- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On Own Now wrote:
I think, both in the matter of the mission age and the changes to the handbook, RMN seems to be saying that they studied, wrestled, fasted, prayed, and then felt confirmation that what they were doing was acceptable to God.
OON mentioned the “process”, which it is. I would not expect the church leaders would suggest any decision (policy or otherwise) was done by any other means than by praying and seeking inspiration/revelation on it. All things are done that way in the church. Even when they are wrong.My reference point is my own personal revelation. I have faith all my prayers are being heard, and my thoughts and feelings are inspired…which is why I pray. I might claim (as far as I know at the time) what my personal revelation is. But, in fact, sometimes I’m wrong…not because I like to deceive people or myself…but because time hasn’t played out yet for me to see it any clearer yet. In other words, that is the best I can say at that moment about personal revelation I received, until I have something better. And … I have found that more hopeful to me than giving up and not seeking God’s help in my actions. While it isn’t perfect, it is better than no faith for me, based on how happy I am by experimenting with both approaches.
Since that is my experience, I see the same thing with church revelation. They will always claim it is revelation from God…why would they do anything else? All decisions are made through prayer. I want my church leaders sincerely praying about everything they do.
It doesn’t make it perfect. I don’t expect black and white revelation from church leaders and prophets, because my experience says that is not the way the world works.
These policies and changes are gray…some good things based on limited info at the time, and a decision made to move ahead in this way…until there is further light and knowledge. It is not white (God drafted the handbook and gave it to TSM in the temple upper rooms) and it is not black (the church is in apostasy and leaders are wringing hands while thinking how to control the masses and exclude children). It is mortals doing the best they can with what they have, seeking inspiration to guide them.
And I’m mortal doing the best I can also. Which means…I like the missionary age change, and I hate the same-sex marriage policy. That’s my personal revelation…but I hold no keys to make decisions for the church. It is what it is.
My faith is…it will get corrected in time. I wish it wasn’t so…but…it’s not a black and white world we live in. I want to be treated that way from others in the church, so I treat the leaders and their revelation that way.
I appreciate President Nelson’s viewpoint, so I can process that. I allow myself to disagree when it doesn’t sound right to me.
Quote:My faith is…it will get corrected in time. I wish it wasn’t so…but…it’s not a black and white world we live in. I want to be treated that way from others in the church, so I treat the leaders and their revelation that way.
I appreciate President Nelson’s viewpoint, so I can process that. I allow myself to disagree when it doesn’t sound right to me.
This.
Katzpur wrote:Just when I think it couldn’t get any worse.
I take a lot of comfort in the knowledge that this policy can’t possibly last forever. My children’s generation won’t stand for it, any more than my parents’ generation would stand for the racial priesthood ban. Eventually it will hurt missionary work, hurt retention of millennials, hurt tithing receipts, etc. We can someday expect to see this policy reversed – we can someday expect an anonymous Gospel Topics essay denying that the policy was ever doctrine. I just hope I’m still alive to see it.
Joni wrote:Katzpur wrote:Just when I think it couldn’t get any worse.
I take a lot of comfort in the knowledge that this policy can’t possibly last forever. My children’s generation won’t stand for it, any more than my parents’ generation would stand for the racial priesthood ban. Eventually it will hurt missionary work, hurt retention of millennials, hurt tithing receipts, etc. We can someday expect to see this policy reversed – we can someday expect an anonymous Gospel Topics essay denying that the policy was ever doctrine. I just hope I’m still alive to see it.
I agree, Joni. Our children will benefit when they learn they shouldn’t turn their brains off and just expect to be told how to think. When they can’t stand for something, instead of caving in and following the crowd to please others or placate leaders, they can learn to find productive ways to follow their heart on what is important. That’s what makes their personal faith meaningful.We just wouldn’t have opportunities to practice that if it was so easy and leaders were just always right.
The inspired part of the policy is that it illustrates clearly that members can’t turn their conscience over to others, including leaders. Those members who aren’t affected by the policy and who essentially don’t care about gay people will get in line, but the rest of us simply can’t. hawkgrrrl wrote:It seems E. Nelson learned from Packer’s powerplay that you make your plays in forums where your words won’t be redacted.
But they caught Packer. When he said that the Proclamation on the Family was “Revelation” in a GC talk, it was changed it “inspiration” in the Ensign.
I believe Nelson put it out there too forcefully for anybody to try to backtrack this.
Joni wrote:Katzpur wrote:Just when I think it couldn’t get any worse.
I take a lot of comfort in the knowledge that this policy can’t possibly last forever. My children’s generation won’t stand for it, any more than my parents’ generation would stand for the racial priesthood ban. Eventually it will hurt missionary work, hurt retention of millennials, hurt tithing receipts, etc. We can someday expect to see this policy reversed – we can someday expect an anonymous Gospel Topics essay denying that the policy was ever doctrine. I just hope I’m still alive to see it.
My own gut feeling is that not much is going to change until Uchtdorf becomes the prophet. I hope I live to see that day, too, but he’s not that much order than I am, so who knows. Just based on everything I’ve ever heard him say, I have the hardest time feeling that he agreed with the others very willingly. I agree, Joni, with every last word you said.
Good point, Sheldon – this was given in a fireside, not a conference address. So, we have God giving (at least) two slightly different versions of a revelation, within a week of each other, into an anonymous handbook which is off limits to 99% of the members of His true church. It isn’t necessary to have this revelation confirmed by His mouthpiece the prophet, nor is it necessary for God’s revelation to be shared in a general assembly and presented for sustaining vote (the principle of common consent). Finding out after the fact that a policy change was revelation, because the Q12Pres says so in a fireside, is enough.
So… The Lord has changed the methods by which He gives us revelation. Only, He did not actually tell us that He changed the rules. We only know that God has changed the rules (for example, no longer requiring a sustaining vote) because someone who isn’t the prophet has implied in a non-Conference setting that the rules have changed. And remember, the prophet, or on this case the acting prophet, can never lead the church astray – we know they can’t because they have told us so, it’s in a Primary song and everything.
The logic of all this makes my head spin. (And my husband is desperate to pick a fight with me over this. I told him how wonderful it is that God still reveals truths to His church through His servant the prophet, even Thomas S Monson, and then sent him to go watch the NCAA championship game.)
An excellent post from Jana Riess on Flunking Sainthood: Quote:So what does this mean for the many, many Latter-day Saints who have indeed prayed about this, fasted about this, and similarly “wrestled at length” to get the Lord’s guidance — only to receive a totally different answer than the prophet’s?
An answer that affirms Jesus’ teaching that we are to allow little children to come unto him unhindered?
An answer that reminds us that children are never responsible for the alleged sins of their parents?
And an answer that recognizes the inherent sacred worth of LGBT persons — and their marriages?
I am in that camp. I sit here heartbroken that the Church is not only standing by this regrettable policy but enshrining homophobia as God’s will.
Count me in that camp too!
If this is the best that 15 “prophets, seers, and revelators” can come up with then I’m not impressed in the least with supposed “revelation” as a very good source of decent answers. It sounds more like the textbook definition of groupthink where if you take a group of old men that already hold similar hard-line religious beliefs and grew up in a time and place where there typically weren’t people living openly homosexual lifestyles and let them be the final decision makers without anyone they respect willing to say, “Maybe this isn’t such a great idea” then I guess this is what is likely to happen. Seriously, of all the problems in the world such as poverty, crime, mental illness, domestic abuse, broken homes, etc. this is what they singled out as absolutely demanding an immediate response and then this is their solution. Even given that they think homosexuality is a sin I still don’t see how this is any better for the Church than if they had simply done nothing in this particular case. But rather than admit that they could have possibly made a mistake now we see them doubling down on this embarrassing PR blunder and digging themselves deeper into a hole. DevilsAdvocate wrote:Even given that they think homosexuality is a sin I still don’t see how this is any better for the Church than if they had simply done nothing in this particular case. But rather than admit that they could have possibly made a mistake now we see them doubling down on this embarrassing PR blunder and digging themselves deeper into a hole.
I couldn’t agree more. This is doing real damage to the Church, inside and out… and the policy seems so unneeded. And, by the way, I don’t think it is just damage to the PERCEPTION of the Church, but actual damage to the Church itself; to its precepts, its tone, the feel being a member of the Church, the way the Church interacts with the members of the Church, and the way the members of the Church interact with the Church. Most importantly, I think it has damaged the core purpose of the Church. The Church now seems more like an organization focused on by-laws than a vessel for the Spirit of God. I think back to some of the Presidents of the Church that have been known for their love and kindness toward others, like JS, JFS, GAS, DOM and GBH and I can’t help wonder what they would think of this.DarkJedi wrote:Here’s the story in the Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3391057-155/mormon-gay-policy-is-will-of ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3391057-155/mormon-gay-policy-is-will-of The fireside was on at my house, I was trying to ignore it. I started to watch but I couldn’t get past Sr. Nelson’s comments. Frankly Pres. Nelson was no better. Try as I might to ignore, I heard him say that the gay policy and the mission age change were revelation. I’ll point out that no one else except Elder Evans (Seventy) has said anything about the mission age being revelation and only Nelson has said the gay policy is revelation. I don’t believe either of them are, I think they’re both policy changes. And while this wasn’t the only thing I perceived as somewhat insulting to his audience of young adults (one of the other things that really annoyed me was that he talked to them like they are children) I don’t think he won any admirers with statements like this. I sincerely hope Monson and Oaks outlive him.
To me, it doesn’t matter anymore if its revelation or not. Who is to know for sure? People are famous in the church for claiming revelation — as another reason to get obedience and cooperation. What matters for me is whether there is enforcement. And in this case, I am sure there is in fact enforcement. So, whether policy, or revelation, it is something that members in gay families must live with, and its something that disagreeing members must say quiet about until it changes (if it ever does).
Sure, you can pray to determine if its revelation — and get a personal confirmation, but many of us don’t trust the revelatory feelings any longer…or for whatever reason, won’t pray about it…
A bit of a tangent here, but just saw a comment on http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments Quote:I find it interesting that we now find out this was a revelation received by Monson, which was declared by Nelson, after being “clarified” by Church PR, after explained by Christofferson, after published by an apostate, after leaked by an anonymous source, after published in a document most members can’t see.
God’s work is mysterious indeed.
On Own Now wrote:This is doing real damage to the Church, inside and out… and the policy seems so unneeded. And, by the way, I don’t think it is just damage to the PERCEPTION of the Church, but
actual damage to the Church itself; to its precepts, its tone, the feel being a member of the Church, the way the Church interacts with the members of the Church, and the way the members of the Church interact with the Church. Most importantly, I think it has damaged the core purpose of the Church. The Church now seems more like an organization focused on by-laws than a vessel for the Spirit of God. This is what I wish I’d been eloquent enough to say when people just come back with being persecuted and rejected for righteousness’ sake. It’s not about what others say and do; it’s what we’re doing to ourselves.
LookingHard wrote:A bit of a tangent here, but just saw a comment on
http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments Quote:I find it interesting that we now find out this was a revelation received by Monson, which was declared by Nelson, after being “clarified” by Church PR, after explained by Christofferson, after published by an apostate, after leaked by an anonymous source, after published in a document most members can’t see.
God’s work is mysterious indeed.
Saw that too. I laughed out loud.
It’s also funny how the Lord didn’t see fit to reveal this doctrine until SSM became legal
in the United States.Where all of the Q12 live. God wasn’t at all concerned about cognitive dissonance harming the young minds of children in SSM families in countries where SSM was legalized years ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.