Jake Starkey Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 44 minutes ago, CV75 said: As I said, I see promptings of the Spirit as a different process that needn't involve prayer, and it is the prayer processis what I am focusing on. I didn't post a claim that the Spirit prompted me on the policy. My questions concern teh process and role of prayer in the actual statements others posted. That is all I am interested in discussing, so feel free to ask questions concerning actual statements I posted. Then go to, if you continue to try to digress instead of answer the questions asked of you by the alphas.
Calm Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 Quote asked of you by the alphas The alphas being who? What are alphas? And why are the ones you named alphas and not others? 1
Jake Starkey Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 1- "confusion" come about when 'little ones' are blocked through no transgression of their own from baptism, confirmation, and progression on the gospel path with their peers. 2- if the guardians are willing to accept baptism for their children, then the 'disposition' is done 3- willingness of the child to join the LDS Church and permission from the parents disposes any 'areas for potential conflicts' 4- a child's willingness to be baptized and permission by the parent disposes of any worry about the Proclamation on the Family 5- to think that any perceptions as to 'lifestyle choices' by the parents are somehow confused reveals only the confusion of the LDS authorities As one TBM mid-ranking church authority on Temple Square said five years that the Proclamation was the most prominent PR blunder by LDS authorities in probably a hundred years
Jake Starkey Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Calm said: The alphas being who? What are alphas? And why are the ones you named alphas and not others? Ponder what an 'alpha' should and would be in your heart on this matter, Calm. To me, at the very least, an 'alpha' protects 'the least of these,' the children from harm by any leaders of any institution.
Maestrophil Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: As one TBM mid-ranking church authority on Temple Square said five years that the Proclamation was the most prominent PR blunder by LDS authorities in probably a hundred years There you have it - one believing mid-level leader said it - the thinking is done. 🙂 3
california boy Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 3 hours ago, CV75 said: So you are saying the Spirit can roar without anyone having to pray about the policy. That certainly simplifies things! I suppose others heard a still, small voice. And yes, bias plays a big role bias (and I’m not saying that bias is inherently a bad thing, but necessary for developing a stance upon which to pray upon a subject). Actually, I never said anything about lack of praying to receive an answer. And yes, the Spirit can provide a quite forceful. answer at times. I guess you could call it bias when people react strongly against prohibiting minor children from coming to Christ and desiring baptism. Others would call it a testimony of what Christ taught about children. 3 hours ago, CV75 said: But many say that they received answers to prayer after studying and pondering the policy, and this is what interests me in light of Church teachings on seeking the truth of a matter specifically through prayer. I am not asking anyone to defend their conclusions, just describe their approach when it involved prayer and a resulting testimony. I’d be happy to address your questions, even though I never made such statements. I see promptings of the Spirit as a different process that needn't involve prayer, which is what I am focusing on, at least for now.
california boy Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, longview said: Not answering for CV75 but I believe it is eminently reasonable for the leadership to try to: 1- minimize confusion for the little ones; 2- carefully consider the dispositions of the "guardians"; 3- identify areas for potential conflicts; 4- make sure there are no misunderstandings of (or opposition to) the Proclamation on the Family; 5- clarify perceptions on "lifestyle choices" by all who are in the "family circle". Adjustments are ongoing (just as Joseph Smith had with new revelations). No one is saying that those things are not important to prayerfully consider with the person interviewing a child for baptism and their parents. Church leaders can and do all of those things without barring minor children from being baptized. 1 hour ago, longview said: Qualifications for baptism are pretty straightforward: accepting all the basic doctrines in the Gospel and accepting God's purposes. Excommunications are made with the same guidelines in mind: "separation" is needed, NOT because the excommunicant is to be shunned or punished but to "protect" the church from being associated with apostasy and to help with the repentance process. So tell me again what part that you outlined should prohibits a child to be automatically denied baptism when ALL of those requirements are meant, No matter how I have seen this policy sliced and diced, for me, it never is compatible with the gospel message I believe Christ taught. I don't think I am alone.
rockpond Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, california boy said: No matter how I have seen this policy sliced and diced, for me, it never is compatible with the gospel message I believe Christ taught. I don't think I am alone. If you were alone in how you see it, the First Presidency wouldn't be out defending and justifying the policy. If you were alone in how you see it, the First Presidency wouldn't have reversed it. 1
Jake Starkey Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 The proclamation was indeed the stupidest PR blunder in many, many decades. The 15 should be the 'alphas,' but until they assume that role, then others must and will.
rockpond Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 2 hours ago, longview said: Not answering for CV75 but I believe it is eminently reasonable for the leadership to try to: 1- minimize confusion for the little ones If we want to minimize confusion for little ones, we would need to ban them from attending our meetings, not from baptism. I haven't met a supporter of this policy who is willing to get behind that. 1
california boy Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 1 minute ago, rockpond said: If you were alone in how you see it, the First Presidency wouldn't be out defending and justifying the policy. If you were alone in how you see it, the First Presidency wouldn't have reversed it. There is really only one explanation for the policy. "All in favor of not allowing any gay families in the Church raise your hand. It is unanimous. Ok, how are we going to accomplish this? Easy, let's bar all minor children of gay parents from being baptized and label all gay couples as apostates which will trigger an automatic excommunication. And what if when the child reaches legal age? Humm. How about we make them disavow their parents marriage before we allow their baptism. All in favor? Unanimous. Done. " Very affective, right? They just forgot to see how that decision squares with the teachings of Christ. Oh well, not that important when we are dealing with "the gays".
CV75 Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: An appeal to God through prayer does not provide any more a resolution to a question than an appeal to the Bible, BoM, or any other text we might stumble upon. The issue always arises that answers coming through the channels as a result of prayer are contradictory for different people. We have to go with our individual compass, I suppose. I'm not sure that's any different than people making decisions based on gut, data, or anti-gut. I don't think we get to the bottom of a truth of a proposition by saying "well I prayed about it and I've decided". We simply leave more discussion to be had on the matter. My questions are not about settling any issue or getting to the truth, but they are specific to the actual approaches used by those who specifically appealed to prayer to support their spiritual witness that the policy was not of God. I am not discussing the pros and cons of the policy, personal feelings about it, various attitudes toward the Church and leaders, etc. When someone says they prayed about it and have a testimony, I am not going to argue over their conclusions (nobody can or should argue against someone else's testimony). But I am very interested in hearing more about their prayer process just as I shared mine concerning praying to know the truth of something.
CV75 Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, california boy said: Actually, I never said anything about lack of praying to receive an answer. And yes, the Spirit can provide a quite forceful. answer at times. I guess you could call it bias when people react strongly against prohibiting minor children from coming to Christ and desiring baptism. Others would call it a testimony of what Christ taught about children. I'm not seeing how that relates to the statements that posters received answers to prayer after studying and pondering the policy. This is what interests me in light of Church teachings on seeking the truth of a matter specifically through prayer. I am not asking anyone to defend their conclusions, just describe their approach when it involved prayer and a resulting testimony.
rockpond Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, california boy said: There is really only one explanation for the policy. "All in favor of not allowing any gay families in the Church raise your hand. It is unanimous. Ok, how are we going to accomplish this? Easy, let's bar all minor children of gay parents from being baptized and label all gay couples as apostates which will trigger an automatic excommunication. And what if when the child reaches legal age? Humm. How about we make them disavow their parents marriage before we allow their baptism. All in favor? Unanimous. Done. " Very affective, right? They just forgot to see how that decision squares with the teachings of Christ. Oh well, not that important when we are dealing with "the gays". Their hesitation in altering the original handbook language has renewed my thinking that this policy may have been driven by a fear of tort litigation. Specifically, parents or children who feel their relationship was harmed by a family member’s involvement in the church. “Consequent to the legalization of gay marriage...” President Nelson said. They published a policy in 2015 that still stands today, as it was originally published, almost four years ago.
Jake Starkey Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, rockpond said: If we want to minimize confusion for little ones, we would need to ban them from attending our meetings, not from baptism. I haven't met a supporter of this policy who is willing to get behind that. No one is his or her right mind would want to ban them from attending meetings. Edited October 1, 2019 by Jake Starkey
california boy Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 38 minutes ago, CV75 said: I'm not seeing how that relates to the statements that posters received answers to prayer after studying and pondering the policy. This is what interests me in light of Church teachings on seeking the truth of a matter specifically through prayer. I am not asking anyone to defend their conclusions, just describe their approach when it involved prayer and a resulting testimony. Wouidn't the approach be to study, ponder, and pray about the policy? That is pretty much the program in finding answers from God. Not sure what else you are looking for. Maybe recalling the words of the Savior on harming children?
rockpond Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 27 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said: No one is his or her right mind would want to ban them from attending meetings. That’s the only way I can’t think of to support the argument that we don’t want to confuse children or damage their parental relationship. This is why many refer to it as the policy of exclusion. 1
pogi Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said: The proclamation was indeed the stupidest PR blunder in many, many decades. Well, we still claim to be the one true church...I think that is an even bigger PR blunder that we continue to this day. The first vision was one of the biggest PR blunders of our church. Shouldn’t you be more concerned if it is God’s revealed word than if the public likes it or not? Unless, you think the proclamation was simply a PR stunt gone bad. Somehow, I don’t think PR was the inspiration and purpose for the proclamation. Edited October 1, 2019 by pogi 3
stemelbow Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, CV75 said: My questions are not about settling any issue or getting to the truth, but they are specific to the actual approaches used by those who specifically appealed to prayer to support their spiritual witness that the policy was not of God. I am not discussing the pros and cons of the policy, personal feelings about it, various attitudes toward the Church and leaders, etc. When someone says they prayed about it and have a testimony, I am not going to argue over their conclusions (nobody can or should argue against someone else's testimony). But I am very interested in hearing more about their prayer process just as I shared mine concerning praying to know the truth of something. Is process important?
rockpond Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Is process important? Very important... Are you a one-knee kneeler or do you kneel on both knees? Are you using thee's and thou's? Do you think the prayer in your head or speak it out loud? Full voice or whisper? Was correct grammar employed? How did you phrase the question? Did you show any bias in so doing? Did you ask if the policy was the Lord's will or did you ask for a confirmation of the handbook's continued veracity? Perhaps there was pride in your heart as you may have already believed that the policy should be reversed a full 3.5 years earlier than the prophet.
stemelbow Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 15 minutes ago, rockpond said: Very important... Are you a one-knee kneeler or do you kneel on both knees? Are you using thee's and thou's? Do you think the prayer in your head or speak it out loud? Full voice or whisper? Was correct grammar employed? How did you phrase the question? Did you show any bias in so doing? Did you ask if the policy was the Lord's will or did you ask for a confirmation of the handbook's continued veracity? Perhaps there was pride in your heart as you may have already believed that the policy should be reversed a full 3.5 years earlier than the prophet. Well I hope he's not saying that. I think without question questioning ones process would be something akin to the condemnations Jesus laid out against the Pharisees and Sadduccees in the NT. Maybe the NT is completely wrong and God is only concerned with how people ask a question. I can't put that past the church teaching such a thing--I mean their is a detailed outline of how to pray in the Church. But I'm not a fan of the thought of a god who operates that way.
CV75 Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, california boy said: Wouidn't the approach be to study, ponder, and pray about the policy? That is pretty much the program in finding answers from God. Not sure what else you are looking for. Maybe recalling the words of the Savior on harming children? Yes, those are the basics, but I'm drilling down into it, especially with regards to how one formulates the petition or proposal for confirmation in line with more detailed teachings (for example, see: Posted 6 hours ago (edited) )
CV75 Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 44 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Is process important? I think so, especially in this thread where appeals to spiritual confirmation and revelation have been made, which leaves the conclusion fairly indisputable (hence no more to discuss by way of rational justification and defense). But I'm having trouble getting those who prayed about the policy and confirmed that it was not of God to share how they formulated their petition in comparison with what i offered here: Posted 6 hours ago (edited) 1
rockpond Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 15 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well I hope he's not saying that. I think without question questioning ones process would be something akin to the condemnations Jesus laid out against the Pharisees and Sadduccees in the NT. Maybe the NT is completely wrong and God is only concerned with how people ask a question. I can't put that past the church teaching such a thing--I mean their is a detailed outline of how to pray in the Church. But I'm not a fan of the thought of a god who operates that way. As he notes above, he seems to want to know "how one formulates the petition or proposal for confirmation in line with more detailed teachings". Which to me sounds like he wants to judge if you asked in a way that is consistent with his understanding of gospel principles on the matter. 1
CV75 Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 36 minutes ago, rockpond said: Very important... Are you a one-knee kneeler or do you kneel on both knees? Are you using thee's and thou's? Do you think the prayer in your head or speak it out loud? Full voice or whisper? Was correct grammar employed? How did you phrase the question? Did you show any bias in so doing? Did you ask if the policy was the Lord's will or did you ask for a confirmation of the handbook's continued veracity? Perhaps there was pride in your heart as you may have already believed that the policy should be reversed a full 3.5 years earlier than the prophet. The boded items are more in line with the kinds of process that i am hoping to hear. Most of the rest are silly (and I think you can be funnier!). I'm a proponent and supportive of bias (I've never heard of a neutral or objective prayer), otherwise there is nothing to ask with real intent.
Recommended Posts