My (Ex) Stake President is a Woman

[Alan]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am sealed to my father and sons. Last I checked, they are men, but who knows any more?

 

Joseph wasn't sealed to men. Men were sealed to Joseph post-mortem.

Big difference.

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Alan said:

Joseph wasn't sealed to men. Men were sealed to Joseph post-mortem.

Big difference.

Not as far as I am concerned. We will all be sealed to each other eventually.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Alan said:

Joseph wasn't sealed to men. Men were sealed to Joseph post-mortem.

Big difference.

How about the men who were sealed to Brigham Young when he was a Prophet (that were not related to him as his sons or his father)?

Edited July 20, 2017 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

Double post. Sorry.

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

How about the men who were sealed to Brigham Young when he was a Prophet (that were not related to him as his sons or his father)?

That's between them and the Lord. We will all be sealed to our Father in Heaven and hence to each other eventually. No importa.

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Naturally, parents are consulted when a genetic defect (hermaphroditic or otherwise) is apparent before or after birth.  So someone must elect the corrective surgery.  It would be interesting to hear the opinion of Pres. Russell Nelson, M.D., on that question.

We are all familiar with the occasional cases of "Siamese Twins" which must be surgically separated (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200008103430604#t=article ), but there are many other sorts of congenital defects which must be corrected.  What do we say of those corrections which entail gender?

I would think that occasions such as this would happen so rarely within the church that it may be best to deal with them on a case by case basis.

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's fine if we want to discuss human institutions, but we're talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here.  We believe than the Lord has chosen prophets to lead and guide the church.  We believe that they receive inspiration and revelation from Him to do so.  "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." (Article of Faith 5)

Yes, but the CJCLDS is a human institution staffed by humans, and they are influenced by group dynamics and the psychology of organizational behavior -- group think, for example.  All of the Brethren exercise free agency, even as they seek inspiration.  In the economy of God, that means that they are expected to rely upon their own experience and knowledge, until they hit a wall or cannot reach a consensus.  God expects them to puzzle matters out in their own minds first, before seeking revelation.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's between them and the Lord. We will all be sealed to our Father in Heaven and hence to each other eventually. No importa.

Doesn't change the fact that men were sealed to men and these no longer take pace.  I don't believe it was a SSM or sealing.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You can't separate the human from the equation.  

Correct, but we still believe that revelation comes from God through those who had been called to administer the particular stewardship to which that revelation pertains.  We, as children of God, are invited to council with Him.  He entrusts to us the leadership of His church on this earth.  Nevertheless, we still acknowledge Him as the ultimate source of power, authority, and revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but the CJCLDS is a human institution staffed by humans, and they are influenced by group dynamics and the psychology of organizational behavior -- group think, for example.  All of the Brethren exercise free agency, even as they seek inspiration.  In the economy of God, that means that they are expected to rely upon their own experience and knowledge, until they hit a wall or cannot reach a consensus.  God expects them to puzzle matters out in their own minds first, before seeking revelation.

I would think they seek revelation all along during the deliberative process, from start to finish, hoping that God would guide their deliberations even as they do the discussing and fact-finding among themselves.

That's what I would do, at any rate.

Bear in mind that the proverbial "stupor of thought" (interpreted as a negative response) is as much an element of revelation as is the "burning in the bosom."

And perhaps a better term than "human institution" is worldly institution. I would not so characterize the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Doesn't change the fact that men were sealed to men and these no longer take pace.  I don't believe it was a SSM or sealing.

Weren't they sealed as sons to fathers in those instances?

 

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but the CJCLDS is a human institution staffed by humans, and they are influenced by group dynamics and the psychology of organizational behavior -- group think, for example.  All of the Brethren exercise free agency, even as they seek inspiration.  In the economy of God, that means that they are expected to rely upon their own experience and knowledge, until they hit a wall or cannot reach a consensus.  God expects them to puzzle matters out in their own minds first, before seeking revelation.

You're right that the church is staffed by humans.  However, in my experience decision making in the councils of the church is much different than at my work. It is a human staffed institution that seeks and receives revelation from God.

Edited July 20, 2017 by ksfisher

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Weren't they sealed as sons to fathers in those instances?

 

The law of adoption was a ritual practiced in Latter Day Saint temples between 1846 and 1894 in which men who held the priesthood were sealed in a father–son relationship to other men who were not part of nor even distantly related to their immediate nuclear family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption_(Mormonism)

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

Doesn't change the fact that men were sealed to men and these no longer take pace.  I don't believe it was a SSM or sealing.

Of course not. Our understanding of the sealing ordinance has either contracted or expanded. Either way, it will all be worked out in the end.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The law of adoption was a ritual practiced in Latter Day Saint temples between 1846 and 1894 in which men who held the priesthood were sealed in a father–son relationship to other men who were not part of nor even distantly related to their immediate nuclear family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption_(Mormonism)

That was my understanding. Thanks for the reference.

[ksfisher]

 

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That was my understanding. Thanks for the reference.

Well, it is Wikipedia.  And in the words of the immortal Michael Scott, "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want, so you know you are getting the best possible information."

Edited July 20, 2017 by ksfisher

[Teancum]

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 3:12 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5522210-155/after-leading-lds-congregations-and-designing

According to Wikipedia, s.v. "gender dysphoria," last accessed today:

I certainly have no idea what it's like to suffer from gender dysphoria, and I don't want to be unsympathetic.  One thing I do wonder, though, is to what extent should the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be expected or required to modify, accommodate, or adapt its doctrine to the needs of a minority.  In The Family: A Proclamation to the World the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ vis-a-vis gender is clear.  The stance of the Church of Jesus Christ regarding those who undergo elective gender reassignment surgery also is clear.

Some believe resolution of these matters, akin to the revelation extending the Priesthood to all worthy males, simply is a matter of the Prophet receiving a revelation on the matter.  The difference between matters involving gender and the lifting of the priesthood ban, however, is that there was always a contingent of Brethren in the Church of Jesus Christ who stated that the ban would be lifted at some point.  Not so with the matter under discussion here.

Thoughts?

This is an issue I know little to nothing about.  However since I personally lean more towards the idea that there is not direct revelation from a God to any one religion and even if there is a God no one group has a pipeline to this God to know what this God thinks about stuff like this I would say anyone making a personal decision on this based on what the LDS Church claims is direct God given revelation is making a big mistake for their life in the here and now.  Not a popular view here I am sure. Had the LDS Church prophets and apostles not been so wrong on so many other things I might feel differently.

[Bernard Gui]

58 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As I understand David/Laurie Lee Hall's position I'll hasten to add that I think the sort of faithfulness to which she claims to aspire is difficult, given her current position and Church Doctrine, respectively) but s/he still has a testimony of the foundational events and truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Yes, I have a fervent disagreement with her about the implications of her chosen course in light of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it isn't for me to doubt her testimony.  And sometimes it's hard for us mortals to see the end from the beginning.  I doubt he would have accepted a calling as a bishop or as a stake president if he had known he would be where he is today.  

On the other hand, perhaps he saw one or both of those callings as a sign of God's continuing favor, his struggles notwithstanding. I've had callings like that, one in particular that I can think of.  Once, I was called as a counselor in an Elders Quorum Presidency.  (Stop laughing!   It's true!  I was!)  OK.  Go ahead.  Keep laughing.  You're right.  It is pretty funny .  The truth is, I wasn't a very good counselor to my Elders Quorum President.  Honestly, I think one of the very few reasons I got the calling was so that the Lord, through the High Councilor who acted as voice when I was set apart, could tell that He was "pleased with the course of my life."  I needed, quite desperately, to hear that at the time.   And I've kept a card from a brother whose PPI I attended who wrote to tell me that he had a similar experience and felt the Lord's love for him when I prayed for him at the end of the PPI.  (I've got this strange wet stuff in my eyes now, recalling those experiences; Soy todohombre!  Nunca lloro! )

I would sustain you in any position, cuate. You shouldn't sell yourself short!  I remember being called to several fairly responsible positions and asked if there were any reasons I could not accept the calling. I chose the route of total candor rather than deceive the person calling me. It was an important part of the repentance process. That's all I'm saying.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is an issue I know little to nothing about.  However since I personally lean more towards the idea that there is not direct revelation from a God to any one religion and even if there is a God no one group has a pipeline to this God to know what this God thinks about stuff like this I would say anyone making a personal decision on this based on what the LDS Church claims is direct God given revelation is making a big mistake for their life in the here and now.  Not a popular view here I am sure. Had the LDS Church prophets and apostles not been so wrong on so many other things I might feel differently.

That's just it: They have not been wrong all that often, not when acting as a body.

They have been disagreed with a great deal. But that doesn't make them wrong any more than it makes those who disagree with them right.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe I need to look it up to refresh my memory, but I'm fairly certain Elder McConkie's comment (which referred not just to himself but others as well) pertained to speculation about reasons and timing, which, of course have since been disavowed. I don't recall that Elder McConkie ever denied the ban would one day be lifted.

I've read some pretty unpalatable things that Elder Peterson said, but I don't know that they ever held sway among the rest of the Brethren, especially not to the effect that the ban would be permanent.

Edited to add: Here's a copy-and-paste of the McConkie quote:

 

Scott

 

Don't you find it at all a bit convenient for McConkie to say....well just forget about it..... I made sweeping statements with the authority of an apostle but I really did not know what the heck I was talking about so just ignore it all....

Does not work for me.  Either these men really have some special guidance from God or they don't.  If they say follow us they better be getting real direction. If not my personal inspiration is as good or better than theirs even if is disagrees with them,

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You're right that the church is staffed by humans.  However, in my experience decision making in the councils of the church is much different than at my work. It is a human staffed institution that seeks and receives revelation from God.

Of course, but only when necessary.  Meantime, they must carry on the day to day tasks of running a very large corporation, and to delegate authority when needed.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Scott

 

Don't you find it at all a bit convenient for McConkie to say....well just forget about it..... I made sweeping statements with the authority of an apostle but I really did not know what the heck I was talking about so just ignore it all....

Does not work for me.  Either these men really have some special guidance from God or they don't.  If they say follow us they better be getting real direction. If not my personal inspiration is as good or better than theirs even if is disagrees with them,

I don't think he claimed to have made them with the authority of an apostle.

Mormon Doctrine, for example, was written before he was an apostle.

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, but only when necessary.  Meantime, they must carry on the day to day tasks of running a very large corporation, and to delegate authority when needed.

I'm with ksfisher on this. I'm confident there is a good deal more seeking and receiving of revelation in administering the Church than there is in running a typical corporation. I don't believe it's true that they ask for it "only when necessary." From what I know of them, they seek it constantly.

In fact, that might be what sets them apart from ordinary men: not being infallible but being humble enough to seek and receive inspiration from God pretty much constantly.

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Scott

 

Don't you find it at all a bit convenient for McConkie to say....well just forget about it..... I made sweeping statements with the authority of an apostle but I really did not know what the heck I was talking about so just ignore it all....

Does not work for me.  Either these men really have some special guidance from God or they don't.  If they say follow us they better be getting real direction. If not my personal inspiration is as good or better than theirs even if is disagrees with them,

Apostolic/Prophetic fallibility is a fascinating subject ... for another thread.  You're entitled to your opinions on that and on any other subject, but please do not derail this one any further. 

[Bernard Gui]

We believe God's house is one of order. The fallout from an unfortunate event like this causes disorder. Honesty is always the best route even when it might prove embarrassing or inconvenient.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Bernard Gui