Scrutinizing general conference

[Rain]

46 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.

I think everyone struggles at one time or another in understanding what is our own opinion and what is God's will. It is why there are talks, books, classes on differentiating them. 

I do think though as we work on putting away our own desires and seek and do what God wants the line becomes less blurry. I don't think, as mortals, that the blurriness will ever go away so we must constantly work on aligning ourselves with God, but someday with his help we will become like him in this.

[CV75]

12 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.

It depends on which law of chastity we are talking about. One is a specific temple covenant, another is what is taught publicly and in the correlated materials. Both are true and appropriate, but I think the family proclamation represents the latter. Back in the day, the word you are referring to (I think) actually included "silent communication or exchange" or "behavior" as well, as does the word used today.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 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 Chapter 39 of the Gospel Principles manual, copyright 2011:

 

Quote

 

The Law of Chastity

• What is the law of chastity?

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.

To the Israelites the Lord said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). Those Israelites who broke this commandment were subject to severe penalties. The Lord has repeated this commandment in the latter days (see D&C 42:24).

We have been taught that the law of chastity encompasses more than sexual intercourse. The First Presidency warned young people of other sexual sins:

“Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do that with you. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body” (For the Strength of Youth [pamphlet, 2001], 27).

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:

“In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 91; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

 

 

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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

I did not say that, but yes, in some cases it may well be!

Suggestion: read to comprehend (hint: look at "more options" and "additional options").

[smac97]

1 hour 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.  

I suspect Elder Oaks would concur with this difference.  I think you are mischaracterizing/trivializing the process described by Elder Oaks.

Quote

Perhaps what I am expecting has never really happened, at least for a very long time.  

I don't understand your expectations, but I'll leave you to them and wish you the best.

Quote

I have learned that there seems to be blurry lines between what people call a revelation from God and what they own opinions are.  

Hence the need to for counseling in councils.

Hence a year-long process for promulgating the Proclamation.  As I see it, the purpose and end-result of that process was to filter out personal opinions and the like from revealed doctrine.  And in that, I think it succeeds admirably.

Quote

For me, I want something a bit more concrete than just a consensus that everyone feels good about.  

And I wanted judges to bang gavels.  But I learned that as between their actual practice and my expectations about their practice, the latter is not controlling.  The judges are still judges, even though they do not comport with my expectation that they bank gavels.

And again, I think you are mischaracterizing the process described by Elder Oaks.

I think these remarks by then-Elder Nelson are helpful:

Quote

Living the Lord’s standards requires that we cultivate the gift of the Holy Ghost. That gift helps us understand doctrine and apply it personally. Because truth given by revelation can only be understood by revelation, our studies need to be prayerful...

I have personal experience in the sort of "revelatory process" described by Elder Oaks.  I have participated in stake and ward councils where we all felt the Spirit.  Strongly.  Where we were guided by "revelatory" influence.  You can try to diminish and demean this by characterizing it in dismissive/derisive ways ("just a consensus that everyone feels good about"), but that's your expectations talking.  You weren't there to experience what Elder Oaks did.  

Quote

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.

Which is why I so appreciate the structure of the Church.  It can be a bit taxing to "counsel in councils," but it helps sort out "opinions" from "doctrine," and "personal preferences" from "revelation."

Quote

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.

I feel you.  I think I perceive what you are saying.  I wish you the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 10, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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:

Here:

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really did write my response post before I saw yours. Honest.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

 

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It depends on which law of chastity we are talking about. One is a specific temple covenant, another is what is taught publicly and in the correlated materials. Both are true and appropriate, but I think the family proclamation represents the latter. Back in the day, the word you are referring to (I think) actually included "silent communication or exchange" or "behavior" as well, as does the word used today.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From Chapter 39 of the Gospel Principles manual, copyright 2011:

I wasn't suggesting the Church considers the Law of Chastity to allow homosexuality.
I am stating the the temple covenant of the law of chastity was changed in 1990 to a new format.  Under the new format a homosexual couple would be seen as violating the law of chastity in the Church but not the temple covenant of chastity.
Which is a silly dichotomy for the Church to allow.  They've changed the temple covenant wording at least twice.  Perhaps it's time for another update.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I wasn't suggesting the Church considers the Law of Chastity to allow homosexuality.
I am stating the the temple covenant of the law of chastity was changed in 1990 to a new format.  Under the new format a homosexual couple would be seen as violating the law of chastity in the Church but not the temple covenant of chastity.
Which is a silly dichotomy for the Church to allow.  They've changed the temple covenant wording at least twice.  Perhaps it's time for another update.

I never thought that "legally and lawfully wedded" referred to the shifting sands of what society defines as marriage. This has always meant to me "what should be legal in the eyes of the Church."

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I wasn't suggesting the Church considers the Law of Chastity to allow homosexuality.
I am stating the the temple covenant of the law of chastity was changed in 1990 to a new format.  

Yes.

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Under the new format a homosexual couple would be seen as violating the law of chastity in the Church but not the temple covenant of chastity.

I disagree.  These things are not construed in isolation.  They are not legalistic.  There is no loophole here.  The Law of Chastity contemplated inside the temple is the same one contemplated on the outside.

Quote

Which is a silly dichotomy for the Church to allow.  

I don't think that this dichotomy ever existed.  Or if it did, it was inchoate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I suspect Elder Oaks would concur with this difference.  I think you are mischaracterizing the process described by Elder Oaks.

I don't understand your expectations, but I'll leave you to them and wish you the best.

Hence the need to for counseling in councils.

Hence a year-long process for promulgating the Proclamation.  As I see it, the purpose and end-result of that process was to filter out personal opinions and the like from revealed doctrine.  And in that, I think it succeeds admirably.

And I wanted judges to bang gavels.  But I learned that as between their actual practice and my expectations about their practice, the latter is not controlling.  The judges are still judges, even though they do not comport with my expectation that they bank gavels.

And again, I think you are mischaracterizing the process described by Elder Oaks.

I think these remarks by then-Elder Nelson are helpful:

I have personal experience in the sort of "revelatory process" described by Elder Oaks.  I have participated in stake and ward councils where we all felt the Spirit.  Strongly.  Where we were guided by "revelatory" influence.  You can try to diminish and demean this by characterizing it in dismissive/derisive ways ("just a consensus that everyone feels good about"), but that's your expectations talking.  You weren't there to experience what Elder Oaks did.  

Which is why I so appreciate the structure of the Church.  It can be a bit taxing to "counsel in councils," but it helps sort out "opinions" from "doctrine," and "personal preferences" from "revelation."

I feel you.  I think I perceive what you are saying.  I wish you the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well is all I have to say is that the church leaders better be pretty damn sure that what they are calling a revelation came from God Himself and not their best opinion on the matter.  Those decision have huge impacts on members of the church that are trying to do their best to follow the will of God.

I still remember turning 12 years old.  I thought it was perhaps the best birthday every.  I could now attend Mutual and pass the sacrament on Sunday.  I got my first suit ever.  It was dark green and I thought it was the best suit any kid could have.  I remember that first Sunday like it was yesterday.  Wanting to do a perfect job.  Being nervous that I might mess up.  Knowing that I had been given a great responsibility.  It felt like a big step in growing up.

I can't imagine being a bishop today and having another 12 year old boy sitting across from me and trying to explain to him why he could't participate in this sacred ordinance.  What would you say to him?  And if the boy says that he can't understand what his parents do effects his ability to participate with all his friends.  And what if he has a gay friend and asks, "Why does Johnny get to be a deacon and pass the sacrament."  What would you say as bishop?  That there is no sin in being gay, just acting on it?  But this young 12 year old has not committed any sins either.  Yet he is barred from becoming not only a member of the church but from holding the priesthood.

And what about all the pain this "revelation" has caused so many faithful members who wrestle with this decision as they see their son labeled an apostate and grandson denied the blessings that God freely grants all his other children that are worthy.

Or the thousands of gay men who like me were promised to just marry and trust the leaders who promise something that in the end, was not from God at all, but just their opinion.  Think of the false promise, and the impact on both those marriages and the children from those marriages.  Yeah, they better be absolutely certain that they have it right this time around.  Because if it turns out that in a couple of years, church leaders change their mind about this revelation, there is no repairing the damage that has been done both within the church and outside the church.

So yeah.  This thing better be as real as a vision from God.  They better be that sure.  Because that unanimous vote that day changed the course of many peoples lives.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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?

 

1 hour 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?

I'm going to bundle CV and Rain's questions because I think they are related and speak to the heart of what I have been pondering ever since listening to Oaks' address last week.

I don't doubt, not for a second, that Oaks believes the Proclamation came about through a revelatory process or that it is the revealed will of God. 

I've been considering what revelation means in our current LDS context.

From what I know, when Joseph Smith received a revelation it came to him in the words of the Lord and he published it as such.  For me, I feel like I can tell the difference between what I consider as a revelation from the Lord and teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.

When the Proclamation was published it was put forward by the Prophet as a declaration and reaffirmation of previous teachings.  At the time, it wasn't pronounced to be revelation.  If the Lord reveals something to the prophet, it seems to me that he'd want to let us know.

Similarly, when the Nov 2015 policy was published it wasn't announced as revelation.  Four men (all prophets, seers, and revelators including the president of the church) spoke or wrote publicly regarding the origins of the policy and none of them mentioned that it was given by way of revelation.

I bring up these two items because they are the recent examples in our history of messages deemed "revelation".

Twenty-two years after the publication of the proclamation, when two-thirds of the apostles involved in its publication are no longer able to address us, we have one of the apostles declaring it to be revelation and putting forward that belief in the document is a litmus test for conversion.

Two months after the Nov 2015 policy, an apostle declared that it was revelation.

So if I start summing up all this data -- a document that was written in committee (apparently not always with the involvement of the Prophet and President of the Church) under prayer and inspiration, as a reaffirmation of previous teachings, with authorship clearly claimed by 15 men, is deemed revelation.

The editing of a policy that later had to be revised after it's original form was misunderstood, is deemed revelation.

Here on this thread it has been proposed that the work product of an inspired council is revelation.  It has also been suggested hat a unanimous decision among the Quorum is revelation.

Joseph Smith seemed to receive and publish revelation differently than all the prophets who followed him.  Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor received revelation differently than prophets today.  From President Kimball onward we have few examples that have specifically been declared as revelation (I acknowledge that it may be happening more often but not published).  I'm looking at those recent examples, include the information we received last week, and am working through what form revelation seems to come in for today's church.

 

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think everyone struggles at one time or another in understanding what is our own opinion and what is God's will. It is why there are talks, books, classes on differentiating them. 

I do think though as we work on putting away our own desires and seek and do what God wants the line becomes less blurry. I don't think, as mortals, that the blurriness will ever go away so we must constantly work on aligning ourselves with God, but someday with his help we will become like him in this.

See, I have the opposite experience.  It was my willingness to put aside what I personally wanted to do and instead follow what church leaders at the time said was a revelation from God when they told me that I would no longer be gay if I just married a woman.  That "revelation" set me on a course that would forever alter my life, the life of my wife and my childrens.  Like I said in the above post.  Church leaders better be pretty damn sure that these unanimous decisions is the will of God this time around.  Because last time around, it was their opinion and had nothing to do with God.

I do agree with you that we must constantly work on aligning ourselves with God.  That alignment must come from our own personal relationship with God and not based on trusting the word of someone simply because of his title.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well is all I have to say is that the church leaders better be pretty damn sure that what they are calling a revelation came from God Himself and not their best opinion on the matter.  

A year-long process involving eleven prophets and apostles with literally centuries of cumulative experience with things of the Spirit has a pretty good chance of yielding a work product that is the result of revelation, and not merely "their best opinion."

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Those decision have huge impacts on members of the church that are trying to do their best to follow the will of God.

I still remember turning 12 years old.  I thought it was perhaps the best birthday every.  I could now attend Mutual and pass the sacrament on Sunday.  I got my first suit ever.  It was dark green and I thought it was the best suit any kid could have.  I remember that first Sunday like it was yesterday.  Wanting to do a perfect job.  Being nervous that I might mess up.  Knowing that I had been given a great responsibility.  It felt like a big step in growing up.

I can't imagine being a bishop today and having another 12 year old boy sitting across from me and trying to explain to him why he could't participate in this sacred ordinance.  What would you say to him?  

Having had quite a few such experiences, I have a pretty good idea what I would say.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

And if the boy says that he can't understand what his parents do effects his ability to participate with all his friends.  

I have a pretty good idea about how to handle this, too.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

And what if he has a gay friend and asks, "Why does Johnny get to be a deacon and pass the sacrament."  What would you say as bishop?  

In ways similar to how I would explain Johnny's situation if it arose from his parents' refusing to let him be baptized or ordained.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

That there is no sin in being gay, just acting on it?  

That could be part of the discussion, yes.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

But this young 12 year old has not committed any sins either.  

Neither has "Jimmy," whose dad will not allow the Church to baptize him or ordain him to the Aaronic priesthood.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet he is barred from becoming not only a member of the church but from holding the priesthood.

Until he is an adult.  So it's a delay, not a "bar."

Children of parents who don't want their children baptized/ordained also face such delays.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

And what about all the pain this "revelation" has caused so many faithful members who wrestle with this decision as they see their son labeled an apostate and grandson denied the blessings that God freely grants all his other children that are worthy.

I would not bifurcate the Church's obedience to God's mandates from the will of God, as you are doing here.

I would not diminish the Church's teachings by putting them in scare quotes, as you are doing here.

I would attempt to calmly and rationally discuss the situation, not inject hostility and resentments into it, as you are doing here.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or the thousands of gay men who like me were promised to just marry and trust the leaders who promise something that in the end, was not from God at all, but just their opinion.  Think of the false promise, and the impact on both those marriages and the children from those marriages.  Yeah, they better be absolutely certain that they have it right this time around.  Because if it turns out that in a couple of years, church leaders change their mind about this revelation, there is no repairing the damage that has been done both within the church and outside the church.

So yeah.  This thing better be as real as a vision from God.  They better be that sure.  Because that unanimous vote that day changed the course of many peoples lives.  

Again, I think I understand what you are saying.  I'll refrain from further comment and wish you the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From what I know, when Joseph Smith received a revelation it came to him in the words of the Lord and he published it as such.  For me, I feel like I can tell the difference between what I consider as a revelation from the Lord and teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.

When the Proclamation was published it was put forward by the Prophet as a declaration and reaffirmation of previous teachings.  At the time, it wasn't pronounced to be revelation.  If the Lord reveals something to the prophet, it seems to me that he'd want to let us know.

Twenty-two years after the publication of the proclamation, when two-thirds of the apostles involved in its publication are no longer able to address us, we have one of the apostles declaring it to be revelation and putting forward that belief in the document is a litmus test for conversion.

This.
If President Hinckley didn't claim revelation or that the Proclamation came by revelation, nobody else (including one Apostle) should be doing so.
President Hinckley was the only man on the earth at the time of the Proclamation's issue with the right to receive revelation for the Church.  If he claimed no revelation, then there was no revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

I wasn't suggesting the Church considers the Law of Chastity to allow homosexuality.
I am stating the the temple covenant of the law of chastity was changed in 1990 to a new format.  Under the new format a homosexual couple would be seen as violating the law of chastity in the Church but not the temple covenant of chastity.
Which is a silly dichotomy for the Church to allow.  

It's silly to read it as the Church allowing such a dichotomy, when obviously, there is no such intent to do so.

Quote

They've changed the temple covenant wording at least twice.  Perhaps it's time for another update.

Whatever. Please don't do devil's advocate stuff here. It merely confuses the discussion.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I wasn't suggesting the Church considers the Law of Chastity to allow homosexuality.
I am stating the the temple covenant of the law of chastity was changed in 1990 to a new format.  Under the new format a homosexual couple would be seen as violating the law of chastity in the Church but not the temple covenant of chastity.
Which is a silly dichotomy for the Church to allow.  They've changed the temple covenant wording at least twice.  Perhaps it's time for another update.

I think we're alluding to the same thing. What else can can marriage references mean in the world of those who make and keep temple covenants, no matter their sexual orientation? Was there ever really a question about that between 1990 and 1995 when the family proclamation came out? If there is a question now (and evidently there is), the family proclamation answers it, Mr. D.A.!

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Perhaps you could make a difference there by showing them how to love rather than telling them?  I would say all of our behaviors betray that we live in a fallen world. Aren't we here to learn charity and love.   I have attended many churches and never found one that did a better job fostering love, compassion, service and a desire to do right by God and their fellow beings than the LDS Church.  I'm sorry to hear you live in a ward of cold hearted people.  In my ward I feel the warmth of love and fellowship.  Actually, every ward I've lived in has been like that.  And many with families who have left the church seem to me to have a special gentleness and love about them born of the sanctifying influence and emotional pain of rejection.  They are the "rejectees" for the most part, not the "rejectors."

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I've lived in several wards over the years and attended many more, never a ward like that.  It's unfortunate that your ward members want to pretend the problem rests in everyone else.  

Edited October 10, 2017 by Meerkat

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

I'm going to bundle CV and Rain's questions because I think they are related and speak to the heart of what I have been pondering ever since listening to Oaks' address last week.

I don't doubt, not for a second, that Oaks believes the Proclamation came about through a revelatory process or that it is the revealed will of God. 

I've been considering what revelation means in our current LDS context.

From what I know, when Joseph Smith received a revelation it came to him in the words of the Lord and he published it as such.  For me, I feel like I can tell the difference between what I consider as a revelation from the Lord and teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.

When the Proclamation was published it was put forward by the Prophet as a declaration and reaffirmation of previous teachings.  At the time, it wasn't pronounced to be revelation.  If the Lord reveals something to the prophet, it seems to me that he'd want to let us know.

Similarly, when the Nov 2015 policy was published it wasn't announced as revelation.  Four men (all prophets, seers, and revelators including the president of the church) spoke or wrote publicly regarding the origins of the policy and none of them mentioned that it was given by way of revelation.

I bring up these two items because they are the recent examples in our history of messages deemed "revelation".

Twenty-two years after the publication of the proclamation, when two-thirds of the apostles involved in its publication are no longer able to address us, we have one of the apostles declaring it to be revelation and putting forward that belief in the document is a litmus test for conversion.

Two months after the Nov 2015 policy, an apostle declared that it was revelation.

So if I start summing up all this data -- a document that was written in committee (apparently not always with the involvement of the Prophet and President of the Church) under prayer and inspiration, as a reaffirmation of previous teachings, with authorship clearly claimed by 15 men, is deemed revelation.

The editing of a policy that later had to be revised after it's original form was misunderstood, is deemed revelation.

Here on this thread it has been proposed that the work product of an inspired council is revelation.  It has also been suggested hat a unanimous decision among the Quorum is revelation.

Joseph Smith seemed to receive and publish revelation differently than all the prophets who followed him.  Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor received revelation differently than prophets today.  From President Kimball onward we have few examples that have specifically been declared as revelation (I acknowledge that it may be happening more often but not published).  I'm looking at those recent examples, include the information we received last week, and am working through what form revelation seems to come in for today's church.

As you've pointed out, as the earthly kingdom develops structurally to function both temporally and spiritually in a bigger, secular and worldlier environment, God’s revelations also course through the kingdom through the medium of those same apostolic offices and councils. He uses the tools He gives us as time goes on, and they were His tools all along.

Styles of revelation do change, and as new styles are introduced, some may find that disconcerting. 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. When a prophet hasn't a regularly formed and communicating 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. And the "quorum of three presidents" operated like this anciently as well, when they could (D&C 107:29-31. Note the decisions are the result of revelation, or "the knowledge of the Lord"). 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. The presiding role is always essential in receiving this kind of revelation, as well when he receives it individually. Who is going to complain about having 15 united witnesses instead of one who is sustained by the other 14 -- there is no difference in the validity of the revelation.

Edited October 10, 2017 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This.
If President Hinckley didn't claim revelation or that the Proclamation came by revelation, nobody else (including one Apostle) should be doing so.
President Hinckley was the only man on the earth at the time of the Proclamation's issue with the right to receive revelation for the Church.  If he claimed no revelation, then there was no revelation.

You are assuming President Hinckley, were he alive today, would be disagreeing with apostles and Church leaders who say it came by revelation. Which you have no way of knowing.

And apostles who were participants in the process would surely know whether or not the experience was revelatory

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

As Hugh Nibley put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."

See Brigham Young on cats in bags....below.

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever. Please don't do devil's advocate stuff here. It merely confuses the discussion.

 

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

, the family proclamation answers it, Mr. D.A.!

I disagree that playing devil's advocate serves no purpose but confusion.
Merely repeating official positions without acknowledging any challenges to maintaining that position is lazy.  Not addressing issues caused problems in the past.
Something can be true, god given, and still have issues surrounding it.  (This reminds me so much of the Woodruff Manifesto situation.)

I agree that the law of chastity forbids homosexual marriage.  I agree that the contents of the Proclamation are true and correct principles stated by a prophet of God.
Isn't that enough?  Does it mean we don't look at the other issues?

I think it is wrong for us to say there's no issue with the current administration of the temple covenant of chastity versus its previous iteration in relation to homosexuality.
I think it is wrong for us to say the Proclamation is a direct revelation from God when that is not how it is laid out or how President Hinckley labelled it, it is not written as the word of God, and is at best the work of inspired men.

A little honesty instead of ignoring issues is all the DA is meant to produce.  It's the same problem the Church had for many years.
 

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This.
If President Hinckley didn't claim revelation or that the Proclamation came by revelation, nobody else (including one Apostle) should be doing so.
President Hinckley was the only man on the earth at the time of the Proclamation's issue with the right to receive revelation for the Church.  If he claimed no revelation, then there was no revelation.

"Not-this"... According to President Hinckley's announcement, the proclamation was issued jointly “of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles,” so it was not his unique and incumbent role to publicly articulate that is was the product of a revelatory process, or any process at all. The " standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history" speak for themselves; they are the point. It was his prerogative, as it was any other member of those councils, to explain the process of its development but he didn’t have to spell it out. I'm sure he had his reasons 9and I have my opinion about that). Elder Oaks decided to, and I'm sure he had his reasons (and I have my opinion about that too!).

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it is wrong for us to say there's no issue with the current administration of the temple covenant of chastity versus its previous iteration in relation to homosexuality.

I think the "issue" is pretty much inchoate.  The Brethren are not obtuse, after all.

Quote

I think it is wrong for us to say the Proclamation is a direct revelation from God when that is not how it is laid out or how President Hinckley labelled it, it is not written as the word of God, and is at best the work of inspired men.

I'm not particularly interested in parsing out distinctions like "direct revelation from God" (your phrase) and "revelatory process" (Elder Oaks' phrase).

I'm also not interested in pitting "how President Hinckley labeled it" against the further clarification on the "revelatory process" described by Elder Oaks.

I think there is little value in trying to fabricate conflicts.  President Hinckley presented the Proclamation as X.  Elder Oaks' remarks are X+Details.  

Quote

A little honesty instead of ignoring issues is all the DA is meant to produce.  It's the same problem the Church had for many years.

"DA?"

I think you are blowing this out of proportion.  I also don't think it is within our province to publicly critique and criticize the General Authorities of the Church.  That's not dishonesty.  It's tact and decorum and covenant-keeping.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree that playing devil's advocate serves no purpose but confusion.
Merely repeating official positions without acknowledging any challenges to maintaining that position is lazy.  Not addressing issues caused problems in the past.
Something can be true, god given, and still have issues surrounding it.  (This reminds me so much of the Woodruff Manifesto situation.)

I agree that the law of chastity forbids homosexual marriage.  I agree that the contents of the Proclamation are true and correct principles stated by a prophet of God.
Isn't that enough?  Does it mean we don't look at the other issues?

I think it is wrong for us to say there's no issue with the current administration of the temple covenant of chastity versus its previous iteration in relation to homosexuality.
I think it is wrong for us to say the Proclamation is a direct revelation from God when that is not how it is laid out or how President Hinckley labelled it, it is not written as the word of God, and is at best the work of inspired men.

A little honesty instead of ignoring issues is all the DA is meant to produce.  It's the same problem the Church had for many years.

I wasn't complaining about your role as devil's advocate, only recognizing it as an expression of good faith discussion.

But you can play devil's advocate to the point of truncating a post to make a point to confuse the discussion... So why not answer my questions:

What else can can marriage references (legal, lawful, man, wife) mean in the world (and the scriptural canon) of those who make and keep temple covenants, no matter their sexual orientation?

Was there ever really a question about that between 1990 and 1995 when the family proclamation came out?

Is there really a question now?

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Perhaps you could make a difference there by showing them how to love rather than telling them?  I would say all of our behaviors betray that we live in a fallen world. Aren't we here to learn charity and love.   I have attended many churches and never found one that did a better job fostering love, compassion, service and a desire to do right by God and their fellow beings than the LDS Church.  I'm sorry to hear you live in a ward of cold hearted people.  In my ward I feel the warmth of love and fellowship.  Actually, every ward I've lived in has been like that.  And many with families who have left the church seem to me to have a special gentleness and love about them born of the sanctifying influence and emotional pain of rejection.  They are the "rejectees" for the most part, not the "rejectors."

I've lived in several wards over the years and attended many more, never a ward like that.  It's unfortunate that your ward members want to pretend the problem rests in everyone else.  

Thanks for the reply.  I can tell we aren't going to see eye to eye on this.  It's not a local level issue to me.  it is church-wide.  The effort to fear the outside, the self-righteous focus, the living in the world and not of it, incessant need to paint others as enemies...all seem to contribute. 

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/2017/10/08/letter-of-the-week-lds-positions-on-bigotry-dont-add-up/

Most people don't want to see the problems they are causing.  That's a given.  Of course all wards seem so great when you choose not to have eyes to see, ears to hear and all that.