The First Feebles

[Marcus]

...General Authorities of the LDS church often teach that God speaks not through the fire and the storm of 'hellfire and damnation' loud/raised voice type/kind of preaching which can be found in abundance, but through the quiet stirrings of the heart responding to the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit.

Similar to what we've discussed in relation to Alma 32.

Looks like mg's AI got the Alma 32 'similarity' wrong. Morley suggested PerplexityAI before, I'm guessing it's still being cut and pasted.

[yellowstone123]

Fair enough. There’s definitely a long line of folks who’ve “had a little fun” with the voice of revelation—some more convincingly than others.

I’m just saying that the language of D&C 110 hits on something cosmic; it sounds like eternity clearing its throat.

It would definitely be more entertaining, though, if modern revelations came with that same thunder and poetry.

Possibly more entertaining, yes, One might ask whether God works nowadays through the '700 Club method' of preaching the word, or more through the 'still small voice' of personal revelation/inspiration. General Authorities of the LDS church often teach that God speaks not through the fire and the storm of 'hellfire and damnation' loud/raised voice type/kind of preaching which can be found in abundance, but through the quiet stirrings of the heart responding to the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit.

Similar to what we've discussed in relation to Alma 32.

Regards,
MG

MG, do you believe the decision denying the Holy Ghost to an 8-year-old because of something completely out of their control came from a still small voice?

[MG 2.0]

Possibly more entertaining, yes, One might ask whether God works nowadays through the '700 Club method' of preaching the word, or more through the 'still small voice' of personal revelation/inspiration. General Authorities of the LDS church often teach that God speaks not through the fire and the storm of 'hellfire and damnation' loud/raised voice type/kind of preaching which can be found in abundance, but through the quiet stirrings of the heart responding to the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit.

Similar to what we've discussed in relation to Alma 32.

Regards,
MG

MG, do you believe the decision denying the Holy Ghost to an 8-year-old because of something completely out of their control came from a still small voice?

I'm not positive that every policy change is divinely given. I think that as humans, including the prophets, we are steered in directions that our own moral compass takes us. Other examples in church history would show this to be the case with members and leaders. As the Brethren struggle with some of the dilemmas coming out of the LGBTQ controversies/issues I would think that in this instance they saw that policy as a way to avoid placing children in a situation where they’d be taught one moral framework at home and a conflicting one at church.

The Church has long taught that marriage is between a man and a woman. Leaders may have felt that allowing children of same-sex couples to be baptized could be interpreted as tacit approval of same-sex relationships. This is the classic example of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Within any large religious organization, well most anyway, there are practices/policies that are intended to signal doctrinal clarity and boundary maintenance. There have been other times in early church history and beyond where the Lord may have given a signal/nudge towards one thing and because of the response of people with their own moral compasses composed and/or made of their own prejudices/biases/conditioning God either backs off or readjusts to the 'group dynamics' in play. How that all plays out in the mind of God vs. what's happening 'on the ground', I don't know (obviously).

The Church has had similar policies in the past regarding children of polygamous families, where baptism was delayed to avoid conflicting loyalties.

When it comes down to it, the policy caused significant pain, confusion, and alienation, not just for LGBTQ members and their families, but for many others who saw it as unjust.

The emotional toll may have outweighed the intended doctrinal clarity (doctrine which had its roots in revelation and scripture), prompting reconsideration. Apparently, Moses had to deal with something similar a LONG time ago.

Agency is a messy thing. How that dovetails with Divine Revelation/Inspiration is above my pay grade. As it is, things did work out the best that they could have under the circumstances while still adhering to core gospel principles and doctrines.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

The Church has long taught that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That’s misleading. The Church has actually taught that marriage is between a man and one or more women. Take the current Church President, and the previous one. Both are married to two women, and they expect to live as “man and wives” for eternity. But for government intervention, the SLC LDS Church today would be encouraging you to take more than one wife of you wanted to achieve exaltation. In fact, that’s probably still the expectation for the top level of of the Celestial Kingdom, else some women will be denied entry simply because a man hasn’t married them.

[Marcus]

...the Lord may have given a signal/nudge towards one thing and because of the response of people with their own moral compasses composed and/or made of their own prejudices/biases/conditioning God either backs off or readjusts to the 'group dynamics' in play...

"god backs off"? "god readjusts" depending on whether the humans like what he reveals ???

This doesn't sound like a god. It doesn't sound like a CEO creating a mission statement for his company, or even a good shift manager at a local Walmart. This is bizarre, defining god in this way, making up attributes and giving god imperfect, human traits, just so the actions and policies of the LDS church can be justified. It's not theologically sound, because any situation can be explained away simply by making up a new, previously undefined god quality.

[I Have Questions]

...the Lord may have given a signal/nudge towards one thing and because of the response of people with their own moral compasses composed and/or made of their own prejudices/biases/conditioning God either backs off or readjusts to the 'group dynamics' in play...

"god backs off"? "god readjusts" depending on whether the humans like what he reveals ???

This doesn't sound like a god. It doesn't sound like a CEO creating a mission statement for his company, or even a good shift manager at a local Walmart. This is bizarre, defining god in this way, making up attributes and giving god imperfect, human traits, just so the actions and policies of the LDS church can be justified. It's not theologically sound, because any situation can be explained away simply by making up a new, previously undefined god quality.

MG’s God bows to public pressure. Like a kite in the wind.

[yellowstone123]

Thank you for your answer, MG. Then why create the policy. I think Nelson spoke of prayers to God, explaining that this was causing lots of pain and tears, so the church rescinded it. But why not see the pain and tears beforehand. Religious leaders seem to make calls based on the still small voice of their counselors or of their cultural upbringing. President Monson appears to have done it, he died, a new prophet came in and changed the rule. Is it from God or from someone else’s culture. It’s not prophecy after the fact, it’s a wrong call. The LDS church missed the mark, regrouped and tried again. Good for them.

[I Have Questions]

Thank you for your answer, MG. Then why create the policy. I think Nelson spoke of prayers to God, explaining that this was causing lots of pain and tears, so the church rescinded it. But why not see the pain and tears beforehand. Religious leaders seem to make calls based on the still small voice of their counselors or of their cultural upbringing. President Monson appears to have done it, he died, a new prophet came in and changed the rule. Is it from God or from someone else’s culture. It’s not prophecy after the fact, it’s a wrong call. The LDS church missed the mark, regrouped and tried again. Good for them.

I think it shows that vocal disapproval, activism, a membership prepared to stand up for what they believe in rather than blind obedience, works. It’s as if the members have learned a significant lesson from the Priesthood Ban. They know Church Leaders get significant things wrong and they are now not prepared to get dragged into horrible non Christian positions of the Church’s making. Good on the membership for forcing a reversal.

[MG 2.0]

Thank you for your answer, MG. Then why create the policy. I think Nelson spoke of prayers to God, explaining that this was causing lots of pain and tears, so the church rescinded it. But why not see the pain and tears beforehand. Religious leaders seem to make calls based on the still small voice of their counselors or of their cultural upbringing. President Monson appears to have done it, he died, a new prophet came in and changed the rule. Is it from God or from someone else’s culture. It’s not prophecy after the fact, it’s a wrong call. The LDS church missed the mark, regrouped and tried again. Good for them.

I won't argue that revelation is a multi-faceted thing. It has many faces and ways of presenting itself to the world and the humans that live in/on this 'blue dot' piece of rock in/through various ways/means.

What really matters are the results/outcomes, I would think. Sometimes the path/routes in getting there are difficult for the human/mortal eye to discern. No argument there.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Thank you for your answer, MG. Then why create the policy. I think Nelson spoke of prayers to God, explaining that this was causing lots of pain and tears, so the church rescinded it. But why not see the pain and tears beforehand. Religious leaders seem to make calls based on the still small voice of their counselors or of their cultural upbringing. President Monson appears to have done it, he died, a new prophet came in and changed the rule. Is it from God or from someone else’s culture. It’s not prophecy after the fact, it’s a wrong call. The LDS church missed the mark, regrouped and tried again. Good for them.

I won't argue that revelation is a multi-faceted thing. It has many faces and ways of presenting itself to the world and the humans that live in/on this 'blue dot' piece of rock in/through various ways/means.

What really matters are the results/outcomes, I would think. Sometimes the path/routes in getting there are difficult for the human/mortal eye to discern. No argument there.

Regards,
MG

What are the results/outcomes of the specific policy being discussed, and its reversal? (You’ll know what they are because they really matter).