Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Hope's comment was crass and unbecoming (particularly if he/she is a Latter-day Saint).  I think it presumes that Elder Bednar (I note that Hope cannot even bring himself/herself to include his title) is more like a political candidate or officeholder (beholden to an electorate, and hence necessarily open to public criticism) than an apostle called of God (and hence one of the Lord's anointed, about which the Lord's covenant people should not speak evil or publicly denigrate).

Nevertheless, although his remarks against Elder Bednar are openly unpleasant and uncharitable and unkind and contemptuous, I think we take things too far in construing them as a desire for Elder Bednar to, you know, die.

We can strongly disagree with Hope and his opposition to the Church, and his open contempt for and dislike of various leaders of the LDS Church.  But let's not make him an "offender for a word."  He has clarified his remarks, so let's take that clarification at face value.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks, I think.   Just to clarify, I often use the title Elder or President when referring to church leaders, sometimes I forget and its just laziness on my part when typing, not an overt contempt for the person or their position. 

Also, I'm not opposing the church by saying that I'm worried about Elder Bednar and some of the behaviors I've seen, at least this doesn't feel like opposition to me as I'm just trying to be honest about concerns I have.  Personally I do think that church leaders are both called of God and officeholders beholden to the members and open to public criticism at the same time.  I believe strongly in the principle of common consent governance as practiced and articulated by Joseph Smith in the early church.  I think in practice we've strayed away from that principle, but it doesn't mean the principle isn't valid, only that recent tradition has gotten in the way.  

I think our culture has over emphasized a reverence for church leaders that is on the idolatry side of things, and honestly I think this thread and the reactions of some to my concerns about Elder Bednar are a symptom of pedestalizing and borderline worship of leaders.  I haven't made any personal attacks on Elder Bednar, and all of my concerns are sited from public addresses he's made.  But the cultural expectations for this idea that criticism = evil speaking, are part of the problem.  

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Members of the church have a right to disagree.  However, as a leader I do not have to right to publicly disagree with my leaders. 

That's exactly what I originally stated (quoting an Apostle):

 

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

We have been told by an Apostle that good members of the church can support gay marriage as long as we do get involved in an "organized attack" against the church regarding their teachings on this.

None of that has taken place regarding my local leaders or others who I have seen that disagree with the policy.  

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Then I would say that your bishop as well as other stake leaders, as good a people as they may be, as also out of harmony with the teachings of the church on this subject.  Church policies may change in the future, but until they do church leaders have an obligation to abide by those policies.

Part of why this is so challenging is that many people believe the specific teachings about LGBT individuals is out of harmony with other teachings in the scriptures and teachings by those same church leaders.  When different messages seem to contradict each other, some people appeal to their inner authority and the inspiration they believe is from God.  Consider these quotes from Elder Uchtdorf and J. Rueben Clark.  

Quote

Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers…because we think we know the answers already. Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?

Quote

I say it illustrates a principle – that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.

That second quote by President Clark is very key to this discussion.  I believe in due time that the knowledge that the current teachings on this subject aren't in alignment with God will be manifest.   This is how I see the church operating on subjects in the past that have changed, and this is how I see the LGBT issue playing out in the future.  Not sure how long it will take, but I have hope that it will happen in my lifetime.  

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That is a hypothetical to which we have and can have no answer. 

There is, however, safety in following the prophet. 

Its not safe for the LGBT community, that is why suicide is such an issue these days, and why many of them leave the church, its precisely not safe.  

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The teachings of the church in regards to gay marriage however, have been and are being taught by their united voice.  

We actually have not heard from all of them, have we?  As far as I know, our living, acting Prophet has been silent on the topic of gay marriage.  Do you have any specific statements from President Monson regarding the new policy or his feelings on gay marriage (specifically not just comments on the proclamation, etc.)?  I have heard many members wonder if this is such an important modern day topic, why he has not spoken out about gay marriage.

In searching, I did find this...(if you can find anything else, I'd love to see it):

Quote

Regarding whether church members could disagree with the faith’s opposition to legalizing same-sex unions and still remain in good standing, President Thomas S. Monson said the answer “depends on what the disagreement is… If it is something political, there is room for opinion here and there on either side.”   Deseret News

https://affirmation.org/quotable-quotes-on-ssa-and-on-being-lgbt-and-mormon/

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm trying to qualify it all by saying "I think..." suggesting there is plenty of room to disagree with me. 

I think that qualification is pretty much inherent in most of what we say here.  We all "think" we are correct.  

I appreciate that you have qualified your remarks.  I propose that you assume that same qualification applies to our remarks as wells.

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks.  I'm not so certain God does not intend those who are gay to not get married to those whom they love and choose to marry...for instance. 

As a matter of conjecture and theory, I suppose one could leave open that possibility.  I find it very, very unlikely.

As I see it, feelings are not determinative as far as the Law of Chastity goes.  Otherwise, a married man could claim avoidance of the Law of Chastity by claiming that his having sex with his mistress is okay because he "loves" her.  And yet that conduct would still violate the Law of Chastity, even if his claimed feelings are real, would it not?

The same goes for a boyfriend and girlfriend.  They may really, really love each other.  But acting on those feelings necessarily violates the Law of Chastity.

I have seen nothing in scripture or in any statement by modern prophets and apostles that would leave any room for speculation about what God "intends" regarding same-sex marriage (that is, speculation that the Church's teachings on this subject will change).  See, e.g., here:

Quote

In the KUTV interview, Christofferson further acknowledged that LDS leaders have evolved in their thinking about homosexuality, while maintaining that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"This is not a doctrinal evolution or change, as far as the church is concerned," the apostle said. "It's how things are approached."

All elements of society, "including ourselves, have gained greater understanding, especially in recent years," Christofferson said, "as we've seen more intercommunication, more sharing back and forth, more openness on all sides... [on the] social and physical science issues and all the other pieces to the puzzle."

The issue is now "coming into focus, but there are still a lot of questions we are seeking added understanding," he said. "We are still learning."

Could there be a time when the LDS Church would change its position on gay marriage?

The apostle was unequivocal.

Nope, he said.

I think the LDS Church is under massive social pressure to capitulate on this issue.  

I also think the Church has worked hard these last several years to be as inclusive and compassionate as is possible, while also maintaining the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity.

I also think that the teachings of the Church regarding the Law of Chastity have only sharpened in the last several years, in part due to public agitation about same-sex marriage.  In other words, the implausibility of same-sex marriage in the LDS Church has become considerably more clear, not less.

I also think President Russell M. Nelson's January 2016 remarks have provided further clarity on this general issue.

So for me, I find little reason to vacillate or equivocate about what the Church teaches now, and about whether the Church may change its teachings in the future.  That seems exceedingly unlikely.  So speculation about same-sex marriage in the eternities seems like only an exercise in wishful thinking, not a reasoned or revelatory thing.

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm glad we have much to agree on, but in the end, I think there is definite disagreement.  I don't find it helpful to talk about LGBTQ as if they are a lost and sinful people, surely, without question, living opposed to God's desires. 

Agreed.  Part of the problem lies with creating a taxonomic reference that privileges sexual behavior over all other categories of identification.

For me, a person who has same-sex attraction is, first and foremost, a child of God.  Not "LGBTQ."

If I can then retain in my memory this categorization, then things become easier.  The same goes for other categorizations like gender, and race, and nationality, and religion, and political party, and all the other ways we slice and dice ourselves into differing categories.

If we are all children of God, then the Law of Chastity as a precept of the Restored Gospel applies to those who accept that Gospel.  I acknowledge that there are differing viewpoints about which sexual behaviors God condones and which he condemns.  I respect those differing viewpoints, and ask that my viewpoint be respected as well.

What I cannot do, however, is bow to social pressure and ignore (or, worse, speak against) the plain teachings of prophets and apostles regarding the Law of Chastity.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not safe for the LGBT community, that is why suicide is such an issue these days, and why many of them leave the church, its precisely not safe.  

I would suggest that if they followed the prophets they would be safe and not have as many suicides.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, that's not true (the "only way"), but hope_for_things has clarified.  Everyone posts things here regarding their feelings without literally following it all the way through to a morbid interpretation or ending and I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe his clarifications.

Many people do not get a warm fuzzy feeling from Elder Bednar (I have very devout family members who have expressed pretty much exactly what hope_for-things stated and same with other church members who don't get a very warm feeling from him...but they don't want him dead for heaven's sake). Everyone has Apostles (past and present) who they can relate to better than others or who they have specific, tender feelings for. That doesn't mean they don't like all the others or want anyone to die.  You're carrying this too far, IMO and should read his explanations again and then drop it

Not fearing any kimchee, I'm not losing any sleep over Elder Bednar's potential leadership roles. The Lord will choose the President of the Church. I doubt such derogatory comments about the apostles and prophets won't influence that decision. See Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Benson. 

I have read the explanations. They fall short. But we must move on. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the advice. I have read the explanations. They fall short. As does yours. 

I understand that is your opinion (and most likely a few others here was well).  I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and accept their clarifications.  You judged his statements to the extreme (and even continued doing so after he clarified).  That's what I was mainly addressing and felt was wrong to do.  

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also think the Church has worked hard these last several years to be as inclusive and compassionate as is possible, while also maintaining the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity.

I also think that the teachings of the Church regarding the Law of Chastity have only sharpened in the last several years, in part due to public agitation about same-sex marriage.  In other words, the implausibility of same-sex marriage in the LDS Church has become considerably more clear, not less.

This Saturday, we had a regional priesthood leadership conference (stake presidencies, bishops, 2 GAs, 2 temple presidents, mission president). Without naming the GAs, one is among the Church's senior leadership (I don't want their names thrown around online). He told us that the Brethren want to be crystal clear that the Church is not in any way anti-gay, but that the Church is obviously pro-traditional marriage. He emphasized that this will never change. I appreciated witnessing the clear, emphatic statement firsthand.

I do think that the Church has doubled down on this, due to circumstances, in a way that makes it extremely difficult (read: almost impossible) to capitulate on this in the future --- despite the confident predictions or the wishes of some. I see this as a "burning the ships on shore" in a way that makes this different from ending the priesthood ban or polygamy.

[ksfisher]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We actually have not heard from all of them, have we?  As far as I know, our living, acting Prophet has been silent on the topic of gay marriage.  Do you have any specific statements from President Monson regarding the new policy or his feelings on gay marriage (specifically not just comments on the proclamation, etc.)?  I have heard many members wonder if this is such an important modern day topic, why he has not spoken out about gay marriage.

In searching, I did find this...(if you can find anything else, I'd love to see it):

 

Statements from the First Presidency dated June 29, 1995 and November 15, 2015 can be found in the Official Communication Library which I believe you have access to.  Both are issued with President Monson's signature. 

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I understand that is your opinion (and most likely a few others here was well).  I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and accept their clarifications.  You judged his statements to the extreme (and even continued doing so after he clarified).  That's what I was mainly addressing and felt was wrong to do.  

See my edit.  [edit of edit]...I've passed the wish that Elder Bednar not "make it to the Presidency" by some friends and relatives. Their take was the same as mine, but some were even more taken aback than I. Anyone who knows the process understands what "make it to" means. Many of us find that incredibly insensitive. Moving on.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

See my edit. Moving on.

Good.  I think that's a wise decision 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Statements from the First Presidency dated June 29, 1995 and November 15, 2015 can be found in the Official Communication Library which I believe you have access to.  Both are issued with President Monson's signature. 

Yes, I've seen those.   Do you know if there is anything from over the pulpit that members would have heard, do you know?   A public statement?

I'm searching as well....

Is the 1995 statement regarding same-sex marriage?  I don't remember that it was...but I'll look.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

We actually have not heard from all of them, have we?  As far as I know, our living, acting Prophet has been silent on the topic of gay marriage.  Do you have any specific statements from President Monson regarding the new policy or his feelings on gay marriage (specifically not just comments on the proclamation, etc.)? 

President Russell M. Nelson's January 2016 remarks during a worldwide devotional merit attention (emphases added):

Quote

I bring you greetings and love from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We are thankful for your devotion to the Lord and His restored gospel. We are grateful for each time you stand up and speak up for truth—especially when it is not popular.

...

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I would suggest that if they followed the prophets they would be safe and not have as many suicides.

I would suggest that the policies and a large part of the culture of the church including the leaders who are contributing to this unsafe environment and they have been a major part of the problem.  I think that recently there has been some attention and resources coming from the church that show a good faith effort to help, but there are mixed messages being sent on a regular basis still and this is undermining some of the good that they want to do.  I think the leadership is having a wrestle of its core values right now.  

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I've seen those.   Do you know if there is anything from over the pulpit that members would have heard, do you know?   A public statement?

I'm searching as well....

I'm not aware of any specific "over the pulpit statements."  President Monson seems to have left this topic to other general authorities.  I hope that no one would read any lack of unity into this, but more that one person chooses to emphasize certain doctrines in their public statements while leaving other doctrines for others to address publicly. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ksfisher

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would suggest that the policies and a large part of the culture of the church including the leaders who are contributing to this unsafe environment and they have been a major part of the problem.  I think that recently there has been some attention and resources coming from the church that show a good faith effort to help, but there are mixed messages being sent on a regular basis still and this is undermining some of the good that they want to do.  I think the leadership is having a wrestle of its core values right now.  

I would suggest that you have not been part of formulating those policies and can have no idea as to the revelatory process behind them.  See Smac's quote of President Nelson above for an example of that process from one who has been an eyewitness to that process.

I think the mind and the will of the Lord on this matter is clear to the leadership of the church.

[Avatar4321]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would suggest that the policies and a large part of the culture of the church including the leaders who are contributing to this unsafe environment and they have been a major part of the problem.  I think that recently there has been some attention and resources coming from the church that show a good faith effort to help, but there are mixed messages being sent on a regular basis still and this is undermining some of the good that they want to do.  I think the leadership is having a wrestle of its core values right now.  

I fail to see any evidence that encouraging all men to keep the commandments creates an unsafe environment, nor that actually keeping the commandments does either.

I also see no evidence of any wrestling of core values by office in the church

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

This Saturday, we had a regional priesthood leadership conference (stake presidencies, bishops, 2 GAs, 2 temple presidents, mission president). Without naming the GAs, one is among the Church's senior leadership (I don't want their names thrown around online). He told us that the Brethren want to be crystal clear that the Church is not in any way anti-gay, but that the Church is obviously pro-traditional marriage. He emphasized that this will never change. I appreciated witnessing the clear, emphatic statement firsthand.

I do think that the Church has doubled down on this, due to circumstances, in a way that makes it extremely difficult (read: almost impossible) to capitulate on this in the future --- despite the confident predictions or the wishes of some. I see this as a "burning the ships on shore" in a way that makes this different from ending the priesthood ban or polygamy.

I agree there is a doubling down on some fronts, but also an opening up on others, as I see signs of a real wrestle happening.  

As for the statements about this "never changing", its quite similar to the pronouncements in the late 19th century prior to the manifesto on polygamy about that doctrine never changing.  The effect this will have is still somewhat hard to predict.  I believe it will have an effect of delaying the change from happening in the short run, but in the long run the church will change on this issue as people are inspired and determine God's will.  Looking back, all those statements about "never change" will be looked at the same way we look at polygamy statements today, it will just be part of the tapestry of the ever changing historical narrative.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would suggest that you have not been part of formulating those policies and can have no idea as to the revelatory process behind them.  See Smac's quote of President Nelson above for an example of that process from one who has been an eyewitness to that process.

I think the mind and the will of the Lord on this matter is clear to the leadership of the church.

I wasn't there, but we shouldn't make the mistake of reading Elder Nelson's experience as representative of the entire quorum.  He's sharing his personal perspective.  Also, as we've had talks recently that warn us from interpreting the opinions of one church leader as the perspective of the church, I believe its premature to say Elder Nelson's perspective = the mind and will of the Lord.  

I quoted J. Reuben Clark earlier in this thread where he says that the testimony of the Holy Ghost will ultimately be made manifest in due time through the body of the members.  Its the Alma 32 revelation method, institutionalized.  

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

President Russell M. Nelson's January 2016 remarks during a worldwide devotional merit attention (emphases added):

Thanks,

-Smac

I was asking for a statement made by President Monson.  I'm not doubting President Nelson, but that's not what I was asking for here.  Just clarifying.

As far as I know, President Monson has remained silent (regarding making any public statements) on this topic for members to hear.  If this is of utmost importance, one would think that the acting,  living Prophet would have spoken to the members, IMO.  I know many looked to him to hear what he had to say.

"....only one man stands as the Lord’s spokesman to the Church and the world, and he is the president of the Church. "

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-2-the-living-prophet-the-president-of-the-church?lang=eng

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Part of why this is so challenging is that many people believe the specific teachings about LGBT individuals is out of harmony with other teachings in the scriptures and teachings by those same church leaders.  When different messages seem to contradict each other, some people appeal to their inner authority and the inspiration they believe is from God.  Consider these quotes from Elder Uchtdorf and J. Rueben Clark.  

Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers…because we think we know the answers already. Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?

  Quote

I say it illustrates a principle – that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.

That second quote by President Clark is very key to this discussion.  I believe in due time that the knowledge that the current teachings on this subject aren't in alignment with God will be manifest.   This is how I see the church operating on subjects in the past that have changed, and this is how I see the LGBT issue playing out in the future.  Not sure how long it will take, but I have hope that it will happen in my lifetime.  

I think it is that very inspiration that all members are entitled to that has moved so many members of the church to support gay marriage.  The biggest shift in acceptance of gay marriage by any group in the past two years has been within the membership of the Mormon church.  If I remember the statics from the poll, it moved in favor of gay marriage by 14 points.  That is an astounding shift in attitude.

Not allowing a certain group to marry and prohibiting their children from being baptized just seems wrong to so many within the church.  Sometimes the actions of church leaders has done more to move people's attitudes towards gay marriage than anything the general public has done.  I believe the recent policy directed at gay families is a very strong example of that.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I fail to see any evidence that encouraging all men to keep the commandments creates an unsafe environment, nor that actually keeping the commandments does either.

I also see no evidence of any wrestling of core values by office in the church

I'm not advocating breaking commandments, I imagine we interpret what is a commandment differently on this issue.  And if you're not seeing the evidence, I suspect its because you're not looking closely enough.  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I think it is that very inspiration that all members are entitled to that has moved so many members of the church to support gay marriage.  The biggest shift in acceptance of gay marriage by any group in the past two years has been within the membership of the Mormon church.  If I remember the statics from the poll, it moved in favor of gay marriage by 14 points.  That is an astounding shift in attitude.

Not allowing a certain group to marry and prohibiting their children from being baptized just seems wrong to so many within the church.  Sometimes the actions of church leaders has done more to move people's attitudes towards gay marriage than anything the general public has done.  I believe the recent policy directed at gay families is a very strong example of that.

Yes, the fact that attitudes are changing so quickly on this subject in the broader culture and in the Mormon culture is one evidence of the wrestle happening on this subject, and this is what gives me hope that things will eventually change.  Its a combination of the science/education people are getting, as well as the contact people have with such amazing LGBT individuals.  Those two pillars will ultimately spell the death of bigotry and discrimination for the majority of the public.  

Like we saw in Charlottesville recently, groups of people with extreme views will likely continue to survive, but they will be a minority and will have lost the power they once had to institutionalize their bigotry.