Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kllindley

President Nelson's Devotional: "The Love and Laws of God"

Recommended Posts

i'd be interested to know why they continued to see guidance on the matter when God has already spoken

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know why they continued to see guidance on the matter when God has already spoken

See here:

Quote

The LDS Church’s controversial 2015 LGBT exclusion policy and its 2019 reversal, the faith’s president said Tuesday, were motivated by the same emotion: love.

“We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us,” Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in an address at church-owned Brigham Young University.

“Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep — for whatever reasons — we weep. So, our supplications to the Lord continued.”

I think this works well.  Supplications continued.  Not because of rebellion or anger or malice, but because of the love and concern they have for their brothers and sisters who are struggling.

Quote

In his sermon, the 95-year-old church president described “five truths,” including: that every person is a “son or daughter of God,” “truth is truth,” “God loves everyone...with a perfect love,” “prophets and apostles communicate [God’s] love and teach his laws,” and all people “may know for [themselves] what is true and what is not.”

This story will be updated.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See here:

I think this works well.  Supplications continued.  Not because of rebellion or anger or malice, but because of the love and concern they have for their brothers and sisters who are struggling.

Thanks,

-Smac

but wouldn't weeping be the consequences of the policy or the reason for the policy aka homosexuality, like it's against the law to swipe a car but if the criminals are weeping because they got caught or can't do it anymore we don't change the laws to accomodate them

Share this post


Link to post

President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think two main reasons that analogy doesn't work is that 1) we also don't make the kids pay the consequences for the person stealing the car and 2) the policy was never about consequences for sin but about helping families with LGTBQ parents have harmony and unity.  

So weeping in consequence of a policy meant to promote unity and harmony between kids and LGBTQ parents is different than weeping in consequence of sin.  

This is certainly how I understood him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 10THAmendment said:

President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. 

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?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, 10THAmendment said:

President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. 

I don't think the tune is different. Again, the above remarks about Elder Bednar seem apt.  He differentiates between "doctrines" and "principles" and "applications," as follows:

  • Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
  • Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
  • Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

The Church hasn't changed any "doctrines."  Principles?  Yes.  Applications?  Yes.  Doctrines?  No.  

Did the 2015 policy changes fit within the category of "Doctrines"?  Nope.  They seem to fall within the "Principles" category.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, kllindley said:

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?

It would not be an unreasonable inference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know why they continued to see guidance on the matter when God has already spoken

"Seek guidance"?

If I understood you correctly, I assume it was for how they should implement what God spoken the best way....as in speak or publicize it, instructions they pass on, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It would not be an unreasonable inference.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. 

I don't get that from what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How much healthier it would be to just allow himself to admit that he in his office can get things not quite right or even wrong. I think that admission would open up the windows of inspiration more, and compassion...

Yes, he totally got a revelation wrong, which can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How much healthier it would be to just allow himself to admit that he in his office can get things not quite right or even wrong. I think that admission would open up the windows of inspiration more, and compassion...

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? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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?

Just that even is it weren't explicitly stated, it can be inferred.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting speech.  I gave it a listen.  Of course I'm not on board with all that he said (what would we all expect?).  

I"m surprised he addressed this as he did, in a sense.  I mean if he was going to address it I don't know that there would be any other course to take, reasonably (well I'll get back to that).  Apparently God said, knowing full well it would hurt people, "don't let these kids coming unto me get baptized, lest their parents get offended and the kids and parents oppose each other."  The brethren apparently after much permutations and possible scenarios didn't realize it would hurt as bad as it did.  So after it was established as coming from God for a short time, they saw the hurt and plead with God to change it back.  He apparently suffered it to be so now.  

I remember the story of Joseph lamenting for his loss of soul when he kept pleading after God made his call, and the result of a loss of the 116 pages.  Joseph apparently learned a lesson not to doubt God, and learn to trust him.  I wonder if this whole event will produce the same for Nelson.  He suffers it to be so because he needs to teach his leader a lesson that he should have trusted him and not kept pleading.

But in the end, Meadowchik is right.  In truth it would be far more reasonable for him to come out and admit mistakes are made.  leaders don't always teach truth, as he said.  Sometimes they are wrong.  It happens.  He should admit that, I'd think.  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Tacenda said:

Yes, he totally got a revelation wrong, which can happen.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Just that even is it weren't explicitly stated, it can be inferred.

Pretty much anything can be inferred.  Now whether something is implied....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...