Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what you want from me.  You asked me specifically about Pres. Nelson remarks.  I answered.  

But your answer does not account for the substance of Pres. Nelson's remarks.  You have repeatedly characterized his statements as representing his view (only), his experience (only). And you are rejecting his remarks on that basis (that his remarks pertain to him alone).  That's just not the case.  He was speaking on behalf of The First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve.

Quote

We have his statement regarding what his experience was and also regarding what he believes.  How am I not answering you?   And, I'm not discounting anything here.   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.

No, we don't have to "wait and hear from them.  Elder Nelson spoke on their behalf.  And even you presently surmise that what the other participants in that process would share would be "very close to what Pres. Nelson expressed."

If that is the case, then I don't see how you can argue that your position is at odds with Elder Nelson only.  It's not.  It contradicts the experience of and public statement made on behalf of the entirety of The First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve.  Those fifteen men have publicly declared the policy change to have been arrived at by revelation.  In contrast, you have publicly declared that "this policy is [not] God's will.  Not even close."

These are diametrically opposed positions.  It's either you or the Brethren.

You have set yourself up as a voice alternative to and superior to that of the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  While I respect your opinion, I find it lacking in reason and substance.  And you are incorrect to state that we are relying on "exactly the same thing" to reach our respective positions.  I constantly gauge and re-assess my personal beliefs and opinions against A) my personal research, observations, and assessment, B) spiritual promptings, and C) counsel from past and present prophets and apostles.  As Elder McConkie so aptly put it: "Truth is ever in harmony with itself."

I have listened to the Brethren on this issue.  I have found Elder Nelson's remarks compelling.  I have also considered this matter for myself.  I am persuaded that Elder Nelson was not lying, or deluded, or otherwise misrepresenting the experiences of the The First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve as pertaining to the policy changes under discussion.

I have also listened to you.  I have asked a number of questions in order to explore your reasoning and rationale.  I have not found much, apart from an unsubstantiated and, if I may be frank, facile one-sentence declaration ("I do not believe this policy is God's will.  Not even close.  God would not deny innocent children baptism into His true church or deny them the gift of the Holy Ghost just because of a parent's actions.  Period.").  This is not reasoned argument.  It is not persuasive.  It is at odds with A) my personal research, observations, and assessment, B) spiritual promptings, and C) counsel from past and present prophets and apostles.

I will therefore decline to accept your unwarranted and unreasoned assertion over that of Elder Nelson's remarks.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, busybee said:

The word you're looking for is 'OOZING' 

Thank you

Nice to have so many wonderful editors on a message board.

[stemelbow]

One thing feels certain, although certainty in this realm seems impossible, revelation and how we get it, how it comes to us, does not appear to be without the potential for error.  So even if President Nelson says it was by revelation it's possible it was not, or the revelation carried with it mistaken--and since we know the policy had to be clarified to the point of some, at least, seeing it as a re-write there is reason to conclude error. 

Edited February 1, 2016 by stemelbow

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But your answer does not account for the substance of Pres. Nelson's remarks.  You have repeatedly characterized his statements as representing his view (only), his experience (only). And you are rejecting his remarks on that basis (that his remarks pertain to him alone).  That's just not the case.  He was speaking on behalf of The First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve.

He did express his experiences and beliefs.  Again, it'll be great if we can hear from others who were there and I look forward to that.  

I certainly would not want someone else speaking on my behalf regarding an experience I had or regarding my beliefs.  I don't know why you're so hung up on the fact that we have Pres. Nelson's words expressing what he experienced and witnessed. 

Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

One thing feels certain, although certainty in this realm seems impossible, revelation and how we get it, how it comes to us, does not appear to be without the potential for error.  So even if President Nelson says it was by revelation it's possible it was not, or the revelation carried with it mistake--and since we know the policy had to be clarified to the point of some, at least, seeing it as a re-write there is reason to conclude error. 

While I agree (since we don't believe in infallibility) that there is a possibility of error, given that there was an agreement from all 15 to accept it as revelation from Pres. Monson, it would seem to me on the higher end of improbable and that I should and will sustain the policy until I have received a personal confirmation that it is wrong.  I am of course basing this on my belief that these men have been chosen in part because of their receptiveness to the Spirit and their training over the years has developed this gift to significant levels.  I would be less likely to see it that way if it was simply 15 men pulled off of the street or even 15 random men from temple recommend lists.  Now if I knew each of those 15 men well and had seen evidence of the Spirit acting in their lives, I might be willing to place their judgment on par with the apostles, but that is irrelevant to the discussion really.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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. 

I agree.  Again, I wouldn't want anyone else "speaking" for me regarding an experience I had.  It will be interesting to see if we hear from the other leaders who were there.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He did express his experiences and beliefs.  Again, it'll be great to hear from others who were there and I look forward to that.  

I certainly would not want someone else speaking on my behalf regarding an experience I had or regarding my beliefs.  I don't know why you're so hung up on the fact that we have Pres. Nelson's words expressing what he experienced and witnessed. 

I think there is something rather unique about the situation that Pres. Nelson is in as opposed to meetings we might have at work or even church.

He is after all the appointed spokesperson for the Quorum as the President.  Also the way the Quorum works (and other councils in the Church should work) is based on unity of position (all must agree) and there is an expectation that this unity will come about by each seeking out the Spirit and receiving instruction from it.  (according to the various teachings on how councils in the Church should work that we have)

Edited February 1, 2016 by Calm

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

While I agree (since we don't believe in infallibility) that there is a possibility of error, given that there was an agreement from all 15 to accept it as revelation from Pres. Monson, it would seem to me on the higher end of improbable and that I should and will sustain the policy until I have received a personal confirmation that it is wrong.  I am of course basing this on my belief that these men have been chosen in part because of their receptiveness to the Spirit and their training over the years has developed this gift to significant levels.  I would be less likely to see it that way if it was simply 15 men pulled off of the street or even 15 random men from temple recommend lists.  Now if I knew each of those 15 men well and had seen evidence of the Spirit acting in their lives, I might be willing to place their judgment on par with the apostles, but that is irrelevant to the discussion really.

I get where you're coming from.  Unless you feel compelled by God to oppose, I get completely why people want to follow the Church on this. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  Again, I wouldn't want anyone else "speaking" for me regarding an experience I had.  It will be interesting to see if we hear from the other leaders who were there.

Hey ALarsen.  To be fair, while I think you have a point on this, I also think it'd be one of the more surprising thigns I've ever seen to see any one of the 15 oppose the stated position or experience of President Nelson on this. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is something rather unique about the situation that Pres. Nelson is in as opposed to meetings we might have at work or even church.

He is after all the appointed spokesperson for the Quorum as the President.  Also the way the Quorum works (and other councils in the Church should work) is based on unity of position (all must agree) and there is an expectation that this unity will come about by each seeking out the Spirit and receiving instruction from it.  (according to the various teachings on how councils in the Church should work that we have)

I agree.

I was being asked specifically about Pres. Nelson's remarks and I repeatedly gave my thoughts.  I still feel the same.  I'm not sure what smac was wanting me to say.  I was not disputing Pres. Nelson's experience, not at all.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hey ALarsen.  To be fair, while I think you have a point on this, I also think it'd be one of the more surprising thigns I've ever seen to see any one of the 15 oppose the stated position or experience of President Nelson on this. 

Oh, for sure!!

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hey ALarsen.  To be fair, while I think you have a point on this, I also think it'd be one of the more surprising thigns I've ever seen to see any one of the 15 oppose the stated position or experience of President Nelson on this. 

That's part of why this is troubling. Others didn't have the opportunity to describe their experience. He did it for them based on his understanding. Maybe he had their approval prior to making his statement. I don't know. But by putting out his interpretation of the experience of ALL 15 men he essentially shuts down the conversation. No one CAN give an alternate version of the events without directly opposing him. None of the Q15 are going to want to do that.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

His remarks have been published for several weeks.

His remarks were made in a formal, church-sanctioned setting, and are presently published on the LDS.org website.

His remarks were, I suspect, prepared beforehand.

His remarks were subsequently published in multiple news outlets.

His remarks are, at present, unrebutted by anyone from The First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve.

There is no evidence that Elder Nelson "went rogue," or that he spoke out of turn, or that he misrepresented any portion of the experience of those 15 men which he described in his remarks.

We sustain Elder Nelson as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

We lack any evidence or reasoned argument to suggest that Elder Nelson's remarks are in any way inaccurate or misleading.

Quote

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

Right.  So when a high councilor visits a ward and says something like "The Stake Presidency has asked that I convey their love and regards," it is incumbent upon the Saints to reject this message out-of-hand, and to instead insist that any communications from the Stake Presidency come the stake president only.

I suppose we are also, by your reasoning, required to reject the OD-2, since it was presented by a mere counselor in the First Presidency, not by Pres. Kimball himself.

And we are also supposed to reject any portions of the New Testament that have any quotations of Jesus Christ by His apostles.  They lacked authority.

And when President Nelson prefaces his remarks about the topic at issue with "I bring you greetings and love from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles", we are not supposed to take him at his word.  He's presumptively dishonest, or something.

And so on.

Thanks, but no thanks.  We can and should use our brains here.  President Nelson is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, and his remarks were made in that capacity.  He was speaking on behalf of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  His remarks have not been rebutted or disclaimed by any other of the 14 men on whose behalf he spoke.  It is simply unreasonable to suggest that Pres. Nelson went rogue, or that he lied, or was deluded, or spoke off-the-cuff or out-of-turn, or that he misrepresented the experiences of the other 14 men under discussion, or that he was not speaking on behalf of the First Presidency

Quote

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. 

It's easier still to give him the benefit of the doubt, and not speculate or assume that he was only guessing at the experiences of the other men involved, that he merely guessed at their experiences and erroneously presumed to speak on their behalf.  Votes are taken, after all.  Records are kept.  14 other men were percipient witnesses to what President Nelson described.  If, as you suggest, President Nelson spoke out of turn, or if his remarks otherwise did not reflect the experiences of those other men, why have none of them come forward to say so?  Are they all dishonest?  Are they being threatened if they speak out?  Have they been cowed into submission by a 91-year old retired surgeon?  How do you account for the subsequent silence of these other 14 men?  My accounting is that they have not contravened Pres. Nelson's remarks because . . . his remarks accurately reflected their experiences.  That is, I think, what a reasonably prudent person would conclude.  There's even a legal maxim about this quoted in A Man for All Seasons: "

Quote

Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.

Sir Thomas More: I do.

Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?

Crowd in court gallery: No!

Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!

Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?

Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

This, to me, is eminently applicable to the case at hand.  As regarding the public remarks made by President Nelson, the silence of the other Brethren connotes consent.  We should therefore presumptively construe that they consent to what he has said, not that they disagree with it.

Your guesswork would be remarkably out-of-character for a man as honorable as President Nelson.  It's also at odds with the fact that none of the men on whose behalf he spoke have come forward to dispute or otherwise challenge his recitation of the events leading up to the policy change.

You are, of course, at liberty to assume the worst about President Nelson.  And to seize upon a theory based on pure speculation and devoid of a scintilla of supporting evidence.  And to ignore the absence of any contrary or corrective remarks from any of the 14 men which - according to you - may have had their experiences misrepresented by Elder Nelson.

For me, however, I'll go with what I find to be a more reasoned approach.  I will take President Nelson at his word.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt.  I will construe the silence of the other Brethren to be consent to President Nelson's remarks.

I think arguments suggesting that President Nelson's remarks are not reflective of what happen are unreasoned, devoid of evidentiary support, tendentious, and desperate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's part of why this is troubling. Others didn't have the opportunity to describe their experience. He did it for them based on his understanding. Maybe he had their approval prior to making his statement. I don't know. But by putting out his interpretation of the experience of ALL 15 men he essentially shuts down the conversation. No one CAN give an alternate version of the events without directly opposing him. None of the Q15 are going to want to do that.

So your position requires that we not only reject President Nelson's remarks as false or suspect, but that that we also assume that all of the the other Brethren are being complicit in perpetuating a rank falsehood.

So much for "sustaining the Brethren."

This is indeed "troubling."

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Key words: "Instead of."

Your remarks are too craven, too poisonous.  I will not engage you in substantive discourse.  Your reciprocation will be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Smac

I finally got my the quotations to make more sense in my previous post.

I am sorry to hear you feel my remarks are "craven" and "poisonous" on my post on page four. 

My focus in this thread was and remains on what can be done to avoid teen suicide, which is what I perceive was the main focus of the article which generated the OP in this thread. 

My frustration on my post in page four was that at that point in the thread, few people seemed to be willing to address that issue, and were really only defending the church and themselves instead.  I hope my history of posting on the board demonstrates encouraging mutually-respectful dialogue.I apologize that my frustration came across as "craven" and "poisonous" and was received more loudly than my desire to focus on solutions.  That was not my intent. 

As I have shared a couple times thus far in this thread, I have appreciated as both individual posters here and church leadership, via their news channels, have encouraged helpful measures to prevent suicide.

To that end and as time permits, I will continue the dialogue, including the possibility of commenting on your posts, if nothing else for the benefit of an alternative viewpoint for others who may be reading, even if you choose not to respond.  In any instances in which you do decide to participate, your input is welcome.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Daniel2

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.

I was being asked specifically about Pres. Nelson's remarks and I repeatedly gave my thoughts.  I still feel the same.  I'm not sure what smac was wanting me to say.  I was not disputing Pres. Nelson's experience, not at all.

So when President Nelson characterizes his "experience" about the policy change as being revelatory (along with the entirety of the First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve), and when you specifically and publicly and categorically state that you "do not believe this policy is God's will.  Not even close," you are not "disputing President Nelson's experience"?

Then what, pray tell, are you doing?  He is saying X.  And you are categorically denying X.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He did express his experiences and beliefs.  Again, it'll be great if we can hear from others who were there and I look forward to that.  

I certainly would not want someone else speaking on my behalf regarding an experience I had or regarding my beliefs.  I don't know why you're so hung up on the fact that we have Pres. Nelson's words expressing what he experienced and witnessed. 

You are misrepresenting President Nelson.  He did not express his "experiences and beliefs" alone.  He spoke on behalf of 14 other men.

I can accept that you disagree with what President Nelson stated.  But I will not accept misrepresentations about what he stated.  His remarks were about the experiences of 15 men, not just one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

His remarks have been published for several weeks.

His remarks were made in a formal, church-sanctioned setting.

His remarks were, I suspect, prepared beforehand.

His remarks were subsequently published in multiple news outlets.

His remarks are, at present, unrebutted by anyone from The First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve.

There is no evidence that Elder Nelson "went rogue," or that he spoke out of turn, or that he misrepresented any portion of the experience of those 15 men which he described in his remarks.

We sustain Elder Nelson as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

We lack any evidence or reasoned argument to suggest that Elder Nelson's remarks are in any way inaccurate or misleading.

Right.  So when a high councilor visits a ward and says something like "The Stake Presidency has asked that I convey their love and regards," it is incumbent upon the Saints to reject this message out-of-hand, and to instead insist that any communications from the Stake Presidency come the stake president only.

I suppose we are also, by your reasoning, required to reject the OD-2, since the former was presented by a mere counselor in the First Presidency, not by Pres. Kimball himself.

And we are also supposed to reject any portions of the New Testament that have any quotations of Jesus Christ by His apostles.  They lacked authority.

And when President Nelson prefaces his remarks about the topic at issue with "I bring you greetings and love from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles", we are not supposed to take him at his word.  He's presumptively dishonest, or something.

And so on.

Thanks, but no thanks.  We can and should use our brains here.  President Nelson is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, and his remarks were made in that capacity.  He was speaking on behalf of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  His remarks have not been rebutted or disclaimed by any other of the 14 men on whose behalf he spoke.  It is simply unreasonable to suggest that Pres. Nelson went rogue, or that he lied, or was deluded, or spoke off-the-cuff or out-of-turn, or that he misrepresented the experiences of the other 14 men under discussion, or that he was not speaking on behalf of the First Presidency

It's easier still to give him the benefit of the doubt, and not speculate or assume that he was only guessing at the experiences of the other men involved, that he merely guessed at their experiences and erroneously presumed to speak on their behalf.  Votes are taken, after all.  Records are kept.  14 other men were percipient witnesses to what President Nelson described.  If, as you suggest, President Nelson spoke out of turn, or if his remarks otherwise did not reflect the experiences of those other men, why have none of them come forward to say so?  Are they all dishonest?  Are they being threatened if they speak out?  Have they been cowed into submission by a 91-year old retired surgeon?  How do you account for the subsequent silence of these other 14 men?  My accounting is that they have not contravened Pres. Nelson's remarks because . . . his remarks accurately reflected their experiences.  That is, I think, what a reasonably prudent person would conclude.  There's even a legal maxim about this quoted in A Man for All Seasons: "

This, to me, is eminently applicable to the case at hand.  As regarding the public remarks made by President Nelson, the silence of the other Brethren connotes consent.  We should therefore presumptively construe that they consent to what he has said, not that they disagree with it.

Your guesswork would be remarkably out-of-character for a man as honorable as President Nelson.  It's also at odds with the fact that none of the men on whose behalf he spoke have come forward to dispute or otherwise challenge his recitation of the events leading up to the policy change.

You are, of course, at liberty to assume the worst about President Nelson.  And to seize upon a theory based on pure speculation and devoid of a scintilla of supporting evidence.  And to ignore the absence of any contrary or corrective remarks from any of the 14 men which - according to you - may have had their experiences misrepresented by Elder Nelson.

For me, however, I'll go with what I find to be a more reasoned approach.  I will take President Nelson at his word.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt.  I will construe the silence of the other Brethren to be consent to President Nelson's remarks.

I think arguments suggesting that President Nelson's remarks are not reflective of what happen are unreasoned, devoid of evidentiary support, tendentious, and desperate.

Thanks,

-Smac

I totally agree. We can and should use our brains here.

Mine apparently tells me something different than what yours tells you. The spirit does not confirm this "revelation" to me whereas it appears to have confirmed it to you. So we have 2 people who have studied the issue and have come to different intellectual and spiritual conclusions. I don't think you're a terrible person. I just disagree with your conclusion. All I want is the space to follow my own conscience, understanding and witness without others requiring me to agree with them.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So when President Nelson characterizes his "experience" about the policy change as being revelatory (along with the entirety of the First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve), and when you specifically and publicly and categorically state that you "do not believe this policy is God's will.  Not even close," you are not "disputing President Nelson's experience"?

 

Nope, I'm not doing that at all.  I simply do not believe this policy came from God.  President Nelson does and his belief is based on what he experienced.  I'm not disputing that.

What don't you see here and why do you keep asking the same questions?  I can disagree with past and present church leaders as they are not infallible.  Or do you disagree?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally agree. We can and should use our brains here.

Mine apparently tells me something different than what yours tells you. The spirit does not confirm this "revelation" to me whereas it appears to have confirmed it to you. So we have 2 people who have studied the issue and have come to different intellectual and spiritual conclusions. I don't think you're a terrible person. I just disagree with your conclusion. All I want is the space to follow my own conscience, understanding and witness without others requiring me to agree with them.

Fair enough.  

We are not each of us able to declare laws unto ourselves.  This is why the Lord has given us so many overlapping sources of information: our own reasoning, our own access to revelation, scriptures, continuing revelation to others for matters outside our stewardship but within theirs (and the policy changes are clearly within the stewardship of the Brethren), and so on.

Also, we get to have our own opinions, but not our own facts.  This is why I have disputed efforts to distort or misrepresent Elder Nelson's remarks as being his "opinion" only, as being less-than-accurate, or distorted, or presumptuous, or out-of-turn, or what have you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Fair enough.  

We are not each of us able to declare laws unto ourselves.  This is why the Lord has given us so many overlapping sources of information: our own reasoning, our own access to revelation, scriptures, continuing revelation to others for matters outside our stewardship but within theirs (and the policy changes are clearly within the stewardship of the Brethren), and so on.

Also, we get to have our own opinions, but not our own facts.  This is why I have disputed efforts to distort or misrepresent Elder Nelson's remarks as being his "opinion" only, as being less-than-accurate, or distorted, or presumptuous, or out-of-turn, or what have you.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm declaring no law. I don't speak for the church. I'm not claiming Pres. Nelson didn't have an experience he is interpreting as a revelatory confirmation. What I am saying is my experience with the policy is difference and I am very comfortable with my interpretation as it relates to my understanding of scripture and the gospel. I have no expectation that another person can/should tell me what my spiritual truth and interaction with the spirit is. Elder Nelson has his experience. I have mine. My experience is good enough for me and I don't expect anyone else to follow my experience. I hope they seek and have their own experience instead of relying on someone else having a spiritual experience on their behalf.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

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.

 

It is important that we not overlook what Wendy Nelson said at the end of her talk by way of introduction to her husband's comments regarding the purported revelation.

If what she implies is true, it is shocking.

If what she implies is not true, it is more shocking.

 

 

Quote

So, now a question as I conclude: What if you learned that the Savior had already returned to this earth--that He, as part of His Second Coming, had already met with some of His true followers in several marvelous, large gatherings-gatherings about which the world, including CNN and the blogosphere, knew nothing. If you found out that the Savior was already on the earth, what would you desperately want to do today, and what would you be willing and ready to do tomorrow?

 

Thoughts?

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, we get to have our own opinions, but not our own facts.  This is why I have disputed efforts to distort or misrepresent Elder Nelson's remarks as being his "opinion" only, as being less-than-accurate, or distorted, or presumptuous, or out-of-turn, or what have you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Who has used the word "opinion" here to describe Pres. Nelson's remarks (other than in your posts)?   

Edited February 1, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Nope, I'm not doing that at all.  I simply do not believe this policy came from God.  President Nelson does and his belief is based on what he experienced.  I'm not disputing that.

But you are "disputing that."  You are disputing the accuracy of what President Nelson said.  What he called revelation you are calling not-revelation.

Quote

What don't you see here and why do you keep asking the same questions?  I can disagree with past and present church leaders as they are not infallible.  Or do you disagree?

Yes, you can disagree.  But you cannot misrepresent.  President Nelson spoke on behalf of 15 men.  Not just himself.

And he explained in surprising detail the extensive efforts those men utilized to arrive at a decision about the policy.

And he explained the revelatory nature of the event as being communicated through President Monson.

And he explained that the entirety of the First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, after much fasting, prayer, temple attendance, discussion, and after revelation given through President Monson, all arrived at the same conclusion about the origin and nature of the policy changes.

In contrast, you have presented a one-sentence assertion that flatly contradicts what the Brethren have said ("I do not believe this policy is God's will.  Not even close.  God would not deny innocent children baptism into His true church or deny them the gift of the Holy Ghost just because of a parent's actions.  Period.").  Weighing these respective pieces of evidence, I find your position lacking.  Your position is not based on reasoned argument.  It is not persuasive.  It is at odds with A) my personal research, observations, and assessment, B) spiritual promptings, and C) counsel from past and present prophets and apostles.

I will therefore decline to accept your unwarranted and unreasoned assertion over that of Elder Nelson's remarks.

I suppose we're done now.  Thank you for the discussion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Here's an interesting perspective on those three questions/answers from Rock Waterman's Pure Mormonism blog:

Taking the Lord's Name in Vain?

This essay speaks volumes..and cuts deep into how/why this "policy" came about.  Wow...thanks for this!  For me, it clarifies so many particulars.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Jeanne