Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kllindley

  1. I don't have any problem with you asking questions. I absolutely do believe that you provide value to the discussion. I honestly did not read those questions as sincere. Using quotation marks around [revelation] does not really scream sincerity or respect. "And what about the whole. . . ." seemed like an attempt to pile-on as that has been discussed here previously. And asking those questions in a post quoting my answer made them seem directly asked of me rather than of the board generally. So given my later explanation of what I understood President Nelson to be saying and some of my personal speculation, the questions did not seem especially sincere. But I am willing to be wrong. I am happy to hear that you were sincere in trying to understand. I will be happy to answer your questions. It does not seem wrong. I am willing to be wrong. I am happy to hear that you were sincere in trying to understand. I will be happy to answer your questions. I am willing to be wrong. I am happy to hear that you were sincere in trying to understand. I will be happy to answer your questions. Yes, Bishops have previously had that responsibility. In light of recent discussions here about how many Bishops fail in implementing policies generally, I can see that requiring the First Presidency's approval prevented biased and bigoted Bishops from imposing their own will in preventing specific individuals from being baptized. I do not agree that this represents a "huge change and a departure" from how baptisms have been handled in every circumstance. First Presidency approval has been required for decades for children of polygamous relationships. The handbook still identifies entering a same-sex marriage as an act of apostasy. However, the statement by President Oaks and the subsequent letter of instruction sent to bishops states that this is no longer to be considered automatically a matter of apostasy.
  2. See my post above. I'm happy to clarify if that doesn't. But in the context of his explanation of the entire process, he isn't discussing fallibility or a mistake. He claims that both changes to policy were the result of revelation. Or is your claim to fallibility that he is mistaken in that claim?
  3. If we take President Nelson at his word, the Q15 were concerned about how to ensure peace in the family with children of parents in same sex relationships. They discussed and prayed for guidance for months. Ultimately, he reports that President Monson stated that the Lord had revealed to him that the policy that needed to be in place was that parents in same-sex relationships who wanted a child baptized would need First Presidency approval. This approval would be granted if certain conditions were met. Again, according to President Nelson, the other 14 Brethren received confirmation that this was the will of the Lord. Over the next 3.5 years, the First Presidency did in fact grant approval in all such cases that met the criteria President Nelson outlined. They continued to petition the Lord for guidance on the implementation of this policy. At a certain point it was revealed that if a case met the same criteria that the First Presidency had been using, a Bishop would be authorized to grant the exception. The criteria for children of parents in a same-sex relationship didn't change. What changed was who was authorized to determine if the criteria have been met. Why would God want it this way? I don't have any "inside" information and can only speculate. I can see it as very possible that in the immediate aftermath of the June 2015 Supreme Court decision, there were some cases of children of parents in same-sex relationships being baptized and this leading to increased conflict in the home. This could explain why the policy was implemented when it was. I can also see that requiring First Presidency approval for the first 3.5 years may have served a purpose in communicating the importance of those criteria actually being met. I guess I have faith that it is possible for Heavenly Father to communicate to the Q15 His will. I believe it is possible that He not offer every reason why. I also believe that it is possible for Him to inspire a course of action that prevents harm or problems that might otherwise occur. Personally, I don't have the confidence in my own omniscience to assert that what President Nelson is saying about the process is false.
  4. Your argument is not logically sound. Calling the change to the policy in April 2019 a rescission is a false premise. It also requires that President Nelson is being dishonest in his devotional. I have no problem acknowledging fallibility. AND I do believe that both the Nov. 2015 Policy and the change in April 2019 were based on actual revelation.
  5. He explained how. He also explained that it wasn't nearly as much rescinding the policy as changing who had the authority to offer exceptions to the policy.
  6. A person can infer basically anything from anything. So without some sense of the basis from which a thing is inferred, such a statement is essentially meaningless.
  7. Of course it can happen. 🙂. I think the more important question is whether he did get it wrong. Would you care to explain how you know what revelation he received and how he got it wrong?
  8. Are you asserting that he is being dishonest about what actually happened and that you are privy to that knowledge? Or are you just saying he should "admit" it regardless of whether that is what actually happened?
  9. I didn't say that it was unreasonable. I asked whether it could be backed up by any quotes or specific examples. Are you suggesting that it can't, but is nevertheless reasonable?
  10. I didn't get that sense at all. Can you point to anything he stated that suggested that the first implementation was personal opinion and not revelation? Or is that just an inference you are making?
  11. This was a powerful talk about Heavenly Father's love for us, truth, and Divine Law. He also addresses quite openly the Nov. 15th Policy. This included how and why it was implemented. He also talked about the events that led up to the change in the policy. It was clear how much he loves people and how much he seeks to follow Heavenly Father's will.
  12. That's an accurate explanation of classical conditioning. There is no compelling or even rational way to claim that classical conditioning is at play here. What she may be able to argue is that this is a result of operant conditioning. This is the form of conditioning with positive and negative reinforcers and punishments. I'm not convinced that even then operant conditioning is the best explanation, but at least it is possible.
  13. My memory was that previously you had framed it as a belief. But if you now know how God views things, even as you insist that others can't really know, I have a much clearer sense of how seriously to take anything you say.
  14. Thanks for finally going on the record about that.
  15. I completely believe and support this. I have a testimony that as He said: "I am able to do mine own work." God is fully capable of leading his children back to him through any infinite number of paths. [I personally believe that ultimately all of those paths lead through Christ by way of the New and Everlasting Covenant, although when or how an individual comes to that point is irrelevant.] Three thoughts came up in response to this paragraph: I acknowledge that perhaps the Leaders of the Church are mistaken in policies or decisions. To date, my personal experience with the Spirit leads me to believe that they are in harmony with His will, so I do support them. It may not have been intentional, but I deeply respect the humility demonstrated be including yourself in the "we" who sometimes get it wrong. From a perspective that God may use a variety of paths to bring His children back to Him, is it possible that He both led you away from the Church and inspires Church Leaders in their policies and decisions? Could they be as "right" in their decisions as you are in yours? There's a bit more to quibble with here. I would say that the Church is not the best environment for someone who rejects its teachings about sexuality and identity and instead adopts a late 20th Century Western view of sexual identity. I can completely agree with that statement. I also completely agree that Heavenly Father wants all of us to find the committed love you describe. I just don't believe that any members are forbidden from those experiences. Again 100% agree. I mean, some people may have had that information shown or revealed to them, and God is capable of confirming the truth of their witness in our lives. But that is nowhere near the level of sure knowledge that I would need before I felt remotely able to judge another.
  16. Were you in attendance? Or are you relying on a news article that omitted all context?
  17. Are you telling me that they actually used the word "straight?" And I stand as a counter witness. My life has forever been blessed by following much the same counsel. What do we do about that?
  18. I once had a couple who came in with the wife ready for divorce. She had discovered after 20 years of marriage that her husband found other women attractive. She felt that if he truly loved her he wouldn't be attracted to anyone else. She felt even more betrayed because this had apparently been going years and she never knew. She acknowledged that he hadn't cheated or even flirted with any of these women; she even admitted that he was kind and loving. But still she demanded that unless he fixed his problem, the marriage was over. I thought she was being unreasonable at the time. Though in fairness, I absolutely did not think she "had to stay in her marriage." I do, however, think it was extremely selfish of her to harm her children by seeking a divorce.
  • Create New...