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

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

No!

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

You may not agree that this policy will disappear in a couple of years.  But tell me, what do you think of the rest of my post?  Do you think that there is any valid reasons millennials have and about half of the people posting on this issue for not trusting church leaders when they claim to have a revelation from God?  Have church leaders ALWAYS gotten what the scriptures say right?  Have church leaders always been right when they said something was a revelation from God?  

[cdowis]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

Have church leaders ALWAYS gotten what the scriptures say right?  Have church leaders always been right when they said something was a revelation from God?  

Whether they are right or wrong can certainly be debated.  But the real issue is that the Lord has given them the priesthood keys to govern the church.   I have the confidence that they are inspired by God in their calling.  

I remember that the church made a change to the missionary program where all missionaries ended their mission after 18 months, instead of two years.  That policy did not work out at all, and they changed the policy back to the two years. 

Edited October 1, 2016 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

1- Is it impossible for "revelation" tp come by committee or council?

2- Sought confirmation. Spirit confirmed God did not say that. So I've got my confirmation and you've got yours. Now what?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You may not agree that this policy will disappear in a couple of years.  But tell me, what do you think of the rest of my post?  Do you think that there is any valid reasons millennials have and about half of the people posting on this issue for not trusting church leaders when they claim to have a revelation from God?  Have church leaders ALWAYS gotten what the scriptures say right?  Have church leaders always been right when they said something was a revelation from God?  

No

[rongo]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You may not agree that this policy will disappear in a couple of years.  But tell me, what do you think of the rest of my post?  Do you think that there is any valid reasons millennials have and about half of the people posting on this issue for not trusting church leaders when they claim to have a revelation from God?  Have church leaders ALWAYS gotten what the scriptures say right?  Have church leaders always been right when they said something was a revelation from God?  

Actually, if I were a betting man, I would lay even odds or even bet that you are right. I wouldn't be surprised to see this policy overturned, and it wouldn't bother me if it were ---- it would just look bad from beginning to end (secret, quiet handbook update, leak, priesthood leader letter, President Nelson's talk, controversy over it, [hypothetical revocation of the policy]. Just very ham-handed.

Our history is one of eventual accommodation (priesthood ban, polygamy, etc.) when faced with withering social condemnation. And I think the condemnation over perceived LGBT discrimination will make past pressure look like a Sunday picnic. What would be harder for me is full acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage in the Church.

It would break my heart if the Church caved on this issue (if it de-"criminalized" homosexuality in the Church, accepted gay marriage, etc.). No, I wouldn't leave the Church over it. 

To answer your question: yes, I can see where people are coming from when they are thrown into faith crisis over trusting Church leaders, given how current declarations disavow past ones (and past ones that were vociferously expressed). I believe that the Brethren hold and exercise all priesthood keys, and I believe in the Restoration and all that entails, but I can see why some good people are bothered by our history.

And, I hope you can feel my love and respect for you, california boy. We don't see this issue the same way, but I think we both can see why we each think the way we do.

[Jeanne]

18 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

And it will..someday.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

No!

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

It's too late. The clock is running.

But when I saw this, I wondered: John Dehlin and his devotee, Bill Reel, have said the policy will be eliminated next year with the publication of an updated handbook. Is california boy hedging the prediction by moving the timeline back and saying it will happen "within the next couple of years"?

Edited October 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cdowis]

The policy is the same as for polygamy families, which is in effect today.

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Actually, if I were a betting man, I would lay even odds or even bet that you are right. I wouldn't be surprised to see this policy overturned, and it wouldn't bother me if it were ---- it would just look bad from beginning to end (secret, quiet handbook update, leak, priesthood leader letter, President Nelson's talk, controversy over it, [hypothetical revocation of the policy]. Just very ham-handed.

Our history is one of eventual accommodation (priesthood ban, polygamy, etc.) when faced with withering social condemnation. And I think the condemnation over perceived LGBT discrimination will make past pressure look like a Sunday picnic. What would be harder for me is full acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage in the Church.

It would break my heart if the Church caved on this issue (if it de-"criminalized" homosexuality in the Church, accepted gay marriage, etc.). No, I wouldn't leave the Church over it. 

To answer your question: yes, I can see where people are coming from when they are thrown into faith crisis over trusting Church leaders, given how current declarations disavow past ones (and past ones that were vociferously expressed). I believe that the Brethren hold and exercise all priesthood keys, and I believe in the Restoration and all that entails, but I can see why some good people are bothered by our history.

And, I hope you can feel my love and respect for you, california boy. We don't see this issue the same way, but I think we both can see why we each think the way we do.

Just wanted to say that I admire your kindness in light of differences. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- Is it impossible for "revelation" tp come by committee or council?

2- Sought confirmation. Spirit confirmed God did not say that. So I've got my confirmation and you've got yours. Now what?

When you pit your own "confirmation" against the inspired message of prophets and apostles, the anointed servants of God will win out every time in my esteem. See the account of the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron against Moses in Numbers 12.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

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

 

Specifically, what will be abandoned? Delaying the baptism of children in gay "marriage"  households? Defining SSM as apostasy warranting excommunication?  Or both?

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- Is it impossible for "revelation" tp come by committee or council?

2- Sought confirmation. Spirit confirmed God did not say that. So I've got my confirmation and you've got yours. Now what?

1. Of course not. If it's done prayerfully the consensus will lead to what the Lord wants. My only quibble is that it can look like a secular result.

2. Now what? Simple. When GC happens, I will be raising my hand to vote in favor of sustaining the FP & Q12 as prophets, seers, and revelators. You, perhaps, may be voting not in favor of it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

. And I think the condemnation over perceived LGBT discrimination will make past pressure look like a Sunday picnic.

 

You think people will end up in jail and church property will be threaten to be seized by the government?

Before we were isolated, no one else practiced polygyny in our culture at that time.  More likely it will follow the route of the PB.  There are too many others with greater impact (Catholic Church) that hold the same position we do.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You think people will end up in jail and church property will be threaten to be seized by the government?

Before we were isolated, no one else practiced polygyny in our culture at that time.  More likely it will follow the route of the PB.  There are too many others with greater impact (Catholic Church) that hold the same position we do.

I don't know how it will all play out. I do hope it doesn't come to that.

Actually polygamy was practiced secretly in many places in the US at the time. How terrible for the Church to insist that its members be married, before engaging in sexual intercourse. I'm distantly related to those old Catholic Friars who were less than celibate.

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You think people will end up in jail and church property will be threaten to be seized by the government?

Before we were isolated, no one else practiced polygyny in our culture at that time.  More likely it will follow the route of the PB.  There are too many others with greater impact (Catholic Church) that hold the same position we do.

I think it'll be a different criticism coming from the voices within the general membership.  Not even a large minority, but they'll be the loudest and harshest IMO.

[omni]

On 9/30/2016 at 11:06 AM, smac97 said:

 

Quote

 

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.

 

Thanks for your response.  I agree with the notion that the Church is concerned with its appearance and reputation, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  All organizations do this to some degree and with the Church's emphasis on missionary work it's probably a good idea to do so.  

With that being said, I'm not confident that Church leaders were expecting the negative reaction and backlash they received.   Sure they may have known it wasn't something you send out in a press release, perhaps they even anticipated a few critical posts in the bloggernacle, but certainly not the overwhelmingly negative response they received from both inside and outside the Church.  

My evidence for this is the completely bungled release of the policy.  I think even the most ardent supporters of the policy will admit that Church leaders could have and should have been better prepared for what occurred.  I would ask each of you who believe the policy came from God this hypothetical, if the policy had not actually been divinely revealed as stated by Elder Nelson, how do you think its release and the accompanying response by the Church would have differed?

Quote

 

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?

 

I have no doubt that those involved with implementing the policy believe they are doing God's will, but using your reasoning above couldn't we also assume the following unpopular religious practices are likewise God's will:

• Polygamy being practiced in many fundamentalist Mormon communities;
• The Muslim hijab;
• Jehovah Witnesses' practice of not celebrating holidays or allowing blood transfusions.

Quote

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.  

You have shared with us why you believe the policy came from God, but could you please give us your opinions on why it wasn't released until 2015?  As I stated previously, homosexual relationships are not new, and while they have gained greater acceptance over the years, I would guess there have been a number of children of gay parents who were baptized prior to the policy.  

Remember, we aren't dealing with a secular organization who's leadership may have simply "dropped the ball" or for whom the issue may not have been on their radar.  We are dealing with an organization that claims to be the church of Jesus Christ and which is led by his prophets here on earth.  A church in which God's will is communicated through his mouthpiece on a daily basis.  If this is all true, why did it take so long for the Lord to reveal his will through his mouthpiece?  

 

[thesometimesaint]

Ps; I was just informed that Curious_About_Everything is unable to respond to this thread.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You think people will end up in jail and church property will be threaten to be seized by the government?

I do. When you look at how much has flipped 180 on this in just two years, coupled with the change among our youth regarding this issue, I think we will face a "Will ye also go away?" era. I think that we will absolutely face a mandate from the government (supported by both major parties) to capitulate or have all church property seized if gay marriages aren't performed by the Church (temple; I think the Church will stop performing civil marriage before that). BYU will not be accredited by any body, BYU athletics will be a pariah that no one will schedule. The one thing that has been made clear to me by LGBT activists is that they aren't just seeking that their civil rights be upheld, but that disallowed views not be allowed to be held ("You have to mean it, Potter!"). 

Before we were isolated, no one else practiced polygyny in our culture at that time.  More likely it will follow the route of the PB.

The priesthood ban was alterable in a way that gay marriage is not, without fundamentally altering doctrine. That makes this issue more of a Schwerpunkt.

There are too many others with greater impact (Catholic Church) that hold the same position we do.

What is the momentum with the Catholic Church under Pope Francis? They are feeling the heat, too.

[rockpond]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

You are correct... the Brethren don't really use common consent anymore.  They only ask for sustaining of callings and not for "policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints" as is required.

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

And after I've gone to the Lord for confirmation and the answer is that it is not revelation?

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

The policy is the same as for polygamy families, which is in effect today.

Not entirely the same:  In places where polygamy is legal, children of polygamous parents may be baptized.

Edited October 1, 2016 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not entirely the same:  In places where polygamy is legal, children of polygamous parents may be baptized.

CFR.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't know how it will all play out. I do hope it doesn't come to that.

Actually polygamy was practiced secretly in many places in the US at the time.

No one was quite so flagrant in claiming multiple marriages (which is quite different than simply sexual acts outside of marriage, equating the two is apples and oranges, imo) as I recall nor were they building temples to sacralize them quite so much.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And after I've gone to the Lord for confirmation and the answer is that it is not revelation?

"Some revelations are of God, some are of men, and some are of the devil."

I know that some today argue that David Whitmer misquoted Joseph Smith on this, but I don't think he did. At least I don't have a problem with the above quote, because I find it to be true to life. 

Or, said another way:

There is one thing that we have all got to be very careful about, and that is this: I have seen Elders in my experience that when they got their own spirit moved very much they imagined that it was the Spirit of God, and it was difficult in some instances to tell the difference between the suggestions of their own spirit and the voice of the spirit of God. This is a gift of itself, to be able to distinguish that which suggests itself to our own hearts and that which comes from God. And we are misled sometimes by our own feeling, because of our inability to distinguish between the voice of the Spirit of God and the suggestions of our own spirit. ---  George Q. Cannon, July 25, 1880. Journal of Discourses 22:104.

So, if you've taken this to God, and feel that you have received revelation on this, then you must next determine whether your revelation could be "your own spirit moved very much" and you "imagined that it was the Spirit of God." Are you sure that you accurately discerned "the suggestions of your own spirit and the voice of the Spirit of God?" 

If you can honestly answer that to you it was definitely God and not your own predilection, then you need to decide what you do with that. Has God told you that the Church is false, then, since he has revealed the truth to you and not to his apostles? 

What you do with that is your decision to make. You are discussing, by and large, with people here whose spiritual determinations are the exact opposite as yours. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And after I've gone to the Lord for confirmation and the answer is that it is not revelation?

I've already suggested this to someone else, but I'll do it again: Consider the account of the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12.