Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[rongo]

Just now, ALarson said:

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).

I think there is much, much less of the Brethren speaking directly and personally about anything and everything compared to past generations. General Conference talks are very vague and general about overarching principles, rather than specific issues. And, the Brethren are very, very careful about everything they say, which tends to discourage speaking directly and personally about anything. It's not just gay marriage. 

There were questions about medical marijuana Saturday. The wording was very careful and cautious, and we were left not much better informed than before the question was asked.  We were told that the Church is working on a statement and specific direction, but that we are not there yet, and that the Church has not authoritative statement at this time. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

You might be surprised. I know several people who have been directly affected by the policy. The situation usually arises when a gay member marries someone of the opposite sex, has children, and eventually realizes that things aren't working and gets divorced. Often part of the divorce agreement is that the children will be raised in the church, regardless of who has custody. As I read the policy after the church's clarifications, the problem arises when the gay parent has more than 50% custody. A couple of weeks after the policy announcement, I was with a family member who reminded me that his brother is gay and is married to a man, has custody of the kids, and has agreed to raise his children in the church. My relative was deeply troubled by the policy because he felt like his nieces and nephews were being excluded from church ordinances for no good reason. And this family member is a faithful church member who felt he had no alternative but to accept the policy, but he couldn't square the policy with gospel principles and felt it was meant to establish boundaries and exclude the unwanted. I couldn't argue with him, only I don't have to accept the policy.

[rongo]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

You might be surprised. I know several people who have been directly affected by the policy. The situation usually arises when a gay member marries someone of the opposite sex, has children, and eventually realizes that things aren't working and gets divorced. Often part of the divorce agreement is that the children will be raised in the church, regardless of who has custody. As I read the policy after the church's clarifications, the problem arises when the gay parent has more than 50% custody. A couple of weeks after the policy announcement, I was with a family member who reminded me that his brother is gay and is married to a man, has custody of the kids, and has agreed to raise his children in the church. My relative was deeply troubled by the policy because he felt like his nieces and nephews were being excluded from church ordinances for no good reason. And this family member is a faithful church member who felt he had no alternative but to accept the policy, but he couldn't square the policy with gospel principles and felt it was meant to establish boundaries and exclude the unwanted. I couldn't argue with him, only I don't have to accept the policy.

This sounds like a good case for the exemption clause in the policy (granted by the First Presidency). 

I think nearly 100% of the cases like this involve people in a gay marriage who have children from a previous straight marriage. Are there any gay-married couples anywhere with adopted kids who are seeking to raise them in the Church?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

This sounds like a good case for the exemption clause in the policy (granted by the First Presidency). 

I think nearly 100% of the cases like this involve people in a gay marriage who have children from a previous straight marriage. Are there any gay-married couples anywhere with adopted kids who are seeking to raise them in the Church?

Is there an exemption clause? I hadn't seen that.

[rongo]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Is there an exemption clause? I hadn't seen that.

Yes. As with anything, the First Presidency can grant exceptions. Case-by-case basis.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

Yes. As with anything, the First Presidency can grant exceptions. Case-by-case basis.

I knew there was with polygamy children, but I haven't seen the same exemption for gay members' kids. Can you point me to where this is?

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Then who exactly is speaking for God? because He doesn't approve in the scriptures. He hasn't revealed this new doctrine to His Apostles and Prophets. And He has stated that He will do no thing unless He reveals it to His servants the Prophets.

Has someone else claimed to be a prophet receiving this revelation?

Scriptures are written by who?  Men.  

Conference addresses are given by who?  Men (sometimes women)

Church policies and doctrines are articulated by who?  Men

Is everything these men say and write = the sayings and writings of God?  No, of course not.  Who's job is it to determine what is inspired by God or what isn't inspired by God.  That's up to you my friend.  You be the judge, square that with the inspiration that you are entitled to and your specific circumstances to determine what is inspired, what aligns with the divine according to your unique circumstances.  And then when circumstances change in life, which they always do, notice how inspiration also changes accordingly.  

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

My cousin is a Bishop in Montana. I spoke with in depth on the subject of the current policy at a family reunion we held this summer.  He is not supportive of denying children membership because of their parents marriage status,  nor will hold court on anyone who is legality married.  He claims his counselors are in agreement on this.  He told me that there is a gay couple currently attending his ward, and they have been embraced by the ward members.

I think that's wonderful and I know that our ward would do the same (and I've heard other stories of this occurring elsewhere too).  This is why many members are confused over the recent policy, and few would really want it enforced once they personally become involved with a couple in a SSM.

I also know of few leaders (at least in our stake locally) who have any desire to seek out or excommunicate anyone in a SSM.  I know there are leaders who would possibly do this (maybe even some on this board) who are more letter of the law type leaders.  But in spirit, it just feels wrong to most everyone I personally have discussed it with.

Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

You don't have to reply here (just PM me) for reasons of not hikacking the thread, but what are your beefs with Eldar Bednar?

Go back and read the first couple pages of this thread, I don't have anything else to add other than those comments.  No insider information, just some observations.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

I think that's wonderful and I know that our ward would do the same (and I've heard other stories of this occurring elsewhere too).  This is why many members are confused over the recent policy, and few would really want it enforced once they personally become involved with a couple in a SSM.

I also know of few leaders (at least in our stake locally) who have any desire to seek out or excommunicate anyone in a SSM.  I know there are leaders who would possibly (maybe even some on this board) who are more letter of the law type leaders.  But in spirit, it just feels wrong to most everyone I personally have discussed it with.

Apparently, those folks in Montana have moved beyond murmuring to open rebellion. 

[smac97]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's the second time someone has mentioned shifting the goal posts. 

If the shoe fits...

Quote

I guess that must be a dodge tactic when someone simply cannot admit that what I have consistently asked for here does not exist. 

The First Presidency wrote a letter about the policy change in November 2015.  It is signed by Pres. Monson.

But I suspect you will discount it because . . . {insert your preferred goalpost shifting tactic here}.

Quote

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. 

You must not have looked very hard.  He made a public statement about it nearly two years ago.  

From the November 2015 letter:

Quote

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:

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.

All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.

May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry.

Sincerely yours,

The First Presidency

This is in addition to the very-public remarks made by Elder Christofferson and President Nelson.

But none of this counts because . . . whatever.

Quote

I do think that Julie and others have brought out why many members wonder and wish that they could hear him actually speak on this. 

They have the November 2015 letter.  But that doesn't count because . . . {insert your preferred goalpost shifting tactic here}.

Right?

Quote

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). 

And there it is!  Shifting the goal posts yet again!

The foregoing letter was addressed to "General Authorities; Area Seventies; General Auxiliary Presidencies; Stake, District, Mission, and Temple Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents."

In other words, it was intended for the entire Church.

Are you seriously suggesting you were not aware of it?  Are you paying any attention?  Are you making any effort to listen to the General Authorities?  

Even if you weren't aware of the letter when it first came out two years ago, ten seconds on Google would have led you to it.  And yet here you are, insisting that others hop to and do your research for you ("research" being . . . a ten-second Google search).

Which is it?  Are you deliberately and vigorously ignoring the November 2015 First Presidency letter?  Or is doing even the most basic levels of research not worth your time?  Or are you dismissing the November 2015 letter because . . .  {insert your preferred goalpost shifting tactic here}?

Quote

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.

I get that.  Which is why I find it so utterly perplexing that people like you are complaining about a lack of information about it from the leaders of the Church.  It is also why I find your No-True-Scotstman-esque goalpost shifting tendencies to be a bit offputting.  It's almost like you aren't really looking for an answer.

Quote

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

Ample and substantive commentary and explanation for the policy change has been readily and immediately available to the members of the Church, and indeed the entire world, starting in November 2015.  The First Presidency letter published to the Church and available to the world.  Elder Christofferson's interview published to the world.  President Nelson's remarks during a worldwide devotional, also available to the entire world.

And yet here we are, nearly two years later, with people complaining about insufficient public guidance from the Brethren on this issue.  

-Smac

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by smac97

[Amulek]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I knew there was with polygamy children, but I haven't seen the same exemption for gay members' kids. Can you point me to where this is?

I think maybe this is what he was referring to:

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

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.

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Amulek
Weird format thing

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Amulek said:

 

I think this may be what he was referring to:

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

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.

I'm not seeing an exception. As I recall, the handbook explicitly states that children of polygamists can be baptized with First Presidency approval, but the new policy does not have such a statement. I find that really interesting.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If the shoe fits...

CFR that I have shifted the goal posts in this discussion regarding asking if President Monson has personally (in person from the pulpit) spoken about SSM to the members of the church (where they can visually see him speak and feel his emotions) and asking for any quotes directly from him (not in a group letter, in a newsroom document or legal document).  I have consistently asked for this same thing and have not shifted any goal posts.  But, I'd like to see where you think I have.

This is the page the discussion started on if that helps:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69573-standing-before-an-apostle-does-at-a-meeting/?do=findComment&comment=1209756144

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

ou must not have looked very hard.  He made a public statement about it nearly two years ago.  

From the November 2015 letter

Good grief.  How many times do people here have to say that they are NOT asking for a statement in a letter??? 

(Read Calm's post that I quoted again above as she sums up my consistent requests and why members desire this.)

Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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

And these remarks by Elder Scott:

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

So basically you are saying that if someone receives a witness from the Holy Ghost that something taught by the brethren is wrong, then they should keep praying about it until they get the right answer.

You do realize that you are talking to someone who did exactly that when those same brethren were telling gay men that it is the will of God for them to just marry and making the false promise that they would no long struggle with attraction to the same sex.  I should have been doing the exact opposite of what you suggest and relying on the Spirit to help me decide what path I should take.  This is an issue where church leader have not been all that accurate in determining the will of God on.

Social pressure?  Seriously?  You think that is a criteria for receiving a wrong answer?  There are a dozen teachings of the church that people out side of the church do not accept as being from God.  Don't hear a lot of people coming to the wrong conclusion on those issues.

 

[hope_for_things]

16 hours 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.

Well, according to the encyclopedia of Mormonism, voting is exactly how common consent is used to govern the church.  

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Common_Consent

Quote

Today the Church continues to operate by divine revelation and common consent. Callings to positions of Church service at all levels of the organization and ordination to the priesthood are made by the inspiration of authorized leaders and are then brought before the appropriate body of members to be sustained or opposed. Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way. This procedure is also followed in accepting important revelations and scriptural additions.

 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not seeing an exception. As I recall, the handbook explicitly states that children of polygamists can be baptized with First Presidency approval, but the new policy does not have such a statement. I find that really interesting.

I stand corrected. I just looked, and I thought there was mention that people could apply to the Office of the First Presidency for an exception (with priesthood leader support, of course). There is no specific mention of this.

I am aware of the First Presidency granting exceptions to policy for things the handbooks say cannot be done (women being sealed to more than one husband, for instance), so it is theoretically possible, on a case-by-case basis. The likelihood of people in this situation demonstrating to the satisfaction of local leaders and the FP that the children are in a position that makes future strong support of the Church likely is pretty remote, I think. What could they possibly write in their letters that would convince the FP that, although living in a gay marriage, the children will be brought up fully supportive of Church doctrine and policy, including --- gay marriage? 

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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."

Why is that?  Are you suggesting and each person's individual opinion / conscience is infallible?  That we should each become a law unto ourselves?  That the role of prophets and apostles in the LDS Church is negligible?

I do not understand your position here.

Quote

I've seen so many faithful church members struggle with this, especially those who have gay family members,

So have I.  Lots of emotion there, for people we love and care about.  Lots of potential for emotions and feelings to be conflated with and confused for the promptings of the Spirit.  Hence the wisdom of examining what one's "conscience" is saying in the light of the scriptures and the cumulative counsel from prophets and apostles.

Quote

and yet it's just so easy to dismiss these fundamental beliefs about right and wrong as "feelings."

I don't dismiss them.  Rather, I propose that we as individuals are fallible.  That we can let emotions and other factors crowd out the promptings of the Spirit.  That one of the primary functions of revelation and stewardship.

It is not within the province of any member of the Church to declare that same-sex marriage reflects the mind and will of God, except as to himself, and subject to the prophetic guidance from the Lord's servants.

Quote

I don't envy those who have to rationalize this kind of stuff.

Indeed.  It can be very difficult to rationalize a violation of the Law of Chastity based on emotional pleas ("It can't violate the Law of Chastity to have sex with my girlfriend because I have strong feelings for her"), special pleading (the Law of Chastity doesn't apply to my son's homosexual behavior because it makes him happy, so whatever makes him happy must be endorsed by God") and so on.  A key component of this process must, I think, involve vigorously ignoring what the leaders of the Church are saying on this subject, or else rationalizing away any need to listen to them and following their counsel.  For otherwise observant Latter-day Saints, this must indeed be a very difficult thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2017 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I stand corrected. I just looked, and I thought there was mention that people could apply to the Office of the First Presidency for an exception (with priesthood leader support, of course). There is no specific mention of this.

I am aware of the First Presidency granting exceptions to policy for things the handbooks say cannot be done (women being sealed to more than one husband, for instance), so it is theoretically possible, on a case-by-case basis. The likelihood of people in this situation demonstrating to the satisfaction of local leaders and the FP that the children are in a position that makes future strong support of the Church likely is pretty remote, I think. What could they possibly write in their letters that would convince the FP that, although living in a gay marriage, the children will be brought up fully supportive of Church doctrine and policy, including --- gay marriage? 

I think that's the whole point: this is the church saying that they don't want members--gay or straight--who are tolerant or supportive of same-sex marriages. It's the only way the policy makes sense. Denying saving ordinances to children based on the actions of their parents is pretty antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. As I said, there may not be that many families affected by this policy, but they are out there, and this policy has caused some real rifts in families and caused custody agreements that had been resolved amicably to be revisited in a sometimes heated way. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

So basically you are saying that if someone receives a witness from the Holy Ghost that something taught by the brethren is wrong, then they should keep praying about it until they get the right answer.

Not quite.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do realize that you are talking to someone who did exactly that when those same brethren were telling gay men that it is the will of God for them to just marry and making the false promise that they would no long struggle with attraction to the same sex.  I should have been doing the exact opposite of what you suggest and relying on the Spirit to help me decide what path I should take.  This is an issue where church leader have not been all that accurate in determining the will of God on.

I disagree.  I think the General Authorities have, in the aggregate, done a very good job.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Social pressure?  Seriously?  

You are disputing the existence of massive social pressure regarding same-sex issues?  Seriously?

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

You think that is a criteria for receiving a wrong answer?  

I think social pressures can have an influence on one's decisions, yes.

Nobody likes being publicly accused of hatred and bigotry.  But that is the standard MO for your compatriots.  

And we are increasingly seeing instances of not only social pressures being present, but also the force of law being used to punish those who do not agree with people like you on same-sex marriage.  There's even a book about it: You Will Be Made to Care: The War on Faith, Family, and Your Freedom to Believe

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are a dozen teachings of the church that people out side of the church do not accept as being from God.  

Yes.  And?

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Don't hear a lot of people coming to the wrong conclusion on those issues.

I don't follow.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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):

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

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

 

Can you point to one other member of the twelve or first presidency who have called the policy change a revelation from God?  Can you find one statement from Elder Christofferson where he called the policy change a revelation from God?  I certainly have not seen any such declarations.  The links you put up by Elder Christofferson do not claim the policy change is a revelation from God.  

SMAC, I think everyone is clear that this policy change came from a meeting held by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve.  I think that everyone is clear that all present supported the policy.  Only one single member in that meeting has ever called it a revelation from God.  Your post does not add any further members in that meeting calling the policy a revelation from God.

 

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why is that?  Are you suggesting and each person's individual opinion / conscience is infallible?  That we should each become a law unto ourselves?  That the role of prophets and apostles in the LDS Church is negligible?

I do not understand your position here.

So have I.  Lots of emotion there, for people we love and care about.  Lots of potential for emotions and feelings to be conflated with and confused for the promptings of the Spirit.  Hence the wisdom of examining what one's "conscience" is saying in the light of the scriptures and the cumulative counsel from prophets and apostles.

I don't dismiss them.  Rather, I propose that we as individuals are fallible.  That we can let emotions and other factors crowd out the promptings of the Spirit.  That one of the primary functions of revelation and stewardship.

It is not within the province of any member of the Church to declare that same-sex marriage reflects the mind and will of God, except as to himself, and subject to the prophetic guidance from the Lord's servants.

Indeed.  It can be very difficult to rationalize a violation of the Law of Chastity based on emotional pleas ("It can't violate the Law of Chastity to have sex with my girlfriend because I have strong feelings for her"), special pleading (the Law of Chastity doesn't apply to my son's homosexual behavior because it makes him happy, so whatever makes him happy must be endorsed by God") and so on.  A key component of this process must, I think, involve vigorously ignoring what the leaders of the Church are saying on this subject, or else rationalizing away any need to listen to them and following their counsel.  For otherwise observant Latter-day Saints, this must indeed be a very difficult thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

The problem for me is that you view individual conscience as fallible, but apparently you do not consider the Brethren to be likewise fallible. I've talked about this before, that in practice, the Brethren are pretty much functionally infallible. You cannot disagree with a church policy--let alone a doctrine--in good conscience because the Brethren have spoken. As I mentioned, I've been ridiculed before because I noted that I followed the instructions of priesthood leaders, even though I knew what I was being asked was wrong. I should have used my own judgment in combination with prayer, instead. But in this case, it doesn't matter what anyone's conscience tells them; it is required for everyone to step in line and obey. 

Besides, with this policy, we aren't talking about anyone committing any sin. A child with gay parents has not committed a sin. And saying we love our gay family members and accept their marriage, while recognizing that such goes against church doctrine and policy, is hardly comparable to apostasy or violating the law of chastity. 

As I said, I'm glad I don't have to try to find a way to support this policy. It's just wrong.

Edited September 19, 2017 by jkwilliams

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

The evidence is the sequence of your requests as posted earlier. Perhaps those requests on page 11 were not worded in a way that communicated what thought they communicated. As far as I can determine this is your first request for information...

Quote

  Quote

   22 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

You gave the results of your search. What you posted from affirmation.org was a quote from a Deseret News article, not a public face--to face comment in a public speech. You did not reject this evidence as inadequate but instead asked for more examples. When provided with such examples, you rejected them and changed the parameters.

Quote

   21 hours ago,  ksfisher said: 

   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

Further statements including three official communications from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve read over the pulpit by local leaders under instructions of the First Presidency were rejected and the parameters were narrowed again.

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

Then after considerable debate over what silence means and is a legitimate spoken communication between President Monson and the Church, the goalposts reached their current location....

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 14 hours ago by Bernard Gui

Clarification at last. Perhaps from your perspective you think you didn't change your demands, but from mine I think you did you did.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you point to one other member of the twelve or first presidency who have called the policy change a revelation from God?  Can you find one statement from Elder Christofferson where he called the policy change a revelation from God?  I certainly have not seen any such declarations.  The links you put up by Elder Christofferson do not claim the policy change is a revelation from God.  

SMAC, I think everyone is clear that this policy change came from a meeting held by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve.  I think that everyone is clear that all present supported the policy.  Only one single member in that meeting has ever called it a revelation from God.  Your post does not add any further members in that meeting calling the policy a revelation from God.

 

Plus as evidenced by the last few pages, we have not heard anything in person regarding this policy from our living Prophet who according the lds.org:

Quote

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

And:

Quote

"Only the prophet is authorized to receive revelations for the Church."

So, is it too much to ask about President Monson personally speaking to the members on a topic that is extremely important to many members of the church?

I think some here think that  if they just keep posting the same stuff we will change what we're asking for (See Bernard's post above for exhibit A....)

Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Clarification at last. 

Not really.  I asked for the same thing from President Monson from the beginning (a personal statement from President Monson...in person...from over the pulpit).  I clarified that numerous times, but maybe you missed it as it did get confusing.

You seem to have misunderstood, I guess, as I consistently asked for the same thing.  I know what I was asking for and kept clarifying (but written words sometimes don't convey a person's exact meaning, and I believe you if you didn't grasp what I meant). 

So you either misread or missed some of my posts. 

Let's move on here though....there has been no goal post shifting.  And, you have not been able to supply what I (and others) are requesting (statements from our Prophet NOT in a letter,  NOT from the newsroom and NOT in a legal document....don't know how many times I need to type that ).  I don't know how much more clear I could have been from the very beginning (back to page 11), but I'll allow that you misunderstood.

You definitely got my meaning by the top of page 13:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69573-standing-before-an-apostle-does-at-a-meeting/?do=findComment&comment=1209756260

Calm understood my requests (as well as others here)  and expressed it well:

Quote

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 

Now I am definitely moving on regarding this part of the conversation....

I think we both were trying to be honest and expressing our thoughts and beliefs here too.

Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson