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

[sunstoned]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

We believe they are not infallible, but we do our best to give them the benefit of the doubt and follow them whether we agree with them or not and have faith that they will not do or say something that will jeopardize our salvation. If people keeps emphasizing how fallible they are, what they say will hold less importance for more people and they will tend to disregard what the prophets are saying to us. The agency of man has been the reason for many changes in the policies and programs of the church and according to the changing needs of the church.

I agree with what you are saying.  We should not emphasize fallibility.  And I do believe that is now happening.  The Reddit board has blown up over this.  I think that one thing that might be a catalyst for this negative reaction is that no one in the Q15 ever admits to making a mistake, and this would have been a perfect time to have done so.  It is never the leaders fault.  For a 150 years it has never been the leaders fault.  For many this comes across a privaged and somewhat arrogant attitude.  Now I personally do not think for minute that the leaders are this way at all. But for many, perception is reality. 

I think this whole thing would have ended much better if in elder Russell Nelson could have admitted that a mistake had been made.  

Edited September 19, 2019 by sunstoned

[Jake Starkey]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't see how

Your position presupposes "garment design" as "doctrine."  Until and unless you establish that, you don't seem to have a point.

Thanks,

-Smac

The design of garments with the origin and development of the endowment and other ordinances have incrementally changed over nearly 200 years both during time of non-temple rituals and temple rituals.

If that is 'doctrine,' then God has so made it that change and development are incremental: step by step.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[sunstoned]

3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I feel you are reading a lot into the Saviors admonition.  Isn't part of coming to Christ getting temple ordinances?  Should we allow little children to do be endowed, should we allow baptism before 8 if a child or their parents desire it?  Or should we work within the bounds the Lord sets through modern prophets to define what timetable we use to come unto Him?  The church's policy, no matter how unpopular does not forbid children from learning of Him, worshiping Him each Sunday, and petitioning for, and receiving baptism in the proper time and conditions.  There are boundaries for us all in coming to Christ in the institutional church, if you define it by receiving ordinances.  It's not a come-one and all come as-you -like-it affair for any of us.

 

We are not talking about little children taking out endowments.  That is a strawman.  We are talking about allowing a baby to be blessed and given a name in Christ's church.  We are talking about allowing a child to be baptised, confirmed, or (in the boys case) given the priesthood.  And not forbidding them these blessings solely because of the "sins" of the parents.   

The push back on this is largely because many members (some on this board) cannot bring themselves to admit that their prophet could ever make a mistake.  A big mistake was made with the POX.  Even though he didn't admit it, at least Nelson did quickly reverse it and and walked it back.

 

Quote

 

Matthew 19:14.

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

 

[Jake Starkey]

sunstoned understand the gospel perfectly.

The current policy (it's not doctrine, because it keeps changing) punishes children.  They can't be baptized.  They can't progress with their peers in primary and the other youth groups.  Can they take sacrament?  Maybe that has changed.

The proclamation and policy is not the "gospel" of Jesus Christ that I know.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

believe it's to prevent the LGBTQ crowd from feeling ostracism, which in this article is a huge factor in them feeling suicidal.

Thank you for saying it is a factor rather than the cause.

[Jake Starkey]

Just now, Calm said:

Thank you for saying it is a factor rather than the cause.

It is a 'huge' factor, and for many, yes, imo, a cause.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just wanted to share a very well researched article: https://rationalfaiths.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/LGBTQCrisis_web.pdf

There's a very strong underpinning going on with the reversal, or the semi reversal of the policy. I believe it's to prevent the LGBTQ crowd from feeling ostracism, which in this article is a huge factor in them feeling suicidal. I believe the leaders of the church realize this has happened and are working on it. 

 

From the article:

Quote

Analysis
of the data suggests that the problem is worse in LDS communities than the national average.  

The data actually does not appear to suggest this according to Michael Staley, the Medical Examiner researcher studying LGBT youth suicides in Utah.

https://qsaltlake.com/news/2018/12/06/utah-research-on-faith-related-suicide/

Quote

“There’s no data to show that, period,” says Michael Staley, who works in the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner and is the first person who would know, since he leads an effort to collect, compile and analyze suicide information from around the state. He conducts that research at the behest of the Utah Legislature. “We are working to get that data,” he says.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2016 that LGBT youth die by suicide at double the rate of their non-LGBT peers, Staley says data specific to Utah so far doesn’t validate the sexuality-religion narrative. “The people who are driving that narrative are going to be disappointed,” Staley says, while at the same time recognizing that “theoretically, it makes sense.”

Also this below could be because other causes of death contribute significantly less than in other states rather than death per population being extreme.  If one has the same amount of suicides per 100,000 people but less deaths from cancer, lung disease, accidents, homocide, the suicide deaths will be a larger proportion of overall deaths and thus be higher for Utah than a state that has higher rates in other areas even if deaths per 100,000 were identical.

Quote

Utah has one of the highest age-adjusted suicide rates in the U.S. It was the second- leading cause of death for Utahans ages 10 to 39 years old in 2013 and the number one cause of death for youth ages 10-17. More people attempt suicide than are fatally injured.” 

Utah is 8th lowest state in homicides with 2.6 per 100,000 while the highest is Louisiana with 14.4.  This means if youth homicides follow the same trend, the effect of homicide on overall death rate is very low for Utah while high for Louisiana.  Average is apparently 6.2.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm

Data is only meaningful when enough context is supplied.

Suicide being number one for Utah teens does mean we should be paying a huge amount of attention to it, but rather than assuming that this means there is something unusual about Utah, we should compare it to states that have similar numbers per population.

A possible factor for higher numbers in Utah:

Quote

White males accounted for 69.67% of suicide deaths in 2017.

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

Utah is 79% white as opposed to national average of 61%.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

Finally found a number per 100,000, which is 7.5, unfortunately that is for 2012-14.

http://utahpubliceducation.org/2016/09/08/education-news-roundup-sept-8-2016/#.XYMMS9HF2hA

Edited September 19, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

I wonder how many here still think that the Church won’t have accepted gay marriage (as not sinful) and possibly even be allowing same gender couples to be sealed within the next 30-40 years?

I think what we’ve seen happen over the last four years is a strong indication that we are still on track for that eventuality.  

First, because of the reversal of this policy that had been declared a result of the prophetic process. 

Second, because on two occasions now, President Nelson has felt the need to take a defensive stance on the policy when speaking to the young single adults of the church.  Those YSA’s are the future of this church and I think his apparent need to defend the policy stems from YSA’s unwillingness to accept it as being from God. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wonder how many here still think that the Church won’t have accepted gay marriage (as not sinful) and possibly even be allowing same gender couples to be sealed within the next 30-40 years?

Count me in!

Quote

Those YSA’s are the future of this church and I think his apparent need to defend the policy stems from YSA’s unwillingness to accept it as being from God.

As several sections of the Book of Mormon make clear, God knows how to handle things when a rising generation loses its willingness to listen to Him.

In this case, we have plenty of faithful YSA here who know how to obtain revelation and are prepared to be the future of the Church if yours aren't.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I wonder how many here still think that the Church won’t have accepted gay marriage (as not sinful) and possibly even be allowing same gender couples to be sealed within the next 30-40 years?

I think what we’ve seen happen over the last four years is a strong indication that we are still on track for that eventuality.  

First, because of the reversal of this policy that had been declared a result of the prophetic process. 

Second, because on two occasions now, President Nelson has felt the need to take a defensive stance on the policy when speaking to the young single adults of the church.  Those YSA’s are the future of this church and I think his apparent need to defend the policy stems from YSA’s unwillingness to accept it as being from God. 

I think you are ignoring some important declarations President Nelson made in this most recent address.

And there's nothing new or novel about the rising generations being the most vulnerable to new, worldly, even dangerous ideas and ideologies. It has ever been so. President Nelson wisely recognizes this and is apparently taking steps to mitigate such vulnerability.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I wonder how many here still think that the Church won’t have accepted gay marriage (as not sinful) and possibly even be allowing same gender couples to be sealed within the next 30-40 years?

I think what we’ve seen happen over the last four years is a strong indication that we are still on track for that eventuality.  

First, because of the reversal of this policy that had been declared a result of the prophetic process. 

Second, because on two occasions now, President Nelson has felt the need to take a defensive stance on the policy when speaking to the young single adults of the church.  Those YSA’s are the future of this church and I think his apparent need to defend the policy stems from YSA’s unwillingness to accept it as being from God. 

This is a long quote, but it describes a similar situation in the days of Alma and Mosiah...perhaps something similar is in store for our times?

Quote

Mosiah 26: 1 Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe the tradition of their fathers.
2 They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ.
3 And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened.
4 And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church. And they were a separate people as to their faith, and remained so ever after, even in their carnal and sinful state; for they would not call upon the Lord their God.
5 And now in the reign of Mosiah they were not half so numerous as the people of God; but because of the dissensions among the brethren they became more numerous.
6 For it came to pass that they did deceive many with their flattering words, who were in the church, and did cause them to commit many sins; therefore it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church.
7 And it came to pass that they were brought before the priests, and delivered up unto the priests by the teachers; and the priests brought them before Alma, who was the high priest.
8 Now king Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church.
9 And it came to pass that Alma did not know concerning them; but there were many witnesses against them; yea, the people stood and testified of their iniquity in abundance.
10 Now there had not any such thing happened before in the church; therefore Alma was troubled in his spirit, and he caused that they should be brought before the king.
11 And he said unto the king: Behold, here are many whom we have brought before thee, who are accused of their brethren; yea, and they have been taken in divers iniquities. And they do not repent of their iniquities; therefore we have brought them before thee, that thou mayest judge them according to their crimes.
12 But king Mosiah said unto Alma: Behold, I judge them not; therefore I deliver them into thy hands to be judged.
13 And now the spirit of Alma was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord what he should do concerning this matter, for he feared that he should do wrong in the sight of God.
14 And it came to pass that after he had poured out his whole soul to God, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying:
15 Blessed art thou, Alma, and blessed are they who were baptized in the waters of Mormon. Thou art blessed because of thy exceeding faith in the words alone of my servant Abinadi.
16 And blessed are they because of their exceeding faith in the words alone which thou hast spoken unto them.
17 And blessed art thou because thou hast established a church among this people; and they shall be established, and they shall be my people.
18 Yea, blessed is this people who are willing to bear my name; for in my name shall they be called; and they are mine.
19 And because thou hast inquired of me concerning the transgressor, thou art blessed.
20 Thou art my servant; and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life; and thou shalt serve me and go forth in my name, and shalt gather together my sheep.
21 And he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep; and him shall ye receive into the church, and him will I also receive.
22 For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.
23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.
24 For behold, in my name are they called; and if they know me they shall come forth, and shall have a place eternally at my right hand.
25 And it shall come to pass that when the second trump shall sound then shall they that never knew me come forth and shall stand before me.
26 And then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, that I am their Redeemer; but they would not be redeemed.
27 And then I will confess unto them that I never knew them; and they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
28 Therefore I say unto you, that he that will not hear my voice, the same shall ye not receive into my church, for him I will not receive at the last day.
29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.
30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.
31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.
32 Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.
33 And it came to pass when Alma had heard these words he wrote them down that he might have them, and that he might judge the people of that church according to the commandments of God.
34 And it came to pass that Alma went and judged those that had been taken in iniquity, according to the word of the Lord.
35 And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church;
36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.
37 And it came to pass that Alma did regulate all the affairs of the church; and they began again to have peace and to prosper exceedingly in the affairs of the church, walking circumspectly before God, receiving many, and baptizing many.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is a long quote, but it describes a similar situation in the days of Alma and Mosiah...perhaps something similar is in store for our times?

 

No doubt! 

And it's a bit scary to think about. Not that I fear for the Church. It will continue to prosper and fulfill its divine mission to prepare for the second coming. But I worry for those who let the world entice them away from the church of the Lamb and the safety of the iron rod.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well the prophet Joseph F. Smith taught:

"The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. In order that such persons may imitate the fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them."  Aug 97 Ensign 

and

Messages of the First Presidency 5:110; “The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.” – President Joseph F. Smith; 28 June 1906."

Heber J. Grant disagreed so he changed them from doctrine to policy.

Note....

Quote

The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.” – President Joseph F. Smith; 28 June 1906.

Seems to me the above quotes condemn individual making unauthorized changes for personal reasons, but there is an allowance for authorized changes. Who has the  ability to authorize changes? That being said, it appears that some changes are made because we are unwilling or unable to abide a higher law.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No doubt! 

And it's a bit scary to think about. Not that I fear for the Church. It will continue to prosper and fulfill its divine mission to prepare for the second coming. But I worry for those who let the world entice them away from the church of the Lamb and the safety of the iron rod.

The pull of the Building is almost irresistible.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Note....

Seems to me the above quotes condemn individual making unauthorized changes for personal reasons, but there is an allowance for authorized changes. Who has the  ability to authorize changes? That being said, it appears that some changes are made because we are unwilling or unable to abide a higher law.

And then according to D&C 58 and 130 we lose the corresponding blessings.

And yes, the above quotes allow for authorized changes but they also state clearly the original pattern was revealed from heaven.  That would make clear what an authorized change would require wouldn't it?

Edited September 19, 2019 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

I wonder how many here still think that the Church won’t have accepted gay marriage (as not sinful) and possibly even be allowing same gender couples to be sealed within the next 30-40 years?

I think what we’ve seen happen over the last four years is a strong indication that we are still on track for that eventuality.  

First, because of the reversal of this policy that had been declared a result of the prophetic process. 

Second, because on two occasions now, President Nelson has felt the need to take a defensive stance on the policy when speaking to the young single adults of the church.  Those YSA’s are the future of this church and I think his apparent need to defend the policy stems from YSA’s unwillingness to accept it as being from God. 

I know this at least causes some to wonder (or hope or fear) that there will be more changes (what some call progress).  There’s no way something like this doesn’t have that affect for some.  But not for all (as you can see from some comments here).

Also, many wonder what really is revelation and what is just what Pres. Nelson commonly now terms inspiration (or personal feelings) to be a revelation.  In discussions I’m having and seeing about this, I’m seeing belief that the original policy was not inspired and that the changes or walking back are inspired.  And then wondering what other changes will happen in the future.

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by JulieM

[smac97]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I wonder how many here still think that the Church won’t have accepted gay marriage (as not sinful) and possibly even be allowing same gender couples to be sealed within the next 30-40 years?

I think that is quite unlikely.

Quote

I think what we’ve seen happen over the last four years is a strong indication that we are still on track for that eventuality.  

We'll see, I suppose.

We are about half a century in to the Sexual Revolution.  What is the Church's track record as far as relenting on other aspects of the Law of Chastity?  Fornication has become commonplace and unremarkable in our culture.  Has the Church followed suit and authorized sexual activity outside of marriage?  The same questions apply re: adultery.

Quote

First, because of the reversal of this policy that had been declared a result of the prophetic process. 

Second, because on two occasions now, President Nelson has felt the need to take a defensive stance on the policy when speaking to the young single adults of the church.  Those YSA’s are the future of this church and I think his apparent need to defend the policy stems from YSA’s unwillingness to accept it as being from God. 

What happens if and when homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are not accepted in the Church (as we continue to see vis-à-vis fornication, adultery, pornography, etc.)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2019 by smac97

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We are about half a century in to the Sexual Revolution.  What is the Church's track record as far as relenting on other aspects of the Law of Chastity?  Fornication has become commonplace and unremarkable in our culture.  Has the Church followed suit and authorized sexual activity outside of marriage?  The same questions apply re: adultery.

Yes, even with the "sexual revolution" the Brethren have not altered their teachings or language regarding fornication and adultery.  But we do see these subtle changes over time with homosexuality.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What happens if and when homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is not accepted in the Church (as we continue to see vis-à-vis fornication, adultery, pornography, etc.)?

Whether the current pattern of increasing acceptance continues or holds where it's currently at, I don't think it will change the current trajectory of the church.  Church growth rate will continue in its decline.  But the church has both the resources and the divine mandate to continue the work it's doing for generations to come.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, even with the "sexual revolution" the Brethren have not altered their teachings or language regarding fornication and adultery.  But we do see these subtle changes over time with homosexuality.

With respect, I disagree.  We've seen changed approaches to other aspects of the Law of Chastity (fornication, masturbation, pornography, etc.).  Less fiery, but still firm and clear.  In other words, the approach and style and form used to address these issues has changed, but the substance of the Law of Chastity has remained the same.

I submit that the same can be said for the approach/style/form used to address homosexual behavior.  These things have changed a bit, but the substance of the Law of Chastity has remained the same.

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Whether the current pattern of increasing acceptance continues or holds where it's currently at, I don't think it will change the current trajectory of the church.  Church growth rate will continue in its decline. 

We'll see, I suppose.

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But the church has both the resources and the divine mandate to continue the work it's doing for generations to come.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I know this at least causes some to wonder (or hope or fear) that there will be more changes (what some call progress).  There’s no way something like this doesn’t have that affect for some.  But not for all (as you can see from some comments here).

Agreed.  One thing I loved about President Nelson's address is his use of "those who identify as LGBT" rather than "those who struggle with same gender attraction".  Since we Latter-day Saints tend to follow the prophet on these things, I think this will mark the point at which the use of "struggle" and "SSA/SGA" will start to fall out of our lexicon.

Quote

Also, many wonder what really is revelation and what is just what Pres. Nelson commonly now terms inspiration (or personal feelings) to be a revelation.  In discussions I’m having and seeing about this, I’m seeing belief that the original policy was not inspired and that the changes or walking back are inspired.  And then wondering what other changes will happen in the future.

It's going to be tough to conclude that the original policy wasn't inspired or revealed since it was declared as such just a few years ago by the man who was president of the Q12.  But, as we can see from this thread, some are already taking the position that the policy wasn't inspired, rather that there was just the inspiration or revelation that God wanted them to "do something" and He let them do this.  This is a pattern we've seen before and as @smac97 highlighted with the graphic from Elder Bednar's book:  something can be taught as doctrine or principle until it changes and then it is deemed to have just been an application of some other doctrine/principle that hasn't changed.

Edited September 19, 2019 by rockpond

[Maestrophil]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 

  A big mistake was made with the POX.  Even though he didn't admit it, at least Nelson did quickly reverse it and and walked it back.

 

 

And there you have it - Sunstone declared it was a mistake - and thus, the truth is known.  (I'm saying that tongue in cheek - not trying to be dismissive) 🙂

It seems all the talking we do comes down to this - not necessarily being 'willing' to admit a mistake was made, but rather believing one was made.  Your (perfectly acceptable) opinion is that a mistake was made.  My (perfectly acceptable) opinion is that I lean towards God having lead the prophets in that direction for His own reasons, even if it is hard for me to understand or celebrate. 

The problem to me, becomes when both camps feel the 'other' side is wrong by merit of simply disagreeing.  

 

I honestly don't think you are wrong.  I honestly don't know.  But, I don't think members, including the prophet, should be villianised because of the assumption that they may have made a mistake. an accusation of having done something, does not make it so.

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  One thing I loved about President Nelson's address is his use of "those who identify as LGBT" rather than "those who struggle with same gender attraction".  Since we Latter-day Saints tend to follow the prophet on these things, I think this will mark the point at which the use of "struggle" and "SSA/SGA" will start to fall out of our lexicon.

It's going to be tough to conclude that the original policy wasn't inspired or revealed since it was declared as such just a few years ago by the man who was president of the Q12.  But, as we can see from this thread, some are already taking the position that the policy wasn't inspired, rather that there was just the inspiration or revelation that God wanted them to "do something" and He let them do this.  This is a pattern we've seen before and as @smac97 highlighted with the graphic from Elder Bednar's book:  something can be taught as doctrine or principle until it changes and then it is deemed to have just been an application of some other doctrine/principle that hasn't changed.

I agree.  

One personal experience I had was in our presidency meeting.  The other counselor has a son who is gay and is no longer active.  She has hope he will return and felt absolute anguish and heartbreak over the original policy.  She felt strongly it was not God’s will or inspired, but also felt awful that those feelings disagreed with what was related (that it was revelation).  She expresses how the change and now this talk has made her realize she was in tune.  She doesn’t expect the leaders to ever say they made an error, but what members see here is very close to seeing there very likely was one made at least in judgement and it’s now been corrected.

I know some disagree about that being the case, but some members feel this way.  They also believe there will be even more changes because of our history on this issue (changes already made).

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's going to be tough to conclude that the original policy wasn't inspired or revealed since it was declared as such just a few years ago by the man who was president of the Q12. 

Was it, though?

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, as we can see from this thread, some are already taking the position that the policy wasn't inspired, rather that there was just the inspiration or revelation that God wanted them to "do something" and He let them do this. 

Who is that?

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is a pattern we've seen before and as @smac97 highlighted with the graphic from Elder Bednar's book:  something can be taught as doctrine or principle until it changes and then it is deemed to have just been an application of some other doctrine/principle that hasn't changed.

No, that's not what Elder Bednar taught.

I concede that the exacting parameters of what constitutes "doctrine" are not precisely defined.  This is not really a new thing.  But it's not really rocket science, either.  Per Elder Andersen: 

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

Personally, I think that those who are hoping for a change to the Law of Chastity such as to legitimize homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are setting themselves up for disappointment.  It's a pipe dream.  Wishful thinking.

I think much of the time "questioners" who express dissatisfaction with the Church's teachings have some pretty substantial gaps and/or flaws in their understanding, or else a fundamental "kick against the pricks" difference of opinion about what God has revealed as right or wrong (whether God allows/endorses or prohibits/condemns homosexual behavior being a good example).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Thank you for saying it is a factor rather than the cause.

Did some reading!

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And then according to D&C 58 and 130 we lose the corresponding blessings.

And yes, the above quotes allow for authorized changes but they also state clearly the original pattern was revealed from heaven.  That would make clear what an authorized change would require wouldn't it?

I’m not disagreeing with you.

Do you think the pattern includes more than the sacred marks?

Edited September 19, 2019 by Bernard Gui