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

[Curious_About_Everything]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thank you! These are very interesting links you provided!

As you can see, I have quoted scripture that says we are not to kill.

Can you point me to explicit scripture that defines exactly when it is permissible to kill?

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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

Because God is the only thing that exists. God is Existence. God is not an organism. 

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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

Because He knows we will all just argue about it..change it..interpret it wrong .

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

Thank you! These are very interesting links you provided!

As you can see, I have quoted scripture that says we are not to kill.

Can you point me to explicit scripture that defines exactly when it is permissible to kill?

That depends, I think, on the meaning of the word "kill."  Also, consider implicit connotations, such as the one in D:

Quote

We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

See also D&C 98:23-31; Alma 43:45-47;  Alma 48:14, 23-25; 44:1-6; and 46:19-20.  And D&C 105:38-40.

See also this entry about "Murder" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  The key bit:

Quote

The Church defines "murder" as the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. If death is caused by carelessness or by defense of self or others, or if overriding mitigating circumstances prevail (such as deficient mental capacity or state of war), the taking of a human life may be regarded as something other than murder. In making the assessment of a member's guilt or innocence of murder, Church leaders are encouraged to be responsive to inspiration and to submit the facts of the case to the office of the First Presidency for review. In the final analysis, only God, who can discern the thoughts of the heart, can judge whether a particular killing is an unforgivable murder or not.

The Church's concern about murder is both more fundamental and broader than that found in legal definitions. Legal categories of homicide, such as manslaughter or negligent homicide (which typically involve carelessness or mitigating factors), are not necessarily murder, whereas killings involving extremely reckless conduct or "felony murder" may be.

The Church also leaves open the possibility that under some unusual circumstances, standard justifications for killing that would normally relieve the individual from responsibility for murder, such as self-defense or defense of others, may not apply automatically. Wartime military service is considered a mitigating factor, not a justification for indiscriminate killing, thus suggesting that even in warfare one's conduct is measured and weighed by God and is not a matter of license (MFP 6:157-61). Only the Lord has the power to give life or to authorize it to be taken. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon depict situations in which God has commanded the taking of life to accomplish his purposes. Goliath (1 Sam. 17:46-51), the king of Bashan (Deut. 3:3), and Laban (1 Ne. 4:10-18) were slain by servants of God after having been delivered into their hands by the Lord.

Thanks,

-Smac

   .

 

[Curious_About_Everything]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That depends, I think, on the meaning of the word "kill."  Also, consider implicit connotations, such as the one in D:

See also D&C 98:23-31; Alma 43:45-47;  Alma 48:14, 23-25; 44:1-6; and 46:19-20.  And D&C 105:38-40.

See also this entry about "Murder" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  The key bit:

Thanks,

-Smac

   .

 

I am reading your information.  To make you aware, I started a separate thread about this topic. 

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

Because God is the only thing that exists. God is Existence. God is not an organism.

A pantheistic Mormon.  Now that's a first for me.
Not to mention a doctrinal oxymoron.

Edited September 30, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A pantheistic Mormon.  Now that's a first for me.
Not to mention a doctrinal oxymoron.

I think you meant to say "oxyMormon"

[Johnnie Cake]

20 hours ago, Gray said:

Doubling down on this is very unwise. 

Doubling down on bigotry is very unwise...that said...I support the churches right to do so...I just hope they don't cry when the consequences come home to roost

[James Tunney]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Has anyone other than Nelson come out and confirmed his story?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Has anyone other than Nelson come out and confirmed his story?

That is not what I asked.  CFR, please, that Elder Nelson's "revelation statement ... isn't supported by the other brethren."

You made the assertion, it is your responsibility to substantiate it when requested to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[James Tunney]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is not what I asked.  CFR, please, that Elder Nelson's "revelation statement ... isn't supported by the other brethren."

You made the assertion, it is your responsibility to substantiate it when requested to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No one has come out and supported Nelson's view when one would expect others to support their teammate.  Instead, there is deafening silence as well as his "revelation" being excised from the manual after it was originally there.  So, absence of evidence in this case should be regarded as evidence of absence.

[california boy]

This thread has been going on for 6 pages now.  It seems like it all boils down to this.

Was the policy a revelation from God to President Monson? Or was it just a policy decision made by the leadership of the church.

Thinking on both sides have presented their reasoning.  No one's mind has been changed.  I doubt that will happen.

I would like to address this issue a little differently.  The question I have is "Why did Elder Nelson address this issue to the Millenials both in his talk and as the title of the Ensign article?  Some have pointed out that the reason might be because this generation seems to be walking away from the church (and churches in general) in greater numbers than ever before.  I believe church leadership is very aware of this.  And I am guessing (yes it is a guess) that Elder Nelson wanted to address the issue of the policy because he knows full well that this millennial generation is having a particularly difficult time accepting this policy as coming from God.  They have too many gay friends.  They see them living normal happy lives finding companionship just like they are looking for.  So by Elder Nelson stating very strongly that he was there, and testifying that it was a revelation, I believe his hope is that the millennial generation (and others) will be less likely to disagree with the policy.  Making a statement that something is a revelation from God has always worked before to shore up the belief even when there was disagreement among members.  

BUT there is a different set of circumstances this time around.  And I believe it is a big reason why millennial are walking away from the church and churches in general.  Millennials no longer just accept something as coming from God because they have been told it does. Too much has been proven wrong with past declarations.  Adam and Eve being the first man/woman created.  The global flood.  Blacks being banned from the priesthood are just a few of the major teachings they and the rest of us were told were the word/revelation from God himself.  To many millennials, these teachings are all proof that just because church leaders declare something to be a revelation doesn't mean they should automatically believe it.  I personally don't think Elder Nelson's testimony that the policy came from God is going to make one bit of difference to many millennial that no longer trust such declarations as being true.  His declaration will have little effect, just as it has little effect on about half of the posters on this thread.  And that, is the real problem the church and other churches are having.  No side is going to win this argument. But what can be predicted is that many millennial will continue to walk away from the church no matter what Elder Nelson asserts.  They no long trust leaders as speaking for God.  

I also predict that this policy will be abandoned within the next couple of years mostly because there is no reason for the policy to exist and it's existence is only causing harm.  When that happens,  because of Elder Nelson's assertion that the policy was a revelation given to a prophet of God, it will reinforce this already skeptical doubt that everything church leaders teach does not necessarily come from God himself, but from a committee of men deciding policy for the church.  Big difference.  Any thoughts?

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Doubling down on bigotry is very unwise...that said...I support the churches right to do so...I just hope they don't cry when the consequences come home to roost

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-senate-candidate-calls-gay-teen-suicide-victim-a-murderer

This young man lived in my town. When people see this on the news and then read more about the church's policy that the OP is about, I think the consequence of it will be pretty bad. 

People will see the church in a bad light. We've already seen that many church members have left over it. I'm really surprised that it is in the Ensign now.

 

[Teancum]

On 9/29/2016 at 9:52 PM, 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

 

Ahh yes.....another post for the persecution complex.  It never enters into the mind of the believing Latter Day Saint who is convinced they have the truth that perhaps their dogma is what is wrong.   But they/you can keep telling yourself in the paradigm of what you say above and stay in your self righteous bubble.  

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

See the quote in my signature, the one from Sister Oscarson. 

Yea her quote is a nice fear the make believe bogey man approach.  Typical fear tactics the controlling religions use. The LDS church excels at this.

[Teancum]

18 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?

I don't beleive this was revelation at all.  Not one whit.  I suspect President Nelson was behind this and took advantage of an aging President Monson.  But hey if the LDS church wants to die on this hill and become more and more marginalized then it already is more power to them.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

CFR that it is.  All we have is his talk.  If he is indeed correct that this was "revelation" present it to the church as such for common consent and canonize it.  Oh wait....the church never does that anymore.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

And criticism of those who disagree with the church is based on a priori assumptions that the LDS leaders speak for God as well as a fair share of emotionalism, bullying and bigotry.

[sunstoned]

On 9/29/2016 at 8:09 PM, Gray said:

Doubling down on this is very unwise. 

By doing this it is going to make it more difficult and more uncomfortable for the next crop of leaders to unwind this policy. 

[sunstoned]

19 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?

I could care less about political correctness or popularity.  However, I care about the Savior, and I care about what he taught.  When he said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. "  I care about that.

Edited October 1, 2016 by sunstoned

[Stargazer]

I, for one, am happy that this has been openly acknowledged to be a revelation from God, rather than just a committee decision. Those who have a problem with it can apply to the Lord for confirmation and stop trying to second guess the FP and Q12.

And for those who do not believe that those inspired men are truly Prophets, Seers and Revelators? Nothing will have changed.

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

Thank you! These are very interesting links you provided!

As you can see, I have quoted scripture that says we are not to kill.

Can you point me to explicit scripture that defines exactly when it is permissible to kill?

When God commands it.

SEE NUMBERS 31:17-18

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea her quote is a nice fear the make believe bogey man approach.  Typical fear tactics the controlling religions use. The LDS church excels at this.

I know Sister Oscarson personally. She's not the fear-mongering, fire-and-brimstone type. 

She is the wife of my third mission president, though I only served under them a month. 

I had two Oscarson brothers as my mission presidents. I served under the older one, Richard, for about a year. Then they divided the mission, and I ended up in the new mission just before I went home. 

The younger Oscarson, Paul, was only 29 when he was called. His wife, Bonnie, was 26. She was scarcely older than the sister missionaries serving there in Sweden at the time. 

More recently, Paul and Bonnie have served as president and matron of the temple in Stockholm at the same time Richard and Linda were president and matron of the temple in St. Louis, the hometown of the Oscarsons.

Last night I attended a combined mission reunion with the two Oscarson brothers, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the formation of that second mission in Sweden. I told Bonnie that when I see her serving in her calling as Young Women general president, I feel proud of her, as though she were my older sister. I took occasion then to thank her for her talk at the general women's session of conference. 

P. S. It was quite the evening for me. Just before getting to the Oscarsons' reunion, I attended a reunion for missionaries who served under my first mission president, Ronald Folkersen. Elder Renlund of the Twelve spoke at that one. He was a missionary under President Folkersen but went home a few months before I arrived. 

The evening has added significance for us, as our eldest son is currently a missionary in Sweden. 

[rongo]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I also predict that this policy will be abandoned within the next couple of years . . .

No!

Quick, someone divert Scott's attention. Not another countdown clock . . . 

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I could care less about political correctness or popularity.  However, I care about the Savior, and I care about what he taught.  When he said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. "  I care about that.

And I I care very much about those children whose parents are leading their little ones down forbidden paths.

As Christ said:
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

And this includes those who practice forbidden forms of relationships such as polygamy and SSM.  But the church will not intervene between those parents apostate lifestyle  and their children.  This is not merely a Word of Wisdom issue, for example, but requires a change in lifestyle and philosophy of life.  And It is their responsibility and decision to bring up their children in righteousness,, and the church's responsibility to teach them the commandments of God.

The basic unit of the church is the family, and this policy reflects that fact.

Edited October 1, 2016 by cdowis