Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your statement above is a cheapshot.  And an inaccurate one.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know many Church members who feel that way.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I know many Church members who feel that way.

Then they are not following the counsel being given to them.

In any event, your remark was still a cheapshot.

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then they are not following the counsel being given to them.

In any event, your remark was still a cheapshot.

-Smac

So what was your point in citing D&C 1:38 not once, but twice, in the discussion above?  To me, it sounded as if you were saying that 1:38 gave President Oaks the right to supercede Christ's teachings, as recorded in Matthew, regarding divorce.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So what was your point in citing D&C 1:38 not once, but twice, in the discussion above? 

I explained my point at some length here.

Here is perhaps the key bits:

Quote

We do not unthinkingly accept just any statement.  We are supposed to analyze and evluation and determine for ourselfs the inspiration of our leaders.  I think we should operate from a position of faith.  I also think we should give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt.  That is, I think we should generally "decide that you will believe someone, even though you are not sure that what the person is saying is true."  I think such a presumption would a healthy thing.  I also think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time. 

...

So my rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it. 

Quite a difference from "It's the power of D&C 1:38.  It gives Church members the power to take any statement by an apostle and attribute it to Christ."

Quote

To me, it sounded as if you were saying that 1:38 gave President Oaks the right to supercede Christ's teachings, as recorded in Matthew, regarding divorce.

You and I were discussing this just yesterday:

Quote

 23 hours ago, rockpond said:

It was not directed at Elder Oaks.  It was directed at any potential misapplication of D&C 1:38.

Ah.  Okay.  Not sure what you mean by "potential misapplication."  Care to elaborate?

  Quote

I accept that both teachings regarding divorce were given by apostles of the Lord. 

I agree.

  Quote

And they seem to differ. 

Do you think there is a way to reconcile them?

Surely you understand the difference between "reconcile" and "supersede?"

We then had this to say to each other:

Quote

 

Me: Given the foregoing considerations, my sense is that the Lord discourages, but nevertheless still allows, His covenant people to divorce.

You: This seems like an accurate summary of our best understanding right now.

Me: Sounds like we agree more than we disagree.  I'm glad of that.

 

Yesterday you and I seemed to have reached a consensus.  Today, it's cheapshots.  Not sure what's going on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I explained my point at some length here.

Here is perhaps the key bits:

Quite a difference from "It's the power of D&C 1:38.  It gives Church members the power to take any statement by an apostle and attribute it to Christ."

You and I were discussing this just yesterday:

Surely you understand the difference between "reconcile" and "supersede?"

We then had this to say to each other:

Yesterday you and I seemed to have reached a consensus.  Today, it's cheapshots.  Not sure what's going on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I understand the difference reconcile and superseded.

So you cited 1:38 as a means of indicating that we should give the Brethren a presumption of good faith?

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I understand the difference reconcile and superseded.

So you cited 1:38 as a means of indicating that we should give the Brethren a presumption of good faith?

I am saying that D&C 1:38 gives Elder Oaks at least as much authority to speak on behalf of God as the authority held by Matthew.

I am saying that, contrary to your cheapshot, we are not supposed to reflexively and unthinkingly accept any and all statements from General Authorities.

I am saying that the Brethren have given us extensive guidance on how to "measure" statements by the General Authorities.  

I am saying that Joseph Smtih was correct when he said that “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” 

I am saying that we are supposed to analyze and evluation and determine for ourselfs the inspiration of our leaders, that we should operate from a position of faith, that we should give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, and that such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.

I am saying that this presumption rebuttable in that we need to leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."

I am saying that if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it.

I am saying that we can test what Elder Oaks said.  It appears that he is in full fellowship in the Church, and in his calling.  He gave his remarks 11 years ago, and they have never been withdrawn or corrected or superseded by any other apostle, or by the First Presidency, or by the Presiding High Priest.  His remarks were formal and prepared, and were given "over the pulpit" in his capacity as an apostle, and were delivered to the body of the Church during Ge neral Conference.  And his remarks square with the policies of the Church pertaining to divorced persons (that is, they are allowed to divorce, to re-marry, and to do these things while remaining in full fellowship).  And his remarks appear to reflect a substantial uniformity of understanding and teaching and practice re: divorce as propounded by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, past and present.

I am saying that, having tested what Elder Oaks said, my sense is that the Lord discourages His covenant people to divorce, but nevertheless still allows it without imperiling the standing of divorced persons in the Church.

I am saying that I think that this can be reconciled with Matthew.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am saying that D&C 1:38 gives Elder Oaks at least as much authority to speak on behalf of God as the authority held by Matthew.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the apostle Matthew actually wrote what we now know as the Gospel of Matthew...

Do we have a responsibility to put extra weight on the verses in Matthew since they are purportedly quoting Jesus Christ himself where as President Oaks was not (or at least did not make such a claim)?  Is that a fair piece of the reconciliation process we should go through as Saints?

I think that was a key part of what was being discussed.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

I am saying that D&C 1:38 gives Elder Oaks at least as much authority to speak on behalf of God as the authority held by Matthew.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the apostle Matthew actually wrote what we now know as the Gospel of Matthew...

Interesting.  So you question the authenticity of a writing attributed to an ancient apostle regarding the will of God about divorce, but nevertheless privilege that writing as being superior to the plainly-authenticated-and-no-question-whatsoever-regarding-its-provenance statement from Elder Oaks about divorce.

I don't understand your position.

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do we have a responsibility to put extra weight on the verses in Matthew since they are purportedly quoting Jesus Christ himself where as President Oaks was not (or at least did not make such a claim)? 

So an apostle's statement claiming to quote Jesus Christ verbatim is to be given extra weight because . . . it is claiming to quote Jesus Christ verbatim?  Not sure about that.

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is that a fair piece of the reconciliation process we should go through as Saints?

I think that was a key part of what was being discussed.

I think there are other grounds to "put extra weight on the verses in Matthew."  The 8th Article of Faith comes to mind, along with D&C 1:38, and also D&C 68:4 ("And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.").

I think we need to examine all prophetic utterances and measure them against the "yardstick" of the scriptures (including statements in the scriptures themselves).

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Interesting.  So you question the authenticity of a writing attributed to an ancient apostle regarding the will of God about divorce, but nevertheless privilege that writing as being superior to the plainly-authenticated-and-no-question-whatsoever-regarding-its-provenance statement from Elder Oaks about divorce.

No, I don't privilege that writing as being superior, just recognizing it as being the claimed words of Christ where as President Oaks did not make such a claim.  While I don't automatically privilege one over the other, I think the distinction is important. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So an apostle's statement claiming to quote Jesus Christ verbatim is to be given extra weight because . . . it is claiming to quote Jesus Christ verbatim?  Not sure about that.

Note the punctuation I used.  It was a question, not a statement, that I was asking you.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think there are other grounds to "put extra weight on the verses in Matthew."  The 8th Article of Faith comes to mind, along with D&C 1:38, and also D&C 68:4 ("And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.").

All those verses can be applied equally to President Oaks and the author of the Gospel of Matthew.  My question is if extra weight is given when the Lord is being quoted verbatim vs. someone teaching a principle and not claiming that it came from the Lord except that the individual teaching is an apostle?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yesterday you and I seemed to have reached a consensus.  Today, it's cheapshots.  Not sure what's going on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Quote

      2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your statement above is a cheapshot.  And an inaccurate one.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Then they are not following the counsel being given to them.

In any event, your remark was still a cheapshot.

-Smac

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am saying that D&C 1:38 gives Elder Oaks at least as much authority to speak on behalf of God as the authority held by Matthew.

I am saying that, contrary to your cheapshot, we are not supposed to reflexively and unthinkingly accept any and all statements from General Authorities.

-Smac

I get the feeling that you think Rockpond is taking cheapshots. Sorry if I'm misreading you  

If you repeat it a few more times you'll probably increase belief among readers by 20% on this thread that these really are "cheapshots". Your strategy is well played, even if it is transparent  

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I don't privilege that writing as being superior, just recognizing it as being the claimed words of Christ where as President Oaks did not make such a claim.  While I don't automatically privilege one over the other, I think the distinction is important. 

How so?  

I think the passage in Matthew is presumptively "superior" in a sense because it is canonized scripture.  But that has to do with canonicity.  With precedent.  With scriptures being designated as the "yardsticks" by which we measure doctrine.

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Note the punctuation I used.  It was a question, not a statement, that I was asking you.

Ah.  Okay.  

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

I think there are other grounds to "put extra weight on the verses in Matthew."  The 8th Article of Faith comes to mind, along with D&C 1:38, and also D&C 68:4 ("And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.").

All those verses can be applied equally to President Oaks and the author of the Gospel of Matthew. 

I'm not sure about that.  Matthew's record is canonized scripture.  Elder Oaks' words, while being "scripture" in a sense, are still not canon.

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My question is if extra weight is given when the Lord is being quoted verbatim vs. someone teaching a principle and not claiming that it came from the Lord except that the individual teaching is an apostle?

I don't think verbatim quotes should be given extra weight because they are verbatim quotes.  It's still a matter of faith and reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

On 11/12/2018 at 3:34 PM, rockpond said:

I'm sorry... what do the children of gay parents need to repent of?

That's a straw man it's the parents that need to repent not the children.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

That's a straw man it's the parents that need to repent not the children.

Yet its the children who are denied baptism.

[rodheadlee]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet its the children who are denied baptism.

Due to their parents situation. You can push it off on the church all you want but the ultimate responsibility for the child's welfare lies in the parents.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet its the children who are denied baptism.

Baptism is delayed, not denied.  Just as it is for "the children" whose parents do not give consent, "the children" of polygamous families, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Baptism is delayed, not denied.  Just as it is for "the children" whose parents do not give consent, "the children" of polygamous families, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps we can compromise.

The children are denied baptism but it's possible they may be baptized as adults: Agree?

After all, a child is actually denied access to baptism. Even if that access to the saving ordinance of baptism changes in the future, it doesn't change the fact that they were/are denied the saving ordinance of baptism as children.

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How so?  

I think the passage in Matthew is presumptively "superior" in a sense because it is canonized scripture.  But that has to do with canonicity.  With precedent.  With scriptures being designated as the "yardsticks" by which we measure doctrine.

Ah.  Okay.  

I'm not sure about that.  Matthew's record is canonized scripture.  Elder Oaks' words, while being "scripture" in a sense, are still not canon.

I don't think verbatim quotes should be given extra weight because they are verbatim quotes.  It's still a matter of faith and reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough.  Thanks. 

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

That's a straw man it's the parents that need to repent not the children.

Then we’re back to the children being denied baptism for the sin of their parents. 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps we can compromise.

The children are denied baptism but it's possible they may be baptized as adults: Agree?

After all, a child is actually denied access to baptism. Even if that access to the saving ordinance of baptism changes in the future, it doesn't change the fact that they were/are denied the saving ordinance of baptism as children.

But from a practical standpoint, by virtue of the reconciliation of justice and mercy, no one is any more saved by virtue of receiving an ordinance than another who is delayed in getting it. It is not the ordinance alone that saves.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Then we’re back to the children being denied baptism for the sin of their parents. 

Their baptism is delayed for their claim upon their parents for their maintenance, in other words their parent's management of the parental stewardship, which cannot be a collaborative one with the Church from which they apostatized. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by CV75

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps we can compromise.

The children are denied baptism but it's possible they may be baptized as adults: Agree?

How about this: "The children are temporarily denied baptism, as are some children in other circumstances, but they are welcome to be baptized once they reach the age of majority."

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After all, a child is actually denied access to baptism.

Baptism is delayed.  Nobody is "denied" baptism in any final sense, but that is the implication that critics and opponents of the Church want to convey.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even if that access to the saving ordinance of baptism changes in the future, it doesn't change the fact that they were/are denied the saving ordinance of baptism as children.

I guess it's a matter of intent and accuracy.  I do not want to characterize this issue in such a way as to disparage the Church, make it look bad and cold and unfeeling, etc.  But disparaging the Church appears to be the objective of some other folks, hence the constant carping on this issue (even though children of polygamous households have their baptisms denied also, as are baptisms of children whose parents do not consent).

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Their baptism is delayed for their claim upon their parents for their maintenance, in other words their parent's management of the parental stewardship, which cannot be a collaborative one with the Church from which they apostatized. 

Remember that the policy applies specifically to cases where the gay married parents and the child all consent to the baptism.  It’s being denied based on the sin of the parents no matter how softly we’d like to phrase it. 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Then we’re back to the children being denied baptism for the sin of their parents. 

No we're back to the children are the responsibilities of the parents. There is no way to get around that. 

 

 

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

No we're back to the children are the responsibilities of the parents. There is no way to get around that. 

 

 

Okay... than how are the parents preventing their child from being baptized?

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay... than how are the parents preventing their child from being baptized?

You know the answer to that.