The November policy change was reaffirmed as revelation in the Oct. Ensign

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church is not a democracy.

Then why the concept of common consent? While common consent is not democracy it does allow for opposition which has largely been lost for most of LDS Church history. 

[cdowis]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Then why the concept of common consent? While common consent is not democracy it does allow for opposition which has largely been lost for most of LDS Church history. 

Think of a ballot in common consent.  Only one name is listed for a position, and the choice is "yes" or "no".

[cdowis]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How did the wording differ in the older edition?

 

The phrase "  contrary to the law " was added.

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Think of a ballot in common consent.  Only one name is listed for a position, and the choice is "yes" or "no".

Common consent is supposed to be used for more than just callings. 

[cdowis]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Common consent is supposed to be used for more than just callings. 

Thankfully we have a prophet with the Key to the priesthood and the administration of the church who decides when it applies, such as the canonization of scripture.

Hallelujah!

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because somebody might express my thoughts eloquently enough that I don't have to. Or somebody might say something that causes me to rethink my theory.

I was interested in hearing your theory, not in hearing others' theories while you decide whether to share it or not. This is a discussion board. Put it out there!  

Does that bother you?

To dangle the possibility of your theory, subject to what others do or don't post in advance of it? Yeah, that is a little annoying. You could just go ahead and post it and comment on others' comments, as needed.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I was interested in hearing your theory, not in hearing others' theories while you decide whether to share it or not. This is a discussion board. Put it out there!  

 

 

To dangle the possibility of your theory, subject to what others do or don't post in advance of it? Yeah, that is a little annoying. You could just go ahead and post it and comment on others' comments, as needed.

Within the parameters of the board guidelines, I am entitled to post here as I see fit or to not post at all.

You are entitled to ignore me if you can't abide that fact.

One thing you're not entitled to do is to net nanny.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Within the parameters of the board guidelines, I am entitled to post here as I see fit or to not post at all.

You are entitled to ignore me if you can't abide that fact.

Goodness, gracious, Scott. No one has said otherwise. But thank you for pointing that out . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

The phrase "  contrary to the law " was added.

Thanks.

Was that the only alteration?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I think there is a difference between Revelation and revelation. I find in my own life that the times when I feel God powerfully speaking to me are not commonplace --- they are special experiences, but they don't grow on trees. At other times (more frequently), I try to discern God's will and, not discerning it unmistakably, do the best I can.

 

 

Often, revelation is more like this, and I personally think that the November revelation falls into this category --- that is, men who hold keys seek divine guidance, do their best, and move forward. 

To me, it was a revelation because it came from men I believe possess and are authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. The manner in which it was communicated left somewhat to be desired.

 

I would prefer that revelation not have a whiplash element to it. If it changes frequently, whiplash-fashion, I think that could tend to undermine faith.  

We used to call revelation, inspiration and Revelation was reserved for Revelation.  I wonder if others agree with your distinction between revelation and Revelation.  Or, I wonder if others agree with me for that matter.  Of course the church can call anything they want a revelation.  But when you have an apostle going around telling everyone President Monson received a revelation from God in a meeting, it carries much more weight to a lot of members than saying the leaders came up with a policy that they feel good about.  When everything the church leaders decide to do is now thought of as a revelation, it seems to trivialize what a Revelation means.  Maybe there has never been much of a difference in Mormon history.  Perhaps it was me that got the wrong meaning of what a revelation actually was.

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Common consent is supposed to be used for more than just callings. 

I'll rely on the anointed servants of God to adjudicate what common consent is to be used for.

 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

We used to call revelation, inspiration and Revelation was reserved for Revelation.  I wonder if others agree with your distinction between revelation and Revelation.  Or, I wonder if others agree with me for that matter.  Of course the church can call anything they want a revelation.  But when you have an apostle going around telling everyone President Monson received a revelation from God in a meeting, it carries much more weight to a lot of members than saying the leaders came up with a policy that they feel good about.  When everything the church leaders decide to do is now thought of as a revelation, it seems to trivialize what a Revelation means.  Maybe there has never been much of a difference in Mormon history.  Perhaps it was me that got the wrong meaning of what a revelation actually was.

I generally agree with this, especially with your thought that when everything is revelation, then revelation is devalued. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

I generally agree with this, especially with your thought that when everything is revelation, then revelation is devalued. 

Can you cite an authoritative source from the Church of Jesus Christ to the effect that "revelation is devalued" when inspiration is referred to as revelation?

Edited to add:

While I wait for you to respond, I'll link to this entry for Revelation in the Church reference work "Guide to the Scriptures":

Quote

Communication from God to his children on earth. Revelation may come through the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost by way of inspiration, visions, dreams, or visits by angels. Revelation provides guidance that can lead the faithful to eternal salvation in the celestial kingdom.

According to this, then, inspiration is part of the broader category of revelation, as are visions, dreams or angelic visitations. It doesn't say anything about revelation being "trivialized" or "devalued" if inspiration is referred to as revelation.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you cite an authoritative source from the Church of Jesus Christ to the effect that "revelation is devalued" when inspiration is referred to as revelation?

That's just my opinion. 

Do you think the words "revelation" and "inspiration" are interchangeable, with no difference between them whatsoever? You don't have to cite an authoritative source; just your opinion.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

It sure does. Thanks for posting it. 

I'm admittedly unfamiliar with California's private universities. I'm assuming that Cal-Berkley and Stanford are already okay with the boycott/embargo pressure groups . . .  What other universities are in the gunsights? Whittier (President Nixon's alma mater, and a Quaker college)? Pepperdine (I think it's affiliated with the Campbellites of early Mormonism fame)? 

What schools are specifically targeted by this legislation?

According to the article, it applies to those schools that have applied to and received a Title 9 exemption.

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I think it's because we all know that it isn't just about "full disclosure for an informed decision." It's a salvo in bringing out-of-favor schools to their knees.

I found this quote from a bill supporter interesting:

 

This sounds to me that the drums wouldn't stop beating for, say, BYU, even if it no longer received Pell or state grants. That is, completely severing itself from government funding wouldn't stop the python from tightening the coils.

You aren't being unfair at all to think that there are many who believe that any school not in compliance with Title lX should be severed from all government funding.  I can certainly see their point of view.  Can you?  

I don't however, support the government forcing in any way BYU or any other school to stop discriminating against LGBT or any other group they want to discriminate against.  That is also their right to do so.  Receiving government aid however is not a right.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's just my opinion. 

Do you think the words "revelation" and "inspiration" are interchangeable, with no difference between them whatsoever? You don't have to cite an authoritative source; just your opinion.

I am in accord with the entry from "Guide to the Scriptures" that I quoted as an addition to my post, apparently after you had already responded to my post.

To reiterate, I see inspiration as a form of revelation, just as divinely appointed visions, dreams and angelic visitations are each a form of revelation.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

According to the article, it applies to those schools that have applied to and received a Title 9 exemption.

What does that mean? That they can retain their honor codes, without sanctions? Are they exempt from this California bill?

You aren't being unfair at all to think that there are many who believe that any school not in compliance with Title lX should be severed from all government funding.  I can certainly see their point of view.  Can you?

I do. I can see where they are coming from. 

I don't however, support the government forcing in any way BYU or any other school to stop discriminating against LGBT or any other group they want to discriminate against.

I'm hearing a "but" there, if not from you (your sentiment above may be unconditional), then from others. They can't "force" BYU, but they can withhold accreditation, funding, etc. Which ends up constituting force, even if it isn't at the point of a gun.

That is also their right to do so.  Receiving government aid however is not a right.

I fully agree. If BYU were to be prohibited by law from receiving any government education money, I could live with that. I don't want to volunteer for that  , but I would be willing to sacrifice the money to keep our integrity. Same with sports: I would be sad if no one will play BYU in sports, but I would rather sacrifice that than to compromise on our integrity. 

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, rongo said:

What does that mean? That they can retain their honor codes, without sanctions? Are they exempt from this California bill?

If a school receives an exemption from the federal government for title iX then currently they can continue to discriminate and have whatever honor code the way.  This may change in the future.  I can see the government requiring all schools that receive federal aid to comply with Title iX sometime in the future.  That would mean they would prohibit schools receiving federal dollars from discriminating against LGBT and any other group.

 

50 minutes ago, rongo said:

I do. I can see where they are coming from. 

I'm hearing a "but" there, if not from you (your sentiment above may be unconditional), then from others. They can't "force" BYU, but they can withhold accreditation, funding, etc. Which ends up constituting force, even if it isn't at the point of a gun.

I think it is much more difficult to withhold accreditation than it is federal funding.  As I understand it, the federal government does not accredidate schools.  It is a separate body.  I don't have a clear idea what action they would take.  Perhaps someone else does.

50 minutes ago, rongo said:

I fully agree. If BYU were to be prohibited by law from receiving any government education money, I could live with that. I don't want to volunteer for that  , but I would be willing to sacrifice the money to keep our integrity. Same with sports: I would be sad if no one will play BYU in sports, but I would rather sacrifice that than to compromise on our integrity. 

I agree with you.  I don't see BYU changing its policies, so I am guessing they would rather loose the federal funding.  If schools choose not to play them because of their discrimination policies, that would be tough, but I don't see what BYU could do about it.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

If a school receives an exemption from the federal government for title iX then currently they can continue to discriminate and have whatever honor code the way.  This may change in the future.  I can see the government requiring all schools that receive federal aid to comply with Title iX sometime in the future.  That would mean they would prohibit schools receiving federal dollars from discriminating against LGBT and any other group.

I didn't know that a school could exempt itself from Title 9. There's probably a stigma attached to that, though, I'll bet. 

I think it is much more difficult to withhold accreditation than it is federal funding.  As I understand it, the federal government does not accredidate schools.  It is a separate body.  I don't have a clear idea what action they would take.  Perhaps someone else does.

I think that the accrediting bodies are just as vulnerable to pressure and social currents as other groups, but I think you're right. That's where I think some of this will be fought in the future. Didn't the BYU law school recently weather an attempt at de-accreditation over the honor code issue?

I agree with you.  I don't see BYU changing its policies, so I am guessing they would rather loose the federal funding.  If schools choose not to play them because of their discrimination policies, that would be tough, but I don't see what BYU could do about it.

If I were an LGBT activist dedicated to bringing BYU down over this, I would apply my pressure to schools that BYU plays. If solidarity could be brought about to where no one would schedule or play them, then there wouldn't be anything they could do about it. This is an interesting gambit, because BYU has insanely high ratings (I just read this weekend that BYU, LSU, and one other school had a huge Nielsen Ratings month for September). There is high interest in seeing them play, even for non-Mormons, so this tactic swims against supply and demand. I'm hoping that this consideration overrides concern over the honor code and angering activists.  

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Thankfully we have a prophet with the Key to the priesthood and the administration of the church who decides when it applies, such as the canonization of scripture.

Hallelujah!

That's actually not what the law of common consent says... it doesn't indicate that the prophet can decide when it does or does not apply. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll rely on the anointed servants of God to adjudicate what common consent is to be used for.

 

To not use it is to ignore a mandate from the Lord.  I guess you feel they are entitled to do that?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To not use it is to ignore a mandate from the Lord.  I guess you feel they are entitled to do that?

I don't concede that they are ignoring the Lord's mandate int the way they implement the law of common consent.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To not use it is to ignore a mandate from the Lord.  I guess you feel they are entitled to do that?

I don't concede that they are ignoring the Lord's mandate in the way they implement the law of common consent.

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I didn't know that a school could exempt itself from Title 9. There's probably a stigma attached to that, though, I'll bet. 

 

 

I think that the accrediting bodies are just as vulnerable to pressure and social currents as other groups, but I think you're right. That's where I think some of this will be fought in the future. Didn't the BYU law school recently weather an attempt at de-accreditation over the honor code issue?

 

 

If I were an LGBT activist dedicated to bringing BYU down over this, I would apply my pressure to schools that BYU plays. If solidarity could be brought about to where no one would schedule or play them, then there wouldn't be anything they could do about it. This is an interesting gambit, because BYU has insanely high ratings (I just read this weekend that BYU, LSU, and one other school had a huge Nielsen Ratings month for September). There is high interest in seeing them play, even for non-Mormons, so this tactic swims against supply and demand. I'm hoping that this consideration overrides concern over the honor code and angering activists.  

BYU went through a similar thing over the ban on blacks.  They are still playing football.  Of course the church changed it's position so no one is sure where it would have all ended up.  I think you are right about the law school.  I remember something about that, but not sure how they solved the problem or even what the problem was.  I think it had to do with how rape was reported and sanctions against the person that got raped.  But I could be wrong.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, there isn't. So in the way the handbook is written, that leaves children of legal plural marriages subject only to the usual baptismal provisions. 

If one assumes that is all the info that is given.  It is reasonable to me that there is additional information given to leaders in countries where polygamy is legal. 

I find it interesting the choice was to use "plural marriage".  Is this used by anyone, but us?  It ties it to early LDS practice for me and actual apostate groups and has little to do with other cultures' polygyny or polyandry in the few places that occurs.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Calm