Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With this level of indifference to false doctrine, how do you justify the belief that there was an apostasy to begin with? Shouldn’t you be Catholic?

Yes, come be Catholic! (you, too Seeking)

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, come be Catholic! (you, too Seeking)

I attend mass every Christmas.  It's a family tradition. 

[CV75]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

That is actually the same conclusion I came to.  Why rely on men who claim to be apostles and prophets when is all they are doing is relying on their own prejudices to tell us what to do and not claiming any kind of revelation.   Far better to strengthen your own relationship with God and rely on that relationship to guide you.  In the end Christ will fix any errors either make.

So I am not allowed to be a member or do temple work while I have my partner.  He is much more important to my life then the personal opinion based on their prejudices or being a member of the Church 

I would disagree that “all” the prophets and apostles are doing is [so forth and so on], so I don’t see how our conclusions are the same. The divine work they perform is to offer the world a covenant relationship with God by virtue of the priesthood keys He gave them to exercise. Not everyone believes in such a restoration. You say you don’t need that, your partner is much more important to you, and God will fix your errors anyway. Our conclusions are very different!

They also have the administrative keys to direct the operations of kingdom of God on earth. God isn’t going to fire them for implementing a disagreeable policy. There is much more fallibility in the exercise of these keys than in those that require the Holy Spirit of Promise to ratify for continuation in all eternity. Policies aren't for that, and the ratifiable covenants are far more important. A lot of people do not make that distinction and throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Not everyone believes in such a restoration. You say you don’t need that, your partner is much more important to you, and God will fix your errors anyway. Our conclusions are very different!

Since you seem to have God all figured out and know how God will judge me, I would seriously love to know how God will judge me for choosing to live a life of joy and happiness with a partner I love and trust way more than Church leaders

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Since you seem to have God all figured out and know how God will judge me, I would seriously love to know how God will judge me for choosing to live a life of joy and happiness with a partner I love and trust way more than Church leaders

[ZealouslyStriving]

Nathan to David: "Yeah, go ahead and build a temple."

Yahweh to Nathan: " Nah, bruh."

Nathan to David: " Well, ya see what happened was..."

[MrShorty]

On 5/17/2024 at 11:44 AM, CV75 said:

I find the overall attitude that Jesus Christ will settle all our affairs (just as He did the apostasy) very helpful and productive in our moving forward from any sense of offense and injury.

I'm strongly inclined to agree that relying on Christ to redeem our mistakes is essential. Perhaps it shows my progressive bias, but, if at the end of the day in all of our uncertainty I am going to end up relying on Christ to redeem the effects of my mistakes in belief and action, then I think I would prefer to err on the side of accepting and celebrating and including friends and neighbors of other races as equals. If, I'm going to need to rely on Christ to redeem my mistakes, I would rather err on the side of embracing a friend's gender transitions or their committed same sex romantic relationships. This is where I keep coming back to my thread about how the church is often conservative to a fault. It seems like, in its uncertainty, the church would rather err on the side of tradition rather than consider the possibility that those traditions are in error.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Since you seem to have God all figured out and know how God will judge me, I would seriously love to know how God will judge me for choosing to live a life of joy and happiness with a partner I love and trust way more than Church leaders

I did not intend to leave the false impression that I know how God will judge you. The topic of discussion is certainly not about judging you, at least from my perspective. Such are the limitations of a message board, I suppose.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Since you seem to have God all figured out and know how God will judge me, I would seriously love to know how God will judge me for choosing to live a life of joy and happiness with a partner I love and trust way more than Church leaders

I agree and would like to have someone point out a revelation that came about without serious outside financial or social pressure.  Major principles like polygamy and priesthood restrictions were scrapped because of political and public pressure.  I would like to see for once the leaders come down on the right side of history rather than following, kicking and screaming 30 years behind (cue up LDBTQ and women equality).

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

agree and would like to have someone point out a revelation that came about without serious outside financial or social pressure. 

Do you mean besides the early revelations that laid the foundation, like the WoW and the First Vision, other visions of God or are you including those as well?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'm strongly inclined to agree that relying on Christ to redeem our mistakes is essential. Perhaps it shows my progressive bias, but, if at the end of the day in all of our uncertainty I am going to end up relying on Christ to redeem the effects of my mistakes in belief and action, then I think I would prefer to err on the side of accepting and celebrating and including friends and neighbors of other races as equals. If, I'm going to need to rely on Christ to redeem my mistakes, I would rather err on the side of embracing a friend's gender transitions or their committed same sex romantic relationships. This is where I keep coming back to my thread about how the church is often conservative to a fault. It seems like, in its uncertainty, the church would rather err on the side of tradition rather than consider the possibility that those traditions are in error.

I think during the ban, Church members had the opportunity to celebrate and include friends of other races as equals, but they did not have the keys to change policy. We can always live according to the dictates of our conscience under any circumstance. And this is where some Church members might have gone, and still go, sideways: they conflated cultivating more liberal boundaries for human friendship during times of social segregation with directing the priesthood keys, and further conflated the keys that were restored in the Kirtland Temple with the administrative keys restored earlier to direct (make ecclesiastical policy for) the kingdom on earth. Then they started acting badly based on that misunderstanding.

The priesthood keys that were restored prior to the Kirtland Temple vision (e.g., baptism, other Aaronic Priesthood keys, the gift of the Holy Ghost, certain spiritual gifts such as translation and revelation -- in concert with or without the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood, etc.) offer the saints the discernment to know the difference and where to prioritize their expenditure of spiritual energy. They can knock themselves out any way they want, but I'm a proponent for growing in charitable characteristics toward all the children of God before growing in asserting my sense of justice by criticizing past/present administrative policy that I might not fully embrace. Which is less judgy?  

ETA: I personally know Black members who joined during the ban, and they knew on some level that the ban was not the end-all and things would be well if they rightly covenanted with God. When I say "rightly" I mean of a sincere heart and under proper authority.

Edited May 18 by CV75

[ZealouslyStriving]

I'm wondering what the critics here thinks of the many, who in spite of the Priesthood prohibition, joined the Church and actively, faithfully, and joyfully participated for their entire lives.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I agree and would like to have someone point out a revelation that came about without serious outside financial or social pressure.  Major principles like polygamy and priesthood restrictions were scrapped because of political and public pressure.  I would like to see for once the leaders come down on the right side of history rather than following, kicking and screaming 30 years behind (cue up LDBTQ and women equality).

The same principles apply. Posted 36 minutes ago 

Is the "right side of history" ultimately in fulfillment of revelation (like the restoration of the keys in Kirtland Temple) or in setting of policy (which falls under the purview of the administrative keys restored long before that)?

[sunstoned]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you mean besides the early revelations that laid the foundation, like the WoW and the First Vision, other visions of God or are you including those as well?

Anything. And I am trying to be respectful here.  Foundational revelations, such as the Book of Abraham translation, which has been debunked as the papyrus is a common second-century book of the dead scroll.  The Joseph Smith "inspired translation" is nothing but a plagiarized version of the popular Adam Clark bible commentary (discovered by BYU faculty). The massive issues with the BoM, which are well known, including the Deutero Isaiah problems and overt racism (black skin).  The historical fact that JS took women who were teenagers to wife behind Emma's back. Not to mention wives of other men.  

I was a stalwart and committed member.  I served an honorable mission. I was totally committed, tracking and working 70 hours a week.  I am a temple-endowed member, who married a woman I converted in the temple.  I am a past member of the EQ presidency and a Bishoprick member.  When honesty issues with the church became apparent (because of the internet), I doubled down. I went the the FARMS and FAIR conferences and re-read Nibely.  I spent countess hours praying and fasting, but the truth cuts its own path, and strained, twisted apologetics aside, it became clear to me that I belonged to an organization that went to great lengths to hide and obfuscate information.   I finally cut my losses.  In 2015 when the church came out with its policy of exclusion, which directly went against what Jesus taught about children, I officially resigned.

Forgive me for this rant. I know this is much more than anyone wants to hear.  If the church works for some folks, then I support this. It didn't work for me. Truth and evidence can be a real **** sometimes.

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

In 2015 when the church came out with its policy of exclusion, which directly went against what Jesus taught about children, I officially resigned

A policy which lasted all of what 3-4 years?

 

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Nathan to David: "Yeah, go ahead and build a temple."

Yahweh to Nathan: " Nah, bruh."

Nathan to David: " Well, ya see what happened was..."

It happens.

[Calm]

On 5/18/2024 at 2:12 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

A policy which lasted all of what 3-4 years?

For many (I was not one of them since I already had a paradigm that allowed for mistakes, even big ones) that made it worse in contributing to doubts because it was treated as revelation and not just a policy that was based on reason (such as ‘let’s treat same sex marriage similar to plural marriage’…both being defined as apostasy, both children of parents participating in such not being allowed to be baptized until adults and therefore able to be independent where the Church would not be creating unbearable hardship for a minor by allowing potential conflict/emotional pain in the home by the child essentially calling the parents’ marriage immoral by being baptized…or at least that interpretation could become part of the conversations between parent and child or even just in the child’s own mind, etc).  And it was a revelation that was quickly reversed without an explanation of why there would be such a revelation. 

Edited May 23 by Calm

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

A policy which lasted all of what 3-4 years?

 

It happens.

Did Nathan claim a revelation for the first instance where he said it was okay?

Brighan Young did something similar, though I can’t remember for what. In the morning of a conference he preached and instructed and in the afternoon he came back and said ‘in the morning that was Brigham, this time it’s the Lord’. 

But both were presented as revelation, iirc. 

***I am not saying this is what happened, just thinking of ways those two actions could have occurred within the traditional view of revelation without shaking that particular foundation.

Edited May 18 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did Nathan claim a revelation for the first instance where he said it was okay?

CFR where the Church claimed the initial policy change was revelation.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

CFR where the Church claimed the initial policy change was revelation.

My memory may be wrong in this, but I thought an apostle had referred to the policy as a revelation.  Will need to look for it later. 

However, the first published comments on it pointed to compassion as the reason, so I may be wrong (I thought this was well done myself and if it has been issued when the handbook change was made and not later the same week, it might have significantly softened the uproar from the confusion over implementation).

Here was the public explanation given:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

Edited May 18 by Calm

[Calm]

The reversal was stated to be a result of “continuing revelation”.  That could be inferred to mean the policy was part of the continuing revelation, but certainly does not require the policy to be revelation, only the change. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

Added:  after reading the press release, I would upgrade the “inferred” to “implied”.  I need to read the actual talks to see if it goes so far as to “state”, but need to do other things for now. 

Edited May 18 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

During the general conference leadership session, President Nelson told the leaders that they have been “eye-witnesses to revelations from the Lord as He guides the affairs of His Church.” During the past year the Lord has blessed senior Church leaders with “revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge … that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal” (Doctrine and Covenants 42:61), he said.

The Lord has led by revelation through prophets from the time of Adam and Eve to the present day, said President Eyring of continuing revelation. “One reason is that we need the Lord’s direction to meet the changing circumstances, and He has guided changes in practice and policy through the history of the Church.”

In recent months and years, for example, the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have changed the way Latter-day Saints worship on Sunday, the organization of priesthood quorums, the way members minister to one another, and regulations regarding missionary service. Members have also been asked to embrace “home-centered, Church-supported” gospel instruction and to use the proper and full name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Some changes to policy inspired by revelation are only for a short time. For example, in April 1982, Church leaders announced the length of missionsfor young men would be 18 months. The First Presidency announced in a November 1984 letter that young men would again serve two years.

This suggests both the policy and its reversal are revelation.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

Is this sufficient or do you need more?

Edited May 18 by Calm

[Calm]

I haven’t eaten breakfast yet…aagh!

Trib (which isn’t always accurate, so I should check the talk first, but memory says in this case it is):

Quote

After all, it was Nelson — then the church’s senior apostle — who declared in January 2016 that the now-abandoned policy came as a revelation from God to his immediate predecessor, church President Thomas S. Monson, who died in January 2018.

In explaining the unexpected turnaround, Nelson said in a news release that the Lord leads the church “revelation upon revelation.”

Nelson’s second counselor, Henry B. Eyring, also emphasized the Latter-day Saint belief in “continuing revelation.”

“We need the Lord’s direction to meet changing circumstances,” Eyring said in the release, “and he has guided changes in practice and policy throughout the history of the church.”

The First Presidency said the policy changes come “after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord on these matters.”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/04/04/lds-church-dumps-its/

Edited May 18 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

This suggests both the policy and its reversal are revelation.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

Is this sufficient or do you need more?

Possibly, but I think the initial change was really like a Nathan-David situation. It was good intentioned- not having children enter into a covenant that is not going to be reinforced at home- but as the Spirit spoke to them and illuminated scripture (as with temple witnesses), they realized that the policy need to be changed- as the parents, not the Church, are responsible for seeing that their children are raised in the "fear and admonition of the Lord", and if they present their children for baptism affirming that the ae willing to educate their children in the Restored Gospel, failure to do that falls on their own heads and the "garments" of the Church are clean.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I haven’t eaten breakfast yet…aagh!

Nor shall you- anything you eat from this point forward is not breakfast.

😜

[Calm]

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2016/1/10/23213758/president-russell-m-nelson-becoming-true-millennials/

 

Quote

Sharing personal experiences he has had working with the First Presidency while serving in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, President Nelson spoke of the process they — the 15 men sustained as prophets, seers and revelators — go through when discussing issues in the Church.

“The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively,” he said. “And then, we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.”

This “prophetic process” — which also includes fasting, prayer, studying, pondering, counseling with each other as they wrestle with the issue — was followed in 2012 with the change in age for missionary service, as well as the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries, President Nelson said.

“Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter,” he said. “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. And so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.”

Pretty clear on stating the original policy declaring same sex marriage apostasy and the rest was revelation.