Sam Young is Excommunicated

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I took "OPENLY homosexual-by open I mean totally open" to indicate that the fellow in Florida is violating the Law of Chastity and/or advocating and encouraging others to violate it.

If that is in fact what this guy is doing, I completely agree that the behavior is wrong and that it would be inappropriate for him to be serving. 

If the fireside for youth involved the messages from the mormonandgay website, encouraging compassion and chastity while upholding the doctrine, I can't see that as a problem. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree that it was Sam's approach that got him ex'd in the end. 

Thanks.

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, what you suggest wouldn't actually get much attention from the leaders in SLC and it most likely would not spur much change.  What Sam did actually did cause some changes to be made, IMO (some will disagree that he had anything to do with them, of course).  But he did get a message out there and many more members are aware of this issue now.  I believe there will be even more changes in the future regarding one on one interviews.  Time will tell....

Perhaps.  The cost, though, was great.

And to be frank, I am not persuaded that Sam Young was speaking/acting in good faith.  Good results from wrong behavior does not, in my view, ratify or justify the wrong behavior.  Consider Moroni 7:

Quote

5 For I remember the word of God which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.
6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.
7 For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.
8 For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.
9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.

Motives matter.  A lot.  Why we do a thing matters just as much as the thing itself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If that is in fact what this guy is doing, I completely agree that the behavior is wrong and that it would be inappropriate for him to be serving. 

If the fireside for youth involved the messages from the mormonandgay website, encouraging compassion and chastity while upholding the doctrine, I can't see that as a problem. 

Yep.

So, YJacket?  Could you clarify what you meant?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The cost, though, was great.

I agree and only Sam truly knows if that cost was worth it.  There is a lot for him to weigh regarding it, IMO.  Many will feel it was worth it and consider him a hero.  Others will disagree.  None of that should be surprising, either.

Edited September 20, 2018 by ALarson

[YJacket]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I disagree.

I don't understand.  If a person says "Yes," they would probably be denied a TR.  So how is that "a dead letter?"  The question performs a real and effectual function.

Advocacy for same-sex marriage appears to allow for something of a carve-out.  An exception.  See here.

A dead letter b/c even if a Bishop knows a person participates in an LGBT advocacy group they may or may not be denied a recommend (don't mean to be picking on that group-it's just the easiest example). Yeah, it's an "exception"  why?  Why is there a need for that special "exception".

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your concern seems to be with members who are "rubber stamping."

Hence your call for an announcement ahead of time.  I get that.

But at the end of the day, even with a week's prior notice, you'd still be asked to provide a sustaining vote, right?  How often do you think members of the Church would go out of their way to "research" individuals called into a stake calling?  Ever?  

Would a week's advance notice really make a difference?  Wouldn't it still be likely that even after that week you would still "have absolutely 0 clue as to who these people are, nothing about their background, nothing about their testimony, absolutely nothing?"  

And as for why you are asked to sustain them, because the Church is adhering to the principle of Common Consent.  

So a week's notice would not resolve your concern.  It sounds like you want . . . a CV?  A written profession of faith from the individual to receive a stake calling?  Letters of recommendation from acquaintances?  

How do you propose to address your "absolutely 0 clue" concern?  What practical mechanisms would you propose to address it?

Sure it could be that members don't go out of their way to research individuals.  My guess is many probably wouldn't. Again that's more a symptom of the problem-members don't take it that seriously.  It's a common problem in any type of voting system. It's not unique to the Church-it happens in normal elections, the vast, vast majority of people never research a candidate. They are either R or D, if I'm an R, I vote R.  Even people who are independent, they still have a leaning and they will default to that leaning in a pinch.  I'm not even saying it's a real bad thing.  In regular elections, I've got 15-20 offices to vote for, I may or may not have the time to research them and so when election time comes I just default to my base-unless something external has come up that changes it.

I suspect the same thing would happen in Church, most people would default to-I don't need to do any research, I trust my leaders, therefore I can just sustain them now. And that's totally cool.  It's human nature to just go along and rubber-stamp things b/c it takes real effort to actually really make a decision.  No, not a CV or anything like that, a week's notice would simply give anyone who wanted to the ability to get to know the person a little better and talk to them. But by having a delay, it would signal to the members, look you should take this sustaining seriously and you should pray about it, it shouldn't be a rubber-stamp.  If you would like to get to know the person, talk to them a bit that is fine, if not that is fine too but it allows people the ability to so.

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And as for why you are asked to sustain them, because the Church is adhering to the principle of Common Consent.  

I think it is nothing but Common Consent.  Each member of the Church has the right to cast a dissenting vote.  I don't think we are limited to just the formalities of callings presented during ward meetings, stake conferences, and General Conference.  

Expressing your "vote" to the local leaders of the Church is very much an exercise in Common Consent.

Hence the appointment with the bishop or stake president, which would allow you to explain your concern, the basis for your dissent.

Not exclusively, though.  Surely.  "Common Consent" must mean something more than just participating in the formal instances of callings in ward/stake/general conferences.

I think you are being overly rigid here.

Yes.  And that can be done pretty much any time.  Just make an appointment with the bishop or stake president.

No you are wrong on your definition of "common consent".

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/common

Public; general; frequent; as common report

"common consent" is by very definition public consent.  Going and speaking to your Bishop or SP is in no way shape or form public, it's private and therefore cannot be "common consent".  They only way to have "common consent" is to have a public vote.  The only way to get consent is by a majority, i.e. 50+1.  i.e. common consent is having a public vote where the majority of the voting membership votes in the affirmation.

So by very definition you can't express your vote to local leaders, it MUST be public.  I'm not being overly rigid, that is what it means.

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, a stake secretary is not a "leadership" position.  An executive secretary has no keys, cannot preside, cannot conduct interviews, cannot extend or release callings, etc.

Yes by very definition a secretary is part of leadership.  EQP has a secretary, they are part of the leadership, they don't make decisions by they have the ear of the decider and is part of leadership. To go back to BSA, you have a scribe (or a secretary) and that is considered a leadership role eligible for advancements.  A secretary is absolutely part of leadership.

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, if you know about this, have you notified the stake presidency of this issue?  

I agree.  So why is he still functioning in that office?  

Which makes me wonder why the stake executive secretary in Florida is still in that calling (assuming his behavior contravenes the teachings of the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course he does, the secretary brags on his blog how he's talked with his SP and posts #queerstake and how he's changed his SP's mind.  Yes the general leadership knows about him, Elder Costa waxed about him and cried about the brother, etc. etc. This man brags about it on his blog.  The SP isn't my SP, so not my problem-if the SP was my SP, he'd not only know about it but would get a big dissenting vote from him if it weren't rectified post-haste.

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your concern seems to be more about members not "do{ing} their homework," and less about the Church's usage of Common Consent being perfunctory.  If a person knows about a person receiving a calling having a worthiness issue, "Common Consent" would necessitate their casting a dissenting vote and explaining the reason for it.  

What alternative do you propose?  What vetting procedures?

Okay.  But that's all?  A week's advance notice?  That's all?  

Really?  There is an affirmative duty for all individual members to "vet" each and every candidate for each and every ward and stake calling?  

So . . . no substantive evidence of a forthcoming dramatic divergence in doctrinal teachings by the leaders of the Church?

I don't know what this means.  I don't know who you are referencing here.  And by "bi-sexual" do you mean orientation or behavior?  How do you know any of this?

If you have "valid reasons" for a dissenting vote during a formal sustaining in a church meeting, you can raise your hand in opposition.  Surely you agree with that.  That's "Common Consent" in action.

If you initially offer a sustaining vote, but thereafter change your mind, or develop "valid reasons" for a dissenting vote, then you can meet with the bishop or stake president and notify them of that.  Surely that is "Common Consent" in action as well.

Where did you get this idea?  Can you provide a citation to scripture or statements by General Authorities to support this claim?

There is an old legal maxim from English Common Law: "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed."

Where is "chang[ing] you mind and register[ing] a dissenting vote" after having previously offered a sustaining vote forbidden?

What principle of the Gospel prohibits members from invoking "Common Consent" and providing a dissenting vote outside of ward/stake/general conference?

AFAICS, there is no need to wait for the next ward conference before casting a dissenting vote against the hypothetical creepy bishop.  You could make an immediate appointment with the stake president and express your concerns.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes I believe as members it is our obligation to study, ponder and pray about those who lead us and to seek God's will in understanding if the person who is called really should be leading.  I disagree with the idea that as long as someone is "worthy" I should sustain them. You can be worthy yet your actual ideology and belief structure could be way, way outside of scripture even if you haven't done anything "wrong".  And leadership is about giving direction and teaching, it's not just administrative.  I'll just reiterate common consent is public consent, it is public voting-the only way to do that is  . . .in public . .. i.e. in front of other people  .. . i.e. in ward/stake/general conference.  That's it.

To the homosexual comment-I believe the Church as an organization is wrong about how we teach homosexuality.  I do not believe it is innate, inborn, etc. I believe it can be changed, I do not believe it is just about "behavior", I believe the Church has deviated significantly on this issue from the Word of God as revealed in OT/NT/BoM/DC.  I sincerely mean no bashing towards those who believe otherwise or act otherwise, it is simply that through my study and pondering of the scriptures, which describe and lay out human nature and behavior, I think the Church is 100% wrong on it, I think mormonandgays was a wrong thing to do and I think that the ONLY solution for the current trajectory we are on is to either fully embrace homosexuality (we are half-way there already) or to return to biblical based teachings about human nature.

I honestly don't particularly care to get into a long discussion right now about it . . . . after studying for many years, I'm convinced in the Church there will ultimately only be two options, either full 100% acceptance or full 100% rejection, this middle way won't last for long.

Edited September 20, 2018 by YJacket

[YJacket]

38 minutes ago, kllindley said:

The comments are from individuals. And more antagonistic comments are moderated. 

I know for me, Affirmation or MBB are places I need to avoid to stay in a good place spiritually.  That said, I also strongly believe they serve a valuable, and even divinely appointed role in helping some people.  

Sure, but I've read it for long enough to understand which way the wind blows and which way they want things to go.

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, YJacket said:

To the homosexual comment-I believe the Church as an organization is wrong about how we teach homosexuality.  I do not believe it is innate, inborn, etc. I believe it can be changed, I do not believe it is just about "behavior", I believe the Church has deviated significantly on this issue from the Word of God as revealed in OT/NT/BoM/DC.  I sincerely mean no bashing towards those who believe otherwise or act otherwise, it is simply that through my study and pondering of the scriptures, which describe and lay out human nature and behavior, I think the Church is 100% wrong on it, I think mormonandgays was a wrong thing to do and I think that the ONLY solution for the current trajectory we are on is to either fully embrace homosexuality (we are half-way there already) or to return to biblical based teachings about human nature.

I honestly don't particularly care to get into a long discussion right now about it . . . . after studying for many years, I'm convinced in the Church there will ultimately only be two options, either full 100% acceptance or full 100% rejection, this middle way won't last for long.

Oh boy. Thanks for clarifying. 

[YJacket]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it is.  I should be more circumspect.  

I share your skepticism.

I'm not sure what his point is/was.  I took "OPENLY homosexual-by open I mean totally open" to indicate that the fellow in Florida is violating the Law of Chastity and/or advocating and encouraging others to violate it.

I hope YJacket clarifies.

Thanks,

-Smac

Boy . . . definition of words have sure changed.  In the closet, out of the closet (i.e. openly).  Again because we've let the camel's nose into the tent the new goalpost is just obey the "Law of Chastity", it used to be homosexuality in any form is a sin, then it was SSA may happen but that doesn't make you homosexual, then it was you can be openly homosexual just don't "act" on it, now it's you can be openly homosexual just don't violate the Law of Chastity.  Which is quite ridiculous b/c the Law of Chastity includes ANY homosexual things, but the Law of Chastity has now been watered down so much it's just don't have sex outside of marriage-except for homosexuals just be celibate.

The guy goes on dates with other men, I know for a fact that would absolutely 100% be against any Law of Chastity when I was growing up, but I guess others see it that he is celibate so he is good.  How far down the rabbit hole we go?

So in a word, yes he openly violates the Law of Chastity. He openly attends drag shows. He openly discusses on his blog all things LGBTetc.  He has been invited many times to give youth firesides.  Regardless of whether or not he has advocated for any of those things in a fireside, do you really want your 15 year-old son to go to a fireside put on by the Church where a man is openly doing all these things?

Please read his blog, nerdygaymormon . . .go have a blast see what evil and wickedness has infiltrated the Church.

How far down the slope have we gone . . .and thus why I say the need for members to start wising up to what is going on . . . 

[YJacket]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Oh boy. Thanks for clarifying. 

You might think I'm a "hater" or bigoted or homophobic or any other word.  I don't really care what you think of me, I care more about what God thinks of me, but I assure you I'm not. I do my best to be honest and accurate.  

I have simply studied much about this issue, I have done what Elder Ballard has asked me to do, I have "listened to and learned from". I've compared what the world says, and what the world says inside the Church with God's word and God's Word says something totally different than what we have been taught and are teaching.  I am of firm belief that it is all rooted in sin and that through the Gospel of Jesus Christ men and women can change their very nature and beings of who they are into someone different.

I know people can change the deepest, darkest, most hidden parts of their soul to conform to what God wants.  The Atonement of Christ and His power to change the hearts, thoughts, intents, and desires of man is real.  It is my testimony, it is my faith, it is my belief.  There are no special carve-out, or special exceptions, it doesn't work here and not there. It is either real or it isn't, if it isn't real than God is not, but if it is real than woe to them that call good evil and darkness light.

Edited September 20, 2018 by YJacket

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, YJacket said:

No you are wrong on your definition of "common consent".

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/common

Public; general; frequent; as common report

"common consent" is by very definition public consent.  Going and speaking to your Bishop or SP is in no way shape or form public, it's private and therefore cannot be "common consent".  They only way to have "common consent" is to have a public vote.  The only way to get consent is by a majority, i.e. 50+1.  i.e. common consent is having a public vote where the majority of the voting membership votes in the affirmation.

So by very definition you can't express your vote to local leaders, it MUST be public.  I'm not being overly rigid, that is what it means.

I guess you may have a point, but I'm still not persuaded that "Common Consent" must be so narrowly construed.  

18 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Of course he does, the secretary brags on his blog how he's talked with his SP and posts #queerstake and how he's changed his SP's mind.  Yes the general leadership knows about him, Elder Costa waxed about him and cried about the brother, etc. etc. This man brags about it on his blog.  The SP isn't my SP, so not my problem-if the SP was my SP, he'd not only know about it but would get a big dissenting vote from him if it weren't rectified post-haste.

Brags about what?  What is the blog?

18 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Yes I believe as members it is our obligation to study, ponder and pray about those who lead us and to seek God's will in understanding if the person who is called really should be leading.  I disagree with the idea that as long as someone is "worthy" I should sustain them. You can be worthy yet your actual ideology and belief structure could be way, way outside of scripture even if you haven't done anything "wrong".

And how would you, a virtual stranger, propose to discern someone else's "actual ideology and belief structure?"

18 minutes ago, YJacket said:

 And leadership is about giving direction and teaching, it's not just administrative.  I'll just reiterate common consent is public consent, it is public voting-the only way to do that is  . . .in public . .. i.e. in front of other people  .. . i.e. in ward/stake/general conference.  That's it.

No, I don't think that's it.  That's mostly it.  See, e.g., here (emphases added):

Quote

Today the Church continues to operate by divine revelation and common consent. Callings to positions of Church service at all levels of the organization and ordination to the priesthood are made by the inspiration of authorized leaders and are then brought before the appropriate body of members to be sustained or opposed. Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way. This procedure is also followed in accepting important revelations and scriptural additions.

In a much less visible but equally important practice, decision makers at all levels present policy decisions and callings to priesthood councils for their comment and approval. At the local level a bishop will ordinarily discuss decisions with his counselors in the bishopric before presenting a matter to the ward membership for a sustaining vote. On many policy and program decisions the bishopric will consult with the ward council and work for consensus in that group before taking action. Following the same pattern, the stake president consults with his counselors in the stake presidency and then with the high council. The First Presidency consults in this same way on matters of general Church policy and action in regular meetings with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Seems like there is quite a bit of "Common Consent"ing going on that is not in public.

And that makes sense.  I don't think the Church could function by the sort of "pure" Common Consent you have in mind.  Is Common Consent required when determining when a temple should be shut down for remodeling?  And for how long?  And what work is to be done?  By which contractors?  For how much?  Where will the materials come from?  

The work of the Church would grind to a halt if "Common Consent" were rigidly interpreted.  I don't think that is the intent of the principle.  The sustaining vote of the First Presidency is, I think, intended to include a sustaining of their actions generally.

18 minutes ago, YJacket said:

To the homosexual comment-I believe the Church as an organization is wrong about how we teach homosexuality.  I do not believe it is innate, inborn, etc. I believe it can be changed, I do not believe it is just about "behavior", I believe the Church has deviated significantly on this issue from the Word of God as revealed in OT/NT/BoM/DC. 

Okay.  I think reasonable minds will have to disagree about that.

18 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I sincerely mean no bashing towards those who believe otherwise or act otherwise, it is simply that through my study and pondering of the scriptures, which describe and lay out human nature and behavior, I think the Church is 100% wrong on it, I think mormonandgays was a wrong thing to do and I think that the ONLY solution for the current trajectory we are on is to either fully embrace homosexuality (we are half-way there already) or to return to biblical based teachings about human nature.

Nah.  I think the Church is doing about as well as it can given the difficulty of the issue and the antagonism it faces about it.

And we're nowhere near "half-way" to embracing homosexual behavior.  The Law of Chastity remains in place, despite the full-court press against it, from within and without.  We have seen no indication that this is going to change, and many plain statements that it will not.

18 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I honestly don't particularly care to get into a long discussion right now about it . . . . after studying for many years, I'm convinced in the Church there will ultimately only be two options, either full 100% acceptance or full 100% rejection, this middle way won't last for long.

I disagree.  I think the Church needs to reach out to people who are willing to accept the Restored Gospel.  That includes gay/SSA people who are willing to sacrifice quite a lot to live it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Boy . . . definition of words have sure changed.  In the closet, out of the closet (i.e. openly).  Again because we've let the camel's nose into the tent the new goalpost is just obey the "Law of Chastity", it used to be homosexuality in any form is a sin, then it was SSA may happen but that doesn't make you homosexual, then it was you can be openly homosexual just don't "act" on it, now it's you can be openly homosexual just don't violate the Law of Chastity.  Which is quite ridiculous b/c the Law of Chastity includes ANY homosexual things, but the Law of Chastity has now been watered down so much it's just don't have sex outside of marriage-except for homosexuals just be celibate.

The guy goes on dates with other men, I know for a fact that would absolutely 100% be against any Law of Chastity when I was growing up, but I guess others see it that he is celibate so he is good.  How far down the rabbit hole we go?

So in a word, yes he openly violates the Law of Chastity. He openly attends drag shows. He openly discusses on his blog all things LGBTetc.  He has been invited many times to give youth firesides.  Regardless of whether or not he has advocated for any of those things in a fireside, do you really want your 15 year-old son to go to a fireside put on by the Church where a man is openly doing all these things?

Please read his blog, nerdygaymormon . . .go have a blast see what evil and wickedness has infiltrated the Church.

How far down the slope have we gone . . .and thus why I say the need for members to start wising up to what is going on . . . 

Are you affiliated with the folks at Standard of Liberty?  They sound right up your road.  

I do think that their path out of the Church was every bit as effective as any in-vogue progressive path.  

I really appreciate the thoughts by Jeffery Thayne:

Quote

Conservatives within the LDS Church will readily note when liberals within the Church ignore Church leaders and teach and agitate for policies that violate Church teachings. It’s easy to point a finger at someone who supports same-sex marriage and argue that they are going against what the Church has taught on the matter, because it’s true. But sometimes the reverse is true: conservatives do not fully live up to what the Church is teaching when it contradicts perceived conservative orthodoxy. In fact, when the Church contradicts conservative dogmas, it can ignite an autoimmune response amongst members.

What’s interesting and relevant is that they will sometimes reject statements by the Church by citing Church leaders, or quotes from earlier prophets. For example, when the Church expressed support for non-discrimination laws to protect LGBT employees and renters, we saw a number of conservatives argue that the Church’s public affairs office has gone rogue, and that they are clearly violating the libertarian-esque teachings of President Ezra Taft Benson, who would be turning over in his grave over such policies.

And to some extent they are right: President Benson did indeed teach principles that would seem to contradict the Church’s current position on non-discrimination policies. (And as a libertarian myself, I would otherwise default to those very teachings.) This is what sets up the autoimmune response: having once tagged such policies as problematic (similar to how antibodies cling to foreign invaders in the body, and signal to white blood cells to begin their attack), their spiritual immune systems continue to fight against them even when modern prophets have since clarified and “untagged” them.

Here’s just a few comments from real members, from social media forums that cater to conservative Latter-day Saints:

“Unfortunately some of the new leadership have embraced a feeling of tolerance [for LGBT populations]. It’s Lehi’s dream, some are seeking the praise of men in the name of missionary work. It will only lead to moral decay and spiritual death. Lehi’s dream is a warning to all who seek the approval of man. Mormonism used to be the shelter in the storm. … Ezra Taft, David O McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith are rolling in their graves.”

“I’ve been seeing so much pro-LGBT sentiment coming from the LDS social media pages I’ve found, and ‘feminist’ church members etc that it’s worried me. I’m not in Utah so I can’t tell what the sentiment on the ground there is like but to see Utah preserved as a holy and conservative place is important to me but it seems under threat from elements within the church.”

“Glad to be holding fast to the Rod of Iron. Unaffected by those leftist Mormons in the large, and spacious BLDG.” [Referring, we think, to the Church office building.]

“The gospel will always remain true but, sadly it seems that the church is changing and siding with the left. So far I’ve read an ensign message stressing for LDS members to accept Islam as another religion that worships the same god and a couple of weeks ago my bishop announced during elders quorum that we will be receiving new hymn books with all patriotic and British songs removed and replaced by Hispanic songs.”

Church leaders are teaching members to be compassionate towards minority populations and to pay heed to our unique ministerial duties towards LGBT members. But even though the Church is simultaneously retrenching its core doctrines on marriage and sexuality (such as, for example, a policy that makes those who enter same sex marriage automatic candidates for church discipline), some conservative members are worried that, because of these messages of outreach and love, Church leaders are compromising core teachings. They experience an autoimmune response against even mild statements that we should be patient and compassionate with those with unique challenges, such as same-sex attraction.

Sometimes, to justify their immune response, they have to reframe what’s happening: the Church’s public affairs department, or its magazine editors, or its correlation committee, etc., are going rogue, interfering with the free flow of communication between the Quorum of the Twelve and the members of the Church. They are inserting their liberal dogmas into the message, standing between us and Church leaders and confusing the public and members of the Church everywhere. The Church needs to “clean house,” we have heard, and rid itself of these internal saboteurs. As with the Heartlanders, they think they are attacking only the “king’s ministers,” not realizing that they are rejecting the prophets themselves. Again, President Oaks warned:

A desire to follow a prophet is surely a great and appropriate strength, but even this has its potentially dangerous manifestations. I have heard of more than one group so intent on following the words of a dead prophet that they have rejected the teachings and counsel of the living ones. Satan has used that corruption from the beginning of the Restoration. You will recall Joseph Smith’s direction for the Saints to gather in Kirtland, Ohio, then in Missouri, and then in Illinois. At each place along the way, a certain number of Saints fell away, crying “fallen prophet” as their excuse for adhering to the earlier words and rejecting the current direction. The same thing happened after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, when some Saints seized upon one statement or another by the deceased Prophet as a basis for sponsoring or joining a new group that rejected the counsel of the living prophets.

Following the prophet is a great strength, but it needs to be consistent and current, lest it lead to the spiritual downfall that comes from rejecting continuous revelation. Under that principle, the most important difference between dead prophets and living ones is that those who are dead are not here to receive and declare the Lord’s latest words to his people. If they were, there would be no differences among the messages of the prophets.^[4]

The danger of this autoimmune response is that it undermines our trust in modern Church leaders and their spiritual discernment. Once again, it sets up a narrative where the institutional Church is no longer being steered by men who speak for God, but rather by usurpers within the institution who are wresting power away from true servants of God. In their zeal for following what previous prophets have taught, they end up attacking the institution lead by prophets today — somehow thinking they are doing today’s prophets a favor along the way.

 

 

 

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, YJacket said:

You might think I'm a "hater" or bigoted or homophobic or any other word.  I don't really care what you think of me, I care more about what God thinks of me, but I assure you I'm not. I do my best to be honest and accurate.  

I don't attribute hate or bigotry to anything you have said so far.   Uncomfortable with the spectrum of human sexuality? . . . . . . . . But I agree you have no need to convince me. 

 

8 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I have simply studied much about this issue, I have done what Elder Ballard has asked me to do, I have "listened to and learned from". I've compared what the world says, and what the world says inside the Church with God's word and God's Word says something totally different than what we have been taught and are teaching.  I am of firm belief that it is all rooted in sin and that through the Gospel of Jesus Christ men and women can change their very nature and beings of who they are into someone different.

Interestingly, I agree.  If you search my comments here, I am a firm believer in the Law of Chastity, the centrality of the Eternal Family, and the doctrine of gender complementary.  I don't  believe that will ever change.  

 

8 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I know people can change the deepest, darkest, most hidden parts of their soul to conform to what God wants.  The Atonement of Christ and His power to change the hearts, thoughts, intents, and desires of man is real.  It is my testimony, it is my faith, it is my belief.  There are no special carve-out, or special exceptions, it doesn't work here and not there. It is either real or it isn't, if it isn't real than God is not, but if it is real than woe to them that call good evil and darkness light.

I also have a strong testimony of the power of Jesus Christ to change our nature and being.  What I don't believe is that we get to dictate to Him what changes we want him to make to ourselves or others or on what timeline He must make those changes.    

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Boy . . . definition of words have sure changed.  In the closet, out of the closet (i.e. openly).  Again because we've let the camel's nose into the tent the new goalpost is just obey the "Law of Chastity", it used to be homosexuality in any form is a sin,

Not sure what "in any form" means.

11 minutes ago, YJacket said:

then it was SSA may happen but that doesn't make you homosexual, then it was you can be openly homosexual just don't "act" on it, now it's you can be openly homosexual just don't violate the Law of Chastity.

I think you are improperly multiplying things here.

11 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Which is quite ridiculous b/c the Law of Chastity includes ANY homosexual things,

What are "homosexual things?"

11 minutes ago, YJacket said:

but the Law of Chastity has now been watered down so much it's just don't have sex outside of marriage-except for homosexuals just be celibate.

No, that is not correct.  Far from it.

11 minutes ago, YJacket said:

The guy goes on dates with other men, I know for a fact that would absolutely 100% be against any Law of Chastity when I was growing up, but I guess others see it that he is celibate so he is good.  How far down the rabbit hole we go?

I can't speak to anecodotes.  

11 minutes ago, YJacket said:

So in a word, yes he openly violates the Law of Chastity. He openly attends drag shows. He openly discusses on his blog all things LGBTetc.  He has been invited many times to give youth firesides.  Regardless of whether or not he has advocated for any of those things in a fireside, do you really want your 15 year-old son to go to a fireside put on by the Church where a man is openly doing all these things?

Please read his blog, nerdygaymormon . . .go have a blast see what evil and wickedness has infiltrated the Church.

How far down the slope have we gone . . .and thus why I say the need for members to start wising up to what is going on . . . 

Hmm.  I'll give it a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, YJacket said:

Sure it exists in practical reality, but in effect it is a dead letter.  Just like the temple recommend question about "do you support or affiliate with any groups...." in the temple recommend interview.  It's there and if someone said Yes to that question they could be denied a TR, but in effect it is a dead letter.  No Bishop is going to say, hey you support or a affiliate with a group known to advocate for homosexual marriage (which is against the doctrine of the Church) and take away their recommend.  The mechanism is still there for it to happen so it is there in practical reality, yet in effect it is dead b/c it isn't enforced.  Very similar thing with laws that are written.  There are plenty of laws that are on the books that are there in practical reality and could be enforced-but they aren't.

I believe that question is usually enforced when it comes to supporting or affiliating with polygamous groups (which is the reason the question became a question in the first place if I understand correctly).  Some polygamous churches still teach that the restored church has priesthood keys and that the necessary temple blessings and covenants must be accessed through our temples.  So, polygamists would sometimes pretend to be believing latter-day saints so they could go through the temple and receive their endowment.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, YJacket said:

Sure, I might be off about North Star, apologies for grouping them in, I don't know much about them-probably need to research them more, but I do know enough about Affirmation and MBB.  Again they officially state they are respectful of Church doctrine, but go onto their official facebook page, read the comments and posts-clearly they are not.

https://northstarlds.org/

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I quoted your entire post.

I think I understand what you are saying now.

p.s.  Personally I prefer to nickname "PoX"... Policy of Exclusion.

He said "children" of samesex persons living in a relationship had to wait until 18.  Your post read like he was referring to those in the relationship as you cut off "children of a" in your following comment.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Jospeh Fielding Smith also taught-

“I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have, but only on the grounds that he is guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold.”

If someone is refusing to sustain a leader and it's not because that leader is guilty of significant sinful behavior, then that person is voting in the wrong way.  The revealed order has not been subverted, but some people definitely misunderstand it. 

Joseph Fielding Smith is of course entitled to his private interpretations.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I can see that.  But another ingredient is differences in interpretation and meaning of "common consent."  I think some folks think there is a requirement for a "direct democracy"-style approach to matters of Church governance.  I think that's largely impractical in a worldwide church with millions of members.

I think this is incorrect.  Common consent is alive and well in the Church.

I don't think this is correct, either.  There are plenty of ways a person can cast a dissenting vote and still get a temple recommend.

You question presupposes that which has yet to be demonstrated.

Common Consent continues to function in the Church.

No, it's not.

The sustaining vote every six months has meaning.

The votes to canonize new scripture have meaning.

I think the revealed order is doing quite well.

That is not to say the Church is perfect, or that it has no room to improve.  It certainly does.  But Common Consent is up and running.

Thanks,

-Smac

For example, President Nelson became the new leader of the church before he was sustained. The vote is a formality, only a loyalty pledge.

No one would expect the church to be a direct democracy. People don't run for president. But there is also no common consent - no ability to choose one way or the other, a punishment for voting the wrong way, and members are not consulted (even after the fact) about most major doctrinal and structural shifts to the church.

[YJacket]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I guess you may have a point, but I'm still not persuaded that "Common Consent" must be so narrowly construed.  

Brags about what?  What is the blog?

And how would you, a virtual stranger, propose to discern someone else's "actual ideology and belief structure?"

By their words and fruits shall you know them.  If someone posts about xyz on a blog-it's pretty safe to assume it's part of their ideology and belief structure

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Seems like there is quite a bit of "Common Consent"ing going on that is not in public.

And that makes sense.  I don't think the Church could function by the sort of "pure" Common Consent you have in mind.  Is Common Consent required when determining when a temple should be shut down for remodeling?  And for how long?  And what work is to be done?  By which contractors?  For how much?  Where will the materials come from?  

I must not be explaining myself very well. "In a much less visible but equally important practice, decision makers at all levels present policy decisions and callings to priesthood councils for their comment and approval. At the local level a bishop will ordinarily discuss decisions with his counselors in the bishopric before presenting a matter to the ward membership for a sustaining vote. On many policy and program decisions the bishopric will consult with the ward council and work for consensus in that group before taking action. Following the same pattern, the stake president consults with his counselors in the stake presidency and then with the high council. The First Presidency consults in this same way on matters of general Church policy and action in regular meetings with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

All the things mentioned are common consent within their domain or sphere.  Sure a group, council, quorum, etc. work in councils and it's a division of responsibilities, duties, etc. With the decision or action to be taken gaining the common consent of those to whom the action pertains. But common consent is a very specific action, i.e. it means when a decision is made that decision is made with advice and consent from those to whom the action pertains.  It doesn't mean, well I'm not happy with xyz so I go tell my Bishop in private.  No, the whole point of common consent is so that others can also see the action/counsel/etc. and weigh those comments with others comments.  I've never said nor claimed that meeting in councils is NOT common consent, but it relates to specific actions that need to be taken.  I said meeting with your Bishop or SP and discussing a problem with a particular action is NOT common consent.  Common consent is supposed to be open not private one on one and it's related to a very specific thing called voting or casting lots or taking a poll, etc.

I'm not sure why you are going from my claim that we should study, ponder, pray, maybe even research those who lead us and then cast a sustaining or non-sustaining vote for leaders and for new revelation to implying that we should use general voting to determine when a temple should be shut down for remodeling.  Those things are so far apart.  Within each group or sphere of responsibility common consent should be used.  For generic members, sustaining or not sustaining their leaders is their duty.  For members in councils, investigating the issues at hand is their duty.

It just logically doesn't follow-we should use councils to determine specific actions such as in the Ward Council-as leaders they should council together, come up with decisions and then vote according to their conscience as to the action, but for sustaining of leaders we shouldn't investigate?  Makes no logical sense.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I think reasonable minds will have to disagree about that.

 Point me to a scripture that we cannot change our thoughts, intents, desires, etc. and I'd be more than willing to join you.  As of yet, I've never found one single scripture that indicates it is inborn or that people can't change and I've found a whole host that say the opposite about human nature.  Please don't quote "thorns of the flesh" as that it's highly likely he was actually describing an actual physical ailment not a spiritual one and for every "thorn of flesh" I've got at least 4-5 "weakness made strong" scriptures lying in the wings.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nah.  I think the Church is doing about as well as it can given the difficulty of the issue and the antagonism it faces about it.

And we're nowhere near "half-way" to embracing homosexual behavior.  The Law of Chastity remains in place, despite the full-court press against it, from within and without.  We have seen no indication that this is going to change, and many plain statements that it will not.

I disagree.  I think the Church needs to reach out to people who are willing to accept the Restored Gospel.  That includes gay/SSA people who are willing to sacrifice quite a lot to live it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 Oh we are further down the line than most members would like to admit, but that's okay I'm not the part of leadership who will have blood on their hands if they don't call people to repentance.  All I can do is my duty as a member and as an Elder.

 

[YJacket]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what "in any form" means.

I think you are improperly multiplying things here.

What are "homosexual things?"

No, that is not correct.  Far from it.

I can't speak to anecodotes.  

Hmm.  I'll give it a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Any form, i.e. giving any expression to it in any shape except to admit it is a sinful nature/behavior and then changing oneself.  Homosexual things, like reading homosexual magazine, forums, blogs, attending drag shows, etc. (and doing so to confirm and receive enjoyment out of those activities).  There are a whole host of homosexual behaviors that don't involve actual sex but that occupy thinking about or expressing that desire.

I agree it's far from correct.  But I read . . .a lot . . .I've taken Elder Ballard's council to heart (maybe not the way some people think), so I investigate, read, ponder, pray, learn and there are many, many, many who want to make it that the Law Of Chastity only means "no sex" with someone not your spouse and that for homosexuals it means celibate and celibate just means "no-sex", as long as you don't have sex-you're good.

[YJacket]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I don't attribute hate or bigotry to anything you have said so far.   Uncomfortable with the spectrum of human sexuality? . . . . . . . . But I agree you have no need to convince me. 

 

Interestingly, I agree.  If you search my comments here, I am a firm believer in the Law of Chastity, the centrality of the Eternal Family, and the doctrine of gender complementary.  I don't  believe that will ever change.  

 

I also have a strong testimony of the power of Jesus Christ to change our nature and being.  What I don't believe is that we get to dictate to Him what changes we want him to make to ourselves or others or on what timeline He must make those changes.    

Thank you to the first bold.  It's not uncomfortable just b/c, it's just a recognition for what it is-sin.  So yeah I'm uncomfortable with sin.  The "spectrum of human sexuality" is a bogus term designed to get people to acquiesce to new and "enlightened" ways of thinking.  There is only two God ordained spectrums of human sexuality, man is man and woman is woman. man lies with woman and woman lies with man.  That's it.

To the second bold, it's not about dictating to God.  It's about using our free will, our free agency, and telling him I'm ready to change to be what you want-and that "what you want" is clearly and plainly laid out in scripture.  People don't change b/c they don't want to change, b/c they like it, they enjoy the sin.  Once you hate the sin and despise the sin-you will automatically change yourself.

[YJacket]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Are you affiliated with the folks at Standard of Liberty?  They sound right up your road.  

I do think that their path out of the Church was every bit as effective as any in-vogue progressive path.  

I really appreciate the thoughts by Jeffery Thayne:

 

 

 

I've read their stuff, maybe up my road, maybe not.  I've read their stuff, I've read homosexual blogs, I've read MormonBuildingBridges, etc. Then I've done what everyone should do, or at least ough to , I thought:  Why am I searching for answer in the philosophies of men? They can never provide the answers to life's great questions.  So I searched the scriptures.  And unfortunately, many of the things coming from top leadership these days does not conform to scripture.  It's quite sad.  So I've stopped putting my trust in the Arm of Flesh and more in the Word of God.  If the Prophets and Apostles want to generate new doctrine with regards to LGBT, they are more than welcome to-get a revelation and put it up for a sustaining vote of the membership and codify it in DC; they haven't so all I can do is judge their words against the Standard Works, aka the Word of God.  If their words do not conform to the standard, I don't care who they are, I won't believe it . . .unless they decide to put it up for a sustaining vote, make it binding and then it becomes part of the standard.

I absolutely recognize the Q12 and 1P as the governing body of the Church, as having all the keys to receiving revelation and guiding the Church-but that doesn't make them perfect and if they do or say something that is outside of the standard I can plainly judge it to be incorrect-and if they want it to be the new standard then codify it and make it the new standard.

I'll look into northstar . . .you never know maybe it is an actual organization that teaches homosexuality is a sin but also teaches that it can be overcome and that you are not your sin and that the only true way forward is to repent, turn to God, forsake it and move on with life . . . who knows I'll look into it-thank you for the suggestion.

Edited September 20, 2018 by YJacket

[YJacket]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

Are you affiliated with the folks at Standard of Liberty?  They sound right up your road.  

I do think that their path out of the Church was every bit as effective as any in-vogue progressive path.  

I really appreciate the thoughts by Jeffery Thayne:

 

 

 

This article does have some good points to it. "The danger of this autoimmune response is that it undermines our trust in modern Church leaders and their spiritual discernment. Once again, it sets up a narrative where the institutional Church is no longer being steered by men who speak for God, but rather by usurpers within the institution who are wresting power away from true servants of God."

I disagree with this statement; I test what modern leaders say against the Word of God-it's not about "usurpers who are wrestling power away" or "no longer being steered by men who speak for God". It's just an acknowledgement that we already have a pattern for introducing doctrine into the Church-D&C lays out the pattern. The Prophet is fully capable of receiving new revelations that can be codified in D&C, I fully believe that .  . . but it's been a looooong time since new doctrine has been introduced.  

The Church has already in it's Essays shot itself in the foot in many regards to the above quote-they admit they were wrong in the past, so if they were wrong in the past yet those in the past truly believed they were right, why are they right now even if everyone truly believes they are right? Unless you want to go with the idea that truth is relative only to the time period so that in 50 years from now the Church will put out an essay about how wrong it was that it did xyz in the year 2000.

That's why I enjoy the reports that Elder Erying explaining more about doctrine b/c doctrine is found in the scriptures, the rest is just policy or the unwritten order of things.  If you want to change doctrine-get a new revelation and codify it.

I am unaware that the Standard of Liberty folks are "out of the Church", even so makes no difference to me. My personal salvation and standing before God is what matters. The Church, regardless of flaws is the only Church that has the legitimate Authority from God.  I've never seen anything indicates the contrary (regardless of what Snuffer or FLDS, etc. claims).  It ain't my Church-it's Christ's Church.  I'm sure when He comes He'll clean up the mess.

Edited September 20, 2018 by YJacket

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

Joseph Fielding Smith is of course entitled to his private interpretations.

As are you (and others). But you seem to want to hold the church accountable to your private interpretation, while suggesting that a prophet’s teachings on the subject are irrelevant.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, YJacket said:

Any form, i.e. giving any expression to it in any shape except to admit it is a sinful nature/behavior and then changing oneself. 

First, having sexual urges is not per se sinful, but you seem to be speaking as if it is.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "sinful nature."  That sounds rather like Original Sin, which we don't really accept.  We are "sinful" by way of living in a fallen world and by making wrong choices, but I don't think we are by our nature "sinful."

Quote

Homosexual things, like reading homosexual magazine, forums, blogs, attending drag shows, etc. (and doing so to confirm and receive enjoyment out of those activities). 

Still not sure what you mean here by "homosexual things."  Sexually provocative materials are inappropriate regardless of whether they are "gay" or "straight."  But surely reading an article in a "gay" magazine about, say, suicidal ideation or some other non-sexually-provocative aspect of life is not innately problematic.

Quote

There are a whole host of homosexual behaviors that don't involve actual sex but that occupy thinking about or expressing that desire.

Again, not sure what you mean here.

Sexual behavior is clearly out-of-bounds.  I would also think that non-sexual-but-romantic-and-leading-up-to-sex behaviors (such as same-sex dating) would be inappropriate.  But once you remove sexuality/romance from the equation, what inherently "homosexual behaviors" are left that violate the Law of Chastity?

Quote

I agree it's far from correct.  But I read . . .a lot . . .I've taken Elder Ballard's council to heart (maybe not the way some people think), so I investigate, read, ponder, pray, learn and there are many, many, many who want to make it that the Law Of Chastity only means "no sex" with someone not your spouse and that for homosexuals it means celibate and celibate just means "no-sex", as long as you don't have sex-you're good.

Still not clear.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 20, 2018 by smac97