Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, why is it that the children of only one type of apostate can't be baptized? What is it about same-sex marriage that sets it apart from other forms of apostasy? 

It is similar to the unlawful practice of polygamy in that it amounts to a rebellious disregard of the clear instruction given by leaders of the Church as pertaining to marriage, which is fundamental to the plan of salvation.

So it doesn't just pertain to "one type of apostate." The same restriction applies to children in households of those practicing polygamy.

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, those are good examples, and they are sufficient to illustrate what I'm talking about. There would have been nothing to hide from had a correlation structure been in place, I dare say.

Ah well, we learn from experience as time goes by. Church correlation is a product of that learning process, and it is foolish to lament it.

Don't get me wrong. Correlation has its good points, and was necessary in its way. Balance and a happy medium . . . 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think you're right about serious critics.  

But, what you don't address, are those members who would definitely listen. 

Perhaps you have a point.  They haven't been listening for two years.  They haven't listened to the November 2015 letter, or to Elder Christofferson, or to Elder Nelson.  But you are correct in that some people might listen if it comes "from the top."

But I'm not sure that's going to happen.  Meanwhile, the information they need (probably) is already available to them.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Those who it would mean everything to them if they could hear the Prophet speak to them about a topic that they are struggling with ...maybe even on the fence over. 

I think this issue has received tons of attention from General Authorities.  

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Something that is so personal and relevant to them that they are in pain because of it and are searching for help and answers.  Hearing from their Prophet may be life saving for them and mean everything as they strive and search for words that will ease their pain and give them comfort and strength to continue trusting and having faith.

I feel the same way about apostolic counsel.  Honestly, I can't comprehend a faithful Latter-day Saint saying "Sorry, but clear and straightforward remarks from two apostles just doesn't have enough juice.  It's President Monson or nothing at all."

If a person is refusing to listen to what the General Authorities, including President Monson, have already said, I am not sure they would listen (as in consider and eventually accept and follow) further counsel.  In the end, I doubt President Monson speaking on this topic would do much to move the needle.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Don't kid yourself that your scenario above wouldn't have tremendous affect on many. 

And don't kid yourself about how many would just shift the goal posts and demand something else.

The current refusal of some members to listen to previously-provided counsel from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is, in essence, a form of rebellion.  "Hey, I'm not going to listen to you guys until you say exactly what I want to hear in exactly the proper tone and tenor."  See the various recent disparaging remarks about Elder Bednar as an example of this phenomenon.

The General Authorities care about us.  They love us.  They work their tails off for us.  And they usually do so in their twilight years, having previously dedicated years and thousands of hours of service in the Church prior to becoming a GA.  And they do so having also received an education, created a career, gotten married, raised children, etc.  So I suppose I am a bit lacking in patience when I see self-selected armchair quarterbacks presuming to tell the General Authorities "Hey, sorry, a First Presidency letter doesn't cut it.  Neither do recorded and transcribed and published-to-the-world remarks by Elder Christofferson and by President Russell M. Nelson (the latter of whom was speaking in his official capacity, on behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve, to the Church in a worldwide broadcast).  Nope, that's just not sufficient.  We want more."

If and when that "more" comes, I suspect it will be deemed insufficient (just as you have done throughout this thread) because . . .

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It is similar to the unlawful practice of polygamy in that it amounts to a rebellious disregard of the clear instruction given by leaders of the Church as pertaining to marriage.

Yes, but children of polygamists can be baptized before the age of 18. Is same-sex marriage more antithetical to the gospel than apostate splinter groups practicing polygamy? 

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I think the leaders learned that it is foolish to attempt to hide uncomfortable or unpleasant parts of church history.  Are you suggesting going back to correlation that hides and removes all of those parts?  Hiding them or not talking about them does not mean these things didn't take place or aren't true.  

The leaders are actually (and thankfully) doing just the opposite of what you appear to be suggesting.  They are trying to correct and get more accurate information out there to the members.  At least that's what I am seeing.  They are encouraging more discussion, not avoiding talking about them or pretending they didn't happen.

(Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning above....)

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, but children of polygamists can be baptized before the age of 18. Is same-sex marriage more antithetical to the gospel than apostate splinter groups practicing polygamy? 

Yes.
 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps you have a point.  They haven't been listening for two years.  They haven't listened to the November 2015 letter, or to Elder Christofferson, or to Elder Nelson.

You don't know that.  Just because they desire to personally hear words spoken directly from the Prophet on this, absolutely does not mean that the "haven't been listening for two years".  Many have explained here why there is a difference, but you can continue to ignore that if you choose to of course.  

I get and understand that it may not make a difference for you....but it definitely would for many and you might want to at least try to understand that everyone is at a different place in their lives with this topic.  Many are very personally touched and affected by it in their personal lives.  

We have been taught repeatedly that the Prophet is the only one who can receive revelation for the church and its members.  He is the one who speaks for God.  Members believe that is true.  Why is it so hard for you grasp why they'd want to personally hear from their Prophet regarding this? 

I've seen this up close and personal with many members of my ward.  Maybe that's why I have a different perspective than you do here and I do understand that too.

Edited September 19, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Don't get me wrong. Correlation has its good points, and was necessary in its way. Balance and a happy medium . . . 

Noted.

[Thinking]

I finally watched the end of the video and this whole situation is just funny. This is my interpretation. After the prayer Elder Bednar decides to have a conversation with the young woman who is seated right next to him. At the same time Sister Bednar starts to stand up and catches herself and sits down and anxiously waits for her husband to stand. Elder Bednar realizes that everybody is waiting for him to stand., so he stands. Doh!

IMO this cultural tradition of maintaining some order of who stands when is just silly.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Thinking

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, but children of polygamists can be baptized before the age of 18. Is same-sex marriage more antithetical to the gospel than apostate splinter groups practicing polygamy? 

Actually, they can't, as I indicated in the part I just added to my last post.

They are under the same restriction as children in gay "marriage" households.

I thought you already knew this. If not, I'm glad to enlighten you.

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You don't know that.  Just because they desire to personally hear words spoken directly from the Prophet on this, absolutely does not mean that the "haven't been listening for two years".  Many have explained here why there is a difference, but you can continue to ignore that if you choose to of course.  

I get and understand that it may not make a difference for you....but definitely would for many and you might want to at least try to understand that everyone is at a different place in their lives with this topic.  Many are very personally touched and affected by it in their personal lives.  

I've seen this up close and personal with many members of my ward.  Maybe that's why I have a different perspective than you do here and I do understand that too.

If that's the case, it's a good opportunity for a teaching moment to help them understand that the word of the Lord is the same, whether a prophet speaks it from the pulpit or puts it in writing.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You don't know that.  Just because they desire to personally hear words spoken directly from the Prophet on this, absolutely does not mean that the "haven't been listening for two years".  Many have explained here why there is a difference, but you can continue to ignore that if you choose to of course.  

I get and understand that it may not make a difference for you....but definitely would for many and you might want to at least try to understand that everyone is at a different place in their lives with this topic.  Many are very personally touched and affected by it in their personal lives.  

I've seen this up close and personal with many members of my ward.  Maybe that's why I have a different perspective than you do here and I do understand that too.

I don't understand the attitude that says if you are genuinely troubled by a church policy, you're simply wrong, aren't listening, or are sowing the seeds of open rebellion. I understand why some people would feel better about this if the prophet were to speak personally, but that has nothing to do with being an ark-steadier or a closet apostate. 

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, why is it that the children of only one type of apostate can't be baptized? What is it about same-sex marriage that sets it apart from other forms of apostasy? 

Same-sex marriage seeks to redefine marriage in a way that is contrary to the pattern for marriage that was given in the Garden.  It seeks to change marriage from an eternal covenant who's author is God to something defined by earthly courts. 

The stated purpose of withholding baptism from children involved in such unions is to preserve harmony in their homes.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, they can't, as I indicated in the part I just added to my last post.

They are under the same restriction as children in gay "marriage" households.

I thought you already knew this. If not, I'm glad to enlighten you.

My understanding is that children of polygamists can request an exemption from the First Presidency, whereas the children of parents in a same-sex marriage cannot. If that's not the case, I will gladly stand corrected. 

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It happens all the time: gay parents often have an explicit agreement with an ex-spouse that they will raise their children in the LDS church. I know more than 10 families in which this is the case. Why does recognizing the fact of the parent's marriage affect the child's ability to accept and embrace church doctrine? My kids accept my hate-filled, bitter anti-Mormonism but do not embrace it, and they were not barred from baptism or temple ordinances. What is so earth-shatteringly different about accepting the fact of a same-sex marriage? 

As for sealing kids, current church policy is that you can't be sealed to a parent who isn't a member. In the families I know, one parent is active LDS, and thus the kids could be sealed to that parent with the consent of the gay parent. This is how it works in part-member families, is it not?

I think the policy is that children must be sealed to two parents, not just one, and both must be members either living or vicarious. Your "hate-filled, bitter anti-Mormonism" doesn't nullify your marriage, but it would make things difficult, no? It would be easier on the kids if both parents were equally yoked in the covenant.

Are you no longer a member? If you were to have your name removed or were to be excommunicated, your kids could not be sealed to you, no? I'm not sure of the status of sealings of kids who were sealed to parents prior to excommunication or withdrawal of one or both parents. 

It appears you are avoiding the bull over by the china closet. If the Church recognizes ssm, what changes will need to be made to the sealing process?

Mom and pop marriages and ssm are not the only two possibilities. How should the Church deal with the others that are bound to come up as things continue to shake out? 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the leaders learned that it is foolish to attempt to hide uncomfortable or unpleasant parts of church history.  Are you suggesting going back to correlation that hides and removes all of those parts?  Hiding them or not talking about them does not mean these things didn't take place or aren't true.  

The leaders are actually (and thankfully) doing just the opposite of what you appear to be suggesting.  They are trying to correct and get more accurate information out there to the members.  At least that's what I am seeing.  They are encouraging more discussion, not avoiding talking about them or pretending they didn't happen.

(Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning above....)

You definitely are misunderstanding my meaning.

I'm not talking about hiding Church history. I have reference to unauthoritative conjecture and speculation. Rongo suggested some good examples: Adam-God, blood atonement, speculative reasons for the priesthood ban.

None of these had anything to do with hiding Church history, nor did I have such a thing in mind.

 

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

If that's the case, it's a good opportunity for a teaching moment to help them understand that the word of the Lord is the same, whether a prophet speaks it from the pulpit or puts it in writing.

Once again, it is not the same and does not feel the same for most members (I get it that you feel it is the same).  A group letter read over the pulpit by a Bishop is not the same as hearing and seeing and feeling emotions as the Prophet speaks directly to the members.

Here's Calm's post once again that expresses 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 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.

 

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I think the policy is that children must be sealed to two parents, not just one, and both must be members either living or vicarious. Your "hate-filled, bitter anti-Mormonism" doesn't nullify your marriage, but it would make things difficult, no? It would be easier on the kids if both parents were equally yoked in the covenant.

Are you no longer a member? If you were to have your name removed or were to be excommunicated, your kids could not be sealed to you, no? I'm not sure of the status of sealings of kids who were sealed to parents prior to excommunication or withdrawal of one or both parents. 

It appears you are avoiding the bull over by the china closet. If the Church recognizes ssm, what changes will need to be made to the sealing process?

Mom and pop marriages and ssm are not the only two possibilities. How should the Church deal with the others that are bound to come up as things continue to shake out? 

This is not an either/or situation. Allowing the children of parents who are in a same-sex marriage to be baptized in no way equates to the church recognizing same-sex marriage and has no more impact on the sealing process than does the baptism of converts whose parents are not members.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The stated purpose of withholding baptism from children involved in such unions is to preserve harmony in their homes.

Oddly enough, the families I know have had a marked decrease in harmony because of the policy change. Custodial agreements that had been made amicably are now being revisited, more than a few with real contention because now it's not just custody but the child's eligibility for baptism and church membership at stake. If that was the purpose, it may not be having the intended result.

Edited September 19, 2017 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

President Nelson specifically and publicly ascribed the policy change to revelation.  

But so what?  If a person doesn't sustain the General Authorities, if he does not believe they are called of God, then the lack of revelation is a foregone conclusion, and there's nothing, really, to discuss.

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

President Nelson has specifically and publicly ascribed the policy change to revelation given through President Monson and sustained unanimously by the Quorum of the Twelve.  We found that out in January 2016.  And yet the position of the critics has apparently not changed one inch.  Instead, President Nelson's remarks have either been utterly ignored, or summarily dismissed, or used as grist for further complaints and criticisms ("Hey, Russell M. Nelson is a nobody!  He's only the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles!  I want to hear from someone who counts!").

Hence my suspicion that the call for President Monson to address this issue further is a red herring.  It just does not come across as a good faith request to hear from the Presiding High Priest.

The Presiding High Priest has spoken on this issue through the November 2015 First Presidency letter (along with his counselors).  The complainers don't care and insist on more.

Elder Christofferson sat down and gave a lengthy interview on this issue, which was then transcribed and published to the world.   The complainers don't care and insist on more.

President Nelson, functioning in his official capacity, spoke on this issue at some length during a worldwide devotional for the young adults in the Church, which remarks were then transcribed and published to the world.   The complainers don't care and insist on more.

I would also be very interested in anything President Monson has to say on this subject.  But I don't many of the calls for him to do so are not really made in good faith.  If people are ignoring or rejecting what has already been said, it seems like they will just do so again.  And then complain again.  And make more demands.  Rinse.  Lather.  Repeat.

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

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 do not understand what you are saying here.

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

What "principle"?

And why would it need to be "taught regularly"?  Disciplinary matters are not a common topic for Sacrament Meeting talks or Gospel Doctrine lessons.  Bishops and Stake Presidents need to be aware of the Church's guidelines (which presently allow for some flexibility in terms of supporting same-sex marriage while remaining in fellowship - something that appears to irritate you), and the policy change was codified (in the CHI).  

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

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

There can be a huge difference.  Not all church policies are created equal.  The Church has policies restricting the use of kitchens in church buildings to the warming and serving (but not the preparation) of food.  That policy, I think, is probably borne principally of safety concerns, compliance with city/county/state ordinances, facilities maintenance concerns, logistical considerations, and so forth.  So I don't think there's much need for "revelation" as to this policy.  In this the Church is complying with D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet 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").

But then there are other policies which may have a much, much stronger revelatory provenance.  For example, the Church has various scriptural mandates regarding disciplinary matters.  It has therefore worked to promulgate governing principles which are based on scriptural and revelatory sources, but which are nevertheless enacted and codifed in the CHI as "policies."

In the present case, we had a situation where a novel form of marriage (same-sex marriage) had entered society.  The Church had long had policies (again, founded on scriptural/revelatory principles) regarding polygamy, but not same-sex marriage.  So the Brethren . . . did what they are supposed to do, as described by President Nelson:

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.

Folks like you have, for nearly two years now, pretty much ignored or dismissed President Nelson's remarks.  We are being assured that one more treatment of this issue is needed.  But it has to be by President Monson.  And it has to be verbal.  And it has to be during General Conference.  And it has to meet these ad hoc, contrived constraints because . . . otherwise the narrative of "Hey, the General Authorities are not paying attention to this issue!" pretty much falls apart.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Folks like you have, for nearly two years now, pretty much ignored or dismissed President Nelson's remarks.  We are being assured that one more treatment of this issue is needed.  But it has to be by President Monson.  And it has to be verbal.  And it has to be during General Conference.  And it has to meet these ad hoc, contrived constraints because . . . otherwise the narrative of "Hey, the General Authorities are not paying attention to this issue!" pretty much falls apart.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you really think these people aren't sincere in their desire for some comfort and reassurance from the prophet and are instead just Alinsky acolytes stirring up trouble? 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Oh I don't know.  Perhaps because past revelations have been declared by the lips of the prophet himself and preached often and by multiple church leaders from the pulpit of General Conference since the beginning of the church.

Multiple church leaders have spoken over the pulpit about this. About thirty thousand bishops and branch presidents in addition to General Authorities come to mind.

Would it even be better if the Lord himself appeared at the pulpit to talk about it? 

Doctrine and Covenants Section 1 is appropriate to this discussion. Among other salient points found there are these...

Quote

4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.

5 And they shall go forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My understanding is that children of polygamists can request an exemption from the First Presidency, whereas the children of parents in a same-sex marriage cannot. If that's not the case, I will gladly stand corrected. 

I"m very skeptical that the First Presidency wouldn't consider such a request for an exemption in a case of children in a same-sex "marriage" as well. There will always be exceptions to be considered.

But I'm open to enlightenment on that if you can document your understanding.

Bottom line, though, is that children of polygamists -- like children same-sex "marriage" households -- ordinarily are not eligible for baptism until age 18, even if there can be a "request for exemption."

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I"m very skeptical that the First Presidency wouldn't consider such a request for an exemption in a case of children in a same-sex "marriage" as well. There will always be exceptions to be considered.

But I'm open to enlightenment on that if you can document your understanding.

Bottom line, though, is that children of polygamists -- like children same-sex "marriage" households -- ordinarily are not eligible for baptism until age 18, even if there can be a "request for exemption."

I'm sure Scott can clarify, but as I read it, there's no stated process for requesting an exemption with same-sex households. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bear in mind one of those "like" buttons was mine.

I was responding to Calm, who was complaining about your use of quotation marks for other than quoted material. Since I have made an issue of such a thing in the past, for the sake of consistency, I had to acknowledge agreement with her in principle. But you will notice I quickly added that I got your point when I clicked on the link, and I expressed strong agreement with your point.

 

I was yanking your chain. Sometimes I'm not clear when I do that.