Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

And most recently he spoke on reading the Book of Mormon and being kind.

Both of which are far more important than gay marriage. Which its utterly frustrating that it's all some people want to discuss as though bringing it up again and again will make it any less sinful.

Unless you are gay or have someone close to you that is gay.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But there is no good reason, if it is signed by a person, not to regard it as coming from that person, unless you believe fraud is afoot. 

A letter written by a group likely will have compromises in language...it is impossible to know who came up with what words and whether it is a case of others thinking the words are just okay for expressing what they want to express or fantastic or something between.  I can understand why---with such a gut wrenching issue---people want to see how Pres Monson himself would choose to talk about it in his own words, what  he would stress as most important, etc. and to hear by the tone of his voice, by his face if he is emotionally connected to what he was saying....rather than hearing someone else read a letter likely written by multiple people , one that may therefore feel impersonal even when they believe Pres Monson agreed with the letter enough to sign it and send it out as the official position (my opinion is that he must have been in close agreement given the importance of the issue, I don't see it as a 'toss it to their secretary with a 'hammer down the language, you know what we see as important, so put it together and if it works with maybe a tweak here and there, we will send it out under our seal' kind of thing, where there isn't a sense of importance or urgency to send a message to the members, but I can see why some might wonder if someone else wrote it even if under his direction if it feels 'off' to them for some reason).

I don't think all I have heard wanting more than an official 'group' letter or newsroom announcement are debating whether or not it comes from Pres Monson and his counselors as much as wondering if those are his own definite and nuanced feelings and ideas or if it is more the voice of another speaking for the group perhaps because Pres. Monson is letting pressure or a lesser interest in the subject than someone else involved or something else influence him to not take the leading hand in the process even if he presides.

We know there have been times when the President has not allowed his own beliefs and desires to determine policy (David O McKay and Priesthood Ban) as is quite appropriate with a government meant to function through unanimity.  There are some critics pushing the idea that a few Apostles have pressured the rest into submission by manipulating the situation where the rest can't be honest without embarrassing the leadership as a whole.  I find this laughable, but I can believe it may be possible that those who feel passionate about the issue may be dominating the discussion and others may be willing to 'give' as they are not as strongly committed to an approach as the others.

It is a extraordinary burden/imbalance for many to come to terms with; it needs an extraordinary approach to create a sense of peace or balance...'one on one' as a talk from an apostle/prophet can feel at conference time even if there may be a million ones out there listening is the kind of approach that is often very reassuring, allows someone to accept what might currently be unacceptable.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Just because something is clearly expressed doesn't mean it is appropriate though.

One of us could report it and see what the mods think.  I assumed BG would change it if asked, but perhaps not.

Of course I would. You bet! I did not alter or add my words to quotes from ALarson. I simply used the "Quote This" function to highlight the requests. In a subsequent post I included the entire interchanges around those excerpts giving the context and showing the moving of the goalposts.

But assuming readers would readily smoke the sarcasm, I expected at least a cursory glance at the provided link. I explained my quote immediately when asked about it.

 Heaven forbid I break any rules, I, who am such a stickler for the orthodoxy. After all, I am Bernardo Gui, Mormon inquisitioner!

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

His point is solid, even if not elegantly expressed. 

Oh. So I don't express myself elegantly now, is it? Let me find those "erase the likes" buttons. 

Perhaps it would have been better to ask, "How would he 'make it' to the Presidency?" Or, "What are some things that would insure he doesn't 'make it' to the Presidency?"

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

Unless you are gay or have someone close to you that is gay.

Not all gay Mormons feel the same way, but I understand how this affects you.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course I would. You bet! 

 But assuming readers would readily smoke the sarcasm, I expected at least a cursory glance at the provided link. I explained my quote immediately when asked about it.

 Heaven forbid I break any rules, I, who am such a stickler for the orthodoxy. After all, I am Bernardo Gui, Mormon inquisitioner!

I never assume people are going to read the link.  Sometimes I care, sometimes I reason if they aren't willing to make the effort, why should I?

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

I never assume people are going to read the link.  Sometimes I care, sometimes I reason if they aren't willing to make the effort, why should I?

What was your experience when the letters were read in your ward?

Are we not expected to provide the sources of quotes? Whenever I quote something, I always provide the source, and usually at least the context, if not the full text. Seems like a common courtesy if not a rule.

By the way, I don't for a Provo minute believe the First Presidency was coerced or hoodwinked or bamboozled or pressured into signing and publishing an official letter to the world which they did not write or give heavy input to about ssm. Unless, of course, there is some sort of powerful cabal involving those few of the 12 who have been carrying the public water on this issue, in which case I would be deeply, deeply disappointed.

Perhaps some future biographer will make her fortune and reputation by revealing the machinations behind the Mormon gay ban hidden in diaries and secret minutes. Nevertheless, as my friend Chuck always says in such situations, "The Church is still true."

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

"Are we not expected to provide the sources of quotes? Whenever I quote something, I always provide the source, and usually at least the context, if not the full text. Seems like a common courtesy if not a rule."

Yes, I agree completely.

The over eager rumors I have heard are simply a few more zealous Apostles have convinced the rest to go along with them, not some outsiders.

while we are aware of Apostles delaying or stopping things with one or two, I don't think we have ever heard of stories where major changes came about by one or two bulldozing the rest into accepting.  That is the opposite scenario than the first.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Are we not expected to provide the sources of quotes? Whenever I quote something, I always provide the source, and usually at least the context, if not the full text. Seems like a common courtesy if not a rule."

Yes, I agree completely.

The over eager rumors I have heard are simply a few more zealous Apostles have convinced the rest to go along with them, not some outsiders.

while we are aware of Apostles delaying or stopping things with one or two, I don't think we have ever heard of stories where major changes came about by one or two bulldozing the rest into accepting.  That is the opposite scenario than the first.

Regarding the quote thingy, see my edit above and feel free to check it out with the mods.

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just find it extremely difficult to conceive that a group of divinely appointed people, earnestly and unitedly seeking to know the will of  God, would be uniformly and unanimously wrong on something. I think it far more likely that obstinate fault finders on the outside would be the ones who are wrong. 

Honestly, that's what troubles me, obstinate fault-finder that I am. I'm left with two options: these men either didn't think things through very well, or they deliberately chose a policy that hurts people and violates at least a couple of basic gospel principles. That they had to clarify the policy almost immediately, because the wording suggested something they apparently didn't mean, suggests the former. I don't envy bishops and other priesthood leaders charged with upholding this policy, but it does my heart good to know that people are exercising their conscience and not embracing the spirit of the law, whether or not they comply with the letter.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Honestly, that's what troubles me, obstinate fault-finder that I am. I'm left with two options: these men either didn't think things through very well, or they deliberately chose a policy that hurts people and violates at least a couple of basic gospel principles. That they had to clarify the policy almost immediately, because the wording suggested something they apparently didn't mean, suggests the former. I don't envy bishops and other priesthood leaders charged with upholding this policy, but it does my heart good to know that people are exercising their conscience and not embracing the spirit of the law, whether or not they comply with the letter.

I just don't see the long term benefit from instituting the policy.  First, it seems completely unnecessary.  These issues could have been handled on an individual basis.  Second, it has brought nothing but ill will both within and outside the church.  And third, I think it undercuts the concept of church leaders being lead by divine guidance when so many members disagree with the policy.  They are basically saying "We don't believe this came from God."  Lastly it seems to be in conflict with other gospel messages.  For example a child being punished for the sins of their parents.  

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I just don't see the long term benefit from instituting the policy.  First, it seems completely unnecessary.  These issues could have been handled on an individual basis.  Second, it has brought nothing but ill will both within and outside the church.  And third, I think it undercuts the concept of church leaders being lead by divine guidance when so many members disagree with the policy.  They are basically saying "We don't believe this came from God."  Lastly it seems to be in conflict with other gospel messages.  For example a child being punished for the sins of their parents.  

Yep.  The policy did nothing but attempt a swipe at the lgbtq community.  It seems to be a response somehow to the acceptance of gay marriage.  In the end it has no other effect.  

A really sad depraved thing, when you think about it. 

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I just don't see the long term benefit from instituting the policy.  First, it seems completely unnecessary.  These issues could have been handled on an individual basis.  Second, it has brought nothing but ill will both within and outside the church.  And third, I think it undercuts the concept of church leaders being lead by divine guidance when so many members disagree with the policy.  They are basically saying "We don't believe this came from God."  Lastly it seems to be in conflict with other gospel messages.  For example a child being punished for the sins of their parents.  

To me, the policy suggests that the primary concern was 'protecting' the church by drawing a line to exclude certain people. When it was announced, I seriously thought it was satire because I couldn't imagine men of good will and intent doing such a thing, especially since, as you note, it clearly violates some basic gospel principles. Yeah, I know, it's only fault-finders who are troubled by any of this. At least for me, it's a matter of conscience, not fault-finding.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Honestly, that's what troubles me, obstinate fault-finder that I am. I'm left with two options: these men either didn't think things through very well, or they deliberately chose a policy that hurts people and violates at least a couple of basic gospel principles. That they had to clarify the policy almost immediately, because the wording suggested something they apparently didn't mean, suggests the former. I don't envy bishops and other priesthood leaders charged with upholding this policy, but it does my heart good to know that people are exercising their conscience and not embracing the spirit of the law, whether or not they comply with the letter.

When the 2015 letter was read in our Canadian ward the Bishop said something where was the Church like 10 years ago when SSM was legalized in Canada? I don't recall one word they said then. Some people don't consider something a problem until they personally have to deal with it, the heck with others-my Bro is like that.

[Marginal Gains]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

I just don't see the long term benefit from instituting the policy.  First, it seems completely unnecessary.  These issues could have been handled on an individual basis.  Second, it has brought nothing but ill will both within and outside the church.  And third, I think it undercuts the concept of church leaders being lead by divine guidance when so many members disagree with the policy.  They are basically saying "We don't believe this came from God."  Lastly it seems to be in conflict with other gospel messages.  For example a child being punished for the sins of their parents.  

 

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yep.  The policy did nothing but attempt a swipe at the lgbtq community.  It seems to be a response somehow to the acceptance of gay marriage.  In the end it has no other effect.  

A really sad depraved thing, when you think about it. 

The policy was only publicly ‘announced’ after it had been leaked and there had been a public outcry.

It wasn’t supposed to be a public announcement, it was supposed to be used locally as a reference for Bishops as to how to handle unbaptised children with a gay parent(s) and to give a clear communication that actively gay people are in apostasy. It was on the back of some wards embracing gay people into their wards in an unjudgemental manner (IIRC there was some positive press coverage of wards successfully ‘reaching out’ to gay members who weren’t attending etc). The policy seems to have been put in place so that local ward leaders stopped getting ‘confused’ and do their own thing, and so they knew where and what the line was.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

Yes.  There are a few reasons why some members may feel this way.  Some may have a sincere and reasoned basis for this position, though I haven't seen much "reasoning."  I have, however, seen plenty of arguments based on a combination of appeals to emotion, special pleading, and accusations that those who disagree with them are bigots.

If you are aware of a reasoned and rational doctrinal (as in LDS doctrine) exposition in support of same-sex marriage, I would like to see it.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

I think the Church should continue to teach the principles of the Restored Gospel.  We can try different packaging and different media, but the underlying precepts have not changed.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

Not really.  In fact, we should expect to be called upon to fight these battles (metaphorically speaking, of course).  Confusing personal feelings and desires for the influence of the Spirit is something every Latter-day Saint should consider.

I concede that "confirmation bias" can and does exist, and that it can have an undue influence on a person's outlook.  This is why I appreciate the approach promulgated in the Restored Gospel.  Continued study, prayer, and appropriate conduct (in other words, both "talking the talk" and "walking the walk" vis–à–vis the teachings of the Gospel) result in a continuous testing of what we believe and why, and also results in a sharpened, clarified, lean 'n mean testimony.  My testimony today of the Restored Gospel is much different than it was 10-20 years ago because I have studied a lot during the intervening years.  So I think a confirmation bias, which may be extant early on in a person's journey of faith, does not hold up long as compared to continued, rigorous study.

I concede that people can and do confuse and conflate spiritual and emotional experiences.  Pres. Hunter put it this way:

Quote

I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself.

This article by Jeff Lindsay also has some good points on this issue.  A few highlights (emphases added):

Quote

Some people are puzzled by our use of the term "testimony," but I feel we use it as it is used in the Bible. For example, Revelation 19:10 says that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" - suggesting to me that revelation - the spirit of prophecy - is needed to have a sure witness of Christ (and that those with a sure witness of Christ can have spiritual gifts such as prophecy). Rev. 19:10, by the way, echoes 1 Cor. 12:3: "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." No one can truly testify of Christ - or truly "bear testimony" of Him, unless that testimony is based on personal revelation through the power of the Holy Ghost. Other related references to the use of the word "testimony" can be found in 1 Cor. 1:6; 1 Cor. 2:1; 2 Tim. 1:8; Rev. 6:9; and Rev. 12:11.

Faith based on the physical senses and human logic alone is much more fallible than "the sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19) wherein God reveals pure truth to a soul - an experience which is difficult to describe but is real and available to those earnestly seeking to commune with God in prayer.

The concept of humans receiving a witness of the truth through the power of God - rather than human logic alone - is entirely Biblical. See Matthew 16:15-19; John 14:26 and 15:26, and others. I think that the best discourse on this topic is found in chapters 1 and 2 of First Corinthians. Paul refers to the testimony of Christ (1 Cor. 1:6) and warns against the divisions among the believers that have occurred because of false doctrines and the learning of men. Whereas the Greeks love human wisdom and logic and sophistry, Paul stresses that all this is foolishness before God (1 Cor. 1:17-21).
...
LDS testimonies are based upon the idea that God can reveal truth to us and give us an understanding that the Gospel is true, that Jesus is the Christ, and that He leads His Church through modern prophets and apostles, even when we don't yet have all the understanding needed to answer the many objections that critics throw our way. Once God has revealed it to our heart and mind, human logic cannot easily overthrow that witness. This concept, contrary to what our critics asset, is entirely Biblical. Paul, for example, spoke of this in 1 Corinthians 12:3, saying "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." We cannot truly know that Jesus is the Lord unless it is revealed to us by the Holy Ghost. Revelation is the basis of testimony - and our critics wrest the scriptures when they revile against the thought.

So how do Mormons obtain this revelation and develop their faith about the truthfulness of the Gospel? Prayer is essential, and pondering and thinking about the word of God (which includes the Book of Mormon). Prayer, study, and pondering opens up the channels of revelation. Further, we must experiment with the word and put the Gospel into practice. For example, John 7:17 tells us that we can know of the truthfulness of Christ's word by doing it - by doing the will of God. In John 8:31, the Savior teaches that we will come to know the truth if we continue in His word, becoming true disciples. Both of these passages agree with Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon (the "seed" chapter you read): our knowledge of the truth grows as we put it into practice, just as scientific knowledge grows as we apply and experiment with valid scientific hypotheses. Alma 32 talks about much more than an emotional experience - which is not the basis of testimony for faithful Latter-day Saints (though it is for some who have not diligently sought to know and nurture the word). Emotional experiences can occur in any religion and are not a reasonable basis for faith.

Also consider these remarks by Elder Gerald Lund (emphases added):

Quote

In Doctrine and Covenants 8 [D&C 8], the Lord defined what revelation is and how it comes:

“I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

“Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation” (D&C 8:2–3).

“In your mind and in your heart”—think about that. If the Lord spoke something to our mind, how would it come? We would probably describe it as “thoughts.” If He tells us something in our hearts, we would probably describe that as “feelings.”

Thoughts and feelings are the most common ways the Lord gives His children personal revelation. And therein lies a challenge. Every one of us is a stream of thoughts and feelings. In the midst of that torrent of thought and feeling, the Lord from time to time inserts a thought or a feeling that comes from Him. How do we tell the difference?

...

Through the scriptures and the statements of modern prophets, we find principles that can help us determine how to decide if revelation comes from the Lord or from another source. I would like to briefly outline five of those guidelines or principles.

1 It is God who determines all aspects of revelation.

We can study and pray; on occasion we can add fasting to our prayers; we can importune the Lord with deep yearnings; we can keep sacred covenants—all of these will help create a climate that fosters spiritual growth. But we must remember that when all is done, it is still up to the Lord to determine when the revelation comes, how it is given, what is revealed, and to whom.

With the utmost earnestness and the deepest of pleadings, the Savior called on His Father in the Garden of Gethsemane to remove the dreaded cup of His coming sacrifice. But that request was followed immediately by these profound words: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). That should be part of every request we take to the Lord. In that simple phrase lies the key to our willingness to let the Lord decide what is best.

2 The content given in a revelation is more important than the form in which it comes.

Another mistake some make is to covet the more dramatic forms of revelation. God reveals His mind and will to man across a broad spectrum of experiences. These may range from the very direct and dramatic: the appearance of divine beings, open visions, fire from heaven. Or they may be very subtle: quiet premonitions, gentle thoughts, a feeling of peace. These are by far the most common. We must be careful we don’t feel that only the more direct forms of revelation are valid.

3 Revelation from God does not contradict gospel principles or go contrary to established Church policy and procedure.

When there is new doctrine or new procedures to come forth, you will get it in one of three ways:

a. A formal press conference will be called by the leaders of the Church, at which an official announcement will be made.

b. It will be announced through the Church News, the Ensign, or other official Church communications.

c. It will be announced in general conference by those in authority.

Otherwise, we should be very wary about accepting it, and we should not share it with others.

4 The Lord wants us to use our agency and develop spiritual self-reliance.

The scriptures and the prophets warn us about seeking to be directed in every matter of life. The Lord says:

“It is not meet [it is not proper or good] that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward” (D&C 58:26).

There are some things that don’t matter to the Lord; He leaves the choice up to us (see D&C 60:5). Striking the balance between trust in the Lord and spiritual self-reliance is a delicate matter, but it is clear that the Lord does not want us to be spiritual robots who are afraid to move without first being told what to do.

5 A person is not given revelation to direct another person unless they have priesthood or family responsibility for that person.

This principle is described by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the principle of “stewardship in revelation.” This means that “only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. … When one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own area of responsibility … you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord” (“Revelation,” New Era, Sept. 1982, 46).

And these points in the Preach My Gospel manual (emphases added):

Quote

A Word of Caution

As you pray for inspiration, you should also confirm your feelings. For example, compare your decisions with the scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets. Be certain that the feelings are consistent with the assignment you have; for example, you will not receive revelation to tell a local bishop how he should perform in his calling. Discuss your decisions and conclusions with your companion, your district leader, or your mission president when appropriate.

...

Revelation and spiritual experiences are sacred. They should be kept private and discussed only in appropriate situations. As a missionary, you may be more aware of spiritual experiences than you have been earlier in your life. Resist the temptation to talk freely about these experiences.

President Boyd K. Packer counseled: “I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. And when they do, they are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. Unless we are called by proper authority to do so, they do not position us to counsel or to correct others.

“I have come to believe also that it is not wise to continually talk of unusual spiritual experiences. They are to be guarded with care and shared only when the Spirit itself prompts you to use them to the blessing of others” (Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53).

“If worthy, we are entitled to receive revelations for ourselves, parents for their children, and members of the Church in their callings. But the right of revelation for others does not extend beyond our own stewardship.”

–President James E. Faust

And these remarks by Elder Scott:

Quote

Impressions of the Spirit can come in response to urgent prayer or unsolicited when needed. Sometimes the Lord reveals truth to you when you are not actively seeking it, such as when you are in danger and do not know it. However, the Lord will not force you to learn. You must exercise your agency to authorize the Spirit to teach you. As you make this a practice in your life, you will be more perceptive to the feelings that come with spiritual guidance. Then, when that guidance comes, sometimes when you least expect it, you will recognize it more easily.

The inspiring influence of the Holy Spirit can be overcome or masked by strong emotions, such as anger, hate, passion, fear, or pride. When such influences are present, it is like trying to savor the delicate flavor of a grape while eating a jalapeño pepper. Both flavors are present, but one completely overpowers the other. In like manner, strong emotions overcome the delicate promptings of the Holy Spirit.

In my view, "feelings" held by an individual Latter-day Saint about same-sex marriage which

A) contravene the plain and uniform counsel from prophets and apostles,

B) conform to the massive social pressures facing the Saints today, and

C) entice the individual to exceed the scope of their own stewardship

should be seen as deeply suspect.

Deeply.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 hours 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 you would just shift the goal posts, anyway.  So the exercise is pointless.

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

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?

If I thought this was a good faith question, I would respond it kind.  But I don't, so I won't.

I don't think you are looking for an answer.  I think you are looking for an argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

The policy was only publicly ‘announced’ after it had been leaked and there had been a public outcry.

It wasn’t supposed to be a public announcement, it was supposed to be used locally as a reference for Bishops as to how to handle unbaptised children with a gay parent(s) and to give a clear communication that actively gay people are in apostasy. It was on the back of some wards embracing gay people into their wards in an unjudgemental manner (IIRC there was some positive press coverage of wards successfully ‘reaching out’ to gay members who weren’t attending etc). The policy seems to have been put in place so that local ward leaders stopped getting ‘confused’ and do their own thing, and so they knew where and what the line was.

That's fair.  I do recall some of this.  I think it did nothing but hurt people.  I don't see any good use of it.  But I realize it was not meant to be a big public scene, as it turned out.  The problem of course is, how could they not have predicted this type of reaction?  That they had to come out and re-explain it was a big problem for what they are claiming--a lot of thought went into it.  It still feels like a reaction to the gay marriage efforts whatever the case. 

[Marginal Gains]

For the record...

Quote

 

Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.

Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.

When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.

 

https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

I’m afraid I find the argument about “harmony of the home environment” doesn’t hold water. If the aim is to avoid disharmony in the home where the parents are unable to be members of the Church through reasons that would warrant Church discipline, then why aren’t children where the parents remain unmarried included? What about children in the homes where their parents have been committed of a crime? What about children where the parent has been excommunicated for apostasy, adultery? Etc.

The policy seems to me to produce a load more questions for local leaders, and answers relatively little. Was there really a problem with the children of gay parents wanting to be baptised? I mean, how widespread an occurrence can that have been?

*not sure what has gone on with my fonts!

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In my view, "feelings" held by an individual Latter-day Saint about same-sex marriage which

A) contravene the plain and uniform counsel from prophets and apostles,

B) conform to the massive social pressures facing the Saints today, and

C) entice the individual to exceed the scope of their own stewardship

should be seen as deeply suspect.

Deeply.

Thanks,

-Smac

This encapsulates what I find so troubling about all of this. The idea seems to be that when your conscience conflicts with the church's position, it is your conscience that is "deeply suspect." I've seen so many faithful church members struggle with this, especially those who have gay family members, and yet it's just so easy to dismiss these fundamental beliefs about right and wrong as "feelings." I don't envy those who have to rationalize this kind of stuff.

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And you would just shift the goal posts, anyway.  So the exercise is pointless.

That's the second time someone has mentioned shifting the goal posts.  I guess that must be a dodge tactic when someone simply cannot admit that what I have consistently asked for here does not exist.  But I certainly requested the same thing all throughout the last few pages.  I honestly had not searched for awhile regarding any quotes from President Monson on the topic, but last I had looked into it, he had not personally spoken to the members regarding SSM.  I was consistent with that throughout.

I do think that Julie. Calm and others have brought out why many members wonder and wish that they could hear him actually speak on this.  I have had several in my own ward wonder and I feel their need to hear from their Prophet (not in a group letter read from the pulpit, not from the Mormon Newsroom, and not in a legal document).  This is an important issue to many members of the church.  Just look at the threads here on this forum and the emotions involved for those.

So how is that goal post shifting?  Please show me where you think that has or would occur here?

Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

A letter written by a group likely will have compromises in language...it is impossible to know who came up with what words and whether it is a case of others thinking the words are just okay for expressing what they want to express or fantastic or something between.  I can understand why---with such a gut wrenching issue---people want to see how Pres Monson himself would choose to talk about it in his own words, what  he would stress as most important, etc. and to hear by the tone of his voice, by his face if he is emotionally connected to what he was saying....rather than hearing someone else read a letter likely written by multiple people , one that may therefore feel impersonal even when they believe Pres Monson agreed with the letter enough to sign it and send it out as the official position (my opinion is that he must have been in close agreement given the importance of the issue, I don't see it as a 'toss it to their secretary with a 'hammer down the language, you know what we see as important, so put it together and if it works with maybe a tweak here and there, we will send it out under our seal' kind of thing, where there isn't a sense of importance or urgency to send a message to the members, but I can see why some might wonder if someone else wrote it even if under his direction if it feels 'off' to them for some reason).

I don't think all I have heard wanting more than an official 'group' letter or newsroom announcement are debating whether or not it comes from Pres Monson and his counselors as much as wondering if those are his own definite and nuanced feelings and ideas or if it is more the voice of another speaking for the group perhaps because Pres. Monson is letting pressure or a lesser interest in the subject than someone else involved or something else influence him to not take the leading hand in the process even if he presides.

We know there have been times when the President has not allowed his own beliefs and desires to determine policy (David O McKay and Priesthood Ban) as is quite appropriate with a government meant to function through unanimity.  There are some critics pushing the idea that a few Apostles have pressured the rest into submission by manipulating the situation where the rest can't be honest without embarrassing the leadership as a whole.  I find this laughable, but I can believe it may be possible that those who feel passionate about the issue may be dominating the discussion and others may be willing to 'give' as they are not as strongly committed to an approach as the others.

It is a extraordinary burden/imbalance for many to come to terms with; it needs an extraordinary approach to create a sense of peace or balance...'one on one' as a talk from an apostle/prophet can feel at conference time even if there may be a million ones out there listening is the kind of approach that is often very reassuring, allows someone to accept what might currently be unacceptable.

I'm just quoting this because you (as always) express thoughts much better and more eloquently than I ever could.  What you write above is speaking the emotions and feelings that many members have.

[smac97]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

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

Please explain the caveat.  What evidence do you have that Elder Nelson's account is not accurate?

19 hours 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.  

Oh, brother.

Elder Christofferson has spoken at length about the policy.

The President of the Quorum of the Twelve explained to the entire world the basis for the policy as being deeply revelatory.  Specifically revelatory.  To the Presiding High Priest.  And unanimously sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Moreover, the entirety of the Twelve have "publicly supported it."  See here (emphases added):

Quote

We sustain 15 men who are ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. When a thorny problem arises—and they only seem to get thornier each day—these 15 men wrestle with the issue, trying to see all the ramifications of various courses of action, and they diligently seek to hear the voice of the Lord. After fasting, praying, studying, pondering, and counseling with my Brethren about weighty matters, it is not unusual for me to be awakened during the night with further impressions about issues with which we are concerned. And my Brethren have the same experience.

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.

President Nelson was speaking on behalf of the entirety of the Twelve.  Not, as you falsely suggest, for himself alone.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

The Priesthood Ban was new doctrine, and was submitted for canonization per the principle of Common Consent, and therefore required the consent of the body of the Church.

In contrast, the November 2015 policy change was . . . a policy change.  A change wrought by revelation, to be sure, but not one that constituted new doctrine.  The policy change falls squarely into the stewardship of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

Church governance is not a matter of campaigning and public speeches and the like, as you seem to suggest.  Russell M. Nelson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave a talk during a world-wide devotional in January 2016.  He spoke in his official capacity, and on behalf of the entire Quorum of the Twelve.  Frankly, you can't get much more "public" than that.

Elder Christofferson has also spoke of the policy change.

Moreover, the First Presidency published a letter about the policy change in November 2015.

To be frank, I think the goalpost shifting here is a bit absurd, as is the notion that there has been insufficient attention given to this matter by the leaders of the Church.  To be frank, I think the policy change has been given far more attention than it actually merits.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The policy seems to me to produce a load more questions for local leaders, and answers relatively little. Was there really a problem with the children of gay parents wanting to be baptised? I mean, how widespread an occurrence can that have been?

The occurrence was very close to zero. That is, there were (and are) almost zero gay-married parents seeking for their children to be baptized and ordained and raised in the Church. The policy is, to me, clearly a shot across the bow, a message in the face of snowballing momentum among a vocal minority in the Church that the Church could conceivably capitulate on gay marriage and "de-criminalization" of gay behavior in the Church. The dramatic nature of a) gay marriage denoting apostasy, and b) embargo on children living in a gay marriage household receiving ordinances until 18 and disavowing the lifestyle demonstrates to me that this was intended to quash momentum and make it very clear that no amount of pressure is going to change this. It is a doubling down.

I have found that Church leaders are much more explicit, blunt, and frank on this in private settings for priesthood leaders than when speaking to the general population (i.e., where PR spin plays a role). I referred to Saturday's regional priesthood training in my area. These are held every four years in North America (more frequently in the developing world), and the message is the same everywhere (this was explicitly stated). They represent what the Brethren want taught to all priesthood leaders, everywhere, so that everyone is on the same page. As I mentioned, there was an explicit and clear statement Saturday that the Church is not going to change on this. There was also an extensive mention that we have a dissent movement, and dissenters, within the Church today, and this was mentioned as one major form of it.

*not sure what has gone on with my fonts!

It's when you paste off of a Word document. It's frustrating, because it can't be edited or fixed.

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well it feels like the brethren speak on topics they are inspired to talk to members about or topics they believe members need to hear.  Since President Monson has not ever spoken about SSM or gay issues, maybe that tells us he doesn't want to or feels it's not that important or wasn't inspired to speak on it.  Maybe others in the twelve feel more strongly about it and wanted the policy enforced.  I doubt though the prophet would go along with it if he strongly disagreed but it might not have been as pressing for him as for others.  Who knows what went on with it behind the scenes.

I think you have expressed how many feel.  I do know this is an important topic today that many members are struggling with and they desire to hear and see their Prophet speak on it.  

I know of parents in our ward who struggled with the new policy, but supported it.  However, they have youth who are very into supporting gay rights and supporting SSM.  These are others in the church who were looking to their Prophet to personally speak on this (the parents and the youth).

It definitely is a relevant topic today (inside the church and outside as well).

Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson