Why would any LGBT person want to be a member of the COJCOLDS?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Again, please give any quotes you have on SSM from President Monson.  I ready would like to read the quotes.

I thought I had responded to this hours ago, but I just now noticed that my post hadn't shown up on the thread. 

Now it has. I just resubmitted it. (I hate the new board software for its glitches!)

At any rate, I think I have now responded adequately to you. I agree with what Hamba posted after my first attempt about our sustaining all 15 men as they function unitedly to convey God's mind and will to us.

[ALarson]

On 3/11/2016 at 9:07 AM, CV75 said:

So let’s stop with the “things can change” when some things clearly do not, in order to discuss this intelligently.

If that's your view, then so be it.  I think it is not accurate to say that policies and doctrines have not changed over the years.  But if you can't see that this has happened, then there is no need to try any further intelligent discussion on this topic.

Edited March 14, 2016 by ALarson

[consiglieri]

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 5:41 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Well, since you've previously averred that Pres Nelson's claim is 'a stink in God's nostrils' and, further, that his claim is 'an infinite deal of nothing', I think you've told us quite a bit about your claim to revelation. Thank you.

If I were to say something different than what God has revealed to me, I would be guilty of the sin of denying the Holy Ghost.

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But If there weren't, it wouldn't matter. Each and every member of the First Presidency and the Twelve is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator. Collectively, they convey the mind and will of God. 

I think this highlights, at least for me, the clearest area of disagreement amongst posters in this thread.  How we can say they convey the mind and will of God each and every time they speak collectively is beyond me.  For we already have on the table instances of them speaking collectively and years later it seems to be agreed that they did not speak the mind and will of God.  It just feels like this all is far more trickier, a far more complicated issue than it's presented by you.  Humanity, thought, evolution of thought it just far more involved than you seem to let on.  That's fine.  I get your disagreement.  I just think it obvious you are wrong.  One day, hopefully soon, this will be less accepted by the majority in the Church and we'll be able to move forward instead of seemingly paddling around in circles. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

If that's your view, then so be it.  I think it is not accurate to say that policies and doctrines have not changed over the years.  But if you can't see that this has happened, then there is no need to try any further intelligent discussion on this topic.

“Some things can and do change” is countered with “Some things can’t and don’t change.” That is why it is useless, for discussion purposes, to justify “future doctrine” or a hope in “future doctrine” in those terms.

Policies have certainly changed and reversed, but “doctrine” is a tougher assessment. Policies hinge on doctrine; they always tie back to the doctrine. “Doctrine” can refer to a teaching or a theory that can be both expanded upon and disavowed by revelation, but also refers to an eternal truth, principle, or law that is revealed by revelation. Fundamental and core doctrine doesn’t change.

You need to show that marriage is not a core doctrine, an everlasting covenant “instituted from before the foundation of the world” between two persons of the same sex (D&C 132). This is the only way it can change. You have to show how it would play out with two men as our first parents, but no one can, and you certainly can’t!

I’ve shown how the manifestation in this world of atonement and resurrection, which are as fixed in principle as are sin and death, rely entirely on the eternal marriage of a man and woman. There is no step in the plan of happiness (Alma 42) / plan of salvation (Moses 6) that was brought about, or can be brought about, by a marriage between two men or two women.

[consiglieri]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think this highlights, at least for me, the clearest area of disagreement amongst posters in this thread.  How we can say they convey the mind and will of God each and every time they speak collectively is beyond me.  For we already have on the table instances of them speaking collectively and years later it seems to be agreed that they did not speak the mind and will of God.  It just feels like this all is far more trickier, a far more complicated issue than it's presented by you.  Humanity, thought, evolution of thought it just far more involved than you seem to let on.  That's fine.  I get your disagreement.  I just think it obvious you are wrong.  One day, hopefully soon, this will be less accepted by the majority in the Church and we'll be able to move forward instead of seemingly paddling around in circles. 

I think you are right about this.  Looked at objectively, it seems clear what the Church is doing.  It is systematically limiting the number of statements that can be considered "doctrine."  By so doing, it is making smaller and smaller the target to aim at when trying to hold Church leaders accountable for what they have taught.

This process went by several stages. 

1. The Church President--What Joseph Smith revealed was the mind and will of the Lord--whether by my own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same.  The President of the Church in Joseph Smith's day was the prophet of the Lord whose words were authoritative.  They did not need to be corroborated by any other Church leader to be considered authoritative.

2. First Presidency Statements--After Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young eventually became President of the Church and taught a number of things as revelation that were controversial at the time and discarded not long after his death.  Chief among these is the Adam-God Doctrine.  The Church needed a way to discount what Brigham Young had said as President, and so a new method was invented that gave the mind and will of the Lord.  No longer would it be official statements from the Church President alone, but instead it would have to be statements made by the President together with his counselors--i.e., First Presidency Statements.  For almost a century, First Presidency Statements were the official means of declaring Church doctrine.  By shifting to First Presidency Statements, previous controversial statements made by Church Presidents (i.e., Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine, and John Taylor's statements regarding the eternal nature of the practice of plural marriage), could be discounted as not coming up to snuff in the "official doctrine" department.  Beginning in Joseph F. Smith's administration, I believe, First Presidency Statements became the new sine qua non of official doctrinal pronouncements.

3. The Quorum of the Fifteen--In more recent years, we are seeing First Presidency Statements being discounted as doctrinal authority.  This is probably due in large measure to now-discarded teachings that were made in First Presidency Statements.  Exhibit A among these is the 1949 First Presidency Statement declaring it "doctrine" that blacks could not hold the priesthood, and making it clear this was not just a policy.  Obviously, when the priesthood ban was lifted and it was claimed this was only a policy and never a doctrine, something had to be done to make it so even First Presidency Statements were no longer authoritative.  This, I believe, is the reason why in more recent years, we are seeing it taught that statements by the Prophet are not enough; and even statements by the First Presidency are not enough. 

Now it is necessary in establishing official doctrine that all the First Presidency AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles must speak with a united voice.  This means that the 1949 First Presidency Statement is no longer authoritative (even though it was at the time it was issued) because the Twelve Apostles didn't sign off on it as well. 

In conclusion, it has been observed that restricting "binding revelation" to the unanimous decisions of a group of fifteen men sounds more like the Christian Councils described by Mormons as a sign of the Great Apostasy.  What is declared is not as important as who is declaring it.  Unanimity is the sign of revelation--not the revelation itself.

But in addition to this, it is apparent that expanding the number of leaders whose agreement is necessary to declare doctrine is an attempt by the Church to distance itself from statements it now disavows.  No longer is a Church President's statement sufficient, even if the Church President claims revelation for the doctrine. 

No longer is a First Presidency Statement sufficient, even if "doctrine" is declared and not "policy."

Now it must be all fifteen members of both top quorums speaking in unanimity.  It is hoped that they will not make the same mistake and issue something unanimously that will have to be retracted in future years.

The recent policy change relating to gay marriage may prove them wrong in this hope.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think this highlights, at least for me, the clearest area of disagreement amongst posters in this thread.  How we can say they convey the mind and will of God each and every time they speak collectively is beyond me.  For we already have on the table instances of them speaking collectively and years later it seems to be agreed that they did not speak the mind and will of God.  It just feels like this all is far more trickier, a far more complicated issue than it's presented by you.  Humanity, thought, evolution of thought it just far more involved than you seem to let on.  That's fine.  I get your disagreement.  I just think it obvious you are wrong.  One day, hopefully soon, this will be less accepted by the majority in the Church and we'll be able to move forward instead of seemingly paddling around in circles. 

According to the principles in 3 Nephi 11, we are part of the collective. The Lord set up His system with fallible servants who need to be sustained by fallible saints. As long as we are of one heart and one mind (Zion) in a spirit of charity and not contention, His grace will ensure that things will be set aright.

The "going in circles" is avoided in the council process the Lord set up, where participants act in good faith and with charity and all are edified.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

According to the principles in 3 Nephi 11, we are part of the collective. The Lord set up His system with fallible servants who need to be sustained by fallible saints. As long as we are of one heart and one mind (Zion) in a spirit of charity and not contention, His grace will ensure that things will be set aright.

The "going in circles" is avoided in the council process the Lord set up, where participants act in good faith and with charity and all are edified.

Which part of intentionally keeping the saints in the dark about less-than-faith-promoting aspects of its history was done in "good faith"?

[Storm Rider]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

“Some things can and do change” is countered with “Some things can’t and don’t change.” That is why it is useless, for discussion purposes, to justify “future doctrine” or a hope in “future doctrine” in those terms.

Policies have certainly changed and reversed, but “doctrine” is a tougher assessment. Policies hinge on doctrine; they always tie back to the doctrine. “Doctrine” can refer to a teaching or a theory that can be both expanded upon and disavowed by revelation, but also refers to an eternal truth, principle, or law that is revealed by revelation. Fundamental and core doctrine doesn’t change.

You need to show that marriage is not a core doctrine, an everlasting covenant “instituted from before the foundation of the world” between two persons of the same sex (D&C 132). This is the only way it can change. You have to show how it would play out with two men as our first parents, but no one can, and you certainly can’t!

I’ve shown how the manifestation in this world of atonement and resurrection, which are as fixed in principle as are sin and death, rely entirely on the eternal marriage of a man and woman. There is no step in the plan of happiness (Alma 42) / plan of salvation (Moses 6) that was brought about, or can be brought about, by a marriage between two men or two women.

Hello CV, I bolded the sentence above because it causes me some problems.  The immediate example is the WofW.  The current policy is that it is required of all LDS if they desire to attend the temple or hold major callings.  This directly conflicts with the doctrine - the 89th Section verse two - "not by commandment or constraint" .  Policies evolve by direction of the FP and the Qof12.  I agree that there is a loose correlation to doctrine, but certainly not strict.  

I have stated several times that I dislike strongly any policy that directly affects the salvation of members.  We are a church that believes that the heavens are open and that God continues to speak to humanity.  Scripture remains open and new revelations can be added to them as they arrive.  Replacing revelation with policy is not helpful or supportive of our core doctrines.  If there is a revelation then add it; if not, hold your tongue until such time as a revelation has been received.

For all things that do not affect salvation; that are purely administrative, then by all means policy given directly by the leaders is acceptable and good.  Does this make sense to you?  

If the church ran in this manner we would not have the WofW and blacks would have always had the priesthood.  In reality, the WofW may have facilitated some attendance at weddings conflicts, but it is not a big deal.  However, to have avoided the entire issue with blacks and the priesthood is major and significant.  Policy should have never had any voice in this action IF we really believe in an open canon and revelation.  Consequently, it would immediately stop all discussion about SSM, SSA, and scripture. 

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

“Some things can and do change” is countered with “Some things can’t and don’t change.” That is why it is useless, for discussion purposes, to justify “future doctrine” or a hope in “future doctrine” in those terms.

Policies have certainly changed and reversed, but “doctrine” is a tougher assessment

The Priesthood ban was stated to be doctrine.  You can try to change the terminology, but we have it on record and in writing.

I agree that "some things" change and "some things" don't change,  Doctrine has changed and so have policies over the years within the church.  For me, that puts those (doctrines and policies of the church) into the "things" that change category.

I'm not going to continue this back and forth with you.  You can believe that church doctrine and policies have not changed over the years.

I do agree that very little within the SSM policies will change for a very long time if at all.  But that the policies may change is a very real possibility.

Edited March 14, 2016 by ALarson

[Ahab]

On 3/11/2016 at 4:21 PM, california boy said:

 

[Ahab]

On 3/11/2016 at 11:00 AM, california boy said:

Find me one post where I said I thought the church might someday change it's position on SSM.  The only thing i have ever said is that I don't know if it will ever change. I am wondering if this constant misstatement of what I am saying is you projecting your own wants and desires on me.  Maybe you think I am free to say what you want to say.  Does that bother you?  Maybe you really do want to be in a same sex relationship and resent that fact that you had to marry a woman.

See how this works Ahab?  See what it feels like to have another person tell you what your thoughts and desires are when you have never said any of those things?  I am not really angry about your constant putting words in my mouth.  I am more amused, and wonder why you do it.  Maybe you can explain.

So this is the post you were responding to.  Show me where it says that I want or hope that the church will change its position on SSM.

You said nobody can say the Church will ever change its policy regarding SSM, except Scott, indicating that you can't say that yourself.  Indicating that you think the Church might someday change its policy regarding SSM, even though in the same breath you said you don't know if it ever would change it.

So why don't you know?  Why do you think Scott is the only one who would say the Church will never change its policy on SSM? 

I can say it too, and you should be able to ssy it as well.

Say it with me now: The Church will never change its policy on SSM, specifically the message that SSM is a sin along with the same sex sexual relations that usually go along with it.

The Church will ALWAYS consider that to be sinful.

If you can't say that then clearly you don't understand the Church's,  and God's, position on this issue.

Funny boy. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello CV, I bolded the sentence above because it causes me some problems.  The immediate example is the WofW.  The current policy is that it is required of all LDS if they desire to attend the temple or hold major callings.  This directly conflicts with the doctrine - the 89th Section verse two - "not by commandment or constraint" .  Policies evolve by direction of the FP and the Qof12.  I agree that there is a loose correlation to doctrine, but certainly not strict.  

I have stated several times that I dislike strongly any policy that directly affects the salvation of members.  We are a church that believes that the heavens are open and that God continues to speak to humanity.  Scripture remains open and new revelations can be added to them as they arrive.  Replacing revelation with policy is not helpful or supportive of our core doctrines.  If there is a revelation then add it; if not, hold your tongue until such time as a revelation has been received.

For all things that do not affect salvation; that are purely administrative, then by all means policy given directly by the leaders is acceptable and good.  Does this make sense to you?  

If the church ran in this manner we would not have the WofW and blacks would have always had the priesthood.  In reality, the WofW may have facilitated some attendance at weddings conflicts, but it is not a big deal.  However, to have avoided the entire issue with blacks and the priesthood is major and significant.  Policy should have never had any voice in this action IF we really believe in an open canon and revelation.  Consequently, it would immediately stop all discussion about SSM, SSA, and scripture. 

The application of the Word of Wisdom is a good example of evolving policy rooted in an eternal principle, or “the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days — Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints…” The order and will of God allude to the eternal, as do the promises of “wisdom and great treasures of knowledge”. The adaptability, capacity of its adherents and temporal salvation indicate how the application is designed for change.

When it was given, there were no temples. Over time, as temples came on the scene, the saints became endowed, and new generations were born in the covenant, the capacity to abide increased and adaptation was made; also as more harmful drugs came on the scene. Where much is given, much is required. The temple ties heaven and earth and the spiritual and temporal together as in no other covenant, so it is fitting that the policies on this principle reflect that.

I think administrative policies are another animal, but as Elder Bednar once explained, even the fiduciary responsibilities for the Council for the Disposition of Tithes carried out by follow scriptural mandates. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-windows-of-heaven?lang=eng I would agree with you on things that are purely administrative, but we are also commanded to all get along as a community, even when the policies might seem imperfectly tied to an imperfect understanding of doctrine. So we work charitably through councils or sustain those who do.

I too am of the understanding that no policy affects the salvation of members in the long run, unless they choose to break themselves against it. For example, one can exercise a spirit of spite in using the wrong chair in the wrong room, but the spite was already in his heart; the same with a spirit of secularism in tying policy to the doctrines of marriage and the plan of happiness.

As the “Race and Priesthood” essay says, no one knows the actual point of origin of the priesthood ban. I think many things suggest it ties to incorrect theories (including a misunderstanding or misapplication of correct doctrine), racism and politics coming together. And like the Word of Wisdom, as the Gospel and temples spread across the earth with attendant light and knowledge where it counts, this policy changed.

[consiglieri]

A revelation came to me yesterday that I wanted to share with the board, and which pertains directly to the Church's policy relating to homosexuals and their children.

I was led to consider the challenge the early Church faced with regard to the issue of whether Christians should be required to live the law of Moses, including circumcision.

The apostolic leadership was in favor of such a policy, which made sense inasmuch as the religion Jesus founded sprang full-blown from its Judaic roots.  Because Christianity was an offshoot religion of Judaism from its inception, it only stood to order that all adherents would have to be Jewish, meaning they would follow the law of Moses.

But a person with a new revelation of Jesus appeared on the scene who challenged this idea.  Paul taught with authority from God (though not from the apostles) that the grace offered by Jesus did away with the law of Moses and those coming to Christ could do so separate and apart from the law.

Of particular note, the head apostle, Peter, who also had the view that following the law of Moses was a requirement to "come unto Christ," had a vision recorded in Acts 10.

You will recall that the vision was of a sheet of animals (all of them "unclean" under the law of Moses) being let down from heaven and accompanied by a divine command to Peter to "arise and eat."

When Peter refused to eat on the basis it would violate the law of Moses, the divine voice told him, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

This vision led to a complete reversal of Peter's policy to not allow Gentiles into the church without first subscribing to the law of Moses.  Though this change in policy was controversial and was not implemented without a great deal of struggle, it became the norm such that we today have difficulty imagining how it could ever have been any different.

The revelation that came to me is that the LDS Church is in the same position today that the early Christian church was in 2,000 years ago.

Again, we have people seeking to join the LDS Church who do not subscribe to the law of Moses (here, a strict interpretation of the Law of Chastity).

Again, we have leadership requiring all who would join the LDS Church to first subscribe to the law as a condition of membership.

Again, we have voices within the Church arguing that obedience to the law should not be a prerequisite to membership.

And again, the right thing to do would be to heed the vision of Peter:  "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

These are the words that came to me yesterday as I pondered this story from Acts.

And this is the application I believe God would have true followers of Jesus Christ extend to homosexuals in our day and age.

"What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

 

 

They that have ears to hear, let them hear.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

The Priesthood ban was stated to be doctrine.  You can try to change the terminology, but we have it on record and in writing.

I agree that "some things" change and "some things" don't change,  Doctrine has changed and so have policies over the years within the church.  For me, that puts those (doctrines and policies of the church) into the "things" that change category.

I'm not going to continue this back and forth with you.  You can believe that church doctrine and policies have not changed over the years.

I do agree that very little within the SSM policies will change for a very long time if at all.  But that the policies may change is a very real possibility.

It doesn’t matter whether the ban was presented as doctrine or policy. As a policy, it was changed by revelation. As a doctrine it was disavowed by a better examination of the core doctrines it was claimed to have been tied to. Like changes in the Word of Wisdom, as the saints became endowed and more of them came into the world, more light and knowledge came to change the policies and doctrines and spread the eternal blessings further.

We know the ban as a policy was lifted by revelation. Unlike marriage, I see the “doctrine” of the ban as a faulty amalgamation of bona fide doctrines in a culture of racism, politics and superseded scholarship. It wasn’t tied to the plan of happiness as laid out in Alma 42 or Moses 6 and so its underlying theories have been disavowed. Our policy on marriage on the other hand is tied to a core doctrine that makes the atonement, resurrection, sin and death possible in this world. Changing marriage is like changing any of those. There simply is no atonement, resurrection, sin or death arising from two Adams in an actual Eden.

As I suggested before, there is no way you can make that work in principle or practice. You cannot show that same sex marriage is a flawless amalgamation of bona fide doctrines no matter how you assess the culture, politics and scholarship of the Church today.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

 You cannot show that same sex marriage is a flawless amalgamation of bona fide doctrines no matter how you assess the culture, politics and scholarship of the Church today.

What has been shown is that the Church's new policy relating to the children of gay parents is a flawed contradiction of bona fide LDS doctrines.

Doesn't that count for something? 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Which part of intentionally keeping the saints in the dark about less-than-faith-promoting aspects of its history was done in "good faith"?

While the charge has been made, I don't think this has been sufficiently demonstrated to warrant comment.

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

What has been shown is that the Church's new policy relating to the children of gay parents is a flawed contradiction of bona fide LDS doctrines.

Doesn't that count for something? 

While the charge has been made, I don't think this has been sufficiently demonstrated to warrant comment.

[consiglieri]

Just now, CV75 said:

While the charge has been made, I don't think this has been sufficiently demonstrated to warrant comment.

While the charge has been made, I don't think this has been sufficiently demonstrated to warrant comment.

Both charges have been proven true by conclusive evidence.

But I can understand why you wouldn't want to comment. 

 

[ERMD]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

A revelation came to me yesterday that I wanted to share with the board, and which pertains directly to the Church's policy relating to homosexuals and their children.

I was led to consider the challenge the early Church faced with regard to the issue of whether Christians should be required to live the law of Moses, including circumcision.

The apostolic leadership was in favor of such a policy, which made sense inasmuch as the religion Jesus founded sprang full-blown from its Judaic roots.  Because Christianity was an offshoot religion of Judaism from its inception, it only stood to order that all adherents would have to be Jewish, meaning they would follow the law of Moses.

But a person with a new revelation of Jesus appeared on the scene who challenged this idea.  Paul taught with authority from God (though not from the apostles) that the grace offered by Jesus did away with the law of Moses and those coming to Christ could do so separate and apart from the law.

Of particular note, the head apostle, Peter, who also had the view that following the law of Moses was a requirement to "come unto Christ," had a vision recorded in Acts 10.

You will recall that the vision was of a sheet of animals (all of them "unclean" under the law of Moses) being let down from heaven and accompanied by a divine command to Peter to "arise and eat."

When Peter refused to eat on the basis it would violate the law of Moses, the divine voice told him, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

This vision led to a complete reversal of Peter's policy to not allow Gentiles into the church without first subscribing to the law of Moses.  Though this change in policy was controversial and was not implemented without a great deal of struggle, it became the norm such that we today have difficulty imagining how it could ever have been any different.

The revelation that came to me is that the LDS Church is in the same position today that the early Christian church was in 2,000 years ago.

Again, we have people seeking to join the LDS Church who do not subscribe to the law of Moses (here, a strict interpretation of the Law of Chastity).

Again, we have leadership requiring all who would join the LDS Church to first subscribe to the law as a condition of membership.

Again, we have voices within the Church arguing that obedience to the law should not be a prerequisite to membership.

And again, the right thing to do would be to heed the vision of Peter:  "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

These are the words that came to me yesterday as I pondered this story from Acts.

And this is the application I believe God would have true followers of Jesus Christ extend to homosexuals in our day and age.

"What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

 

 

They that have ears to hear, let them hear.

So now you can receive revelation for the Church.

Looks like I have to get another picture to hang on my wall.

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, ERMD said:

So now you can receive revelation for the Church.

Looks like I have to get another picture to hang on my wall.

True prophets don't want their pictures hanging on the wall.

 

There are too many complaints. Thread closed