JulieM Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 15 minutes ago, USU78 said: Wherever would you get a stupid notion like that such that you would post such a silly question? You said you had a bad feeling about this. Have you figured out why?
The Nehor Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 1 hour ago, SteveO said: Just out of curiosity, how would you reconcile such a change? I just don’t know how it would be possible...I’d probably be troubled more than anything—not because I’m insistent on gays “bearing their cross” no matter what, but more because it would be such a radical shift in theology. I get the priesthood ban, I get ordain women, I can reconcile all that. I just don’t know how one could reconcile gay marriage in the church. I do not either but if it happened somehow I would be happy. 1
The Nehor Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I just heard a statistic today that Mormon gay teens are something like 10x more likely to commit suicide than their non-Mormon gay counterparts. Sounds conclusive. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Who hasn't said that before? I can’t speak for him, but I felt the need to make it clear he has already been gone for quite a while now. 1
Tacenda Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I can’t speak for him, but I felt the need to make it clear he has already been gone for quite a while now. I think he probably needed the break, his posts were so very thorough and were made often and took a big chunk of time out of his day. Good for him!
USU78 Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 29 minutes ago, JulieM said: You said you had a bad feeling about this. Have you figured out why? Of course. The concern is the same as it has ever been, temple desecration: Radical antiMormon homosexual advocates' holy Grail. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I think he probably needed the break, his posts were so very thorough and were made often and took a big chunk of time out of his day. Good for him! Indeed. Virtual rep point to you. Edited to add: I was sorry to see him go. He was this board’s most valuable asset, imo. Edited April 5, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 3
carbon dioxide Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 1 hour ago, SteveO said: If/when the day comes that gay marriage is accepted, the brethren will have to essentially say that what once was a sin, is no longer. I guess those who are not gay can look forward to that day. Since if homosexual behavior is not a sin, then perhaps other things are not sins. There are things that I struggle with and some are sins. I would love to have my current sins not be called sins anymore. Then I don't need to struggle or try to overcome them. I can just celebrate them and worry about other things. 2
sunstoned Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 12 hours ago, alter idem said: Where was it promoted as a 'revelation'? I never heard any leader call it a 'revelation', just you. We have lots of things in the church that are policies and practices and they are often changed and modified. Nelson himself called it a revelation. 1
JulieM Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 20 minutes ago, USU78 said: Of course. The concern is the same as it has ever been, temple desecration: Radical antiMormon homosexual advocates' holy Grail. I know some very wonderful Christlike people who are gay. Do you really believe it would desecrate their loving Father’s house if they were allowed entrance to marry the person they love (if it’s a SSM)? I honestly believe He would welcome them with open arms if they were his sincere and loyal followers. I don’t know if that day will ever come, but we are closer today than we were before. 2
Rivers Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Nelson himself called it a revelation. Little "r" revelation.
JulieM Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 15 minutes ago, Rivers said: Little "r" revelation. Does that make it less inspired or less of a revelation than a revelation with a capital “R”? 1
Thinking Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 13 hours ago, Maestrophil said: I wonder if it is a d$%ned if you do d#$ned if you don't proposition. I still don't understand why the original policy was even implemented. Minors already needed the permission of the parents to get baptized. 2
rockpond Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 33 minutes ago, JulieM said: I know some very wonderful Christlike people who are gay. Do you really believe it would desecrate their loving Father’s house if they were allowed entrance to marry the person they love (if it’s a SSM)? I honestly believe He would welcome them with open arms if they were his sincere and loyal followers. I don’t know if that day will ever come, but we are closer today than we were before. Yes. So. Much. Closer. That part makes me really happy. 1
Rivers Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 10 minutes ago, JulieM said: Does that make it less inspired or less of a revelation than a revelation with a capital “R”? Not necessarily. Men and Women in all levels of the church are encouraged to seek revelation in the day to day workings of the church. I think that much of the time when an idea is brought before the Lord, the answer is, “Sure, go ahead and give it a try. See what happens.” This allows us all (GA’s included) to use our own agency and work through things without being divinely micromanaged all the time. 1
rockpond Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Rivers said: Not necessarily. Men and Women in all levels of the church are encouraged to seek revelation in the day to day workings of the church. I think that much of the time when an idea is brought before the Lord, the answer is, “Sure, go ahead and give it a try. See what happens.” This allows us all (GA’s included) to use our own agency and work through things without being divinely micromanaged all the time. We aren’t talking about how many sealing rooms should be designed into the 175th temple. We’re talking about the teaching that God’s Will was to deny blessings and baptism to children because of who their parents were. And that God looked upon the marriage of two gay people as an act of apostasy. This isn’t some run of the mill day-to-day working of the church. This was the first claimed revelation regarding how God’s will for his gay children in this dispensation. And this policy caused a lot of pain and anguish among good people. Edited April 5, 2019 by rockpond 2
JulieM Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: We aren’t talking about how many sealing rooms should be designed into the 175th temple. We’re talking about the teaching that God’s Will was to deny blessings and baptism to children because of who their parents were. And that God looked upon the marriage of two gay people as an act of apostasy. This isn’t some run of the mill day-to-day working of the church. This was the first claimed revelation regarding how God’s will for his gay children in this dispensation. And this policy caused a lot of pain and anguish among good people. So true. And now members are trying to downplay it as if it was just a revelation (with a little “r”) and not that big of a deal? How are members supposed to know the difference when it’s coming from an Apostle or Prophet? 1
Wade Englund Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 56 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Nelson himself called it a revelation. For those who may struggle with revealed policies being changed within 3 years, it may be comforting to recall that early into Christ's 3-year mission, he ordained the twelve and commissioned them to not go unto the Gentiles, but only go to the house of Israel (Mt. 10:5-6). About 3 years later, Peter had the vision that opened the door to the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles. (Acts 10) Thanks, -Wade Englund- 4
JulieM Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Rivers said: Not necessarily. Men and Women in all levels of the church are encouraged to seek revelation in the day to day workings of the church. I think that much of the time when an idea is brought before the Lord, the answer is, “Sure, go ahead and give it a try. See what happens.” This allows us all (GA’s included) to use our own agency and work through things without being divinely micromanaged all the time. Seriously? Let’s hear what Russell M. Nelson stated about receiving this revelation: “Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. . . . Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process.” Does that sound like a revelation with a small “r”? Edited April 5, 2019 by JulieM 1
rockpond Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, JulieM said: So true. And now members are trying to downplay it as if it was just a revelation (with a little “r”) and not that big of a deal? How are members supposed to know the difference when it’s coming from an Apostle or Prophet? In January of 2016 I was told that this policy was the revealed will of God to our Prophet. Now I’m being told that it was probably God just saying: “try it and see what happens”. 2
rockpond Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Wade Englund said: For those who may struggle with revealed policies being changed within 3 years, it may be comforting to recall that early into Christ's 3-year mission, he ordained the twelve and commissioned them to not go unto the Gentiles, but only go to the house of Israel (Mt. 10:5-6). About 3 years later, Peter had the vision that opened the door to the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles. (Acts 10) Thanks, -Wade Englund- 12 apostles and an entire planet to teach. Seems like an issue of limited resources so He sent them to the House of Israel first. Or maybe they misunderstood the message and Peter’s vision cleared it up. So... in 2015 were we just too tight on resources to be able to allow gay married couples and their children full fellowship in the church? 1
Tacenda Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Indeed. Virtual rep point to you. Edited to add: I was sorry to see him go. He was this board’s most valuable asset, imo. Thanks Scott!
Rivers Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 6 minutes ago, JulieM said: Seriously? Let’s hear what Russell M. Nelson stated about receiving this revelation: “Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. . . . Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process.” Does that sound like a revelation with a small “r”? Yes.
Popular Post california boy Posted April 5, 2019 Popular Post Posted April 5, 2019 8 hours ago, mnn727 said: "They" did not make that claim - then Elder Nelson is the only one who said that during a BYU address. President Monson didn't claim it, the FP didn't claim that, the Qof12 did not claim that. As Scott Lloyd often would say when people questioned the claims of revelation on this policy, "are you calling President Nelson a liar when he declared the policy to be a revelation?" 6
Recommended Posts