Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Re: the latest distraction about a hypothetical LGBTQ+ First Presidency member. I don't know if it has ever happened. If I try to guestimate the probability (probability theories were always my weakest), If I did the math right:

1. Assume: 5% probability that the pool from which the First Presidency is drawn is LGBTQ+ -> 92% probability that at least one member of the First Presidency has been LGBTQ+
2. Assume: 1% probability that the pool from which the First Presidency is drawn is LGBTQ+ -> 40% probability that at least one member of the First Presidency has been LGBTQ+

So, it seems to me that, assuming random chance, there is a reasonable possibility that at least one member of the First Presidency has been LGBTQ+, but I don't think that makes any difference (except as an interesting but meaningless discussion tangent). If such a hypothetical situation has occurred and prayers have been offered and revelation received, no one has dared publish those experiences. I find myself unwilling to be held accountable for believing in hypothetical unpublished revelations. It's hard enough, sometimes, to accept the published revelations (like when Samuel claims that God told him to tell Saul to slaughter his neighbors or when Moses claims that God told him to codify slavery in the law or when Brigham Young claims that God told him to segregate temple and priesthood rites along racial lines. I have trouble seeing any value in trying to understand the significance of unpublished revelatory experiences.

I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand it all then. The description you linked to felt just as opaque to me as many others. When I go through the scriptures, I see a few things:

1. Our own stubbornness gets in the way (often called "The Samuel Principle").
2. Sometimes God is characterized as waiting anxiously to grant us revelation (see James 1:5) and other times He is withholding revelation until we really work for it (see Enos. I also note that Scott Woodward quoted something from Pres. Kimball about God holding back revelation until we are standing on our tiptoes trying to get it).
3. Sometimes God's revelations contradict other revelations (see Abraham and Isaac and Nephi and Laban).
4. Sometimes scripture suggests that God gives unusual revelations as pass/fail tests (see the account of the two prophets in 1 Kings 13, paying special attention to the JST about whether the one prophet was lying about receiving revelation).
5. As already noted (slavery genocide), there just seem to be places where scripture claims revelation for something that I don't believe could come from God.

Maybe I am missing the clear and unambiguous descriptions of our model of prophets and scripture and revelation. If so, I would be interested in reading and studying the clear and unambiguous stuff that resolves all of the contradictions and nuances and proves the contraries and so on.

This is not a tangent when our model of Church revelation is the applied keys among the quorum of three presidents. This is clear and unambiguous to me. Confidence in the source is another matter, and by extension faith in what is published and the quorum that oversees the publishing. For some reason the personal makeup of the quorum as more humanly relatable doesn’t inspire confidence for some, or is irrelevant to others. But there is no lack of published material on OP-related doctrine, covenants, policy, etc. shared on MDDB for years.

This model operates in an environment where these servants are fallible; God’s ways are not always our ways; some of the canon is fallible, uninspired, mistranslated, corrupted, etc.; the fallible saints have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to navigate contradictions, nuances and contraries or to otherwise move forward in faith when they cannot.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

You were talking historically speaking, not recent years.  I would not be the least surprised one way or the other if the current First Presidency and the previous one have prayed about it for the Church.  But same sex sealings weren’t even on the radar of the vast majority of members until same sex marriage became legal because marriage or intent to be married legally has been generally required to be sealed even by proxy, so why would less recent First Presidencies have thought to consider it?

Combining all the posts, I am speaking all along the way. The sudden awareness of the vast majority of modern members has little to do with the experience of members earlier in history, but has to do with advances in communication technology and media use to disseminate feelings, opinions, expectations, etc. more broadly and loudly. The accessibility makes it easier for more people to compete for a voice and feel more comfortable doing so.

I'm suggesting that less recent First Presidencies had members of their quorum with personal experience in this area, and in their ministry, considered the ramifications for Church revelation on doctrine, covenants, policy, etc.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I’m pretty sure there was at least one gay prophet seer and revelator. His calling was heredity though and he was disposed of quietly. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding_Smith_(patriarch)

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The sudden awareness of the vast majority of modern members has little to do with the experience of members earlier in history, but has to do with advances in communication technology and media use to disseminate feelings, opinions, expectations, etc. more broadly and loudly.

Except communication impacts massively what is in your environment. Somethings will never occur to you if a need isn’t communicated to you. 

If possible same sex attracted members of the FP had resolved issues for themselves with the tools they had prior to becoming prophets, seers, and revelators for the Church and lived in stable marriages*** and no one communicated with them about a need to have sealings of same sex relationships because they lived in an era where those were considered deviant, unhealthy, or even criminal, why would they see a need to ask questions?

People are asking questions now because it has become a common topic as those with such attractions aren’t hiding them as much anymore, something that really didn’t get going until the late 70s among church members and even that in a very limited way (at BYU in the late 70s and early 80s, there were rumors of a gay underground and there were gay bars up in Salt Lake, AIDS had an impact on the conversation, not a very positive one in terms of seeing same sex relationships as healthy iirc; outside of BYU, I don’t remember much discussion but I was up in Canada for the 90s).

****there were quite a few marriages that were not about romance in the past.  The journals of my relatives in the 1800s were mostly about marriages suggested by others and the two accepting companionship and financial stability rather than being in love.  In  the early 1900s with more leisure time, easier transportation and communication (telephones can significantly speed up courtship over letters), one’s chances of finding someone who you were in love with was dramatically raised plus Hollywood made it expected imo.  The first romance I have record of were my paternal grandparents, my maternal grandmother claims to have had a vision directing her to marry my grandfather, as far as I can tell it was successful in the sense of both of them accomplishing their goals in life, but practical rather than romantic.  Now my parents were practically a fairy tale, love at first site relationship. They were born in 1930. 

When you are not expected to be romantically attracted to your spouse, my guess is it takes a lot of pressure off in that one doesn’t have to pretend an attraction.  That would lead to less stress in a mixed marriage. 

[smac97]

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, MrShorty said:

Exactly. As I see it, all of the questions around the priesthood and temple ban (and many other controversial topics) come down to revelation.

Cool.

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, MrShorty said:

Quote

"What is it you think the Latter-day Saints could/should have done regarding the priesthood ban while it was still in place?"

And I give the same answer once again -- they should have sought revelation.

How do you know they didn't?

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, MrShorty said:

You bring up the issue of slavery. I observe that, yes, the saints (seemingly predominantly Northerners with abolitionist leanings) in Missouri had issues with their slave-holding neighbors. I don't know if it all traces itself to Missouri, but it is interesting that this time in the South seems to have softened the church's attitudes towards slavery, to the point that Utah Territory in 1852 legalized slavery under the leadership of it's predominantly LDS legislature.

I don't see much of a connection between (A) the Saints wanting to, ideologically speaking, cozy up to their (former) tormentors in Missouri, and (B) the Church's post-Exodus treatment of slavery.  From the Church's essay:

Quote

By the time the Saints migrated to Utah, there were both free and enslaved black members of the Church. Green Flake, Hark Lay, and Oscar Crosby, members of the vanguard 1847 pioneer company, were enslaved to Latter-day Saint families at the time of their pioneer journey. In 1852, Church leaders serving in Utah’s legislature debated what to do about black slavery in Utah Territory. Brigham Young and Orson Spencer spoke in favor of legalizing and regulating slavery, allowing enslaved men and women to be brought to the territory but prohibiting the enslavement of their descendants and requiring their consent before any move. This approach would guarantee the eventual end of slavery in the territory. Apostle Orson Pratt gave an impassioned speech against any compromise with the practice of slavery: “[To] bind the African because he is different from us in color,” he said, “[is] enough to cause the angels in heaven to blush.” Young and Spencer’s position prevailed, and the legislature authorized a form of black slavery that demanded humane treatment and required access to education.

"This approach would guarantee the eventual end of slavery in the territory."

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, MrShorty said:

The issue of slavery is another issue that can be used to bring up questions about how revelation works. As Ben Spackman put it, "What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?" (https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/).

Spackman provides a fairly decent answer, or a blueprint for one, in his essay:

Quote

{W}e need to recalibrate our expectations about the nature of revelation, prophets, and scripture. For example, scripture is not an encyclopedic repository of the platonically ideal unchanging ethics and doctrines. It is, rather, a human-but-inspired record (of sorts) of God’s line-upon-line, accommodationist dealings with fallen humans.

Thoughts?

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, MrShorty said:

In many ways, this is the hardest part of understanding prophetic fallibility and scriptural errancy. As @Teancum noted in the other thread, it seems that God can when He chooses dramatically intervene to prevent prophets and apostles from straying too far from what He wants (as evidenced by the "angel with a flaming sword" in regards to polygamy).

And in other instances, He stays His hand for what seems like an unreasonably long time.

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord."  (D&C 56:4.)

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, MrShorty said:

As with the problem of evil, we really struggle to understand why God intervenes in some cases and why He doesn't in others.

It seems that, most of the time, answers to this "why" are not forthcoming.  From Pres. Oaks:

Quote

“If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,’ you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here [race and the priesthood], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. …

“… Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent” (Life’s Lessons Learned [2011], 68–69).

One of the most egregious aspects of the ban were the various efforts to attach some sort of non-revelatory explanation to it, or to its perpetuation.  Hence the odious "less valiant" claims that continue to cause injury to this day.  Part of revelation, then, is accepting the answer, including when the answer is silence from above.

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, MrShorty said:

But revelation is a key foundational principle for our faith. If we can't understand how and why God chooses to intervene and not intervene, then we risk perpetuating evils simply because we seemingly have no way of knowing when we are doing what God wants and when we are being left to our own devices.

The only person who had the ability to undo the ban was the presiding high priest.  The rest of the Latter-day Saints were not in a position to do much about it.

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, MrShorty said:

As you note at the end, this becomes important when trying to navigate "forward facing" issues like LGBT+ issues or women's issues or other difficult issues.

Well, maybe not.  I said:

Quote

I will close by observing that contemporary discussions about the priesthood ban, taking place nearly 50 years after its cessation by revelation, often arise as a preparatory argument justifying disagreeing with, or rejecting, or even working against, the Church's teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the Law of Chastity.  Generally, the reasoning goes "Hey, the Church was wrong on the priesthood ban, so it is, or could be, wrong on gay marriage and gay sexual behavior as well."  Is this where we are headed?  

As individuals, we can choose whether or not to follow the doctrines of the Church, including policies and practices and interpretations of doctrine presented to us by those who preside.  I don't think activism and other pressure tactics are the way to go.  See, e.g., Brother Corbitt's talk, How activism against the Church can blind, mislead ‘valiant’ souls, and Elder Oaks' article, Criticism.

On 6/15/2024 at 4:15 PM, MrShorty said:

IMO, Spackman has succinctly captured the problem. What is our model of prophets, scripture, and revelation? As I continue to study and discuss these issues, I don't think we really understand our model of revelation. We are looking through a glass darkly, seemingly unaware of our inability to discern eternal truth, then stumbling along.

What if "our inability" is borne of the Lord's calculated silence?  What if revelation is sought, but a preferred answer/explanation is not provided?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

How do you know they didn't?

I only know that they didn't appear to receive any revelation on the topic. If they did seek revelation, and God chose not to grant them, revelation, then we have a real conundrum on our hands -- how to understand God's failure to grant revelation when it is sought? Perhaps it is just one of my biases, but I prefer to throw people under the bus for not seeking revelation rather than throw God under the bus for not granting revelation. As @Teancum has noted a few times, the observation that God did not give revelation creates a "trust crisis" of sorts. I would rather lose trust in people than lose trust in God. Perhaps I am wrong in that, but, it seems to me that, if the people sought revelation and God withheld it, then God is not a reliable source of truth. I guess I'm just not yet willing to go down that rabbit hole.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Spackman provides a fairly decent answer, or a blueprint for one, in his essay:

Thoughts?

Like theodicies for coming to terms with the problem of evil, I find models like Spackman's accommodationism helpful but lacking completeness. Spackman's accommodationism seems to describe what we see in scripture and history. However, it has some troubling implications. For example, we like to say that "God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." Accommodationism seems to suggest that God can look upon sin with allowance (decades, generations, centuries, millenia worth of allowance at times). As I asked @ZealouslyStriving, it causes me to ask the question of whether or not it is important for the church to get things right or not, and suggests that it really isn't all that important to get things right. We like to talk about eternal, unchanging moral truth, but accommodationism suggests that, even if eternal, unchanging moral truth exists, it isn't important to discover it. Speaking to LGBTQ issues, it seems to me that, if God can accommodate slavery and racial segregation for decades or millenia, then God can also accommodate committed, monogamous same-sex marriages or gender transitions (which tends to lead me again into a place where I begin to question whether or not God is reliable source of moral truth). There's also the question of whether we as a people are able to discern when God is accommodating our foibles, followed by the question of whether or not it is important to "get passed" the need for God's accommodation. I'm aware of Spackman's accommodationism, and I like some of what is in there, but it also leaves me unsatisfied because of other questions and implications that come out of it.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What if "our inability" is borne of the Lord's calculated silence? 

If God can't be bothered to answer important moral questions, or can only answer with "follow the prophet, and I'll give you a get-out-of-jail-free card later, then is God a reliable source for knowing moral truth? I'm sure someone will doubt Ehrman's sincerity as an agnostic, but he put out a recent podcast looking at the book of Job. One of God's answers to Jobs questions about why he was made to suffer so horribly was to rant and rail against Job for even asking the question. How dare Job second guess the almighty creator of the universe! There's a thread in our theology that claims that a big part of our purpose in life is to learn to know how to discern good from evil. When God goes silent, it seems like He is not interested in helping us with that purpose, and I begin to wonder if He is reliable in this pursuit.

A theme I am seeing in my answers is how this issue that permeates so many of the church's controversial issues leads to a place where I begin to doubt God Himself as reliable. Perhaps, way down deep in this rabbit hole, is the question of how to maintain a resilient faith that can handle God's seeming capriciousness. That can handle when God fails to lead me in learning how to discern right from wrong.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is what a glance will do. Do you know anyone who , because of pressures they faced socially, prayed about their acceptance before the Lord concerning their sexuality and willingness to accept a calling or otherwise participate in Church, keep covenants, etc.?

Yeah, me.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

"What is it you think the Latter-day Saints could/should have done regarding the priesthood ban while it was still in place?"

And I give the same answer once again -- they should have sought revelation.

 

How do you know they didn't?

 

I only know that they didn't appear to receive any revelation on the topic.

That seems distinguishable from whether they sought it.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If they did seek revelation, and God chose not to grant them, revelation, then we have a real conundrum on our hands -- how to understand God's failure to grant revelation when it is sought?

I'm not sure that's a conundrum.  It's more of an imponderable.  There are all sorts of things about which we don't know, all sorts of important doctrines.  As for when and if such things are revealed to us and to the world, I'm not sure we can confidently speak as to the economies of God.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."  (Is. 55:8-9.)  "Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work."  (2 Nephi 27:21.)

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps it is just one of my biases, but I prefer to throw people under the bus for not seeking revelation rather than throw God under the bus for not granting revelation.

Or there is Door #3: Mormon 9:31.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As @Teancum has noted a few times, the observation that God did not give revelation creates a "trust crisis" of sorts.

Or perhaps He did, and the answer was "no" or "not yet."  That seemed to be the experience of Pres. McKay.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I would rather lose trust in people than lose trust in God.

I differentiate the trust I repose in people as compared to the trust I repose in God.  I expect much of our leaders, but I haven't tied my testimony to any person except the Savior.  At least, I hope I haven't.  "O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm."  (2 Nephi 4:34).  I construe this verse in a eschatalogical sense.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps I am wrong in that, but, it seems to me that, if the people sought revelation and God withheld it, then God is not a reliable source of truth.  I guess I'm just not yet willing to go down that rabbit hole.

Yes, I think you are wrong about that.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Like theodicies for coming to terms with the problem of evil, I find models like Spackman's accommodationism helpful but lacking completeness. Spackman's accommodationism seems to describe what we see in scripture and history. However, it has some troubling implications. For example, we like to say that "God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." Accommodationism seems to suggest that God can look upon sin with allowance (decades, generations, centuries, millenia worth of allowance at times).

I think "the least degree of allowance" is to be applied to the final judgment.  Otherwise, God would now allow us to sin at all.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As I asked @ZealouslyStriving, it causes me to ask the question of whether or not it is important for the church to get things right or not, and suggests that it really isn't all that important to get things right.

I think that is quite important.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

We like to talk about eternal, unchanging moral truth, but accommodationism suggests that, even if eternal, unchanging moral truth exists, it isn't important to discover it.

I doubt Spackman would concur with your application of his reasoning here.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Speaking to LGBTQ issues, it seems to me that, if God can accommodate slavery and racial segregation for decades or millenia, then God can also accommodate committed, monogamous same-sex marriages or gender transitions (which tends to lead me again into a place where I begin to question whether or not God is reliable source of moral truth).

There is no limiting principle here.  You can apply this reasoning to anything and everything.  Hence the value of having scriptures, prophets and apostles, personal revelation, reason, and so on.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If God can't be bothered to answer important moral questions,

I don't think "can't be bothered" is apt.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

or can only answer with "follow the prophet, and I'll give you a get-out-of-jail-free card later, then is God a reliable source for knowing moral truth?

Reasoning predicated on finding fault with God will never work for me. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Spackman provides a fairly decent answer, or a blueprint for one, in his essay:

Thoughts?

It is nice that finally in this generation we figured out how scriptures and revelation work. Pity about all those yahoos throughout history who were doing it wrong the whole time.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And in other instances, He stays His hand for what seems like an unreasonably long time.

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord."  (D&C 56:4.)

God saying that He will appear to be arbitrary as He wants and punish people for being annoyed at this isn’t that reassuring.

Funnily enough though when people suggest hypotheticals that seem arbitrary like giving the priesthood only to women at some point the creator of the hypothetical is often mocked as being absurd. So is God going to appear arbitrary or not.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It seems that, most of the time, answers to this "why" are not forthcoming.  From Pres. Oaks:

I hate this. It might technically be true that only one in a hundred commands have a reason (I am not going to try to count) but a lot of the commands of God have fairly self-evident reasons behind them. Some on moral grounds and some on practical grounds.

This is also a standing indictment of pretty much all of General Conference where Apostles and others opine on why commandments were given and that they will build faith or strengthen people who obey them in specific ways. You cannot on one hand say that we are on our own when we attempt to understand why God commands certain things and then expound at length on the benefits of obedience to the commandments which are a big part of why they were given.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

One of the most egregious aspects of the ban were the various efforts to attach some sort of non-revelatory explanation to it, or to its perpetuation.  Hence the odious "less valiant" claims that continue to cause injury to this day.  Part of revelation, then, is accepting the answer, including when the answer is silence from above.

This is a ridiculous reading of the history. The ban didn’t come from heaven as revelation with no reason given. It exists because Brigham Young and others believed the very ephemeral and recent racial theories of their own day and gave them revelatory power. The reasons came first and were followed by the ban.

One of the most egregious aspects of the ban was where the ban came from and those are the reasons you are suggesting got appended later which they didn’t. The reasoning shifted over time but it came from the same source.

The most egregious aspect of the ban was THE BAN!

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As individuals, we can choose whether or not to follow the doctrines of the Church, including policies and practices and interpretations of doctrine presented to us by those who preside.  I don't think activism and other pressure tactics are the way to go.  See, e.g., Brother Corbitt's talk, How activism against the Church can blind, mislead ‘valiant’ souls, and Elder Oaks' article, Criticism.

The question is whether devotion to compliance and orthodoxy or activism for change is more likely to blind and mislead ‘valiant’ souls. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

What if "our inability" is borne of the Lord's calculated silence?  What if revelation is sought, but a preferred answer/explanation is not provided?

What if no answer at all is provided?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

it seems to me that, if the people sought revelation and God withheld it, then God is not a reliable source of truth. I guess I'm just not yet willing to go down that rabbit hole.

Especially when it’s about how to be better disciples and missions of the Church as opposed to simple curiosity. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

causes me to ask the question of whether or not it is important for the church to get things right or not, and suggests that it really isn't all that important to get things right

I don’t think it’s possible to get things “right” in that progression is eternal and getting something right implies an end to progression, you have achieved perfection.

What is “right” to God when he is well aware any action contributes only to a work in progress and is not a perfect solution, is not the final “right”?  Perhaps it’s the direction one is heading rather than the individual behaviors.

My guess is a better way to put it is how can we achieve ‘best practices’ for the circumstances we are in….and that is still complicated to address as historically speaking if we believe God spoke at certain times, it seems to indicate that what God sees as best practice often seems contrary to what I would have assumed would be such. For example, for some reason God commanded temples to be built in the middle of persecution. Seems odd they were attempting to finish the Nauvoo temple knowing they would only have it a short time and have to abandon it.  Wouldn’t it have been a better long term investment by God to allow the Church to use that money to better prepare the Saints for the trip west?

PS:  I am not criticizing finishing the temple, just pointing out it isn’t what most would expect imo, so predicting what God views as “best practice” isn’t just using common sense or “love your neighbour” or “be prepared” or other standard.

Edited June 18, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Except communication impacts massively what is in your environment. Somethings will never occur to you if a need isn’t communicated to you. 

If possible same sex attracted members of the FP had resolved issues for themselves with the tools they had prior to becoming prophets, seers, and revelators for the Church and lived in stable marriages*** and no one communicated with them about a need to have sealings of same sex relationships because they lived in an era where those were considered deviant, unhealthy, or even criminal, why would they see a need to ask questions?

People are asking questions now because it has become a common topic as those with such attractions aren’t hiding them as much anymore, something that really didn’t get going until the late 70s among church members and even that in a very limited way (at BYU in the late 70s and early 80s, there were rumors of a gay underground and there were gay bars up in Salt Lake, AIDS had an impact on the conversation, not a very positive one in terms of seeing same sex relationships as healthy iirc; outside of BYU, I don’t remember much discussion but I was up in Canada for the 90s).

****there were quite a few marriages that were not about romance in the past.  The journals of my relatives in the 1800s were mostly about marriages suggested by others and the two accepting companionship and financial stability rather than being in love.  In  the early 1900s with more leisure time, easier transportation and communication (telephones can significantly speed up courtship over letters), one’s chances of finding someone who you were in love with was dramatically raised plus Hollywood made it expected imo.  The first romance I have record of were my paternal grandparents, my maternal grandmother claims to have had a vision directing her to marry my grandfather, as far as I can tell it was successful in the sense of both of them accomplishing their goals in life, but practical rather than romantic.  Now my parents were practically a fairy tale, love at first site relationship. They were born in 1930. 

When you are not expected to be romantically attracted to your spouse, my guess is it takes a lot of pressure off in that one doesn’t have to pretend an attraction.  That would lead to less stress in a mixed marriage. 

The net of environmental noise (or absence of) and internal experience allows those who are "still" to formulate questions on subjects that have been part of the human condition no matter the noise level.

ETA: and no matter the other conditions within which our model for revelation operates.

Edited June 18, 2024 by CV75

[CV75]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, me.

And since you, why not someone who is one of the three presidents in the quorum receiving revelation from the Church? They may not have exactly the same mind you do, but they have had comparable, relatable experiences.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is nice that finally in this generation we figured out how scriptures and revelation work.  Pity about all those yahoos throughout history who were doing it wrong the whole time.

I suspect that, for some, "figur{ing} out how scriptures and revelation work" amounts to

A) activism in (and against) the Church (Kate Kelly and Sam Young are excellent examples of this),

B) pressure tactics against the Brethren (again, Kate Kelly and Sam Young),

C) prioritization of following ephemeral, but still potent, popular sociopolitical trends over seeking revelation and listening to the Lord's anointed,

D) a pretext for self-appointed usurpers presuming to impose their personal views and preferences onto the Church (including on both members and leaders), and so on.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

And in other instances, He stays His hand for what seems like an unreasonably long time.

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord."  (D&C 56:4.)

God saying that He will appear to be arbitrary as He wants and punish people for being annoyed at this isn’t that reassuring.

I wasn't intending to be reassuring.  I was intending to contextualize.  God being perfect, and we having a perspective that is blinkered, finite and incomplete, God "appear{ing} to be arbitrary" is more a reflection of us than an accurate depiction of Him.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Funnily enough though when people suggest hypotheticals that seem arbitrary like giving the priesthood only to women at some point the creator of the hypothetical is often mocked as being absurd. So is God going to appear arbitrary or not.

"God is going to appear arbitrary" being the operative phrase.  Much of what God does, or does not do, can be labeled "arbitrary" because things appear that way to us, and things appear so because we don't have the whole picture.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

It seems that, most of the time, answers to this "why" are not forthcoming.  From Pres. Oaks:

Quote

“If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,’ you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here [race and the priesthood], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. …

“… Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent” (Life’s Lessons Learned [2011], 68–69).

 

I hate this. It might technically be true that only one in a hundred commands have a reason (I am not going to try to count) but a lot of the commands of God have fairly self-evident reasons behind them. Some on moral grounds and some on practical grounds.

Pres. Oaks' point is that "{i}t's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons."  In this context, I think he meant "pattern" as in "a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement."  The Lord sometimes provides an explanation, and sometimes does not (mostly the latter, I think).  You seem to concede that this happens, but then state that you "hate this."  Hate what?  That the Lord seemingly has no discernible pattern in terms of giving explanations for His commands, or that Pres. Oaks is pointing out this lack of pattern?

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is also a standing indictment of pretty much all of General Conference where Apostles and others opine on why commandments were given and that they will build faith or strengthen people who obey them in specific ways.

I think this only works if we presuppose God is arbitrary.  Conversely, if we presuppose that "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him" (2 Nephi 26:24), then attributing nefarious motives and actions to God does not work, and we are left to improve ourselves and our understanding via faith, humility, repentance, study, obedience and so on.

For me, perhaps the pinnacle of faith is to declare, as the Savior did, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."  (Luke 22:42.)  To overcome and "put off" the "natural man" and "and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."  (Mosiah 3:19.)  "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8.)  I need to get better at these things.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You cannot on one hand say that we are on our own when we attempt to understand why God commands certain things and then expound at length on the benefits of obedience to the commandments which are a big part of why they were given.

I don't think we have done this.  I think we ought to diligently seek out light and knowledge.  Joseph Smith said: "Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."  For the purposes of this discussion, the key attributes of God are that he is just and perfect.  And as Elder McConkie put it, "Truth is ever in harmony with itself."  That being the case, any interpretation of this or that issue that involves us finite, ignorant, blinkered sinners finding fault with God is per se incorrect and can be safely set aside.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

One of the most egregious aspects of the ban were the various efforts to attach some sort of non-revelatory explanation to it, or to its perpetuation.  Hence the odious "less valiant" claims that continue to cause injury to this day.  Part of revelation, then, is accepting the answer, including when the answer is silence from above.

This is a ridiculous reading of the history.

Odd that you say this, given that we appear to agree much more than we disagree as to the origins of the ban.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The ban didn’t come from heaven as revelation with no reason given.

Ours is a record-keeping church.  I tend to agree with you that the ban was not revelatory.  This is because we have no record of a revelation instituting it.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It exists because Brigham Young and others believed the very ephemeral and recent racial theories of their own day and gave them revelatory power. The reasons came first and were followed by the ban.

The "less valiant" claims were largely after-the-fact attempts to rationalize or explain the ban.  What preceded the ban were things like A) racial animus, which was endemic and socially acceptable in the 19th century, B) the then-still-extant institution of slavery, C) the political dimensions and implications of slavery, D) issues at Winter Quarters involving William McCary (see here), and so on. 

Again, we seem to be in agreement on this.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

As individuals, we can choose whether or not to follow the doctrines of the Church, including policies and practices and interpretations of doctrine presented to us by those who preside.  I don't think activism and other pressure tactics are the way to go.  See, e.g., Brother Corbitt's talk, How activism against the Church can blind, mislead ‘valiant’ souls, and Elder Oaks' article, Criticism.

The question is whether devotion to compliance and orthodoxy or activism for change is more likely to blind and mislead ‘valiant’ souls. 

Not much of a question there.  We have plenty of examples of where "activism" tends to take us.  Just ask Kate Kelly and Sam Young.  Q.E.D.

I think there are serious flaws in the notion that we can or ought to import into the Church tactics and rhetoric designed to affect political change and influence in secular government (such as America's constitutional republic form).  These may have some utility in that sphere, but not in the Church of Jesus Christ.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

What if "our inability" is borne of the Lord's calculated silence?  What if revelation is sought, but a preferred answer/explanation is not provided?

What if no answer at all is provided?

Then we continue the Lord's work until such light and knowledge is revealed to us, or until we die and cross over to the other side and figure things out from there.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 18, 2024 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And since you, why not someone who is one of the three presidents in the quorum receiving revelation from the Church? They may not have exactly the same mind you do, but they have had comparable, relatable experiences.

I don’t think they would agree to be a member of the First Presidency if they got the answers I got.

I don’t accept the premises either. It is cute to imagine a bunch of closeted queer apostles who worked it out. Of course this suggests they got satisfactory answers. Part of me thinks that would be a good thing to share with other queer people because a lot of us don’t.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect that, for some, "figur{ing} out how scriptures and revelation work" amounts to

A) activism in (and against) the Church (Kate Kelly and Sam Young are excellent examples of this),

B) pressure tactics against the Brethren (again, Kate Kelly and Sam Young),

C) prioritization of following ephemeral, but still potent, popular sociopolitical trends over seeking revelation and listening to the Lord's anointed,

D) a pretext for self-appointed usurpers presuming to impose their personal views and preferences onto the Church (including both members and leaders), and so on.

And that shows that my concerns that most of the followers of God throughout history had a very wrong conception of revelation are moot somehow?

This is just a pointless tangent where you beat the drum against apostates.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wasn't intending to be reassuring.  I was intending to contextualize.  God being perfect, and we having a perspective that is blinkered, finite and incomplete, God "appear{ing} to be arbitrary" is more a reflection of us than an accurate depiction of Him.

Perhaps true but God also designed the test. So either God could not come up with a way to make it not appear arbitrary or this is deliberate. I don’t really like either answer.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"God is going to appear arbitrary" being the operative phrase.  Much of what God does, or does not do, can be labeled "arbitrary" because things appear that way to us, and things appear so because we don't have the whole picture.

Which sounds nice but it also doesn’t speak well to the gospel as a whole. It is supposed to give a very general and abstract sketch of the big picture.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Oaks' point is that "{i}t's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons."  In this context, I think he meant "pattern" as in "a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement."  The Lord sometimes provides an explanation, and sometimes does not (mostly the latter, I think).  You seem to concede that this happens, but then state that you "hate this."  Hate what?  That the Lord seemingly has no discernible pattern in terms of giving explanations for His commands, or that Pres. Oaks is pointing out this lack of pattern?

No, I hate that President Oaks says that if we try to come up with reasons for commandments we are “on our own”. Then I go to church and General Conference and am bombarded with reasons for the commandments. If President Oaks is serious that these are just our own flawed reasoning unless they come from revelation we are doing the gospel very very wrong. From the apostles in general conference down to Primary classrooms. 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think this only works if we presuppose God is arbitrary.  Conversely, if we presuppose that "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him" (2 Nephi 26:24), then attributing nefarious motives and actions to God does not work, and we are left to improve ourselves and our understanding via faith, humility, repentance, study, obedience and so on.

For me, perhaps the pinnacle of faith is to declare, as the Savior did, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."  (Luke 22:42.)  To overcome and "put off" the "natural man" and "and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."  (Mosiah 3:19.)  "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8.)  I need to get better at these things.

This is just an exhortation to faith. It doesn’t deal with the fact that President Oaks is saying that our reasoning on why commandments are given are probably all uninspired but everyone from the apostles down just keep giving them.

Your exhortation makes sense and is in conformity with what President Oaks says. Trust God and don’t rely on your own understanding. It doesn’t explain why virtually everyone in the church is going against what President Oaks has said. We are wasting huge amounts of time teaching absolute rubbish if he is right. That rubbish is plastered all through our curriculum.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we have done this.  I think we ought to diligently seek out light and knowledge.  Joseph Smith said: "Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."  For the purposes of this discussion, the key attributes of God are that he is just and perfect.  And as Elder McConkie put it, "Truth is ever in harmony with itself."  That being the case, any interpretation of this or that issue that involves us finite, ignorant, blinkered sinners finding fault with God is per se incorrect and can be safely set aside.

Which means we can learn nothing from it. And even attempting to figure out how we got it wrong in understanding a commandment is dubious at best since speculating on why God does anything is dubious. That does make it hard to discern God’s character.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Odd that you say this, given that we appear to agree much more than we disagree as to the origins of the ban.

We disagree strongly about the cause and effect of it.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ours is a record-keeping church.  I tend to agree with you that the ban was not revelatory.  This is because we have no record of a revelation instituting it.

And we come around to me wanting a revelation of LGBTQ concerns. Instead I am told to trust the traditions of our fathers which are presumed to be correct. This also applies to a lot of things in the Gospel generally.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "less valiant" claims were largely after-the-fact attempts to rationalize or explain the ban.  What preceded the ban were things like A) racial animus, which was endemic and socially acceptable in the 19th century, B) the then-still-extant institution of slavery, C) the political dimensions and implications of slavery, D) issues at Winter Quarters involving William McCary (see here), and so on.

The “less valiant” claims came later to try to justify why it was okay to be racist. They are an appendage to the whole when the whole thing became unjust.

The white supremacist/superiority idea was endemic and socially acceptable in a few areas of the world in the 19th century. It was of fairly recent construction and used to justify inflicting misery on others by suggesting it was actually a blessing to them because of their inferiority.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, we seem to be in agreement on this.

Not really, no. You seemed to suggest that the reasons for the ban were added on later when the ban was there because of the reasons. We trusted the self-interested religious teachings of Protestant slaveholders and the pseudoscientific nonsense of useful idiots pretending to be scholars.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not much of a question there.  We have plenty of examples of where "activism" tends to take us.  Just ask Kate Kelly and Sam Young.  Q.E.D.

We also have a lot of examples where clinging to orthodoxy can take us. It is just less of a social disturbance. If I understand the requirements for eternal life at all it has led quite a few people straight to hell unless God looks upon sin with a great deal of allowance as long as you think God commanded it.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think there are serious flaws in the notion that we can or ought to import into the Church tactics and rhetoric designed to affect political change and influence in secular government (such as America's constitutional republic form).  These may have some utility in that sphere, but not in the Church of Jesus Christ.

I wish I didn’t see so much need for it. I think more revelation might alleviate that need.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then we continue the Lord's work until such light and knowledge is revealed to us, or until we die and cross over to the other side and figure things out from there.

That is depressing. It seems the light of revelation isn’t nearly as bright as I previously hoped. I kind of miss the days when I thought seeking and finding were more reliable. Muddling through the dark and hoping for some magical insights at death also seems too optimistic to me. If D&C 138 is any indication the followers of God seemed to be in a bit of a muddled mess until Jesus appeared to organize them. If there is any sudden understanding or revelation that makes it all add up it will be much further in the future. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That being the case, any interpretation of this or that issue that involves us finite, ignorant, blinkered sinners finding fault with God is per se incorrect and can be safely set aside.

Are you sure you want to conclude this?

Quote

 

Pres. Oaks' point is that "{i}t's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons."

Which point we can safely be set aside per above apparently. 

Edited June 18, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think they would agree to be a member of the First Presidency if they got the answers I got.

I don’t accept the premises either. It is cute to imagine a bunch of closeted queer apostles who worked it out. Of course this suggests they got satisfactory answers. Part of me thinks that would be a good thing to share with other queer people because a lot of us don’t.

Your experience doesnt preclude a member of the FP having a different one.

Many people "work it out". Why they don't share it (and some do) is no reason to say they haven't worked it out. If bishops, stake presidents, etc. can work it out, so can GAs, apostles, FP counselors and prophets.

A member of the FP as a special witness would share it by way of Church teachings. This may not be very apparent when the teachings haven't changed or when people don't trust them when they say they have counseled and prayed on this issue, the Lord is in the details of the Church, etc.

Why some people buy into the premise, at least for discussion purposes, and others don't is complex, I am sure. I think it can be helpful in understanding how well the revelatory model works. In general, we get the same answers no matter who is asking. 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The “less valiant” claims came later to try to justify why it was okay to be racist. They are an appendage to the whole when the whole thing became unjust.

The white supremacist/superiority idea was endemic and socially acceptable in a few areas of the world in the 19th century. It was of fairly recent construction and used to justify inflicting misery on others by suggesting it was actually a blessing to them because of their inferiority.

The “less valiant” is simply another version of ‘inferior race’.  The novelty in my view is it just takes it back before birth and turns it into a story.   It reminds me of the story of Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him as the beginning of the Moabites, a story most likely created to demean a people and to justify prejudice against them. 

Edited June 18, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your experience doesnt preclude a member of the FP having a different one.

Many people "work it out". Why they don't share it (and some do) is no reason to say they haven't worked it out. If bishops, stake presidents, etc. can work it out, so can GAs, apostles, FP counselors and prophets.

A member of the FP as a special witness would share it by way of Church teachings. This may not be very apparent when the teachings haven't changed or when people don't trust them when they say they have counseled and prayed on this issue, the Lord is in the details of the Church, etc.

Why some people buy into the premise, at least for discussion purposes, and others don't is complex, I am sure. I think it can be helpful in understanding how well the revelatory model works. In general, we get the same answers no matter who is asking. 

I’m not following any of the resistence you’re getting.  Denial, reaction formation, avoidance, plain stubbornness, pride, fear, prioritizing godliness, childhood influence, and other things would all be reasons that someone could function as a church leader even their entire lives as they are on a lgbt spectrum. What’s the problem here? 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

think it can be helpful in understanding how well the revelatory model works. In general, we get the same answers no matter who is asking. 

Except you haven’t demonstrated that. You have made assumptions and drawn conclusions based on those assumptions without actually providing anything but speculation to support it. 

I am not challenging the revelatory model here, just your argument that because FP members have not appeared troubled by same sex attractions, etc, they have therefore resolved actual issues they have had with such through personal revelation or whatever when the reality may be none ever had these issues or concerns prior to the most recent presidencies and the most recent ones may be satisfied with the status quo or have chosen to remain silent about their issues while hoping their questions will be answered. 
 

Again…50 men that are selected out of millions by a process that ensures devotion to God and loyalty to the Church (one does not typically continue to accept callings that consume one’s life without these) are not enough to assume any were queer nor is there reason to assume if they were queer or knew and love others who were queer that they were in conflict with the status quo or understanding of homosexuality as being a mental illness and same sex sexual behavior as a criminal act/sin.  It is possible if queer they were comfortable with a nonromantic marriage such as were common even in the beginning of the last century (so for the first half of the Church’s existence) or even a romantic one being if attracted to the opposite sex as well as the same one.  Nor would the idea of eternal same sex relationship even occur to most (anyone? anyone know when this first became a topic?  Perhaps Michael Quinn’s Same Sex Dynamic book marks the time it first popped up) until the idea of legal same sex marriages was first established since eternal couple sealings required the idea of marriage. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And that shows that my concerns that most of the followers of God throughout history had a very wrong conception of revelation are moot somehow?

You are sharing your thoughts.  I am sharing mine.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This is just a pointless tangent where you beat the drum against apostates.

I think apostasy from the Restored Gospel is a bad thing, and I hope we all work against such tendencies.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Perhaps true but God also designed the test. So either God could not come up with a way to make it not appear arbitrary or this is deliberate. I don’t really like either answer.

Okay.  Reasoning predicated on finding fault with God will never work for me.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Which sounds nice but it also doesn’t speak well to the gospel as a whole. It is supposed to give a very general and abstract sketch of the big picture.

I think it does that.  Quite well, actually.

"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  (1 Cor. 2:9.)  We have been given small glimpses of what we will receive if we obey God (as you put it, the "big picture").  Meanwhile, however, we work under the rubric of the Parable of the Ten Talents:

"Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."  (Matthew 25:21.)

And 2 Nephi 28:30:

"For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more."

And D&C 50:24:

"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Pres. Oaks' point is that "{i}t's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons."  In this context, I think he meant "pattern" as in "a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement."  The Lord sometimes provides an explanation, and sometimes does not (mostly the latter, I think).  You seem to concede that this happens, but then state that you "hate this."  Hate what?  That the Lord seemingly has no discernible pattern in terms of giving explanations for His commands, or that Pres. Oaks is pointing out this lack of pattern?

No, I hate that President Oaks says that if we try to come up with reasons for commandments we are “on our own”. Then I go to church and General Conference and am bombarded with reasons for the commandments. If President Oaks is serious that these are just our own flawed reasoning unless they come from revelation we are doing the gospel very very wrong. From the apostles in general conference down to Primary classrooms. 

I think Pres. Oaks differentiates between inspired prophetic counsel (which is fine and dandy) and non-revelatory "put{ting} reasons to revelation" (which is problematic).

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think this only works if we presuppose God is arbitrary.  Conversely, if we presuppose that "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him" (2 Nephi 26:24), then attributing nefarious motives and actions to God does not work, and we are left to improve ourselves and our understanding via faith, humility, repentance, study, obedience and so on.

For me, perhaps the pinnacle of faith is to declare, as the Savior did, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."  (Luke 22:42.)  To overcome and "put off" the "natural man" and "and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."  (Mosiah 3:19.)  "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8.)  I need to get better at these things.

This is just an exhortation to faith.

Yes.  Ultimately, we must either exercise faith and trust in God, or not.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It doesn’t deal with the fact that President Oaks is saying that our reasoning on why commandments are given are probably all uninspired but everyone from the apostles down just keep giving them.

I don't think Pres. Oaks is saying that at all.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Your exhortation makes sense and is in conformity with what President Oaks says. Trust God and don’t rely on your own understanding. It doesn’t explain why virtually everyone in the church is going against what President Oaks has said. We are wasting huge amounts of time teaching absolute rubbish if he is right. That rubbish is plastered all through our curriculum.

I respectfully disagree.  I think you are not differentiating revelatory and nonrevelatory counsel from General Authorities.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I don't think we have done this.  I think we ought to diligently seek out light and knowledge.  Joseph Smith said: "Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will."  For the purposes of this discussion, the key attributes of God are that he is just and perfect.  And as Elder McConkie put it, "Truth is ever in harmony with itself."  That being the case, any interpretation of this or that issue that involves us finite, ignorant, blinkered sinners finding fault with God is per se incorrect and can be safely set aside.

Which means we can learn nothing from it.

I don't know what you mean by "it."  What are you referencing here?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And even attempting to figure out how we got it wrong in understanding a commandment is dubious at best since speculating on why God does anything is dubious.

Unless there is light and knowledge available to the individual.

Pondering and praying and studying may well include some element of "speculation," but not as an end unto itself.  Hence the need for the four legs on Michael Ash's stool.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That does make it hard to discern God’s character.

I think we are not ideally situated to fully comprehend the superlative nature of "God's character."  We can, however, set aside notions that depict God as being unrighteous, arbitrary, capricious, indifferent, evil, etc.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Odd that you say this, given that we appear to agree much more than we disagree as to the origins of the ban.

We disagree strongly about the cause and effect of it.

I don't know that we do.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Ours is a record-keeping church.  I tend to agree with you that the ban was not revelatory.  This is because we have no record of a revelation instituting it.

And we come around to me wanting a revelation of LGBTQ concerns.

I would like to see that as well.  Canonizing the Proclamation might be a part of that.

But while I would like to see it, I am not sure it is required or essential.  I think the issue is less about the Law of Chastity and the meaning of marriage, and more about our willingness to accept what has already been revealed about these things.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Instead I am told to trust the traditions of our fathers which are presumed to be correct.

We are not told that.

We have ample scriptural guidance on the Law of Chastity and marriage.  We also have extensive prophetic guidance (which you characterize as mere "traditions of our fathers").  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

This also applies to a lot of things in the Gospel generally.

As does D&C 121:37-38.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

The "less valiant" claims were largely after-the-fact attempts to rationalize or explain the ban.  What preceded the ban were things like A) racial animus, which was endemic and socially acceptable in the 19th century, B) the then-still-extant institution of slavery, C) the political dimensions and implications of slavery, D) issues at Winter Quarters involving William McCary (see here), and so on.

The “less valiant” claims came later to try to justify why it was okay to be racist.

I agree.  They came later.  They were an effect of the ban, not a causal component of or precursor to it.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The white supremacist/superiority idea was endemic and socially acceptable in a few areas of the world in the 19th century.  It was of fairly recent construction and used to justify inflicting misery on others by suggesting it was actually a blessing to them because of their inferiority.

I agree.  This was in my list ("racial animus, which was endemic and socially acceptable in the 19th century").

See?  We seem to agree more than we disagree.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

We also have a lot of examples where clinging to orthodoxy can take us.

We also have a lot of examples where prioritizing socially popular trends and philosophies over the Restored Gospel can take us.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think there are serious flaws in the notion that we can or ought to import into the Church tactics and rhetoric designed to affect political change and influence in secular government (such as America's constitutional republic form).  These may have some utility in that sphere, but not in the Church of Jesus Christ.

I wish I didn’t see so much need for it.

That we need to improve is not in question.  How we go about such changes is quite a separate matter.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I think more revelation might alleviate that need.

Candidly, I think there are too many of us who are, as warned against in Jacob 4:10, seeking to "counsel the Lord" rather than "take counsel from his hand."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Then we continue the Lord's work until such light and knowledge is revealed to us, or until we die and cross over to the other side and figure things out from there.

That is depressing. It seems the light of revelation isn’t nearly as bright as I previously hoped.  I kind of miss the days when I thought seeking and finding were more reliable.

We all have a choice whether to close our eyes to, or turn away from, the light and knowledge we have been given already.  It is not enough to seek and find these things, but also to accept and retain them.

We also have a choice whether to prioritize "the weightier matters of the law" (Matt.23:23) over popular trends and philosophies.

We have been given prophets and apostles to guide us through this life.  They will not do so perfectly, but we are far better of listening to them than ignoring them, particularly as to sociocultural issues which, in the moment, seem of utmost importance.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Muddling through the dark and hoping for some magical insights at death also seems too optimistic to me.

Not "at death."  After it.  That is what I was referencing: "{U}ntil we die and cross over to the other side and figure things out from there."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If D&C 138 is any indication the followers of God seemed to be in a bit of a muddled mess until Jesus appeared to organize them. If there is any sudden understanding or revelation that makes it all add up it will be much further in the future. 

I have wondered about this.  My sense is that those who keep their covenants in this life will, after passing on to the other side, be actively engaged in the Lord's work.  If "Jesus appeared to organize them," it would seem that He would not later leave them to return to their prior state.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

That being the case, any interpretation of this or that issue that involves us finite, ignorant, blinkered sinners finding fault with God is per se incorrect and can be safely set aside.

Are you sure you want to conclude this?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

Pres. Oaks' point is that "{i}t's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons."

Which point we can safely be set aside per above apparently. 

No.  Acknowledging that the Lord often does not give reasons for His commandments is not, in my view, "finding fault" with Him.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m not following any of the resistence you’re getting.  Denial, reaction formation, avoidance, plain stubbornness, pride, fear, prioritizing godliness, childhood influence, and other things would all be reasons that someone could function as a church leader even their entire lives as they are on a lgbt spectrum. What’s the problem here? 

I will have to leave that up to the resistant posters to answer that!  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Except you haven’t demonstrated that. You have made assumptions and drawn conclusions based on those assumptions without actually providing anything but speculation to support it. 

I am not challenging the revelatory model here, just your argument that because FP members have not appeared troubled by same sex attractions, etc, they have therefore resolved actual issues they have had with such through personal revelation or whatever when the reality may be none ever had these issues or concerns prior to the most recent presidencies and the most recent ones may be satisfied with the status quo or have chosen to remain silent about their issues while hoping their questions will be answered. 
 

Again…50 men that are selected out of millions by a process that ensures devotion to God and loyalty to the Church (one does not typically continue to accept callings that consume one’s life without these) are not enough to assume any were queer nor is there reason to assume if they were queer or knew and love others who were queer that they were in conflict with the status quo or understanding of homosexuality as being a mental illness and same sex sexual behavior as a criminal act/sin.  It is possible if queer they were comfortable with a nonromantic marriage such as were common even in the beginning of the last century (so for the first half of the Church’s existence) or even a romantic one being if attracted to the opposite sex as well as the same one.  Nor would the idea of eternal same sex relationship even occur to most (anyone? anyone know when this first became a topic?  Perhaps Michael Quinn’s Same Sex Dynamic book marks the time it first popped up) until the idea of legal same sex marriages was first established since eternal couple sealings required the idea of marriage. 

My premise is based on applying broad population statistics to members of our First Presidencies, absent individual personal data to the contrary. They are regular human beings with extraordinary responsibilities and in some ways extraordinarily qualified by the Lord’s grace. As such, earlier dispensations and restored first presidencies may well have shared these issues or concerns with the rest of humanity.

While that would indicate to many that they would be inclined to have the kinds of experiences and seek the kinds of revelations that some regular folks here on MDDB have done personally and are asking for on a Church level, it doesn’t seem to have made a difference in the revelations. That goes for whether the member presidents involved appeared troubled or not, or resolved their issues or not. For convenience and relatability, I framed my presentation in terms of their having enough conviction to keep the covenants since that is an important aspect of receiving revelation.

Some believe these men differ from the general population’s sexuality profile. I see this used as part of justifying why they have not sought or received further published revelation for the Church on covenants like marriage for those who, perhaps culturally-speaking, are of “non-conforming /-normative” sexual orientation.

We have two representations of common knowledge/sense, and one is better than the other: 1) that this cohort of men faces the same areas and kinds of mortal makeup as the general population (putting their religion or divine intervention aside), or 2) it does not.

Edited June 18, 2024 by CV75