Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Ah yes, the Mormon trump card.  Whatever the prophets say is suddenly the voice of the Lord."

That sounded awfully contemptuous.  Disparaging.  Insulting.

 

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

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, by all means, please correct me.

Do you accept Matthew's recitation of the Lord's will regarding divorce?

Do you accept Elder Oaks' recitation of the Lord's will regarding divorce?

Thanks,

-Smac

I accept that both teachings regarding divorce were given by apostles of the Lord.  And they seem to differ.  But I don't weigh them differently because one is written in the book of Matthew and one was taught by Elder Oaks.

I am personally unsure of the Lord's specific will on the matter.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Ah yes, the Mormon trump card.  Whatever the prophets say is suddenly the voice of the Lord.

Except when it's not.

And we decide it’s not when it is our ox that is being gored.

[smac97]

3 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?

Quote

But I don't weigh them differently because one is written in the book of Matthew and one was taught by Elder Oaks.

Okay.

Quote

I am personally unsure of the Lord's specific will on the matter.

Well, okay.  Elder Oaks appears to be 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  He gave his remarks 11 years ago, and they have never been withdrawn or corrected or superseded by any other apostle, or by the First Presidency, or by the Presiding High Priest.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 General 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 think the Lord gives His servants a lot of responsibility and a lot of leeway to do their best and act according to the light and knowledge that they have received.  "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things" and all that (D&C 58:26).  But whether or not members of the Church can get a divorce would seem to be a fairly important and substantial issue, and not one about which Elder Oaks would speak off-the-cuff.

Given the foregoing considerations, 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.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 14, 2018 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

The right?  Yes.

The obligation?  I'm not sure.

Referring to it as "welcoming"?  Nope.  Withdrawing fellowship is basically the antithesis of "welcoming".

Taking an extreme yet timely case, we have the right and the obligation to withdraw fellowship from abusers, some say even to make them unwelcome if they are not repentant,  and some say even if they are repentant.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It's not different.  I agree.

I'm not willing to say that whatever an apostles says (ancient or modern) is automatically equivalent to the voice of the Lord.  Too dangerous for my tastes.

And it certainly creates that wonderful back door to disagree with God's servants whenever we choose. Rock, it seems there are two ways to handle this issue - we either choose to listen when they speak with an open heart and seek the Spirit or we can reject what they say until it is pleasing to us and then accept it.  There are those that fall into the second stance in abundance. The first group is certainly much smaller. What do you think the world would choose?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think there is a way to reconcile them?

Through the Spirit.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.  Elder Oaks appears to be in full fellowship in the Church, and in his calling.  He gave his remarks 11 years ago, and they have never been withdrawn or correct 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 General 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 propouned by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, past and present.

Similar comments could be made about other church teachings at others times in the history of the restored church.  As I believe you've noted before, we live by the light we're given.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... he sustained what Moses did.

And then in Mark 10, the Lord goes on to explain his will (which differed from what Moses had instructed).

Almost. He is not explaining His only will, but a higher law. The law of Moses, a lesser law, was His will also. He was not opposing, contradicting or invalidating Moses (or the law of Moses) in this teaching.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Rock, it seems there are two ways to handle this issue - we either choose to listen when they speak with an open heart and seek the Spirit

This is the one that I choose.

I can't/won't speak to everyone else.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Almost. He is not explaining His only will, but a higher law. The law of Moses, a lesser law, was His will also. He was not opposing, contradicting or invalidating Moses (or the law of Moses) in this teaching.

I believe His will IS the higher law.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Through the Spirit.

Similar comments could be made about other church teachings at others times in the history of the restored church.  As I believe you've noted before, we live by the light we're given.

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Of course He does, mostly notably for fornication. As with Moses, for lesser offenses and unjustifiable reasons. Part of the Lord's teaching in Matthew and Mark about divorce and marriage is that the Lord will hold us accountable for our behavior while giving His servants room to administer laws that will help us repent of our accountability rather than immediately cut us off or destroy us.

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe His will IS the higher law.

His will is also in the lesser laws that He reveals along the way, lest we be destroyed or err in looking beyond the mark (including how we view and set expectations for His servants). This is His mercy and grace.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But whether or not members of the Church can get a divorce would seem to be a fairly important and substantial issue, and not one about which Elder Oaks would speak off-the-cuff.

Neither is it one that is out of line with what the Jesus said in support of what He had revealed through Moses some 1450 years earlier.

[Scott Lloyd]

Rongo posted the following on Nov. 18, 2016: 

“I hope, hope, hope that Bill Reel, John Dehlin, et. al. aren't correct and that this isn't going to be removed from the handbook in 2017. Only 1-2 years removed from this, it will look exactly like caving to social pressure and backlash. Such that it would be difficult for all but the most "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia" of people not to see it. Especially given the attention and outcry when President Nelson specifically explained it as revelation.

“Which is why I think they and their alleged sources are completely wrong. I would be stunned if this policy were undone any time remotely soon.”

Just thought I would highlight this in this “anniversary” thread by way of noting that Dehlin’s/Reel’s prediction came to nought (as many of us expected it would).

We don’t always think to revisit such things. Perhaps we should.

Are you gratified, Rongo?

 

[Rivers]

I regret that I brought up this contentious subject again. ☹️

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Rongo posted the following on Nov. 18, 2016: 

“I hope, hope, hope that Bill Reel, John Dehlin, et. al. aren't correct and that this isn't going to be removed from the handbook in 2017. Only 1-2 years removed from this, it will look exactly like caving to social pressure and backlash. Such that it would be difficult for all but the most "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia" of people not to see it. Especially given the attention and outcry when President Nelson specifically explained it as revelation.

“Which is why I think they and their alleged sources are completely wrong. I would be stunned if this policy were undone any time remotely soon.”

Just thought I would highlight this in this “anniversary” thread by way of noting that Dehlin’s/Reel’s prediction came to nought (as many of us expected it would).

We don’t always think to revisit such things. Perhaps we should.

Are you gratified, Rongo?

 

Dehlin, intentionally or not, acknowledged the third anniversary by interviewing Dusty John’s — an active member who has been attending church with his husband and sons and who is now facing excommunication because of his same sex marriage. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I regret that I brought up this contentious subject again. ☹️

I regret that this subject is contentious, but this is the world that we live in. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Dehlin, intentionally or not, acknowledged the third anniversary by interviewing Dusty John’s — an active member who has been attending church with his husband and sons and who is now facing excommunication because of his same sex marriage. 

Only now?

[Rivers]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I regret that this subject is contentious, but this is the world that we live in. 

It’s true.  People get outraged over the silliest things these days.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Rivers

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I regret that I brought up this contentious subject again. ☹️

 

Between the Church of Jesus Christ and the world, it was not the Church that changed on this matter. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Only now?

I think the couple was married earlier this year... but I can’t remember the exact date. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Rivers said:

People get outraged over silliest things these days.  

The outraged, of course, don't see themselves as silly.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Between the Church of Jesus Christ and the world, it was not the Church that changed on this matter. 

Since we are supposed to be in an ongoing restoration, an unchanging church isn’t something we want to boast about. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

 

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I regret that this subject is contentious, but this is the world that we live in. 

Between the Church of Jesus Christ and society, it was not the Church that changed in this matter. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Rivers said:

It’s true.  People get outraged over silliest things these days.  

I hope that is sarcasm.  Apostasy, marriage, baptism... these are hardly silly things.