Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

What doctrines can you pinpoint from 1977 that are different today?

What changes are those?

 

I considering what doctrines have changed since 1977, consider the teachings of the FP in their 1949 letter.  The Race and the Priesthood essay has disavowed those doctrines that were taught over many decades. That, of course, is a change. 

With respect to homosexuality, past doctrines were that homosexuality was a choice and that it could be cured through faithfulness. We’ve now back away from those incorrect doctrines. Bryce Cook does a good job of researching our church’s historical position on homosexuality in his paper posted at mormonlgbtquestions.com

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I don't question your faithfulness. I question whether you have any standing to claim that God has revealed something to you which He has not revealed to the Prophet.

I am entitled to personal revelation which I rightfully claim. 

I am not entitled to receive revelation for the church and I have never claimed to have done so. 

While we’re on the subject, is Elder Oaks entitled to pronounce revelation for the church?

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Let me be clear here. I don't agree with rockpond that the proclamation can or should add LBGT families. If there was a revelation on it I would pray about it and accept whatever the Spirit says, but with my understanding of the gospel I don't think that is going to change. 

That said, rockpond is open to receiving new revelation about it including LBGT families. That may be why he is not specific. Since he doesn't lead the church then he can't get specifics for what revelation like that would look like. So he is open to whatever specifics there might be. I'm assuming that if the prophet announced that he had spent much time in pray and fasting, asking for clear revelation on bringing in LBGT and was told that no, it was not part of the eternal plan that rockpond would be open to searching his heart and praying again about it.

I think it is best to be equally open to both existing doctrine (the product of revelation) and new revelation on any subject, and praying about what the Brethren put forth as either so we can take a stand on whether to sustain it.

I think the last few pages revolve around something a bit different than that. Once one thoughtfully focuses on a specific topic area or area of interest or concern, he studies it out in his mind and as a result cannot help but have specifics on existing doctrine and new revelation. These are what get shared on a discussion thread.

[Rain]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I considering what doctrines have changed since 1977, consider the teachings of the FP in their 1949 letter.  The Race and the Priesthood essay has disavowed those doctrines that were taught over many decades. That, of course, is a change. 

With respect to homosexuality, past doctrines were that homosexuality was a choice and that it could be cured through faithfulness. We’ve now back away from those incorrect doctrines. Bryce Cook does a good job of researching our church’s historical position on homosexuality in his paper posted at mormonlgbtquestions.com

As I understand it from Elder Bednar, these things you mention in this post are not actually talking on the doctrinal level. Rather they are on a principle or application level. I may be wrong on that though as it is sometimes hard for me to differentiate between a doctrine and a principle. The reason I say anything here is that I THINK it might matter in the context of what we are talking about. I say, I think, because as I read your post it touched off some thoughts along that line. I'll have to think more on it. 

[Rain]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it is best to be equally open to both existing doctrine (the product of revelation) and new revelation on any subject, and praying about what the Brethren put forth as either so we can take a stand on whether to sustain it.

I think the last few pages revolve around something a bit different than that. Once one thoughtfully focuses on a specific topic area or area of interest or concern, he studies it out in his mind and as a result cannot help but have specifics on existing doctrine and new revelation. These are what get shared on a discussion thread.

I definitely agree with your first paragraph.

Trying to work out what you are saying in the second. Let me see if I have this right. If I pray, about subjects that have not been revealed yet, and I receive revelation, then I should be able to be specific about it? 

[kiwi57]

 

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I am entitled to personal revelation which I rightfully claim.

I humbly suggest that genuine personal revelation never exceeds our personal stewardship. The Church's policies regarding the Law of Chastity and the world's retreat therefrom are not part of the personal stewardship of anyone outside of the presiding quorums of the Church.

I further humbly suggest that no genuine personal revelation that is incompatible with what God has already revealed through his anointed prophets and apostles has ever been received, or ever will be.

I am not entitled to receive revelation for the church and I have never claimed to have done so. 

Oh, that must explain why none of us have ever heard you claiming that your views are the product of revelation.

Oh. Wait.

While we’re on the subject, is Elder Oaks entitled to pronounce revelation for the church?

I'm not sure he's entitled to pronounce new revelation that we haven't heard before. He is, of course, completely entitled to tell us about the revelatory nature of a document signed by all fifteen of the living prophets, seers and revelators that was presented to the Church by the President thereof 22 years ago.

Do you disagree?

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I considering what doctrines have changed since 1977, consider the teachings of the FP in their 1949 letter.  The Race and the Priesthood essay has disavowed those doctrines that were taught over many decades. That, of course, is a change. 

I've carefully read the essay. I see no doctrines disavowed therein.

I see ideas disavowed that were once widely-disseminated. Those ideas were taught to me (in the early 1970's) as speculative and non-binding.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

With respect to homosexuality, past doctrines were that homosexuality was a choice and that it could be cured through faithfulness. We’ve now back away from those incorrect doctrines. Bryce Cook does a good job of researching our church’s historical position on homosexuality in his paper posted at mormonlgbtquestions.com

Past doctrine was that homosexual behaviour was a choice. Present doctrine is that homosexual behaviour is a choice.

Huge change!

BTW, just so you know, I tend to disapprove of pressure group websites with domain names that are designed to deceive the unwary into thinking that they have some kind of connection to the Church.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And yet Scott you are one to whom I pose my questions.  You are so completely converted to the Church and such a staunch defender I cannot imagine you refusing to accept such a revelation were it ever announced.

I think you would both accept and defend such an announcement immediately due to your absolute sustaining of the brethren.

There were those who felt as you currently do about the end of polygamy and the priesthood ban. And they had to accept a revelation contrary to their beliefs.

I place myself squarely in the mainstream of the believing members in the Church. 

The mainstream both looked forward to and heralded the day when the priesthood ban was lifted. I know, because I was among them. By his own account, so was Dallin H. Oaks. So your comparison here fails. 

As for plural marriage, I wasn’t around then to observe conditions, but my hunch is the mainstream back then were not nearly as resistant to or loath to relinquishing its practice as you make it seem. This is evidenced by the fact that only a fraction of the people were still practicing it then, probably the smallest proportion of the membership since the days prior to the reformation of the 1850s. 

I think you and I differ in the confidence each of us respectively places in the disposition of the anointed servants of God, current and future, as a body to follow His directives in spite of social pressure. 

Edited October 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am trying to understand your position.  Do you think the Israelites were the only ones that married for example?

No, why would they be?

God established marriage with Adam and Eve.  It existed literally from the beginning.  Therefore any culture could contain marriage.

But the definition, purpose, and the example are as per God.  Just because any particular culture or society called something different marriage doesn't make it marriage.  There is no such thing as a SSM because God defined marriage as the union of different sexes.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I place myself squarely in the mainstream of the believing members in the Church. 

The mainstream both looked forward to and heralded the day when the priesthood ban was lifted. I know, because I was among them. By his own account, so was Dallin H. Oaks. So your comparison here fails. 

As for plural marriage, I wasn’t around then to observe conditions, but my hunch is the mainstream back then were not nearly as resistant to relinquishing its practice as you make it seem. This is evidenced by the fact that only a fraction of the people were still practicing it then, probably the smallest proportion of the membership since the days prior to the reformation of the 1850s. 

I think you and I differ in the confidence each of us respectively places in the disposition of the anointed servants of God, current and future, as a body to follow His directives in spite of social pressure. 

Thank you for this analysis of the historical comparisons.

You still fail to answer the question.  I know you are pretty certain that SSM or ordination of women will never happen.

But your approach to the brethren and revelation indicate if they announced such a revelation you would both accept and defend such an announcement immediately.  Am I  wrong?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Thank you for this analysis of the historical comparisons.

You still fail to answer the question.  I know you are pretty certain that SSM or ordination of women will never happen.

But your approach to the brethren and revelation indicate if they announced such a revelation you would both accept and defend such an announcement immediately.  Am I  wrong?

So certain am I that it will never happen, I can’t even entertain the thought that it would. 

It’s like asking me what I would do were the Church to announce tomorrow that Joseph Smith was a fraud and that he fabricated the Book of Mormon from whole cloth. I’m not only absolutely certain he did not, I’m just as certain Jesus Christ would not allow His Church to be hijacked by individuals who would say such a thing. 

[kiwi57]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I place myself squarely in the mainstream of the believing members in the Church. 

The mainstream both looked forward to and heralded the day when the priesthood ban was lifted. I know, because I was among them. By his own account, so was Dallin H. Oaks. So your comparison here fails. 

As for plural marriage, I wasn’t around then to observe conditions, but my hunch is the mainstream back then were not nearly as resistant to or loath to relinquishing its practice as you make it seem. This is evidenced by the fact that only a fraction of the people were still practicing it then, probably the smallest proportion of the membership since the days prior to the reformation of the 1850s. 

I think you and I differ in the confidence each of us respectively places in the disposition of the anointed servants of God, current and future, as a body to follow His directives in spite of social pressure. 

This.

I remember 1978 very well; June is the middle of winter in Australia, and the EQP picked us up for Priesthood meeting that morning. As my companion and I were walking to the car, he turned and said, "By the way: the Priesthood has just been given to the Negroes." (Australians still said "negro" and its cognates after it became unfashionable in the US, because the Aboriginal population used to also be called "Black.") Everyone I spoke to about it - including the senior missionary couple I ended up serving with a few months later - was simply delighted.

I recalled an occasion just a few months earlier (recorded in my journal) in which I was having a discussion with a JW couple, and the Priesthood Ban came up. I took the opportunity to teach about the Premortal Existence, and told them that we expected the ban to be removed one day. My companion didn't try to tell me (then or ever) that Brigham said it would only happen after everyone else had received the Priesthood; that, after all, was not the doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So certain am I that it will never happen, I can’t even entertain the thought that it would. 

It’s like asking me what I would do were the Church to announce tomorrow that Joseph Smith was a fraud and that he fabricated the Book of Mormon from whole cloth. I’m not only absolutely certain he did not, I’m just as certain Jesus Christ would not allow His Church to be hijacked by individuals who would say such a thing. 

 So in a speculative world you would suffer immense cognitive dissonance if they did.  Your belief in the impossibility combined with your absolute sustaining of the brethren would put you in a terrible position.  

I only the other hand am willing to reject any such revelation that might come through the brethren as false and against correct principles. 

I truly hope you right and you are never forced to face such contradiction.   If such a contradiction can take down an Apostle like John W. Taylor with polygamy what hope for the devout average member like yourself.

Edited October 23, 2017 by JLHPROF

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 So in a speculative world you would suffer immense cognitive dissonance if they did.  Your belief in the impossibility combined with your absolute sustaining of the brethren would put you in a terrible position.  

I only the other hand am willing to reject any such revelation that might come through the brethren as false and against correct principles. 

I truly hope you right and you are never forced to face such contradiction.   If such a contradiction can take down an Apostle like John W. Taylor with polygamy what hope for the devout average member like yourself.

I'm not sure if you realise just how patronising that sounds.

Since it's not going to happen, I suggest that we all avoid creating conflict over a mere hypothetical.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm not sure if you realise just how patronising that sounds.

Since it's not going to happen, I suggest that we all avoid creating conflict over a mere hypothetical.

Not trying to sound patronizing.  The point is that our doctrines have been declared unalterable by prophets before and then revelation has been announced.  Regardless of how many believed or didn't there were those for whom a new revelation caused a contradiction.  They had to change their beliefs or refuse to sustain the brethren.

Heck, that's where fundamentalists came from.  Not picking on Scott intentionally.  His usual approach just fits the bill.

Sometimes God sends a revelation that shakes our core beliefs.  To pretend it can't happen to me or my core beliefs is naive.

Edited October 23, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm not sure if you realise just how patronising that sounds.

Since it's not going to happen, I suggest that we all avoid creating conflict over a mere hypothetical.

This is why I have thought about it.  When I was on my mission I was asking people to consider their deepest beliefs and their membership in their church.  I have done that since my mission a number of times.  I have seen them be open to the idea that they might be wrong when they were sure they were right. I have seen them humble themselves and ask the Lord what he says rather than what they have been always taught.  I cannot in good conscious ask them to do that if I am not willing myself.

It's not like it is an every day thing.  Or even every year.  It's just once in a great while the timing is right and I will sincerely ask the Lord if this or that is true or if I should support this or that etc.  I have yet to have the Lord tell me something against what the prophet said, but I have received information that I missed before or counsel that I needed to go along with it.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

This.

I remember 1978 very well; June is the middle of winter in Australia, and the EQP picked us up for Priesthood meeting that morning. As my companion and I were walking to the car, he turned and said, "By the way: the Priesthood has just been given to the Negroes." (Australians still said "negro" and its cognates after it became unfashionable in the US, because the Aboriginal population used to also be called "Black.") Everyone I spoke to about it - including the senior missionary couple I ended up serving with a few months later - was simply delighted.

I recalled an occasion just a few months earlier (recorded in my journal) in which I was having a discussion with a JW couple, and the Priesthood Ban came up. I took the opportunity to teach about the Premortal Existence, and told them that we expected the ban to be removed one day. My companion didn't try to tell me (then or ever) that Brigham said it would only happen after everyone else had received the Priesthood; that, after all, was not the doctrine.

I was attending BYU summer term and working late nights as night editor of the student newspaper. I remember awaking mid-Morning and hearing the news on the radio. 

I was so excited I dressed and came down to campus. The excitement and acclaim were universal. 

I saw one of my newspaper colleagues. He exclaimed, “Come up to the newsroom; we’re putting out an extra edition!” 

When I got there most of the work had already been done, but I got to help with incidentals, including taking the completed pages over to the press for printing. 

Last I heard, a PDF of that newspaper edition is online somewhere. 

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is why I have thought about it.  When I was on my mission I was asking people to consider their deepest beliefs and their membership in their church.  I have done that since my mission a number of times.  I have seen them be open to the idea that they might be wrong when they were sure they were right. I have seen them humble themselves and ask the Lord what he says rather than what they have been always taught.  I cannot in good conscious ask them to do that if I am not willing myself.

It's not like it is an every day thing.  Or even every year.  It's just once in a great while the timing is right and I will sincerely ask the Lord if this or that is true or if I should support this or that etc.  I have yet to have the Lord tell me something against what the prophet said, but I have received information that I missed before or counsel that I needed to go along with it.  

It’s a matter of choosing not to play meaningless mind games on matters on which the Lord has made Himself clear and I am already certain that He has. 

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s a matter of choosing not to play meaningless mind games on matters on which the Lord has made Himself clear and I am already certain that He has. 

It's a good thing I don't do play meaningless mind games or ask others to do it then. 

Edited October 23, 2017 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

It's a good thing I don't do play meaningless mind games or ask others to do it then. 

I’m not saying that you do. 

I’m only trying to convey the depth of my certainty of some particular matters of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature and why I see no value in engaging in mental exercises pertaining to them. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I've carefully read the essay. I see no doctrines disavowed therein.

I see ideas disavowed that were once widely-disseminated. Those ideas were taught to me (in the early 1970's) as speculative and non-binding.

Past doctrine was that homosexual behaviour was a choice. Present doctrine is that homosexual behaviour is a choice.

Huge change!

BTW, just so you know, I tend to disapprove of pressure group websites with domain names that are designed to deceive the unwary into thinking that they have some kind of connection to the Church.

 

 

What makes something a doctrine?

In past teachings, the Brethren identified homosexuality (not specifically behavior) as the sin.  And you ignored my other points.  

Did you read Cook’s paper?

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not saying that you do. 

I’m only trying to convey the depth of my certainty of some particular matters of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature and why I see no value in engaging in mental exercises pertaining to them. 

Good. When I brought up the whole idea and then you quoted me and replied with "meaningless mind games" I assumed you were talking to me about what I was doing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

Good. When I brought up the whole idea and then you quoted me and replied with "meaningless mind games" I assumed you were talking to me about what I was doing. 

I actually had JLHPROF more in mind. Your response was to kiwi57, whose response had been to JLHPROF. 

I agree with kiwi’s remark: “Since it's not going to happen, I suggest that we all avoid creating conflict over a mere hypothetical.”

Edited October 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

What makes something a doctrine?

A doctrine is an official teaching that is considered binding and authoritative. It is either plainly and unambiguously asserted in the canonical scriptures of the Church, colloquially called the Standard Works, or in joint statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

In past teachings, the Brethren identified homosexuality (not specifically behavior) as the sin.  And you ignored my other points.  

Sources, please? Something explicit and unambiguous will do. That is to say, it needs to be quite clear that "homosexuality" is not being used as shorthand for "homosexual behaviour."

I don't see any points that I missed.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Did you read Cook’s paper?

If Mister Cook wishes to rebrand his website, I'll take him seriously enough to read his paper.

 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, why would they be?

God established marriage with Adam and Eve.  It existed literally from the beginning.  Therefore any culture could contain marriage.

But the definition, purpose, and the example are as per God.  Just because any particular culture or society called something different marriage doesn't make it marriage.  There is no such thing as a SSM because God defined marriage as the union of different sexes.

So you believe. in a literal Adam and Eve and all civilizations sprang from them?  How do you deal with all of the physical evidence that shows man being on earth thousands of years before the arrival of Adam and Eve?