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

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was responding to Gray's implication that we have the teachings we do about homosexuality because the members of the church want those teachings and have gathered around us men who are willing to give us what we want.  The truth is that for a lot of church members (maybe even the majority) those teachings are not what we want.

I don't doubt that many gay people feel rejected and i hate that and i wish they didn't.  It's really hard to feel accepted when something that you really want to do (or are doing), that is a huge part of your life, isn't accepted though.  That's just the way that life is. 

But i think the idea that the way to handle it is to stop teaching it altogether is unreasonable.

Last week my 11 year old told me, in all seriousness, that i was ruining his life and didn't love him because he wanted to do something that i wouldn't let him do.  It would have been easier to just let him do it, for sure.  He would have felt loved and supported if i had said yes, that's another surety.  But the ease of the way and a guarantee of him feeling loved no matter what is not my goal.  Sometimes doing what is right means that people won't feel loved and it makes life harder and not easier.  

If our teachings on homosexuality are of God, then dropping them would be way more harmful than keeping them.  Our goal should be to always do God's will, regardless of anything else, including how other people respond to it.  And people are not always going to respond positively to God's will.  

I'm suggesting my opinion is that the Church's teaching on homosexuality are not of God. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I'm suggesting my opinion is that the Church's teaching on homosexuality are not of God. 

O.k.

[rongo]

On my mission in Germany, we talked to a man at a bus stop, and he told us he was very interested and gave us his address. We made an appointment, and at the appointment, had a very in-depth talk with him. He had prepared a list of questions for us, and we answered them. He had a lot of religious questions, but then the questions took a very weird turn. He asked about the Church's teaching on homosexuality, cross-dressing, sex-change surgery, and another thing that I can't remember --- but I remember having to ask my greenie in English about it and he told me what it was (he was from California . . .  ) before I could answer it. The man was very serious and earnest, and it was a very good discussion. It was obvious that he had personal reasons for his questions --- not from appearance, but because he had put so much time into writing his questions down. We answered them (me mostly --- my greenie understood and spoke almost no German) frankly and didn't sugar coat or explain away anything, and I think he could feel that we were honestly and fully answering his questions. He asked if he could come to church with us, and told him we would love to have him at church. 

He came to church, and then a sister who had recently returned from her mission (Temple Square and Florida Orlando) called us and told us that he is often at parties with her brother (an excommunicated gay Mormon), dressed as a woman. She was schocked to see him at church. I told her that that didn't surprise me, given his questions. 

Another set of missionaries had a baptism, and a week after the person told them that (s)he had had a sex-change operation and hadn't told them. When they talked to the mission president, he contacted the First Presidency and was told to initiate excommunication procedures. 

I share these to indicate that there is interest in the Church, the gospel, and in receiving ordinances/covenants from people who are LGBT. This is an issue that wards and missionaries will face more and more, as social acceptance increases. They are not easy conversations to have, but we need to be honest with them and welcoming. Some will choose to attend church and associate with the Church, and like bluebell said, I think nearly all LDS want to have them there. But, we need to be honest with them about what our doctrine and policies teach about ordinances and covenants. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

SMAC- You know better than to ask for a CFR for something that hasn't happened, right? How does one prove that something hasn't happened other than to cite the absence of documented support. If it IS supported there would be documentation. A talk. An article. Something. But if there is nothing, that would indicate it hasn't been supported. If it is supported I'd like to see some documentation. Otherwise, you're just assuming it has been.

[Curious_About_Everything]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If they said that, then they probably never had a testimony to begin with.  

How do you know this?

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you truly believed that a church was God's church--if you sincerely believed that's where He wanted you to be--is there any reason you would purposefully choose not to join?

Anger, spite, resentment, pride are a few that immediately come to mind.

People willfully disobey for various reasons.

 

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If they said that, then they probably never had a testimony to begin with.  

If you truly believed that a church was God's church--if you sincerely believed that's where He wanted you to be--is there any reason you would purposefully choose not to join?

Well...if they didn't have a testimony to begin with...good riddance right?  How many 8 year old's have a testimony?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For most of the people that i know, they would prefer to accept SSM and openly gay people at church (myself included). In fact now that i think about it, I actually don't know anyone who's desire it is to exclude actively gay or SSMarried people.

 

I believe many in the church feel as you do. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

SMAC- You know better than to ask for a CFR for something that hasn't happened, right? How does one prove that something hasn't happened other than to cite the absence of documented support. If it IS supported there would be documentation. A talk. An article. Something. But if there is nothing, that would indicate it hasn't been supported. If it is supported I'd like to see some documentation. Otherwise, you're just assuming it has been.

The exact same thing could be said for your viewpoint though.  Literally.  And it's just as reasonable and logical.

If it isn't supported there would be documentation.  A talk.  An article. Something.  But if there is nothing, that would indicate it has been supported.  If it isn't supported I'd like to see some documentation.  Otherwise, you're just assuming it hasn't been.

If someone is going to make a declaration of fact, they need to have references that support the declaration.  A CFR in such a situation is perfectly valid.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

SMAC- You know better than to ask for a CFR for something that hasn't happened, right? How does one prove that something hasn't happened other than to cite the absence of documented support. If it IS supported there would be documentation. A talk. An article. Something. But if there is nothing, that would indicate it hasn't been supported. If it is supported I'd like to see some documentation. Otherwise, you're just assuming it has been.

There seem to have been three public addresses by church leadership with respect to the November policy.  I bring this up in case there is something I have missed, if so, please correct me:

1. Elder Christofferson and Michael Otterson (6-Nov-2015):  No mention of revelation.
2. First Presidency letter (13-Nov-2015):  No mention of revelation... in a letter signed by the man purported to have received the revelation.
3. Elder Nelson in a YSA devotional (10-Jan-2016):  References that something related to the policy was revealed to President Monson.

I'm not aware of any of any additional references or a second witness to the claim of the policy being derived from revelation.

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I get this.  But for me the preponderance of my personal experience suggests the rejection is far more than just because they sinned. 

If have met often, and associated with many members who suggest that the rejection for the word of wisdom, law of chastity, Sabbath breaking is far more than just because they sinned.

In fact, in my personal experience, the feeling of rejection for those reasons is far more common than feeling rejection for engaging in homosexual activities.

Almost every smoker I know feels uncomfortable going to church (maybe more so than others who experience far more grievous sins), even after telling them that we don't care if he smells of smoke, they still feel uncomfortable.

try talking to someone with a child out of wedlock!, often they feel quite uncomfortable coming to church.

 

We definitely need to do better welcoming sinners to church than we do, but telling them that sin isn't sin anymore is not the way to do it, in my opinion.

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

A perfect description of how society has convinced people to go against sound doctrine and accept SSM as a good thing.
Talk about suiting their own desires.

We must ignore the itching of the ears to hear more about why people who are different from us are somehow inferior. This itch, when scratched, always leads to human suffering. 

Edited September 30, 2016 by Gray

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

We must ignore the itching of the ears to hear more about why people who are different from us are somehow inferior. This itch, when scratched, always leads to human suffering. 

we don't teach that people from us are inferior. 

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

• Luke 18: 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
   
• 3 Nephi 27:13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
   
• John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Pretty sure Christ's good spiritual principles came from the divine administrator on high and nowhere else.

 

 

No way to know for sure, but Jesus did give us the key to distinguishing good spiritual principles from bad ones. 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

we don't teach that people from us are inferior. 

That is the message that is being conveyed, even if it is soft-pedaled. 

Edited September 30, 2016 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

We must ignore the itching of the ears to hear more about why people who are different from us are somehow inferior. This itch, when scratched, always leads to human suffering. 

Don't tell us, tell God.  He has always had chosen people and cursed people, noble and great ones and those who are less so, birthright heirs and second borns.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

That is the message that is being conveyed, even if it is soft-pedaled. 

No, its not, you are wrong.

The gospel teaches that we are all sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.

It does not teach that people who are different from us are inferior.

CFR that the church teaches that people who are different from us are inferior.

 

 

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

SMAC- You know better than to ask for a CFR for something that hasn't happened, right?

The affirmative declaration that the other general authorities do not "support" remarks made by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which remarks were made publicly, during a Church-sponsored event, with Elder Nelson speaking in his official priesthood (not personal) capacity, is definitely worth a CFR.  Elder Nelson's talk was immediately posted on LDS.org, and remains there presently.  More recently, in the October 2016 Ensign, Elder Remarks were repeated verbatim in an article.  

Quote

How does one prove that something hasn't happened other than to cite the absence of documented support.  If it IS supported there would be documentation. A talk. An article. Something.

There is an article.  In The Ensign.  And Elder Nelson's talk is hosted on LDS.org.  It's frankly unreasonable to assume that the absence of a formal statement ratifying Elder Nelson's remarks justifies the affirmative declaration that those remarks "{aren't} supported by the other brethren."

Quote

But if there is nothing, that would indicate it hasn't been supported.

No, that would not so indicate.  If anything, silence is generally construed as consent.

Moreover, Elder Nelson's talk was given to the Church.  During a fireside and with him speaking in his official capacity as the President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  That talk is hosted on LDS.org, and the text of it was recently published in The Ensign.

Elder Nelson's remarks reflect the position of the Church.  If you have evidence that Elder Nelson is running rogue, that he is in a state of rebellion, that his statement is at odds with the experiences and positions of "the other brethren," such that it can reasonably said that his position "isn't supported" by them, then let's see it.  As it is, however, there is no basis I can see for such a claim.

Quote

If it is supported I'd like to see some documentation. Otherwise, you're just assuming it has been.

It's not an assumption.  

• Elder Nelson was speaking to the Church in a formal setting, in his official capacity as the President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.
• Elder Nelson spoke not only of his own experience, but the experience of the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  None of the members of those quorums has disputed his recitation of their experience.
• Elder Nelson's talk has been continuously hosted on LDS.org and was just published in The Ensign.
• Silence is generally construed as consent.
• There is no indication that Elder Nelson has been "going rogue."

The only assumption here is the one I have CFRd.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 30, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

How do you know this?

I don't know it.  That's why i said 'probably'.

Quote

 

Anger, spite, resentment, pride are a few that immediately come to mind.

People willfully disobey for various reasons.

 

True.  I assumed that Jeanne was suggesting that there were valid reasons such a person would no longer want to join the church.  None of those are valid reasons.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Don't tell us, tell God.  He has always had chosen people and cursed people, noble and great ones and those who are less so, birthright heirs and second borns.

God has not done any of those things, although people in various ages have been happy to attribute those things to God. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

No, its not, you are wrong.

The gospel teaches that we are all sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.

It does not teach that people who are different from us are inferior.

CFR that the church teaches that people who are different from us are inferior.

 

 

You can't tell someone that the substance of who they are is inherently more sinful than the substance of their neighbors, without a message of inferiority being conveyed.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/06/455014520/mormon-church-declares-same-sex-couples-to-be-apostates 

in·fe·ri·or

adjective

lower in rank, status, or quality.

"schooling in inner-city areas was inferior to that in the rest of the country"

 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

God has not done any of those things, although people in various ages have been happy to attribute those things to God. 

It still amazes me that you can dismiss the scriptures completely as being from God, and yet follow any of the gospel they teach.

[Curious_About_Everything]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know it.  That's why i said 'probably'.

How did you calculate the probability that they, "never had a testimony to begin with?"

What evidence do you have for each element of the set of "they" that proves they, "never had a testimony to begin with?"

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

True.  I assumed that Jeanne was suggesting that there were valid reasons such a person would no longer want to join the church.  None of those are valid reasons.

What invalidates a reason that a person may give for not joining a church?

What makes it invalid?

[Tacenda]

50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

SMAC- You know better than to ask for a CFR for something that hasn't happened, right? How does one prove that something hasn't happened other than to cite the absence of documented support. If it IS supported there would be documentation. A talk. An article. Something. But if there is nothing, that would indicate it hasn't been supported. If it is supported I'd like to see some documentation. Otherwise, you're just assuming it has been.

Maybe we'll get an answer during conference this weekend.

[ALarson]

20 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 haven't had a chance to read this entire thread, but isn't this just a reprint of the same speech he gave or is this something additional (ie. truly "reaffirming" what was already spoken)?

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't had a chance to read this entire thread, but isn't this just a reprint of the same speech he gave or is this something additional (ie. truly "reaffirming" what was already spoken)?

Good observation, would need to see both.