Elder Nelson's remarks, you are specifically and publicly and categorically denying that the policy changes are revelatory, which directly contradicts what he and the entirety of The First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve has, through his remarks, declared to be revelation.

Are you now going to suggest that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, speaking in that capacity and at a public event, somehow lacks authority to speak on behalf of those quorums?

Are you now also going to suggest that he was lying or deluded when he made his remarks?  Or that he went rogue and misrepresented the experiences of the other men referenced in his remarks?

I am trying to understand your position. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure what you want from me.  You asked me specifically about Pres. Nelson's remarks.  I answered.  We have his statement regarding what his experience was and also regarding what he believes. I've never stated that it was just "merely his opinion" (that I recall....please quote me if I did).  How am I not answering you? And, I'm not discounting anything here.   I've also never stated that he was "lying or deluded", so I'm not sure where you're getting those from.

If you want to know what the others experienced, we'll have to wait and hear from them.  I'd imagine it'll be very close to what Pres. Nelson expressed.

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not solely his experiences and beliefs, no.  He made representations about the experiences of the entirety of The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  You are discounting his remarks by claiming that they reflect only his "experiences and beliefs."  That is not correct.

You are disregarding Elder Nelson's remarks, you are specifically and publicly and categorically denying that the policy changes are revelatory, which directly contradicts what he and the entirety of The First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve has, through his remarks, declared to be revelation.

Are you now going to suggest that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, speaking in that capacity and at a public event, somehow lacks authority to speak on behalf of those quorums?

Are you now also going to suggest that he was lying or deluded when he made his remarks?  Or that he went rogue and misrepresented the experiences of the other men referenced in his remarks?

I am trying to understand your position. 

Thanks,

-Smac

How do we know he correctly understands the experiences of the other 14 men? Did he interview them all to ascertain their experience?

And absolutely Pres. Nelson does not have authority to speak for the First Presidency. Not yet.

Assuming that others experience and understand things in the same way we do is a very natural/human error to make. I don't think Pres. Nelson is being dishonest but I do question how he knows the inner experience of 14 other men. It is very easy to see how he could have his own experience and believe that others must have experienced the same thing. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Teancum, as I understand it, is still at least a nominal member of the Church and even, if I recall correctly, a former bishop.

But you are right about the tenor of his posts.

So Scott as hard to be polite in critical discussions as I try I still get a slam from you. I will refrain letting you know what I think about the tenor of your posts.  Needless to say I don't aspire to be like you at all.

And no I am not just a nominal member. I am a full member. I still hold the priesthood, a temple recommend ( though I was surprised that my bishop and SP gave me one with my unorthodox beliefs....but I guess since I keep the commandment parts they were good with it) , tithe, pay other offerings and have a small calling. I still actually do home teaching.  Even with what I disagree with I still participate.  Though no doubt you and Russell would say I am not a true Latter day Saint due to some of my unorthodox views.