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

[Russell C McGregor]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

LOL!

I know you are joking, but you raise a good point.

The LDS Church has progressed to the point where they would have to excommunicate God for apostasy!

That is glaringly, brazenly, patently and deliberately false.

It is you and your ilk who are intentionally rejecting divinely revealed principles in order to pander to a wicked world whose non-values you share, and blaspheming God's name by claiming "revelations" you know perfectly well you have not received.

Or if you have received any such "revelations" you have received them from the gods of political correctness, and not from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Quote

And I don't even want to think what they would do to Jesus . . .

Since you've already rejected Him, why would you worry?

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Now you know how I feel when you judge 15 men more spiritual than anybody else simply because of the position they hold.

And in spite of the policies they endorse.

There is nothing wrong with the policies they endorse.

The fact that they are righteous policies is unambiguously clear. I have no reason to believe that anyone who has a problem with them is reflecting the values and standards of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; rather it is apparent that they are reflecting a very different set of values.

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

21 hours ago, consiglieri said:

What God has spoken, He hath spoken.

He is God and does not repent.

And what He has said is that wickedness never was happiness.

21 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The new policy remains a stink in His nostrils, and will to everlasting.

I regret that I am unable to accept that you are making that claim in good faith.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, however silly.

Attributing your own ridiculous notions to God is a deliberate attempt to goad and provoke believing Latter-day Saints.

Which is most of what you do.

21 hours ago, consiglieri said:

What should I do when God refuses to repent of the revelation He has given me?

Admit that you are making it up.

Because we all know that you are.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎09‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 7:57 AM, consiglieri said:

God has also told me that the claim by President Russell M. Nelson that the new policy is the result of revelation from God is a stink in His nostrils.

 

On ‎08‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 4:33 AM, consiglieri said:

I believe Elder Bednar was being disingenuous in completely redefining a commonly understood word to suit his personal agenda.

So an anonymous internet commenter calls one apostle a "stink in His (i.e. God's) nostrils" and calls another apostle "disingenuous," i.e. a liar.

But there's nothing apostate about any of that, is there?

What is the use of a rule that punishes posters for questioning the faithfulness of another poster, when that other poster is attacking the Lord's anointed servants?

 

[Ahab]

Russell,

It seems that you can be operated by remote control. 

At least when consig is pushing your buttons. 

Try considering the idea that the person he refers to as God just isn't the same person you refer to as God.  Same God, but different persons who are both the same kind of being.

One ssying the opposite of the other.

One good, and the other evil.

There, let's see if that works. 

[Storm Rider]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Russell,

It seems that you can be operated by remote control. 

At least when consig is pushing your buttons. 

Try considering the idea that the person he refers to as God just isn't the same person you refer to as God.  Same God, but different persons who are both the same kind of being.

One ssying the opposite of the other.

One good, and the other evil.

There, let's see if that works. 

I am having a hard time thinking it is the same God.  Ye shall know them by their fruits leads me to think it may just be a much darker being; it takes all kinds and there is more than one master by our own choice.  

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Why do you feel the need to threaten me with judgment day just because we disagree?

I thought the LDS Church encouraged its members to seek after personal revelation.

I also thought the LDS Church encouraged its members to deepen their spirituality and draw closer to God.

These things I have done and continue to do.

Where am I going wrong?

Well, you are putting your detractors on, Counselor . . .  And I tried to give you a rep for that, but the system wouldn't allow it.

[Russell C McGregor]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

Russell,

It seems that you can be operated by remote control. 

At least when consig is pushing your buttons. 

If you're saying what I think you are saying, then I agree with you.

Consiglieri is not making the slightest attempt at a good faith discussion, at any level or on any subject.

The Godfather's sidekick is merely taunting and goading for his own malicious amusement.

 

Quote

Try considering the idea that the person he refers to as God just isn't the same person you refer to as God.  Same God, but different persons who are both the same kind of being.

One ssying the opposite of the other.

One good, and the other evil.

There, let's see if that works. 

Oh, I don't doubt that Consig is getting his "revelations" from an evil source.

And that, almost certainly, by choice.

You will be taking a break from the board.

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

To me, it seems to have a great deal to do with your point, which is to minimalize and marginalize clear and unanimous statements from the Brethren regarding the wrongness of homosexual behavior and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman merely because certain individuals on isolated occasions in years past have over-claimed or made  unauthoritative and unwise statements. I am pointing out that the present circumstances with regard to the unanimous agreement by the Brethren on the matter of homosexual behavior is quite unlike what you insist on dredging up from the past.

It's similar.  Are you saying official declarations from the Frist Presidency should be seen as "isolated occasions in years past"? 

My point is not to "minimalize and marginalize clear and unanimous statements".  It is to put the clear and unanimous statements in proper context.  Afterall clear and unanimous claims have been made in the past, which claims are now said to be wrong. 

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Give some examples: Who on earth possessed greater light and knowledge at the time they made such statements (and how do you know this, and how would you have known it at the time), and how did he behave?

The example was already given, CV75. There was an average member of the Church named Lowry Nelson who clearly had a better view of the issue,thus possessed greater light and knowledge, than the First Presidency.  http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf

Edited March 11, 2016 by stemelbow

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The example was already given, CV75. There was an average member of the Church named Lowry Nelson who clearly had a better view of the issue,thus possessed greater light and knowledge, than the First Presidency.  http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf

That exchange is amazing to read through today.  I can't imagine that anyone cannot see how different things are today regarding that topic and realize how much change can occur over a 30 year period.  It's also clearly stated in the letters that the Prophet called this church doctrine and that it came through revelation.

Edited March 11, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

That exchange is amazing to read through today.  I can't imagine that anyone cannot see how different things are today regarding that topic and realize how much change can occur over a 30 year period.  It's also clearly stated in the letters that the Prophet called this church doctrine and that it came through revelation.

As a church, we've become very good at re-writing past doctrinal positions.  Many, if not most, of the church members are able to place more weight on current prophets than previous ones.

The good news is that these talents will serve us well as the restoration continues to unfold and revelation continues to distill upon us.

[consiglieri]

20 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

That is glaringly, brazenly, patently and deliberately false.

It is you and your ilk who are intentionally rejecting divinely revealed principles in order to pander to a wicked world whose non-values you share, and blaspheming God's name by claiming "revelations" you know perfectly well you have not received.

Or if you have received any such "revelations" you have received them from the gods of political correctness, and not from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Thank you, Russell, for giving the lie to the LDS faux doctrine that members are encouraged to receive revelation as to whether what their leaders teach is true.

I couldn't have made the point better myself. 

Nice work!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The example was already given, CV75. There was an average member of the Church named Lowry Nelson who clearly had a better view of the issue,thus possessed greater light and knowledge, than the First Presidency.  http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf

That one comes up all the time. It is weak. And it does not answer the questions, "how do you know he was inspired, and how would you have known it at the time; and how did he behave?" This last question in particular gets overlooked quite a bit.

 

 

1.      The First Presidency had commissioned Heber Meeks to assess the potential for missionary work in Cuba, in consideration of the black and Catholic populations.

2.      Taking a tactical/strategic approach, at least in these letters, Meeks asked Nelson some specific questions about the black and white populations and the level of segregation in the communities, and other cultural matters.

3.      He was looking for information, not opinion or revelation.

4.      Nelson obliged and shared a carbon copy with President Smith. In today’s world it is inappropriate to cc: anyone not copied on the original correspondence or otherwise invited to be copied in the response; the motives would be suspect. But let’s not judge him for what he did then by the standards of our time, although he clearly (as stated in a subsequent letter) wants the President of the Church to know his feelings.

5.      Nelson shared his appeal for universal brotherhood, his fervent desire for world peace and to see the causes of war (in his opinion, ethnocentrism) rooted out of the hearts of men.

6.      Nelson condemned racism, “white supremacy” and any “irrevocable stand” on doctrine that the Church might have on what we now call “theories advanced in the past” about blacks because he believed promulgating them would disrupt the peaceful relations between the races in Cuba as opposed to what was going on the American South. Peace was more important than doctrine to him (and I can’t say I disagree – there are many reasons the First Presidency might hold off on missionary work in a particular geopolitical region… I lived in one!).

7.      By using the term “white supremacy” he reveals a bias in which he conflates the priesthood ban espoused by the Church with a policy of social domination which the Church had not.

8.      He gets to the tactical and strategic questions Meeks asked and a point out there is no way to identify a person of “pure” race.

9.      From his letter, we can ascertain a difference of opinion on how to achieve world peace: one based in Nelson’s socio-political point of view and speaking to strategy, and one in the Church’s theological point of view speaking to practice, a point of view requiring divine revelation to make a change.

 

I see no “greater light and knowledge” theologically in Nelson’s remarks. He is certainly a better sociologist/anthropologist! But it is not correct to say he received greater lighter and knowledge from the Lord on the will of the Lord through his studies on and reaction to this subject.

 

10.  In a letter to President Smith, he expresses his hope that the theories supporting the ban, and perhaps even the ban, are not official. He raises his interest in promoting love and harmony among the peoples of the earth in his preferred manner.

11.  President Smith reminds him that the social side of the Restored Gospel is incident to, and not the end thereof. He then engages in some of the racism and “theories advanced in the past.”

 

The Church had not yet received greater lighter and knowledge from the Lord on the will of the Lord on this subject, either!

 

12.  In the next exchange, Nelson expresses his disappointment in Church policy and doctrine according to his credentials and experience (the limited or secular light and knowledge he possessed) and goes to great lengths to justify and defend his alternative position and special interests.

 

This is the type of statement that might be made as part of “studying it out” in a council discussion, and I cannot tell whether this was a virtual council or he was speaking unsolicited out of council.

 

13.  President Smith acknowledges that such reasoning of men may be well-founded but that it is better for Nelson, for the interests of the Gospel, to go along with the existing light and knowledge reflected in the current teachings and practices.

 

The issue seems to escalate with Nelson’s preparation and publication of an article on this subject and a forewarning against apostasy, whether he had been working on such an effort before or after Meeks’ questions to him.

 

Bottom line? Nelson may have had advanced sociological study to support a reasonable position on the Church’s proper role and best course of action in establishing world peace, but clearly he neither possessed nor admitted any light and knowledge as coming from the Lord. His fallibility is demonstrated in his going beyond answering Meek’s questions to leverage a bully pulpit, his need to discuss this with the President of the Church, and his insistence on focusing on matters other than the prophet’s priorities at the moment. All this indicates that he might not have had such an open mind after all, which is needed to receive revelation.

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

That exchange is amazing to read through today.  I can't imagine that anyone cannot see how different things are today regarding that topic and realize how much change can occur over a 30 year period.  It's also clearly stated in the letters that the Prophet called this church doctrine and that it came through revelation.

I think you both are confusing solicited with unsolicited information, invited with uninvited participation in councils, scholarly work with revelation, and presentism with interpreting the past in context.

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As a church, we've become very good at re-writing past doctrinal positions.  Many, if not most, of the church members are able to place more weight on current prophets than previous ones.

The good news is that these talents will serve us well as the restoration continues to unfold and revelation continues to distill upon us.

I think you both are confusing solicited with unsolicited information, invited with uninvited participation in councils, scholarly work with revelation, and presentism with interpreting the past in context.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you both are confusing solicited with unsolicited information, invited with uninvited participation in councils, scholarly work with revelation, and presentism with interpreting the past in context.

Nope, no confusion.  We have a letter from the Prophet who spoke very clearly and was extremely forthcoming regarding this being doctrine and it coming through revelation. I'm surprised you'd think there could be any confusion as to what was stated.

If we had quotes as clear and specific regarding SSM by Pres. Monson in writing, I'm sure these would be quoted here to show that the church's policies definitely are church doctrine and that they came through revelation.  I also doubt you'd be claiming there was any confusion as to what he meant.

.

Edited March 11, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That one comes up all the time. It is weak. And it does not answer the questions, or how do you know he was inspired, and how would you have known it at the time; and how did he behave? This last question in particular gets overlooked quite a bit.

 

 

1.      The First Presidency had commissioned Heber Meeks to assess the potential for missionary work in Cuba, in consideration of the black and Catholic populations.

2.      Taking a tactical/strategic approach, at least in these letters, Meeks asked Nelson some specific questions about the black and white populations and the level of segregation in the communities, and other cultural matters.

3.      He was looking for information, not opinion or revelation.

4.      Nelson obliged and shared a carbon copy with President Smith. In today’s world it is inappropriate to cc: anyone not copied on the original correspondence or otherwise invited to be copied in the response; the motives would be suspect. But let’s not judge him for what he did then by the standards of our time, although he clearly (as stated in a subsequent letter) wants the President of the Church to know his feelings.

5.      Nelson shared his appeal for universal brotherhood, his fervent desire for world peace and to see the causes of war (in his opinion, ethnocentrism) rooted out of the hearts of men.

6.      Nelson condemned racism, “white supremacy” and any “irrevocable stand” on doctrine that the Church might have on what we now call “theories advanced in the past” about blacks because he believed promulgating them would disrupt the peaceful relations between the races in Cuba as opposed to what was going on the American South. Peace was more important than doctrine to him (and I can’t say I disagree – there are many reasons the First Presidency might hold off on missionary work in a particular geopolitical region… I lived in one!).

7.      By using the term “white supremacy” he reveals a bias in which he conflates the priesthood ban espoused by the Church with a policy of social domination which the Church had not.

8.      He gets to the tactical and strategic questions Meeks asked and a point out there is no way to identify a person of “pure” race.

9.      From his letter, we can ascertain a difference of opinion on how to achieve world peace: one based in Nelson’s socio-political point of view and speaking to strategy, and one in the Church’s theological point of view speaking to practice, a point of view requiring divine revelation to make a change.

 

I see no “greater light and knowledge” theologically in Nelson’s remarks. He is certainly a better sociologist/anthropologist! But it is not correct to say he received greater lighter and knowledge from the Lord on the will of the Lord through his studies on and reaction to this subject.

 

10.  In a letter to President Smith, he expresses his hope that the theories supporting the ban, and perhaps even the ban, are not official. He raises his interest in promoting love and harmony among the peoples of the earth in his preferred manner.

11.  President Smith reminds him that the social side of the Restored Gospel is incident to, and not the end thereof. He then engages in some of the racism and “theories advanced in the past.”

 

The Church had not yet received greater lighter and knowledge from the Lord on the will of the Lord on this subject, either!

 

12.  In the next exchange, Nelson expresses his disappointment in Church policy and doctrine according to his credentials and experience (the light and knowledge he possessed) and goes to great lengths to justify and defend his alternative position and special interests.

 

This is the type of statement that might be made as part of “studying it out” in a council discussion, and I cannot tell whether this was a virtual council or he was speaking unsolicited out of council.

 

13.  President Smith acknowledges that such reasoning of men may be well-founded but that it is better for Nelson, for the interests of the Gospel, to go along with the existing light and knowledge reflected in the current teachings and practices.

 

The issue seems to escalate with Nelson’s preparation and publication of an article on this subject and a forewarning against apostasy, whether he had been working on such an effort before or after Meeks’ questions to him.

 

Bottom line? Nelson may have had advanced sociological study to support a reasonable position on the Church’s proper role and best course of action in establishing world peace, but clearly he neither possessed nor admitted any light and knowledge as coming from the Lord. His fallibility is demonstrated in his going beyond answering Meek’s questions to leverage a bully pulpit, his need to discuss this with the President of the Church, and his insistence on focusing on matters other than the prophet’s priorities at the moment. All this indicates that he might not have had such an open mind after all, which is needed to receive revelation.

 

Embrace truth no matter where it comes from.  Joseph SMith said, "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may."  --Sermon of Joseph Smith, 9 July 1843 (Sunday Morning), in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 229.

You are saying it is not further light and knowledge because he does't claim revelation on the matter.  Well God works in mysterious ways.  He'll teach us in many ways.  The only point I wanted to secure here is that he knew more about the topic, had a better perspective and understanding of it, than the First Presidency of the time.  However he gained that further light and knowledge does not matter. 

[CV75]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Nope, no confusion.  We have a letter from the Prophet who spoke very clearly and was extremely forthcoming regarding this being doctrine and it coming through revelation.  I'm surprised you'd think there could be any confusion as to what was stated.

I think so -- take a look at what I wrote above where I addressed that and more.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think so -- take a look at what I wrote above where I addressed that and more.

I read it and it's not convincing.  The letter written by the Prophet could not have been more clear.  If you are confused as to what he meant, then so be it.

Again, you'd be quoting Pres. Monson if you had a letter by him stating as plainly that the church policies regarding SSM are church doctrine.  I doubt you'd be claiming confusion if he spoke as clearly as these letters did.

[consiglieri]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are talking gibberish.

 

 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Embrace truth no matter where it comes from.  Joseph SMith said, "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may."  --Sermon of Joseph Smith, 9 July 1843 (Sunday Morning), in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 229.

Of course. To embrace truth is to embrace it in all godly ways and at all godly levels.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

You are saying it is not further light and knowledge because he does't claim revelation on the matter.  Well God works in mysterious ways.  He'll teach us in many ways.  The only point I wanted to secure here is that he knew more about the topic, had a better perspective and understanding of it, than the First Presidency of the time.  However he gained that further light and knowledge does not matter. 

I’m saying that Nelson’s remarks are sociological, not revelatory. They do not reflect the will of the Lord, only his professional and emotional response to exploratory questions from some of His servants, based on his sociological theories and understanding.

I’m also saying the Church’s position as reflected in President Smith’s remarks at the time was defended by theories that were later disavowed. We all know this already, and that the will of the Lord was sought to remove the ban.

Nelson behaved and expressed himself in ways that run contrary to the way the Lord set up His councils to operate and in other unedifying ways I listed above, and let his personal views and interests overshadow the questions asked of him. He was not advancing the discussion in an inspired way on his part.

All light and knowledge comes from God no matter how we gain it (people steal scriptures), but how we handle light and knowledge is what makes them “truth.” Nelson handled light and knowledge badly, and by using the tools of his science and mentality; the Church pursued and handled them well, and by using the tool of revelation and spirituality of the Brethren.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I read it and it's not convincing.  The letter written by the Prophet could not have been more clear.  If you are confused as to what he meant, then so be it.

The clarity of any of the letters is helpful but irrelevant to what I've described above.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Again, you'd be quoting Pres. Monson if you had a letter by him stating as plainly that the church policies regarding SSM are church doctrine.  I doubt you'd be claiming confusion if he spoke as clearly as these letters did.

(Again?) You're the one that quoted a letter from a prophet! Policies are only the application of principles that grow out of the doctrine. The policies do reflect the will or at least the allowance of Lord, so there is no inconsistency in His servants taking a more authorized approach to changing them (in council and by revelation) than writing unsolicited letters and publishing articles.

I would think anything President Monson would write today would be held in the same regard for us as Nelson had (or perhaps should have had!) for President Smith's. Those who are aligned use revelation, covenants and councils to communicate their ideas to the Lord's servants who are studying things out, and not just push their interests, credentials and secular studies as Nelson did. Everything he says about the Church is through a social lens, and President Smith picked up on this in the first paragraph of his first reply.

Edited March 11, 2016 by CV75

[consiglieri]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

Russell,

It seems that you can be operated by remote control. 

At least when consig is pushing your buttons. 

 

It's my gift of the Spirit.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The only point I wanted to secure here is that he knew more about the topic, had a better perspective and understanding of it, than the First Presidency of the time.  However he gained that further light and knowledge does not matter. 

Perhaps it would be good to review how to introduce further light and knowledge into the Church.

Stay true to the light and knowledge you have acquired through Christlike behavior and feelings. Share your thoughts when invited into councils. Integrate your secular and spiritual advantages.  Accept that not everyone will agree with you unless and until you learn how to come to unanimity. Sustain the presiding authorities of the councils and the decisions that arise from those councils. Practice charity and reject contention. Recognize the differences between revelatory processes for collective and individual application and blessing; those that are private and those to be shared; exemplifying and “sharing.” Don’t do what Lowry Nelson did LOL.

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The clarity of any of the letters is helpful but irrelevant to what I've described above.

What is irrelevant, is how these statements from the Prophet came about.  His statements are clear regarding church doctrine at that time and are in writing.  Why does it matter who requested the information or how it was requested?

 

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

(Again?)

Yes, I also stated the same in my previous post (maybe you missed it because it was an edit).

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would think anything President Monson would write today would be held in the same regard for us as Nelson had (or perhaps should have had!) for President Smith's.

It should not just have been regarded as such only by the one asking the questions.  It was a statement by the Prophet.  Are you saying that his answer would have been different under different circumstances?  

The same regard would be given by most church members today, if Pres. Monson made a statement (in writing or otherwise) regarding anything that he clearly states is current church doctrine.

Do you believe that a written statement by Pres. Monson would not be relevant just because it was in response to a member's questions?

Edited March 11, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What is irrelevant, is how these statements from the Prophet came about.  His statements are clear regarding church doctrine at that time and are in writing.  Why does it matter who requested the information or how it was requested?

 

Yes, I also stated the same in my previous post (maybe you missed it because it was an edit).

It should not just have been regarded as such only by the one asking the questions.  It was a statement by the Prophet.  Are you saying that his answer would have been different under different circumstances?  

The same regard would be given by most church members today, if Pres. Monson made a statement (in writing or otherwise) regarding anything that he clearly states is current church doctrine.

Do you believe that a written statement by Pres. Monson would not be relevant just because it was in response to a member's questions?

You are correct.  The letter from the FP to Bro. Nelson is hardly written as a casual conversation between two acquaintances.  The FP uses the following terminology: "doctrine of the Church", "revelations of the Lord", "God's rule", "sanction of the Church", "our testimony", "principles of the Gospel", and "revealed word of God".

The letter from the Secretary to the FP warns Bro. Nelson of setting himself up against doctrines taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith and those who followed him in that office.

And, also of note in these letters... There is no mention of this doctrine being a temporary condition.  No hints at termination or expiration.  No comments about waiting for the day when all races would be welcome.