Doctrinal Mastery Changes

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's already been discussed at length on here and there are other threads on that topic.

I do find it odd that President Monson received a revelation (first one in many years) and as of yet, has not spoken about it.  As far as I know,  Pres. Nelson is the only one who has stated it was a revelation.

That it's the first one received in many years is your own reckless assumption.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That it's the first one received in many years is your own reckless assumption.

I already edited that before you posted.

First one "that we know of".  Or do you disagree with that too?  If so, name another recent revelation that has been announced and designated as such.

.

Edited September 7, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I already edited that before you posted.

 

.

Alas, that didn't improve it much.

Quote

First one "that we know of".  Or do you disagree with that too?  If so, name another recent one.

I believe the prophets and apostles receive a constant flow of revelation day in and day out as pertaining to administering the affairs of the Church. So there are limitless examples that could be named: where and when to construct a temple; lowering the age of missionary service; authorizing the Joseph Smith Papers Project.

I spent the weekend in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, following two apostles and other Church leaders from place to place as I documented their visit with victims of the recent flooding and the members of the Church who have come from many states to help them as volunteer relief workers. I firmly believe the decision to have these apostles and other leaders come and offer support, comfort and encouragement was divinely directed.

(By the way, if you check the Facebook pages of President Russell M. Nelson and Elder M. Russell Ballard right now, you can see several pictures I shot.)

Do you teach people in your ward that those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators have not received a revelation "in many years"?

Edited September 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's already been discussed at length on here and there are other threads on that topic.

I do find it odd that President Monson received a revelation (first one in many years that we know of) and as of yet, has not spoken about it.  As far as I know,  Pres. Nelson is the only one who has stated it was a revelation.

And the nature of revelation in the Church today has been discussed at length on numerous threads on here. 
I don't think we will see any canonized word of the Lord any time soon.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Alas, that didn't improve it much.

I believe the prophets and apostles receive a constant flow of revelation day in and day out as pertaining to administering the affairs of the Church. So there are limitless examples that could be named: where and when to construct a temple; lowering the age of missionary service; authorizing the Joseph Smith Papers Project.

I spent the weekend in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, following two apostles and other Church leaders as I documented their visit with victims of the recent flooding and the members of the Church who have come from many states to help them as volunteer relief workers. I firmly believe the decision to have these apostles and other leaders come and offer support, comfort and encouragement was divinely directed.

Do you teach people in your ward that those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators have not received a revelation "in many years"?

I think most members already know that this new policy is the first revelation that has been announced for years as an official revelation.  I do believe that we all receive inspiration to guide us in our lives and in making decisions for ourselves and in our leadership positions as you describe above.  But what Pres. Nelson related regarding this recent policy being a revelation is different than what you've described, IMO.  

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the nature of revelation in the Church today has been discussed at length on numerous threads on here. 
I don't think we will see any canonized word of the Lord any time soon.

Yes.  On that we agree!  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the nature of revelation in the Church today has been discussed at length on numerous threads on here. 
I don't think we will see any canonized word of the Lord any time soon.

Probably not necessary. The fundamental doctrines and principles are in place; we just have to improve the way we live them.

[carbon dioxide]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But it fails to recognize that some people who live in a SSM might want their kids to grow up Mormon. I don't see why that is hard to comprehend. Unmarried parents "living in sin" still go to church and take their children so why is it unfathomable that SSM couples may also want their children to be a part of the church.

I might not think its a good policy but have a hard time believing that there are many SS couples out there that want their kids to grow up LDS when the Church teaches that their parents are living in a very wicked practice.  Unmarried parents it might not affect as much since there is always a chance they might be married someday.  Perhaps my biggest criticism of the policy is that it addressed a problem that would rarely come up and the Church should just address those extremely rare cases on an individual basis. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think most members already know that this new policy is the first revelation that has been announced for years as an official revelation.  I do believe that we all receive inspiration to guide us in our lives and in making decisions for ourselves and in our leadership positions as you describe above.  But what Pres. Nelson related regarding this recent policy being a revelation is different than what you've described, IMO.  

I suspect that what President Nelson described as pertaining to this particular revelation takes place far more often than you think. Contrary to your inference, he was not making an announcement but was describing a process.

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suspect that what President Nelson described as pertaining to this particular revelation takes place far more often than you think. Contrary to your inference, he was not making an announcement but was describing a process.

I understand that this is your opinion and belief and I respect that.

Edited to add:

I do wish that President Monson would share experiences such as this one (or describe the process as you put it above) with the members of the church, when he has received a modern revelation.  I believe this would mean a great deal to the members.

.

Edited September 7, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I understand that this is your opinion and belief and I respect that.

Edited to add:

I do wish that President Monson would share experiences such as this one (or describe the process as you put it above) with the members of the church, when he has received a modern revelation.  I believe this would mean a great deal to the members.

.

I can't disagree with that.

 

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Probably not necessary. The fundamental doctrines and principles are in place; we just have to improve the way we live them.

I agree that additional doctrinal revelation is not really necessary.  The fullness was restored by Joseph Smith.

But considering the teaching that "This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed." it would be nice to see some actual recorded revelation adapted to our circumstances instead of just taking the word of man that revelation was received.

Don't we have as much right to study the revelations adapted to our circumstances as the early saints did with the revelations in the D&C?

Who knows, perhaps we might be more inclined to quit changing what Joseph restored?

 

[ttribe]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree that additional doctrinal revelation is not really necessary.  The fullness was restored by Joseph Smith.

But considering the teaching that "This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed." it would be nice to see some actual recorded revelation adapted to our circumstances instead of just taking the word of man that revelation was received.

Don't we have as much right to study the revelations adapted to our circumstances as the early saints did with the revelations in the D&C?

Who knows, perhaps we might be more inclined to quit changing what Joseph restored?

 

Still hoping polygamy will be brought back?

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Still hoping polygamy will be brought back?

Still hoping a lot of things will be brought back.  Polygamy isn't even in the top 5.

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Still hoping a lot of things will be brought back.  Polygamy isn't even in the top 5.

I hope they bring back the activities committee because roller skating around the gym by yourself just isn't fun anymore

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Alas, that didn't improve it much.

I believe the prophets and apostles receive a constant flow of revelation day in and day out as pertaining to administering the affairs of the Church. So there are limitless examples that could be named: where and when to construct a temple; lowering the age of missionary service; authorizing the Joseph Smith Papers Project.

I spent the weekend in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, following two apostles and other Church leaders from place to place as I documented their visit with victims of the recent flooding and the members of the Church who have come from many states to help them as volunteer relief workers. I firmly believe the decision to have these apostles and other leaders come and offer support, comfort and encouragement was divinely directed.

(By the way, if you check the Facebook pages of President Russell M. Nelson and Elder M. Russell Ballard right now, you can see several pictures I shot.)

Do you teach people in your ward that those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators have not received a revelation "in many years"?

You're complaining about ALarson making assumptions only to declare your own. He is basing his assumption on evidence and you're basing yours on your feelings despite the absence of evidence. Have there been any revelations from God recently? If so, wouldn't we expect to hear something? Wouldn't a revelation be promulgated through talks, books, Ensign articles, or possibly be canonized. Revelation from God is a big deal, right? That's why we have a prophet, right? Why have a prophet if he doesn't share God's revelation that you assume he's receiving?

I think your definition of "revelation" is so weak as to render it meaningless. Does God really have to provide a revelation to the apostles to go give aid and comfort to those who are suffering in a major disaster or tragedy? If so, why? Are these men not capable of knowing that would be a compassionate, christlike thing to do? Of course they are.

When I see an elderly woman who needs help crossing the street, do I require a revelation from God to compel me to do that? No. It's the reasonable and good thing to do and I don't need God to command me in all things. Nor do the leaders of the church need God to direct them in all they do. God isn't helping them pick stocks in which they should invest church funds. God isn't revealing to them each person they should hire at the COB or even every leadership calling issued. If He is, He sure tends to make some big mistakes from time to time OR his definition of "worthy" is very different than what we've been taught in church.

Frankly, claiming that God directs all the affairs of the church is a way of blaming Him for the misteps and mistakes. It's leaders taking the name of God in vain, claiming His direct will or revelation for their own decisions. It's a great way for them to avoid accountability, and for church members to hold them accountable.

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're complaining about ALarson making assumptions only to declare your own. He is basing his assumption on evidence and you're basing yours on your feelings despite the absence of evidence. Have there been any revelations from God recently? If so, wouldn't we expect to hear something? Wouldn't a revelation be promulgated through talks, books, Ensign articles, or possibly be canonized. Revelation from God is a big deal, right? That's why we have a prophet, right? Why have a prophet if he doesn't share God's revelation that you assume he's receiving?

I think your definition of "revelation" is so weak as to render it meaningless. Does God really have to provide a revelation to the apostles to go give aid and comfort to those who are suffering in a major disaster or tragedy? If so, why? Are these men not capable of knowing that would be a compassionate, christlike thing to do? Of course they are.

When I see an elderly woman who needs help crossing the street, do I require a revelation from God to compel me to do that? No. It's the reasonable and good thing to do and I don't need God to command me in all things. Nor do the leaders of the church need God to direct them in all they do. God isn't helping them pick stocks in which they should invest church funds. God isn't revealing to them each person they should hire at the COB or even every leadership calling issued. If He is, He sure tends to make some big mistakes from time to time OR his definition of "worthy" is very different than what we've been taught in church.

Frankly, claiming that God directs all the affairs of the church is a way of blaming Him for the misteps and mistakes. It's leaders taking the name of God in vain, claiming His direct will or revelation for their own decisions. It's a great way for them to avoid accountability, and for church members to hold them accountable.

 

Sure.  When I read Scott's post I thought, "hmmm....I guess so.  Tons of different types of people live by such inspiration, whether in the Church or out, whether Christian or not, whether male or female..."  If what he's defining as revelation is what is meant by revelation, then it is certainly not unique to the Church.  It's people fulfilling assignments and doing so well, feeling good about doing it a certain way. 

Hey, that's fine.  But let's be clear then.  There's nothing unique about Mormon revelation at all. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree that additional doctrinal revelation is not really necessary.  The fullness was restored by Joseph Smith.

But considering the teaching that "This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed." it would be nice to see some actual recorded revelation adapted to our circumstances instead of just taking the word of man that revelation was received.

Don't we have as much right to study the revelations adapted to our circumstances as the early saints did with the revelations in the D&C?

Who knows, perhaps we might be more inclined to quit changing what Joseph restored?

 

A prophet, a prophet, we already have a prophet and need no more prophets.

If we think Joseph restored everything then the continuing restoration is just a myth taught to us by current leaders. If Joseph restored everything then we have no further need of prophets or additional scripture, right?

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A prophet, a prophet, we already have a prophet and need no more prophets.

If we think Joseph restored everything then the continuing restoration is just a myth taught to us by current leaders. If Joseph restored everything then we have no further need of prophets or additional scripture, right?

I think you ignored most of my post.

Everything needed for salvation and exaltation has already been restored.
But doctrine is not all that we need prophets to reveal.

So again, since you seem to have missed it - "This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed."

This is what we need revelation for today.  Not to redact doctrine we no longer find pleasing.
 

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think you ignored most of my post.

Everything needed for salvation and exaltation has already been restored.
But doctrine is not all that we need prophets to reveal.

So again, since you seem to have missed it - "This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed."

This is what we need revelation for today.  Not to redact doctrine we no longer find pleasing.
 

I understood.

We no longer need a prophet who reveals anything. All he is there for is to interpret past revelation to the current circumstance. If we want to go down the road of claiming the prophet is a teacher, fine. I can get behind that. But I don't have your level of confidence in the reception, understanding and dissemination of God's will given through past prophets. To claim there will be no redactions or corrections claims an infallibility of the prophet you choose to follow. Joseph was fallible. So was Brigham and John Taylor etc. etc. Therefore it should not be any surprise that in a church of continuing revelation and restoration, things change. To deny that is impressively rigid.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understood.

We no longer need a prophet who reveals anything. All he is there for is to interpret past revelation to the current circumstance. If we want to go down the road of claiming the prophet is a teacher, fine. I can get behind that. But I don't have your level of confidence in the reception, understanding and dissemination of God's will given through past prophets. To claim there will be no redactions or corrections claims an infallibility of the prophet you choose to follow. Joseph was fallible. So was Brigham and John Taylor etc. etc. Therefore it should not be any surprise that in a church of continuing revelation and restoration, things change. To deny that is impressively rigid.

I know you understood.  You just ignored it. 

'I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.”  - Joseph Smith

I know you don't agree.  I do have that confidence.
There are plenty of revelations yet to come, many great and important things yet to be revealed.
But I don't accept any revelation that contradicts the restoration revelations of Joseph Smith.  Further light, information and instruction will always be what the prophets are called to give us.

But everything necessary from faith and baptism up to the making sure of our calling and election was restored by Joseph Smith.  Any change to that program would require another restoration, and that's not going to happen.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/7/2016 at 9:39 AM, DBMormon said:

Whether I know anything, I will simply leave you guessing.  But I am excited to see the new handbook next year.  Let's say a change does happen , It will be interesting how those who have defended it tooth and nail now come to grips in their mind that only a year later it is retracted as a bad idea.  hmmmm that feels like cognitive dissonance.

 

On 9/7/2016 at 11:49 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

So is it inside information you are privy to, or are you going by something anyone could access on the Internet? Don't play this juvenile game.

 

On 9/7/2016 at 2:11 PM, ALarson said:

If you've read the other thread (started by stemmelbow), you'll see that this policy has already been removed from the seminary manual (after first including it).  Hopefully, removal from the handbook will be next.

.

 

On 9/7/2016 at 3:24 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

This doesn't answer the question.

 

On 9/7/2016 at 3:31 PM, ALarson said:

I never said that it did.  I just didn't know if you'd seen the other thread.  It was just an FYI  

 

On 9/7/2016 at 3:55 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I've seen it. It doesn't answer the question I put to Reel. Nor is it even necessarily related.

 

 

On 9/7/2016 at 4:03 PM, ALarson said:

I disagree (about it being related).  I hope it's the first step to backing away from this awful new policy and that the next step will be removing it from the handbook.  Time will tell, but I do hope these rumors are true and that they are coming from someone who knows.  We will just have to wait and see, but what took place with the seminary manual is encouraging.

 

On 9/7/2016 at 4:30 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Revision of an online youth instruction manual proves nothing.

So let's make this a proper CFR.

To Bill Reel (DBMormon): Call for references that Dehlin has a source who says what you claim about a change to the handbook coming next year. And let's have a link.

Bumping this, because there is a CFR on the table that DBMormon has thus far failed to answer.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On September 10, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bumping this, because there is a CFR on the table that DBMormon has thus far failed to answer.

 

Bumping this to put it back on Page 1 for DBMormon, who has not yet answered the CFR. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On September 7, 2016 at 9:39 AM, DBMormon said:

Whether I know anything, I will simply leave you guessing.  But I am excited to see the new handbook next year.  Let's say a change does happen , It will be interesting how those who have defended it tooth and nail now come to grips in their mind that only a year later it is retracted as a bad idea.  hmmmm that feels like cognitive dissonance.

Hey, DBMormon, just quoting this to send out an alert to you that there is a CFR on the table that you've not responded to yet. 

[thatjimguy]

On 9/2/2016 at 6:27 PM, bluebell said:

I think that a lot of us have lost the ability (or we still have it but we have to really fight for it) to do what other people say.  We have no problem saying that we will obey God in theory, but unless God Himself comes down to tell us something, we struggle with obeying people, even prophets.  Our faith, as a people, in prophets seems to be weak.

I think that goes with the added realization that they are just men doing their best like anyone else would try to. We can see it at the local level that men in position granted by God are still just men. I don't think there is a line that gets crossed up the ladder that give any one of our leaders less fallibility or more powers and gifts than anyone else. They simply have officiating keys.

And this may seem as a knock, but it isn't. It is a great time for the church and for the people. Where we really have to think and use the Holy Spirit to discern whether what the leaders are saying is true as opposed to simply "confirming that it is true", which is nothing more than assuming it is true without really pondering or praying about it.