First, while I included in the opening post the proposal that the difference between policy and revelation is in fact not much of a difference (a “false dichotomy,” as some have termed it in the comments), LDS leaders certainly do seem to see a difference. Elder Nelson stressed the role of revelation in formulating and promulgating the new text added to Handbook 1, and he seems to think the distinction does some conceptual work vis-a-vis the new policies. His view is that this is more than just a policy, it is a revelation, and he seems to think that clarification changes the status of the new text. So we, as Latter-day Saints, really do have to grapple with the distinction between mere policy and revelation, and understand how that distinction applies to the New Policy and the Amended New Policy as discussed in the opening post.

Second, I recommend my co-blogger Nathaniel’s post “Policy, Doctrine, and Revelation,” which is a response to and further discussion of this post. Perhaps I will even do an additional reply to Nathaniel’s response to this post.

This is obviosly aproprate for straight people, but says nothing about the 5% who are gay.

Christ lived in a very sexualised society (greeks and romans worshippedgods of love, with sex- roman orgies) he said nothing, but Paul did, he was objecting to straight people having all sorts of sex.

The new ruling is attacking married gay people, so fornication is not applicable. The definition of chastity has recently been changed to add between a man and a woman. The eternal version, still used in the temple, includes gay people.

If as you believe opposition to gays is eternal, then no revelation required, if as I believethere is no opposition to gays in the Gospel, and the present opposition is just the conservative culture of some of the leaders, then claiming prophecy where none existsis at least, taking the name of God in vain.

The policy will change as the leadership changes.

Diversity of views within the church!

Where is the revelation that changed that? Where is the revelation that changed homosexual acts from a sin to acceptable behavior? Although the word homosexual does not occur in the Bible, the description of homosexual acts was condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.

Where is the revelation that changed “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Where is the revelation that says a woman can be a husband and a man can be a wife.

Jesus did not reiterate all of the commandments He had given in the Old Testament. You have to remember that according to LDS theology, Jesus Christ is Jehovah. He was the one that gave the Mosaic law.

However, fornication was condemned in the New Testament explicitly and implicitly, including by Jesus.

How in the world does claiming that something was by revelation undermine the credibility of a prophet? That is one of the things they are here for. To receive revelation for the Church.

The age of the prophet is not the problem. A new generation of prophets will do the same thing that the older generation did. They will receive revelation and formulate policies based upon it. And you will not see the stance on SSM or homosexual acts change. There may be some change in the policy. Policies can be changed due to changing circumstances. But the underlying principles will not change.

If the Lord said to me, write a proclamation making it clear that gay marriage is unaceptable, I would say it is unacceptable, somewhere in there, wouldn’you. Why did they not?

Having been to Rome, Athens, Ephesus, and Pompai recently I think if anything needed to be said about sex the Saviour would have. See 71 above.

The way I explain this to myself, is that the church consists of the Gospel of Christ, programes to help us live the Gospel, and cultural stuff which often includes leaders teaching their views as if they were Gospel. The teachings about gays, and marriage equality, come into this last category.

I do think claiming revelation is a problem, because it undermines the credibility of the leadership. It will be interesting to see what is said in April conference.

I think this policy will be gone, perhaps not until Elde Oaks is gone. Thats part of the reason I want to see tradition overturned re succession, and Apostles retiring at 80.

It is certain that our current context will change somehow or another, too. But regardless of whether these changes include advances in fertility technology enabling a single human gender to procreate, it’s startling that so many of you have already made up your minds and resworn your faith-oaths that, no, in fact, anti-reproductive sexuality IS righteous and godly, because “the times are a-changing”. The burden of explaining thorny changes in policy or revelation surely rests upon those intent on overturning seeming universals. Who has revealed this alteration of biological truth to you — your peer group? A political entity? A voice in your minds? Remember the first commandment of ten.

Again, the principle you are trying to demonstrate with all of these examples, namely (and correct me if I’m wrong) that even if the leaders are wrong we should support them in their error and not express dissent, is either blind faith, tyranny, or the harshest kind of authoritarianism. If I’m wrong, please spell out *specifically* where I err and *how* I err.

“There are many people who are willing to be patient, as long as they feel they are being heard….”

I suppose that’s the point. I have had to learn to be patient even without feeling I was heard by Church leaders. I had to learn to be heard by God and trust Him to do what needed to be done about it. My relationship is with Him far more than with others of His children, whatever their current callings. When I learned that, I started being heard by others who are also trying to serve Him. Countless times, things I have prayed for and consulted with my bishop over have been revealed through seemingly unrelated channels.

I don’t think you need to assume the worst about people, though. There are many people who are willing to be patient, as long as they feel they are being heard, and can be hopeful that things can move in a better direction. I think many people will stick with a relationship—even an unhealthy one—if they can convince themselves that things are going to change someday. I think often that can be a bad thing, since people can trick themselves into subjecting themselves and those they love to abuse, but sometimes I think it can be positive.

The Gospel Doctrine lesson I taught today was about Lehi’s and Nephi’s visions of the Tree of Life, and I think a lot of what enables people to hold on in the midst of the mists of darkness is knowing that, even though they cannot see it, they are moving in the right direction. Without knowing that you’re at the right place, even if you’re at the Tree, it is so easy to become ashamed. And it is very easy to become confused, and to think you’re at the Tree, when really you’re inside the Great and Spacious Building, mockingly seeking to deprive others of the Love of God. I think that is what many people worry most about, particularly lately.

When I had problems with certain things, I went through the proper channels and continued to patiently go through them until the Spirit had a chance to work on the hearts of the people I worked with and on mine. I doubt that is much to the taste of those who expect the changing to be done swiftly and elsewhere. Humility and patience don’t have much in common with anger and mistrust.

In my experience, those latter feelings have to be overcome in order to wield the power of change. Who wants to hear that?

I believe the reason why so many people are frustrated is because they feel powerless to influence things they believe are wrong, perhaps even evil. Perhaps if those people can hear some experiences of people who have experiences of successfully altering things in the church through their feedback, there would be more hope and less anger, mistrust, and talk of dictators.

If I wanted to discuss the nature of the “feedback” that is so eagerly given and the channels which are in the Church for that feedback, I’d discuss principles such as the atonement, stewardship, humility, patience, forgiveness, love unfeigned. I have had some success giving feedback to the Brethren this way. But if you have trouble grasping the perspective of those who support the Brethren when it comes to how we feel about them, you would certainly fail to understand how we act towards them.

Rather than telling me what I was saying, you may want to try asking me to clarify, and giving me the small amount of respect necessary to trust that I can speak to my own meaning and paradigm better than you can. Though I understand it is easier to simply attribute negative motivations and therefore criticize and dismiss a group of people you apparently cannot understand as “blind,” “unquestioning,” or even “hateful.”

True Blue, you will find that certainty among those who believe in continuing revelation. Scripture can be interpreted in many ways, but it’s tougher to speak for people who are still around to speak for themselves.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. There may not be much specifically condemning homosexuality, but there is certainly less which justifies or celebrates it. Yet there is plenty on heterosexual marriage. There is some evidence that homosexuality and marriage is not condoned by God, there is absolutely none to suggest it is.

By your logic, the Bible can also be pointed to as proof that Jesus could have taken the opportunity to support it but didn’t. After all, Judaism did not allow gay marriage either. Surely if it is so important, he would have said something at some point, even to his apostles. But He didn’t. Which leaves us with the same choice as before: to believe that the Brethren are modern day mouthpieces for God, or to disbelieve it. If they are, then mistakes can be forgiven. If they aren’t, then act as you should towards any false prophet.

Quite simple, really.