Nelson says gay policy is revelation

I get the feeling that he didn’t feel like people were taking the policy seriously enough. As if many members were ignoring their counsel on the great evils of homosexual relationships so he upped the ante by underscoring that the policy was a revelation. I believe he saw many members attempt to carve out some middle ground despite the new policy and this was his way of trying to erase that middle ground. That’s what a black and white mindset requires and for him I’m certain the gospel is very black and white. He’s only defending what he feels is the truth.

It’s a revelation? Great! Have members vote on it during general conference, stick in the D&C. 😈

As a side note:

Nelson explained that revelation from the Lord to his servants is a sacred process.

So is personal revelation. The leaders would do well to remember that. I’m going to remember Oaks’ talk on the two lines of communication as saying that the priesthood line does not overrule the personal line and vice versa.

Also, I wonder which version of the policy God Himself personally revealed: the original, harsher policy (barring ALL children with a parent in SSM from baptism) or the softer, ‘clarified’ policy (barring children from baptism ONLY if their PRIMARY residence is with the SSM parent).

If policy version #1 was God’s will, why did they soften it? And if policy version #2 was God’s will, why didn’t He reveal it that was in the first place?

Ha. Good call. In addition, if it was version #2 why did they even bother releasing version #1 if god hadn’t gotten involved yet. :angel:

One more thing, sorry.

If this policy is revelation, why wasn’t it common knowledge from the start? We only know about this revelation because someone anonymously leaked a confidential handbook that the majority of Church members aren’t supposed to have access to.

Why did we not learn of this revelation over the pulpit at General Conference? Why did we not hear it from the mouth of God’s chosen prophet, Thomas S. Monson?

I get the feeling that he didn’t feel like people were taking the policy seriously enough. As if many members were ignoring their counsel on the great evils of homosexual relationships so he upped the ante by underscoring that the policy was a revelation. I believe he saw many members attempt to carve out some middle ground despite the new policy and this was his way of trying to erase that middle ground. That’s what a black and white mindset requires and for him I’m certain the gospel is very black and white. He’s only defending what he feels is the truth.

That’s basically they way I have dealt with it. I support gay marriage, but also support the church’s right not to perform or recognize gay marriage. That doesn’t mean the church can tell other churches or the government what to do because I also support other churches’ rights to perform and recognize gay marriage. So, I view the gay policy as something in CHI 1 that is directed at bishops and stake presidents, of which I am neither. Therefore the policy does not directly affect me and it’s not for me. Of course, there is a very slight possibility I might have some involvement with it at some point, but it’s looking like the possibility is very remote and I will cross that bridge when I come to it – I will probably just excuse myself.

It’s a revelation? Great! Have members vote on it during general conference, stick in the D&C. 😈

Yep. I can’t help but wonder if this wasn’t some intimation of future hope that when he is the prophet we’ll just “follow the prophet” without question because obviously everything the prophet says is the will of the Lord. Stating the policies were revelation was actually part of a bigger arc he was on the the time talking about following the prophet (or perhaps, soon you’ll be following me and this is what I expect).

As a side note:

Nelson explained that revelation from the Lord to his servants is a sacred process.

So is personal revelation. The leaders would do well to remember that. I’m going to remember Oaks’ talk on the two lines of communication as saying that the priesthood line does not overrule the personal line and vice versa.

I don’t mind the explanation of the process of revelation. This is indeed how those who were present at the priesthood revelation described the process (although they were much more descriptive of the feeling present). I do think that is how the process probably works these days (as opposed to the more totalitarian Brigham Young). I think it’s good for the membership to be told how it works, or at least how they think it works. That said, I’m with you Nibbler, I do like the Oaks talk and quote from it all the time (it’s in my upcoming talk, as a matter of fact). I never really had feelings one way or another about Nelson besides that he is very black and white. I used to not like Oaks, but he has grown on me considerably – hence my hope he and Monson outlive Nelson. Otherwise the best I can hope for is a tenure like Hunter’s (who I did like).

I recognize OON that sometimes hard liners and black and white thinkers have a hard time differentiating between inspiration, revelation, etc. I admittedly use my own definitions of the words because revelation was something I struggled with during my faith crisis. What sealed it for me with Nelson and this talk was his declaration that it was the “will of the Lord.” Usually we do not speak of inspiration in those terms, but do speak of revelation as the will of the Lord. Likewise, he included the missionary age change under the same umbrella.

I totally agree, JS, BY, and others used the “will of the Lord” or “thus saith the Lord” as a way to get what they wanted whether or not they believed it was the actual will of the Lord (and I also agree that JS thought everything he thought was). That’s where my other comment about wondering about Nelson’s motivation came from – he was basically saying TSM had received revelation, all the Q15 recognized it, and we (or at least the millennials to whom he was speaking) also need to recognize it. By extension, since he has a good shot at being in the big chair I do think Nelson was saying “this is the way it works so don’t question it when I’m there because now you know we all agree.”

And it comes from the next in line. Sounds almost like ETB giving “the 14 fundamentals” before he became president. Well we know what we will be in store for the church.

It is getting harder to stay. 😥

Turns out my teenagers didn’t want to go to this devotional so I also skipped it – glad I did. Most people in my part of the country have always treated the policy change as revelation. On the positive side at the local level I’ve hardly heard a peep from my stake presidency and high council about the policy change. I was afraid it would be preached from the rooftops.