Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change

[SouthernMo]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am CV75 and can speak for President Woodruff by sharing my understanding of his words and what he meant without any appeal to authority but the actual record.

A perspective and an analogy can both be incorrect. You need to come up with an analogy that accurately portrays the properties of President Woodruff’s statement and meaning that I provided. Otherwise you are creating a straw man or a false analogy.

Why would you need examples of a prophet’s leadership or revelatory fallacy when the point is, whatever he does, the Lord would remove him once he leads the Church astray in the manner described in President Woodruff’s statement. I’ve seen plenty of disabled prophets fade into the background during their waning years, but they did not lead the Church astray, unless you want to believe that every time a prophet dies, it is because he has led the Church astray. That is not very solid ground.

RE: your option 1, Why would a prophet admit his mistakes, which aren’t important enough to lead the Church astray, and why is "refusal" the only stance you say he takes with regards to that? Why would he admit leading the Church astray for that matter, which is important but for which we have the Lord and due process to remove him? Equating mistakes with leading astray is not very solid ground, either, and as with prophets dying because they led the Church astray, results from black-and-white thinking and where external authority (or the fear of it, which is only the other side of the coin) is the only thing that carries any weight for what one thinks. Your options 2 and 3 even more extreme. A fourth and more balanced option is what I’ve been describing.

Maybe we can try to agree on what “astray” means?  While I know you believe it to be impossible, what would be an example of a prophet leading the members astray?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

So in this case the "other means" were simply to NOT have the policy.  We needed two revelations to accomplish that?

Yes, and why not? God has done it that way before, as explained.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

In the examples you give, a purpose was served by the directive, etc.  I don't see the purpose in this... at least not one that made it worth all the negative results.  

The examples were of changing policies (with attendant revelation), and it is a given that policies serve a purpose. So if you don't see a worthwhile purpose, at least you can see there was a purpose.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well in this case, the prophet did exactly that.  He led people astray from the oracles and from their duty.  Those who knew it wasn't the will of God and/or wasn't in line with the gospel of Jesus Christ left.  Others were excommunicated.  Some were not permitted to be baptized.

If that isn't being led astray, I don't know what is.

This does not address the point I was making, and there is a difference between leading people astray (as President Woodruff described it) and people going astray as a result of their disagreements with leadership. I also see a disconnect between their doing the right thing, as you seemingly support, and their going astray.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

And now, after a little over three years the policy is removed for the same reasons it was implemented.  (ETA:  Technically it hasn't been removed yet... it is still in the online version of the handbook as of Monday.)

Yes, policies change and get revoked and replaced; they are supposed to. We are at a stage three years later where apostasy (as the term is used in the Handbook disciplinary purposes) is now apostasy in the classical sense (as child baptism is apostasy). I think that is a good thing, as that ssm is disciplined as a serious transgression on the basis of the definitions of marriage and cohabitation, and as that the parent-child-Church relationship continues to align with scripture, and as that the former policy was for its time. It’s all good!

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

You can do whatever you like.  If you don't want to respond to me - don't.

Yes, I can and have, and you responded accordingly; thank you!

[Calm]

We have seen times where significant percentages of the membership have separated themselves in one way or another in the early modern Church because in part they saw leadership as wrong.  I believe there were some practices with polygyny that were wrongly implemented myself (multiplying of wives, for example, which means for me likely more than four based on scriptural tradition).  But Brigham lived a long life, so if I believe the Church was still seen as the one true and living, etc, than it follows that kind of astray is not what was talked about.

My opinion is the Church astray means when it as a whole moves into apostasy and therefore would lose God's authority to perform his ordinances as he has commanded us to do.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

My opinion is the Church astray means when it as a whole moves into apostasy and therefore would lose God's authority to perform his ordinances as he has commanded us to do.

This is how I view it as well.  

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Maybe we can try to agree on what “astray” means?  While I know you believe it to be impossible, what would be an example of a prophet leading the members astray?

Calm already said it but in my mind leading the church astray means to lead it into apostasy.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Maybe we can try to agree on what “astray” means?  While I know you believe it to be impossible, what would be an example of a prophet leading the members astray?

As I explained, according to President Woodruff's statement, his description and meaning of leading astray was to instruct, beguile or entice and the saints to reject the oracles (meaning the revelations and the prophets, and for example by withholding their sustaining votes for either), and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants." It is about the attempt to lead the saints or the Church astray. An example would be that President Woodruff withhold the revelation from the members after being commanded to share it, withhold any instruction to encouragement to abide by it, or lie about it, etc., any form of blasphemy and using the Lord's name in vain. All the things some accuse Joseph Smith of doing attendant to his fall from grace LOL, where speculation is leveraged into fact.

And I never said it was impossible, just that the Lord has at least two ways of dealing with it: removal of the prophet by His own direct intervention or through disciplinary process. In either case, it would be necessary for the body of saints to be set or kept on track.

Posted 10 hours ago (edited)

 

[SouthernMo]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

My opinion is the Church astray means when it as a whole moves into apostasy and therefore would lose God's authority to perform his ordinances as he has commanded us to do.

Good thought. But, what would one specifically see in the church today to indicate that “apostasy” has happened?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I happen to agree with what you are saying here.  The message is clear, receive knowledge from God yourselves and don't look to the prophet who is leading the church.  

The odd thing is that those who rejected the Oct 2015 policy and some chose to leave over this issue are actually more in touch with God and His will than those who took up the standard to defend the policy as if it was a revelation from God.  It turns out some of the most stalwart members of the church are actually not all that in tune with God.  It was more important to them to defend the claims of President Nelson than to find out if what he claimed came from God was actually true.

 

So now YOU are the only one who knows God s correct and true will?

And no, we must listen to the prophet but always confirm it for ourselves.

 

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

An example would be that President Woodruff withhold the revelation from the members after being commanded to share it, withhold any instruction to encouragement to abide by it, or lie about it, etc., any form of blasphemy and using the Lord's name in vain. All the things some accuse Joseph Smith of doing attendant to his fall from grace LOL, where speculation is leveraged into fact.

You indicate here that if you caught a prophet lying about revelation he received, you would accept that as a sign that he has led the church astray and into apostasy?  Am I understanding this one example correctly?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Good thought. But, what would one specifically see in the church today to indicate that “apostasy” has happened?

Context is important and I don't see hypotheticals as that useful.  An example of why is I might say "shutting down temples" would be a sign of apostasy to me because then ordinances are not available...but I can see contexts where that might be a revelation from .God to do so...in the case of war or a country whose government is persecuting Saints and using temple attendance to target them.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And I never said it was impossible, just that the Lord has at least two ways of dealing with it: removal of the prophet by His own direct intervention or through disciplinary process. In either case, it would be necessary for the body of saints to be set or kept on track.

One of the challenges of removing a prophet through a disciplinary process is that President Woodruff provided a pretext for the prophet to prove that he is not in apostasy. If I accused President Nelson of apostasy (no matter what the specifics are), I can imagine a disciplinary process put in play to which his response would be: “I can’t be in apostasy because the lord wouldn’t allow it!”  By nature of his office - it can be argued - it is impossible for the prophet to go into apostasy because he decides what is and is not apostasy.

While certainly not a perfect comparison (and I am NOT going to engage in a political debate), some defenders of a certain US President indicate that because he leads the executive branch, the president cannot obstruct justice.

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Context is important and I don't see hypotheticals as that useful.  An example of why is I might say "shutting down temples" would be a sign of apostasy to me because then ordinances are not available...but I can see contexts where that might be a revelation from .God to do so...in the case of war or a country whose government is persecuting Saints and using temple attendance to target them.

I get what you’re saying. Hypotheticals can be helpful or harmful to a discussion.  But, I think you understand my point that “apostasy” is pretty subjective. If it happened slowly, few (if any) would notice. And I include myself in that group who would not notice.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Calm already said it but in my mind leading the church astray means to lead it into apostasy.

Isn’t excommunicating people who the Lord doesn’t want excommunicated mean that we are in apostasy?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Sure it can.  If God's Will takes into account how humans receive his Will including how that changes with choices made, revelations that give and then take or take and then give don't have to be seen as contradictory, but appropriate for the time and place even when just a short distance of time separates them...because humans' attitudes and interpretations can change overnight.

I am not saying one of these is not a mistake, I am saying I don't see it as so inherently black and white.  I have seen too often needs changing almost overnight for ndividuals, families, wards.  Why not churchwide?

I’m trying to examine the specific “revelations” at hand right now. 

Is your suggestion here that God wanted gay married couples excommunicated back in 2015 but then because of how we received His will to excommunicate them, now He doesn’t want them excommunicated?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Seriously?  Who hasn't always been saying who says it now that you are supposed to pray and get answers for yourself?

I’ve posted over many years on these boards about how I have prayed and the answer I got is that God approves of gay marriage.  In response to that I’m told that I am wrong, unfaithful, apostate, and undeserving of my temple recommend.

Why in this thread is it okay to pray about whether the prophet is right or wrong?

[Storm Rider]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’ve posted over many years on these boards about how I have prayed and the answer I got is that God approves of gay marriage.  In response to that I’m told that I am wrong, unfaithful, apostate, and undeserving of my temple recommend.

Why in this thread is it okay to pray about whether the prophet is right or wrong?

You would not be the first person led astray by the voice of a spirit in the history of the world. When we pray about something that the scriptures and the prophets clearly dictate what is true, and an individual is still desirous of another answer, I wonder what spirit is more interested in replying?  Just a thought. 

I have never received the tiniest inkling of a witness that gay marriage is condoned of God in any way or to any degree.  It conflicts so completely with God's desires for the world that it boggles my mind that it is even contemplated by those who call themselves saints. 

I was reading an article today by Anthony Esolen, who stated, 

• "Let’s reason this out. What can he mean by that little word, made? I look at a shovel. It has a long wooden handle and a pointed and scooped iron blade. It is made for digging. It is not for serving casserole or cleaning earwax. I look at a man and a woman. Unless I am a babe or a man from Mars, I know that they are made for one another. No one has a reproductive system. Everybody has half of one. Men have this half, and women have that half. No man is made for the depositing of the seed of life into a pot of hydrochloric acid or a sewer."
• "Mr. Buttigieg wants us to believe, then, that God who made Mr. Buttigieg’s body did not consult his own blueprints when he made Mr. Buttigieg’s feelings. It seems instead that Mr. Buttigieg’s body is a mere conveyance for Mr. Buttigieg’s feelings. One can imagine plenty of more convenient, more effectual, and less septic conveyances for those feelings. But I suspect that when it comes to Creation, the mayor is surer of his feelings than of his body. The body has no meaning. It might be thus or so. But feelings are another matter."

The complete article is very good and worth a read, which takes just a few minutes. He gets a little carried away in the article with feelings and used one of his examples as Senator Smoot when joining the Senate. This is a Catholic oriented publication and those that read it should understand that from the beginning. Thresh it for the truth that is there and ignore the chaff. 

No, this entire question, in my humble opinion, is the word of Satan. For those who base their beliefs and understanding firmly in scripture and tradition, it makes reason stare that anyone contemplates such a position. However, those who do, in my opinion, are not doing so by consciously choosing evil. To the contrary, I find them wanting to be tolerant, wanting to be loving, and desperately wanting to demonstrate love to their beloved children, friends, and loved ones. The problem is the confusion of how do I love another that chooses sin? 

I don't think God is confused by this issue because it is the same position for each and every one of his children. Come, follow me. 

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I get what you’re saying. Hypotheticals can be helpful or harmful to a discussion.  But, I think you understand my point that “apostasy” is pretty subjective. If it happened slowly, few (if any) would notice. And I include myself in that group who would not notice.

Yes, I agree it could happen and not enough of those in the right place to do something notice. 

It is why it all boils down to getting one’s own witness. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’ve posted over many years on these boards about how I have prayed and the answer I got is that God approves of gay marriage.  In response to that I’m told that I am wrong, unfaithful, apostate, and undeserving of my temple recommend.

Why in this thread is it okay to pray about whether the prophet is right or wrong?

Has anyone said you were wrong to pray or just that they didn’t trust your answer?

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Isn’t excommunicating people who the Lord doesn’t want excommunicated mean that we are in apostasy?

No, that can be corrected within the Church.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m trying to examine the specific “revelations” at hand right now. 

Is your suggestion here that God wanted gay married couples excommunicated back in 2015 but then because of how we received His will to excommunicate them, now He doesn’t want them excommunicated?

I believe either works for him in all probability, since gay married couples are still in violation of the law of Chastity and will likely be excommunicated if they make it about opposition to the Gospel or wish to come into full fellowship where it will be part of the repentance process.

But I haven't received any witness about it, so I based this on reasoning.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

have never received the tiniest inkling of a witness that gay marriage is condoned of God in any way or to any degree.  It conflicts so completely with God's desires for the world that it boggles my mind that it is even contemplated by those who call themselves saints. 

Did you ask being open to receiving a yes?

[flameburns623]

If "God revealed both policies" to Church leadership, (I personally think California Boy is apt in drawing parallels to the decision to produce New Coke), it is conceivable that God had specific purposes to accomplish.  

The 2015 decision put the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the camp of those who will resist any attempt to redefine marriage,  perhaps in view of the perception that the Church might soften its values on homosexuality. 

The policy essentially began a winnowing process,  encouraging those who might be less valient in the principles of the Gospel. It could have been intended to help the Church establish a line of demarcation from those faith groups which are makung adjustments and accommodations to contemporary culture. 

The 2019 reversion of policy could serve the Divine purpose of minimizing temporal hurt and confusion which might prove an obstacle.  After all,  homosexuality remains a serious transgression in the LDS Church. It is still subject to disciplinary action.

God could conceivably have intended to say,  "Okay: now that a point has been made, let's not overdo things in another direction". 

I underscore that my personal opinion about this matter, (as with the current policy of suppressing use of the appellation "Mormon" to describe members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), is that both are purely human, administrative,  and strategic calculations.

The 2015 policy was in my judgement an outright error,  reversed in 2019.

The jury is out IMHO regarding the use of the nickname "Mormon.

 

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

If "God revealed both policies" to Church leadership, (I personally think California Boy is apt in drawing parallels to the decision to produce New Coke), it is conceivable that God had specific purposes to accomplish.  

The 2015 decision put the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the camp of those who will resist any attempt to redefine marriage,  perhaps in view of the perception that the Church might soften its values on homosexuality. 

The policy essentially began a winnowing process,  encouraging those who might be less valient in the principles of the Gospel. It could have been intended to help the Church establish a line of demarcation from those faith groups which are makung adjustments and accommodations to contemporary culture. 

The 2019 reversion of policy could serve the Divine purpose of minimizing temporal hurt and confusion which might prove an obstacle.  After all,  homosexuality remains a serious transgression in the LDS Church. It is still subject to disciplinary action.

God could conceivably have intended to say,  "Okay: now that a point has been made, let's not overdo things in another direction". 

I underscore that my personal opinion about this matter, (as with the current policy of suppressing use of the appellation "Mormon" to describe members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), is that both are purely human, administrative,  and strategic calculations.

The 2015 policy was in my judgement an outright error,  reversed in 2019.

The jury is out IMHO regarding the use of the nickname "Mormon.

 

How can any of this even be argued about further, since Pres. Monson was not in any shape to receive a revelation in the first place and not all 12 were even aware of it. President Nelson didn't speak truthfully according to RadioFreeMormon that received information from Greg Prince.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Has anyone said you were wrong to pray or just that they didn’t trust your answer?

The responses varied... I listed the most common ones in the post you quotes. 

I’ve not asked anyone to trust my answer for themselves. 

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, that can be corrected within the Church.

By that standard, everything can be corrected so we’ll never be in apostasy making Woodruff’s declaration meaningless.