Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe you have not heard it expressed, but I have many times how members wanted to hear from him on this...in his words and with his love and expression as he personally addressed the members.  I think it would have gone a long ways for many members if they could hear him express his feelings and love and experience.

Me, too. I wish we heard from the Brethren a lot more than we do, about a number of things, instead of through anonymous press releases on the web page and occasional letters (many of which are recycled and reused). 

Another thing I'll note here is the disconnect between public "olive branch" overtures (such as Elder Christofferson saying that one can support gay marriage politically, within parameters, and still be a member in good standing) and what the Brethren say in less public settings. The Church's official stance is much more conservative and hard line when talking to priesthood leaders than it is in press conferences. I think one reason that the Brethren do not speak personally about this is to maintain this deniability and be able give a perception in public of straddling both sides of the fence. Speaking personally would remove this deniability. 

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not suggesting that.  I provided extensive references for the proposition that personal desires/emotions can be confused for spiritual promptings.  Hence the need to examine our thoughts using the resources available through the Restored Gospel, including both personal revelation and the scriptures and counsel from prophets and apostles.

CFR where I said "discard."  Chapter and verse, please.

I am proposing study and prayer to determine if one's thoughts/opinions/feelings/emotions are congruent with truth, with God's will.

I skipped over that part because I don't know you.  I am not familiar with you and your motivations and desires and circumstances and efforts.  I have no stewardship over you.  I have no desire to adjudicate your personal journey.  To be frank, it seems odd that you are A) seemingly inviting me to judge you and your efforts and decisions, and B) getting upset when I decline to do so.

As you please.  My experience has been very different from yours.  I have found the principles espoused by the LDS Church (faith, prayer, study, obedience, service to others, etc.) to be profoundly effective in helping me discern truth and chart a course in life that is congruent with God's will.  I cannot speak to your personal experiences, as I am not a percipient witness to them.  I am also not your ecclesiastical leader, and hence I am in no position to give you specific counsel on your particular decisions.  I will continue to refrain from doing so.

He also speaks through the scriptures.  Through prophets and apostles.  

He is also not the author of confusion.  We all must figure out how the broad principles of the Restored Gospel applies to our lives in particular.  That can require some accommodation, some deviation from those broad principles.  For example, when I joined the military I knew it meant I would need to work on some Sundays.  A person with severe medical issues might need to use pain medications under a doctor's care, which would not violate the Word of Wisdom.  But that person may thereafter become addicted to and start abusing/misusing those medications, which would violate the Word of Wisdom.

But there are some aspects of the Restored Gospel that are pretty clear-cut.  Most applications of the Law of Chastity, for example, are pretty easy to understand.  I cannot think of a circumstance where a faithful Latter-day Saint could rationalize adultery or fornication.  These are, for lack of a better term, "bright line rules."  The same goes for homosexual behavior and, more recently, entering into a same-sex marriage.  This is the consistent message found in the scriptures and in the counsel of living prophets and apostles.  So my point is that if and when a member of the Church proposes that his adultery or fornication or homosexual behavior is acceptable to God, and that he feels this conclusion has been confirmed to him by the Spirit, then that massive incongruity merits some real attention.  

The Brethren are not infallible, yes.  But I don't think that renders everything they have ever said to be presumptively false or suspect.

If I had a married friend, a member of the Church, who came to me and said "I have started hooking up with my old girlfriend on the side, and I think that's acceptable to God because church leaders can and have been dead wrong in what they presumed was the will of God, so I am at liberty to ignore everything they have ever said about anything I so choose," how would you propose that I respond to that?

Again, I am not your bishop.  I cannot and do not sit in judgment of you.  I think your anger at my failure to do so is a little weird.

So the General Authorities are "clearly fallible at at times completely wrong," but you are not?  Your judgments are utterly without flaw?  You have a perfect knowledge of the will of God?

Just trying to figure out what you are saying here.  You seem to be suggesting that your perspective on God's will is perfect, but ours is substantively defective.  I propose that none of us can make the claim that we are immune from the risks inherent in being human, in having to rely on the judgments of someone who is "clearly fallible and at times completely wrong."

Nobody is suggesting you do that.

Nobody.  

At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well then we are back to square one where I made this comment and you spent the last three pages trying to blame those members beliefs as "emotional feelings"

The fact that it is a growing number makes one wonder what the church could do to stop this trend among members which is as you clearly point out against church policy.  

What must be more troublesome is when those members feel that it is the Holy Ghost that is helping them change their minds about this issue.  

Bold added since that is the issue you attacked and now seems to be backing away from.

 

And just to take my own personal situation out of the equation, do you acknowledge that at one time church leaders were indeed promising gay members that if they. just married, the feelings of same sex attraction would go away?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I had reference here to a written communication appearing over the signature of the president of the Church.

I really don't get this insistence that it bears no validity unless one hears it spoken over the pulpit.

OK, so should written communication appearing over the signature of the President of the Church always be considered the word and will of God through His prophet?

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am simply stating that he is the ONLY ONE at that meeting that has called the policy a revelation from God.  What makes this even a bit more strange is that he made that statement at a fireside, not a General Conference which is the normal place where revelation is affirmed.

Hence the criticism in this thread about goalpost shifting.

We have General Conference next week.  President Monson is, it seems not fully capable of functioning in his office on a day-to-day basis.  But let's theorize that on General Conference weekend he has a tremendous burst of energy and vigor, and stands up and speaks with great clarity and compassion and love regarding the need to love our gay brothers and sisters, but that we also must adhere to the commandments of God, including the Law of Chastity and its constraints on sexual behaviors.

If this happened, would our critics listen?  I doubt it.  I really, really doubt it.  They would just shift the goal posts and continue to complain about the Law of Chastity as taught by the LDS Church, and the teachings about marriage.

So whether President Monson speaks specifically to this issue or not is a red herring.  If an individual is refusing to listen to General Authorities now, despite the copious teachings and resources on this subject (the First Presidency Letter, Elder Christofferson's remarks, President Nelson's remarks, Mormonsandgays.org, and many others), then I think the call for one more treatment of it is perhaps not in good faith.  It seems less like a sincere request to seek clarification from the Presiding High Priest, and more like an exercise in deploying Rule 8 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: 

Quote

"Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance.

It goes like this:

Step 1: Ask for the Church to clarify its position on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

Step 2: Disregard the Church's various published-to-the-world clarifications on its position on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  Do so by subsequently adding caveats and additional conditions on your request in Step 1 so that the original request is absurdly and unreasonably narrowed, and by disregarding any good faith response to your inquiry as insufficient.  The sufficiency of the response is left to the sole discretion of the agitator.

Step 3: Unilaterally declare that the Church has failed to clarify its position on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  Use this as a basis for accusing the Brethren of not caring about or sufficiently addressing this issue.

Step 4: Repeat Steps 1-3.  Over and over and over.  Ignore what the leaders of the LDS Church have already publicly taught.  Act as if these things do not exist.  Claim victimhood.  Accuse the Brethren of not paying attention to their flock's needs.  Keep the pressure on.  Never let up.

The objective, I think, is not clarification.  It's capitulation.

And I don't think it's going to happen.

As I see it, the overarching problem we face is not that the position of the Church vis-à-vis homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is unknown or unclear.  Or that it has not been explained.  The problem is that the Church's position on these things exists, and that it must be altered to conform to prevailing social trends or, in the alternative, that is be undermined and destroyed.

I am reminded here of Isaiah 30:10:

Quote

9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord:

10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits...

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2017 by smac97

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is ridiculous is disregarding a clear communication from a prophet of God because it arrived in written form instead of being spoken over a pulpit.

I haven't seen anyone disregard it.  I know what the letters state, what was published on the Mormon Newsroom page and what is in the legal document.   Everyone weighs things differently.  I get that too.  Many members hoped to hear a more personal message about this from the Prophet and a desire to hear his own words and expressions about a revelation from God that affected many on a very personal level.  You are one who did not seem to desire or need that.  I can respect your feelings here.   

Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours 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.

You are ignoring a third option (and frankly, the one that I prefer): That the policy reflects the will of God revealed to prophets and apostles after a period of careful deliberation.
 

Quote

 

That they had to clarify the policy almost immediately, because the wording suggested something they apparently didn't mean, suggests the former.

 

That there was an uproar over it in some quarters does not negate that the majority of people who heard it (I included) immediately understood it and saw the wisdom in it.

 

[Bernard Gui]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, your original request was for "specific statements from President Monson regarding the new policy or his feelings on gay marriage," to which you have not added numerous constraints and provisos (nothing in writing counts, must be over the pulpit in General Conference, and must address same-sex marriage instead of "the new policy or his feelings on gay marriage").

Indeed. Thank you for thoroughly spelling out the transformation.

I think you meant to say " to which you have [not] added numerous constraints and provisos..." leaving out the "not"?

[Bernard Gui]

54 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Several months ago we as a bishopric (which I am a counselor in) felt very strongly that the subject of tithing should be addressed in sacrament meeting.  We felt that many active members of our congregation were being held back in their spiritual development because they were not paying tithing.  After discussion the bishop asked me to deliver this talk, which I later did. 

Question: should the members of my ward given less heed to this subject because the message was given by only a counselor in the bishopric and not the bishop himself?

Some would, but they would be mistaken. The same phenomenon occurs with Priesthood blessings.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is ridiculous is disregarding a clear communication from a prophet of God because it arrived in written form instead of being spoken over a pulpit.

Once again, no disregarding happened.  It simply was not what I had asked for.  I've explained myself numerous times and perhaps you need to drop it and move on as others have.

Read my posts above where I am more clear.

Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had reference here to a written communication appearing over the signature of the president of the Church.

I really don't get this insistence that it bears no validity unless one hears it spoken over the pulpit.

That written communication you have appearing over the signature of the president of the Church does NOT state that it came from revelation.  And that is what this issue is totally about.  No one is questioning that the first presidency and quorum of the twelve had a meting and they all agreed on a policy that impacts gay families and their children. 

Do you see any statement in that letter that the contents came from a revelation from God?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are ignoring a third option (and frankly, the one that I prefer): That the policy reflects the will of God revealed to prophets and apostles after a period of careful deliberation.
 

That there was an uproar over it in some quarters does not negate that the majority of people who heard it (I included) immediately understood it and saw the wisdom in it.

 

I wouldn't be much of an unbeliever if I thought this policy reflects the will of God, now would I? 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The objective, I think, is not clarification.  It's capitulation.

And I don't think it's going to happen.

Setting aside revelation, part of why I don't think it's going to happen is human nature. Those beating the drum for social change within the Church have overplayed their hand and overextended. Continuation of the social pressure tack will only serve to deepen the resolve against it, from a human nature point of view, in my opinion. As a separate factor from God's will (which I also believe is aligned with the Church's stance). 

No one likes the feeling of being forced to dance while being pistol-whipped, and it's natural to chafe against this and deepen resolve.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Setting aside revelation, part of why I don't think it's going to happen is human nature. Those beating the drum for social change within the Church have overplayed their hand and overextended. Continuation of the social pressure tack will only serve to deepen the resolve against it, from a human nature point of view, in my opinion. As a separate factor from God's will (which I also believe is aligned with the Church's stance). 

No one likes the feeling of being forced to dance while being pistol-whipped, and it's natural to chafe against this and deepen resolve.

Anyone who thinks they can effect change from within the church is sadly mistaken. It doesn't work that way. But there's nothing wrong with speaking up when you believe something is wrong, as I do in this case. 

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you possibly be more disingenuous in your answer when ALarson has repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly and repeatedly requested an actual address spoken from the lips of the prophet.  No one is denying that a letter was sent.

The evidence is there for all to see. Rather than cast opprobrium, why not address the specific evidence I and (more effectively) smac have given of shifting the goalposts? For example, please parse the four posts I quoted in their entirety in a way that suits your fancy. Or give a critique smac's point by point description of the changing parameters. 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Me, too. I wish we heard from the Brethren a lot more than we do, about a number of things, instead of through anonymous press releases on the web page and occasional letters (many of which are recycled and reused). 

Another thing I'll note here is the disconnect between public "olive branch" overtures (such as Elder Christofferson saying that one can support gay marriage politically, within parameters, and still be a member in good standing) and what the Brethren say in less public settings. The Church's official stance is much more conservative and hard line when talking to priesthood leaders than it is in press conferences. I think one reason that the Brethren do not speak personally about this is to maintain this deniability and be able give a perception in public of straddling both sides of the fence. Speaking personally would remove this deniability. 

Yes, I agree.  

It's just that the feedback we are getting from our ward members is they have a sincere and deep desire to hear about issues that are troubling or affecting them personally...and they want to hear from their Prophet when he receives a revelation and hear him express his feelings about that. 

They want to hear these addressed more in a personal manner (rather than a group letter read or a press release).  They are noticing that the conference talks are getting more and more generic and somewhat watered down (although still excellent and sincere,  don't get me wrong....but members want help and answers regarding relevant topics today that are personally affecting them and their families).  

IMO, much of this has to do with how the youth are relating to the gay rights issues and SSM.  Parents see a huge disconnect between this policy and how their own youth feel and believe.  This worries them and I understand why.   We've had many conversations regarding this with the parents in our ward. 

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hence the criticism in this thread about goalpost shifting.

We have General Conference next week.  President Monson is, it seems not fully capable of functioning in his office on a day-to-day basis.  But let's theorize that on General Conference weekend he has a tremendous burst of energy and vigor, and stands up and speaks with great clarity and compassion and love regarding the need to love our gay brothers and sisters, but that we also must adhere to the commandments of God, including the Law of Chastity and its constraints on sexual behaviors.

If this happened, would our critics listen?  I doubt it.  I really, really doubt it.  They would just shift the goal posts and continue to complain about the Law of Chastity as taught by the LDS Church, and the teachings about marriage.

So whether President Monson speaks specifically to this issue or not is a red herring.  If an individual is refusing to listen to General Authorities now, despite the copious teachings and resources on this subject (the First Presidency Letter, Elder Christofferson's remarks, President Nelson's remarks, Mormonsandgays.org, and many others), then I think the call for one more treatment of it is perhaps not in good faith.  It seems less like a sincere request to seek clarification from the Presiding High Priest, and more like an exercise in deploying Rule 8 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: 

It goes like this:

Step 1: Ask for the Church to clarify its position on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

Step 2: Disregard the Church's various published-to-the-world clarifications on its position on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  Do so by subsequently adding caveats and additional conditions on your request in Step 1 so that the original request is absurdly and unreasonably narrowed, and by disregarding any good faith response to your inquiry as insufficient.  The sufficiency of the response is left to the sole discretion of the agitator.

Step 3: Unilaterally declare that the Church has failed to clarify its position on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  Use this as a basis for accusing the Brethren of not caring about or sufficiently addressing this issue.

Step 4: Repeat Steps 1-3.  Over and over and over.  Ignore what the leaders of the LDS Church have already publicly taught.  Act as if these things do not exist.  Claim victimhood.  Accuse the Brethren of not paying attention to their flock's needs.  Keep the pressure on.  Never let up.

The objective, I think, is not clarification.  It's capitulation.

And I don't think it's going to happen.

As I see it, the overarching problem we face is not that the position of the Church vis-à-vis homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is unknown or unclear.  Or that it has not been explained.  The problem is that the Church's position on these things exists, and that it must be altered to conform to prevailing social trends or, in the alternative, that is be undermined and destroyed.

I am reminded here of Isaiah 30:10:

Thanks,

-Smac

We all know what the church policies towards gay marriage is.  THAT is crystal clear.  What is not crystal clear is whether those policies have come to the church from revelation or from committee.  If President Monson said we should all treat gays with love and respect, yes, you are right.  It would not change the position that critics have on this issue.

If President Monson said that he had personally a revelation from God himself on same sex marriage, then many including myself would be very interested in what the revelation stated.  

If it was a continuation of the current policy,  I think there would be no wiggle room for members or leaders to support gay marriage and remain members of the church.  I think that principle would have to be implemented fully and discussed often in general conference, church manuals, and taught regularly from the pulpit.  I think the church would have to state that members who support gay marriage are in a state of open rebellion against God and should be excommunicated as apostates.  

There is a huge difference between church policy and a revelation from God.  We all know what church policy is. 

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The evidence is there for all to see. Rather than cast opprobrium, why not address the specific evidence I and (more effectively) smac have given of shifting the goalposts? For example, please parse the four posts I quoted in their entirety in a way that suits your fancy. Or give a critique smac's point by point description of the changing parameters. 

But Alarson didn't change what he was asking for (even in all the quotes provided).  I think what changed is you misunderstanding and then seeing later when he kept repeating it and clarifying.  That may have appeared to you that he shifted, but from I read, he didn't.  But your understanding shifted.

Why are you making such a huge deal out of this?  It's making you look petty and silly, really (IMO). How about you just believe him and be as gracious to him as he has been to you and Smac97 over the misunderstanding?  Or maybe take it private if you need to continue attacking him and doubting his word.

Edited September 19, 2017 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

54 minutes ago, rongo said:

What effect, if any, would a personal, spoken statement from President Monson have had on those who disagree with the Church's position and policy on gay marriage and children of parents in gay marriages.

I don't think it would have had any effect at all on what critics of the policy think about it. It's just convenient, because he hasn't made a spoken statement himself, to use this fact to argue that it doesn't mean that much to him (or he would have said something himself).

Or, by not making an explicit public over-the-pulpit world-wide General Conference address (instead of hiding it in obscure letters of uncertain authorship and drive-by talks given by rogue colleagues) he is sending a surreptitious subliminal message that only those who ears to hear can hear. And that by not doing so, he is insensitive and uncaring and needs to make amends. Well, maybe not?

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I agree.  

It's just that the feedback we are getting from our ward members is they have a sincere and deep desire to hear about issues that are troubling or affecting them personally...and they want to hear from their Prophet when he receives a revelation and hear him express his feelings about that. 

They want to hear these addressed more in a personal manner (rather than a group letter read or a press release).  They are noticing that the conference talks are getting more and more generic and somewhat watered down (although still excellent and sincere,  don't get me wrong....but members want help and answers regarding relevant topics today that are personally affecting them and their families).  

IMO, much of this has to do with how the youth are relating to the gay rights issues and SSM.  Parents see a huge disconnect between this policy and how their own youth feel and believe.  This worries them and I understand why.   We've had many conversations regarding this with the parents in our ward. 

I think it would be a *huge* PR boon to hear them speak personally and and from the heart about a number of things. Even if this means that there are sometimes contradictory things said. It's sincere, and it's real. 

The problem we have now is that correlation, in an effort to stamp out any contradiction, has rendered things careful, sanitized, safe, legally cautious, and message-controlled. I love Journal of Discourses. In 10,000 pages of talks spanning 1851 to 1886, there are some contradictions and anomalies, but overall, it is a rich and vast store of wonderful teaching and stories --- a store that no one knows now because it has been stamped out. Correlated Church materials studiously avoid quoting from it, even when it is doctrinally sound (which is almost always). 

Look at the breathtaking speed with which President Packer withdrew his GC statement (it happened within 24 hours after the online firestorm) from the written record. I remain unconvinced that he chose to do it himself. 

I think in the cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of speaking personally far outweigh the risks that there will be fodder for critics. Who cares? Haters gonna hate, anyway. 

ETA: who hasn't noticed the change in cadence between most GC speakers and when they are speaking in other settings? People's favorite speakers tend to be those who speak more like they actually speak, instead of that GC cadence. I think this relates to what we're talking about here. I think people would actually feel better about some occasional contradiction if they felt that they were being spoken to personally from the heart. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hence the criticism in this thread about goalpost shifting.

We have General Conference next week.  President Monson is, it seems not fully capable of functioning in his office on a day-to-day basis.  But let's theorize that on General Conference weekend he has a tremendous burst of energy and vigor, and stands up and speaks with great clarity and compassion and love regarding the need to love our gay brothers and sisters, but that we also must adhere to the commandments of God, including the Law of Chastity and its constraints on sexual behaviors.

If this happened, would our critics listen?  I doubt it.  I really, really doubt it.  They would just shift the goal posts and continue to complain about the Law of Chastity as taught by the LDS Church, and the teachings about marriage.

So whether President Monson speaks specifically to this issue or not is a red herring.  If an individual is refusing to listen to General Authorities now, despite the copious teachings and resources on this subject (the First Presidency Letter, Elder Christofferson's remarks, President Nelson's remarks, Mormonsandgays.org, and many others), then I think the call for one more treatment of it is perhaps not in good faith.  It seems less like a sincere request to seek clarification from the Presiding High Priest, and more like an exercise in deploying Rule 8 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: 

It goes like this:

Step 1: Ask for the Church to clarify its position on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

Step 2: Disregard the Church's various published-to-the-world clarifications on its position on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  Do so by subsequently adding caveats and additional conditions on your request in Step 1 so that the original request is absurdly and unreasonably narrowed, and by disregarding any good faith response to your inquiry as insufficient.  The sufficiency of the response is left to the sole discretion of the agitator.

Step 3: Unilaterally declare that the Church has failed to clarify its position on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  Use this as a basis for accusing the Brethren of not caring about or sufficiently addressing this issue.

Step 4: Repeat Steps 1-3.  Over and over and over.  Ignore what the leaders of the LDS Church have already publicly taught.  Act as if these things do not exist.  Claim victimhood.  Accuse the Brethren of not paying attention to their flock's needs.  Keep the pressure on.  Never let up.

The objective, I think, is not clarification.  It's capitulation.

And I don't think it's going to happen.

As I see it, the problem we face is not that the position of the Church vis-à-vis homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is unknown or unclear.  Or that it has not been explained.  The problem is that the Church's position on these things exists, and that it must be altered or destroyed.  That, I think, is the objective here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Beautiful!

This is one post for which a rep point is not enough. It deserves a Bravo!

This is precisely what is happening. Thank you for applying an identity to it (Alinsky's Rules for Radicals).

I shall henceforth have your outline now to identify what is happening in these discussions.

And you're right: The sought-for capitulation will not occur. It is vain hope that it will.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

That written communication you have appearing over the signature of the president of the Church does NOT state that it came from revelation.  And that is what this issue is totally about.  No one is questioning that the first presidency and quorum of the twelve had a meting and they all agreed on a policy that impacts gay families and their children. 

Do you see any statement in that letter that the contents came from a revelation from God?

This issue is totally about Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Read Smac97's most recent post, the one I just lauded.

And it's about disinformation -- such as your own and others' repeated insistence that homosexual behavior within a same-sex marriage does not violate the law of chastity, this because you place the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage above God's definition of marriage.

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Beautiful!

This is one post for which a rep point is not enough. It deserves a Bravo!

This is precisely what is happening. Thank you for applying an identity to it (Alinsky's Rules for Radicals).

I shall henceforth have your outline now to identify what is happening in these discussions.

And you're right: The sought-for capitulation will not occur. It is vain hope that it will.

And with that we learn that there can be no principled or conscientious disagreement with church policy. It's all just a disingenuous effort to find more reasons to attack until the church gives up. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I agree.  

It's just that the feedback we are getting from our ward members is they have a sincere and deep desire to hear about issues that are troubling or affecting them personally...and they want to hear from their Prophet when he receives a revelation and hear him express his feelings about that. 

They want to hear these addressed more in a personal manner (rather than a group letter read or a press release).  They are noticing that the conference talks are getting more and more generic and somewhat watered down (although still excellent and sincere,  don't get me wrong....but members want help and answers regarding relevant topics today that are personally affecting them and their families).  

IMO, much of this has to do with how the youth are relating to the gay rights issues and SSM.  Parents see a huge disconnect between this policy and how their own youth feel and believe.  This worries them and I understand why.   We've had many conversations regarding this with the parents in our ward. 

Sometimes I wonder if GC talks are getting more water-downed because every time anyone says anything remotely polarizing, members freak out.  Like the hoopla after Julie Beck gave the 'women who know' talk.  There were some mad sisters after that one, and it wasn't even controversial subject matter.  Members, in general, seem to take everything personally and react badly if they think someone is disagreeing with them over the pulpit.  

I don't think it's a problem with the church so much as just the way our society is now, where nothing should ever occur or be said that may cause someone to feel a negative emotion.  I was reading an article about a woman who get very mad at Hobby Lobby for home decor displays that included fake cotton on a stick with leaves.  Because, cotton = slavery of course.  It created a ruckus and was shared tens of thousands of times.  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

My point is that it seems counterproductive to force people into a difficult alternative. Who exactly is benefiting by these children not being allowed to receive priesthood ordinances? The whole thing seems to be a solution to a problem that never existed. That it seems directly opposed to some basic gospel principles makes it doubly difficult to understand. 

Please describe a scenario where active gay parents knowing the Lord's definition of marriage and sexual morality (the problem that exists) could honestly encourage their kids to be baptized into the Church that does not sanction their marriage, It seems to me the only alternative is for the Church to change the scriptures or jettison them. The same argument could be made for accepting any form of unorthodox marriage.

Perhaps a civil union in which they agree with their leaders to remain celibate? That would be difficult, but possible. Many gay and straight single parents are celibate. Such an arrangement would also accommodate other unusual forms of marriage between consenting adults including multiple partners. The next step would be to figure out how to seal the kids to their parents, How would you propose doing that? Would they be sealed to their biological parents? Would they be treated as adoptees?

The cats and kittens keep coming  out of the bag.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it would be a *huge* PR boon to hear them speak personally and and from the heart about a number of things. Even if this means that there are sometimes contradictory things said. It's sincere, and it's real. 

The problem we have now is that correlation, in an effort to stamp out any contradiction, has rendered things careful, sanitized, safe, legally cautious, and message-controlled. I love Journal of Discourses. In 10,000 pages of talks spanning 1851 to 1886, there are some contradictions and anomalies, but overall, it is a rich and vast store of wonderful teaching and stories --- a store that no one knows now because it has been stamped out. Correlated Church materials studiously avoid quoting from it, even when it is doctrinally sound (which is almost always). 

Look at the breathtaking speed with which President Packer withdrew his GC statement (it happened within 24 hours after the online firestorm) from the written record. I remain unconvinced that he chose to do it himself. 

I think in the cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of speaking personally far outweigh the risks that there will be fodder for critics. Who cares? Haters gonna hate, anyway. 

If 'hater's gonna hate anyway" where's the "huge PR boon" you are trumpeting. The faithful know that a communication from the prophet is authentic, whether written or spoken.

And while I have your attention, your disparagement of Church correlation is misguided. your treasured Journal of Discourses created problems down the road that we are still dealing with that would have been avoided had something like Correlation been in place back then.