Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

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:

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.

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

I don't hear much discussion about abandoning the Law of Chastity.  What I am hearing is that a married gay couple may not be breaking the law of chastity at all.  God has always approved of sex within a legally and lawfully marriage.  Some members look at a gay marriage as not being a legal and lawful marriage.  Others are questioning why isn't their marriage as valid as anyone else.  Just because they are attracted to the same sex does not mean that God automatically forbids their marriage.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was asking for a statement made by President Monson.  

A statement by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles about a collective experience presided over by President Monson, acting in his capacity as presiding high priest, is fairly authoritative.

What's next, are you going to insist on a statement by President Monson that his notarized?  Handwritten by him?  Using his own blood?

If you are looking for an authoritative statement about the policy change, you have it.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not doubting President Nelson, but that's not what I was asking for here.  Just clarifying.

If you do not doubt President Nelson, than what you have been provided is sufficiently authoritative.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As far as I know, President Monson has remained silent

That is plainly not true.  President Monson has not "remained silent" per the recitation of events by President Monson, the veracity of which recitation you have just said you do not doubt.

Again, from President Nelson:

Quote

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.

Pres. Nelson speaks of having "spiritual confirmation" of what President Monson "declare{d}" regarding "the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord."

Not only that, Pres. Nelson states that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were present at this declaration, that they "felt a spiritual confirmation" of it, and that they "sustain{ed}" what President Monson had "declare{d}."

So President Monson has clearly not "remained silent."

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

(regarding making any public statements) on this topic for members to hear.  

Unless you are suggesting that President Nelson, the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, went rogue, your characterization of this matter is simply inaccurate.

President Nelson was explicitly speaking on behalf of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If this is of utmost importance, one would think that the acting,  living Prophet would have spoken to the members, IMO.  

I'm not sure the November 2015 policy change "is of the utmost importance."

I am also fairly comfortable with the proposition that remarks given by the President of The Quorum of the Twelve, acting in his official capacity, on behalf of The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and during a worldwide devotional broadcast literally around the world, and which remarks include a recitation of events personally experienced by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, are a pretty big deal.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know many looked to him to hear what he had to say.

"What he had to say" has been known since at least January 2016.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"....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

Nobody doubts or questions that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

If Elder Nelson's account is accurate and how others regarded that same meeting, I think it is the only revelation ever received by God that only one member of the quorum of the 12 has ever publicly supported it.  Can you think of any other example where that has happened?  I know that the lifting of the priesthood ban was declared and supported in a MUCH MORE public way by all of the brethren.

Edited September 18, 2017 by california boy

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A statement by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles about a collective experience presided over by President Monson, acting in his capacity as presiding high priest, is fairly authoritative.

What's next, are you going to insist on a statement by President Monson that his notarized?  Handwritten by him?  Using his own blood?

If you are looking for an authoritative statement about the policy change, you have it.

If you do not doubt President Nelson, than what you have been provided is sufficiently authoritative.

That is plainly not true.  President Monson has not "remained silent" per the recitation of events by President Monson, the veracity of which recitation you have just said you do not doubt.

Again, from President Nelson:

Once again, not what I was asking for.  

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"What he had to say" has been known since at least January 2016.

Great, can you supply a link to that quote by him?  I missed it if President Monson did specifically speak publicly to the members regarding same-sex marriage.  

[Avatar4321]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

the prophets teach us to follow the commandments and come to Christ. You are claiming this somehow creates an unsafe environment for those who have same sex attraction. Logically then the safe environment would be not coming to Christ or keeping the commandments. So I don't see how you can logically claim that you aren't encouraging people to break the commandments.

moreover, I've seen no evidence because as of now, I know of no one who has even attempted to show that the rate of suicide among those with SSA is significantly higher than the rate outside the church.

without a significant difference I rates it would be incredibly short sighted to conclude that its the exhortation and standards of the Church creating this environment. Much more likely that there is a factor in the world leading to more suicides.

if you know of any studies showing a difference in rates in all ears. But everything I've seen indicates that suicide rates are just as high out of the church if not higher

[stemelbow]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

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.

Well keep Elder McConkie's words in mind:

"Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

the oops-we-were-proclaiming-our-ideas-trying-to-pass-them-off-as-God's-eternal-truth idea to reemerge.  It really was easy, if you think about it, for the Church to make that decision which could have been extremely difficult due to the efforts of the leaders then and before.  It'll take an announced revelation, and someone to state that we need to forget what you used to believe was revelation from God.  The leaders made crucial mistakes.  They honestly won't have to go that far.  They'll just have to say, hey, get in line.  Forget about the past.  We are led by revelation and this is revelation.  Stop questioning this stuff. 

Sounds easy. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't hear much discussion about abandoning the Law of Chastity.  

We're talking about  whether the Church will reverse itself on whether homosexual behavior violates the Law of Chastity.

Gay marriage is a subordinate issue, really.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I am hearing is that a married gay couple may not be breaking the law of chastity at all.  

No General Authority has said this.  At all.  Or even hinted that it might be the case.  Or even hinted that the Church's stance regarding same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage might change in the future.

We can trade speculation and wishful thinking all day long.  But at present there is no legitimate or reasoned argument that the LDS Church's teachings have changed or will change regarding homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

God has always approved of sex within a legally and lawfully marriage.  

Yes, with the caveat being that God's definition of marriage, not man's, is determinative.

Hence we have a condemnation of Solomon in D&C 132:38 and Jacob 2:24.

Polygamy is legal in 58 out of the nearly 200 sovereign states in the world.  And yet nobody suggests that Latter-day Saints are at liberty to move to one of those 58 states, enter into a "legal and lawful {polygamous} marriage," and then expect to remain in good fellowship in the Church.  Nobody.  Because it is the Church's doctrines and teachings, not the laws of the land, that govern this issue.

So if we were talking about a marriage is "legal and lawful" and congruent with the teachings of the Church, you would have a point.  But we aren't, so you don't.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Some members look at a gay marriage as not being a legal and lawful marriage.  

How "some members look" at the issue is not determinative.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Others are questioning why isn't their marriage as valid as anyone else.  

C'mon.  The answer is already readily available out there, and has been so for years.  Let's not feign confusion at what the LDS Church teaches on this subject.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just because they are attracted to the same sex does not mean that God automatically forbids their marriage.

I am confused.  You are speaking as if the LDS paradigm on this issue is unknown or unclear.  It's not.

You are speaking as if we don't know what LDS prophets and apostles have said, many times over, regarding the LDS Church not recognizing same-sex marriage.  

In the LDS paradigm, marriage is defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.  At certain times, God has authorized "plural" marriages, meaning that one man can be married to more than one woman.  But these are still one-man-one-woman arrangements (that is, polygamist wives had no "marital" relationship with each other, only with the husband).  At present, however, plural marriages are forbidden and hence not recognized by the LDS Church, even if such marriages are legal in some parts of the world.

So I suppose individual Latter-day Saints can theorize that the entirety of the general leadership of the Church is and has been utterly wrong on the issue of homosexual behavior and, more recently, on same-sex marriage.  But such speculation isn't worth much.  There is no substance to it.  No reasoning (or not very much).  Just special pleading.  Pleading that emotions and feelings are determinative, not prophetic/revelatory guidance.

Yes, I acknowledge that some members feel this way.  I also acknowledge that these folks may have some strong feelings on the subject.  But strong feelings are not evidence or reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, not what I was asking for.  

It's what we've got, though.  And it's very, very authoritative.  Your ad hoc, No-True-Scotsman-Fallacy-esque rejection/dismissal of it is not reasonable.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Great, can you supply a link to that quote by him?  

Why would I do that?  Even if I could, you could reject it on the same spurious grounds as you are using to ignore Pres. Nelson's remarks.

"Oh, you provided a link to a statement on LDS.org.  That's not what I was asking for.  I want something handwritten by President Monson.  By his own hand.  And I also want it notarized.  And I want a recorded message of Pres. Monson put on YouTube of him reading his statement out loud.  And I want at least five witnesses from the media to be present at the recording so they can confirm that the recording was not altered."

The foregoing statement is unreasonable and absurd.  But then, so is ignoring Pres. Nelson's remarks and insisting on something else.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

President Nelson:

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.

There's so much to unpack in this.  I like to break it down thinking about when things change in the future. 

So they are mistaken.  Let's consider.  What does it mean for the "Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively?  Perhaps it means that they felt good that the LORD was on their side, as they made their decisions.  And President Monson agreed with the decisions made by all the others.

"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."

Countless permutations?  Of course we have to read that as unfettered hyperbole, since they are not still considering but have settled and did consider.  But, we can obviously ascertain that there considerations were limited to their imaginations.  To their level of bias, and personal investments.  Perhaps what was not considered was how wrong they truly were in their assumptions or premises. 

"  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."

A lot of feelings, a lot perhaps of people feeling they have a pretty good grasp on how it's supposed to be, I'd imagine.  It sounds very similar to the type of struggle, perhaps, the type of consideration that went into the ban and then it's subsequent lifting.  It took time, it took obviously, the world to get things right before it became a consideration for Church leaders.  This sounds similar in that vain.  I guess we'll see--well some of us.  Some of us might be long gone.   

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

If Elder Nelson's account is accurate and how others regarded that same meeting,

Evidence, please, that the "if" in the foregoing statement is justified.

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think it is the only revelation ever received by God that only one member of the quorum of the 12 has ever publicly supported it.

Elder Christofferson has also spoken about this issue.  At length.

If this were a good faith statement and characterization of the current state of affairs, I would respond further.  But it's not, so I won't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

In a way it would be nice if this is how the Church functioned.  Things would be much more clear.  But the Church simply does not go by this notion at all. 

It's either, the Lord has nothing to really say to us anymore.

or

Every general leader is the Lord's spokesperson to the world. 

if the latter, then the Lord seems to have very mundane, surface level things to say to us and the world (be nice to each other, and serve your neighbor)

if the former then I guess sad to an extent, but also, ok.  It's more on us then we wanted to pretend. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Evidence, please, that the "if" in the foregoing statement is justified.

it's justified by the very rule of possibility.  There's no need to take offense to considering possibility, no? 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Christofferson has also spoken about this issue.  At length.

If this were a good faith statement and characterization of the current state of affairs, I would respond further.  But it's not, so I won't.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's what we've got, though. 

I agree.  You can supply no quotes  We have no statement directly from President Monson regarding same-sex marriage or this recent policy.

And yet, we have been told:

Quote

 

The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

In section 132, verse 7, of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the Prophet—the President—and says: “There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.”

 

If the teachings regarding same-sex marriage are of such great importance in this modern day, why hasn't the living Prophet spoken to the members about his beliefs, teachings and feelings regarding it?

That is the point I'm making.

But we can move on....we seem to agree at least on the fact that he personally has not make a public statement to the members regarding same-sex marriage or the policy.  Why he hasn't could be up for discussion, I guess....

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

I'm reminded of that talk by Boyd K. Packer called "The Unwritten Order of Things." Always struck me that, after that talk, the unwritten order was now the written order.

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  You can supply no quotes  We have no statement directly from President Monson regarding same-sex marriage or this recent policy.

And yet, we have been told:

If the teachings regarding same-sex marriage are of such great importance in this modern day, why hasn't the living Prophet spoken to the members about his beliefs, teachings and feelings regarding it?

That is the point I'm making.

But we can move on....we seem to agree at least on the fact that he personally has not make a public statement to the members regarding same-sex marriage or the policy.  Why he hasn't could be up for discussion, I guess....

You are ignoring the documents in the Official Communication Library which you say you are aware of.  Just because President Monson has not made a public pronouncement on these matters does not mean that he does not support statements with his signature on them. 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You are ignoring the documents in the Official Communication Library which you say you are aware of.  

Those are not available to all members (and one of them does not address same-sex marriage, iirc).  So, I'm ignoring nothing here.  However, you seem to not be willing to acknowledge or are ignoring what I was asking for which is a public statement to the members spoken by President Monson (regarding same-sex marriage).

But time to move on as it seems we agree there is none.

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If Elder Nelson's account is accurate and how others regarded that same meeting, I think it is the only revelation ever received by God that only one member of the quorum of the 12 has ever publicly supported it.  Can you think of any other example where that has happened?  I know that the lifting of the priesthood ban was declared and supported in a MUCH MORE public way by all of the brethren.

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If Elder Nelson's account is accurate and how others regarded that same meeting, I think it is the only revelation ever received by God that only one member of the quorum of the 12 has ever publicly supported it.  Can you think of any other example where that has happened?  I know that the lifting of the priesthood ban was declared and supported in a MUCH MORE public way by all of the brethren.

policy changes require the Unanimous support of the first presidency and Twelve. How on earth can you conclude they aren't publicly on record supporting it if it never would have happened without their support?

 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

 

policy changes require the Unanimous support of the first presidency and Twelve. How on earth can you conclude they aren't publicly on record supporting it if it never would have happened without their support?

 

Well, we can question unanimous to an extent.  Don't you think if one person is a hold out after their discussing it, that they could move forward?  I think they could.  The one outlier would just have to give up his position, I'd think. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

 I missed it if President Monson did specifically speak publicly to the members regarding same-sex marriage.  

Quote

California and Same-Sex Marriage

COMMENTARY

30 JUNE 2008 - SALT LAKE CITY

The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families  

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage. A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause. We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/california-and-same-sex-marriage

The letter and President Monson even got the attention of the LA Times. Lots of public exposure here.

 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/now-the-mormon.html

Quote

Its involvement in the California same-sex marriage debate this year began with a letter from church President Thomas S. Monson asking California Mormons to give their time and money to pass Proposition 8. Monson's letter has been read repeatedly in Mormon churches, and opponents of the forthcoming initiative have credited LDS members with giving the Yes on 8 camp an edge in donations and volunteers.

This seems to be within the realm of a public declaration, signed by the First Presidency, asked to be read to members, shared on a public information site, and picked up by a major newspaper. Is a letter as good as a public speech?

Edited September 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This seems to be within the realm of a public declaration, signed by the First Presidency, asked to be read to members, and shared on a public information site. Is a letter as good as a public speech?

Not in my opinion (from the Mormon newsroom?  That's equal to hearing the Prophet personally speak to the members?).  I know that many members hoped to actually hear from the Prophet regarding this topic since it does seem important to the leaders.  As I've quoted, he alone is to speak for the Lord and members wanted to hear from him on a topic that many are struggling with and many have friends or family members who are gay.  It's not that President Monson did not have opportunity to speak to the members.  

That could be discussed, I guess (why he has not spoken about it to the members)....

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe committed relationships between LGBT individuals is sinful behavior, rather I believe the sinful behavior is prejudice towards LGBT individuals including the church's current policies and teachings that are out of alignment with the will of God on this subject.  

Noted and understood, but you must recognize that it is you, not ksfisher, who is out of harmony with the Savior's Church on this matter, and thus, we are not bound by your notion of what is "out of alignment with the will of God."

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

the prophets teach us to follow the commandments and come to Christ. You are claiming this somehow creates an unsafe environment for those who have same sex attraction. Logically then the safe environment would be not coming to Christ or keeping the commandments. So I don't see how you can logically claim that you aren't encouraging people to break the commandments.

I don't believe that same sex relationships are breaking the commandments.  Also, what you're failing to see is how unsafe it is for someone in the LGBT community to be a part of tribe that treats them like second class sinners.  If you ever talk to a parent of an LGBT individual, which I suggest you do in order to try and understand this topic better, ask that parent if they feel like the LDS church is a safe place for their child today with the current teachings and stigmas that exist in Mormon culture.  

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

moreover, I've seen no evidence because as of now, I know of no one who has even attempted to show that the rate of suicide among those with SSA is significantly higher than the rate outside the church.

without a significant difference I rates it would be incredibly short sighted to conclude that its the exhortation and standards of the Church creating this environment. Much more likely that there is a factor in the world leading to more suicides.

if you know of any studies showing a difference in rates in all ears. But everything I've seen indicates that suicide rates are just as high out of the church if not higher

Its not that there's no evidence, its that the evidence is difficult to point directly at the church because those numbers aren't recorded in the statistics.  But looking at the Utah trends, and taking into account other information, smart people can put the pieces together.  The church even has seen this is an issue, and is responding in some ways, look at the newsroom statement and the endorsement of LoveLoud and other things the church has done recently.  They aren't doing these things because this is a non-issue, it is an issue, and everyone knows it.  If you need more evidence, maybe you should go directly to the church leaders because they know its an issue, but apparently you aren't convinced yet, maybe they can convince you.  

http://rationalfaiths.com/utahs-escalating-suicide-crisis-lds-lgbtq-despair/

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Noted and understood, but you must recognize that it is you, not ksfisher, who is out of harmony with the Savior's Church on this matter, and thus, we are not bound by your notion of what is "out of alignment with the will of God."

Is it ever possible for the "Savior's Church" to be out "out of alignment with the will of God"?

Not talking about a full blown apostasy here.  Just asking Scott, does the Church have the ability and agency to ever make a decision or policy that goes against the will of God?
Many leaders have indicated that it is at least possible for the Church to take a wrong turn occasionally.  Some stories in Church history could be seen as going against God's will for a while, even if they were later course-corrected.

 

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Noted and understood, but you must recognize that it is you, not ksfisher, who is out of harmony with the Savior's Church on this matter, and thus, we are not bound by your notion of what is "out of alignment with the will of God."

 

No binding here, I believe in agency to choose what you find aligns best with your conscience.  I'm not anyone's judge. I just find it odd that people are so willing to proclaim they are on God's side on this issue and when I turn that around on them it causes quite the shock to some sensibilities.

Humility is a good attribute to strive for, we should all take a moment to consider where we might be wrong on a number of issues, as I see it, that is also a principle of the gospel.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think many feel that way (that this policy did not come from God, but from man).  Many hope it will be changed in the future as well.  I've seen a great many active members voice this opinion (including my Bishop and other ward and stake leaders).  I see very few anxious to enforce it as well.

If your bishop and other ward and stake leaders are publicly and vocally speaking in opposition to the general Church leaders, they are out of line and perhaps should be released.

And if they are refusing to enforce Church policies, they are shirking their duty.