Scrutinizing general conference

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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?

When the ordinance is altered so that men and women together covenant simultaneously to only have relations with their legal and lawful husband or wife, and it is now possible for a man in this country to have a legal and lawful husband that allows that man to answer yes.  Or that woman in the US with a legal and lawful wife.
Prior to 1990 the men covenanted only to have relations with their wives and women with their husbands.  That precluded homosexuality.

Quote

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

Is there really a question now?

Obviously there is no question among most faithful members.  That doesn't prevent a critic, a "progressive" member, or some other from making the false claim I pointed out.
It's an easy fix.

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When the ordinance is altered so that men and women together covenant simultaneously to only have relations with their legal and lawful husband or wife, and it is now possible for a man in this country to have a legal and lawful husband that allows that man to answer yes.

Such things are not within our province to discuss publicly or agitate for.

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Prior to 1990 the men covenanted only to have relations with their wives and women with their husbands.  That precluded homosexuality.

Obviously there is no question among most faithful members.  That doesn't prevent a critic, a "progressive" member, or some other from making the false claim I pointed out.
It's an easy fix.

It's not within our stewardship, so I won't be putting my oar in.

And it's not something that should be a point of public discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When the ordinance is altered so that men and women together covenant simultaneously to only have relations with their legal and lawful husband or wife, and it is now possible for a man in this country to have a legal and lawful husband that allows that man to answer yes.  Or that woman in the US with a legal and lawful wife.
Prior to 1990 the men covenanted only to have relations with their wives and women with their husbands.  That precluded homosexuality.

Obviously there is no question among most faithful members.  That doesn't prevent a critic, a "progressive" member, or some other from making the false claim I pointed out.
It's an easy fix.

Now would that be a strategic (political, legalistic, social, etc.), inspired or revelatory fix?

Do you think a man who answers "yes" to a legal and lawful husband in mind has made the covenant as the Lord intended and taught? Or as Adam would have? Does it really matter? Maybe that is between him and God, and is part of the test of this generation (as Elder Oaks spoke about).

The critics, "progressives" and others are truly loved and they just have to pay attention to know what the prophets have meant all along.

Edited October 10, 2017 by CV75

[stemelbow]

1 hour 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.

 

It seems to me we out to drop the assumption that revelation means anything special.  It's regularly thrown out at us as many things, which really comes down to feeling good and inspiring.  Kind of like the Lion King Movie message.  I think the varied explanations we've had about revelation (thinking of Hinckley's couple of attempts mostly) tell us this mode of revealing God's will is not foolproof.  Today's its more a matter of men called into positions of authority and trusting their instinct and experience and trying to determine if their conclusions feel good or not (which tells me it's far more about the people who are making decisions than about God).  Someday we'll have people who weren't raised, and lived most of their lives rejecting without question other's in this world of family definition (recall the language in response to Lowry Nelson the First presidency used in 1947 "intermarriage of...races ...has..been...most repugnant to most normal-minded people...") .  Someday it'll all open up and we'll refer back to Oaks kind of like we do to many a past leader today--a bit of a mixed bag in terms of religious influence and influenced by the world around him.  Of course it makes the whole living in the world and not of it nonsense sound like nonsense, but it's all we have, I suppose, in a quest to come out as elite in some way (Some of God's children are assigned to superior positions before the world was formed). 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

I didn't say anything about church leaders and aligning ourselves to them so I'm not sure it is the opposite experience from what I had? 

Aligning yourself to God may also mean you are asking if what leaders are saying is his will, not necessarily nitpicking every thing they say, but if something doesn't sit right then you work with the Lord till you figure out his will and being willing to follow whatever that means. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now would that be a strategic (political, legalistic, social, etc.), inspired or revelatory fix?

Do you think a man who answers "yes" to a legal and lawful husband in mind has made the covenant as the Lord intended and taught? Or as Adam would have? Does it really matter? Maybe that is between him and God, and is part of the test of this generation (as Elder Oaks spoke about).

The critics, "progressives" and others are truly loved and they just have to pay attention to know what the prophets have meant all along.

Have we not noticed that some revelations don't come until after we've made the error?

"He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still." - Brigham Young

Perhaps God wants to see what the members of his Church will accept?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Have we not noticed that some revelations don't come until after we've made the error?

"He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still." - Brigham Young

Perhaps God wants to see what the members of his Church will accept?

My observation on this:  It's silly.  We'll forever explain away things with this type of stuff.  "God aint' doing it cause the people aren't ready" or "Its there but people just don't have eyes to see" or "God has given us all we need" or "it must be so because Church leaders said so".  And on and on....Every thing that happens is nothing but a reason for failed revelation or after the fact fulfilled prophecy, it seems like. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by stemelbow

[bluebell]

2 hours 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.

I'm not sure if the argument from silence approach is valid here. Can we show that every other time a prophet has given us revelation that he specifically claimed it was such?

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure if the argument from silence approach is valid here. Can we show that every other time a prophet has given us revelation that he specifically claimed it was such?

For that matter, can we possibly show that anything given by  prophet was revelation? 

Edited October 10, 2017 by stemelbow

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

For that matter, can we possibly show that anything given by  prophet was revelation? 

No, issues of revelation are always centered on faith and personal witness.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, issues of revelation are always centered on faith and personal witness.

Good.  I'm not sure why people are hung up on Oak's claim of revelation.  revelation as a concept and term seems pretty fluid. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Have we not noticed that some revelations don't come until after we've made the error?

"He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still." - Brigham Young

Perhaps God wants to see what the members of his Church will accept?

Yes, God would correct a prophet's error even if it is 27 years old, but I'm not sure if that is the case here (the part you quoted is underlined).

The quote from Brigham Young you share was one of two rationalizations as to how it was none of his business took after Joseph’s faults (real or imagined, hence the rationalization), which was part of a much larger principle about sustaining our leaders. I’m not sure if a modern audience would share the same logic, but this is about how he coped with his protracted feelings at the time; the eternal principle he is teaching is sustaining the prophets. Apologies for the large quote but there’s a bigger context:

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.

“I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.

“It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still. [Rationalization #1]

“If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? [Rationalization #2] It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say “I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him.” A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know.

“To say nothing of names, creeds, or titles, brother Joseph taught, and it is taught to the people now continually, to have implicit confidence in our leaders, to be sure that we live so that Christ is within us a living fountain, that we may have the Holy Ghost within us to actuate, dictate, and direct us every hour and moment of our lives. The people are urged from year to year, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, to live very near unto the Lord, to forsake every sin, and cling to the Lord with all our hearts, minds, and souls, so that we may know by the spirit of revelation whenever truth comes to us.” (from JD4 #54)

The bigger message is absolutely appropriate for this discussion on the family proclamation!

I’m not sure where God is letting the prophets lead us astray by not changing the temple language, but I do know that God watches over the thoughts of every one of us and that holy things can certainly be a stone of stumbling for those without a right mind with God.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It seems to me we out to drop the assumption that revelation means anything special.  It's regularly thrown out at us as many things, which really comes down to feeling good and inspiring.  Kind of like the Lion King Movie message.  I think the varied explanations we've had about revelation (thinking of Hinckley's couple of attempts mostly) tell us this mode of revealing God's will is not foolproof.  Today's its more a matter of men called into positions of authority and trusting their instinct and experience and trying to determine if their conclusions feel good or not (which tells me it's far more about the people who are making decisions than about God).  Someday we'll have people who weren't raised, and lived most of their lives rejecting without question other's in this world of family definition (recall the language in response to Lowry Nelson the First presidency used in 1947 "intermarriage of...races ...has..been...most repugnant to most normal-minded people...") .  Someday it'll all open up and we'll refer back to Oaks kind of like we do to many a past leader today--a bit of a mixed bag in terms of religious influence and influenced by the world around him.  Of course it makes the whole living in the world and not of it nonsense sound like nonsense, but it's all we have, I suppose, in a quest to come out as elite in some way (Some of God's children are assigned to superior positions before the world was formed). 

I completely agree. 

[Button Gwinnett]

Every time I have a revelation I always try to remember what Joseph Said :

Quote

"Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil."

The trick is in being able to tell the difference.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Every time I have a revelation I always try to remember what Joseph Said :

Quote

"Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil."

The trick is in being able to tell the difference.

One of the easiest ways to be misled is when the revelation tells you exactly what you want to hear and you feel good.
I worry people have pondered, prayed, felt good about doing exactly what they wanted to in the beginning, and called that revelation.

Unless we give up our will and seek God's will only, no matter how it makes us feel, there really is no reason for God to bother speaking to us.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

One of the easiest ways to be misled is when the revelation tells you exactly what you want to hear and you feel good.
I worry people have pondered, prayed, felt good about doing exactly what they wanted to in the beginning, and called that revelation.

Unless we give up our will and seek God's will only, no matter how it makes us feel, there really is no reason for God to bother speaking to us.

Such a great point.  Thanks for the reminder.

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Unless we give up our will and seek God's will only, no matter how it makes us feel, there really is no reason for God to bother speaking to us.

This is precisely what Elder Bednar taught us in a regional priesthood leadership meeting in 2015.

[Button Gwinnett]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

One of the easiest ways to be misled is when the revelation tells you exactly what you want to hear and you feel good.
I worry people have pondered, prayed, felt good about doing exactly what they wanted to in the beginning, and called that revelation.

Unless we give up our will and seek God's will only, no matter how it makes us feel, there really is no reason for God to bother speaking to us.

Every time a new Bishop is being considered in our ward I always stand up and tell everyone in Fast Meeting that I've had a revelation that I'm to be the new bishop.  I've never been called. Works every time.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

One of the easiest ways to be misled is when the revelation tells you exactly what you want to hear and you feel good.
I worry people have pondered, prayed, felt good about doing exactly what they wanted to in the beginning, and called that revelation.

Unless we give up our will and seek God's will only, no matter how it makes us feel, there really is no reason for God to bother speaking to us.

I personally struggle with the opposite a lot of the time.  I tend to assume that the answer is what I don't want to do--that it's the more difficult option--and that has gotten in my way before when trying to receive personal revelation.

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Every time a new Bishop is being considered in our ward I always stand up and tell everyone in Fast Meeting that I've had a revelation that I'm to be the new bishop.  I've never been called. Works every time.

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is precisely what Elder Bednar taught us in a regional priesthood leadership meeting in 2015.

Probably why he's considered so negatively by some more liberally minded members and a favorite target for critic's attacks.
Don't you know the gospel is only ever supposed to make us feel good and happy and give us fulfillment and no bad feelings.  

(The older I get the more I seem to be aware of the different styles and tones of the Apostles.  They aren't all as homogeneous as I used to think in my youth.)

[llama]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not so sure it was all that different. Joseph surrounded himself with quorums and councils. 

Joseph did it mostly by himself back in the day.  It's a lot better now, with 1400% more PSRs!

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

We have Hinckley's words.  No one can change them.  Not you or Oaks.  Oaks can spin it and try to re-write what happened, and it will probably be accepted by the membership.  But that doesn't make it true.

[llama]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

Would you apply that same definition of revelation when say all the cardinals and pope agree on something?  How about a corporate board room?  What is it when they all agree to something, but later change their minds?  Are both of those decisions revelation?

I am not trying to cause a problem.  And I can see how you came to that conclusion. But I am curious how you apply that kind of thought process in similar areas.

But we have the authoritative councils.  The Q15 council is pretty much an extension of the Council in Heaven, or the Jedi Council.

 

"The College of Cardinals' idea of unanimity is a battle royale fight club, where the last cardinal standing gets to be the new pope"

--James Talmadge, probably

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Probably why he's considered so negatively by some more liberally minded members and a favorite target for critic's attacks.
Don't you know the gospel is only ever supposed to make us feel good and happy and give us fulfillment and no bad feelings.  

(The older I get the more I seem to be aware of the different styles and tones of the Apostles.  They aren't all as homogeneous as I used to think in my youth.)

I didn't realize Elder Bednar was negatively viewed - but I doubt that is the reason.  The counsel to give up our will and seek God's will only, no matter how it makes us feel seems to be a challenge equally faced by both progressive and conservative church members (to the extent such titles are even accurate).