Why was there no policy debate over the ten commandments -- a response to Elma Tanners attempt at the debunking of LDS leadership.

For those of us playing along at home -- reading criticisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through Internet channels -- let me say that there is nothing in the Bible about a “processing” or debate over the Ten Commandments.

I am just a guy, just a member of the church. While I don't speak for the church in any capacity, I do speak for a WHOLE TON of us, and I am responding to an article titled "LDS Church’s Stance on Gay Marriage Reveals How Out-of-Touch the Religion Is" by Emma Tanner.

Frankly, I do not believe that it was ever the Lord's will that his church be "in-touch" with human society. His is a much bigger picture, it seems to me.

To answer her question, Mosses didn’t gather his close friends to debate the necessity of such a basic and general-purpose law that had been literally written in stone. 

The pattern of apostles being set apart had not been established by Jesus Christ. Apostles were called of the Lord starting when the Savior lived on the earth and organized His church - to my understanding.

The church was restored after the apostasy -- after the leaders of the church that Jesus Christ established were killed off. There are prophets and apostles on the earth today. So when the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ meet to discuss the need for changes or reiterations or new policies, and they seek the direction of the head of the church (the Savior, Jesus Christ) they are following an established procedure that was instigated by the Savior himself.

The LDS church and its people (of whom I am one) are not blaming God’s will or throwing any blame on him for the recent reiteration of policy -- as the author suggests.

"So, to fight independent and reasonable questioning and gain control, the LDS Church has fallen back on traditional methods of instilling fear and binding members together as some sort of desperate army against a rational and evolving society" she says.

Again, no. The LDS church has never deviated from its stance that the prophets and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ receive revelation to guide the Lords church. It is my understanding that God's will does not evolve to mirror human society. Neither the body of the church (I'm part of that) nor it's leaders have ever held a meeting to decide God's will. Rather, our leaders -- prophets called of God -- may discuss the pros and cons of an issue as humans with agency, and then go to the Lord in prayer for revelation and guidance.

President Russell M. Nelson recently stated that "...The reality is that there are servants of Satan embedded throughout society. So be very careful whose counsel you follow.”

That doesn't sound like the threat that Tanner suggests it was. That sounds like a warning to be careful in deciding who to follow, which sounds like prudent advise to me.

I share some of the goals the author mentioned, specifically:

• A desire to think for myself, or "thinking independently"
• "Developing personal morals intended to create a better world of love acceptance, good work, service for those around us — (not for God, and not for reward, but for the sake of being a good human being)" 
• "Leaving the world better than it was when I arrived." 

I also believe that the prophets speak for the Savior and strive to follow his will. Whether those who have left the church choose to return or stay away, I will treat them with the love and respect that I would want for myself or for any of my friends or family. Regardless of popular policy and procedure or current understanding of His teachings, "love thy neighbor" is still the standard.

And we are not voting on that.