LDS SSA Policies in Context

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Should the member ever seek advice from a fallible bishop? If so, in what areas? Members went to see their bishops in the 80's and were given the wrong advice based on the outdated pamphlet. Given these mistakes, shouldn't the member be leary of asking a bishop advice, especially since E. Ballard admitted the obvious that leaders aren't experts?

How many people were affected by this? Honest question. I know, "even one is too many," but I have no idea how many people this even impacted.

I would say, overall, for most people, going to the bishop would give good advice. Not only no harm done, but good, solid advice. 

I am amazed at the trust and confidence of members. It is humbling and awe-inspiring. I had a retired attorney sincerely ask for my counsel on paying tithing on a very complicated real estate investment strategy I had never heard of, and don't really understand. As the investor, he understood it very well. Yet, he wanted my counsel, and stood bound by my advice (in hindsight). I asked follow-up questions to wrap my mind around it, but I'm still amazed at the situation. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I certainly hope so. 

Why would you hope that God would be so unjust as to "hold us responsible for acting with good will, but having a bad outcome"?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And to you what does that mean?   If it was "revelation" then the church would be "right" and therefore infallible.

The church, especially from your very limited perspective is NOT infallible.

You are still crying over Santa Claus.  It seems to be a bit obsessive, not to mention boring.  

If the church claims revelation from God, but that statement ends up being untrue and not from God, then what is the point of calling anything a revelation from God.  If those that declare a revelation from God are fallible when they say what the revelation is, then there is really no value to either claiming revelation or declaring something to be a revelation.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

About 25 years ago, a friend of mine went to see his bishop about my friend’s struggling with same-sex attraction. The bishop, who was a therapist, told this young man that the church would counsel him to try to overcome his desires. But, the bishop said, he could predict with certainty that such efforts would be unsuccessful. In that case, the church would counsel him to remain celibate and avoid close relationships with other men. He then said, “But you will be unhappy and put yourself through unimaginable suffering.” Instead, he advised him to be true to himself and find someone to love and share his life with. The church might change eventually, but he couldn’t in good conscience ask him to wait for that day. My friend said his bishop saved his life. 

Sometimes good people are able to rise above the current societal consensus and make a difference. 

Wow, what a different approach and what a great result.

These boys at BYU were given great hope for being cured of being gay by church leaders (apostles in some cases) who they believed communicated directly with God. 

Some of these boys were so badly burned and were scared for life....yet were still gay.  

As I already posted, two of them committed suicide soon after these treatments.  They had great hope they'd be cured....but were not.

It's upsetting to see some here just try to say...oh well, they were just following what doctors believed and it was just a "bad outcome".

I'm off of here now....company and holidays here soon!

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

These debates have gone on ad nauseum.  However, don't the church leaders want us to think their words are from God?  When they are speaking and acting as prophets, isn't that when they want us to believe that they are infallible at those times?  If not, would you agree that the family proclamation is an imperfect document?  Book of Mormon imperfect?  D&C imperfect? Conference talks imperfect?  Doesn't this support a selectivity in what the member follows, if there are imperfections in the works of the imperfect prophets? 

You said it better than I did.  I see little point in church leaders claiming divine revelation when what they say is just men that sometimes gets things right and sometimes make mistakes.  They are making God loose credibility when He hasn't done a thing.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would you hope that God would be so unjust as to "hold us responsible for acting with good will, but having a bad outcome"?

Sorry. Misread him. 

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, I'm probably not going to go on that fishing expedition, so if you're interested in showing "that was not the case at least with some of them," you'll have to document it.

 

Many have already been posted (references).  But, I can't do the reading for you.  If you care about it, I trust you'll look into it some more.  If not, that's fine too of course.  But what you've posted was not accurate.

Now.... I truly have to get off of here...

I'll try to check back in later.

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

These debates have gone on ad nauseum.  However, don't the church leaders want us to think their words are from God?  When they are speaking and acting as prophets, isn't that when they want us to believe that they are infallible at those times?  If not, would you agree that the family proclamation is an imperfect document?  Book of Mormon imperfect?  D&C imperfect? Conference talks imperfect?  Doesn't this support a selectivity in what the member follows, if there are imperfections in the works of the imperfect prophets? 

Are you aware of all the quotes which say that they are not perfect?

And where is a single quote which says they ARE perfect?

I won't look them up- I know I am right.  Go ahead if you want to argue the point.

"The prophet will never lead you astray."  When has that happened?   Polygamy?  Who's to say that was "astray" for the time?  But that is a lot different than infallibility.

There was a talk by Elder Uchtdorf I think and Christiensen? 

But the bottom line has to be testimony anyway.  It would just plain be STUPID to believe ANYONE is infallible when the way we are supposed to know the church is true anyway is by personal revelation.

God doesn't want us to take anyone's word for it without testimony anyway.  Joseph wouldn't take anyone's word for it- so what did he do?  He went to God.   Moroni says "ask God" James 1 says "ask God" and there are other scriptures that say the same thing

Infallibility leads to Jim Jones and drinking the kool aid.

The whole principle of the restoration is that we must go to God for answers so the belief that prophets are infallible contradicts the central logic of the whole restoration. Pure idiocy in my opinion.   People who believe that have just not thought it through

Joseph knew the church was true because he got a vision- not because some old guy said it was true and here we have faithful members denying that whole principle!

Central contradiction there.

We go to convert people and ask them to believe the prophet is infallible and he says to join?   How would that work?   "This old guy says this is the true church and so you should join!"

Ridiculous, right?

GO TO GOD for answers- do not believe in the infallibility of prophets.

That should be self-evident to everyone and I never understand how this cult of personality gets going in a church which is based on Alma 32 Moroni 10 and James 1.  And who said a prophet will never lead the church astray?   A prophet.

Figure that one out for yourself if you have the ability to reason for yourself.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Again, people keep claiming that the brethren called the pamphlet "revelation" from God.  It was a policy. It changed. No one took the Lord's name in vain. 

We have been talking about more than just one pamphlet.  Ask mfbukowski.  Evidently I am not allowed to talk about other promises made in the name of God.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess we keep going on and believing in myths, if it makes people feel good that others speak for God. I think it fine that each individual can say they have something revealed to them through the spirit, but too often people are taking the Lord's name in vain, when they say that God said so and told them that and they are the appointed mouthpiece for everyone else, especially when what they say is so harmful.

The whole church is based on having your own testimony- if anyone does not they do not belong in the church.  It is the founding principle of the church.

Babies, different obviously but thinking adults?   If you don't believe- there's the door.   This is not a culture- this is a series of paradigms by which to live.  If you don't accept the paradigms ("doctrines") you should not be part of the culture and complain about the paradigms.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Are you aware of all the quotes which say that they are not perfect?

And where is a single quote which says they ARE perfect?

I won't look them up- I know I am right.  Go ahead if you want to argue the point.

"The prophet will never lead you astray."  When has that happened?   Polygamy?  Who's to say that was "astray" for the time?  But that is a lot different than infallibility.

There was a talk by Elder Uchtdorf I think and Christiensen? 

But the bottom line has to be testimony anyway.  It would just plain be STUPID to believe ANYONE is infallible when the way we are supposed to know the church is true anyway is by personal revelation.

God doesn't want us to take anyone's word for it without testimony anyway.  Joseph wouldn't take anyone's word for it- so what did he do?  He went to God.   Moroni says "ask God" James 1 says "ask God" and there are other scriptures that say the same thing

Infallibility leads to Jim Jones and drinking the kool aid.

The whole principle of the restoration is that we must go to God for answers so the belief that prophets are infallible contradicts the central logic of the whole restoration. Pure idiocy in my opinion.   People who believe that have just not thought it through

Joseph knew the church was true because he got a vision- not because some old guy said it was true and here we have faithful members denying that whole principle!

Central contradiction there.

We go to convert people and ask them to believe the prophet is infallible and he says to join?   How would that work?   "This old guy says this is the true church and so you should join!"

Ridiculous, right?

GO TO GOD for answers- do not believe in the infallibility of prophets.

That should be self-evident to everyone and I never understand how this cult of personality gets going in a church which is based on Alma 32 Moroni 10 and James 1.  And who said a prophet will never lead the church astray?   A prophet.

Figure that one out for yourself if you have the ability to reason for yourself.

I don't think they ever speak for God but they claim otherwise. Do you think this claim may lead some to believe the leaders at least give infallible statements in the form of revelation?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

The whole church is based on having your own testimony- if anyone does not they do not belong in the church.  It is the founding principle of the church.

Babies, different obviously but thinking adults?   If you don't believe- there's the door.   This is not a culture- this is a series of paradigms by which to live.  If you don't accept the paradigms ("doctrines") you should not be part of the culture and complain about the paradigms.

Wow, I guess you've shown me to the door!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

When you say, "by revelation", what do you mean?

I mean that it was God's will divulged to the prophet and delivered to the Church by means of a now obsolete pamphlet.  That is californiaboys claim.  I am saying, nope. I know that you don't believe that God speaks to man like californiaboy and I do, so your involvement might be a bit of a distraction quite honestly. 

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

We have been talking about more than just one pamphlet.  Ask mfbukowski.  Evidently I am not allowed to talk about other promises made in the name of God.  

Warping the truth as usual.  And yet another way of saying that prophets are fallible.

My gosh man, why are you here?  This is your life's moments ticking away with every post....

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

I don't think they ever speak for God but they claim otherwise. Do you think this claim may lead some to believe the leaders at least give infallible statements in the form of revelation?

I don't think it takes some people much to believe in infallibility no matter what is explained to the contrary. Just like it doesn't take much for some people to not believe they ever speak for God, no matter what.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

I don't think they ever speak for God but they claim otherwise. Do you think this claim may lead some to believe the leaders at least give infallible statements in the form of revelation?

That's circular.

Duh!  An old guy says old guys are always right.   If you don't have an ANSWER FROM GOD that that old guy is correct and a prophet, why on earth would you accept that as a revelation?

Do you know how many claimed revelations there have been?   Have you studied ANY history of religion or comparative religions at all???

Religion is about finding your own path not about trusting old guys who tell you they are right unless God tells you they are.  Who would do that?

Here- send me 10% of your income- because I am and old guy and i say I am right.

Here's my address..... 

 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Warping the truth as usual.  And yet another way of saying that prophets are fallible.

My gosh man, why are you here?  This is your life's moments ticking away with every post....

Well, for those that have a clue, it means that those of us that hang around are wounded. We have been here (board) long enough that hopefully you or anyone can see the hurt that the church has caused. Me, I'm hurt because I've lost a good portion of my life to a belief that didn't pan out, and lost my self as I knew it. Laugh, which I think you'll do, but this isn't a little issue, it's a huge one. You won't understand though. Religion is a curse or a blessing. Why has the church been a curse at all, if it's the one true church. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Tacenda

[california boy]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Yep, that is right.  It was representative of the church's position at the time. Not every position of the church is by revelation.  Any attempt to claim that it was something more, is a straw-man attempt at undercutting the credibility of the prophets. 

The same is true today.  The church pamphlets about SSA are just the thinking of some people outside the church and leaders should not be held accountable for holding those same beliefs or any claims of revelation.  Pamphlets today are written to agree with what the Catholics and Evangelics think of homosexuality.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The whole church is based on having your own testimony- if anyone does not they do not belong in the church.  It is the founding principle of the church.

Well, yes.  But having a testimony is a process, not an event.  So with respect, I think we err in making declarations like this.  We all "belong" in the Church in the sense that this is where God wants us to be.  There are plenty of us who are struggling with their testimony in one way or another, or several.  Such folks still "belong" in the Church."  

"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick."  (Mark 2:17)

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Babies, different obviously but thinking adults?   If you don't believe- there's the door.   

Please don't say that.  We have no business telling other people to leave the Church.  It is not within our stewardship.  Fellowshipping should be the order of the day.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, I guess you've shown me to the door!

I came back on to say that you need to ignore anyone who would post what mfbukowski did for you.   What a horrible post.

(Same thing goes for most of his to California Boy on here too....)

Edited December 20, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh please.  He is hardly the only one who has noticed that it took a couple of decades before a general authority called the proclamation a revelation.  He is just the only one that wants to argue against people who aren't really known for accepting reality.

The reality is, as Smac has pointed out, that Elder Oaks, a participant in the drafting and subsequent publication of the proclamation, and a signatory thereto, attests that the process was indeed revelatory. As Smac has shown, Gray's contradiction thus amounts to an accusation that Elder Oaks is lying.

I choose to accept Elder Oaks's attestation; I choose to reject Gray's accusation

.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, for those that have a clue, it means that those of us that hang around are wounded. We have been here (board) long enough that hopefully you or anyone can see the hurt that the church has caused. Me, I'm hurt because I've lost a good portion of my life to a belief that didn't pan out, and lost my self as I knew it. Laugh, which I think you'll do. But this isn't a little issue, it's a huge one. You won't understand though. Religion is a curse or a blessing. Why has the church been a curse at all, if it's the one true church. 

Just know Tacenda...that I hear you.  I hear and understand the pain and confusion of losing who you are...and when that happens..all the promises go down with it.  But I hear you.  For your sake, I hope you remain on the fence...for should you fall on my corner of the world, you will be called a whiner..one of those who just won't leave it alone.    All because we believed...but we just didn't see an article or something way back in 1970..(the visions)...it will become your fault and mine.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, for those that have a clue, it means that those of us that hang around are wounded. We have been here (board) long enough that hopefully you or anyone can see the hurt that the church has caused. Me, I'm hurt because I've lost a good portion of my life to a belief that didn't pan out, and lost my self as I knew it. Laugh, which I think you'll do, but this isn't a little issue, it's a huge one. You won't understand though. Religion is a curse or a blessing. Why has the church been a curse at all, if it's the one true church. 

Don’t worry about people who don’t care about you. Life is way too short to be hurt by some random message board poster. 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I came back on to say that you need to ignore anyone who would post what mfbukowski did for you.   What a horrible post.

I agree...this was a horrible and uncalled for.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just know Tacenda...that I hear you.  I hear and understand the pain and confusion of losing who you are...and when that happens..all the promises go down with it.  But I hear you.  For your sake, I hope you remain on the fence...for should you fall on my corner of the world, you will be called a whiner..one of those who just won't leave it alone.    All because we believed...but we just didn't see an article or something way back in 1970..(the visions)...it will become your fault and mine.

It’s good to remember that 99% of church members are far kinder than you would imagine based on some interactions on the Internet.