Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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

phaedrus ut

By phaedrus ut
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

rockpond Grand Master

rockpond

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

How much eternal pain do think would occur if these folks got to the next life only to find out an SSM family is not acceptable to God and therefore their family unit is null and void? Why is the pain and suffering for this not being laid at the feet of the parents? This policy came about due to the looking for loopholes in The Family: A Proclamation. The POTF came out over 20 years ago this isn't something new.

I'm not sure what relevance your questions have to the matter of whether or not to baptize a child of gay parents.  The child isn't gay nor is the child in a gay marriage.  The blame isn't being put on the parents because they are allowing the baptism of their child.  Nor did the parents choose to be gay.

And from my personal perspective, I believe that God does accept the marriages of His homosexual children.

Your final sentence is just speculation.

2
Link to comment
ksfisher Grand Master

ksfisher

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

And from my personal perspective, I believe that God does accept the marriages of His homosexual children.

 

"And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead." (D&C 132:7)

 

How does your statement square with the scriptures, especially D&C 132:7 which teaches us that marriages not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and also speaks of earthly priesthood key holders, have an end at death?

 

2
Link to comment
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

We don't need to "bring in votes".  The procedure for common consent already exists and is already performed each year in general conference, stake conference, and ward conference.  All we would need to do is add the policy to the list of items being consented to.

That is only done at the discretion of the presiding officer, as explained earlier.

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm not really sure, I'll have to study it some. It doesn't seem practical to have the whole church vote on policy. I could see common consent among the 12 or even the 70.Bringing in votes for 15 million people seems like we do't trust the Lord to have His Apostles do His will.

edited to ad: too bad the post are not numbered it would make it easier to go back and read your posts on common consent.

There was a reference given to a lesson manual, but there's more to the scriptures it is explaining. The scripture reference to "all things" refers to "all things" the prophet is commanded to do. You are correct, common consent was not commanded for every policy.

D&C 26 is instruction to Joseph Smith (as the President) to do “all things” (verse 2) that are made known to him to do on any occasion (verse 1) by common consent of the Church, referring to the principle whereby those in conference appoint him as prophet, sustain him as prophet and recognize that the Lord called him as prophet (28:10). The Church covenants are revealed to him in this capacity and he and those he instructs carry them out according to the keys he exercises (28:1-3, 7). The phrase "For all things must done in order" has to do with operating under the keys, and he who directs their operation in the Church does so "by common consent," and the prayer of faith refers to the prayers of all involved (28:13). Note that Nephi did not operate by common consent to start and end the famine (Helaman 11), because he was not operating within the Church alone.

Now, if any are inclined to depend on the manual alone, even the manual does not say all “policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints.” The principle operates through our appointing and sustaining the President, and when he calls for a sustaining vote (in his capacity as head of an order – a quorum, the general Church body, etc., as we did Saturday – as demonstrated in D&C 107), it operates on those occasions also. This explanation ties the manual and the three scriptures about it together quite nicely, and we also see that this is how it operates in actual practice.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps Jeanne is referring to all the needless pain that has resulted from the policy.

Alma 31:38 teaches that all manner of afflictions are swallowed up in the joy of Christ. In the Church, we are to provide so that none hunger or thirst, and we are to strengthen each other in the faith so that all afflictions suffered are swallowed up in the joy of Christ (this is part of enduring to the end), even the "sting of death" -- which is not death itself, but the difficulties that accompany it (Mosiah 16:10; Mormon 7:5).

So if we are afflicted by something we don't understand or agree with about the Church teachings or requirements, our joy in Christ can help us endure that kind of affliction as well. This is why the fundamental principles of our religion are what they are (per Joseph Smith's quote, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it...").

Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

.

The above post is a model of brevity, if nothing else.

But since you have returned, perhaps now you will respond to the CFR I gave you many days ago. You'll recall you said John Dehlin had a source that said the Church would be issuing a new handbook next year in which the November policy will be removed. I asked you if you were referring to what Dehlin had posted before, or whether there was something new. You replied that you were going to "leave [me] guessing." It was subsequent to that exchange that I gave the CFR. I want you to provide your source for this alleged statement from Dehlin.

1
Link to comment
rockpond Grand Master

rockpond

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead." (D&C 132:7)

 

How does your statement square with the scriptures, especially D&C 132:7 which teaches us that marriages not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and also speaks of earthly priesthood key holders, have an end at death?

 

I don't accept Section 132 (for a number of reasons) so I don't need to square my statement with it.

1
Link to comment
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain what is "sad" about this?  What they "set out to do" is discern and implement the will of God as they understand it.  The policy changes were not made on a whim.  Or in haste.  Or with malice.  Instead, the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles have discussed the issue extensively, have studied it.  Have prayed about it.  And they appear to be doing what they think is right.  This, in your view, is "sad?"

You would apparently prefer that these men abdicate their responsibilities to follow instructions from God, and to instead capitulate to social pressures?  To disregard what they think is revelatory and right if such things are unpopular?  How would such moral cowardice be preferable to the current course being taken by the Brethren?

Thanks,

-Smac

What I meant by sad is that I don't think that any raised hands..even if a majority against any policy..it wouldn't change anything.  This might be why there is only sustaining of positions and callings rather than any sustaining of a new policy or any change in the church.  I am just big on letting a community of people have voice. 

Link to comment
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps Jeanne is referring to all the needless pain that has resulted from the policy.

That too.  The thing is, last November a lot of people knew about the policy way before a lot of ward members knew.  That isn't right for the church or the people in it.

Link to comment
ksfisher Grand Master

ksfisher

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That too.  The thing is, last November a lot of people knew about the policy way before a lot of ward members knew.  That isn't right for the church or the people in it.

That would be something to take up with the person who leaked the policy and the person who decided to publicize it.

Link to comment
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That would be something to take up with the person who leaked the policy and the person who decided to publicize it.

The fact that this policy was just slipped in unaware..belongs to the church. 

Link to comment
rockpond Grand Master

rockpond

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That would be something to take up with the person who leaked the policy and the person who decided to publicize it.

 

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The fact that this policy was just slipped in unaware..belongs to the church. 

Exactly, Jeanne, the policy was published by the Church before it was "leased" and publicized.

Link to comment
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

Exactly, Jeanne, the policy was published by the Church before it was "leased" and publicized.

Thank you  I stand corrected and apologize.  I think my thought process with those who were friends and LDS was that they knew nothing of it.  My apologies.  That being said..I feel that Bishops/Stake Presidents should have known about the process of the policy and been involved.  You people matter.:rolleyes:  It should never have been leaked..I agree..but it was there and people who cared about the gay community were dismayed and hurt.

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
rockpond Grand Master

rockpond

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you  I stand corrected and apologize.  I think my thought process with those who were friends and LDS was that they knew nothing of it.  My apologies.  That being said..I feel that Bishops/Stake Presidents should have known about the process of the policy and been involved.  You people matter.:rolleyes:  It should never have been leaked..I agree..but it was there and people who cared about the gay community were dismayed and hurt.

I wasn't trying to correct you.  Sorry, I wasn't clear.  I was agreeing with you that the Church can't blame people for publicly discussing the policy.  Why would members and non-members alike not be entitled to discuss a policy such as this.  If they didn't know how people would react to their own published policy, than all blame should land on the men who claim the title of prophet, seer, and revelator.

1
Link to comment
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't trying to correct you.  Sorry, I wasn't clear.  I was agreeing with you that the Church can't blame people for publicly discussing the policy.  Why would members and non-members alike not be entitled to discuss a policy such as this.  If they didn't know how people would react to their own published policy, than all blame should land on the men who claim the title of prophet, seer, and revelator.

Thanks..I did misunderstand.  After I re read it I realized you were agreeing..(that doesn't happen often enough for me):P  The fact that this policy ends up being the responsibility of others down the line  (including your bishopric)..this should have been discussed way before and with the voice of at least those who will have to deal with it.  Thanks Rockpond!

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
Jeanne Grand Master

Jeanne

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Was there something there before? What did it say? I took it for granted the post was blank to begin with. 

i don't know.  That is why I am asking..if he wrote and deleted or something else. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...