Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You said:

Who are they voicing the opinion to if it's not the public?

To me in private. I serve in the Bishopric.  I've never stated that anything was announced or discussed publicly by my leaders.  So no, I did not contradict myself above.

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are thy grumbling in little enclaves in the hall or, even worse, occupying administrative council meetings doing it?

Horrors   But sorry to disappoint you....the answer is no.

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I'd imagine that many local leaders are not seeking out couples or are not "anxious to enforce" the new policy.  But you stated that I said they had "refused" to enforce it.  That's different and is not true and has not happened.

So once again, I did not contradict myself.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

43 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 would refer you, or anyone else who is interested, to this 2015 FairMormon Conference speech by Cassandra Hedelius about "Mormon Gnosticism."

It's primarily about "preppers" in the Church, but it applies in a general sense to all who would emphasize personal spiritual effort while discounting the role of the Church in spiritual progression. The whole thing is good, but here's an excerpt:
 

Quote

 

There is an interesting central tension in our faith. On the one hand, we believe that everyone can—and should—receive personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. On the other hand, God calls prophets to receive essential revelations that are binding on each of us church members. On the other one hand, Christ said many times to ask, seek, and knock, and promised He will answer. On the other other hand, Christ said that answers come in His own time, not automatically like putting a quarter in a pop machine. On the other other one hand, He wants us to come unto him with all our hearts, which is intensely personal and can be done without help or participation from anyone else. On the other other other hand, Christ commands us to receive ordinances which by definition require another ordained person to administer them to us, leaving us helpless if no such person is available. To boil it down: there’s a tension between religion as practiced on an individual level, and the many ways access to religion is mediated through the church organization.

Most church members resolve this tension without too much trouble—guidance from prophets and personal revelation work together to confirm one another and show a harmonious whole picture of a divine plan for our lives. We seek additional revelatory knowledge, but accept that it may take years of preparation and waiting before we receive answers, and that some answers never come in this life. We seek spiritual gifts, but know not to seek for signs. We recognize that ordinances, because they are performed by the power of properly-authorized priesthood, are like vehicles that carry us more quickly and powerfully to Christ than we could manage on our own.

And yet the church is losing good members who are not successfully resolving this tension. They embrace a particular set of assumptions and interpretations that I’m going to call, for our purposes today, “gnosticism.” People who believe in “gnosticism” are “gnostics.” In our case, Mormon gnostics.

The religious history nerds among us (you know who you are) will recognize that I’m using “gnostic” in a very loose, adaptive way, not a historically rigorous way. So if you’re inclined to start debating about the demiurge and manicheanism and whatnot, just back that train up. For today’s purposes, Mormon “gnosticism” is just the belief that esoteric knowledge–hidden, deep doctrine–is necessary for fulfilling our spiritual potential, and that seeking for it is more spiritually advanced.

“But,” you may respond, “aren’t all Mormons gnostics? We believe we have truths that were lost to the rest of Christianity, and that you have to receive temple covenants that are only administered to those who prove worthy.” Good point, Imaginary Questioner. Let me explain more of what makes Mormon Gnosticism distinct from mainstream Mormon belief, and problematic.

Mormon gnostic thought emphasizes all the one hands, and downplays all of the other hands: it emphasizes that each individual can get revelation, and downplays the role of prophets. It emphasizes that Christ tells us to ask and knock and promises to reveal knowledge and mysteries, but downplays the occasions when seekers were told “not yet” or even “stop asking that.” Gnostics emphasize the importance of individual spiritual effort and purity, but argue around the need for priesthood authority administered by the church’s organization.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Sure, but not the point.

In 1949 the First Presidency issued a definitive official statement on behalf of the Church that the negro ban started in premortality.
The Church today disavows that statement.

Apparently, a united official statement is just as apt to be wrong and any other.

Edited September 18, 2017 by JLHPROF

[strappinglad]

I suspect that President Monson will not be making many broad public statements on topics anymore, and if he is able to make a fervent public appearance and speech in the future it would behoove us to pay close attention.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Apparently, a united official statement is just as apt to be wrong and any other.

True.  Also, that a public appearance that all are in agreement, does not mean that is the case.  

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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:

I then asked for any quotes from President Monson.  I'm not asking for a letter, a legal document or newsroom release.  I thought that was pretty clear.

 

I'm not sure what the problem is. Those are direct unaltered quotes with no added words by me from ALarson on page 11 of this thread. Is there another ALarson in this discussion? 

A letter signed by President Monson on official First Presidency letterhead sent to all local leaders with instructions to read it to all members 12 and older on a specific date is a quote from him. It's as officially a quote as anything can be and it definitively answers and refutes your claim. It would reach far more members worldwide than a statement in General Conference. Specifically releasing it to news sources adds weight to its validity and authority. And it happened three times. Asked for and provided. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not sure what the problem is. Those are direct unaltered quotes with no added words by me from ALarson on page 11 of this thread. Is there another ALarson in this discussion? 

Aletter signed by President Monson on official First Presidency letterhead sent to all local leaders with instructions to read it to all members 12 and older on a specific date is a quote from him. It's as officially a quote as anything can be bad it answers and refutes your claim. It would reach far more members worldwide than a statement in General Conference. Specifically releasing it to news sources adds weight to its validity and authority. And it happened twice. Asked for and provided. 

It is a statement on official policy of the church concerning gay marriage.  I think everyone knows what that policy is.  It is not a statement of revelation from God.  Do you see the difference or do you think they are the same thing?

[Scott Lloyd]

39 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?  

If that happens, they will each and every one be out of harmony with the revealed word of God in that respect and, worst-case scenario, find themselves on the outside of the Church, either by their own volition or by disciplinary council.

The Church of Jesus Christ has never been governed by popular vote, and it won't be happening on this issue.

My "safety-in-numbers" expression pertains to ordained servants of God, not ark steadiers and fautfinders.

 

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are taking an advocacy position against the Brethren.

No im not.  I question your infallibility reasoning--your attempt to argue they as a group can't possibly be wrong.  

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that in weighing them against you, there is no contest.

I didn't know we had a contest going.  

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not sure what the problem is. Those are direct unaltered quotes with no added words by me from ALarson on page 11 of this thread. Is there another ALarson in this discussion? 

They are not direct, unaltered quotes.  You may have cut and pasted a few of them together....but you did alter them.  I posted my actual quote.

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A letter signed by President Monson on official First Presidency letterhead sent to all local leaders with instructions to read it to all members 12 and older on a specific date is a quote from him. It's as officially a quote as anything can be and it definitively answers and refutes your claim. It would reach far more members worldwide than a statement in General Conference. Specifically releasing it to news sources adds weight to its validity and authority. And it happened twice. Asked for and provided. 

Again, that's not what I asked for.  Do you have any quotes that President Monson publicly spoke to the members regarding same-sex marriage?   Has he ever personally addressed that topic for the members to hear?

If not, just say that you don't have any quotes.  It's ok.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

To me in private. I serve in the Bishopric.  I've never stated that anything was announced or discussed publicly by my leaders.  So no, I did not contradict myself above.

Horrors   But sorry to disappoint you....the answer is no.

I'd imagine that many local leaders are not seeking out couples or are not "anxious to enforce" the new policy.  But you stated that I said they had "refused" to enforce it.  That's different and is not true and has not happened.

So once again, I did not contradict myself.

So it's at the murmuring stage, then, and hasn't quite reached the overt rebellion stage.

Still time to step in and make a timely change.

 

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, california boy said:

It is a statement on official policy of the church concerning gay marriage.  I think everyone knows what that policy is.  It is not a statement of revelation from God.  Do you see the difference or do you think they are the same thing?

Those are not just statements of policy. They are public affirmations of the doctrine of marriage being between a man and a woman. Policies are a result of this doctrine, not the other way around..

Quote

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.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No im not.  I question your infallibility reasoning--your attempt to argue they as a group can't possibly be wrong.  

I didn't know we had a contest going.  

There's always an implied contest when you try to convince others that you are right and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve collectively are wrong.

 

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it's at the murmuring stage, then, and hasn't quite reached the overt rebellion stage.

You are hilarious, Scott...so dramatic.  You do know that members of the church do not have to agree with every policy and everything their leaders state, don't you?   

Quote

Still time to step in and make a timely change.

Well, since the Stake President is in full agreement, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.   I think there are many in leadership positions who question this new policy, Scott.   Few will seek out couples in a SSM to excommunicate them (I hope none will, but it may have happened).  If a couple is minding their own business and not speaking out against the church, why seek them out for church discipline?

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If that happens, they will each and every one be out of harmony with the revealed word of God in that respect and, worst-case scenario, find themselves on the outside of the Church, either by their own volition or by disciplinary council.

Yes to part one, not necessarily to part two.  When the majority of Church members support gay marriage they will be out of harmony with God.
Whether they remain out of harmony with the Church at that time will depend on what the Church at that time accepts.

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ has never been governed by popular vote, and it won't be happening on this issue.

You're kidding right?

D&C 26:2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.
D&C 28:13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.
OD2 - Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

The Church does everything by vote.
When 75% of members want gay marriage in the Church, they will vote it in.  And if they don't, it will only be a matter of time till those members become General Authorities, bringing with them a belief in gay marriage.  And if the FP & Q of 12 support gay marriage there is nothing preventing it from becoming policy.

Nothing except God stepping in...maybe.
 

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it's at the murmuring stage, then, and hasn't quite reached the overt rebellion stage.

Still time to step in and make a timely change.

 

I'm reminded of the time I obeyed a priesthood leader, even though I thought it was wrong and could be physically dangerous for me and my family. People on this board told me how foolish I was for not following my conscience. Sounds like you think I did the right thing. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They are not direct, unaltered quotes.  You may have cut and pasted a few of them together....but you did alter them.  I posted my actual quote.

Again, that's not what I asked for.  Do you have any quotes that President Monson publicly spoke to the members regarding same-sex marriage?   Has he ever personally addressed that topic for the members to hear?

If not, just say that you don't.  It's ok.

Of course these are his words. Certainly he spoke to all members. Whose words could they be if not his? Surely not the bishops who read them under his authority and instruction. Letters he at the least supervised and approved by him and authorized and instructed to be read in his name by ordained bishops and stake presidents are his very words as if he had spoken them up close and in person. What more could you ask for? Are you saying because you don't like the method of communicating them they are not valid?

Yes, he personally addressed this topic for members to hear. I heard them, understood they came from him, and knew he intended for me to hear them. If you don't accept that, it's ok, but it seems a bit irrational. After all, the scriptures are filled with the words of God transmitted to us through written texts and letters; however, these letters aren't open to transmission error, fiddling with, or misinterpretation as some are wont to fault the scriptures. We hold the originals in our hands.

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

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?

Avatar, maybe you're not understanding my point.  Church leaders don't = God.  Conference addresses don't = God.  

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course these are his words. Certainly he spoke to all members. Whose words could they be if not his? Surely not the bishops who read them under his authority and instruction. Letters he at the least supervised and approved by him and authorized and instructed to be read in his name by ordained bishops and stake presidents are his very words as if he had spoken them up close and in person. What more could you ask for? Are you saying because you don't like the method of communicating them they are not valid?

Yes, he personally addressed this topic for members to hear. I heard them, understood they came from him, and knew he intended for me to hear them. If you don't accept that, it's ok, but it seems a bit irrational. After all, the scriptures are filled with the words of God transmitted to us through written texts and letters; however, these letters aren't open to transmission error, fiddling with, or misinterpretation as some are wont to fault the scriptures. We hold the originals in our hands.

Look, you do not have what I asked for.  I understand.  President Monson has not publicly (in person) spoken to the members on the topic of same-sex marriage.  He has not spoken about it in any of his public addresses or speeches to the members of the church  You can't supply quotes because there are none.  I'm not asking for a press release or a letter or a legal document.  No matter how you twist it, that's not the same as members hearing their Prophet personally speak to them.  It may be for you and if it is, ok.

Let's move on...

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

They are not direct, unaltered quotes.  You may have cut and pasted a few of them together....but you did alter them.  I posted my actual quote.

Again, that's not what I asked for.  Do you have any quotes that President Monson publicly spoke to the members regarding same-sex marriage?   Has he ever personally addressed that topic for the members to hear?

If not, just say that you don't have any quotes.  It's ok.

Quote

   7 hours 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 6 hours ago by ALarson

 

 

Quote

   5 hours 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 5 hours ago by ALarson

 

Quote

   5 hours 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 5 hours ago by ALarson

Quote

   58 minutes ago,  ALarson said: 

They are not direct, unaltered quotes.  You may have cut and pasted a few of them together....but you did alter them.  I posted my actual quote.

Again, that's not what I asked for.  Do you have any quotes that President Monson publicly spoke to the members regarding same-sex marriage?   Has he ever personally addressed that topic for the members to hear?

If not, just say that you don't.  It's ok.

Notice the creeping goalposts, the progression of demands...from any statement to a personal public address....Asked for, provided, answered and quoted without alteration in their entirety.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Those are not just statements of policy. They are public affirmations of the doctrine of marriage being between a man and a woman. Policies are a result of this doctrine, not the other way around..

 

Ok public doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman.  I don't think anyone would dispute that is current Mormon doctrine.  But where did it come from?  Has president Monson declared that he got that doctrine from a revelation from God?  

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Asked for, provided, answered and quoted without alteration in their entirety.

Wow....ok.

Seriously time for you to move on, Bernard....

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There's always an implied contest when you try to convince others that you are right and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve collectively are wrong.

 

It's obvious you aren't arguing against my point.  I didn't try to convince you they are wrong.  I was surprised at your infalibilty reasoning.

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If that happens, they will each and every one be out of harmony with the revealed word of God in that respect and, worst-case scenario, find themselves on the outside of the Church, either by their own volition or by disciplinary council.

The Church of Jesus Christ has never been governed by popular vote, and it won't be happening on this issue.

My "safety-in-numbers" expression pertains to ordained servants of God, not ark steadiers and fautfinders.

 

Me thinks you don't understand the law of common consent, or the law of not speaking evil of others "ark steadiers and fault finders (sic)". 

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Look, you do not have what I asked for.  I understand.  President Monson has not publicly (in person) spoken to the members on the topic of same-sex marriage.  He has not spoken about it in any of his public addresses or speeches to the members of the church  You can't supply quotes because there are none.  I'm not asking for a press release or a letter or a legal document.  No matter how you twist it, that's not the same as members hearing their Prophet personally speak to them.  

No, members thrill and get so excited when President Monson takes the stand to speak.  Same with any prophet.  We hang on every word and look forward to hearing anything from him.

It's not even close to reading a page on the Internet from the church news room or a document for legal use.  I have a family never who is gay.  It would mean everything to hear some loving words from my prophet and hear him speak on this.  I do wonder why he hasn't?  Maybe it's not as important to him as it is to others in the 12 who are more vocal, do you think?

Edited September 18, 2017 by JulieM