Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks but so what if it has changed? Is that important?

I was just responding to your statement that baptism is "not the greatest example" of how practices and doctrines have changed over the years in the church.  

I think it's actually a great example to give, but what do you believe is the "greatest example"?  

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I reject your assertion that "no one should take what Church leaders are saying as fact." When they are expressing the mind and will of God -- as I fervently believe they have done in this instance -- it should be taken as that (see D&C 1). 

And no, it is not essential in each and every instance for the prophet to say he is speaking for God. Very often that is implicit. 

Besides, for many people who have hardened their attitudes on this subject, I don't think it would make much difference if he did. President Nelson spoke in some detail about the revelatory process that attended the formulation of the November 2015 policy, but his affirmation was met with harsh resistance and naysaying in some quarters. Clearly, for them it made little difference that a prophet said God directed the action other than, in some instances, to make them yet more hostile. 

You probably weren't told to marry someone of the same sex and been given a promise from God that if you did, you would turn into a homosexual.  

I however was told to marry someone of the opposite sex and given a promise from God that if I did I would turn into a heterosexual.  

No one should that what the Church leaders are saying as fact.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it that it wouldn't make any difference to you if the Church leaders did attribute their assertion to God that the doctrine pertaining to traditional marriage won't change. 

Let's be upfront about that. 

I certainly wouldn't trust it as being a fact would I.  See above post.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it that it wouldn't make any difference to you if the Church leaders did attribute their assertion to God that the doctrine pertaining to traditional marriage won't change. 

There is a reason the Prophet no longer asserts revelation or specifically states that they are speaking for God much anymore (actually it's quite rare to hear this and we've never heard this from President Monson about him receiving a revelation as far as I know).

In a few years, when more change has taken place, this makes it much easier for members to reason "well, he was just speaking as a man and giving his opinion and we now know he was wrong".

This has been a lesson well learned by our leaders.

More and more members are learning to use their own inspiration and not just blindly following or believing every single word uttered by church leaders.  We know these leaders are good men, but their opinions and statements can be erroneous just as those from leaders in the past have been.

Edited September 23, 2017 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it that it wouldn't make any difference to you if the Church leaders did attribute their assertion to God that the doctrine pertaining to traditional marriage won't change. 

Let's be upfront about that. 

I would accept that their current claim and understanding is that it will not change but I would have no confidence that it truly would never change. There's too much evidence against the possibility of change. Such a statement even conflicts with church doctrines about continuing revelation by essentially saying, "we know the whole truth and nothing will ever change it. We have everything we need to know". That kind of arrogance doesn't hold up historically or theologically.

Does a current prophet have the right and authority to tie the hands of a future prophet and God by declaring what will and what will never be?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Man, you are dreaming here. I have never in the last 40 years denied that truth changes. I guess all those long posts to you go in one ear and out the other.

Of course the church changes, truth changes, and we have an open Canon.

And no, it is possible to get baptized more than once regardless of whatever importance that supposedly has for you!

And no, I did have a camera in Joseph's bedroom and I really don't care how many women he allegedly slept with, nor do I care how many women Kant or Hegel slept with.  Do you?

Sorry you have the wrong guy. I will say it again, positivism is dead and you don't know it.

What you don't know and will not learn is not my problem.  I have tried.

Great, change has occurred and you're still ok. Maybe you could spread the word to the change deniers? It's really a minute point like you say but to some it is practically impossible to admit.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I certainly wouldn't trust it as being a fact would I.  See above post.

Then you shouldn't keep raising the argument that President Monson has not declared verbally that it came from God, as such a thing wouldn't make any difference to you anyway. That argument of yours is a straw man. Be honest and admit it.

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was just responding to your statement that baptism is "not the greatest example" of how practices and doctrines have changed over the years in the church.  

I think it's actually a great example to give, but what do you believe is the "greatest example"?  

What is your favorite color?

who cares ? Probably polygamy and Blacks in the priesthood. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What is your favorite color?

who cares ? Probably polygamy and Blacks in the priesthood. 

Why such a flippant attitude (my question was sincere).  If you don't feel this discussion is interesting (that's how I take it with your "who cares?" comment), then don't participate.  

Thanks for at least stating which examples you believe are the best, as I really was interested to know.

Edited September 23, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would accept that their current claim and understanding is that it will not change but I would have no confidence that it truly would never change. There's too much evidence against the possibility of change. Such a statement even conflicts with church doctrines about continuing revelation by essentially saying, "we know the whole truth and nothing will ever change it. We have everything we need to know". That kind of arrogance doesn't hold up historically or theologically.

Does a current prophet have the right and authority to tie the hands of a future prophet and God by declaring what will and what will never be?

So whether or not the prophet attributes an expression to God would make no difference to you. You would still reject it if it conflicted with your preconceptions.

So I take it we will be hearing no more disingenuous arguments about the prophet not having spoken personally about the gay marriage issue or whether or not the Church's position has been attributed to God. This is a straw man, since you wouldn't accept it in any case. Can we have a little honesty regarding that at least?

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So whether or not the prophet attributes an expression to God would make no difference to you. You would still reject it if it conflicted with your preconceptions.

So I take it we will be hearing no more disingenuous arguments about the prophet not having spoken personally about the gay marriage issue or whether or not the Church's position has been attributed to God. This is a straw man, since you wouldn't accept it in any case. Can we have a little honesty regarding that at least?

The point is, Scott that each member should pray about any statement or opinion given by our leaders.  We each are entitled to our own inspiration.  Nothing should be immediately rejected or blindly accepted.  It's not that black and white....reject 100% or accept 100% when we know they are human and make mistakes just as everyone else does.  

Maybe it used to be years ago for members (more blind obedience or 100% acceptance), but with all the changes that have taken place and with all the knowledge that past Prophets and leaders have made errors, more members are hearing their words but praying for their own inspiration or confirmation.

Edited September 23, 2017 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So whether or not the prophet attributes an expression to God would make no difference to you. You would still reject it if it conflicted with your preconceptions.

So I take it we will be hearing no more disingenuous arguments about the prophet not having spoken personally about the gay marriage issue or whether or not the Church's position has been attributed to God. This is a straw man, since you wouldn't accept it in any case. Can we have a little honesty regarding that at least?

You seem to be purposely obtuse on this.

It's not a matter of me not liking something. It has to do with the prophet attributing something to God only to have another prophet say that same thing is a heresy, or a theory to be disavowed. You haven't answered how that conflict is resolved or even acknowledged that it exists

Edited September 23, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to be purposely obtuse on this.

It's not a matter of me not liking something. It has to do with the prophet attributing something to God only to have another prophet say that same thing is a heresy, or a theory to be disavowed. You haven't answered how that conflict is resolved

I'm not being obtuse. I just want you to clearly and honestly admit what you're skirting: That it would not make any difference at all to you if the prophet said "thus saith the Lord"; that you will go on believing and behaving as you like regardless. Thus, it is a straw man to raise the fact that a prophet has not done so.

Edited to add: I would be happy to be shown I'm wrong on this assumption. If the prophet were to say "Thus saith the Lord" on this matter, would it change your mind?

Edited September 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So whether or not the prophet attributes an expression to God would make no difference to you. You would still reject it if it conflicted with your preconceptions.

So I take it we will be hearing no more disingenuous arguments about the prophet not having spoken personally about the gay marriage issue or whether or not the Church's position has been attributed to God. This is a straw man, since you wouldn't accept it in any case. Can we have a little honesty regarding that at least?

 

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The point is, Scott that each member should pray about any statement or opinion given by our leaders.  We each are entitled to our own inspiration.  Nothing should be immediately rejected or blindly accepted.  It's not that black and white....reject 100% or accept 100% when we know they are human and make mistakes just as everyone else does.  

Maybe it used to be years ago for members (more blind obedience or 100% acceptance), but with all the changes that have taken place and with all the knowledge that past Prophets and leaders have made errors, more members are hearing their words but praying for their own inspiration or confirmation.

So I take it your answer to my question (in bold above) is "No." Why not say so clearly and honestly?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it your answer to my question (in bold above) is "No."

I gave you my honest response.  It's not a black or white issue for me....reject or accept.

I accept the statements from the leaders whether they specifically state it is revelation or not.  I accept them as being their opinions and beliefs.  I also know that things change, opinions and beliefs change (as numerous examples have already been given for you here and on the other thread about baptism have shown).  

That's why you can say that things will "never" change regarding SSM and this policy....but you really do not have much to stand on to support that because of how much change has taken place over the years regarding doctrines, practices and policies.  You keep skirting that issue and fact.

Edited September 23, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

ALarson said "We each are entitled to our own inspiration."

That is not precisely true. It's not a matter of entitlement.

The receipt of personal refelation is dependent upon the humility, receptiveness and readiness of a person to receive it. And even then, it only comes as God, in His wisdom, is inclined to bestow it.

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Pete Ahlstrom]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

ALarson said "We each are entitled to our own inspiration."

That is not precisely true. It's not a matter of entitlement.

The receipt of personal refelation is dependent upon the humility, receptiveness and readiness of a person to receive it. And even then, it only comes as God, in His wisdom, is inclined to bestow it.

 

Come on Scott, just admit it is possible that sometime in the future, the SSM policy could change.  You will be a better person for doing so.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why such a flippant attitude (my question was sincere).  If you don't feel this discussion is interesting (that's how I take it with your "who cares?" comment), then don't participate.  

Thanks for at least stating which examples you believe are the best, as I really was interested to know.

Sorry

I was answering the issue about baptism, not the discussion about changes. My sole point was that you can be baptized twice, nothing more.

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Come on Scott, just admit it is possible that sometime in the future, the SSM policy could change.  You will be a better person for doing so.

That may change but it would mean another great apostasy.

That single doctrine IS the church right back to Adam and Eve.

If that happens it would be another church. I have to go with Scott on this one. I know he would not be a better person in my estimation for doing so. It would create a huge split in the church.

Our church is based on a dialectical way of thinking and that would erase the most important of opposition in all things.

But it is not worth debating it with you.

You have no understanding of how we think.

Edited September 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then you shouldn't keep raising the argument that President Monson has not declared verbally that it came from God, as such a thing wouldn't make any difference to you anyway. That argument of yours is a straw man. Be honest and admit it.

 

What I stated is that Thomas S Monson has yet to declare anything a revelation from God.  A straw man argument for what?  I never said I would believe him if he made such a claim.  I think I have always been very clear that I don't trust Church leaders when they make some kind of promise in the name of God.  And I think I have been pretty consistent in saying that I really don't care what the Church teaches.  

That doesn't mean that I am not interested in what you and others on this board believe and why.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That may change but it would mean another great apostasy.

That single doctrine IS the church right back to Adam and Eve.

If that happens it would be another church. I have to go with Scott on this one. I know he would not be a better person in my estimation for doing so. It would create a huge split in the church.

Our church is based on a dialectical way of thinking and that would erase the most important of opposition in all things.

But it is not worth debating it with you.

You have no understanding of how we think.

I don't think the current SSM policy (which states that those living in SSM should be excommunicated and that the children of gay parents can't be baptized until 18) is the church.  

It's called a policy for a reason.   It can be argued that it's based on doctrine (like most of our policies probably are) but that doesn't mean the policy itself is doctrine.  There are lots of ways that the policy could change and it wouldn't impact the doctrines of the church. 

[Avatar4321]

52 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Come on Scott, just admit it is possible that sometime in the future, the SSM policy could change.  You will be a better person for doing so.

when has lying ever made someone a better person?

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry

No problem.  We all get worked up here at times 

Thanks for your response!

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

when has lying ever made someone a better person?

Well, admitting "that it is a possibility" wouldn't be a lie, IMO.  Change is constant within the church especially regarding policies....so of course it's "a possibility".

He didn't ask Scott to admit that he believed it would change.  That's different and I think Scott has been clear he believes the policy will never change.

[Avatar4321]

can just say it's kind of sad that a thread that starts with such edifying and uplifting counsel can become a thread that's neither edifying nor uplifting.