Sam Young is Excommunicated

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I won’t discuss any temple ceremony content. I consider such discussion inappropriate here. 

But I suspect you draw a distinction because it helps you rationalize rejecting some of the teachings of the apostles and prophets. 

No, that’s not the case.  I listen to the apostles and prophets and have heeded their counsel to seek my own personal confirmation of their teachings. 

The reason I think the distinction is important actually ties into President Nelson’s most recent impression regarding the name of the Church.  If we want to be called the Church of Jesus Christ I think it is critical that we follow Him, not men. 

[Abulafia]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would be curious as to your thoughts on the meaning of Bishops being common judges in Israel.

That's a really good question and something I have given a good amount of thought to. Let me prepare a response. My response would be based on my historical studies. 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I also like that the Lord acknowledges the weaknesses and fallibilty of His servants.  I think that is important to remember along with the lack of scriptural support for this modern day idea that we should follow the prophet. 

We follow the Lord, our God.  We look to our prophet to point the way and seek a confirmation of what he teaches.  And we look to our apostles for their witness and testimony of the Savior.  But we only follow the Lord. 

That seems like an issue of semantics though.  If we look to the prophet to point the way toward Christ (as the statement you quoted says), then we are following the direction the Prophet tells us to go because we believe that is where Christ is and what Christ would have us do.  Below are some excerpts from Elder Anderson's April GC talk (one of many from General Conferences over the years about following the prophet):

Why We Follow the Prophet

But Jesus also taught an important truth about the servants He sends to us. “He that receiveth you,” He said, “receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”  The most important role of the Lord’s prophet is to teach us of the Savior and lead us to Him.  Why do we follow the prophet? Because the Lord Jesus Christ has called him and designated him as His watchman on the tower.  A prophet is a watchman on the tower, protecting us from spiritual dangers we may not see. The Lord said to Ezekiel, “I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word [from] my mouth, and warn them from me.”

We often speak of our need to follow the prophet, but consider this heavy burden the Lord places upon His prophet: “If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked … , [and] that wicked man … die in his iniquity; … his blood will I require at thine hand.

Anchoring our souls to the Lord Jesus Christ requires listening to those He sends.

A prophet does not stand between you and the Savior. Rather, he stands beside you and points the way to the Savior.

[smac97]

On 9/24/2018 at 7:59 AM, Abulafia said:

Quote

I would be curious as to your thoughts on the meaning of Bishops being common judges in Israel.

That's a really good question and something I have given a good amount of thought to. Let me prepare a response. My response would be based on my historical studies. 

Okay.  I look forward to your response.

Meanwhile, let me provide a brief example that may illuminate my perspective.  A few years ago I was in federal court in Salt Lake City.  I was early for my hearing, so I caught the end of the hearing scheduled just prior to mine, which was a sentencing hearing for a man convicted on firearms charges.  The judge, the defense attorney, and the prosecutor were having an in-depth discussion about whether there should be a "sentencing enhancement" (a few more years added to the defendant's prison sentence).  The statute in question requires a sentencing enhancement where the person convicted of selling a weapon obscures the serial number on the weapon.  In this case, the defendant had filed off the serial number, which in most cases would be an automatic sentencing enhancement.  However, this particular handgun had the serial number stamped on it in two places, and the defendant had only filed off one of them.  The defendant's attorney was arguing that the point of the sentencing enhancement is to penalize efforts to make guns untraceable, and this gun was not untraceable, therefore the sentencing enhancement should not be applied.  The prosecutor was, as you may imagine, was arguing that the sentencing enhancement should apply.  As the enhancement was for, IIRC, an additional five years in prison, this was a fairly important issue.  So the judge asked the parties if the gun itself was readily available, as he wanted to look at it.  An federal agent with the ATF ("Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms") stood up and said that he was in possession of the gun, but that he wouldn't give it to the judge.  At that moment the whole room went silent.  The judge paused, and said something like this: "Excuse me.  Are you seriously going to tell a federal judge at a sentencing hearing that he can't look at a key piece of evidence?"  The ATF agent seemed to vacillate for a moment, then the judge said "Give the gun to my bailiff.  Right now."  By this point the prosecutor and the two other ATF agents were speaking in rather fierce whispers to the ATF agent in question.  He gave in and handed the gun (in an evidence bag, with the firing pin removed) to the bailiff.

I remember thinking at the time: "What on earth was that ATF agent thinking?  If a being a judge means anything at all, it must mean that he needs to render judgment on the evidence.  Why would a law enforcement guy working for the prosecution presume to want to witthold such evidence?"

I think a similar set of questions arises when we call bishops "judges in Israel," but then object to making a factual inquiry into the matters to be adjudicated.  Consider, for example, D&C 58:43:

Quote

By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

And D&C 42:

Quote

88 And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.
89 And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.
90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.
91 And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.

And Matthew 3:

Quote

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

And D&C 59:

Quote

But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord.

And D&C 20:37:

Quote

And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

I think "sins" here are construed to refer to serious sins.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 21, 2020 by smac97

[YJacket]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thank you for your honesty. It's good to know you stand to the far ultra-orthodox right of the brethren. I suspect many in the church feel similarly. I find that SUPER depressing but it upholds my general belief that almost everyone in the church, whether on the right or left, progressive or orthodox, pick and choose how they follow the prophet. It seems we are all cafeteria Mormons.

I think your POV on hmosxuality is a good illustration of why the church isn't a usually a safe place for the LGBT community and why allies often become disheartened in the church.

 

I suspect many of the older generation might (and that's a very big might) feel similarly-but have no fear I do believe your POV is winning the day inside the Church. I believe it is easier to be indoctrinated and listen to the daily programming of the world than to return to scripture.  I believe when you have children who are being taught in public schools about the virtues of all things LGBT (as evidenced in states like Illinios-I believe), that programming 5 days a week 8 hours a day will vastly override anything taught in Church for 3 hours or at hour for an hour here and there. And I believe it will continue to win the day b/c the Book of Mormon tells us at the Last Days "all churches" become corrupt, it will continue until God sends His Almighty Son to cleanse the Earth.

I'm not a "cafeteria" Mormon, I don't pick and choose, I go to the Word of God-big, big difference.  The Standard works are the standard, regardless of who one is-Prophet, Apostle, Bishop, regular member. The vast, vast majority of 'cafeteria" mormons have no scriptural underpinnings to their beliefs-I do have much more respect for those who attempt to have scriptural underpinnings.  I welcome those who have this LGBT belief to demonstrate it's truthfulness through Scripture. I am certainly not perfect and I'm positive I have many viewpoints that are not in fully in line with God's Word.  That is life, line by line precept by precept a continual path of trying to learn more and be more.

The Church isn't a safe place for those who commit adultery, it's not a safe place for those in fornication, it's not a safe place for those who commit whoredoms, for those who lie, for those who cheat, for those who steal, for those who think wicked and evil thoughts.  The Church isn't a safe place period for sin.  Listen to the Word of Christ:

DC 19:

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

Anyone who tries to make the Church a "safe place" for sin simply does not understand the Gospel-which is to call sinners to repentance and then through God's almighty Son-through His grace and power help them repent, to forsake their sins, to turn to God and to become new men and women in Him.

I will add that while I might disagree with your POV, I do appreciate the ability to have a conversation without hackles being raised.

Edited September 24, 2018 by YJacket

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That seems like an issue of semantics though.  If we look to the prophet to point the way toward Christ (as the statement you quoted says), then we are following the direction the Prophet tells us to go because we believe that is where Christ is and what Christ would have us do.  Below are some excerpts from Elder Anderson's April GC talk (one of many from General Conferences over the years about following the prophet):

Why We Follow the Prophet

But Jesus also taught an important truth about the servants He sends to us. “He that receiveth you,” He said, “receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.”  The most important role of the Lord’s prophet is to teach us of the Savior and lead us to Him.  Why do we follow the prophet? Because the Lord Jesus Christ has called him and designated him as His watchman on the tower.  A prophet is a watchman on the tower, protecting us from spiritual dangers we may not see. The Lord said to Ezekiel, “I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word [from] my mouth, and warn them from me.”

We often speak of our need to follow the prophet, but consider this heavy burden the Lord places upon His prophet: “If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked … , [and] that wicked man … die in his iniquity; … his blood will I require at thine hand.

Anchoring our souls to the Lord Jesus Christ requires listening to those He sends.

A prophet does not stand between you and the Savior. Rather, he stands beside you and points the way to the Savior.

Both of those examples serve to underscore my thoughts on the matter...

We wouldn’t follow a watchmen on a tower.  He’s the watchmen — we listen carefully to what he tells us. 

And, if the prophet is standing beside us, we aren’t following him, we are heeding his counsel. 

[changed]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

So you don't believe in objective morality then?

I guess I am a little confused.  What was the purpose of the link?

Just curious, can you claim any original spiritual thought, or do you rely on spiritual leaders (arm of flesh) for your beliefs, just like the rest of us?

 

 

Yes, I have had spiritual experiences.  What I "know"  and I am using the word "know" here - what I know for myself, I know death is not the end, I know birth was not our beginning.  I know spirits can communicate personal guidance - and this is personal, individual.  I know we each have a conscience to guide and teach us right from wrong.  

Beyond that?  I do not know anything.  I do not know if God is loving or not, I do not know if there is any all-powerful being who created it all? or if there are just a bunch of unorganized spirits - as heaven as it is in earth? or on earth as it is in heaven?  perhaps all the different religious groups come from all the different heavenly spirit groups? 

I used to think apostles/priesthood/prophets were a good idea - I have received spiritual revelations, and assumed others had too.  I assumed those called to serve really were called - that they really were guided - I have now learned this is not the case.  (pedophiles in leadership positions?  year after year, child after child?  no protection?  etc.)... so now I am rethinking everything.  I have no idea that any religious group is the "true" group... I only know we all seem to have a conscience, we all seem to have a spirit wtihin us - beyond that, I am now back to square one.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by changed

[changed]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

I think that is an assumption to make that he did not send prophets to all these people, maybe they kept records or maybe they didn't or maybe they didn't have the priesthood. as I read through what the brethren have said it sounds like God gives humanity portions of his light through inspired people, who is to say Muhammed, Confucius, St. Thomas Aquinas, Zoroaster weren't inspired of the Lord? Read the First Presidency statement, Feb. 1978. If we are all teachable then I think we can learn, either we hear a prophet in this or the next life

So you do not think there is "only one" person on earth with the priesthood keys, and only "one" true church etc.?  

This is what I now think - that all religious groups have some truths, that none of them have all the truth.  All groups can only take you part way, perhaps by design, to force everyone to take the last steps on their own. 

There would be no personal testimony - only borrowed light - if any religious group did everything for you.

Yes, there is some good in most of the religious groups, or there would be no followers.  

There is also some evil in all religious groups - to force everyone to go directly to God rather than relying on any organization...

at least that is how I now see it.

Edited September 24, 2018 by changed

[changed]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

I will heed the words of the Lord and not your personal opinions ==========>>>>>>>>>>

DC 1 

4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.

5 And they shall go forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.

6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, 

8 And verily I say unto you, that they who go forth, bearing these tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, to them is power given to seal both 
on earth and in heaven, the unbelieving and rebellious;

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his 
servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

 

Whatsoever is of good report, I do seek after these things.  I also retain the privilege of separating wheat from tares, and take personal responsibility for my own testimony without relying on the arms of flesh.  

If it is good - great - I will follow it.  

If it is not good, I reserve the right to step away, and not support it....

I blindly supported a pedophile in a leadership position - when you raise your hand, or go to a TR interview and support everyone in all their callings, do you really know who you are supporting?  Can you look in the eyes of an abused child, and explain to them why you supported the person who abused them?  I no longer raise my hand to support those I do not know.  If you had been through this, I think you would be more careful about it as well... 

[Gray]

On 9/21/2018 at 2:31 PM, bluebell said:

I do understand that you believe your interpretation is more closely aligned to how God would want His church to run.  I just disagree that you would have a better handle on how God wants His church to run than prophets and apostles.   

I don't think anyone has a privileged view into the mind of God. I'm just talking about the text and what it seems to be trying to convey.

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, changed said:

So you do not think there is "only one" person on earth with the priesthood keys, and only "one" true church etc.?  

This is what I now think - that all religious groups have some truths, that none of them have all the truth.  All groups can only take you part way, perhaps by design, to force everyone to take the last steps on their own. 

There would be no personal testimony - only borrowed light - if any religious group did everything for you.

Yes, there is some good in most of the religious groups, or there would be no followers.  

There is also some evil in all religious groups - to force everyone to go directly to God rather than relying on any organization...

at least that is how I now see it.

no, I do believe there is only one on earth who has priesthood keys but I don't believe we are the only Church that teaches people to be good or to follow the Saviour, the how we have differences on of course

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think anyone has a privileged view into the mind of God. I'm just talking about the text and what it seems to be trying to convey.

I understand that that is your point of view and I don't have a problem with it.  But it doesn't seem that relevant when discussing issues with people who belong to a church that teaches that there are some who do have a privileged relationship to know His will concerning His church.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

Yes, I have had spiritual experiences.  What I "know"  and I am using the word "know" here - what I know for myself, I know death is not the end, I know birth was not our beginning.  I know spirits can communicate personal guidance - and this is personal, individual.  I know we each have a conscience to guide and teach us right from wrong.  

How did you come to know that death is not the end, or that birth was not our beginning?  How did you come to know about pre-existence except through prophets?  What about the idea of spirits?  How did you come to know about spirits except through prophets?

Do you believe in sin?

How do you define sin?

Do you believe that Jesus Christ atoned for sins?

What is the eternal consequence of sin, and how do we overcome it?  Seems kind of important. 

1 hour ago, changed said:

Beyond that?  I do not know anything.  I do not know if God is loving or not, I do not know if there is any all-powerful being who created it all? or if there are just a bunch of unorganized spirits - as heaven as it is in earth? or on earth as it is in heaven?  perhaps all the different religious groups come from all the different heavenly spirit groups? 

I used to think apostles/priesthood/prophets were a good idea - I have received spiritual revelations, and assumed others had too.  I assumed those called to serve really were called - that they really were guided - I have now learned this is not the case.  (pedophiles in leadership positions?  year after year, child after child?  no protection?  etc.)... so now I am rethinking everything.  I have no idea that any religious group is the "true" group... I only know we all seem to have a conscience, we all seem to have a spirit wtihin us - beyond that, I am now back to square one.

How do you know which spirits to trust?  

Edited September 24, 2018 by pogi

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

  I no longer raise my hand to support those I do not know.  If you had been through this, I think you would be more careful about it as well... 

We have several new apostles.  Just curious, do you raise your hand to support them?  The general leaders of the Relief Society?  We do not raise our hand for them individually, but there are many in that group sustaining you don't know personally.

Perhaps you should leave the room during the vote, so that you don't have to look anyone in the face.

I am not ashamed that I voted to support someone who, unaware to me, turns out to be bad.  It is THEY who violated my trust and support for them.  Why should I be ashamed for their secret sin?

Edited September 24, 2018 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, YJacket said:

I suspect many of the older generation might (and that's a very big might) feel similarly-but have no fear I do believe your POV is winning the day inside the Church. I believe it is easier to be indoctrinated and listen to the daily programming of the world than to return to scripture.  I believe when you have children who are being taught in public schools about the virtues of all things LGBT (as evidenced in states like Illinios-I believe), that programming 5 days a week 8 hours a day will vastly override anything taught in Church for 3 hours or at hour for an hour here and there. And I believe it will continue to win the day b/c the Book of Mormon tells us at the Last Days "all churches" become corrupt, it will continue until God sends His Almighty Son to cleanse the Earth.

I'm not a "cafeteria" Mormon, I don't pick and choose, I go to the Word of God-big, big difference.  The Standard works are the standard, regardless of who one is-Prophet, Apostle, Bishop, regular member. The vast, vast majority of 'cafeteria" mormons have no scriptural underpinnings to their beliefs-I do have much more respect for those who attempt to have scriptural underpinnings.  I welcome those who have this LGBT belief to demonstrate it's truthfulness through Scripture. I am certainly not perfect and I'm positive I have many viewpoints that are not in fully in line with God's Word.  That is life, line by line precept by precept a continual path of trying to learn more and be more.

The Church isn't a safe place for those who commit adultery, it's not a safe place for those in fornication, it's not a safe place for those who commit whoredoms, for those who lie, for those who cheat, for those who steal, for those who think wicked and evil thoughts.  The Church isn't a safe place period for sin.  Listen to the Word of Christ:

DC 19:

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

Anyone who tries to make the Church a "safe place" for sin simply does not understand the Gospel-which is to call sinners to repentance and then through God's almighty Son-through His grace and power help them repent, to forsake their sins, to turn to God and to become new men and women in Him.

I will add that while I might disagree with your POV, I do appreciate the ability to have a conversation without hackles being raised.

"Cafeteria" Mormon has been used as a derisive term but I don't think it should be. I just think it's accurate. I pick and choose based, among other things, which source of information I privilege. You do the same. Because the truth is there are contradictions in the scriptures, just as there are contradictions amongst church leaders. Sometimes leaders contradict scriptures, and sometimes leaders say THEY are scripture; t a Living prophet is more vital than a dead prophet and the standard works. So we choose which we feel is more important, following canonized scripture, or following the living prophet. In your case, you seem to be privileging canonized scripture, which is understandable, but it is still a choice. In your opinion it may be a very well thought out, well-studied opinion, but it's still an opinion.

We all pick and choose what we follow.

How many times did Jesus preach against hmosxuality?  0

How many times did Jesus preach against divorce? At least 3 or 4. Based on that, I would expect you to be more opposed to re-marriage of previously divorced individuals, than against SSM. But I doubt that's accurate.

ETA: There was a short-lived sitcom on CBS last year called Living Biblically. The premise is that a married guy who is preparing to become a dad wants to show his devotion by living the Bible with exactness. It was a pretty cheesy show but it had some fun moments where this guy tried to live everything taught in the Bible (canonized scripture) and the reactions he got from his coworkers, wife, as well as his catholic priest and rabbi friends. The idea being that it is literally impossible to live every teaching in the bible. So in reality, everyone chooses which parts are important and which aren't.

Edited September 24, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't think anyone has a privileged view into the mind of God. 

I understand why you would think that.

It would depend on their  relationship, on how well they have come to know Him.
Does God consider you as a friend. DC 88:3, 84:63

Edited September 24, 2018 by cdowis

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I understand why you would think that.

It would depend on their  relationship, on how well they have come to know Him.
Does God consider you as a friend. DC 88:3, 84:63 

I still get personal revelation, same as I always have. But that is not the same thing as knowing the mind of God - if indeed God has a mind.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, that’s not the case.  I listen to the apostles and prophets and have heeded their counsel to seek my own personal confirmation of their teachings. 

The reason I think the distinction is important actually ties into President Nelson’s most recent impression regarding the name of the Church.  If we want to be called the Church of Jesus Christ I think it is critical that we follow Him, not men. 

Many who profess to follow Jesus Christ don't really follow Him in every whit. To help guard against the natural-man tendency toward ignorance, indolence, false pride or self-delusion, He has commissioned prophets and apostles and grants them revelation to instruct others. If one professes to follow Christ yet ignores His guidance as given through inspired servants, one is not really following Him in that sense. The work of apostles and prophets -- and those who serve under their direction -- is one means of effort that He has decreed to penetrate the stony hearts of those who will no receive his words.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Many who profess to follow Jesus Christ don't really follow Him in every whit. To help guard against the natural-man tendency toward ignorance, indolence or self-delusion, He has commissioned prophets and apostles and grants them revelation to instruct others. If one professes to follow Christ yet ignores His guidance as given through inspired servants, one is not really following Him in that sense.

I agree with the above statement with just one small correction... the first word:

All who profess to follow Jesus Christ don't really follow Him in every whit. To help guard against the natural-man tendency toward ignorance, indolence or self-delusion, He has commissioned prophets and apostles and grants them revelation to instruct others. If one professes to follow Christ yet ignores His guidance as given through inspired servants, one is not really following Him in that sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with the above statement with just one small correction... the first word:

All who profess to follow Jesus Christ don't really follow Him in every whit. To help guard against the natural-man tendency toward ignorance, indolence or self-delusion, He has commissioned prophets and apostles and grants them revelation to instruct others. If one professes to follow Christ yet ignores His guidance as given through inspired servants, one is not really following Him in that sense.

Yes, that's true.

The problem arises when people get so hung up about "following men" that they reject His word and will given through anointed servants because they think it should come to them in some other way. That is one manifestation of pridefulness.

 

[YJacket]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Cafeteria" Mormon has been used as a derisive term but I don't think it should be. I just think it's accurate. I pick and choose based, among other things, which source of information I privilege. You do the same. Because the truth is there are contradictions in the scriptures, just as there are contradictions amongst church leaders. Sometimes leaders contradict scriptures, and sometimes leaders say THEY are scripture; t a Living prophet is more vital than a dead prophet and the standard works. So we choose which we feel is more important, following canonized scripture, or following the living prophet. In your case, you seem to be privileging canonized scripture, which is understandable, but it is still a choice. In your opinion it may be a very well thought out, well-studied opinion, but it's still an opinion.

We all pick and choose what we follow.

How many times did Jesus preach against hmosxuality?  0

How many times did Jesus preach against divorce? At least 3 or 4. Based on that, I would expect you to be more opposed to re-marriage of previously divorced individuals, than against SSM. But I doubt that's accurate.

ETA: There was a short-lived sitcom on CBS last year called Living Biblically. The premise is that a married guy who is preparing to become a dad wants to show his devotion by living the Bible with exactness. It was a pretty cheesy show but it had some fun moments where this guy tried to live everything taught in the Bible (canonized scripture) and the reactions he got from his coworkers, wife, as well as his catholic priest and rabbi friends. The idea being that it is literally impossible to live every teaching in the bible. So in reality, everyone chooses which parts are important and which aren't.

To the bold, of course; dictates of our own conscience, everyone does it.  Just as much as it is your opinion that homosexuality is not sin.  We all like to justify our own sins in our own minds using whatever we can-we justify it to ourselves and we use reinterpretations of things to justify it to others.  So that others won't tell us we are living in sin.  It is easier to know how true and straight we are by the justifications we make regarding our behavior to others.

Directly to your questions, if we only take the exact words of Christ spoken when He was alive then the set of doctrine would be very, very small-maybe a total of 25 pages. So to ask how many times did Christ preach against homosexuality is a red-herring.  If you only take for doctrine, only those things directly spoken by him in a physical presence than that is fine-but make sure you discard the 99% of the Book of Mormon, DC, Book of Abraham, and the Old Testament and 75% of the New Testament.  More to your underlying point, it is what many, many inside the Church and in Christian religion in general have done. In fact, they would throw away everything except the refrain to "love one another" and that all we need is "love".  And to truly love (in their definition) just means to accept everyone as they are-which really means that whatever you do doesn't matter as long as whoever is involved in whatever act is complacent with the act. It is the abolition of sin and a nihilistic worldview of utter meaningless.  Sadly, many Christian don't even realize that this worldview would obliterate the need for a Savior.  If all that matters is to just accept and love, then there is no sin and with no sin no need for a Savior and thus Christ was pointless.

How many times did Christ preach against it? He certainly preached against lusts of the heart. Other prophets and apostles preached directly against it as recorded in scriptures.  It has only been in the last 20-30 years (a very small bit of time) where with no revelation, no change to scripture, leaders in the Church have begun to preach definitely.  When taking the full breadth of the revealed Word of God, it is crystal clear it is 100% against God's commandments and laws.

With divorce, I absolutely oppose divorce except for reasons stated in the scripture.  We can see the fruits of divorce upon society, fatherless homes, destroyed youth, divorce is a blight and a scourge.  Those who divorce, except for reasons stated in the scriptures, will one day stand before God accountable for their sin and when the full breadth of the evil outcomes are brought before them, they will weep and they will wail.  I do feel sad for them . . . 

 

[YJacket]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Many who profess to follow Jesus Christ don't really follow Him in every whit. To help guard against the natural-man tendency toward ignorance, indolence, false pride or self-delusion, He has commissioned prophets and apostles and grants them revelation to instruct others. If one professes to follow Christ yet ignores His guidance as given through inspired servants, one is not really following Him in that sense. The work of apostles and prophets -- and those who serve under their direction -- is one means of effort that He has decreed to penetrate the stony hearts of those who will no receive his words.

I'm fully willing to follow Revelations from Apostles and Prophets, funny we haven't had a fully approved sustained Revelation since 1978,  and true additional doctrine added to the Doctrine and Covenants since 1918 . . .over 100 years ago.

It's a pretty simple process, if they want me as a member to fully support certain things then get a Revelation from God, present it to the membership, have them sustain it, I'll sustain or not sustain based upon the Spirit, and if the body of the Saints sustains it then we are good. I fully believe they have the ability to do so-why they haven't done so . . .well that is a good question.

I say this as one who loves GC talks, I enjoy hearing from Apostles and Prophets, the vast, vast majority of time I personally feel the Spirit of God testifying of the truthfulness of most of their words. But some times I do NOT feel God testifying of their words and I do NOT agree with their teachings.

Edited September 24, 2018 by YJacket

[changed]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

How did you come to know that death is not the end, or that birth was not our beginning?  How did you come to know about pre-existence except through prophets?  What about the idea of spirits?  How did you come to know about spirits except through prophets?

Do you believe in sin?

How do you define sin?

Do you believe that Jesus Christ atoned for sins?

What is the eternal consequence of sin, and how do we overcome it?  Seems kind of important. 

How do you know which spirits to trust?  

Mormons are not the only ones who believe birth was not the beginning, and death is not an end.  I actually really like the idea of reincarnation as well - reincarnation would make life just.  We each would get to experience all of the different ways to live out there, and would all have experience and wisdom by the end of it.  In reincarnation:  still studying this, but it looks like living in sin will bring you another life that will better help you learn some lessons... learn your lesson? great the next life will be better.  Life after life until you are refined.... vs. atonement - I understand how the atonement can give someone hope to change, but it does not refine character or impart wisdom.  I can forgive someone for not studying for their exam - but forgiving them, vs. them actually knowing what they need to know - those are two very different things.  It is not a matter of just being forgiven - we need to learn some things.

Spirits - I have felt them, and recognize my own spirit.  Which ones to trust?  I don't know - how to know which people to trust?  Spirits are just dead people - the same thing applies to spirits as applies to any person I suppose.  I trust logic, I trust cause/effect, not sure there is a way to ever really see into another's heart though.  

Right and wrong - what brings pain, and what brings joy and love.

I really am having to go back to square one.  If I was born in India, or in China - what would I think?  I cannot believe one thing over another because I happened to be born into a Christian country etc.  It has to work for everyone, it has to apply to everyone.  It has to explain what we see around us each and every day.

When people leave the Mormon church - I think Sam is staying Christian, he really does love Jesus.  Many people go atheist - it is not really from Mormon doctrine, they leave due to the problem of evil - they cannot justify a loving God, nothing out there is a better scenario for them.  I have had spiritual experiences - I will call them -non-denominational" experiences though... not going atheist, not sure where to go.

Edited September 24, 2018 by changed

[bluebell]

On 9/23/2018 at 11:55 AM, changed said:

Most of the 7.7 billion people on this earth have no prophet to follow.  Most of the people on this earth through history had no prophet to follow.  That is by design - by design God did not send prophets and apostles to the vast majority of the people on this earth.... Why is that?  

Well, we don't actually know how many people God has sent prophets too.  

But, I think I understand what you are saying and it's a good question. I think we can learn a lot about that question by reading Jacob 5.  We're all planted in different spots in the vineyard.  Some spots are 'good' and some are 'poor' but the Lord specifically says that He has his reasons for planting in poor soil, even if we don't understand it.  We can also learn from Jacob 5 that the spot where you are planted has no bearing on the amount of good fruit that you can produce.  Trees in poor soil can produce a large yield of fruit while trees in good soil can yield no useable fruit.   We are each responsible for the knowledge that we are given, and we can do much with what we are given, even if it's less than what others have.  God has His reasons for treating us differently.

Quote

If God wanted all of us to follow prophets, he would have given all the people on earth through all history prophets to follow. 

I think that's too simplistic of a way to look at it.  If we go back to Jacob 5, it would be like saying "if God wants everyone to yield fruit then He would have planted everyone in good soil."  That seems like a logical thing to say, until we see that God doesn't need to plant in good soil to get fruit from us.  He has ways and means to make up for the things that we lack, and He has his own purposes.

Quote

Those in China, those in India, those in Africa - they would have all had prophets.  Instead they lived their lives without scriptures, without religious leaders - why was it designed this way?  God did not send apostles and prophets to the majority of his children.

Again, I believe that some of those people probably did have prophets.  But I don't know why God chose to use the House of Israel to spread the knowledge about His gospel around the world.

Quote

If God wanted a personal relationship with all of us - if he wanted us to follow our own conscience - he would have left most people, most of the time, without a solid guide to follow.  

That makes absolutely no sense to me.  

Quote

Humans by nature are lazy - not wanting to think for themselves, not wanting to take responsibility for themselves, preferring to just rely on others for their strength and testimony... the only way perhaps is to take away those supports - no supports = forced to stand on your own two feet.

If that worked, then most of the world would believe in a universal God, one that they discovered by standing on their own two feet and following their own conscience.  But that's not true at all.  Or, are you saying that God is relative and that we can all believe and do different things and under His direction?  Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying.

Quote

 

Follow the light of Christ, Follow the Spirit...

Upon this rock - not upon Peter - upon personal revelation - upon this rock is the church built.

 

From my perspective, that does not change anything.  Personal revelation teaches us what is true.  But, it does that by testifying to us of things that we learn from others (such as prophets).  The spirit doesn't teach us doctrine and then testify of it.  We learn doctrine from people and then pray to know if it's true or not.

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I'm fully willing to follow Revelations from Apostles and Prophets, funny we haven't had a fully approved sustained Revelation since 1978,  and true additional doctrine added to the Doctrine and Covenants since 1918 . . .over 100 years ago.

It's a pretty simple process, if they want me as a member to fully support certain things then get a Revelation from God, present it to the membership, have them sustain it, I'll sustain or not sustain based upon the Spirit, and if the body of the Saints sustains it then we are good. I fully believe they have the ability to do so-why they haven't done so . . .well that is a good question.

I say this as one who loves GC talks, I enjoy hearing from Apostles and Prophets, the vast, vast majority of time I personally feel the Spirit of God testifying of the truthfulness of most of their words. But some times I do NOT feel God testifying of their words and I do NOT agree with their teachings.

Hence the wisdom to a tripartite approach to such things.  For me, the formula goes like this:

(D) Guidance from God = (A) Scriptures + (B) Ongoing Prophetic Counsel + (C) Personal Revelation and Assessment.

If one of these three is "out of tune" with the others, my first effort will be to re-evaluate (C), as that is probably the most likely to be in error.

My second effort would be to review a specific instance of (B) in the context of other instances of (B) to see if the specific instance is perhaps a bit off.

Thy third effort would be to re-evaluate my understanding of (A).  This often involves examination of historical/cultural context, translation issues, the scope and sphere of "likening" the scriptures to me, and so on.

I am not sure I understand your apparent complaint about delays between instances of canonization.  In my view, "revelation" seems to be a fairly consistent topic in General Conference.

I guess some members may differentiate between, on the one hand, "revelation" that involves actual words from God (such as D&C 137:7-10) and/or revelations that reveal something new or previously unknown (such as portions of D&C 138) and, on the other hand, "revelation" that only alludes to a revelatory experience, and/or does not include specifically-dictated-by-God-Himselve verbiage (OD-2).

Some members may also differentiate between canonized and non-canonized revelation.  That distinction is quite a bit easier to understand, and I think the sort of thing that Pres. Nelson is hoping to accommodate. 

Some members may also differentiate between "revelation" that pertains to ethereal "things of the spirit" (D&C 137 and D&C 138) as opposed to "revelation" that appears to administrative/procedural issues (the 2015 policy changes).

Personally, I would like to see a canonized revelation on the subject of same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage.  I think there are some members of the Church who have bought into the notion that there really isn't a scriptural basis for condemning homosexual conduct as sin, or that "same-sex marriage" can be a holy thing allowed or endorsed by God.  A revelation on the subject would be painful for many Saints, and would probably cause some people to leave the Church.  But it would also put an end to speculation, the scripture-wresting, and so on.  Nevertheless, I am confident that the Brethren are aware of differing opinions in the Church on these issues, that they are discussing these issues with each other, that they are seeking divine guidance on these issues, and that if a revelation is not forthcoming, it will not be because the Brethren have refused to make these issues objects of discussion, study, pondering, fasting, praying, and so on.

The Brethren are not all grouped together in some sort of echo chamber in Salt Lake.  They are out and about constantly.  They are in direct and constant communication with each other, with members of the quorums of seventies, who are in direct and constant communication with stake presidents, mission presidents and district presidents, who are in direct and constant communication with bishops and branch presidents, who are in direct and constant communication with members of their wards/branches.

The Brethren also function in quorums.  We have statements indicating unanimity amongst the Brethren as to the 2015 policy changes, and also that the unanimity arose from confirming revelation to the members of the Twelve.  The function of quorums in the Church is important.  Quorums operate as a bulwark against the risk of one individual leader characterizing his personal opinion as a revealed truth and then presenting it to the entirety of the Church.  Decisions arising from quorums, particularly from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, can therefore provide quite a bit of comfort to the membership of the church.  I'm not saying the decisions of these quorums are utterly without flaw or defect, but in terms of "broad strokes" the Brethren are getting things right, and are likely to continue to get things substantially right while they function in quorums.

Thanks,

-Smac