Standing before an Apostle does, at a meeting

[smac97]

1 hour 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). 

I'm not sure human nature is a dispositive factor here.  Consider the cessation of polygamy.  That created a ton of tumult.  It was probably the single most divisive and schismatic event in the history of the Church.  Moreover, most of the decision-makers (the General Authorities) were themselves polygamists.  And the Church had, for decades, fought for the principle of polygamy.  By most accounts, the cumulative "human nature" effect would have been to continue polygamy in the face of opposition, not stop it.  And yet . . . we stopped it.  But we stopped it not because of "human nature" one way or another, but because of revelation from God.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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.

I don't think the Brethren are being reactionary in terms of their teaching us about the Law of Chastity, homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage, etc.  They are sticking to their guns not because of human nature-borne stubbornness, but because they believe they are acting in accordance with the revealed will of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

 

 

I don't agree that you can competently say how "most members" would feel about it. I have to think that a reasonable person would regard a written communication signed by the Church president as having come from the Church president.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.

I don't think I have "attacked" any such thing.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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?

I understand that this did happen in some circumstances, yes.  I am not immediately familiar with how widespread this counsel was, whether it was "official" and formal or otherwise, if it came from the General Authorities quora, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure human nature is a dispositive factor here.  Consider the cessation of polygamy.  That created a ton of tumult.  It was probably the single most divisive and schismatic event in the history of the Church.  Moreover, most of the decision-makers (the General Authorities) were themselves polygamists.  And the Church had, for decades, fought for the principle of polygamy.  By most accounts, the cumulative "human nature" effect would have been to continue polygamy in the face of opposition, not stop it.  And yet . . . we stopped it.  But we stopped it not because of "human nature" one way or another, but because of revelation from God.

I don't think the Brethren are being reactionary in terms of their teaching us about the Law of Chastity, homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage, etc.  They are sticking to their guns not because of human nature-borne stubbornness, but because they believe they are acting in accordance with the revealed will of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

Indeed.

If it were a matter of stubbornness borne of human nature, they would not have made the conciliations they have (the so-called "Utah compromise," the more temperate tone in public discourse, the mormonandgay.org website, etc.).

Edited September 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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? 

Oh, I think some of them are sincere.  No doubt there (though I still deem problematic their benign or wilfull ignorance of various statements given by various General Authorities on this issue).  But I think some are not.  And I think the Alinskyite tactic is being deployed (even if those deploying it do not understand or recognize its source).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I'm aware of zero families in my ward that fall under the policy.  I previously served as a stake high councilor with responsibility for baptisms.  In the five years I served in that capacity we had zero children whose parents were involved in same-sex relationships baptized. 

I wonder who's experience is closer to the norm.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't agree that you can competently say how "most members" would feel about it. I have to think that a reasonable person would regard a written communication signed by the Church president as having come from the Church president.

I don't think he's saying that most members wouldn't consider such a letter to have come from the church president, only that most members don't consider a letter to be the same thing as the prophet personally addressing members over the pulpit.  I don't.  

It's probably because we have been taught to treat GC addresses as scripture, but we have never been taught to treat letters over the pulpit as scripture.  Those, and newsroom annoucments, are typically viewed as policies or things dealing with logistics.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't agree that you can competently say how "most members" would feel about it. I have to think that a reasonable person would regard a written communication signed by the Church president as having come from the Church president.

Well, I can only go by the feedback I have gotten on this from the members of my ward.

I doubt that few members would choose to have a letter read to them if they could instead actually hear their Prophet speak his words, express his emotions and communicate his feelings as they watch him speak.  I really highly doubt hardly any member would choose a letter over a personal experience with the Prophet.

These same members can also believe that the letter came from the first presidency.

Both can be true here.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Yes, he was asking for direct quotes (not from a group letter or some other general source) spoken directly by President Monson.  The one he linked to was the only one he found as he was searching too (those were from an interview with President Monson).  I guess that ended up being the only one too!  It was very obvious (at least to me) that's what he wanted.  How about you just believe him?

His specific request was

Quote

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.)? [emphasis added]

How do "comments" and "etc." signify "only personal public over-the-pulpit General Conference style" talks? I don't see anything there about direct quotes group letters or general sources. In fact, the one he approved of and linked to as an example was a quote from a Deseret News article, and he asked for more. I'm not sure you have followed the sequence of changes properly. 

Quote

In searching, I did find this...(if you can find anything else, I'd love to see it): [emphasis added]

When subsequently provided with more sources to see, he changed the parameters. It's clear as day. Not sure why you can't see it.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm aware of zero families in my ward that fall under the policy.  I previously served as a stake high councilor with responsibility for baptisms.  In the five years I served in that capacity we had zero children whose parents were involved in same-sex relationships baptized. 

I wonder who's experience is closer to the norm.

I know about a dozen families in that situation, one of them in my own family. No one is saying my experience is "close to the norm," just that this policy does have impact in real people's lives. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Should every published church policy be considered the word and will of God through His prophet? Hmmmm. Have to think that one over.

No, but when they involve significant doctrinal and procedural topics, they should be given some serious listening ears. One may disagree with such a far-reaching policy, but rejecting or refusing to follow it should give one pause.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You don't know that. 

You don't, either.  It's speculation all around.  But I think my speculation is more well-founded. 

Quote

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". 

Okay.  I'll bite.  What do they, in your view, want to hear that has not already been said?

Quote

Many have explained here why there is a difference, but you can continue to ignore that if you choose to of course.  

I haven't ignored it.

Quote

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. 

I understand that.

Quote

Many are very personally touched and affected by it in their personal lives.  

I understand that.

Quote

We have been taught repeatedly that the Prophet is the only one who can receive revelation for the church and its members. 

Yes.

Quote

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 get it.  

I also get that the prophet has spoken on this issue.  So have Elder Christofferson and President Nelson.

Again, what is it that you think needs to be said that has not yet been said?

Quote

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've seen this up close and personal, too.  So the difference in our perspectives must be attributable to something else.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2017 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

That, of course, is the intended outcome of this whole exercise.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, but when they involve significant doctrinal and procedural topics, they should be given some serious listening ears. One may disagree with such a far-reaching policy, but rejecting or refusing to follow it should give one pause.

I'm not arguing with that, just the notion that disagreeing or rejecting a policy change does not necessarily equate to apostasy.

[Rock_N_Roll]

34 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. 

Actually, according to my bishop, who said he got it from an area GA, children of parents in a same-sex marriage, CAN request an exemption from the FP.  They will be considered on a case by case basis.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Rock_N_Roll said:

Actually, according to my bishop, who said he got it from an area GA, children of parents in a same-sex marriage, CAN request an exemption from the FP.  They will be considered on a case by case basis.  

But that is not written out in the policy.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Well next time, yank a little harder so that I know you don't really mean it!

 

[rongo]

40 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.

They can, with FP approval. When I was a ward mission leader in Salt Lake, we called them COPS (children of polygamy). They must be interviewed by an apostle to be approved for baptism, and this takes months to arrange. 

The policy doesn't list any appeal procedure for COGS. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

They can, with FP approval. When I was a ward mission leader in Salt Lake, we called them COPS (children of polygamy). They must be interviewed by an apostle to be approved for baptism, and this takes months to arrange. 

The policy doesn't list any appeal procedure for COGS. 

Thanks. That was my reading of it, anyway.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

His specific request was

How do "comments" and "etc." signify "only personal public over-the-pulpit General Conference style" talks? I don't see anything there about direct quotes group letters or general sources. In fact, the one he approved of and linked to as an example was a quote from a Deseret News article, and he asked for more. I'm not sure you have followed the sequence of changes properly. 

When subsequently provided with more sources to see, he changed the parameters. It's clear as day. Not sure why you can't see it.

Not true from what I saw.  He clarified quickly for those who'd misunderstood his initial inquiry.  But you should really stop this as we do know now what he was asking from the beginning if we believe him.  He states he never changed what he asked for (only tried to make it more clear for those who initially didn't understand).  

I checked the flow again just now and even you definitely got it by the time you posted your quote from the newsroom (soon after his first post).From there on out, you should have dropped not understanding or questioning him.  I've done that too though (misinterpreted another poster only to later realize that I'd been mistaken).  It happens to all of us!

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour 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?

In the letter, they reaffirmed the doctrinal basis (scripture) and historical nature of one man/one woman marriage, enlarged the doctrine as it applies to families, and stated policies based on this doctrine. If there were such a statement, would that fix it all for you? Maybe not? 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, 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."

 

 

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

"Scott" is happy to clarify for you. This is from a document entitled "Understanding the Handbook" that was released soon after the November 2015 policy came to light.

Quote

Of course, there are always situations that fall outside general guidelines and principles, which is why local leaders may ask for guidance from more senior leaders in particular cases where they may have questions.

This says to me that, based on extenuating circumstances "that fall outside the general guidelines and principles," there may be such a "request for exemption" as pertaining to a child in a same-sex "marriage' household.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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 did not say what you want it to say, how would you react?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

They can, with FP approval. When I was a ward mission leader in Salt Lake, we called them COPS (children of polygamy). They must be interviewed by an apostle to be approved for baptism, and this takes months to arrange. 

The policy doesn't list any appeal procedure for COGS. 

 

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Thanks. That was my reading of it, anyway.

Please see what I just posted to jkwilliams.

There may not be any written procedure, but that does not mean such a request would not be considered.

 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

"Scott" is happy to clarify for you. This is from a document entitled "Understanding the Handbook" that was released soon after the November 2015 policy came to light.

This says to me that, based on extenuating circumstances "that fall outside the general guidelines and principles," there may be such a "request for exemption" as pertaining to a child in a same-sex "marriage' household.

It seems to me that this is suggesting that clarification may be given if a leader encounters a situation that he's not sure applies to the policy. But it could mean what you said, too, but it certainly doesn't spell out any possibility of an exemption.