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

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Carefully note what the policy states about exceptions:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1.  The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

The policy gives specific qualifications for requesting an exception.  One of them is that the baptismal candidate is NO LONGER a child.

So, while I agree that the First Presidency has the authority to make exceptions, my summary accurately stated that they were ignoring policy (specifically the defined qualifications for exceptions that were given in the policy that reflected the mind and will of God).

So you ask if your summary correctly captures reality, and then unrealistically argue that it does.

The policy never stated "no exceptions." Most rarely does the mind and will of God reflect such black-and-white thinking. It is quite unrealistic to expect otherwise.

It would be interesting to find a Church policy that states "no exceptions" to compare with this one.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Given that the Handbook 1 change was made on November 5th, and the news article and video was posted the very next day (November 6th) on the "Official Resource" Church Newsroom site (and you don't seem to acknowledge that as an announcement apparently), then when was this "leak" made?  In the wee hours of the night between the 5th and 6th?    I don't get it!

 

Well I don't care to get hung up on it.  I don't consider a response to backlash the church proactively announcing the policy change, and that's what it seems happened here.  yes the church was very quick to respond.  that is good.  And I'm happy enough to not get caught up with this one point.  If you feel the Church made the announcement, great.  And I think it fair to say we disagree and move on.  

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So you ask if your summary correctly captures reality, and then unrealistically argue that it does.

The policy never stated "no exceptions." Most rarely does the mind and will of God reflect such black-and-white thinking. It is quite unrealistic to expect otherwise.

It would be interesting to find a Church policy that states "no exceptions" to compare with this one.

The policy states that to request approval, the child of gay parents must be of legal age and disavow the practice of gay marriage/cohabitation.

When President Nelson states that they granted exceptions to the policy presumably he is not speaking of this because this is the approval process outlined by the policy itself.  Exceptions would be when the FP went beyond what is stated here which would be ignoring the policy as written.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

Is thus fact or just your opinion? You can substantiate the claim that the explanations are not true? You can support a claim that there was not an announcement already in the works to accompany the change in the handbook?

Yes, the words I say represent my opinion.  I think the evidence supports my opinion in this case, and surely it's true I could be wrong.  I have no problem with that.  

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

We have all seen this? CFR please. 

this is not something I can supply references for.  I am trying to suggest that in my time in the Church I heard similar stories so many times I simply lost count.  with that said, I assumed everyone else heard something similar.  If not so, then I stand corrected.  

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

It seems to you that a hypothetical scenario you created proves that the reasons for the policy are not honest?  . . . . How convenient. 

I suppose the point is I can't figure out a scenario where the reasons states play out in which the family had less friction due to the policy change.  That is my only point.  If I'm right and there is no such scenario wherein a family ended up with less friction, then as I suggested, either the policy was not implemented for the reasons stated (of coruse one reason was consequent to the laws changing to accommodate same-sex marriage so that seems like a likely reason to me), the brethren were wrong (in that what they thought was going to help actually hurt) which also seems to be the case.  I'm not trying to say either/or here.  They likely had many reasons to implement and perhaps they thought in some weird way that the policy change could help, but to me the real initial motivating factor to even address it was that the law was passed, months before in the US, to accommodate same-sex marriage.  

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

I don't see him saying that at all. Where did you get that the hurt was unnecessary? Even if he was wrong in believing that the policy was inspired by God, wouldn't it be consistent to . . . Believe that it was inspired by God?  Asking why he doesn't just accept that the policy was mistaken already works from the assumption that there is no possibility that God inspired the policy.  Beyond your personal opinion, do you have any evidence that he is being intentionally dishonest?

 

No.  And that's not what I'm saying.  He could be unintentionally dishonest.  He could have really thought it came from God even if it did not.  He could have assumed his spiritual confirmation was from God, even if it was not.  He could be as honest as he could possibly be and still be wrong.  I found his speech a bit paradoxical.  It seems he's saying the brethren have charge to make policy changes and adjustments, God has control over the doctrine, but also policy adjustments don't happen unless inspired by God.  It doesn't seem to me that the brethren have charge over policy adjustments unless they are told by God to make those changes.  And it appears to me, he's saying that God implemented a policy that actually was difficult enough for people in and out fo the Church that it had to be adjusted, hoping to fix that hurt.  If so, it seems to logically follow that the hurt that was caused was unnecessary.  

Hope that helps.

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Given that the Handbook 1 change was made on November 5th, and the news article and video was posted the very next day (November 6th) on the "Official Resource" Church Newsroom site (and you don't seem to acknowledge that as an announcement apparently), then when was this "leak" made?  In the wee hours of the night between the 5th and 6th?    I don't get it!

I think you've got your dates wrong:

November 3, 2015 was when the changes to Handbook 1 were made (not November 5th).  https://www.scribd.com/doc/288685756/Changes-to-LDS-Handbook-1-Document-2-Revised-11-3-15-28003-29

The leak took place on November 5, 2015, (a letter to local leaders regarding the change was leaked to the public).

November 6th, the "Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages" on their newsroom website.

November 13th is when the first changes (or clarifications) were made to the policy by our church leaders.

And it was:

Quote

Two months later, in a satellite broadcast, Russell Nelson stated that the policy change was "revealed to President Monson" in a "sacred moment" when "the Lord inspired [him] ... to declare ... the will of the Lord"

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by ALarson

[gopher]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I was extremely upset by the Nov 2015 policy before I had read or listened to critics.  It was the policy on its own that was hurtful to me.

I remember sharing the leaked policy with my mom who is a faithful, orthodox member.  Her initial reaction was that it couldn't possibly be real.  When she learned that it was from the Brethren, she supported and defended it.

What was hurtful or offensive about Elder Christofferson's comments?  For me, the decision to exclude children of gay couples from church meetings and the classification of the marital commitment between two gay people as the apostasy.  (But I don't need the rationale explained to me again, I've heard/read it more times than I can count.)

What was hurtful or offensive about President Nelson's comments from last week?  His placing the blame for all this on God.

Wait, aren't you a critic?  I don't see many positive posts from you about the church or its leaders, especially on this topic.  So it might make sense if your mom didn't believe the policy as it was explained by you.

It's become a divisive issue, that's for sure.  Four years of arguing about it hasn't brought much resolution for many, it appears.  However, I don't think it's spiritually healthy to continue to criticize the Prophet for doing his job.  I could be wrong, but it's hard to imagine there are many believing members that think that President Nelson is ignoring or disobeying what God is telling him to do.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, gopher said:

Wait, aren't you a critic?

No.  I was serving as a first counselor in a bishopric in Nov 2015.

8 minutes ago, gopher said:

I don't see many positive posts from you about the church or its leaders, especially on this topic. 

On this topic, probably not, because I believe we have a lot of room for improvement on this.

8 minutes ago, gopher said:

So it might make sense if your mom didn't believe the policy as it was explained by you.

I didn't explain it to her.  She read the policy language and initially concluded that it couldn't be right.

8 minutes ago, gopher said:

It's become a divisive issue, that's for sure.  Four years of arguing about it hasn't brought much resolution for many, it appears.  However, I don't think it's spiritually healthy to continue to criticize the Prophet for doing his job.  I could be wrong, but it's hard to imagine there are many believing members that think that President Nelson is ignoring or disobeying what God is telling him to do.

It was the heartache, confusion, and tears of members that caused the Brethren to seek to change the policy.  So I think that staying quiet about our heartfelt concerns would have been the wrong thing to do.

I don't think that President Nelson is ignoring or disobeying what God is telling him to do.  I'm trying to understand what it is that God is telling him to do.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The policy states that to request approval, the child of gay parents must be of legal age and disavow the practice of gay marriage/cohabitation.

When President Nelson states that they granted exceptions to the policy presumably he is not speaking of this because this is the approval process outlined by the policy itself.  Exceptions would be when the FP went beyond what is stated here which would be ignoring the policy as written.

It is impossible to ignore a policy while making exceptions to it. When exceptions are not prohibited in a policy as written, or when a matter is not stated in a policy, it is perfectly fine to go beyond what is stated. These proven principles correctly capture what is going on, whereby presumption, by definition, cannot.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I was extremely upset by the Nov 2015 policy before I had read or listened to critics.  It was the policy on its own that was hurtful to me.

I remember sharing the leaked policy with my mom who is a faithful, orthodox member.  Her initial reaction was that it couldn't possibly be real.  When she learned that it was from the Brethren, she supported and defended it.

What was hurtful or offensive about Elder Christofferson's comments?  For me, the decision to exclude children of gay couples from church meetings and the classification of the marital commitment between two gay people as the apostasy.  (But I don't need the rationale explained to me again, I've heard/read it more times than I can count.)

What was hurtful or offensive about President Nelson's comments from last week?  His placing the blame for all this on God.

How did you hear about the policy?

[HappyJackWagon]

I respect Pres. Nelson in a lot of ways. However, I don't believe he understands what Love is.

Not only was the policy not loving in any way, he has taught of God's "conditional love" which is then our model for how we love others. IMO this teaching is false and harmful so I will only "conditionally" sustain him as a prophet.

[SettingDogStar]

50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I respect Pres. Nelson in a lot of ways. However, I don't believe he understands what Love is.

Not only was the policy not loving in any way, he has taught of God's "conditional love" which is then our model for how we love others. IMO this teaching is false and harmful so I will only "conditionally" sustain him as a prophet.

I was so confused about that talk. God becomes angered and disappointed and even cause devastating things to occur that are very damaging..but His Love never ceases. 

[SettingDogStar]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

Yes, those are some of the same arguments made by the critics of the church that post here and elsewhere.  Maybe it's possible to come to those conclusions without being influenced by them.  But they been addressed and refuted many times on this forum by thoughtful, believing members who don't agree with your conclusions.  Looks like they've failed to change your mind.

I don't know how your friend was hurt by the policy so can't really respond to that.

I’ve never read a decent refusal that solves the dilemma. I’ve read tons of these threads for a long time and I’ve never come across an example that solves the issue in my head. Are there explanations? Sure, but to me they aren’t that good. maybe you could point me in a better direction? Plenty of faithful and believing members also agree with me as well, so there are good people on both sides. We just disagree.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, gopher said:

I wonder how much of pain and heartache was caused by agitators inside and outside the church.  The initial shock of the policy was fueled by the reports that it was responsible for 26 (also reported as 32) teen LDS suicides in the few months after it was released.  Opportunists (many now excommunicated or resigned from the church) quickly fanned the flames before the truth came out.  With so many invested in the narrative the church had blood on their hands, I think it was the right move to change the policy.  It's difficult to understand how any believing member of the church would find anything offensive or hurtful in the statements by President Nelson or Elder Christofferson.  How many of those who claim to be hurt were influenced by critics and some in the faith crisis crowd constantly feeding them with negative comments about the church and its leaders?

The twisting and bending sophistry displayed on this board alone is evidence to me that you are right.

I'm out of the thread.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, gopher said:

Yes, those are some of the same arguments made by the critics of the church that post here and elsewhere.  Maybe it's possible to come to those conclusions without being influenced by them.  But they been addressed and refuted many times on this forum by thoughtful, believing members who don't agree with your conclusions.  Looks like they've failed to change your mind.

I don't know how your friend was hurt by the policy so can't really respond to that.

So many were hurt, and many members left the church. One of my sons turned anti over it. It affected so many, needlessly.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The twisting and bending sophistry displayed on this board alone is evidence to me that you are right.

I'm out of the thread.

I've seen enough too.  I don't understand it.  And I certainly don't want to contribute to the hurt that some are obviously feeling from this.  I just wanted to get the facts straight.  

 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I respect Pres. Nelson in a lot of ways. However, I don't believe he understands what Love is.

Not only was the policy not loving in any way, he has taught of God's "conditional love" which is then our model for how we love others. IMO this teaching is false and harmful so I will only "conditionally" sustain him as a prophet.

Then he's not alone.
I have seen so many people implying that following correct principles means you lack love.
Nobody seems willing to admit God can love us and still impose consequences for our behavior, including permanent removal from his presence.  A loving God would never send us away forever right?
Wrong.
 

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Then he's not alone.
I have seen so many people implying that following correct principles means you lack love.
Nobody seems willing to admit God can love us and still impose consequences for our behavior, including permanent removal from his presence.  A loving God would never send us away forever right?
Wrong.
 

Though technically, unless you go to outer darkness (which’s is very much your decision after many many chances), everyone does get saved! They might not get to spend time with Him in person, but they will still have His influence and Spirit even in the Telestial world. Plus, if you agree with eternal progression (whole other topic) then the Love of God is so infinite that ALL mankind might, eventually, come into His presence even billions of years from now.

[SettingDogStar]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So many were hurt, and many members left the church. One of my sons turned anti over it. It affected so many, needlessly.

Truly. Would I have left the church? No, obviously I’m still here. Howeve,  it hurt many in my family and close friends for no reason but to flip the policy a few years later. It’s just odd is all.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Though technically, unless you go to outer darkness (which’s is very much your decision after many many chances), everyone does get saved! They might not get to spend time with Him in person, but they will still have His influence and Spirit even in the Telestial world. Plus, if you agree with eternal progression (whole other topic) then the Love of God is so infinite that ALL mankind might, eventually, come into His presence even billions of years from now.

You know D&C 76 disagrees right?  It's not just perdition barred eternally from God's presence.

[SettingDogStar]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You know D&C 76 disagrees right?  It's not just perdition barred eternally from God's presence.

Even avoiding eternal progression, the people in the Telestial kingdom still have His presence through the Spirit so they aren’t completely abandoned.

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Even avoiding eternal progression, the people in the Telestial kingdom still have His presence through the Spirit so they aren’t completely abandoned.

I believe in eternal progression.  For everyone, including God.
And yes, I agree that even the Telestial aren't completely abandoned.  But where God and Christ are they cannot come worlds without end.

So if we merge those two teachings correctly we will see the truth about progression.

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

How did you hear about the policy?

Can't recall.  It may have been here.  Or my sibling.  Or Facebook.  

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is impossible to ignore a policy while making exceptions to it. When exceptions are not prohibited in a policy as written, or when a matter is not stated in a policy, it is perfectly fine to go beyond what is stated. These proven principles correctly capture what is going on, whereby presumption, by definition, cannot.

If God told the prophet not to baptize children of gay parents who are not yet of legal age, but they went ahead and allowed it most of the times that they were asked -- it sounds like they are disregarding the policy.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Can't recall.  It may have been here.  Or my sibling.  Or Facebook.  

If you heard it here, surely you were also exposed to some of the critical POVs about it at the same time.

[gopher]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  I was serving as a first counselor in a bishopric in Nov 2015.

That used to mean something to me until the 1st counselor ran off with the Bishop's wife when I was a teen.  Now I recognize you can be a critic or worse and still hold leadership callings in the church.  But if you don't consider yourself a critic, I won't either.

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

It was the heartache, confusion, and tears of members that caused the Brethren to seek to change the policy.  So I think that staying quiet about our heartfelt concerns would have been the wrong thing to do.

I don't think that President Nelson is ignoring or disobeying what God is telling him to do.  I'm trying to understand what it is that God is telling him to do.

Yes, I'm just not convinced that President Nelson and the Brethren are the cause of the heartache, confusion, and tears of members.