Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

Of course.  And I'm more apt to trust my moms than I am to trust you.  But that seems rather beside the point 

Edited September 18, 2017 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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?

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.

By one or more individuals. Again, the council system of Church government acts as a check on that. That's why it was given to us.

Elder Ballard told me late last year in an interview, "It's a great system. It's the Lord's system."

 

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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

I turned your earlier comment that your position was in alignment with God, around to say that my position was in alignment with God.  I don't typically proclaim that God is on my side, but I chose to do it on this discussion because appeals to authority are frequently thrown around as evidence in an attempt to trump the opinion of someone else.  I prefer to just talk about opinions and perspectives, but you started with the authority appeal, so I turned it back on you with a similar authority appeal.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course.  And I'm more apt to trust my moms than I am to trust you.  But that seems rather beside the point 

You are taking an advocacy position against the Brethren. I'm saying that in weighing them against you, there is no contest.

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it's very definitely a legitimate source.  However, it will never replace hearing directly from the Prophet and will ever 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 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.  

So, that looks a lot like his name attached to this letter, but this probably won't satisfy you either?

Quote

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/top-church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY 47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200 June 29, 2015

TO: General Authorities; General Auxiliary Presidencies; and the following leaders in the United States and Canada: Area Seventies; Temple, Stake Mission and District Presidencies; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

Enclosed is a statement by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in response to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. The statement also pertains to the situation in Canada. Local leaders are asked to meet with all adults, young men, and young women on either July 5 or July 12 in a setting other than sacrament meeting and read to them the entire statement.

Also included is background material which may be helpful in answering questions that arise.

Stake presidents are asked to see that bishops receive copies of this letter and the enclosures.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas S. Monson

Henry B. Eyring

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION LEGALIZING SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES

June 29, 2015  

Because of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court and similar legal proceedings and legislative actions in a number of countries that have given civil recognition to same‐sex marriage relationships, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints restates and reaffirms the doctrinal foundation of Church teachings on morality, marriage, and the family. As we do, we encourage all to consider these teachings in the context of the Plan of Salvation and our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children.

Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well‐being of society. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27‐28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and vital to eternal salvation. 

A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of same‐sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of church members.

THE COUNCIL OF

THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND

QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER‐DAY SAINTS   Background Material for Bishops and Branch Presidents 

  On the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Same‐sex Marriage

The Church has provided a statement dated June 29, 2015, prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States. The response reaffirms the divinely‐revealed reasons and proper doctrinal context for the Church’s unequivocal position regarding matters of morality, chastity, marriage, and the family. As the response notes, the Church’s teachings on these subjects are grounded in the scriptural declarations of God’s eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children and are framed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” While the statement stands on its own, below is additional information that may be helpful to you in responding to questions that may arise.

For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. For example, it is legal in the United States to perform an abortion on an unborn fetus. However, this practice is not morally acceptable before God. (See Handbook 1, 17.3). The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law, is legal in most nations of the world, but the physical and social toll for doing so is a painful matter of record. So, too, with issues of unchaste sexual behavior, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in its orientation. As the First Presidency has previously said and as this current response affirms, “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society” (First Presidency letter on “Same‐ Sex Marriage,” January 9, 2014).

What is the Church’s Policy on Homosexual Relations?

“Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance. “If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

“While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. “If members feel same‐gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances” (Handbook 2, 21.4.6).

Does the authorization of same‐sex marriage affect my right to religious freedom? 

Our individual right to religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we exercise that right, we must also exercise tolerance and respect toward others’ rights but do so without condoning behavior that goes contrary to the laws of God. “While we strive for the virtue of tolerance, other commendable qualities need not be lost. Tolerance does not require the surrender of noble purpose or of individual identity. The Lord gave instruction to leaders of His restored Church to establish and maintain institutional integrity—‘that the Church may stand independent’ (D&C 78:14)” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Teach Us Tolerance and Love,” April 1994 general conference). How do I respond respectfully to those who consider the Church’s position on this matter unchristian? Our objection to same‐sex marriage is not based on animosity toward anyone, but on our understanding of God’s purposes for His children. For us, the issues are not simply “tolerance” and “equality.” The issues are the nature of marriage and the consequences of redefining a divinely established institution. In addition, redefining marriage in the law can have profound consequences for society, particularly for children. Mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable. “On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should . . . be good listeners and show concern for the sincere belief [of others.] Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. We should be wise in explaining our position and, in doing so, ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” October 2014 general conference).

What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject?

“Members who . . . have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities.

“If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president. “. . . Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency” (Handbook 2, 21.1.24).

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

• Letter: Response To the Supreme Court Decision Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in the United States (PDF)
•  

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

2 hours 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?

 

Once again, I agree that the church leadership agrees on the policy change.  But a policy change is not a revelation from God.  It is a policy that is currently in force like many other policies that the brethren have implemented.  Just this week there was a policy change about single people working in the temple.  I assume church leadership also all agreed on that policy change. 

If every policy is a direct revelation from God himself, how come so many policies come and go.  Is God having a difficult time making up his mind?  Are foreign missions 2.5 years or are they 2 years or are they 18 months or is 19 the age a missionary should be called or is 18 the age a missionary should be called, or should women serve for 2 full years. or should couples be required to serve for 2 years or can they have 6 month missions.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I turned your earlier comment that your position was in alignment with God, around to say that my position was in alignment with God.  I don't typically proclaim that God is on my side, but I chose to do it on this discussion because appeals to authority are frequently thrown around as evidence in an attempt to trump the opinion of someone else.  I prefer to just talk about opinions and perspectives, but you started with the authority appeal, so I turned it back on you with a similar authority appeal.  

This is one instance where appeal to authority has validity. When it comes to pitting yourself against the Brethren, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have authority to receive revelation for the Church as a whole; you do not.

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

By one or more individuals. Again, the council system of Church government acts as a check on that. That's why it was given to us.

Elder Ballard told me late last year in an interview, "It's a great system. It's the Lord's system."

Your loyalty to our leaders is impressive.
I think God honors his servants and guides them.
I also think truth outweighs their opinions, even when united.

So did many of the prophets.
 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, this probably won't satisfy you either?

You seem to be intentionally ignoring what I asked for and avoiding discussing what I was specifically and clearly referring to.  I really do not understand why you won't just admit that what I'm asking for does not exist.  That is the truth here.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

Granted, these are not recorded words or a videotape of President Monson speaking in person in a live situation in front of the entire membership of the Church, but it has to count for some sort of "official" public statement, don't you think?

Quote

• Marriage

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

10 JANUARY 2014 - SALT LAKE CITY

Following recent court actions bearing on same-sex marriage, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles today sent the following instructions and guidance to congregational leaders throughout the United States. Leaders were asked to share this information with their members in appropriate settings.

On December 20, 2013, a federal district judge in Salt Lake City issued an order legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah, striking down century-old state laws and a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman. The United States Supreme Court has put that ruling on hold pending consideration of the issue by an appellate court. During the interval between the district court ruling and the Supreme Court stay, numerous same-sex marriages were performed in Utah. Legal proceedings and legislative action in some other states and countries have given civil recognition to same-sex marriage relationships.

As we face this and other issues of our time, we encourage all to bear in mind our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society. Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

While these matters will continue to evolve, we affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite you to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths of the gospel, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, that looks a lot like his name attached to this letter, but this probably won't satisfy you either?

 

Thanks for posting this.

It's pretty clear that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are unified as a body on this matter.

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Granted, these are not recorded words or a videotape of President Monson speaking in person in a live situation in front of the entire membership of the Church, but it has to count for some sort of "official" public statement, don't you think?

"Some sort of 'official' public statement"?  Of course.

A replacement for actually hearing our Prophet speak though?  No.  I hope we have not come to the point where it's the same.

One does have to wonder why the living Prophet has not spoken to the members regarding something that many believe is an extremely important and relevant topic for so many members of the church.  If you're fine accepting a legal document (or something from the Newsroom) in place of hearing him actually speak about it, that's where you're at and you have a right to feel this way.  However, many others do not.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Your loyalty to our leaders is impressive.
I think God honors his servants and guides them.
I also think truth outweighs their opinions, even when united.

So did many of the prophets.
 

It's a matter of faithfulness to God demonstrated by willingness to receive His word through His chosen servants.

 

[california boy]

44 minutes 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.

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.

 

What happens when the majority of the members of the church support gay marriage.  Are there still safety in numbers?  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is one instance where appeal to authority has validity. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have authority to receive revelation for the Church as a whole; you do not.

Authority just meaning the legal mechanism for who can make official doctrinal statements for the Church as a whole and who can implement changes in policy and procedure.  It doesn't automatically mean that those policies and doctrines are in alignment with God.  The logical fallacy that is happening is that someone is assuming that their position aligns with God because they believe it also aligns with the church.  

This isn't necessarily the case, even JLHPROF is trying to make that point in this thread.  God's will has never been completely discernible by mortals (see Isaiah 55).  Assuming that your position is in complete harmony with a statement the church makes, does not mean its in harmony with God.  It might also not be in harmony with gospel principles.  Lots of room for nuance and differing interpretations.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Some sort of 'official' public statement"?  Of course.

A replacement for actually hearing our Prophet speak though?  No.  I hope we have not come to the point where it's the same.

I hope we haven't come to the point where we are so legalistic, pharisaical, fundamentalist, petty, what-have-you, that we resist inspired direction from prophets and apostles because of the mode in which it is conveyed to us.

 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

What happens when the majority of the members of the church support gay marriage.  Are there still safety in numbers?  

According to that earlier quote I posted by J. Reuben Clark, that is when the Holy Ghost will have manifest his will on the matter, when "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."

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hope we haven't come to the point where we are so legalistic, pharisaical, fundamentalist, petty, what-have-you, that we resist inspired direction from prophets and apostles because of the mode in which it is conveyed to us.

 

Yeah, it's not like the Prophet ever has a captive audience composed of the members of the church.  Oh wait....

For whatever reasons, President Monson has remained silent as far as actually publicly speaking to the members on same-sex marriage.  I'm not sure why you and Bernard have such an issue with just acknowledging that.  Unless you have an actual quote specifically from him....do you?  If not, let's just agree that he has not publicly spoken about same-sex marriage to the members of the church.

And then let's move on....(unless you or someone else wants to discuss why they think he has not spoken about it publicly)....

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You seem to be intentionally ignoring what I asked for and avoiding discussing what I was specifically and clearly referring to.  I really do not understand why you won't just admit that what I'm asking for does not exist.  That is the truth here.

I was responding to this that you asked...

Quote

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.)? ......Do you know if there is anything from over the pulpit that members would have heard, do you know?   A public statement?

Both letters and other sources I have provided were specifc statements and the letters were read over the pulpit to all Church members by specific instructions of President Monson including the dates they were to read. They are also published to the world in official Church press releases and news sources. Seems to me these specifically and clearly refer to and refute your claim that Pres Monson has been publicly silent on the issue of gay marriage. What more do you want?

Edited September 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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?  

 

You said:

Quote

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.

Who are they voicing the opinion to if it's not the public? Are thy grumbling in little enclaves in the hall or, even worse, occupying administrative council meetings doing it?

And saying they are not "anxious to enforce it' sounds to me like they are declining to do so and thus shirking the duty, unless the matter of enforcement just hasn't come up yet.

 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for posting this.

It's pretty clear that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are unified as a body on this matter.

 

Until they're not.

• August 17, 1949 
  The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." 
  President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." 
  The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. 
  The First Presidency

[california boy]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.

I have gone through a very similar process as you have.  I too tried to align my beliefs with the brethren, even when I thought they were wrong.  When church leaders made promises to me in the name of God that proved to be false is when I realized that I should start trusting more in God and less in what position someone held in church leadership.  Apostles don't always speak for God even when they claim their opinions come from revelation.  When their opinion contradicts basic gospel principles that Christ taught, I remind myself of the trust that I once had in church leaders that was broken by their errors in judgement.

[Avatar4321]

I've noticed that there are a number of people who say they don't believe same sex marriage is sinful. Did i miss the revelation that was read in conference stating such? If not, why should we accept that God has suddenly changed His mind when He hasn't said anything about now allowing it?

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was responding to this that you asked...

Please fix what you quoted above as it's not from me (not all of it that attributed to me as you added your own words, so please remove those from my quote).

Here is what I actually stated:

Quote

 

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

 

 

I then asked for any quotes from President Monson that he has stated regarding same-sex marriage.  I'm not asking for a letter, a legal document or a newsroom release.  I thought that was pretty clear.

  

 

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." 

That day came in 1979, thanks be to God. That was almost 40 years ago, if my math is right.