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

[rockpond]

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)?

Partial reprint.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

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?"

It's just my experience coupled with the parable of the sower and the four kinds of soil.

Quote

 

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

What makes it invalid?

 

If it's a sin, then it's not a valid reason not to do something.  Willful disobedience against God (not joining the church when you believe God is telling you to join) is a sin.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Partial reprint.

That's what I thought.  So, not really doubling down or adding to what he already stated.  I didn't think this was anything new.

Thanks.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's what I thought.  So, not really doubling down or adding to what he already stated.  I didn't think this was anything new.

Thanks.

I think the only thing that really makes it newsworthy was that some people were claiming that the removal of Pres. Nelson's address from the Seminary manual meant that the church was getting ready to get rid of the policy/didn't want the members to consider it revelation.

The printing in the Ensign speaks against both of those assumptions.

[bcuzbcuz]

8 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?

Was Monson making his statement as prophet or as an ordinary man? The "other 14" confirm Monson´s revelation. Anyone who disagrees is therefore "suspect" regarding their faithfulness, and shouldn´t be qualified to enter the temple.  

 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?

I support my children in their decisions. Therefore, I "affiliate" with individuals whose practices are contrary to the COJCOLDS. 

Sorry, but political correctness and popularity doesn´t  figure in the calculations.

My children rank first. 
 

 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Was Monson making his statement as prophet or as an ordinary man? The "other 14" confirm Monson´s revelation. Anyone who disagrees is therefore "suspect" regarding their faithfulness, and shouldn´t be qualified to enter the temple.  

 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?

I support my children in their decisions. Therefore, I "affiliate" with individuals whose practices are contrary to the COJCOLDS. 

Sorry, but political correctness and popularity doesn´t  figure in the calculations.

My children rank first. 
 

 

Family first.  I left my home town when I resigned because in my Dad's mind, he could no longer answer that Temple question..I disassociated myself to make it easier for hi to still go.  Hugs..Jeanne

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the only thing that really makes it newsworthy was that some people were claiming that the removal of Pres. Nelson's address from the Seminary manual meant that the church was getting ready to get rid of the policy/didn't want the members to consider it revelation.

The printing in the Ensign speaks against both of those assumptions.

Got it.  Thanks.

[Curious_About_Everything]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's just my experience coupled with the parable of the sower and the four kinds of soil.

That is to say, you made an assumption without supportive evidence?

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If it's a sin, then it's not a valid reason not to do something.  Willful disobedience against God (not joining the church when you believe God is telling you to join) is a sin.

Did you mean, "If it's a sin, then it's not a valid reason to do something."

(removed second instance of 'not')

This is a correct statement as long as you do not believe that the ends justify the means.

For example, the dilemma of Nephi being commanded by God to sin (murder of Laban).  Some rationalize this as acceptable due to the number of lives spared by killing one.

Do the ends justify the means?

If so, then your statement does not hold true in all cases.

Another example:  We are commanded not to steal.  If food is stolen to feed a starving child, is that a valid reason to sin?

We can find other examples where the action is questionable but the outcome is beneficial.

Is it always true that sin will invalidate an action?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

That's not correct but your confusion is understandable because "lack of support" could mean a couple of different things.

If there is no support that means no leader has made the effort to publicly support the revelation claim. Literally there is no support.

For there to be documentation of a "lack of support" then that would require a leader make a public statement indicating a lack of support. I am not aware of any documentation disavowing Pres. Nelson's comment or publicly stating a lack of support.

So it would be correct to say that there is no record of public support for Pres. Nelson's claim AND it would also be correct to say that there is no record of public disavowal for Pres. Nelson's claim.

Even so, the original statement that there has not been support for Pres. Nelson's claim is correct.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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.

I'll have to agree heartily with Smac on this. Under the circumstances, in the absence of public indications to the contrary, it is more than reasonable to assume that the rest of the Brethren agree with and support President Nelson on this.

On the other hand, it would weird in the extreme to assume they don't support him just because they haven't given a public affirmation.

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's just my experience coupled with the parable of the sower and the four kinds of soil.

I was thinking about this parable earlier this week. It doesn't seem to cover every reason why a person wouldn't have a firm testimony.

Quote

Matthew 13

19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

 20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

 22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

According to the parable those without testimony

a- didn't understand and the wicked one deceives

b- Stony ground represents those who hear and receive it with joy but becomes offended by the tribulation and persecution of the world.

c- Thorny ground represents those who hear the word but the deceitfulness of riches and the care of the world chokes the word so the person becomes unfruitful.

d- Good ground represents those who hear and understand and beareth good fruit and bring forth good fruit.

 

My question is this- What about those who hear and understand the word and are not offended by the world? Why would it be that people who have had the word planted in good ground and have born forth good fruit for many decades cease to have testimony? Did the care of the world suddenly crush their testimony despite being planted and cultivated in good ground? Does the ground become toxic or does the problem with the seed?

Is it possible that the ground (the heart of the individual) is good but the seed was bad? Alma 32 talks about knowing the seed (the word) is good based on the fruit it produces but at the very least I think we would have to acknowledge that lack of testimony in the word could be either bad ground, or bad seed.

*I think it's a fallacy to conflate the word of Jesus with the word of the Church. Therefore it would be possible to maintain a testimony in Jesus and His word while not maintaining a testimony in the church. They are 2 different seeds.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll have to agree heartily with Smac on this. Under the circumstances, in the absence of public indications to the contrary, it is more than reasonable to assume that the rest of the Brethren agree with and support President Nelson on this.

On the other hand, it would weird in the extreme to assume they don't support him just because they haven't given a public affirmation.

I actually don't see a reason to assume that they support President Nelson's conclusion.

No second witness has called it "revelation" despite four other prophets/seers/apostles having made public statements on the policy.

The actual revelation that was claimed to have been received has not been published so we don't know how closely the claimed revelation ties into the published policy and FP letter.  President Nelson's comment about revelation doesn't explain what exactly was revealed.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Good teachings are good teachings. The philosophy of Mormonism is that we accept all truth, regardless of the source.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I actually don't see a reason to assume that they support President Nelson's conclusion.

No second witness has called it "revelation" despite four other prophets/seers/apostles having made public statements on the policy.

The actual revelation that was claimed to have been received has not been published so we don't know how closely the claimed revelation ties into the published policy and FP letter.  President Nelson's comment about revelation doesn't explain what exactly was revealed.

I would guess that support is mixed. But who knows. There are certain apostles who NEVER bring up homosexuality, and others who bring it up over and over again. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Good teachings are good teachings. The philosophy of Mormonism is that we accept all truth, regardless of the source.

Just as long as we don't attribute the good as coming from God directly, right? 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Just as long as we don't attribute the good as coming from God directly, right? 

I have no problem with that idea. I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of it. I just don't personally think God speaks. God IS. 

Edited September 30, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

That is to say, you made an assumption without supportive evidence?

I formed an opinion based on previous experience and scriptural knowledge.

Quote

 

Did you mean, "If it's a sin, then it's not a valid reason to do something."

(removed second instance of 'not')

 

No.  I meant to say what i said.  If something is a sin then it's not a valid reason not to join the church.

Quote

 

This is a correct statement as long as you do not believe that the ends justify the means.

For example, the dilemma of Nephi being commanded by God to sin (murder of Laban).  Some rationalize this as acceptable due to the number of lives spared by killing one.

Do the ends justify the means?

 

Nephi wasn't commanded by God to sin.  He was commanded by God to kill someone.  Killing someone is only a sin if it is murder. 

Quote

Another example:  We are commanded not to steal.  If food is stolen to feed a starving child, is that a valid reason to sin?

I don't think so.  Still a sin.   Would I do it to save my child?  Probably, but still a sin i would need to repent of.

Quote

Is it always true that sin will invalidate an action?

Probably.  In the sense that it's not the action God wants us to take and we would need to repent of it.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's not correct but your confusion is understandable because "lack of support" could mean a couple of different things.

If there is no support that means no leader has made the effort to publicly support the revelation claim. Literally there is no support.

For there to be documentation of a "lack of support" then that would require a leader make a public statement indicating a lack of support. I am not aware of any documentation disavowing Pres. Nelson's comment or publicly stating a lack of support.

So it would be correct to say that there is no record of public support for Pres. Nelson's claim AND it would also be correct to say that there is no record of public disavowal for Pres. Nelson's claim.

Even so, the original statement that there has not been support for Pres. Nelson's claim is correct.

 

Likewise, my statement that there has been no opposition or disagreement or anything else which could be construed as non-support for Pres. Nelson's claim is also correct.

 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was thinking about this parable earlier this week. It doesn't seem to cover every reason why a person wouldn't have a firm testimony.

According to the parable those without testimony

a- didn't understand and the wicked one deceives

b- Stony ground represents those who hear and receive it with joy but becomes offended by the tribulation and persecution of the world.

c- Thorny ground represents those who hear the word but the deceitfulness of riches and the care of the world chokes the word so the person becomes unfruitful.

d- Good ground represents those who hear and understand and beareth good fruit and bring forth good fruit.

 

My question is this- What about those who hear and understand the word and are not offended by the world? Why would it be that people who have had the word planted in good ground and have born forth good fruit for many decades cease to have testimony? Did the care of the world suddenly crush their testimony despite being planted and cultivated in good ground? Does the ground become toxic or does the problem with the seed?

Is it possible that the ground (the heart of the individual) is good but the seed was bad? Alma 32 talks about knowing the seed (the word) is good based on the fruit it produces but at the very least I think we would have to acknowledge that lack of testimony in the word could be either bad ground, or bad seed.

*I think it's a fallacy to conflate the word of Jesus with the word of the Church. Therefore it would be possible to maintain a testimony in Jesus and His word while not maintaining a testimony in the church. They are 2 different seeds.

Probably a subject for a different thread.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Likewise, my statement that there has been no opposition or disagreement or anything else which could be construed as non-support for Pres. Nelson's claim is also correct.

 

Yep- that's what I said.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

This is a correct statement as long as you do not believe that the ends justify the means.

For example, the dilemma of Nephi being commanded by God to sin (murder of Laban).  Some rationalize this as acceptable due to the number of lives spared by killing one.

Nephi did not murder Laban.  See the following:

• Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban
• Nephi's killing of Laban/Was it "cold blooded murder"
• Did Nephi “Murder” Laban?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yep- that's what I said.

Then why did you say it wasn't correct before?  You've lost me.  

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Probably a subject for a different thread.

ok. You brought it up

 

[Curious_About_Everything]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I formed an opinion based on previous experience and scriptural knowledge.

Thank you for recognizing your statement as opinion and not publicly verifiable information.

 

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No.  I meant to say what i said.  If something is a sin then it's not a valid reason not to join the church.

Can you give an example to clarify your meaning please?

 

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Nephi wasn't commanded by God to sin.  He was commanded by God to kill someone.  Killing someone is only a sin if it is murder. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/ten-commandments?lang=eng

6. “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

I see no conditions given in this commandment.  It does not say thou shalt not kill except when <insert acceptable reason to kill>.

Do you have any scripture references that explain when it is acceptable to kill?

 

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think so.  Still a sin.   Would I do it to save my child?  Probably, but still a sin i would need to repent of.

You would willfully disobey even when you knew it was sinful to do so?

How do you validate this commission of sin? 

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Probably.  In the sense that it's not the action God wants us to take and we would need to repent of it.

But not always?  What are the exceptions?

 

Please forgive my many questions.  I am curious about everything and would happily take this to a more fitting thread if I had the ability to start a new post.

[ksfisher]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

I have no problem with that idea. I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of it. I just don't personally think God speaks. God IS. 

So you're saying that God is, that He exists, but he doesn't speak?  Why doesn't he?