An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[Bobbieaware]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s hard to think the senior leaders of the Church would create a document expressly for delivery to government officials and opinion leaders and not have it be revelatory. Those who deny that are often those who have not paid attention to the proclamation or its content until it began to interfere with their own political or social agenda. Then, they began to push the revisionist view that the proclamation was not inspired. 

Agreed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I can understand why some are tired of the threads on GLBTQ. But since this seems to be something that is affecting our loss of youth at an alarming rate shouldn't it also be something that is discussed a lot. Yes, I expect there are a lot of people here who believe they are standing firmly on the side of God in their defense of the church in this area (or all areas for that matter) but as Dr Phil likes to say "how's that working for you?".  If you are content with the status quo, firmly believe the church has not made any mistakes in this area and do not care that many are leaving over these issues, then I can see why these threads are bothersome. 

I think the church is wrong here in many areas, I would like to see changes and would like to see more done to prevent our loss of youth. 

So long as the Church stands pat on immutable values and standards, there will always be those who don’t like and will either stay away to begin with or will depart. Of the latter, in each and every case the separation is not a result of the Church having moved but rather, the one who is separating himself from it. 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

As usual, only certain voices/viewpoints are heard on this board. Or allowed to be heard. 

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Sure you do.  People on the +Church side of things start threads, get exasperated by some one or more on the -Church side of things, post [perhaps] improvidently, get banned from their own threads.  People on the -Church side of things post [deliberately?] provocative things, make personal, often hurtful remarks, not a thing gets done to them.  At least that's how it appears over the last 2-3 years.

USU "Displeased when a lousy job {reffing} gets done lousily, especially when everybody knows that the guy getting clocked threw the first punch" 78

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Sure you do.  People on the +Church side of things start threads, get exasperated by some one or more on the -Church side of things, post [perhaps] improvidently, get banned from their own threads.  People on the -Church side of things post [deliberately?] provocative things, make personal, often hurtful remarks, not a thing gets done to them.  At least that's how it appears over the last 2-3 years.

USU "Displeased when a lousy job {reffing} gets done lousily, especially when everybody knows that the guy getting clocked threw the first punch" 78

I can only speak from my perspective, but I have not seen anyone banned from a thread who wasn't making personal or insulting comments.  I admit that I probably don't always know when someone is banned (unless they complain about it or a mod posts a note).  But, as long as a discussion stays civil (and not political), the mods really are good at allowing a discussion to continue until it dies its own death.

I imagine that there are posters on both sides who feel they've been treated unfairly.  That's how us humans are 

Just make an effort to get along and be polite and civil even if you strongly disagree with someone (and keep it focused on the topic rather than anything personal).  Maybe stay off of threads that are triggers for you?  I have a topic here that I avoid (and have apologized for my behavior after it got too heated).

Edited January 31, 2018 by ALarson

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Sure you do.  People on the +Church side of things start threads, get exasperated by some one or more on the -Church side of things, post [perhaps] improvidently, get banned from their own threads.  People on the -Church side of things post [deliberately?] provocative things, make personal, often hurtful remarks, not a thing gets done to them.  At least that's how it appears over the last 2-3 years.

USU "Displeased when a lousy job {reffing} gets done lousily, especially when everybody knows that the guy getting clocked threw the first punch" 78

Would you do me the courtesy of not applying your mind-reading efforts to me?  I know no such thing.  What I see is a bunch of humans who are ALL subject to confirmation bias who believe they are the only ones being wronged and that the other guys get all the breaks.  This observation applies to both sides.  You just happen to be the latest squeaky wheel.  When you've got empirical evidence of bias on this issue, I'll find it interesting.  Until then, it's whining with very little self-reflection being applied, in my opinion.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

 People on the -Church side of things post [deliberately?] provocative things, make personal, often hurtful remarks, not a thing gets done to them.  At least that's how it appears over the last 2-3 years.

Yep, that is me to a T.  

[Guest]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes I do disagree with the church's policies against gay couples and their families.  But that doesn't mean that I don't think the church has every right to treat gay couples and their families any way it wants.  It is their church.  Whether the church ever changes its position is actually no concern of mine.  I don't find that viewpoint splitting hairs.  I call it a difference of opinion on how to treat others.

I was just trying to point that all who take part in threads concerning, the Church and Homosexuality, have a dog in this fight.  

[kiwi57]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The proclamation on the family was released in 1995 under the direction of Gordon Hinckley who was the president at the time.  It was a policy at the time (see my previous post).  The November policy came out in 2015 while Thomas Monson president.   It was stated in the handbook as a policy.  So to answer your question, I give much more weight to a sitting prophet than I do to something a member of the 12 says after the fact.

SS, where do you get the idea that there is some kind of neat dichotomy between "policy" and "revelation?" That dichotomy is entirely unknown to me.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

CB.  I am not really bothered by it internally.  I feel I am able to be accepting fo people with lifestyles that are alternate to mine.  I was referencing what I perceive to be the message from so many who demand fair treatment from members towards the LGBT community.  I can be accepting, loving, caring etc... but if they insist on asking me if I approve of their choice - or being upset if I "disavow" it, which in my mind simply means that in my view it is not in line with God's laws, then I see an impasse.  If my gay (and straight, non-chastity-living family) are willing to accept that I love them, they are welcome in my home with their partners, and I will be there for them in any way I can - then all is well.  If they insist that I MUST ratify and openly declare that I think their choice is wonderful or be labeled a bigot, then there is an impasse.  That's my dilemma.  

Please ask clarifying questions if I don't make sense.  I am kind of free-flowing my thoughts  -)

I don't think that anyone has to approve of someone being gay any more than I think anyone has to approve of someone being Mormon.  I may tell someone I am gay if it is appropriate, but I don't expect some kind of approval of it.  Maybe I just don't care if someone approves or not.  It seems like a weird thing to ask for to tell you the truth.  But I never asked for someone's approval when I was Mormon to approve of that either.  

[kiwi57]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Thank you for answering the CFR and for this information that you posted.  However none of these folks trump a sitting prophet in my opinion.  Gordon Hinckley was the prophet at the time and he never declared it a revelation.  He is the only one in my opinion who has the authority to do so.

So you think the silence of a "sitting prophet" trumps the explicit statement of an apostle who participated in the process?

That's an interesting, if not unique, theory of evidence. Would the fact that it's all you've got to hold on to have anything to do with it?

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

  As I stated in a post up thread, Boyd Packer in General Conference years later call it a revelation in a general conference talk and his words were redacted out when his talk was published.  This is strong evidence of the church's then position that the proclamation was a policy.

It's not "strong evidence" of anything, really. There are often differences between spoken and published versions of Conference talks. Speakers sometimes extemporise, unintentionally skip (or repeat) lines, or otherwise vary from their prepared remarks. There's no "evidence" that President Packer's talk wasn't just another instance of the same thing. You've laden all sorts of breathless speculation upon those rather trivial differences in order to make it hold up the weight of the conclusions you want to hang from it; but it won't.

Sorry.

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

  It wasn't  until after the disappointing November policy was made public and the church was dealing with the very negative backlash from within and without that lawyer Dalin Oaks started pushing the revelation angle.

Who's "lawyer Dalin Oaks?" Do you mean very senior (32 years service) apostle Dallin H. Oaks?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Sure you do.  People on the +Church side of things start threads, get exasperated by some one or more on the -Church side of things, post [perhaps] improvidently, get banned from their own threads.  People on the -Church side of things post [deliberately?] provocative things, make personal, often hurtful remarks, not a thing gets done to them.  At least that's how it appears over the last 2-3 years.

USU "Displeased when a lousy job {reffing} gets done lousily, especially when everybody knows that the guy getting clocked threw the first punch" 78

I don't think that anyone has ever gotten banned from any thread simply because they are a member of the church.  But there are several members that seem to have a difficult time staying within the rules of the discussion board.  They get banned.  What a surprise.  The rules of this board are mostly about treating others with civility and respect.  It seems to me that a member of the church should do that even without the board rules. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

So you think the silence of a "sitting prophet" trumps the explicit statement of an apostle who participated in the process?

Hmm.  Regarding how we should construe "the silence of a 'sitting prophet'" in relation to Pres. Nelson's January 2016 remarks, I am reminded of this dialogue from A Man for All Seasons.  In the film, Sir. Thomas More is put on trial for treason because of his failure to take an oath of loyalty to the King Henry VIII, which oath More felt conflicted with his Catholic faith.  

Here's the dialogue at the trial, involving More and Cromwell as the prosecutor:

Quote

Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.

Sir Thomas More: I do.

Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?

Crowd in court gallery: No!

Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!

Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?

Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

Personally, I don't think the Brethren have been "silent."  I think they have been speaking rather clearly.  About the Proclamation.  About the policy changes.  About the Law of Chastity.  About marriage and families.

But to the extent some want to imagine that there has been "silence" from the Brethren, I submit that such silence should be construed as consent to, for example, the January 2016 remarks of Pres. Nelson.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

Sure you do.  People on the +Church side of things start threads, get exasperated by some one or more on the -Church side of things, post [perhaps] improvidently, get banned from their own threads.  People on the -Church side of things post [deliberately?] provocative things, make personal, often hurtful remarks, not a thing gets done to them.  At least that's how it appears over the last 2-3 years.

USU "Displeased when a lousy job {reffing} gets done lousily, especially when everybody knows that the guy getting clocked threw the first punch" 78

You seem to have selective perception. Lots of people on the other side of your typical positioning get thread banned. Lots of them are on limited right now.

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't think that anyone has ever gotten banned from any thread simply because they are a member of the church.  But there are several members that seem to have a difficult time staying within the rules of the discussion board.  They get banned.  What a surprise.  The rules of this board are mostly about treating others with civility and respect.  It seems to me that a member of the church should do that even without the board rules. 

 I wish many other people in my circle were as understanding as you. So many seem vitriolic and only happy if people celebrate their choices.  

[sunstoned]

15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

For those members of the Church who themselves enjoy the spirt of revelation, from the moment the Proclamation was first revealed until today it has always plainly obvious that the Family Proclamation is a revelation from God. From the start, a framed copy of the Proclamation has hung in a place of prominence in my home and it’s text reverently regarded by my family as the mind and will of the Lord. For the members of the Church who know the Church is true and regularly experience personal revelation, President Oaks was simply stating the obvious.

The history and facts leads me to a difference conclusion.  Boyd Packer also claimed it was a revelation, but he got corrected and his conference talk was redacted.   You don't correct an apostle in such a public way unless the topic was important enough and the error was great enough to justify it.   Many in this discussion might not want to hear it, but this one event is strong evidence that it was not considered a revelation.  If it was, the church would have let Packer's talk stand. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by sunstoned

[blueglass]

On 1/27/2018 at 2:44 PM, smac97 said:

Moreover, people like you almost always refuse to identify any sort of limiting principle.  You want the Church to accommodate same-sex marriages in the Church, but not polygamist marriages?  Why?  How do you differentiate between these two on moral/doctrinal grounds?

Why do you keep speaking authoritatively on "limiting principles" as pertain to polygamy but not same sex marriage?   Why not attack Obergefell v Hodges directly -  a decision based on due process and 14th amendment equal protection fundamental rights arguments and a complete dodge on strict scrutiny, rational basis tests were not applied?    Do you actually have a rational argument against same sex marriage other than "traditional religious values"?  What are your actual arguments against Shelby's 2013 strike down?

Edited February 1, 2018 by blueglass

[Bobbieaware]

9 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The history and facts leads me to a difference conclusion.  Boyd Packer also claimed it was a revelation, but he got corrected and his conference talk was redacted.   You don't correct an apostle in such a public way unless the topic was important enough and the error was great enough to justify it.   Many in this discussion might not want to hear it, but this one event is strong evidence that it was not considered a revelation.  If it was, the church would have let Packer's talk stand. 

In his last General Conference address, President Oaks reconfirmed to me what I already knew, that the Family Proclamation is “inspired” and the product of a “line upon line revelatory process.” He went on to say the inspired words of divine truth in the Proclamation will continue to guide the Church in perpetuity. I know President Oaks spoke the truth because before his address I knew the Proclamation contained the mind and will of the Lord. I believe President Oaks. Sorry.

[blueglass]

On 1/30/2018 at 12:34 AM, smac97 said:

2. The Policy Changes are Revelatory: The bottom line is that that policy was enacted by the Presiding High Priest, through revelation, after extensive thought and discussion and prayer, and sustained as such by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  So accepting and following revelatory guidance is meritorious.

Seem to have high confidence that those following the presiding high priest revelations will be held meritorious in the test of history?  Who feels confident in themselves raising their arm to the square sustaining brigham young's revelations in his speech to the utah legislature on Feb 5, 1852?  

As an apostle Orson Pratt fought hard against Brigham Young's racism, and was the lonely vote of opposition to slavery in the Utah territory.  See his speech in favor of giving blacks the right to vote, (Orson Spencer Pratt, 27 Jan 1852, before the Utah Territorial Legislature, Papers of George D. Watt, MS4535, box 1, folder1, transcribed by LaJean Purcell Carruth.)

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Seem to have high confidence that those following the presiding high priest revelations will be held meritorious in the test of history? 

Yes.

16 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Who feels confident in themselves raising their arm to the square sustaining brigham young's revelations in his speech to the utah legislature on Feb 5, 1852?  

I think there is a material distinction (several, actually) between the policy changes and the above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Quote

Moreover, people like you almost always refuse to identify any sort of limiting principle.  You want the Church to accommodate same-sex marriages in the Church, but not polygamist marriages?  Why?  How do you differentiate between these two on moral/doctrinal grounds?

Why do you keep speaking authoritatively on "limiting principles" as pertain to polygamy but not same sex marriage?  

I don't understand your question.

32 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Why not attack Obergefell v Hodges directly -  a decision based on due process and 14th amendment equal protection arguments and a complete dodge on strict scrutiny, rational basis tests were not applied?    Do you actually have a rational argument against same sex marriage other than "traditional religious values"?  What are your actual arguments against Shelby's 2013 strike down?

We are not speaking of secular law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

 I wish many other people in my circle were as understanding as you. So many seem vitriolic and only happy if people celebrate their choices.  

You need better friends.  

[Daniel2]

On 1/29/2018 at 7:35 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Gay Marriage is as ancient as the pyramids of Egypt, but nowhere in the Bible is gay marriage ever approved. Proponents of gay marriage argue that marriage is a blessing available to everyone, but I would like to see how California Boy and the others answer my questions. God wants some of his children to remain single and celibate for the rest of their lives.

Sorry if this has already been pointed out—I’m on vacation and haven’t been keeping current on everything.... but——

Huh....?!?! “Gay marriage is as ancient as the pyramids of Egypt”?!?! 

It IS?!? I thought gay marriage contradicted thousands of years of history and was a dangerous new social experiment....

Also—“God wants some of his children to remain celebrate””—-Huh?!? He does?! Where’s that at, again?

Was this already discussed? (If so, please point me to the subsequent posts and I’ll try to catch up). 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Daniel2

[Maestrophil]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

You need better friends.  

Ha!  I don't know if I would call all of them friends.  Many of them are old high school acquaintances on social media who have left the church after coming out as gay or transgender.  And some are family - :-)

 

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, ttribe said:

Would you do me the courtesy of not applying your mind-reading efforts to me?  I know no such thing.  What I see is a bunch of humans who are ALL subject to confirmation bias who believe they are the only ones being wronged and that the other guys get all the breaks.  This observation applies to both sides.  You just happen to be the latest squeaky wheel.  When you've got empirical evidence of bias on this issue, I'll find it interesting.  Until then, it's whining with very little self-reflection being applied, in my opinion.

 

14 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't think that anyone has ever gotten banned from any thread simply because they are a member of the church.  But there are several members that seem to have a difficult time staying within the rules of the discussion board.  They get banned.  What a surprise.  The rules of this board are mostly about treating others with civility and respect.  It seems to me that a member of the church should do that even without the board rules. 

 

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

I can only speak from my perspective, but I have not seen anyone banned from a thread who wasn't making personal or insulting comments.  I admit that I probably don't always know when someone is banned (unless they complain about it or a mod posts a note).  But, as long as a discussion stays civil (and not political), the mods really are good at allowing a discussion to continue until it dies its own death.

I imagine that there are posters on both sides who feel they've been treated unfairly.  That's how us humans are 

Just make an effort to get along and be polite and civil even if you strongly disagree with someone (and keep it focused on the topic rather than anything personal).  Maybe stay off of threads that are triggers for you?  I have a topic here that I avoid (and have apologized for my behavior after it got too heated).