Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  And if Mistake A is acknowledged, then the critics will discount the acknowledgment as insufficient or insincere, or else will just shift to griping about Mistake B, and then Mistake C, and so on, ad infinitum.  The critics then get to become the arbiters of right and wrong.  The critics enthrone themselves as judges over the Lord's servants.

Again, the pernicious thing about faultfinding is that you'll always succeed at it.  Thank you for so aptly demonstrating my point.

So Nephi was a faultfinder?  Joseph Smith?  Pres. Uchtdorf?

I think we can and should seek to identify and rectify errors and mistakes.  Certainly.  But not as our critics would have us do it.  The time and place and manner in which such things are discussed and addressed matter.  A lot.

Ah, malarky.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again... blame the person who asked the question while not addressing the question. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'm curious, when a newspaper reporter prints a quote from a source in his newspaper should we consider that Triple hearsay?  I'm not being critical of you I'm merely asking a question. 

As a technical matter, yes, a newspaper that quotes a source is publishing hearsay.  Hence we see instances of newspapers retracting misquotes and such (see, e.g., here and here).

Things like editorial oversight, reputational concern, and threats of libel lawsuits are intended to mitigate the risks inherent in publishing hearsay.  And we still run into journalistic misconduct.  All the time.

Quote

And yes I realize that because all of this information being claimed is coming from  people who are anonymous, just like you too are anonymous, should it then be dismissed out of hand because it is coming from anonymous posters? 

It should be dismissed for a variety of reasons (not "out of hand"), one of which is the anonymity of the purveyors of the information.

As for me being "anonymous," well, you aren't paying attention.

Quote

PS: I might add that from a legal standard, much of what is posted on this board would qualify as hearsay and be inadmissible in a court of law, and from that standard Johnnie Cakes source, as it stands right now, would also be inadmissible and be stricken from the record as hearsay.  But fortunately we are not held to the same standard here when judging information, which is one of the things that makes this board fun, so we have the liberty to weight information based on its merits.

Agreed.  And what Johnnie has presented has essentially no merit.  Heck, he's admitted as much himself ("{W}ere the circumstances reversed I would be in the lead pushing back on such an undocumented claim made by an anonymous internet poster . . . So given the circumstances, I don’t expect most to believe this witness...").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 10, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Again... blame the person who asked the question while not addressing the question. 

What "question"?

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

That is a good encapsulation.  My experience has been exactly that-- believe and live it, and enjoy a relatively happy life.  The blacks and the priesthood issue, for example, never bothered me.  I always saw all races as my brothers and sisters.  A black friend I baptized told me "I don't know why I can't hold the priesthood.  All I know is the Book of Mormon is true and I have the assurance that, someday, my family and I will enjoy all the Temple blessings as anyone else."  About two years later, he and his family were sealed in the Seattle Temple.   I was content looking for ways that issue (and others,) could fit into my world view.  Christ taught that the Gospel would be taken first to the Jews, then the Gentiles.  Remember the woman in scriptures who wanted the Gospel, but her time hadn't come yet?  I saw the blacks falling into that category.  Turns out I was wrong.  But the Brethren, for whatever reason (revelatory or societal,) corrected it.  I trust them to continue to do the right thing as they become aware of it.  In the mean time, I was able to prove many other principles to my satisfaction and enjoy (what seems to me) a very happy and purpose filled life.

I have been much the same way. I think though that many process things differently than I do so I understand why they might struggle with some of these issues.  I think you get that considering what you said about your children,  but I want others who struggle, reading this to know. I do think though, that it can be learned and will bring peace when it is learned. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You mean, the final word in Jacob's book in the Book of Mormon is ... much adieu about nothing?   (Seriously, in case someone is wondering whether it really is much adieu about nothing, see here (last accessed October 10, 2017): https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Language/"Adieu".)

Sorry, couldn't resist!  

Amazingly, your link is already broken, even though you last accessed it today.

Here's an operative one: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Language/"Adieu"

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Revelatory is defined as “revealing something hitherto unknown”.

That is one facet of how that terms is used in the LDS Church.

Revelatory:

Quote

adjective

1. of, relating to, or having the characteristics of revelation.

2. showing or disclosing an emotion, belief, quality, or the like (usually followed by of):

a poem revelatory of the author's deep, personal sorrow.

Revelation:

Quote

noun

1. the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.

2. something revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.

3. Theology.

• a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
• b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.
• c. something thus communicated or disclosed.
• d. something that contains such disclosure, as the Bible.

4.

(initial capital letter). Also called Revelations, The Revelation of St. John the Divine. the last book in the New Testament; the Apocalypse.

Abbreviation: Rev.

"God's disclosure of Himself and His will" seems to encompass a lot more than just “revealing something hitherto unknown.”

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

President Hinckley stated, when introducing the Proclamation, that it was a declaration and reaffirmation of what “the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history” which seemingly contradicts claims that it is revelatory.

I am curious what participants here consider to be previously unknown but revealed by the Proclamation. 

Not much, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'm curious, when a newspaper reporter prints a quote from a source in his newspaper should we consider that Triple hearsay?  I'm not being critical of you I'm merely asking a question.  And yes I realize that because all of this information being claimed is coming from  people who are anonymous, just like you too are anonymous, should it then be dismissed out of hand because it is coming from anonymous posters?  Again I'm just trying to understand.  Thanks

PS: I might add that from a legal standard, much of what is posted on this board would qualify as hearsay and be inadmissible in a court of law, and from that standard Johnnie Cakes source, as it stands right now, would also be inadmissible and be stricken from the record as hearsay.  But fortunately we are not held to the same standard here when judging information, which is one of the things that makes this board fun, so we have the liberty to weight information based on its merits.

While I believe that you have presented a strong argument on why Bro. Cakes source should be ignored, there is something in what he has presented that feels real and honest to me.  I just don't get the sense that he is trying to pull one over on us.  I'm willing to factor it into what I also know about the process that gave us the proclamation rather than completely discard it as I sense you have.  But that's part of my personality, I tend to trust.

A reputable newspaper will ordinarily attribute information and quotes to clearly identified sources so the information can be checked (and evaluated) for accuracy. That has not happened in the instance in question here.

Smac97 (Spencer McDonald) does not post anonymously. His proper name is identified below his avatar in each and every one of his posts.

For the record, I don't post anonymously either. Scott Lloyd is my proper name.

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I guess its in the eye of the beholder.  As one with two loved ones outside, and their devastated families, the meme is truly ironic, descriptive and a welcome break from sadness.  No offense, Stem, I take the meme as from one who IS "We're in this together."  It's not us who want sides and fighting.  They can leave the Church, but they can't leave it (or us) alone.

I guess it is all about perspective.  I sat at Church the other day and heard plenty of angry hateful words for those who have left.  Anyone sitting in with his/her family for support likely walked away feeling hate and anger from Mormons.  It seems to happen all the time to me. 

The they can leave but can't leave it alone is a tiresome worn out phrase that amounts to an attempt to stick it to the others.  I'm sad you don't see that.  People leave and still have many family and friends in it, feeling attached and in-left alone themselves.  The church doesn't seem to do a very good job, in my opinion, of fostering a love for others.  While members often are quick to say they love, some of their behavior and other words conflict with that. 

It was kind of sad the other day in EQ.  The brethren all suggested there is a ton of hate for members of the Church in their lives.  They didn't realize why that was.  When I pointed out the common theme of the reason for the anger and frustration for the Church the brethren wanted to absolve themselves of such things and pretend the problem rests in everyone else. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Revelatory is defined as “revealing something hitherto unknown”.

President Hinckley stated, when introducing the Proclamation, that it was a declaration and reaffirmation of what “the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history” which seemingly contradicts claims that it is revelatory.

I am curious what participants here consider to be previously unknown but revealed by the Proclamation. 

To Smac97's excellent response, I would add this:

I have repeatedly expressed my belief that the proclamation is revelatory in the sense that God revealed His will to His servants that they draft and publish this proclamation to the world clearly setting out the position and teachings of the Church pertaining to the subjects covered in the proclamation.

So if you want a strict application, you could regard it as God making known His previously unknown will that the proclamation be written and published.

That to me makes it very revelatory.

Furthermore, In answer to their petitions, He guided His servants through the process of determining what content to include, how it should be worded, etc.

So in the sense that any communication from God is revelation, that makes the proclamation revelatory.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To Smac97's excellent response, I would add this:

I have repeatedly expressed my belief that the proclamation is revelatory in the sense that God revealed His will to His servants that they draft and publish this proclamation to the world clearly setting out the position and teachings of the Church pertaining to the subjects covered in the proclamation.

So if you want a strict application, you could regard it as God making known His previously unknown will that the proclamation be written and published.

That to me makes it very revelatory.

My goodness, a prophet, seer and revelator said it came by way of a “revelatory process” which he described in detail, using terms such as “doctrinal statements… inspiration (twice)… doctrinal truths… prayerfully…  warn and forewarn… eternal truth… will of the Lord… the basis of Church teaching and practice…” and finally testifying that, “the truth and eternal importance of the family proclamation, revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles for the exaltation of the children of God.”

@rockpond, do you really doubt that he knows what he's talking about?

[Rain]

 

54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Revelatory is defined as “revealing something hitherto unknown”.

President Hinckley stated, when introducing the Proclamation, that it was a declaration and reaffirmation of what “the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history” which seemingly contradicts claims that it is revelatory.

I am curious what participants here consider to be previously unknown but revealed by the Proclamation. 

There HAS to be more to it than "previously unknown". The apostacy shows this. Things that have been revealed in latter days were known before the apostacy. Things that were revealed to Isaiah were revealed to Nephi. Do people ever debate that what was revealed to Joseph was not revelation because it was known before the apostacy?

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Rain

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And I am unclear as to the apparent "magic word" requirement.  It comes across as kinda sorta pharisaical ("Hey, General Authorities!  I am going to disregard the Proclamation until and unless you specifically and emphatically use the 'R' word and present it for canonization!").

Let me illustrate further: I am an attorney, having been admitted to the bar in 2004.  I recall a realization early on that I had a latent expectation that judges, when rendering a decision in a case, had to bang the gavel as a sort of ceremonial exclamation mark.  After having attended a few dozen hearings and having observed judges rendering decisions, I realized that I had never seen a judge use a gavel.  Not once.  Apparently it's just not a thing for judges in Utah (for both state and federal judges).  So my expectation of how judges behave turned out to have been a little off.  But does that mean that these judges . . . aren't judges?  Because they aren't doing something that I had expected them to do?  Nope.  It's not them, it's me.  My expectations needed to be adjusted.

So it is, I think, with our expectations regarding General Authorities.  I think some folks tell themselves that until and unless General Authorities use some sort of special phrasing/wording ("Thus Saith the Lord..." or "The following is a 'Revelation'..."), then their statements can be sidestepped and ignored.  I just don't think that's the way of things.  I think there is an ongoing expectation from God that we "sustain" His servants.  To me, that means we listen to them when they speak to us in their official capacities, and we do so with the expectation and presumption that they are being guided by the Spirit.  By the gifts of prophecy and revelation.  No super-specific wording is required.  We should just listen and confirm that they are adhering to previously-revealed principles, and we should also seek confirmation from the Spirit, as may be necessary, that what they are saying is from God.  

In legal parlance, I think this would be called a "rebuttable presumption."  That is, we presume that General Authorities who are speaking in their official capacity are doing so according to the Spirit.  However, that presumption is rebuttable if what they are saying substantially deviates from previously-revealed truths, or is out of harmony with the Spirit, or is couched as a personal opinion, etc.  I actually had a personal experience with this process while I was serving as a missionary.  

It was presented as "a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history."

As Latter-day Saints, we believe these "doctrines" and such are from God.  Are revelation.  

You seem to be insisting on some sort of specific invocation of the word "revelation" as being a necessary thing.  I don't think it is.

But he wasn't "the only one."  He was speaking in his capacity as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.  During an official Church function.  Being broadcast to the entire world.

Again, you seem to be insisting on some sort of special and precise wording, the absence of which means that President Nelson was only speaking for himself personally.  I don't think that's right.

I think "revelation" is a broad concept in the Church, and encompasses a spectrum from "revelation" at the individual level about whether my daughter should spend a year as an exchange student in Italy, to "revelation" about my family as a whole, to "revelation" about my calling in the Church and about those within my stewardship, to "revelation" given to my ward's bishop and ward leaders, to "revelation" given to stake leaders, and regional leaders, and so on, to "revelation" given to the General Authorities to "declare" and "reaffirm" that which has been previously revealed (the Proclamation would fall into this category) to "revelation" about substantive issues needed to be addressed by the Church (the Nov. 2015 policy change would fall into this category, as would OD-1, OD-2, and others), to "revelation" of previously undisclosed truths (D&C 137, being a singular example, but still only one of many, many such instances).

Consider this article about "Revelation" from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

As you can see, "revelation" is a broad term.  It applies more than to just what is canonized, or to statements that have some sort of special wording ("Thus saith the Lord..." and the like).

Perhaps your expectations are a bit more removed from the actual teachings of the LDS Church.  As noted above, I had an "expectation" about judges banging gavels.  The fact that they don't do this didn't make my expectation "higher."  It just made my expectation . . . inaccurate.

Quite so.  Revelation must come from God.

But I suspect that's not what you mean.  You seem to be alluding to some vague expectation about special wording or ceremonial flourish.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You are right.  Revelation can be a lot of different things.  Your experience and expectations are much different than mine when it comes to church leaders.  Perhaps it is my history with those pretending to have received a revelation from God when in fact, they were just giving their opinion.  So for me, I expect part of the calling of a prophet of God is to declare when he has received a revelation from God and not simply a fuzzy feeling in a group discussion that is available to all.

But that is just my personal history and experience.  I certainly acknowledge that others can have different expectations as you have pointed out.  You clearly answered my questions and gave me your opinion on the subject.  Thanks.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sister Bonnie Oscarson in the April 2015 general women’s session of general conference, called it a “revelatory document.”  That is precisely what I understand it to be, and the sense I get is that many if not most faithful members do as well. 

And yes, the prophets and apostles routinely receive revelation following or in the course of a period of deliberation and discussion. That you think this is not consistent with the receipt of revelation is your own odd notion to which others are not bound. 

I agree.  I certainly have a different expectation of prophets receiving revelation evidently than members of the church.  For me, there is a difference between "we all feel good about this decision?" and a revelation coming from God.  Perhaps what I am expecting has never really happened, at least for a very long time.  

I have learned that there seems to be blurry lines between what people call a revelation from God and what they own opinions are.  For me, I want something a bit more concrete than just a consensus that everyone feels good about.  Mostly because the impact of those consensus can have huge impact on people's lives if they let their own opinions rise to the top and it is those opinions that become policy.

But hey, given my history on this issue, I realize that not everyone has had that kind of false promise and for them, is all they need to hear is what is being expressed by church leaders.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree.  I certainly have a different expectation of prophets receiving revelation evidently than members of the church.  For me, there is a difference between "we all feel good about this decision?" and a revelation coming from God.  Perhaps what I am expecting has never really happened, at least for a very long time.  

I have learned that there seems to be blurry lines between what people call a revelation from God and what they own opinions are.  For me, I want something a bit more concrete than just a consensus that everyone feels good about.  Mostly because the impact of those consensus can have huge impact on people's lives if they let their own opinions rise to the top and it is those opinions that become policy.

But hey, given my history on this issue, I realize that not everyone has had that kind of false promise and for them, is all they need to hear is what is being expressed by church leaders.

Maybe the problem lies with Joseph Smith's claims?  He claimed to be receiving the actual words of Jesus and then had them published as the D&C.  He seemed to be receiving these words routinely.  Now, the Q12/FP doesn't receive the actual words any more or so it seems.  The revelation they claim to get is a lot less direct than what Joseph Smith claimed.  Theirs is more impressionistic and based more on feelings than what Joseph Smith claimed.  Joseph Smith made it seem like he was having a conversation with Jesus and today not so much.  They get "revelation" by committee, now, and through deliberation, which is more susceptible to being overtaken by strong opinion and mistaken opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

There HAS to be more to it than "previously unknown". The apostacy shows this. Things that have been revealed in latter days were known before the apostacy. Things that were revealed to Isaiah were revealed to Nephi. Do people ever debate that what was revealed to Joseph was not revelation because it was known before the apostacy?

 

 

 

As Elder Oaks pointed out in his conference talk, some of us wondered at the time about the need for a proclamation of doctrinal truths and teachings that already seemed self-evident and routine and established.

Boy, did the reason for it ever become clear in coming years! There came a growing sentiment, even among our own people, that because of shifts in societal attitudes and because of judicial fiat, the Church should automatically repudiate the law of chastity, a fundamental understanding of the plan of salvation and other elements that are covered in the proclamation.

That such attitudes should begin to hold sway makes the proclamation seem more necessary -- and more revelatory -- with each passing day.

Quote

Things that have been revealed in latter days were known before the apostacy.

We may, in fact, be seeing the beginnings of a smaller-scale version of the general apostasy as some members of the Church reject the teachings of the prophets and apostles today with regard to the content in the family proclamation. I'm confident and hopeful that this trend won't result in the removal of priesthood authority and keys from the earth as did the apostasy following the deaths of Christ and the original apostles, but it may yet result in many more of the very elect among us being deceived.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Revelation:

Quote

noun

1. the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.

2. something revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.

3. Theology.

• a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
• b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.
• c. something thus communicated or disclosed.
• d. something that contains such disclosure, as the Bible.

4.

(initial capital letter). Also called Revelations, The Revelation of St. John the Divine. the last book in the New Testament; the Apocalypse.

Abbreviation: Rev.

"God's disclosure of Himself and His will" seems to encompass a lot more than just “revealing something hitherto unknown.”

Joseph Smith

• "And again, we never inquire at the hand of God for Special revelation only in case of their being no previous revelation to suit the case... "

Sounds like revealing something unknown is a requirement.  Otherwise we are to follow previous revelation on the subject.
Additionally:

• Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation.

Edited October 10, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As Elder Oaks pointed out in his conference talk, some of us wondered at the time about the need for a proclamation of doctrinal truths and teachings that already seemed self-evident and routine and established.

Boy, did the reason for it ever become clear in coming years! There came a growing sentiment, even among our own people, that because of shifts in societal attitudes and because of judicial fiat, the Church should automatically repudiate the law of chastity, a fundamental understanding of the plan of salvation and other elements that are covered in the proclamation.

That such attitudes should begin to hold sway makes the proclamation seem more necessary -- and more revelatory -- with each passing day.

We may, in fact, be seeing the beginnings of a smaller-scale version of the general apostasy as some members of the Church reject the teachings of the prophets and apostles today with regard to the content in the family proclamation. I'm confident and hopeful that this trend won't result in the removal of priesthood authority and keys from the earth as did the apostasy following the deaths of Christ and the original apostles, but it may yet result in many more of the very elect among us being deceived.

 

Don't you think you are overselling your case just a bit?  Where are the members that thought for a minute that the church would repudiate the law of chastity?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Don't you think you are overselling your case just a bit?  Where are the members that thought for a minute that the church would repudiate the law of chastity?

Let's establish a definition. The law of chastity entails the prohibition of any sexual relations except those between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. That would include a prohibition of any and all homosexual behavior.

If you accept that definition, then I will respond to your question.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Let's establish a definition. The law of chastity entails the prohibition of any sexual relations except those between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. That would include a prohibition of any and all homosexual behavior.

If you accept that definition, then I will respond to your question.

Not to play devils advocate, but that's not what the law of chastity actually says.  Not since 1990.  Nor in the original.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith

• "And again, we never inquire at the hand of God for Special revelation only in case of their being no previous revelation to suit the case... "

Sounds like revealing something unknown is a requirement.  Otherwise we are to follow previous revelation on the subject.
Additionally:

• Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation.

Thank you!  These are excellent and on-point references.

-Smac

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Maybe the problem lies with Joseph Smith's claims?  He claimed to be receiving the actual words of Jesus and then had them published as the D&C.  He seemed to be receiving these words routinely.  Now, the Q12/FP doesn't receive the actual words any more or so it seems.  The revelation they claim to get is a lot less direct than what Joseph Smith claimed.  Theirs is more impressionistic and based more on feelings than what Joseph Smith claimed.  Joseph Smith made it seem like he was having a conversation with Jesus and today not so much.  They get "revelation" by committee, now, and through deliberation, which is more susceptible to being overtaken by strong opinion and mistaken opinion.

No, not that.

As the earthly kingdom develops structurally to function in a bigger, secular and worldlier environment, God’s revelations also course through the kingdom through the medium of those individuals called to service in their apostolic offices and councils.

Styles do change, and as new styles are introduced, some may find that disconcerting (their lack of understanding and inflexibility are teh problem). I think as the earthly Church organization changes in both priesthood and legal structure to maximize her ability to successfully navigate the systems of the world, the Lord expects to use all kinds of "new" (compared to 1830) venues to manifest His revelations. The worst of the world's systems, and the worst of their use, would destroy the Lord's earthly kingdom if possible, and so the Lord follows His own advice to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. When a prophet hasn't a council, he receives revelation in a way a council doesn't; when he has a council, he has more options in how he receives revelation, and all are edified. Likewise, when the Lord hasn't a sufficiently viable legally-recognized Church, He sends revelation a la Joseph Smith in 1820, but when He does have a corporate structure in place, He has additional options. And He certainly uses them!

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not to play devils advocate, but that's not what the law of chastity actually says.  Not since 1990.  Nor in the original.

From the Gospel Principles manual (published in 2011, four years before Obergefell v. Hodges):

Quote

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

...

Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin. Latter-day prophets have spoken about the dangers of homosexual behavior and about the Church’s concern for people who may have such inclinations. President Gordon B. Hinckley said...

Subsequent to the innovation of same-sex marriage, the Church has clarified that this innovation does not create a loophole for homosexual behavior between two persons of the same gender married to each other.

Here:

Quote

Sexual purity is an essential part of God’s plan for our happiness. Sexual relations are reserved for a man and woman who are married and promise complete loyalty to each other. Sexual relations between a man and woman who are not married, or between people of the same sex, violate one of our Father in Heaven’s most important laws and get in the way of our eternal progress. People of any sexual orientation who violate the law of chastity can be reconciled with God through repentance. As followers of Christ, we resist immoral behavior and strive to become like Him...

Here:

Quote

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Don't you think you are overselling your case just a bit?  Where are the members that thought for a minute that the church would repudiate the law of chastity?

I think it was more a lack of understanding or anticipation of just how many ways it can be broken or how far society can sink in its sexual mores.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Let's establish a definition. The law of chastity entails the prohibition of any sexual relations between persons other than an man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. That would include a prohibition of any and all homosexual behavior.

If you accept that definition, then I will respond to your question.

Sure, that's the definition the church follows. However, was the world in such dire straits, as you claim, until the ray of hope, shown down from above, in the form of the revelatory committee proclamation, came into being? As for the members thinking the church would ever change its stance on homosexual relations, I don't believe that anyone could entertain this as a real possibility prior or since the proclamation. It is simply wishful thinking on their part and can't be taken seriously. However, the spector of this problem must be exaggerated to make your point I guess.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, not that.

 

As the earthly kingdom develops structurally to function in a bigger, secular and worldlier environment, God’s revelations also course through the kingdom through the medium of those individuals called to service in their apostolic offices and councils.

 

Styles do change, and as new styles are introduced, some may find that disconcerting (their lack of understanding and inflexibility are teh problem). I think as the earthly Church organization changes in both priesthood and legal structure to maximize her ability to successfully navigate the systems of the world, the Lord expects to use all kinds of "new" (compared to 1830) venues to manifest His revelations. The worst of the world's systems, and the worst of their use, would destroy the Lord's earthly kingdom if possible, and so the Lord follows His own advice to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. When a prophet hasn't a council, he receives revelation in a way a council doesn't; when he has a council, he has more options in how he receives revelation, and all are edified. Likewise, when the Lord hasn't a sufficiently viable legally-recognized Church, He sends revelation a la Joseph Smith in 1820, but when He does have a corporate structure in place, He has additional options. And He certainly uses them!

 

Of course. Revelation by committee is better than direct, clear communication.