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

[Jeanne]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe he deleted it thinking I'd come after him for the CFR. 

I would run too!!!

[thatjimguy]

On 9/29/2016 at 11:29 PM, cdowis said:

 Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

If I was in the year 1974, would supporting the thought of blacks may receive the priesthood again one day have been considered sympathy?

[thatjimguy]

Another thing that concerns me the idea of how they talk to the public about how the come up with revelation, yet as we see in the "Mormon Leaks" thread, they actually get their information just like we do, think about it just like we do, and come to conclusions just like we do.

Now, obviously Pres. Monson is not there in the videos, however, I would think that he gets the information in the same way, by one of the Apostles reporting to the first presidency after they deliberate a subject. If not and it is something otherwordly, then why bother with all the steps and meetings beforehand with the other brethren right?

I mean, I see the idea behind it. They have the meetings and come up with answers that the rest of the Saint don't have to. This reminds me of the old Mormon line; "When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." and indeed, along these lines, it actually has hasn't it?

But I wonder anymore how healthy this is for a people.

[Calm]

It is not as if the videos show all the meetings and effort that goes into making a decision.  These are a very limited view of part of the process.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Calm

[ksfisher]

43 minutes ago, thatjimguy said:

Another thing that concerns me the idea of how they talk to the public about how the come up with revelation, yet as we see in the "Mormon Leaks" thread, they actually get their information just like we do, think about it just like we do, and come to conclusions just like we do.

Now, obviously Pres. Monson is not there in the videos, however, I would think that he gets the information in the same way, by one of the Apostles reporting to the first presidency after they deliberate a subject. If not and it is something otherwordly, then why bother with all the steps and meetings beforehand with the other brethren right?

I mean, I see the idea behind it. They have the meetings and come up with answers that the rest of the Saint don't have to. This reminds me of the old Mormon line; "When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." and indeed, along these lines, it actually has hasn't it?

But I wonder anymore how healthy this is for a people.

Perhaps the Twelve are familiar with some of these scriptures

"And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people." (D&C 90:15)

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (D&C 9:8"

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;" (D&C 109:7)

"And do thou grant, Holy Father, that all those who shall worship in this house may be taught words of wisdom out of the best books, and that they may seek learning even by study, and also by faith, as thou hast said;" (D&C 109:14)

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118)

 

 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, thatjimguy said:

If I was in the year 1974, would supporting the thought of blacks may receive the priesthood again one day have been considered sympathy?

That was the doctrine of the church, if you are unaware.

[thatjimguy]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

That was the doctrine of the church, if you are unaware.

Absolutely, I am just wondering how far the rabbit hole goes for sympathy.

Obviously, Mitt Romney had sympathy, because he said in an interview he cried once they released the news they could have the priesthood again. I would not assume one would not just cry about it without having trouble about the subject. It is an example like that where I would ponder if he either talked openly about it, or kept it hush.

[thatjimguy]

48 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps the Twelve are familiar with some of these scriptures

"And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people." (D&C 90:15)

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (D&C 9:8"

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;" (D&C 109:7)

"And do thou grant, Holy Father, that all those who shall worship in this house may be taught words of wisdom out of the best books, and that they may seek learning even by study, and also by faith, as thou hast said;" (D&C 109:14)

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118)

 

 

Sure, but the process is no different than normal life, like any other human being. Yes I know, prayer is there too. I would imagine if someone wants an ethical answer to what is right though, they would get a good feeling as well.

Decisions are made much like any other group or institution. (That also desires to be ethically correct, that is). This is no bad thing. Does it eliminate some of the "hero worship?"...yes it does...again...no bad thing.

[thatjimguy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is not as if the videos show all the meetings and effort that goes into making a decision.  These are a very limited view of part of the process.

No, as I mentioned we do not see the prayers and other meetings that probably lead up to it, but I certainly think that they use no extra process that any other man would not use is my point.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, thatjimguy said:

No, as I mentioned we do not see the prayers and other meetings that probably lead up to it, but I certainly think that they use no extra process that any other man would not use is my point.

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that the Brethren are supposed to have some sort of "extra process" other than the ones we have all been taught for generations (scriptures, studying, pondering, fasting, praying, counseling, etc.)?

Perhaps the key "difference" is that of stewardship.  An individual seeking revelatory guidance for himself would read the scriptures and ponder and pray and study and fast and seek counsel and go to the temple and so on.  And through these things, and with faith and patience, and depending on the will and timing of God, would receive guidance from God as to how to proceed.

A Relief Society President would use these same things to obtain guidance as to things within her stewardship.  So would a bishop as to things within his stewardship.  And a stake president.  And all the way up to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the First Presidency, and the Presiding High Priest.

Thanks,

-Smac

[thatjimguy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that the Brethren are supposed to have some sort of "extra process" other than the ones we have all been taught for generations (scriptures, studying, pondering, fasting, praying, counseling, etc.)?

 

Not to me. But your question would probably be better asked toward other people who might think they do.

[thatjimguy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Perhaps the key "difference" is that of stewardship.  An individual seeking revelatory guidance for himself would read the scriptures and ponder and pray and study and fast and seek counsel and go to the temple and so on.  And through these things, and with faith and patience, and depending on the will and timing of God, would receive guidance from God as to how to proceed.

A Relief Society President would use these same things to obtain guidance as to things within her stewardship.  So would a bishop as to things within his stewardship.  And a stake president.  And all the way up to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the First Presidency, and the Presiding High Priest.

 

The only problem is that if asking how to proceed is the key, there is no real reason to have all the meetings. Just ask and be done with it.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

If I was in the year 1974, would supporting the thought of blacks may receive the priesthood again one day have been considered sympathy?

Sympathy with groups out of harmony with the Church you mean?

Certainly not, as prophets in times past had indicated that would happen. 

As one who had reached adulthood by then, I can tell you that the mainstream sentiment in the Church was to hope and expect that day would come. Dallin H. Oaks, now an apostle, was president of BYU when the revelation was announced in 1978. He has expressed the overwhelming relief and gratitude he felt upon hearing the announcement.  

Edited October 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

Another thing that concerns me the idea of how they talk to the public about how the come up with revelation, yet as we see in the "Mormon Leaks" thread, they actually get their information just like we do, think about it just like we do, and come to conclusions just like we do.

Now, obviously Pres. Monson is not there in the videos, however, I would think that he gets the information in the same way, by one of the Apostles reporting to the first presidency after they deliberate a subject. If not and it is something otherwordly, then why bother with all the steps and meetings beforehand with the other brethren right?

I mean, I see the idea behind it. They have the meetings and come up with answers that the rest of the Saint don't have to. This reminds me of the old Mormon line; "When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." and indeed, along these lines, it actually has hasn't it?

But I wonder anymore how healthy this is for a people.

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not as if the videos show all the meetings and effort that goes into making a decision.  These are a very limited view of part of the process.

And where does thatmjguy get the notion that revelation does not involve preliminary fact finding and research? From the days of Joseph Smith that has been part of the process. The First Vision followed a period of Bible study and pondering on his part. 

This idea that revelation always occurs spontaneously is misguided. 

Furthermore, the people are not excused from keeping themselves informed just because the prophets and apostles do. That is also misguided thinking. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Sleeper Cell]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

History will show John Dehlin as a major figure in moving the church forward.

I suppose that, in a sense, the same could be said about Governor Boggs and Governor Ford.  …

Except that I seriously doubt that Dehlin’s impact (positive or negative) will be remotely comparable.   

[cdowis]

Quote

History will show John Dehlin as a major figure in moving the church forward.

Well, it certainly will be seen as fulfillment of a chain of prophecies regarding the Last Days.  It is indeed a sign of the times that we live in.

Edited October 4, 2016 by cdowis

[rodheadlee]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Maybe, maybe not but they choose what to do with it.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, rodheadlee said:

Maybe, maybe not but they choose what to do with it.

And again, we aren't talking about the parents.  It is the CHILD who may not be baptized per the policy.

[Sleeper Cell]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

But the parents did presumably choose to enter into same sex marriage. And then, according to your scenario, they then chose to ask a church which believes that God does not accept same sex marriage to baptize their child.  Shouldn’t at least some of the blame be put on the parents? 
. 
BTW, has anyone been able to cite a single instance of an actual child being denied baptism on these grounds?  Or are we still talking about a make-believe child? 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

But the parents did presumably choose to enter into same sex marriage. And then, according to your scenario, they then chose to ask a church which believes that God does not accept same sex marriage to baptize their child.  Shouldn’t at least some of the blame be put on the parents? 
. 
BTW, has anyone been able to cite a single instance of an actual child being denied baptism on these grounds?  Or are we still talking about a make-believe child? 

If this only ever applies to a make-believe child than it is an odd revelation to have received and to put into a policy in the handbook.

I have heard of cases (through blogs/social media) but none that I have on hand to link to.

Certainly one can blame the parents for being gay and for choosing to live in accordance with their sexual orientation.  And one can blame them for having a child.  And one can blame them for allowing that child to interact with the church.  One can blame the parents for not successfully teaching their child to reject the church in the same way that the church has rejected the child's desire to be a member.  And one can blame the parents for being considerate enough to approve their child's desire to be baptized into a church that has deemed them apostates.  So much blame to go around.  And yet, without the policy, there would be no reason to even look for blame regarding why said child couldn't be baptized.

Edited October 4, 2016 by rockpond

[cdowis]

15 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

BTW, has anyone been able to cite a single instance of an actual child being denied baptism on these grounds?  Or are we still talking about a make-believe child? 

Every such instance is published under LDS.org under the "full disclosure" tab.  Each ward is required to report these cases along with the home teaching statistics.

Otherwise, it would just be unsubstantiated rumors.  

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

And again, we aren't talking about the parents.  It is the CHILD who may not be baptized per the policy.

No kidding but it is due to the actions of the parents.

 

Just in case you forgot what the POTF says about it.: .

HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

Edited October 4, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

And again, we aren't talking about the parents.  It is the CHILD who may not be baptized per the policy.

That's right.  I am not a big huge sinner and wasn't when I belonged to the church..good heaven's though that my kids would FEEL like the are accountable to my sins.  We are talking about kids and how they feel and what according to the Savior is the right thing to do. 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

No kidding but it is due to the actions of the parents.

 

Just in case you forgot what the POTF says about it.: .

HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

Is the child accountable for the actions of the parents?  Did I miss that in the POTF?

[Bobbieaware]

On 9/30/2016 at 10:19 AM, Gray said:

Judging this revelation by its fruits, I can confidently declare it to be ungodly. 

I would say judging by the fact that many habitual critics of the Church leaders are now coming out into the open to declare themselves as being in opposition to the Lord's duly-authorized prophetic servants, the fruits of this policy are just as they should be. Or have you conveniently forgotten that since the dawn of man the prophets and their teachings have never been popular with those who love the fashion of this fallen world? In fact, the teachings of the Lord's prophets have been so consistently unpopular with the worldly-wise that the very unpopularity of those teachings is prima facie evidence that they are in harmony with the will of the Lord. And if you think the teachings of the Church are unpopular now, just wait till that prophesied day when division and the great falling away of the those who reject the Lord's prophets will come to pass? This time of the great falling away was testified to last weekend in General Conference. and there will be plenty to decry and gripe about when that day comes. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Bobbieaware