Speak when NOT moved upon by the Holy Ghost

[Fether]

This is probably a similar thread as the one on loving your neighbor, I am mostly just seeking to further understand this relationship between personal revelation, direction from the church, God's will, and social movement against stances of the church.

A couple of events and references for this post. None of these are complaints or critiques. I am just trying to state events as they happened, and use the events to preface my question. If you feel like I misrepresented the events or the references in any way, feel free to call me out.

Blacks and the Priesthood:
- Brigham Young introducing policies that barred people of color from the priesthood
- Some members rejecting this policy as being from God and protesting the church leaders to change it in ways they saw fit
- Some members accepting the policy as being from God and rebuking the protestors
- Bruce R McConkie famously saying blacks will never have the priesthood
- Church Policy changing
- Bruce R McConkie apologizing and saying "we were acting on limited light" and that God has spoken more to us.

2015 Policy barring children of LGBTQ from being baptized
- Church came out and announced children of LGBTQ could not be baptized before they are 18
- Many members saw what the church was attempting to do and appreciated it and received a spiritual witness that it was appropriate
- Many other members had serious problems with it and had spiritual experiences confirming their concerns and protested it in ways they saw fit
- The church came out later and reversed the policy

Non-traditional LGBTQ Couple are not to be sealed in the temple (Just a reference to a policy, I don't disagree with it, just using it as an example of a policy that is still in force that some take issue with)
- Family Proclamation states marriage is between a man and a woman and gender is an eternal principle
- Many have had spiritual experiences that confirm these teachings and they uphold them as being from God
- Many have had spiritual experiences that confirm to them that these are not from God and they protest it in the way they see fit
- Nothing has changed

I want to hear your thoughts on the questions below. I don't necessarily care if you answer every individual one or not, just want to hear your thoughts.

What is our responsibility and what is the appropriate response to policies or statements made by the church that we may disagree with? Is the church to be our source of truth and we are to wait on them for further revelation on important church/worldwide matters? Are those that protested the priesthood ban peacefully to be seen as doing the right thing, the wrong thing, or an appropriate thing to do when feeling like the church made a misstep? Same question for those that opposed the 2015 LGBTQ policy? What about the LGBTQ ban on temple sealings? If it isn't appropriate to protest these matters, do you believe revelation would have been sought on these matters had there been on concern for them? Jim Bennett once said that we don't receive revelation until we ask the question, is that accurate in the cases of the policies above? If no one was protesting, would the questions have ever been asked? 

[MrShorty]

Overall -- excellent questions. If I may say, these are the kinds of questions at the heart of my own faith crisis and, if we could come to satisfactory answers to these kinds of questions, my faith crisis could be resolved. However, I've been around these questions long enough that I doubt there are satisfactory answers, so I would also throw into this that perhaps a big part of these questions may not be about finding satisfactory answers, but learning to sit with the tension and discomfort of these kinds of questions.

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Are those that protested the priesthood ban peacefully to be seen as doing the right thing, the wrong thing, or an appropriate thing to do when feeling like the church made a misstep? Same question for those that opposed the 2015 LGBTQ policy? What about the LGBTQ ban on temple sealings?

IMO, yes, they were doing the right thing. Whether or not it was appropriate is a more difficult question. I think it was appropriate, because, as one of your other questions suggests, we won't get a revelation until we seek the revelation and we don't always seek revelation without some kind of outside pressure. I know we are uncomfortable with the idea that the Church is reactive to public pressure, but it seems that it does respond to public pressure. Pres. Nelson, in his remarks at BYU in the fall of 2019, explicitly said that the brethren sought further direction on the 2015 LGBTQ policy because of the "concern and confusion for some and the heartache for others" (reported in the Church News 17 Sep 2019: https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-09-17/president-nelson-byu-devotional-god-love-160666) created by the policy.

At the same time, we are uncomfortable with divisions within the body of Christ, and I think we struggle to know how to deal with these kinds of disagreements when they come from our co-religionists (for lack of a better word). I have observed here before that one of the most contentious debates I see on these internet forums are creationism vs. evolutionism debates where the Church does not even have an official position. When we struggle to keep contention out of our discourse when the issue is one where we are free to decide for ourselves, how much more difficult will it be to keep discomfort and contention out of our discourse when we disagree about something that the Church has chosen a side on?

2 hours ago, Fether said:

If no one was protesting, would the questions have ever been asked? 

I've kind of addressed this, but I would say here that we are very much a conservative church. This means that we believe that what we have been teaching and practicing up until now (whenever now is) is "true" and we hold to those beliefs and practices until evidence that they are "false" becomes overwhelming. If no one protests, then our conservative inertia maintains the status quo. I don't know why God is not more proactive in making these kinds of changes sooner, but He seems to be quite willing to sometimes wait for us to come to Him to seek change.

 

2 hours ago, Fether said:

What is our responsibility and what is the appropriate response to policies or statements made by the church that we may disagree with? Is the church to be our source of truth and we are to wait on them for further revelation on important church/worldwide matters?

And so we come to the $64000 questions. Up front, I don't know the answers to these questions (as I indicated above, if I could answer these questions, I would not feel like I am in a faith crisis). The Church can be one source of truth. Other sources might include my own witnesses from the Spirit, the scriptures, and human reason. I find that each of these sources is reliable in its own way and also fallible in its own way. When they disagree with or contradict each other, I don't know what should be done. Sometimes, it seems right to elevate one source above the others (like when we talk about giving canonized scripture a primary place by saying that whatever we decide should not contradict the standard works). Other times, it feels more like a "vote" of the different sources (3 of the 4 suggest that X is true, so I'll reject the one dissenting voice). But there does not seem to be a single method or standard or source to turn to for arbitrating the differences.

One interesting thing: Pres. Oaks at the 2019 Be One celebration spoke of a time while the priesthood and temple ban was in effect that he did not receive a testimony of the reasons for the ban. At that time, he chose to be loyal to the Church and the brethren, but did not go into any detail of what that loyalty meant to him. Perhaps part of the answer is that loyalty to the Church is more important than what we believe is or is not true. I wish Pres. Oaks had elaborated more, but I expect I would still find myself uncomfortable choosing loyalty over truth. Which isn't to say that loyalty is not important, but it just does not seem like it should be the answer to every disagreement.

If you endured to the end of that, congratulations. These kinds of issues sit at the heart of my own struggles with the Church, so it should be obvious I don't have any real answers for them. At present, I am resigned or content (not sure which) to sit in discomfort with them with no certainty of what the future might bring. I will definitely be following the rest of this conversation with interest.

Edited June 25, 2021 by MrShorty
typos

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Is the church to be our source of truth and we are to wait on them for further revelation on important church/worldwide matters?

God's the source of truth, and His servants are absolutely worth listening to and weighing seriously in the eternal quest for more truth.  But humans stay human, no matter what calling they hold.  They get to do their best with what they've got, and still get things wrong on occasion.

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.    - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.    - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.    - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.  - President Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

 

 

[Carborendum]

I was very adamant about not shutting off the computers until the end of the day.  I told and trained my children to do this.

Now I'm telling my children to shut down the computer as soon as it is done being used.

Which was right?  Both were for the circumstances in which we were in.

Windows 7 computers and earlier were very hard on the electronics when shut down or starting up.  Once we got Windows 8 computers, they weren't so hard.  At least, this is what computer gurus have told me.

Sometimes a change in Church policy is a mistake.  Sometimes it is because circumstances changed.  Unless a clear explanation has been provided, it is anyone's guess or impression of the Spirit which one it is.

Most of the time, I DON'T CARE.  Sometimes I do.  And I'll pray to know about it.

[Fether]

54 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

God's the source of truth, and His servants are absolutely worth listening to and weighing seriously in the eternal quest for more truth.  But humans stay human, no matter what calling they hold.  They get to do their best with what they've got, and still get things wrong on occasion.

 

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was very adamant about not shutting off the computers until the end of the day.  I told and trained my children to do this.

Now I'm telling my children to shut down the computer as soon as it is done being used.

Which was right?  Both were for the circumstances in which we were in.

Windows 7 computers and earlier were very hard on the electronics when shut down or starting up.  Once we got Windows 8 computers, they weren't so hard.  At least, this is what computer gurus have told me.

Sometimes a change in Church policy is a mistake.  Sometimes it is because circumstances changed.  Unless a clear explanation has been provided, it is anyone's guess or impression of the Spirit which one it is.

Most of the time, I DON'T CARE.  Sometimes I do.  And I'll pray to know about it.

I agree with all this. So to the other questions about protesting. People found some policies harmful and protested them and complained about them, had they not complained and made such an uproar, would the issues have been resolved?  If there is a policy we do not like about the church, is it appropriate to protest it and complain about it? Particularly the 2015 policy, had no one protested, would it have been reversed?

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, Fether said:

 

I agree with all this. So to the other questions about protesting. People found some policies harmful and protested them and complained about them, had they not complained and made such an uproar, would the issues have been resolved?  If there is a policy we do not like about the church, is it appropriate to protest it and complain about it? Particularly the 2015 policy, had no one protested, would it have been reversed?

Like with many things in the Gospel it depends on How you do it...  Protesting it in personal and private prayer to God Almighty?... Absolutely yes...  Protesting it in private councils with various leaders?  Sure.  Protesting it by hi-jacking meetings to make your points?... Absolutely not.  Protesting by some kind of public name and shame... No.

Remember the commandments given in D&C : 121 on how we are to behave applies to everything ... even our protests.

[Fether]

45 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Protesting it by hi-jacking meetings to make your points?... Absolutely not.  Protesting by some kind of public name and shame... No.

Remember the commandments given in D&C : 121 on how we are to behave applies to everything ... even our protests.

What about sharing with friends and family your distaste with it. Or posting on FB how you feel?

If we only prayed about it and talked to our local leaders, would the Church at the top ever hear it and reconsider the policy? I honestly believe that had there been no social movement following equality of race, the revelation to allow all worthy makes to have the priesthood would have, at very least, been delayed. And the 2015 policy would never have been reverted.

I also think is a safe premise to think social movements do indeed encourage our leaders to consider policy change and seek the Lord’s mind on the matter.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Fether

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I agree with all this. So to the other questions about protesting. People found some policies harmful and protested them and complained about them, had they not complained and made such an uproar, would the issues have been resolved?  If there is a policy we do not like about the church, is it appropriate to protest it and complain about it? Particularly the 2015 policy, had no one protested, would it have been reversed?

There are two ways to look at this.

1) The Lord leads this Church.  The membership does not lead the Lord around by the nose.

• If it was revelation that people are protesting, the protests will have nothing to do with any change in policy.  One can imagine a monkey in a cage raging at the noise a passing airplane makes.  Then feels mighty that the airplane flew away because of the monkey's raging.
• If it was a mistake, then the Apostles figured it out somehow.  Was it because of the raging of malcontents?  Probably not.  But if there are genuine concerns that are brought up, then, yes, those concerns are heard and considered.  Then changes will be made to address those concerns if the Lord wills it so.

2) The Samuel Principle

• Remember that whenever this is invoked, it is not license for the membership of the Church to do whatever they want as long as they protest enough.
• This is the Lord simply reminding people of free agency.  The consequences are still there.  They should still be obeying a higher law.  But if they won't do it, then they won't do it.  It doesn't make their course of action right.  It is mitigating damage from the wrong course of action.

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, Fether said:

What about sharing with friends and family your distaste with it. Or posting on FB how you feel?

On the personal level of protest everyone will have to be guided by the spirit on how they can best honor their covenants

 

15 minutes ago, Fether said:

If we only prayed about it and talked to our local leaders, would the Church at the top ever hear it and reconsider the policy? I honestly believe that had there been no social movement following equality of race, the revelation to allow all worthy makes to have the priesthood would have, at very least, been delayed. And the 2015 policy would never have been reverted.

Cite your source about never being reverted.  You are making claims and assumptions you literally can not prove.  Local leaders talk to their leaders who talk to their leaders.  And with in the limits of human nature our leaders are listening.

 

20 minutes ago, Fether said:

I also think is a safe premise to think social movements do indeed encourage our leaders to consider policy change and seek the Lord’s mind on the matter.

That would be because our leaders are actively trying to listen and hear the membership.   The fallacy would be to presume that social movement are necessary, good, or even Christ-like/Christ Approved methods for change in his church.

[Fether]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There are two ways to look at this.

1) The Lord leads this Church.  The membership does not lead the Lord around by the nose.

• If it was revelation that people are protesting, the protests will have nothing to do with any change in policy.  One can imagine a monkey in a cage raging at the noise a passing airplane makes.  Then feels mighty that the airplane flew away because of the monkey's raging.
• If it was a mistake, then the Apostles figured it out somehow.  Was it because of the raging of malcontents?  Probably not.  But if there are genuine concerns that are brought up, then, yes, those concerns are heard and considered.  Then changes will be made to address those concerns if the Lord wills it so.

2) The Samuel Principle

• Remember that whenever this is invoked, it is not license for the membership of the Church to do whatever they want as long as they protest enough.
• This is the Lord simply reminding people of free agency.  The consequences are still there.  They should still be obeying a higher law.  But if they won't do it, then they won't do it.  It doesn't make their course of action right.  It is mitigating damage from the wrong course of action.

I’m 2019, President Nelson said

”We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep—for whatever reasons—we weep. So our supplications to the Lord continued.

We also took note of LGBT parents who sought permission from the First Presidency for their children to be baptized. In nearly every case in which the LGBT parents agreed to teach their children about—and be supportive of—the covenant of baptism, the requested exception was granted.

As a result of our continued supplication, we recently felt directed to adjust the policy such that the baptism of children of LGBT parents may be authorized by bishops without First Presidency approval, if the custodial parents request the baptism and understand that a child will be taught about sacred covenants to be made at baptism.”

Perhaps I misunderstood the “Samuel Principle” bit, but This was not a case of “kings are bad, but because you want a king, you can have one and just suffer the consequences” this was a matter where the church got it wrong (and I think that is just fine to say). Had people not spoken out, then things would have stayed the same. This was clearly a policy that was meant to help the people, but didn’t.

As for the first point, I disagree with the second part. If social movements don’t affect changes in policy, then I would ask why it took so long to change the priesthood ban and to make policies concerning children of LGBTQ parents.

I would say the Lord leads his church, but not by the hand. That rather he has give immense stewardship to our leaders and they are doing their best. And that when teachings are taught, it is at least our responsibility to speak our mind to either 1) help the church adjust when needed and 2) help ourselves understand why the church may be doing something.

now I am about 35% behind the previous paragraph, not completely convinced that is how it is. I’m stuck on the question of how do we differentiate between a blacks and priesthood policy and a “you shouldn’t have a king” situation. One social movement brought on a blessing, the other brought on a curse 

[Vort]

God tried to redeem his people from Egypt and to set up a kingdom of kings and priests. But the children of Israel would not have it. They faithlessly made a golden calf while Moses communed with God. Yet Jehovah did not reject them and cast them off; instead, he refused to give them what he had initially planned. This is not quite true. Rather, they refused to accept what the Lord offered, so the Lord withdrew his offer and instead gave them a lesser law, a law of performances to carefully shepherd them to him.

While wicked Israel wandered in the wilderness, being fed by the pure grace of God with what they called "Whatzit?", the children of Israel decided they'd had enough of Whatzit. They insisted on meat, lusting after the Egyptian fleshpots they enjoyed in bondage. So the Lord gave them quail. Only after they were eating and barfing quail for weeks did they finally beg the Lord for Whatzit. The Lord graciously accepted their repentance, such as it was.

After a short time of perhaps four centuries, the children of Israel demanded—demanded, I say!—a king. This was contrary to the government the Lord had established among them, but at their insistence, the Lord called Saul to be their king. We all know how that went, for Israel and for Saul himself. Saul was followed by David, who was succeeded by Solomon. Then the kingdom was divided, never to this very day to be reunited. The children of God got their wish, and all the consequences thereof.

The Prophet, having translated the first part of the record delivered to him, needed support, both emotional and financial. A man named Harris offered him that support in exchange for the translation, which Harris wanted to show to his wife. The Prophet asked God, and was told "No" three times. Foolishly, he asked again, and was finally granted permission, under strict limits. Harris turned out to be an unfaithful ("wicked" is the word the Lord used) man in this thing, and the Prophet lost the translation, apparently forever. The period immediately following this was, in some ways, the darkest of the Prophet's life, believing as he did that he was under eternal condemnation for his actions.

Asking the Lord in innocence and faith is one thing. Pestering God about things he has already answered and demanding explanations from the Almighty to account to us the reasons for his actions are quite another. In that latter case, the Lord may well give us what we complain about, always to our ultimate detriment.

Asking the Lord why people of black African descent were not allowed to hold the Priesthood or participate in temple ordinances is acceptable, though his answer be an unpierceable brass dome of silence over our heads. Demanding that he do so and taking steps in that direction got people excommunicated, and for very good reason.

We are commanded to go before the Lord in humility and ask, that we might receive. Only a fool goes before the Lord demanding answers and actions. The erstwhile Lucifer is the prototype for such unthinkably prideful actions.

28 minutes ago, Fether said:

If we only prayed about it and talked to our local leaders, would the Church at the top ever hear it and reconsider the policy? I honestly believe that had there been no social movement following equality of race, the revelation to allow all worthy makes to have the priesthood would have, at very least, been delayed. And the 2015 policy would never have been reverted.

You may believe whatever you want. But remember, you have no evidence to back up your opinion. As for the 2015 policy, perhaps its reversion was a quail-like concession to wicked modern Israel, too hard-hearted and stiff-necked to follow the prophets.

Ancient Israel produced many astoundingly righteous and powerful people, but as a nation it never attained the glory it might have. Modern Israel has also been promised glory beyond our reckoning, and we have likewise failed to live up to our covenants in such a way that we can claim those promised blessings. Trying to change prophetic guidance by social and legal pressures exerted by the faithless is not how we claim what would otherwise be ours.

32 minutes ago, Fether said:

What about sharing with friends and family your distaste with it. Or posting on FB how you feel?

Sharing doubts with friends and family in a complaining, bitter way is poisoning those we claim to love best. And posting such things on Facebook or other platforms is disloyal. I lose respect for those I see proclaim such faithless complaints.

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Cite your source about never being reverted.  You are making claims and assumptions you literally can not prove.  Local leaders talk to their leaders who talk to their leaders.  And with in the limits of human nature our leaders are listening.

This why I said I honestly believe. If I had a way to jump timelines to a world where this is fact situation happened without protests and I could record the situation, I would love to provide sources… but I left it in the hotel room I’m Hawai’i unfortunately

 The squeakiest wheel gets the oil and I don't think a bunch of people playing telephone with the prophet would provide the same squeak as social media. I may be wrong though. 

12 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That would be because our leaders are actively trying to listen and hear the membership.   The fallacy would be to presume that social movement are necessary, good, or even Christ-like/Christ Approved methods for change in his church.

I agree completely here. They are listening to us. The phrase “social movement” is when a society (like the church membership) is making a movement for change. It is t necessary for every change in policy, but it helps the lords leaders know what those they have stewardship over want. Then they decide if it is within the bounds of the gospel to do so.

[Fether]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

As for the 2015 policy, perhaps its reversion was a quail-like concession to wicked modern Israel, too hard-hearted and stiff-necked to follow the prophets.

 

This is not how president Nelson explained it. The policy itself was done out of love. They then saw that people didn’t like it and that in many cases, LGBTQ parents were respectful of the choices of their children. They then changed the policy. I don’t think this can be compared to God giving us a lesser law because we rejected the higher.

side note: I do agree with everything else you said, I just think this one phrase is misplaced.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Fether

[estradling75]

 

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

 The squeakiest wheel gets the oil and I don't think a bunch of people playing telephone with the prophet would provide the same squeak as social media. I may be wrong though. 

I agree completely here. They are listening to us. The phrase “social movement” is when a society (like the church membership) is making a movement for change. It is t necessary for every change in policy, but it helps the lords leaders know what those they have stewardship over want. Then they decide if it is within the bounds of the gospel to do so.

The only reason the telephone method/game fails is because only one person ever knows the original message...  And if only one person knows it then it is not much of a movement.   But if it is truly a movement... then you have multiple people on multiple levels, sending the message... that is not a squeak that is a roar.

As for social movements it is fine if as you said they brought it to the attention of the leaders, and accepted the leaders answers.  However time and time again we see that movements do not stop until they get the 'correct' answer, and that is a big reason to avoid them.

[Fether]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sharing doubts with friends and family in a complaining, bitter way is poisoning those we claim to love best. And posting such things on Facebook or other platforms is disloyal. I lose respect for those I see proclaim such faithless complaints.

I would say the complaints themselves, if done properly, is not disloyal. But they are rarely done in a proper way

[Grunt]

You all are WAY smarter than I am and understand scripture far better than I do, but here is my take on this and how I wrap my pea brain around issues and concepts that cause some people to leave the Church.

First,  I believe Heavenly Father loves us and sent Christ to atone for our sins.   

Second, I believe that, as all-knowing, he understands what idiots we are in our mortal lives and the struggles we face.  He sees the beginning and the end.

Third, I believe that because of that, we receive revelation for our time.  Because of that, policies may change.   

Fourth, changing policies don't change His laws.  They don't change what exists in His kingdoms.  Changing blacks holding priesthood authority or children of certain couples being baptized doesn't change what exists in Heaven.  Single individuals making definitive statements about policy doesn't make it doctrine.

Fifth, things like gender being eternal and marriage being between a man and a woman wasn't a policy declaration.  It was a statement of God's truth.  Policies may change based on this as things are revealed, but that won't make those policies doctrine either.

Sixth, as unjust or off things seem to me, I trust God.  When the Prophet says things that go against my beliefs, I question my beliefs.  I follow the Prophet.  That doesn't mean I believe the Prophet is infallible, it means that if I'm choosing between myself being wrong or the Prophet being wrong, I'll place my bet on the Prophet.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

would say the complaints themselves, if done properly, is not disloyal. But they are rarely done in a proper way

What is a “proper way to complain”? 
 
And I get the feeling that you already answered my question. Since they “rarely done in a proper way” maybe no matter how questions are asked, they’ll be considered “improper”? 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by LDSGator

[mikbone]

7 hours ago, Fether said:

What is our responsibility and what is the appropriate response to policies or statements made by the church that we may disagree with?

Follow the Proohet.

[laronius]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

this was a matter where the church got it wrong

I would caution on making this assumption. As a preface to Pres Nelson's explanation to the changes in policy he said this: 

"...we can adjust policy when the Lord directs us to do so."

What proof do you have that the original policy adjustment was not inspired? In other words you are saying that the brethren decided to deny baptism to children without first receiving approval from the Lord to make that change. Is that really what you want to imply?

Pres Nelson also said:

"The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have continued to seek the Lord’s guidance and to plead with Him in behalf of His children who were affected by the 2015 policy."

Why would they plead with the Lord in behalf of those affected by the 2015 policy if it was not the Lord's direction in the first place?

Also, just to be clear it was never the policy that children of LGBT parents could not be baptized until 18. The initial change made was that it would require approval from the First Presidency before they were baptized. Later that policy was changed so that the determination could be made at the local level. What the initial policy change did was put the First Presidency in closer contact with those LGBT parents whose homes the brethren were trying to support in the first place. I can only imagine how much understanding and enlightenment came from those dialogues, whether it was in person or through a representative, not just in relation to the baptism of children but in supporting homes of LGBT parents in general. We may not always know why the Lord does what he does but we shouldn't just assume something is uninspired just because we don't have all the answers up font or that there is another change later on. Recently Pres Nelson said: 

"I know that good inspiration is based upon good information..."

This may very well have been a case where in seeking the Lord's direction on how to support these certain homes the Lord essentially said "You don't have all the information you need so let's make a policy adjustment that will help you gather that information. Then when you know more you will be in a better position to bless the lives of my children."

[Just_A_Guy]

 

9 hours ago, Fether said:

This is probably a similar thread as the one on loving your neighbor, I am mostly just seeking to further understand this relationship between personal revelation, direction from the church, God's will, and social movement against stances of the church.

A couple of events and references for this post. None of these are complaints or critiques. I am just trying to state events as they happened, and use the events to preface my question. If you feel like I misrepresented the events or the references in any way, feel free to call me out.

Fether, there are some historical nuances here that are getting missed or slightly twisted and, in their incorrect state, I think affect some of the underlying assumptions and presumptions of your question.  

For example:

Quote

Blacks and the Priesthood:
- Brigham Young introducing policies that barred people of color from the priesthood
- Some members rejecting this policy as being from God and protesting the church leaders to change it in ways they saw fit
- Some members accepting the policy as being from God and rebuking the protestors
- Bruce R McConkie famously saying blacks will never have the priesthood
- Church Policy changing
- Bruce R McConkie apologizing and saying "we were acting on limited light" and that God has spoken more to us.

Elder McConkie did not say blacks would never have the priesthood.  He read Brigham Young's pronouncement (I'm going from memory here) that the seed of Cain would not be eligible to have the priesthood until Abel had seed who could hold the priesthood and concluded, from that, that blacks would not get the priesthood until the Millennium came.  It was this teaching, in particular, that Elder McConkie admonished his hearers to forget.  If you read his "All are alike unto God" talk in context, you will see that he absolutely did not apologize for the ban or suggest that it was objectively wrong for the Church to have ever instituted it.  Instead, he defended it; teaching that the Gospel goes to the world "on a priority basis", nation by nation.

Additionally, it is wrong to suggest that the Church leadership was blissfully aware of the policy's ramifications until wiser, more compassionate, less doctrinaire liberals shamed them into returning to the Lord about the issue.  Ed Kimball's article on the June 1978 revelation illustrates the depth and length of time with which President Spencer Kimball had been struggling with the issue.  Moreover, it is known that President David O. McKay specifically asked the Lord for permission to revoke the ban in (I believe) the mid-1950s, and was explicitly told "no".  One might argue that it's unclear whether the Lord "owned" the priesthood ban in the 1850s; but He certainly did by the 1950s--and if He did at the later date, it becomes difficult to argue that He couldn't or wouldn't have done so a hundred years earlier.  

Quote

2015 Policy barring children of LGBTQ from being baptized
- Church came out and announced children of LGBTQ could not be baptized before they are 18
- Many members saw what the church was attempting to do and appreciated it and received a spiritual witness that it was appropriate
- Many other members had serious problems with it and had spiritual experiences confirming their concerns and protested it in ways they saw fit
- The church came out later and reversed the policy

As @Carborendum suggests:  The whole point of having living prophets is that God gives us revelation tailored to time and place.  What He said in 600 BC may not be the same as He would say in AD 1830, which may differ from what He would say in 2008, which may differ again from His counsel in 2015 and again in 2019.  The 2015 policy was tailored to time and place, and I see no reason to believe it wasn't as necessary then as is the parallel policy (which is still in force) regarding children raised in polygamous households.  

And again--when you've got a member of the Quorum of the 12 whose brother is gay (Elder Christofferson), a member of the Presidency of the 70 with an LGBTQ son (Elder Gong), and a member of the First Presidency whose infamous understanding and compassion and insight routinely draw swoons from the Mormon left (then-President Uchtdorf)--to suggest that the highest echelons of the Church leadership were living in some kind of bubble and weren't thinking about how this policy would affect people or desperately pleading with the Lord for any additional light He had to give on the subject, is just not credible.  

Quote

Non-traditional LGBTQ Couple are not to be sealed in the temple (Just a reference to a policy, I don't disagree with it, just using it as an example of a policy that is still in force that some take issue with)
- Family Proclamation states marriage is between a man and a woman and gender is an eternal principle
- Many have had spiritual experiences that confirm these teachings and they uphold them as being from God
- Many have had spiritual experiences that confirm to them that these are not from God and they protest it in the way they see fit
- Nothing has changed

[Let's round out the narrative here, though.  Many want it to change, and use the first two examples you've offered to indicate that it will change and that their politicking, dishonesty, and malice are therefore justifiable because they are "on the right side of history".]

Quote

I want to hear your thoughts on the questions below. I don't necessarily care if you answer every individual one or not, just want to hear your thoughts.

[1] What is our responsibility and what is the appropriate response to policies or statements made by the church that we may disagree with? [2] Is the church to be our source of truth and we are to wait on them for further revelation on important church/worldwide matters? [3] Are those that protested the priesthood ban peacefully to be seen as doing the right thing, the wrong thing, or an appropriate thing to do when feeling like the church made a misstep? [4] Same question for those that opposed the 2015 LGBTQ policy? [5]What about the LGBTQ ban on temple sealings? [6]If it isn't appropriate to protest these matters, do you believe revelation would have been sought on these matters had there been on concern for them? Jim Bennett once said that we don't receive revelation until we ask the question, is that accurate in the cases of the policies above? If no one was protesting, would the questions have ever been asked? 

1.  I see personal, private, and public responsibilities here:

a)  Personally:  I need to be really open to the idea that my preconceptions and desires may be wrong; and sincerely and honestly wrestle it out.  If I ask the Lord "why?", I need to give Him the space to offer me an answer that I may not like.  If I can't get resolution, it may be necessary to put the issue on the proverbial shelf for a while and then pull it out again and wrestle with it some more a couple of years later.

b)  Privately:  I see no harm in taking the same mentality as above ("why?  Help me to understand . . ."--and not just saying that as a manipulative rhetorical technique; but honestly willing to learn and accept counsel and change one's mind) and discussing the issue with ecclesiastical leaders.  At a certain point I may even write to a GA with the same sort of approach and question--but with the awareness that they are so fantastically busy that the issue may get referred back to my local leaders with a note (or no note).  But, maybe they'll at least take my letter as a data point in formulating the topic for their next General Conference talk.  I suspect, too, that letters to GAs get a little more attention if the writer has already written to the same GA in the past offering thanks for a past talk or insight; so that the writer doesn't just come off as a malcontent).

c)  Publicly:  I think the attitude to take here is respectful silence.  There are a few . . . I don't call them doctrines, but ways of talking about doctrines (pedogagies?  traditions?) that prevail in the Church that I disagree with.  To the extent that they may put me in direct conflict with the Brethren, I try to generally keep them to myself, unless a) it appears that someone is struggling with the traditional method, and I offer it as a possible way to reconcile the difficulty;  b) I'm debating it on a forum like this because I want people to push back, poke holes in it and see if it withstands the scrutiny of others [in which case I try to be forthright that my position does *not* represent Church doctrine or the opinion of the leadership]; or (occasionally) c) I'm in a Gospel discussion with a close family member or friend, and the issue naturally comes up. 

2.  We absolutely do not need to wait for the Church for further revelation--the scriptures make it clear that Zion is to be a nation of prophets.  But we have no right to publicly teach for doctrine personal revelations that get out in front of the Church authorities.  That's what D&C 28 is all about.  

3.  I would say they were doing the wrong thing--maybe (maybe!) for the right reason, but still the wrong thing.  If I'm uncomfortable with the way my wife is disciplining our children, the answer is not to put a sign on my front lawn saying "Just_A_Girl Is A Filthy Skanky Child-Beater!  Call (801) 555-1212 And Tell Her To Stop!!!!". 

4.  See #3 above.  Malcontents on this issue specifically are particularly irritating for me because in conversing with most of them--they haven't even taken the time to ponder why the Church did what it did; most of their priorities are seriously warped; they have a clear personal animus for the Church leadership as individuals; and many of them frankly don't even believe in the Law of Chastity at all.  

5.  Same as No. 4 above.  

6.  Of course they'd have been asked--and indeed, were asked--with respect to the priesthood ban and the 2015 policy.  The GAs do not live in a bubble, and they aren't ogres.  They know when Church policies cause pain, and there's no reason to believe that they enjoy the infliction of that pain.  

Incidentally, a former mission president of mine is now in the Presidency of the 70, and his daughter-in-law routinely makes pro-LGBTQ Facebook posts.  So . . . yeah.  The GAs are getting pushback for their policies at a personal, visceral level that bullhorn-wielding protestors could only dream about attaining.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether]

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Elder McConkie did not say blacks would never have the priesthood.  He read Brigham Young's pronouncement (I'm going from memory here) that the seed of Cain would not be eligible to have the priesthood until Abel had seed who could hold the priesthood and concluded, from that, that blacks would not get the priesthood until the Millennium came

This was what I was referring to. Mormon doctrine taught that they would not receive the priesthood till the millennium because of their heritage from Cain. My apologize for not explaining that better.

 

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Additionally, it is wrong to suggest that the Church leadership was blissfully aware of the policy's ramifications until wiser, more compassionate, less doctrinaire liberals shamed them into returning to the Lord about the issue.

I had no intention to suggest this was my view. My suggestion is that perhaps the social movement pushed the issue forward in the minds of the leaders.

26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

s @Carborendum suggests:  The whole point of having living prophets is that God gives us revelation tailored to time and place.  What He said in 600 BC may not be the same as He would say in AD 1830, which may differ from what He would say in 2008, which may differ again from His counsel in 2015 and again in 2019.  The 2015 policy was tailored to time and place, and I see no reason to believe it wasn't as necessary then as is the parallel policy (which is still in force) regarding children raised in polygamous households.  

And again--when you've got a member of the Quorum of the 12 whose brother is gay (Elder Christofferson), a member of the Presidency of the 70 with an LGBTQ son (Elder Gong), and a member of the First Presidency whose infamous understanding and compassion and insight routinely draw swoons from the Mormon left (then-President Uchtdorf)--to suggest that the highest echelons of the Church leadership were living in some kind of bubble and weren't thinking about how this policy would affect people or desperately pleading with the Lord for any additional light He had to give on the subject, is just not credible

I agree, Nelson himself said they heard the cries of the people so they continued to to seek thr Lords will. I’m making no I’ll claim on our leaders, nor am I suggesting they lack experience in these matters. My address not claim is that the outcry of members pushed these issues to the front of their mind

 

and though I’m not referencing the rest of your post, I do agree and see the wisdom in it 

[Fether]

56 minutes ago, laronius said:

"...we can adjust policy when the Lord directs us to do so."

What proof do you have that the original policy adjustment was not inspired? In other words you are saying that the brethren decided to deny baptism to children without first receiving approval from the Lord to make that change. Is that really what you want to imply?

There was this 90 year old man in my ward that declared once “the church doesn’t CHANGE… it ADJUSTS…”

I see this same logic here

The church made a decision in 2015, then reverted it in 2019. Pres Nelson said 

“We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep—for whatever reasons—we weep. So our supplications to the Lord continued.”

I believe they were inspired to do something in an attempt to draw closer to the lgbtq community in relationship. I do believe the policy was a mistake. The intentions were not, nor their desired outcome.

1 hour ago, laronius said:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have continued to seek the Lord’s guidance and to plead with Him in behalf of His children who were affected by the 2015 policy."

Why would they plead with the Lord in behalf of those affected by the 2015 policy if it was not the Lord's direction in the first place?

Admittedly… this seem like completely backward logic you are putting on this.

I would counter. Why would they plead with the Lord in behalf of those affected by the 2015 policy if it WAS the Lord's direction in the first place? Why would they seek changes to something they believed to be the lords will? And the fact that they changed suggests it wasn’t fully what the lord wanted

[laronius]

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

 

Admittedly… this seem like completely backward logic you are putting on this.

I would counter. Why would they plead with the Lord in behalf of those affected by the 2015 policy if it WAS the Lord's direction in the first place? Why would they seek changes to something they believed to be the lords will? And the fact that they changed suggests it wasn’t fully what the lord wanted

Because they recognize that the Lord often reveals things line by line, precept by precept. They were praying for guidance, not necessarily a reversal of policy.

[Fether]

10 minutes ago, laronius said:

Because they recognize that the Lord often reveals things line by line, precept by precept. They were praying for guidance, not necessarily a reversal of policy.

So you believe that in 2015, God said “It is my will for you to require children of LGBTQ parents to receive permission from the prophet to be baptized” and then in 2019, God said “It is my will to require children of LGBTQ parents to receive permission from the prophet to be baptized “It is my will for you to not require children of LGBTQ parents to receive permission from the prophet to be baptized”?

[estradling75]

28 minutes ago, Fether said:

So you believe that in 2015, God said “It is my will for you to require children of LGBTQ parents to receive permission from the prophet to be baptized” and then in 2019, God said “It is my will to require children of LGBTQ parents to receive permission from the prophet to be baptized “It is my will for you to not require children of LGBTQ parents to receive permission from the prophet to be baptized”?

I'lldo you even better then this.... Recently in our Come Follow Me studies we read where the Lord reversed his commands in a matter of days... not years.   Joseph and Company are coming back from Missouri, the Lord command them to travel on the river.  They experience life threatening danger, and after they survive that.  Joseph received a revelation that they should not travel on the river because of the danger, and they should warn everyone else.  The Lord knew the danger and he knew he would command them not to travel on the river, when he gave the command to travel on the river.  So why did he do it?  Was Joseph Smith a false prophet?  Or was the Lord training his leaders?  If the Lord knew how important it would be to the lives and Salvation of others, to not travel on the river, the best way to make sure his leaders deliver the message is to unmistakably show them the danger personally. And he did so.

While I can't say for sure why the Lord changed commands on LGBTQ in the space of a few years... I do trust that it was him doing so... and he had very good reasons.