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

[Gray]

8 hours ago, 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?

http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2301174-155/mormons-free-to-back-gay-marriage

[Gray]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We double down on a lot of things it seems unwise to double down on. Why stop now?

 

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Is "doubling down on this" still unwise even if President Russell is correct in saying the policy came by way of revelation from God? Or don't you believe President Nelson when he testified President Monson and the other 14 whom we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators received the policy as a revelation from God? Does political correctness and a longing for popularity with the world trump revelation from Almighty God?

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

Edited September 30, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, omni said:

What's odd is that the Lord waited so long to reveal his will (the policy).  Gays have been able marry for years in many parts of the world and have been in committed relationships for much longer.  

Apparently the Lord had been okay with the children of gay couples getting baptized, but changed his mind in 2015.

It's almost as if the revelation was a bit more human inspired rather than divinely inspired.

In this way the Lord doesn't speak to the prophets unless they first form an opinion on a matter.  And then God confirms their opinion through personal inspiration.  Not exactly foolproof.

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Is "doubling down on this" still unwise even if President Russell is correct in saying the policy came by way of revelation from God? Or don't you believe President Nelson when he testified President Monson and the other 14 whom we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators received the policy as a revelation from God? Does political correctness and a longing for popularity with the world trump revelation from Almighty God?

 

Quote

We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind and will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

Personal revelation is received much like the process that was gone through here.  In every way people will err when receiving these revelations, err in the message and how to convey it.  It'd be silly to think the Lord revealed to Pres Monson the words fo the policy change when you consider the policy was re-explained a couple of times to make it mean something other than what it originally said.  It sounds less like revelatory words straight from God and more about men getting together and trying to solve an issue they want to address, written to satisfy their assumptions.  sadly. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and are themselves revelatory.

Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to inspired/revelatory counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when doing so is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

For me it has nothing to do with what's popular, but what's useful and helpful.  The policy change hasn't done one thing but hurt people.  There's not been a young boy or girl turning 8 in the past year who is raised primarily by his/her gay parents who wants to be baptized who was turned away.  There might be a few children raised by their gay parents primarily and want to attend Church.  But most likely they were either already baptized and thus given the option to continue to receive the other ordinations and progress through the Church as later explanations suggested, or they simply gave up on the Church.  There's been no point to the revelation at all except to state clearly that gay people are labeled apostates, something very hurtful to many gay people raised in the Church still having a hope and fondness for the Church, and to hurt families and the rest of us supporters of those who are gay. 

I'd get the cheering on of this revelation if it actually did something other than hurt people.  That makes no sense.  It seems to be an error of the brethren to me. 

[CV75]

17 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I just saw the October 2016 Ensign article Stand as True Millennials by Russell M. Nelson that reaffirmed the November policy change regarding same sex married couples as officially apostates and denying baptism to their children.  Under section 3 it says

 

Surveys have show that support for same sex marriage is strongest among millennials and this includes Mormon millennials. Was this a way to draw a line in the sand saying you can't be a "True Mormon Millennial" and support gay marriage because it's literally "the mind and will of the Lord"?

 

Phaedrus 

 

I don't think so. As he states, it’s a way to convey the sacred nature of receiving revelation, and is a privilege we all have. The example he used might just be one of the more recent, well-known and thus easily-relatable outcomes. He's addressing millennials not as a socioecopolitical demographic, but as children born much later in the Restoration than he, and therefore for a number of reasons have a tremendous responsibility to pick up from earlier generations to keep the kingdom moving ahead.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, omni said:

What's odd is that the Lord waited so long to reveal his will (the policy).  Gays have been able marry for years in many parts of the world and have been in committed relationships for much longer.  

Apparently the Lord had been okay with the children of gay couples getting baptized, but changed his mind in 2015.

It's almost as if the revelation was a bit more human inspired rather than divinely inspired.

A few thoughts:

1. I would invite you to re-think your assessment of this matter.  The prevailing winds of social change in 2016 are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage, so much so that those who oppose it on principled grounds are openly castigated as bigots and haters.  Such bullying tactics are, for me, strong evidence against the merits of the pro-SSM position, 'cuz bullies are essentially cowards who resort to bullying when they cannot resort to truth and reason and good will and persuasion.  Consider 1 Nephi 8:

Quote

26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.

27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

...

31 And {Lehi} also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.

33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.

I can't think of a single legitimate circumstance under which members of the Church would join with The World in ridiculing the Church for its teachings/beliefs.  And yet we are seeing this very phenomenon today.

2. The LDS Church is often criticized for being overly concerned with appearances, with its reputation, etc. (I'm not sure that is so, but let's run with it).  And the LDS Church, being a missionary church, is constantly "putting itself out there."  The Church is working hard on making itself known in the world.  Tens of thousands of missionaries.  Temples dotting the globe (with open houses welcoming everyone to tour the facilities prior to dedication).  Significant efforts to produce multimedia content (YouTube messages, short films, etc.).  And on and on and on.

In other words, one would think that the wise thing for an organization like the LDS Church to have do would be to "go along to get along."  To keep its head down.  To shut its yap.  To let sleeping dogs lie.  To let things be.  Don't say or do things that might result in controversy.

But that's not what the Church did.

Instead, the Church has insisted on maintaining a position on marriage that is deeply unpopular outside the Church, and even somewhat controversial within it. The Church modified its policies to account for changing social mores by subjecting church members in same-sex marriages to discipline, and also restricting children being raised in same-sex households until A) the child turns 18, and B) the child "specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage."

And not only that, Elder Nelson then gave a talk during a worldwide fireside where he specifically and unequivocally characterized the policy change as being revelatory.

And not only that, fast forward about ten months and we have an article in The Ensign re-affirming Elder Nelson's characterization of the policy change.

These things are all . . . not cool.  Why on earth would the Church do such things?  Wouldn't people disproportionately interested in public opinion ("human inspired" - as you put it) just let things slide?  Would they go along to get along?

But on the other hand, if the people who are leading the Church are what they claim to be, then isn't saying and doing things that are revelatory but also socially unpopular . . . well, pretty much part of the job description?  After all, Noah was ridiculed and criticized by his society.  So was Lehi.  So was Paul.  So was Alma.  So was Elijah.  So was Samuel the Lamanite.  So was Joseph Smith.  So was . . . Jesus Christ.

3. So with respect, I have come to a conclusion that is about 180 degrees away from yours.  "Human inspired" leaders would take a course of action that would avoid ridicule and scorn.  But that's not what has happened here.  Consequently, the Church is being criticized and ridiculed.  From without and, sadly, from some within as well.  I don't like that.  I don't like antagonizing people with whom I could otherwise have a pleasant relationship.  I think the Church has moved heaven and earth to be a good neighbor.  It wants to get along with others.  Doing so generally helps the Church and its members, as well as their neighbors.  

But it seems that there are times when The World is headed one way and God another.  There are times when prophets and apostles must act in accordance with, as you put it, "divinely inspired" instructions.  There are times when revealed truths must be spoken.  With all kindness and gentleness, usually (compare the approach used by the Church with, say, Elijah on Mount Carmel), but they must be spoken.  I think that is what happened last Fall, and also what the Church is continuing to do in reiterating Elder Nelson's remarks in this month's Ensign.  That's their job.  On this point I am reminded of Jacob 1:19:

Quote

And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day.

I think the Brethren are aware of the discomfort and/or pain these policy changes have caused (almost entirely in the abstract, though).  And yet they are proceeding with these things anyway.  

So we are left with a choice.  We can vilify these men.  We can accuse them of harboring the worst bigotries and hatreds.  We can call them evil.  We can ridicule them.  We can attribute to them the worst of motives.  And given Elder Nelson's remarks, we would also have to accuse the Brethren of being either

• A) profoundly and uniformly dishonest (because they are falsely attributing the policy changes to revelation from God),
• B) profoundly and uniformly deluded (they have been deceived by Satan to accept as "revelation" something which was not from God),
• C) profoundly and uniformly bigoted and incompetent (they are all of bunch of bigots who hate gay people, and are so consumed in their hatred that they have conflated it with being God's will), or
• D) some combination of A-C.  

Or...

We can consider the possibility that they are doing their job.  That the direction being taken by The World is wrong, and that the Church's teachings on this issue are in accordance with the mind and will of the Lord.  That sometimes this means saying and doing things are are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, but also B) in accordance with the revealed will of God.  That unpopularity may end up being pretty fierce, as we are seeing.  

I am reminded here of two Old Testament verses.  First, Joshua 24:15:

Quote

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

And 1 Kings 18:

Quote

17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel?

18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.

19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel’s table.

20 So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto mount Carmel.

21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

4. I am saddened to have seen some very good and decent people, both in and out of the Church, turn away from the Church because of this issue.  I have witnessed it first-hand.  I still think these people are good and decent in most ways, despite their disagreement with the Church on this issue.  But for those who are or were previously in the Church, and who have or are abandoning a lifetime of discipleship over this issue, I hope they have a change of heart.  I hope they give some real consideration to the possibility that the Church is what it claims to be, that the Brethren are performing their obligations, and that sometimes those obligations make life challenging for the rank-and-file in terms of going against prevailing social trends.  

This is why I said: "I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and are themselves revelatory."  There are times when the Church accommodates social trends, but there are times when those trends contravene the will of God.  When and if that happens, the Brethren have a job to do.  And I am glad they are doing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Danzo]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

So now you are taking upon yourself the role of God's spokesman.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

So now you are taking upon yourself the role of God's spokesman.

Nope. No one speaks for God. It is up to all of us to use good spiritual principles (or not!) to determine right from wrong. The November policy doesn't pass muster. 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope. No one speaks for God. It is up to all of us to use good spiritual principles (or not!) to determine right from wrong. The November policy doesn't pass muster. 

Well, we fundamentally disagree.

I believe God has called prophets to lead the church and to speak God's will.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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

From a blinkered, finite perspective, you might have a point.  But not otherwise.

By your reckoning, there are all sorts of revelatory concepts that have caused some abstract hurt or injury, and therefore have bad "fruits," and therefore are "ungodly."  For example, Christ did not preach to the Gentiles.  Hence the Gentiles were deprived of an opportunity to hear the Gospel, and God was therefore a respecter of persons.  These are the "fruits" of Christ not preaching to them.  Ergo, you could "confidently declare" that Christ not preaching to them was "ungodly."

Thanks,

-Smac

[James Tunney]

This seems to be more internal politics than revelation. Nelson makes his revelation statement that isnt supported by the other brethren. Then its taken out of the manual and now we have Nelson's reply.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope. No one speaks for God.

With respect, I disagree.  All of God's servants speak for Him.  The problem is when we speak for God in a way that contravenes the divinely ordered way of things.  For example, if God were to have established His church on the earth, and vested it with His Priesthood, and called prophets and apostles to lead it, and then if someone were to come along and join that Church and yet publicly declare that the entirety of First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have shamed their callings by deceitfully characterizing the policy changes as "revelation" when they were not, that these men are not in communion with God, that they have been - as you put it - "ungodly", well there might be a problem.  

Quote

It is up to all of us to use good spiritual principles (or not!) to determine right from wrong. The November policy doesn't pass muster. 

I think it passes muster just fine.  The policy changes address a challenging and sensitive issue.  But then, so do policies pertaining to sealings, baptisms, the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, excommunication, and on and on and on.  To summarily dismiss the policies has "ungodly" because someone somewhere has been "hurt" by them is blinkered and unreasonable.

The Brethren are not unfeeling bigots.  Nor are they ignorant rubes and morons.  They knew the likely ramifications of the policy changes, and yet they proceeded with those changes anyway.  And not only that, they have publicly and specifically attributed those changes to revelation.

I am willing to listen to arguments on this issue, but not if they are so patently blinkered and one-sided that they refuse to consider even the possibility of reasoning and sense relating to the policy changes.  That seems to be what you are doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[canard78]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and are themselves revelatory.

Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to inspired/revelatory counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when doing so is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It's like being 19thC polygamists all over again, hiding behind the Rockies from those mean heathens in the east who oppose you. 

Seige mentality is effective and this is exactly what this article is drumming up. 

As Millwall Football Club fans might say: "Everybody hates us, we don't care."

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From a blinkered, finite perspective, you might have a point.  But not otherwise.

By your reckoning, there are all sorts of revelatory concepts that have caused some abstract hurt or injury, and therefore have bad "fruits," and therefore are "ungodly."  For example, Christ did not preach to the Gentiles.  Hence the Gentiles were deprived of an opportunity to hear the Gospel, and God was therefore a respecter of persons.  These are the "fruits" of Christ not preaching to them.  Ergo, you could "confidently declare" that Christ not preaching to them was "ungodly."

Thanks,

-Smac

By their fruits you shall know them. A simple Christian principle with deep implications. It's unwise to continue feeding rotten fruit to people hungry for spiritual nourishment. The sad part is there is plenty of good spiritual food in the gospel. But we reject it in favor of doctrines that put other people down in order to make us feel better about ourselves. We desire security, and as perverse as it sounds, one way to feel secure is to identify those who are different and tear them down. 

"For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires."

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

This seems to be more internal politics than revelation. Nelson makes his revelation statement that isnt supported by the other brethren. Then its taken out of the manual and now we have Nelson's reply.

CFR that Elder Nelson's "revelation statement ... isn't supported by the other brethren."

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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

Or non-existent.
 

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope. No one speaks for God. It is up to all of us to use good spiritual principles (or not!) to determine right from wrong. The November policy doesn't pass muster.

Without God's word on a subject there is no such thing as a "good spiritual principle".
Unless God declared something good or evil a principle is not good or evil, just personally acceptable.
And I know you don't want a list of all the evils that people decided were personally acceptable through history.

If God doesn't declare there can be no absolutes, just societal norms and personal preference.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, canard78 said:

It's like being 19thC polygamists all over again, hiding behind the Rockies from those mean heathens in the east who oppose you. 

Well, sorta.  Polygamy is a difficult and thorny topic.  I appreciate and respect arguments both for and against it.

That said, I am somewhat appalled that you would cheapen the atrocities committed against the 19th-century Saints in this way.  

Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is quite a different topic.  While reasonable minds can disagree about it, it seems that much of the criticism of the Church is grounded in emotionalisms, bullying, and bigotry.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  All of God's servants speak for Him.  The problem is when we speak for God in a way that contravenes the divinely ordered way of things.  For example, if God were to have established His church on the earth, and vested it with His Priesthood, and called prophets and apostles to lead it, and then if someone were to come along and join that Church and yet publicly declare that the entirety of First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have shamed their callings by deceitfully characterizing the policy changes as "revelation" when they were not, that these men are not in communion with God, that they have been - as you put it - "ungodly", well there might be a problem.  

We already have an example of this in church history - the priesthood ban.

Of course there is no intent to deceive. It is easy to mistake one's own prejudices for the will of God. I certainly called no one ungodly. You must take responsibility for that characterization. I reject it. 

Quote

I think it passes muster just fine.  The policy changes address a challenging and sensitive issue.

They address a sensitive issue in the crudest possible way, like trying to fix a chandelier with a jack hammer.

 

Quote

 

 But then, so do policies pertaining to sealings, baptisms, the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, excommunication, and on and on and on.  To summarily dismiss the policies has "ungodly" because someone somewhere has been "hurt" by them is blinkered and unreasonable.

Not someone somewhere. Many lives have been destructively impacted by anti-gay teachings within Christianity at large. Unwisely we have followed in the footsteps of the fundamentalists here.

 

Quote

The Brethren are not unfeeling bigots.  Nor are they ignorant rubes and morons.  They knew the likely ramifications of the policy changes, and yet they proceeded with those changes anyway.  And not only that, they have publicly and specifically attributed those changes to revelation.

If you recall, the wording of the policy change was quite different from what the policy was later clarified to mean. They clearly did not foresee the ramifications, otherwise they wouldn't have had to walk some of it back. 

 

Quote

I am willing to listen to arguments on this issue, but not if they are so patently blinkered and one-sided that they refuse to consider even the possibility of reasoning and sense relating to the policy changes.  That seems to be what you are doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why is it that you perceive my outlook to be "blinkered"?

Edited September 30, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Brethren are not unfeeling bigots.  Nor are they ignorant rubes and morons.  They knew the likely ramifications of the policy changes, and yet they proceeded with those changes anyway.  And not only that, they have publicly and specifically attributed those changes to revelation.

I am willing to listen to arguments on this issue, but not if they are so patently blinkered and one-sided that they refuse to consider even the possibility of reasoning and sense relating to the policy changes.  That seems to be what you are doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, is there an instance since the policy change where the policy was used?  Has there been any boys or girls who have turned 8 in the past year and have wanted to get baptized but were denied because they live primarily with their gay parents?  If not, then what was the purpose? 

I'm more than happy to accept any possibility of reasoning and sense for the policy change if any reasoning and sense can be presented.  I'm begging for such reasoning, in fact. 

[JLHPROF]

16 hours ago, ERayR said:

You could start campaigning to be elected president of the church.

Brigham Young - 'I do not care who leads the church, even though it were Ann Lee; but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it. I have the keys and the means of obtaining the mind of God on the subject.

[Jeanne]

In my mind..and my opinion..there was no choice for church and it's leaders to go ahead and keep this policy and/or said revelation.  I believe that many members who are extremely aware of the LGBT community and issues with it as well as being aware of the essays were waiting to see which side of the fence they fall.  If the leadership had been swayed to relieve the hurt or take any step back to re-evaluate, they would have lost a lot of membership or at least created a bigger voice from those inside the church.  To maintain this policy/revelation they would keep things as they are and remain a sort of victim to those who feel otherwise.  Someday...maybe many moons from now, I believe they will see the error of their ways..because this is not (in my view) something that God would condone.  Suffer the little children was not meant to be suffer the little children..but welcome to the arms of the Savior. 

[Curious_About_Everything]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

For me it has nothing to do with what's popular, but what's useful and helpful.  The policy change hasn't done one thing but hurt people.  There's not been a young boy or girl turning 8 in the past year who is raised primarily by his/her gay parents who wants to be baptized who was turned away.  There might be a few children raised by their gay parents primarily and want to attend Church.  But most likely they were either already baptized and thus given the option to continue to receive the other ordinations and progress through the Church as later explanations suggested, or they simply gave up on the Church.  There's been no point to the revelation at all except to state clearly that gay people are labeled apostates, something very hurtful to many gay people raised in the Church still having a hope and fondness for the Church, and to hurt families and the rest of us supporters of those who are gay. 

I'd get the cheering on of this revelation if it actually did something other than hurt people.  That makes no sense.  It seems to be an error of the brethren to me. 

Where are the scripture references that speak directly about homosexual behavior?

What words on specifically written on this subject?