Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, ALarson said:

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)....

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/

"The official resource for news media, opinion leaders and the public. But not for members of the LDS Church. They must go to Conference to hear it."

oh well.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

oh well.

I gave my opinion and answered your question.  I know of many who feel as I do too.  I don't expect everyone to agree.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

Well, neither one of your "ifs" have happened.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

As a matter of faith and religious belief, I trust the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for guidance, even as I seek God in prayer and listen for the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit.

There's nothing new or novel about that. It is how I was raised. It is a tenet of our faith.

On the other hand, the idea that one should vocally and publicly oppose that united voice is alien to me and is not a part of the faith I have embraced.

And the willingness to be guided by the voice of God and/or His servants is, to me, the essence of humility.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/

"The official resource news media, opinion leaders and the public. But not for members of the LDS Church. They must go to Conference to hear it."

Where is that quote from?  

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

 

No, I don't believe that would ever happen.

The council system by which the Church is governed acts as a check on the imperfections of fallible, individual leaders.

 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I don't believe that would ever happen.

The council system by which the Church is governed acts as a check on the imperfections of fallible, individual leaders.

 

So the leaders individually are fallible.
The leaders when united in opinion are infallible.

Got it.
Don't agree.
The leaders when led by the spirit or by revelation are infallible. 
A group of men when operating under their own minds are just as fallible as a single man is.
A single man led by revelation is just as infallible as a group of men led by revelation.

Revelation, not numbers, makes the difference.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I don't believe that would ever happen.

The council system by which the Church is governed acts as a check on the imperfections of fallible, individual leaders.

 

So, on any given issue only one or a few can be wrong at one time, but it's impossible for all of them to be wrong together?  yet they all agree?  Ok.

I'm not sure you can possibly know what will ever happen or not.  How can you be so sure? 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

So the leaders individually are fallible.
The leaders when united in opinion are infallible.

Got it.
Don't agree.
The leaders when led by the spirit or by revelation are infallible. 
A group of men when operating under their own minds are just as fallible as a single man is.
A single man led by revelation is just as infallible as a group of men led by revelation.

Revelation, not numbers, makes the difference.

Well put, JLHPROF. 

Sorry I butted in, but you beat me to the response anyway.  Plus, yours was better. 

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where is that quote from?  

It's the banner of the Mormon Newsroom website with a slight alteration to suit your argument.

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I gave my opinion and answered your question.  I know of many who feel as I do too.  I don't expect everyone to agree.

Many feel that the Mormon Newsroom is not a legitimate source of Church policy and belief, or that President Monson has not spoken about this issue? Or that he needs to address it more directly to all Church members rather than through a publicly released letter to members and leaders in California? Not sure what you mean.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So the leaders individually are fallible.
The leaders when united in opinion are infallible.

Got it.
Don't agree.
The leaders when led by the spirit or by revelation are infallible. 
A group of men when operating under their own minds are just as fallible as a single man is.
A single man led by revelation is just as infallible as a group of men led by revelation.

Revelation, not numbers, makes the difference.

There is safety in numbers.

Quote

The leaders when united in opinion are infallible.

More like the leaders when united are more apt to be subject to revelation that corrects one or more of their number who gets off the rails due to his personal fallibility.

Quote

Revelation, not numbers, makes the difference.

It comes down to a matter of whom one trusts. I'm more apt to trust the leadership of the Church as a body than I am somebody on an internet message board who seems to be in the grip of a spirit of faultfinding.

 

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

What do you mean by "turn that around on them"?

Edited September 18, 2017 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So, on any given issue only one or a few can be wrong at one time, but it's impossible for all of them to be wrong together?  yet they all agree?  Ok.

I'm not sure you can possibly know what will ever happen or not.  How can you be so sure? 

Through years of observation and experience, I'm more apt to trust them as a body than I am to trust you.

 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's the banner of the Mormon Newsroom website with a slight alteration to suit your argument.

Then don't put it in quotes (unless it's something I or someone else has stated here and then attribute it to whoever stated it).  

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, neither one of your "ifs" have happened.  

You just contradicted yourself.

 

[california boy]

1 hour 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?

 

I am not questioning the fact that the policy change was agreed to by all involved.  I am just suspicious in calling such a policy change a revelation from God when only one apostle felt it was such a revelation.  Last revelation from God claimed by the prophet of the church made headlines not only in Utah but around the United States.  It was talked about in conference and numerous apostles commented on their feelings on that revelation.  

Elder Nelson made the comment at a youth fireside for heavens sake, not even a general conference address, though there have been many opportunities to do so since his fireside comment.  Is this now how church members can expect to hear announcements of a seminal revelation from God Himself?  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Then don't put it in quotes (unless it's something I or someone else has stated here and you attribute it to whoever stated it).  

He gave a link to what he was quoting. I could easily see what he was doing when I clicked on the link.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is safety in numbers.

More like the leaders when united are more apt to be subject to revelation that corrects one or more of their number who gets off the rails due to his personal fallibility.

In the mouth of two or more witnesses?  Is that the gospel principle you are applying here?

I can agree with that principle.  But it doesn't lead to the level of infallibility you are suggesting.  And while I agree on multiple witnesses being stronger, I don't think I know of any scripture that states larger numbers of men are more likely to get revelation than one.

Oddly enough, the only member of the Qof12 and FP who was willing to stand against Brigham on Adam-God was Orson Pratt.
Apparently all the other members shared Brigham's revelation on the subject?

Quote

It comes down to a matter of whom one trusts. I'm more apt to trust the leadership of the Church as a body than I am somebody on an internet message board who seems to be in the grip of a spirit of faultfinding.

As am I.  Again, I am not suggesting apostasy here.  But I am also willing to agree with those prophets that led the Church who seemed to consider it entirely possible that an error might be made.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Many feel that the Mormon Newsroom is not a legitimate source of Church policy and belief, or that President Monson has not spoken about this issue? 

I think it's very definitely a legitimate source.  However, it will never replace hearing directly from the Prophet and will never mean the same to members as actually hearing the words spoken by our Prophet.   He has chosen to stay silent regarding speaking publicly about same-sex marriage.  Many members wonder why that is if it's such an important latter day topic.  I can't change that or the desire some members have to hear from him on this.  

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I was not speaking in terms of the current official church stand on gay marriage at the present time.  The church has been very clear on what it's current policy towards gay marriage is.  Perhaps it will never change.  But perhaps you can also see why some members do not see gay marriage as a violation of the law of chastity.  

The fact that it is a growing number makes one wonder what the church could do to stop this trend among members which is as you clearly point out against church policy.  What must be more troublesome is when those members feel that it is the Holy Ghost that is helping them change their minds about this issue.  

 

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You just contradicted yourself.

 

Not at all.  Where have I stated that either my bishop or stake leaders have spoken publicly "in opposition to the general church leaders or "refused" to enforce the new policy?  

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He gave a link to what he was quoting. I could easily see what he was doing when I clicked on the link.

 

He's not supposed to put things in quotes if it is not an actual quote.  

I actually remember Calm posting recently that doing this is against board rules.

The first sentence is fine as it is the actual quote.   The other sentences he added himself.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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

I believe Elder Christofferson referred to the change as a policy change, not a revelation from God.  You can correct me if I am wrong on that.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As a matter of faith and religious belief, I trust the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for guidance, even as I seek God in prayer and listen for the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit.

There's nothing new or novel about that. It is how I was raised. It is a tenet of our faith.

One the other hand, the idea that one should vocally and publicly oppose that united voice is alien to me and is not a part of the faith I have embraced.

And the willingness to be guided by the voice of God and/or His servants is, to me, the essence of humility.

I can completely understand what you're saying as it was how I practiced Mormonism for most of my life.  But I have changed now, and while I can respect the way you align your position with church leaders and the level of trust you give to what they say, I have a different way of orienting towards church leaders and external authority today.  Let me try to elucidate where I see the difference. 

My old paradigm was very similar to yours.  It ultimately came down to trusting external authority and loyalty to that external authority of church leaders.  I trusted that whenever I might have a different opinion, that it must be due to my not understanding the issue sufficiently and I would defer to church leaders and their collective position on the issue.  It was ultimately a matter of prioritization.  If the church had a position on an issue, that would take precedence, and my personal opinion on the issue I would defer to the church's wisdom whenever I may have disagreed.  I would then spend my time praying and trying to better align with the church's positions because of my faith that the leader's position was more enlightened than any personal position I could come up with.  

Today, my perspective is different.  I have tried to determine the foundational principles of what I consider core issues in the gospel. These principles are guides for how I orient everything that I hear from church leaders and everything I read in the scriptures.  These foundational principles are values that are broad in definition, but not so specific as to guide me directly on every unique situation that occurs.  Through these principles I try to judge every specific application and teaching.  If specific teachings seem to conflict with the core principles,  I research, pray, and use my best judgment to try and reconcile, but if there is no reconciliation possible then I reject the teaching.  The principles of the gospel take precedence for me.  I consider the leaders to be good people who are trying their best, but who are flawed humans like the rest of us, and I don't think they are more likely to be correct than myself, so I no longer defer to their teachings when in doubt.