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

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, alter idem said:

I think it can be hard to set aside our own political, social and emotional positions if they are not in line with the churches.

My opposition to this policy is due solely to my belief in the Savior's teachings.  It has nothing to do with political or social positions.

And because the Savior's teachings are important to me, I do get emotional about this issue.

 

14 hours ago, alter idem said:

I think that's what happened.  I think that if I want to have the spiritual strength and faith of Nephi or Samuel or Joshua, I would pray to reconcile myself to the decision of my leaders and so that's the example I try to follow.

I pray to reconcile myself with the will of God and follow the Savior's example.  I don't believe I need to be reconciled with the decisions of men.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I pray to reconcile myself with the will of God and follow the Savior's example.  I don't believe I need to be reconciled with the decisions of men.

Exactly.  We seem to all agree that our leaders make mistakes and that we do not always have to agree with them.  We each receive our own inspiration and are taught to pray over all things.  

For me, none of the reasons given for this policy felt right and now it's interesting we are right back where we were before the policy was announced.  

Can anyone think of what has changed?

[alter idem]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it works that way.  Many of the Savior's teachings caused anger, doubt, and a loss of faith but no one would argue that that is how we can be sure that His teachings originated from lucifer.  

Quote

 

Not Peace, but a Sword

³⁴ “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. ³⁶ And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.  Matthew 10:34-36

 

[let’s roll]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My opposition to this policy is due solely to my belief in the Savior's teachings.  It has nothing to do with political or social positions.

And because the Savior's teachings are important to me, I do get emotional about this issue.

 

I pray to reconcile myself with the will of God and follow the Savior's example.  I don't believe I need to be reconciled with the decisions of men.

In light of God’s declaration in Amos, to which prophet do you believe God revealed has His will on this topic?  Or do you believe God is, at present, silent on the topic?

[blueglass]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Exactly.  We seem to all agree that our leaders make mistakes and that we do not always have to agree with them.  We each receive our own inspiration and are taught to pray over all things.  

For me, none of the reasons given for this policy felt right and now it's interesting we are right back where we were before the policy was announced.  

Can anyone think of what has changed?

As Elder Oaks said at the 40th fireside "I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them."  In the same manner, I studied the reasons given for the Nov 15' policy/ Jan 16'revelation and "could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them". 

Edited September 26, 2019 by blueglass

[alter idem]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My opposition to this policy is due solely to my belief in the Savior's teachings.  It has nothing to do with political or social positions.

And because the Savior's teachings are important to me, I do get emotional about this issue.

 

I pray to reconcile myself with the will of God and follow the Savior's example.  I don't believe I need to be reconciled with the decisions of men.

But then, it seems that you're saying that church leaders and those of us who supported the policy don't believe in the Savior's teachings. I don't believe this issue should be used to determine who believes in the Savior's teachings and clearly we are viewing this differently. I've explained before that I saw this as a protection for the church from being sued and for a protection and recognition of parental rights and the need to protect the family from being undermined by children, minors in a household, receiving mixed messages--from church and from their parents' lifestyle, which could very well bring contention to the family. This was done with children from polygamous families--it has also been a policy that if an investigator has a husband who is against her joining the church, they don't baptize her, or children who's parents don't want them to be baptized, are not baptized.  You've decided to perceive this as an example of not following the Savior's teachings and I believe you are wrong, since I do my best to try to follow his teachings and I supported the 2015 policy.  I support rescinding it too.   

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

In light of God’s declaration in Amos, to which prophet do you believe God revealed has His will on this topic?  Or do you believe God is, at present, silent on the topic?

I don't believe that the policy reflected God's will.  I think it was prophets seeking what they felt was the best option for the church.

If you are talking about the larger issue of homosexuality, I think God is speaking to his children and making his will known.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

But then, it seems that you're saying that church leaders and those of us who supported the policy don't believe in the Savior's teachings.

I believe you can support the policy and still believe in the Savior's teachings.  Reasons have been put forward as to why this policy falls within His teachings, those reasons don't make sense to me but I can see that they do for others.

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I don't believe this issue should be used to determine who believes in the Savior's teachings

I agree.  And I am asking, pleading, to not have my position on the policy reduced to an issue of political/social leanings or policy.  That happens frequently here and so I try to push back against it because this is a purely spiritual matter for me.

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I've explained before that I saw this as a protection for the church from being sued

Totally agree that the policy is a protection for the church from being sued.  That is one reason I believe the policy remains in its original form in the handbook.

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

and for a protection and recognition of parental rights and the need to protect the family from being undermined by children, minors in a household, receiving mixed messages--from church and from their parents' lifestyle, which could very well bring contention to the family.

That is the policy's best justification but it doesn't make sense for me.

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I supported the 2015 policy.  I support rescinding it too.   

Okay.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, blueglass said:

As Elder Oaks said at the 40th fireside "I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them."  In the same manner, I studied the reasons given for the Nov 15' policy/ Jan 16'revelation and "could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them". 

Well said.  I feel the same.

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Exactly.  We seem to all agree that our leaders make mistakes and that we do not always have to agree with them.  We each receive our own inspiration and are taught to pray over all things.  

For me, none of the reasons given for this policy felt right and now it's interesting we are right back where we were before the policy was announced.  

Can anyone think of what has changed?

As it stands right now we have two statements (April press release and September devotional) which comment on the changes to the policy but don't totally align.

The handbook still has the original policy and a link to the FP letter from a week later than slightly alters that original policy.

If the handbook is not updated, we'll likely have widely disparate applications of the handbook policy coupled with leaders' understanding of the April and September statements.  So we're really in a bit of a messy position right now.

[let’s roll]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe that the policy reflected God's will.  I think it was prophets seeking what they felt was the best option for the church.

If you are talking about the larger issue of homosexuality, I think God is speaking to his children and making his will known.

I understand your feelings.  I asked how you reconcile those feelings with Amos 3:7.  Applied to what you characterize as the larger issue of homosexuality, God says if He is doing anything on that issue, He will reveal His will to His prophets.  Hence my question regarding which prophet you believe God has revealed His will on this issue or do you believe He has chosen to remain silent.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I understand your feelings.  I asked how you reconcile those feelings with Amos 3:7.  Applied to what you characterize as the larger issue of homosexuality, God says if He is doing anything on that issue, He will reveal His will to His prophets.  Hence my question regarding which prophet you believe God has revealed His will on this issue or do you believe He has chosen to remain silent.

I don't see what it is you feel needs to be reconciled.  What is it that God might need to do with respect to the issue of homosexuality and what secret would He first need to reveal?

Edited September 26, 2019 by rockpond

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Exactly.  We seem to all agree that our leaders make mistakes and that we do not always have to agree with them.  We each receive our own inspiration and are taught to pray over all things.  

For me, none of the reasons given for this policy felt right and now it's interesting we are right back where we were before the policy was announced.  

Can anyone think of what has changed?

What are you using for the reasons given by the Church for the policy?

Why did these reasons not feel right to you?

Given that so much has happened since November 2015, exactly what do you think has not changed?

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As it stands right now we have two statements (April press release and September devotional) which comment on the changes to the policy but don't totally align.

The handbook still has the original policy and a link to the FP letter from a week later than slightly alters that original policy.

If the handbook is not updated, we'll likely have widely disparate applications of the handbook policy coupled with leaders' understanding of the April and September statements.  So we're really in a bit of a messy position right now.

That's how we feel about it right now as well.  My Bishop thinks it's a mess and very confusing as it stands today (we discussed it on Sunday).  He's hoping for more instruction or information from Salt Lake and is also anxious to see what the printed version (changes) looks like.  So far, it's still the same and conflicts with the press release and devotional.  We will just wait and see, I guess....

ETA:

I don't want to give the impression there is urgency here on this....just a need for clarity for the future.

Edited September 26, 2019 by ALarson

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it works that way.  Many of the Savior's teachings caused anger, doubt, and a loss of faith but no one would argue that that is how we can be sure that His teachings originated from lucifer.  

If you could cite the scriptures where the Savior cast away the little children from his presence, or refused to bless or heal those traditionally, ritually, or culturally in conflict with Jews you would have a point.  No disagreement on Matt 23:27 "whited sepulchres".  Jesus drove out "demons by the Spirit of God" Matt 12:28, not newly married LGBTQ couples, interracial couples, or polygamous families. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by blueglass

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe that the policy reflected God's will.  I think it was prophets seeking what they felt was the best option for the church.

If you are talking about the larger issue of homosexuality, I think God is speaking to his children and making his will known.

In Exodus 32 (Deuteronomy 9:18-19), the prophet acts as a mediator between God and the affected among His children: “And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people …Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” Keeping the Old Testament terminology in context (we all know what the translated terms wrath, evil, and repent mean in modern terms), it seems to me that God heard the supplications of the Church leaders in behalf of those for whom they wept once the original policy was issued.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's how we feel about it right now as well.  My Bishop thinks it's a mess and very confusing as it stands today (we discussed it on Sunday).  He's hoping for more instruction or information from Salt Lake and is also anxious to see what the printed version (changes) looks like.  So far, it's still the same and conflicts with the press release and devotional.  We will just wait and see, I guess....

ETA:

I don't want to give the impression there is urgency here on this....just a need for clarity for the future.

He has every reason then to seek an exception to the policy (printed version) if he feels he must, and can refer to the press release and devotional in his request. This should not be confusing or anxiety-provoking at all for him. You can coach him along.

Edited September 26, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He has every reason then to seek an exception to the policy (printed version) if he feels he must, and can refer to the press release and devotional in his request. This should not be confusing or anxiety-provoking at all for him. You can coach him along.

Of course....and like I stated, there's no "urgency", just a need for clarity here.  I'm sure you can see that the printed version in the handbook, is not the same as what we have heard from the newsroom and the devotional information.  It's not unreasonable to hope updates will be made to the handbook to reflect those changes.  

Edited September 26, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In Exodus 32 (Deuteronomy 9:18-19), the prophet acts as a mediator between God and the affected among His children: “And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people …Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” Keeping the Old Testament terminology in context (we all know what the translated terms wrath, evil, and repent mean in modern terms), it seems to me that God heard the supplications of the Church leaders in behalf of those for whom they wept once the original policy was issued.

I am certain God heard the supplications of our leaders with respect to reversing the policy.

He also heard the supplications of members.

 

[Tacenda]

40 minutes ago, blueglass said:

If you could cite the scriptures where the Savior cast away the little children from his presence, or refused to bless or heal those traditionally, ritually, or culturally in conflict with Jews you would have a point.  No disagreement on Matt 23:27 "whited sepulchres".  Jesus drove out "demons by the Spirit of God" Matt 12:28, not newly married LGBTQ couples, interracial couples, or polygamous families. 

touche!

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, blueglass said:

If you could cite the scriptures where the Savior cast away the little children from his presence, or refused to bless or heal those traditionally, ritually, or culturally in conflict with Jews you would have a point.  

Well, he did once at first, and only relented based on the individual's faith.

Matthew 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

If you could cite the scriptures where the Savior cast away the little children from his presence, or refused to bless or heal those traditionally, ritually, or culturally in conflict with Jews you would have a point.  No disagreement on Matt 23:27 "whited sepulchres".  Jesus drove out "demons by the Spirit of God" Matt 12:28, not newly married LGBTQ couples, interracial couples, or polygamous families. 

Well, we do have the scripture of the Savior refusing to heal a gentile child, until the woman proved her faith.  Is that the kind of scripture you are looking for?  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Of course....and like I stated, there's no "urgency", just a need for clarity here.  I'm sure you can see that the printed version in the handbook, is not the same as what we have heard from the newsroom and the devotional information.  It's not unreasonable to hope updates will be made to the handbook to reflect those changes.  

I took your description that your Bishop thinks it's a mess and very confusing; is hoping for more instruction and is anxious to see the new printed version, to warrant counseling him. Is he dealing with ssm parents or cohabitants wanting their children baptized?

I'm more interested in your response to this: Posted 1 hour ago

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I took your description that your Bishop thinks it's a mess and very confusing; is hoping for more instruction and is anxious to see the new printed version, to warrant counseling him.

I also added (maybe you missed the edit):

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

ETA:

I don't want to give the impression there is urgency here on this....just a need for clarity for the future.

And yes, as it stands, it is confusing and not clear (since the original policy that has now been changed, is still in the current handbook).  That hopefully will be edited.

Edited September 26, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm more interested in your response to this: Posted 1 hour ago

"Given that so much has happened since November 2015, exactly what do you think has not changed?"

As far as we know (until the policy is actually updated in the handbook), we are right back to handling this issue as we were (on a local level) prior to the announcement of the policy.

What do you see that is different?

Edited September 26, 2019 by ALarson