Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

The "surprising detail" he shared sounds like every PEC/Ward Council/High Council/Bishopric meeting I've ever been in. It didn't sound any more revelatory than that. So his experience may tell him this policy is precisely the will and mind of God but I prefer to put my trust in the spirit and not the arm of the flesh. So I can recognize he had an experience and believe what he describes without agreeing with his interpretation.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This essay speaks volumes..and cuts deep into how/why this "policy" came about.  Wow...thanks for this!

Yes, an essay with this graphic ... 

...really deserves some serious consideration.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, anyone?  With a side of Blood Libel for good measure?

This, Jeanne, "speaks volumes" about something.

One less person to take seriously, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[Storm Rider]

2 hours 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. 

I am going to give you back what you said so that I make sure I understand what you have said:

1)  In your immediate family there is a lesbian, married, active couple with children for which they are custodial parents.  What does "active as the ward's culture and church polices allow for" mean?  How does it differ from being active as it would be for every other parent.  I also assume that these parents were excommunicated and active is under this context.  Is that correct?

2) In addition, you also were close friends with a second couple years back that were also married, gay couple, custodial parents, excommunicated, actively attending church and desirous of having their children baptized and raised in the church.  Is this correct?

One thing bothers me about the second couple - it was years back.  The policy change occurred in the last few months - are you saying they became inactive since November 2015? 

I will wait to understand what kind of active you mean regarding the first couple. 

My ignorance, such a good word for someone you don't know, is based off of attending church in Florida, Georgia, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, France, Italy, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, West Virginia, Virginia, Oregon, British Columbia, and a few other states and international locations.  Not once, not a single time have I ever met a married, active gay couple in any of those locations.  Lo and behold, you know two of these couples.  Where do you live?  How long have they been married and actively attending the church. But even more important, not a single other individual on this Forum has ever come forward with an example similar to your two couples.  That just seems too convenient. 

I am just slightly unwilling to believe something of this nature because a stranger not only knows one, but two married, gay couples who are active in the church even though they are excommunicated.  Yeah, this sounds like a fantasy story telling to support an agenda, but I would like to be proven wrong. 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Storm Rider

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

 

You are completely misrepresenting what I've written (and continue to do so over and over).  You also continue to put words in my mouth and claim that I am accusing Pres. Nelson of things I've never stated.  

For the last time, I do not dispute what Pres. Nelson expressed regarding what he experienced and witnessed.  I have not called his integrity into question at all.  

[Jeanne]

I am beginning to feel kind of sorry for President Monson.  It looks to me that Nelson and other counselors/apostles have put him in the hot seat..perhaps, unaware..when a fireside is talking of revelation.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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.

I don't think Rock Waterman is an authority on church doctrine and how authority works.  I have read enough of his stuff to see where his own bias gets stuff wrong.  I would be cautious about accepting his commentary without studying other church sources.

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, an essay with this graphic ... 

...really deserves some serious consideration.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, anyone?  With a side of Blood Libel for good measure?

This, Jeanne, "speaks volumes" about something.

One less person to take seriously, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pretty soon you will just be talking to yourself.  

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The "surprising detail" he shared sounds like every PEC/Ward Council/High Council/Bishopric meeting I've ever been in. It didn't sound any more revelatory than that. So his experience may tell him this policy is precisely the will and mind of God but I prefer to put my trust in the spirit and not the arm of the flesh. So I can recognize he had an experience and believe what he describes without agreeing with his interpretation.

That's supposed to be a backhand, I guess.  These revelation is not to be found in these other meetings, and that the experience described by President Nelson is therefore "[no] more revelatory" than those.  I've had quite a few spiritual experiences while working with quorums in the Church.  So many, in fact, that I reject your insinuation that revelation is not to be found in them.

And now The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, acting in unison and after much prayer and fasting and discussion, are "the arm of flesh" to be rejected in favor of . . . something else.

So much for sustaining the Brethren.

I recognize that reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things.  But as an evidentiary matter, going against the Brethren would require some really, really persuasive evidence that they are wrong and I am right.

In this case, the Brethren have said X.  X is not compatible with emerging trends in the World.  X has been met with contempt and hatred by critics and enemies of the Church.  The arguments against X, such as they are, are based on principally on emotion (pretty much to the exclusion of reasoned, fairminded analysis), and assume the worst about the Brethren, and/or require rejection of important portions of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have listened to a lot of argument against my Church's position.  I have engaged in or attempted to engage in substantive and reasoned discussion about varying opinions and viewpoints about the policy changes.  Having considered these counterarguments, I find them largely unpersuasive.  I find many of them to be in bad faith.  I reject them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, an essay with this graphic ... 

...really deserves some serious consideration.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, anyone?  With a side of Blood Libel for good measure?

This, Jeanne, "speaks volumes" about something.

One less person to take seriously, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

I disregarded the pics..they were unnecessary to the essence of the article.  I agree.

[Gray]

39 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

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?

 

This passage from Matt 24 immediately came to mind:

 

Quote

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

²⁷ For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You are completely misrepresenting what I've written (and continue to do so over and over).  You also continue to put words in my mouth and claim that I am accusing Pres. Nelson of things I've never stated.  

For the last time, I do not dispute what Pres. Nelson expressed regarding what he experienced and witnessed.  I have not called his integrity into question at all.  

Okay.  Then help me sort this out.   What he called revelation you are calling not-revelation.  You are saying Elder Nelson is factually incorrect, that the policy changes were not revelatory ("not even close" to being God's will you said).  But here you are denying that you have challenged his integrity (I'm glad to hear that - honest).

So when he speaks of the experience of The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, should we believe him or not?  If you aren't questioning his integrity, then what are you questioning?  His mental competence?  If, according to you, A) what President Nelson said (that the policy changes were revelatory) is factually incorrect ("I do not believe this policy is God's will.  Not even close."), and B) if you do not dispute the accuracy of President Nelson's recitation of the experience of the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve ("I have not called his integrity into question at all"), then on what basis are you making declarations which are diametrically opposed to President Nelson's?

He says the policy is X, and you say the policy is not X (even worse, that it's "not even close" to X).  But if you are right and President Nelson is wrong, and if you are not claiming that President Nelson is dishonest ("I have not called his integrity into question at all"), then how do you account of the the discrepancy between his position (the policy change was the result of revelation) and yours ("not even close" to being the result of revelation)?  If it's not dishonesty, then what is it?  Insanity?  Collective simultaneous delusion, about the exact same topic, resulting in the exact same conclusion, by part of fifteen prophets, seers and revelators? 

Doesn't that seem a little . . . farfetched?

But let's go with that.  If you are suggesting mass delusion or insanity by the entirety of The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, what evidence do you have to support such a claim?  And was this mass delusion just a temporary thing, or permanent?

And if the claimed revelatory basis is neither the result of dishonesty (which you've disclaimed) or mass-but-apparently-temporary delusion/insanity (which I hope you'll disclaim), then what's left?

Simple error?  Deceived by Satan?  They're all just a bunch of hate-filled bigots (this one seems unlikely, since you've previously disclaimed challenging Pres. Nelson's integrity)?  All fifteen of them "got it wrong" at the same time?  We are supposed to believe that all fourteen (responding to President Monson) "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation," but they were wrong?  It was not the Spirit?  These prophets, seers and revelators, all fifteen of them, with decades (centuries?) of collective experience in the Church, and after they "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration," were uniformly wrong?  How did that happen?

I'm open to listening to alternative theories as to the origins of the policy changes.  So what is your theory, and what is the factual/evidentiary basis for it?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I disregarded the pics..they were unnecessary to the essence of the article.  I agree.

Perhaps.  But they are certainly part of the message the author is trying to convey and should, imo, bring caution to anyone trying to find good information on the subject.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

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.

 

 

 

Thoughts?

She doesn't "imply" anything. It's a thought experiment, along the lines of "If The Savior Stood Beside Me."

 

[consiglieri]

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

This passage from Matt 24 immediately came to mind:

 

 

This is why the Church isn't asking the members to be scriptorians like they did when I was a teenager.

 

[consiglieri]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

So when he speaks of the experience of The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, should we believe him or not?  

 

One of the problems is that President Nelson didn't really describe anything.

He used a lot of ambiguous language to imply that a revelation had been received by President Monson.

I mean, what are we supposed to understand President Nelson means when he says they saw the Spirit move upon President Monson.

That is about as specific as he gets, and it really doesn't say anything.

It seems that all President Nelson is doing is using a lot of fuzzy language to cloak an unpopular corporate policy decision in the garb of divine revelation.

[Russell C McGregor]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

One of the problems is that President Nelson didn't really describe anything.

He used a lot of ambiguous language to imply that a revelation had been received by President Monson.

I mean, what are we supposed to understand President Nelson means when he says they saw the Spirit move upon President Monson.

That is about as specific as he gets, and it really doesn't say anything.

It seems that all President Nelson is doing is using a lot of fuzzy language to cloak an unpopular corporate policy decision in the garb of divine revelation.

It seems that way to you.

But to someone who doesn't employ a hermeneutic of suspicion towards everything the brethren say and do, it doesn't.

 

[consiglieri]

22 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

She doesn't "imply" anything. It's a thought experiment, along the lines of "If The Savior Stood Beside Me."

 

You could be right, except for all the details she gives.

It is one thing if I say in a talk, "What if you learned that the Savior was returning next week?"

It is another thing entirely if I say, "What if you learned the Savior had already come to the earth as part of his Second Coming; that he had met several times with large groups of his true followers; and that the world doesn't know about it; not even CNN or the blogosphere.  If you were to learn that Jesus was already on the earth, what would that make you desperate to do?"

This is no thought experiment.

This is obedience manipulation.

And the fact she said it right before her husband claims a two-month old leaked policy was a revelation is likely not coincidence.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps.  But they are certainly part of the message the author is trying to convey and should, imo, bring caution to anyone trying to find good information on the subject.

I agree that they are "certainly part of the message."  The graphic speaks about the tone of the piece.  The perspective of the author.  The objective of the piece.

Consider, for example, these images which are intended to vilify another religious minority:

 

 

 

 

These are, of course, vile anti-semitic characterizations of Jews associated with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the "Blood Libel."

Mr. Waterman's graphic fits, in both form and intent, into the same category as the above images.  Here it is again:

 

Jeanne, perhaps you could reconsider your praise of the source of this graphic.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Then help me sort this out.   What he called revelation you are calling not-revelation.  You are saying Elder Nelson is factually incorrect, that the policy changes were not revelatory ("not even close" to being God's will you said).  But here you are denying that you have challenged his integrity (I'm glad to hear that - honest).

So when he speaks of the experience of The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, should we believe him or not?  If you aren't questioning his integrity, then what are you questioning?  His mental competence?  If, according to you, A) what President Nelson said (that the policy changes were revelatory) is factually incorrect ("I do not believe this policy is God's will.  Not even close."), and B) if you do not dispute the accuracy of President Nelson's recitation of the experience of the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve ("I have not called his integrity into question at all"), then on what basis are you making declarations which are diametrically opposed to President Nelson's?

He says the policy is X, and you say the policy is not X (even worse, that it's "not even close" to X).  But if you are right and President Nelson is wrong, and if you are not claiming that President Nelson is dishonest ("I have not called his integrity into question at all"), then how do you account of the the discrepancy between his position (the policy change was the result of revelation) and yours ("not even close" to being the result of revelation)?  If it's not dishonesty, then what is it?  Insanity?  Collective simultaneous delusion, about the exact same topic, resulting in the exact same conclusion, by part of fifteen prophets, seers and revelators? 

Doesn't that seem a little . . . farfetched?

But let's go with that.  If you are suggesting mass delusion or insanity by the entirety of The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, what evidence do you have to support such a claim?  And was this mass delusion just a temporary thing, or permanent?

And if the claimed revelatory basis is neither the result of dishonesty (which you've disclaimed) or mass-but-apparently-temporary delusion/insanity (which I hope you'll disclaim), then what's left?

Simple error?  Deceived by Satan?  They're all just a bunch of hate-filled bigots (this one seems unlikely, since you've previously disclaimed challenging Pres. Nelson's integrity)?  All fifteen of them "got it wrong" at the same time?  We are supposed to believe that all fourteen (responding to President Monson) "during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation," but they were wrong?  It was not the Spirit?  These prophets, seers and revelators, all fifteen of them, with decades (centuries?) of collective experience in the Church, and after they "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration," were uniformly wrong?  How did that happen?

I'm open to listening to alternative theories as to the origins of the policy changes.  So what is your theory, and what is the factual/evidentiary basis for it?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Two people can read all the information regarding something, have personal experiences regarding it, and also have spiritual experiences related to it and come to different conclusions.  That does not mean that one has to call the other person a liar or that they are claiming they are being dishonest about what they experienced.  What don't you understand about that?

I do not believe that we have to blindly obey our leaders.  That does not mean that I think they are lying or deceiving.  I have not agreed with everything that has been taught by past or current church leaders, but that does not mean that I believe they are a "bunch of hate-filled bigots" .(at least you admitted that one is unlikely how I feel )   Why go to such extremes here ?  How about I have the right to disagree?  I am entitled to my own discernment.   It's that simple.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

Edited February 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours 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.

To someone who employs a hermeneutic of suspicion towards everything the brethren say and do -- or at least everything they say and do with which one chooses to disagree -- that might seem significant.

But not otherwise.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I am going to give you back what you said so that I make sure I understand what you have said:

1)  In your immediate family there is a lesbian, married, active couple with children for which they are custodial parents.  What does "active as the ward's culture and church polices allow for" mean?  How does it differ from being active as it would be for every other parent.  I also assume that these parents were excommunicated and active is under this context.  Is that correct?

2) In addition, you also were close friends with a second couple years back that were also married, gay couple, custodial parents, excommunicated, actively attending church and desirous of having their children baptized and raised in the church.  Is this correct?

One thing bothers me about the second couple - it was years back.  The policy change occurred in the last few months - are you saying they became inactive since November 2015? 

I will wait to understand what kind of active you mean regarding the first couple. 

My ignorance, such a good word for someone you don't know, is based off of attending church in Florida, Georgia, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, France, Italy, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, West Virginia, Virginia, Oregon, British Columbia, and a few other states and international locations.  Not once, not a single time have I ever met a married, active gay couple in any of those locations.  Lo and behold, you know two of these couples.  Where do you live?  How long have they been married and actively attending the church. But even more important, not a single other individual on this Forum has ever come forward with an example similar to your two couples.  That just seems too convenient. 

I am just slightly unwilling to believe something of this nature because a stranger not only knows one, but two married, gay couples who are active in the church even though they are excommunicated.  Yeah, this sounds like a fantasy story telling to support an agenda, but I would like to be proven wrong. 

Has someone mentioned Elder Christofferson's brother yet?  He went to his bishop, can't remember when, and asked if he could attend the ward weekly and that he needed that for his spirituality.  The bishop was fine with it and it didn't matter if he was actively gay or not.  Is this still not the same?  

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

One of the problems is that President Nelson didn't really describe anything.

He used a lot of ambiguous language to imply that a revelation had been received by President Monson.

I mean, what are we supposed to understand President Nelson means when he says they saw the Spirit move upon President Monson.

That is about as specific as he gets, and it really doesn't say anything.

It seems that all President Nelson is doing is using a lot of fuzzy language to cloak an unpopular corporate policy decision in the garb of divine revelation.

I agree, I almost don't think this was planned or authorized, I really think it was off the cuff, not really to verify it was a revelation.  Although, I'm aware of several that believe it was, and that it was meant to establish the revelation and then to work through it.  Somewhat like the PH ban.  I listened to this podcast today http://mormonmatters.org/2016/01/25/318-are-there-fresh-and-productive-ways-to-view-the-new-lgbt-policyrevelation/ and that is what Tom Christofferson and Maxine Hanks seem to believe.  

 

[Russell C McGregor]

50 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You could be right, except for all the details she gives.

It is one thing if I say in a talk, "What if you learned that the Savior was returning next week?"

It is another thing entirely if I say, "What if you learned the Savior had already come to the earth as part of his Second Coming; that he had met several times with large groups of his true followers; and that the world doesn't know about it; not even CNN or the blogosphere.  If you were to learn that Jesus was already on the earth, what would that make you desperate to do?"

This is no thought experiment.

This is obedience manipulation.

And the fact she said it right before her husband claims a two-month old leaked policy was a revelation is likely not coincidence.

Whether Sister Nelson is "implying" anything, or engaging in "obedience manipulation," whatever that might mean, is a matter of opinion.

That you are accusing her of such is not an opinion, but a fact.

Your accusation proceeds from no evidence.

 

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree, I almost don't think this was planned or authorized, I really think it was off the cuff, not really to verify it was a revelation.  Although, I'm aware of several that believe it was, and that it was meant to establish the revelation and then to work through it.  Somewhat like the PH ban.  I listened to this podcast today http://mormonmatters.org/2016/01/25/318-are-there-fresh-and-productive-ways-to-view-the-new-lgbt-policyrevelation/ and that is what Tom Christofferson and Maxine Hanks seem to believe.  

 

This is why I think that probably nobody was more surprised about this revelation than President Monson.

[Daniel2]

Regardless of where we may be on the spectrums of church activity or how we feel about same-sex relationships, in the spirit of attempting to uncover means by which we (might be able to help teens and young adults who are struggling with suicide make life-affirming choices, I wanted to share the following I recently received via a FB group I am a part of.  I find Dr. Ryan's words to be very insightful:

Quote

In light of the recent news on suicides within the Church:

Dr. Caitlin Ryan, the director of the Family Acceptance Project, after hearing about the suicides, send the following message:

"Because sexual orientation and gender identity are not included in death records, the only way we know about death by suicide of LGBT people is from a confirmed personal source. 

"That said, I'm suggesting we be thoughtful in talking about this online.  Social media can contribute to an increase in suicide deaths in a variety of ways, especially by stirring emotions and normalizing suicide as a logical and predictable response to the challenges and rejection that LGBT people face. 

"There are many sources of support now--keep talking about them and about accurate sources of information, including the Family Acceptance Project's Mormon family education booklets, which are also available online and are "Best Practices" for suicide prevention for LGBT young people (Click here). 

"We need to actively counteract isolation, hopelessness, and despair and think about how those who are vulnerable hear the messages that are reverberating online and in our communities."

 

The booklet above has been referred to previously, both here in this thread, and I'm glad to say also quoted and recommended by The Deseret News, as I believe has also previously been discussed--I'm still trying to wade through the 22 pages to get through everything...

Edited February 2, 2016 by Daniel2