Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kllindley

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

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not specifying this for Daniel but there are gay people that believe the church is true, D. Michael Quinn for one. 

I did mean "y'all", the non existent in English second person plural. I did not mean to single out Daniel. I know nothing of his personal circumstances.

And I don't know that Mr Quinn would agree with you on that one stated that way.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We have a lot of amazing bishops.  I think they are up to the task.  But by putting this back in the hands of bishops, we won't have a lot of consistency in application unless they rewrite the policy to clarify how to handle such situations.

Consistency in application is part of being up to the task, in my view. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The First Presidency does.

And thus they knew the need, and filled it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We have a lot of amazing bishops.  I think they are up to the task.  But by putting this back in the hands of bishops, we won't have a lot of consistency in application unless they rewrite the policy to clarify how to handle such situations.

And thus incur more criticism.  D if you do, d if you don't 

The policy is still there, but you call it  a "this", and worry that bishops may not be up to the non-existent policy's demands.

Wow.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/19/2019 at 7:06 PM, smac97 said:

Okay.  What examples do you have in mind?  

How is drawing lots relevant to "common consent?"

Again, how is this relevant to "common consent?" 

The Nephites were living in a quasi-theocracy (where some of the judges held both civil and religious authority).  We don't have that situation today.  And the selection of the judges was primarily a secular, not religious, exercise.

I don't think that's right.  I invite you to review the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entries on "Doctrine" and "Common Consent."

Okay.  I guess I don't understand your declaration that we do no observe "Common Consent" in the Church today.  I think we do.  A lot, actually.

Theoretically, yes.  However, the sustaining votes are overwhelming, such that counting them (to identify the "majority") would seem to be unnecessary.

That does not mean, however, that a sustaining vote, or an opposing vote, are devoid of meaning.  For example, I have a friend who gave an opposing vote pertaining to a person receiving a calling in her ward.  She later spoke with the bishop and explained the basis for her opposing vote (she knew something about the person that the bishop had not known).  The calling was rescinded.

A lot more information about "Common Consent" is available here.

In a sense, you are correct.  The administration of the Church in, say, the 1830s is necessarily very different from the administration of the Church in 2019.  The Church is worldwide now.  There are millions of members.  There are thousands of properties, and billions in tithes and investments and such.  Are you suggesting that "Common Consent" should be deployed to evaluate every decision regarding every individual or asset or dollar in the Church?  If so, how would you propose that work?

And if you concede, as I think you must, that this alternative interpretation and application of "Common Consent" is unworkable, then we are either left with A) disbanding the Church, or B) adapting to new circumstances, while still observing "Common Consent" as appropriate.  In other words, our disagreement would be more a question of degree, not kind.

By way of clarification, let's look at the D&C Manual (emphasis added):

I think the Church does this.  (I wonder if the changes to the CHI fit within the parameters of the bolded section above.  I could see it going either way.)

Also the Church History Study Guide:

And this Sperry Symposium Article (I was going to post excerpts, but it's too long and too worth a read in its entirety).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The examples I gave were referenced by McConkie and used at rsc.byu.edu:

"The Historical Perspective of Common Consent

The unique relationship between Christ and His disciples in divine government is found throughout religious history. A glimpse into the past reveals the precedence, patterns, and practice of common consent as it underscores its vitality and importance. This principle was practiced in one form or another during the lifetimes of Moses (Exodus 24:3), Joshua (Numbers 27:19–22), Peter (Acts 1:26), and Mosiah (Mosiah 29:25–26). According to Elder Bruce R. McConkie, the law of common consent “has been operative in every dispensation.” [4] Thus, this principle is of necessity part of modern Church government. Common consent is another of the many witnesses that the Church of Jesus Christ has been literally restored."

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/11-law-common-consent-dc-26-0

The church has had the opportunity to establish a theocratic order in this dispensation, hasn't it? And the initial statements by Joseph Smith do seem to suggest decision participation by voting members. So if one allows for some human frailty, there is space to admit some wrong turns in this dispensation's order of church government. And I don't think that would imply a disbanding, but also adaptation doesn't necessitate the current form either. I understand the current way, but it is closer to standing for the Pledge of Allegiance than voting.

Thanks for the links.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Meadowchik said:

The examples I gave were referenced by McConkie and used at rsc.byu.edu:

"The Historical Perspective of Common Consent

The unique relationship between Christ and His disciples in divine government is found throughout religious history. A glimpse into the past reveals the precedence, patterns, and practice of common consent as it underscores its vitality and importance. This principle was practiced in one form or another during the lifetimes of Moses (Exodus 24:3), Joshua (Numbers 27:19–22), Peter (Acts 1:26), and Mosiah (Mosiah 29:25–26).

"In one form or another."

What does that phrase mean to you?

How is the current "form" of Common Consent incompatible with the above excerpt?

Just now, Meadowchik said:

According to Elder Bruce R. McConkie, the law of common consent “has been operative in every dispensation.” [4] Thus, this principle is of necessity part of modern Church government.

I agree with this sentiment.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Common consent is another of the many witnesses that the Church of Jesus Christ has been literally restored."

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/11-law-common-consent-dc-26-0

The church has had the opportunity to establish a theocratic order in this dispensation, hasn't it?

I don't think so.  See, e.g., here (emphases added):

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe that the separation of church and state is essential in modern societies prior to the Millennium.
...
The principles of free agency and freedom of conscience, which are fundamental to LDS church-state theory, are consistent on both planes of discourse. However, the institutional implications of these principles are different in the two settings. In the present world, where believers are subject to the imperfections of human government, separation of church and state is vital to the protection of religious liberty. On the ideal plane, in contrast, Latter-day Saints anticipate more integrated theocratic, or what Joseph Smith called "theodemocratic" institutions (T&S 5 [Apr. 15, 1844]:510), both because of the inherent legitimacy of divine rule and because the participants in millennial or celestial societies willingly accept such rule. Nevertheless, LDS prophets have consistently taught that even in the millennial society freedom of conscience will be respected. For example, Brigham Young stated, "In the Millennium men will have the privilege of their own belief" (JD 12:274; cf. DS 3:63-64). The Church does not advocate theocracy for the premillennial world. It instructs members to "be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign" (D&C 58:22)-that is, until Christ comes.

So no, I don't think theocracy is a part of this dispensation.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

And the initial statements by Joseph Smith do seem to suggest decision participation by voting members.

In the 1830s, yes.  When the membership of the Church numbered in the hundreds or few thousands, and mostly clustered together geographically.

Is it possible that nearly 200 years later, "Common Consent" might need to function in a different "form" than the one in place in the 1830s?

Just now, Meadowchik said:

So if one allows for some human frailty, there is space to admit some wrong turns in this dispensation's order of church government.

I don't know what you are referencing here.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

And I don't think that would imply a disbanding, but also adaptation doesn't necessitate the current form either. I understand the current way, but it is closer to standing for the Pledge of Allegiance than voting.

I am still curious as to what sort of form of Common Consent you are proposing.

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Thanks for the links.

Happy to help.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

I"m going to take this a bit more slowly.  It appears people haven't really paid attention.

Pres. Nelson said Sept 2019:

Quote

Consider the policy announced in November 2015 related to the advisability of baptism for the children of LGBT parents.

What "announcement" is he talking about?  I recall that the policy change was leaked--the church didn't announce it. 

Quote

Our concern then, and one we discussed at length and prayed about fervently over a long period of time, was to find a way to reduce friction between gay or lesbian parents and their children.

The Church really put themselves in a bad spot when they tried to sneak the policy in without announcement (again feeling puzzled why he's trying to repaint it as if the Church did announce it).  The explanations of why are really just after-the-fact explanations/excuses.  They come off far more disingenuous as a result.  And, as it were, Nelson already explained the reason the policy was made was consequent to the laws of some places changing to accommodate same sex marriage:

Quote

the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-handbook-change

That is to say that the policy would likely not have been made or needed to be addressed without the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries.  The additional issue here is the church has not really been opposed to friction within families.  And the NT supports the opposing family for the sake of Jesus, so that makes sense.  But as we all have seen, some families have been broken by the Church, as the Church has at times supported children to be baptized, has supported children to attend church, has supported children-turned adults on missions, all at the defiance of families and parents.  I don't recall a policy being put in place to address children in mixed faith homes, or with split parents with one opposing a child's baptism.  I mean ok. 

Quote

Because parents are the primary exemplars for their children, we did not want to put young children in the position of having to choose between beliefs and behavior they learned at home and what they were taught at Church.

THis doesn't make a lot of sense.  If a 7 year old child going to church wants to be baptized when he turns 8 whose parents are sinning or bad because they are in a same-sex marriage, it does not matter if he is baptized or not in terms of causing friction, it seems to me.  So let's explore the scenario.  A child is going to church, say, with his grandparents, because his grandparents really want him there.  His mom, and her wife, say its ok.  Because, we'll say, his mom was already raised in the Church and did not, particularly when young, get taught that being gay is really naughty, plus times have changed and it is good community.  So, this child is about to turn 8.  The policy suggests the child cannot be baptized, much to the chagrin of the grandparents.  But, they all move on and the child who really wanted to be baptized can't.  He still goes to church with his grandparents, but his friends at church after having all turned 8 got baptized.  He even went to see some of them get baptized.  He, though, sadly, could not and wondered why.  The explanation comes--"well your parents are sinning.  They are gay and we as a church oppose that.  When you turn 18, if you decide to oppose your parents relationship, well, then you might be able to get baptized.  You are still welcome to join us though".  Of course the mom of this 8 year old, if a member would already be considered an apostate and should be excommunicated, according to the policy.  Previous to the policy change, though, of course, it was likely that the young child would have been baptized by his grandpa, and his mom would not have been called an apostate, per se.  And as a result the friction, likely would not be there.  

Honestly under such a scenario allowing the kid be baptized at 8 would actually be lessening the friction, it seems to me.  The policy likely would only add more friction.  SO either it wasn't very well thought out, which it seems to have been (seeing as it was verily revised at least, supposedly, in practice a week later) or it wasn't really about lessening friction.  

Moving on:

Quote

Thus in 2015, the policy was made to assist children and their parents in this circumstance, namely that children being raised by LGBT parents would not automatically be eligible for baptism at age eight.

Oops.  Who Is automatically eligible for baptism at age 8?  The policy change in 2015 says not only are they not automatically eligible but that they aren't eligible at all, well until 18 and have rejected their parents relationship.  Luckily that all has been rescinded.  

Quote

Exceptions to this policy would require First Presidency approval.

The exceptions start with the child being 18, and thus not a child anymore.  That is a Mission P, stake P or Bishop can't even request the first Presidencies approval, according to he policy, unless the child is 18, does not live with the parent who is in a same-sex relationship and has disavowed the parent's same sex relationship.  

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have continued to seek the Lord’s guidance and to plead with Him in behalf of His children who were affected by the 2015 policy. We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep—for whatever reasons—we weep. So, our supplications to the Lord continued.

SO is he saying the God's policy unnecessarily hurt people?  He's putting this on God?  Why not accept that the policy was mistaken?  

Quote

We also took note of LGBT parents who sought permission from the First Presidency for their children to be baptized. In nearly every case where the LGBT parents agreed to teach their children about—and be supportive of—the covenant of baptism, the requested exception was granted.

Alright, who are these?  How many people who knew of the policy, went to the First Presidnecy and the First Presidency went against the policy (that is the candidate was required to be 18, not living with the parent, and had to disavow his/her parent's relationship before the 1st Presidency would even consider the excpetion) that GOd ordered?  This doesn't make much sense.  AND, why not all cases where the conditions were met?  What's with the "nearly every" as if that's a plus?  Why not all?  And if all, then what's the point of the policy that GOd ordered?  THis just doesn't make any sense.

Quote

As a result of our continued supplication, we recently felt directed to adjust the policy such that the baptism of children of LGBT parents may be authorized by bishops without First Presidency approval, if the custodial parents request the baptism and understand that a child will be taught about sacred covenants to be made at baptism.

What?  That's silly.  That is precisely the case for every baptism of children, without for the most part, any mention of same-sex marriage.  So the policy is now adjusted to, well, if a child turns 8 and is interviewed by a bishop and the bishop deems him/her ready, as do the child and parents, then the child can be baptized.  uh...Ok.  There is no need for a policy directed at this issue at all then. 

Quote

We also determined that LGBT parents may request that a baby be named and blessed by one who worthily holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is important that these parents understand that ward members will contact them periodically, and that when a child who has been blessed reaches eight years of age, local leaders will recommend that the child be baptized.

Finally, we also clarified that homosexual immorality would be treated in the eyes of the Church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality

So....he/she who is in a homosexual relationship may not be considered apostate now.  A child who has parent or parents who are gay can be baptized and all of that, without any concern.  And the leaders weren't really the ones who made the policy it was God, but leaders are given the charge to make policies.  The backlash was a little strong on this one so they decided to adjust it and say God did the adjusting too?  

Quote

Though it may not have looked this way to some, the 2015 and 2019 policy adjustments on this matter were both motivated by love—the love of our Heavenly Father for His children and the love of the Brethren for those whom we serve.

Because we feel the depth of God’s love for His children, we care deeply about every child of God, regardless of age, personal circumstances, gender, sexual orientation, or other unique challenges.

I have admit it doesn't feel a bit helpful to say "though it may not have looked this way to some..."  It's a pretty bad way to try and explain this all away.  "Well we really do love you who feel slighted, rejected, and targeted".  I mean....As I said, earlier, I'm sure Pres Nelson and his group really felt they needed to address this with a younger crowd, but sadly, this is really bad.  The policy was a disaster.  THey know it.  And trying to talk all around to get out of the disaster is just more disastrous if you ask me.  

But...to each his own, I guess.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The truth is, however, that in the beginning—in the beginning—marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman.

But...the Church was all about, at one time, opposing this traditional view of marriage.  The most divine of all marriages included many wives and one husband, the church used to teach. SO much so that the one man and one woman marriages weren't nearly as good or divine.   Now, for some reason Nelson is trying to pull a fast one by pretending that intense push by Mormons back in the day to redefine traditional marriage never really was..or something.

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

Consider the policy announced in November 2015 related to the advisability of baptism for the children of LGBT parents.

What "announcement" is he talking about?  I recall that the policy change was leaked--the church didn't announce it. 

Quote

Our concern then, and one we discussed at length and prayed about fervently over a long period of time, was to find a way to reduce friction between gay or lesbian parents and their children.

The Church really put themselves in a bad spot when they tried to sneak the policy in without announcement (again feeling puzzled why he's trying to repaint it as if the Church did announce it).  The explanations of why are really just after-the-fact explanations/excuses.  They come off far more disingenuous as a result.  And, as it were, Nelson already explained the reason the policy was made was consequent to the laws of some places changing to accommodate same sex marriage:

 Since you are denying that any announcement was made, what exactly do you classify as an announcement? 

The church put it front and center on their official Newsroom page, at least as early as November 9, 2015 (the posting date says November 6, 2015).  Why would you deny that is an announcement?   Or is that the "leak" you are talking about?  Or was there a "leak" previously?  (Maybe there's something I don't know).

Here's the official church Newsroom page as it appeared on November 9, 2015 (using the "WaybackMachine" web site):

Newsroom -The Official Resource for News Media, Opinion Leaders and the Public

Notice the video with Elder D. Todd Christofferson:  "Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages"

If this is the "leak" you recalled where they tried to "sneak the policy in", then please explain why would putting it as the headline in the official newsroom of the church be a "leak"?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/22/2019 at 5:32 AM, rockpond said:

You are obviously not familiar with Handbook 1. 

Apostasy requires formal church discipline.  Immoral conduct (whether heterosexual or homosexual) does not. 

And the section that regarding children of same sex couples is its own section in a different part of the handbook and has nothing to do with apostasy. 

What I wrote earlier is correct.  Based on what has been said in the April press release and the September devotional, the policy has been reversed. 

You may be right about the exact wording of whether it is required or not,  but I'm still investigating the exact wording.  One bishop I spoke with yesterday (who couldn't recall the exact wording and wasn't in a position to look it up at the time) said it wouldn't matter if it was worded as a "mandate" or requirement to hold a disciplinary council in incidents of same-sex marriage or not, because it would still be mandatory (in his view) under the principle that there would be no indication of the desire for repentance if a person is married in a same-sex relationship.   So I'm not sure that there is any difference.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

 Since you are denying that any announcement was made, what exactly do you classify as an announcement? 

The church put it front and center on their official Newsroom page, at least as early as November 9, 2015 (the posting date says November 6, 2015).  Why would you deny that is an announcement?   Or is that the "leak" you are talking about?  Or was there a "leak" previously?  (Maybe there's something I don't know).

Here's the official church Newsroom page as it appeared on November 9, 2015 (using the "WaybackMachine" web site):

Newsroom -The Official Resource for News Media, Opinion Leaders and the Public

Notice the video with Elder D. Todd Christofferson:  "Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages"

If this is the "leak" you recalled where they tried to "sneak the policy in", then please explain why would putting it as the headline in the official newsroom of the church be a "leak"?  

 

The policy was put into the handbook and that handbook was made available Nov 5.  Handbook 1 is not a publicly available book.  It is hidden from the public.  It was leaked, in that the change was out there for all to see, before the Church made any statements about it.  After the public outcry the church commented on it, yes...but I don't know that that qualifies as announcing the policy.   

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The policy was put into the handbook and that handbook was made available Nov 5.  Handbook 1 is not a publicly available book.  It is hidden from the public.  It was leaked, in that the change was out there for all to see, before the Church made any statements about it.  After the public outcry the church commented on it, yes...but I don't know that that qualifies as announcing the policy.   

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!

 

Edited by InCognitus
eliminated duplicate statement

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes 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!

 

It isn't so much a matter of facts. It's about the narrative: "Church bad!"  If you or I point out a false statement or misrepresentation, it is easy to wave it off and continue drumming the narrative that makes the Church bad. 

That is the only explanation I can think of for why I can be asked a question, I answer it-along with others, and then later in the thread people continue to assert that there has been no answer to the supposedly damning question. But then the Church is accused of gaslighting. It's almost laughable once I step away from how maddening it is. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is anyone here acquainted with any parents who embrace the LGBT lifestyle and ideology and yet want their children raised as fully believing and functioning members of the Church? I have yet to hear of any. 

I support my children that wish to be a part of the church.  Just because the church doesn’t work for me, doesn’t mean it won’t work for them. 

Not everyone imposes their religious beliefs onto their children.  Nor should they.  Imo

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The explanations of why are really just after-the-fact explanations/excuses

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?

 

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But as we all have seen, some families have been broken by the Church, as the Church has at times supported children to be baptized, has supported children to attend church, has supported children-turned adults on missions, all at the defiance of families and parents.

We have all seen this? CFR please. 

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Honestly under such a scenario allowing the kid be baptized at 8 would actually be lessening the friction, it seems to me. 

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

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

SO is he saying the God's policy unnecessarily hurt people?  He's putting this on God?  Why not accept that the policy was mistaken?  

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?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I support my children that wish to be a part of the church.  Just because the church doesn’t work for me, doesn’t mean it won’t work for them. 

Not everyone imposes their religious beliefs onto their children.  Nor should they.  Imo

May I simply ask for clarification? You are referencing your adult children, correct? Would your answer be any different if the child was 8? I'm not assuming it would, I'm just asking. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

My parents had to request for my baptism. Mind you I grew up in a ward so we were already talking about it. Non LGBT parents would also have to understand these same things, views, and doctrines as well and know they’d be  taught to their children.

 Were your parents legally married?

If they were not the request to have you baptized would not have been honored.

Should they even have wanted to join the church they would have to get married first.

The church does not recognize same-sex marriage as legal marriage regardless of whether or not the law does. In the church's position it is against the law of God which supersedes the law of man.

Essentially another reason why the request needs to be examined and decided upon is because the church is in effect allowing a child to be blessed and baptized whose parents are not legally married in their view. I am sure president Nelson did not want to make any inflammatory points and so he skipped mentioning this. This is actually a huge concession.

Go ask your Bishop what he would say if he were asked to approve a baptism of a child whose parents are not legally married, and living a lifestyle that the church considers immoral and and they have no sense that repentance from that lifestyle is necessary, and plan to carry it forward for a lifetime.

Go ahead.

See what your Bishop says.

Frankly under those circumstances I think it was very generous of the church to allow Bishops to handle this.

As rockpond says, quite frankly I am not sure that Bishops are up to the task of enforcing this.

They have never been before able to approve a baptism of a child of unmarried parents who continue to live in what they considered to be an immoral lifestyle with no plan for repentance.

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

not legally married in their view.

Rather than “legally”, “legitimately” I  may be more accurate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, rockpond said:

We have a lot of amazing bishops.  I think they are up to the task.  But by putting this back in the hands of bishops, we won't have a lot of consistency in application unless they rewrite the policy to clarify how to handle such situations.

Agree. It probably needs about another page in the handbook.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rather than “legally”, “legitimately” I  may be more accurate.

I will agree when they change the definition of the law of Chastity in the temple.

Good luck with that one. And thus we have an excellent example of the difference semantics makes. From this point it could go either way I suppose.

Another victory for Wittgenstein 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I will agree when they changed the definition of the law of Chastity in the temple.

Good luck with that one.

How about “lawfully” then used in regards to God’s Law while “legally” referring to man’s. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/21/2019 at 7:56 PM, rockpond said:

Because the 2016 talk implied that the policy itself was revealed and reflected the mind and will of the Lord.  Now that it is being reversed, they need to erase that implication from the annals of church history.

Now it is just some policy that they found in the handbook, discovered it was causing heartache, confusion, and tears so they magnanimously prayed to have it changed.

Yeah for seers and revelators!

Did you ever acknowledge that your accusations and sarcasm here were unwarranted? 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I will agree when they change the definition of the law of Chastity in the temple.

Good luck with that one.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Share this post


Link to post

 

This does seem to recognize that SSM is legal in some countries by man’s laws, but do not follow God’s law.

Legal proceedings and legislative action in a number of countries have given civil recognition to same-sex marriage relationships...

We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully”

I don’t believe I have ever heard “legal” used for God’s laws in church language, just man’s. “Lawful” or “righteous” is pretty typical, imo. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng&_r=1

Also:  “Enclosed is a statement by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in response to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision?lang=eng

How is this not saying “same sex marriage is legal in the US”?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

May I simply ask for clarification? You are referencing your adult children, correct? Would your answer be any different if the child was 8? I'm not assuming it would, I'm just asking. 

Yes.  I only have adult children.  

There are many minor children in this world who belong to a church that there parents don’t believe is true. Just this week I got a (group) email from my sisters grandson who is serving a mission in Brazil.  He baptized a 9 year old girl last week.  Her parents do not believe the church is true, nor do they believe everything the church teaches, but they allowed her to get baptized anyway.  They don’t expect their daughter to have the same religious beliefs as them.  Neither do I.  Is this so unbelievable?  I am sure there are many on this board who have baptized a minor whose parents didn’t believe the church was true?  That isn’t a requirement for baptism.

I have similar attitudes. I don’t hate the church.  I don’t believe everything the church teaches.  The Church may very well be a  fine place to find a relationship with Christ for my minor child if I still had one. And I don’t care one bit what Church leaders think of gay marriage.   I don’t believe Church leaders get revelation from God on any of the LGBT issues.  There are a lot of members of the church including some bishops that don’t believe Church leaders have ever gotten a revelation from God about any of the LGBT issues.  Does that prevent them from being members of the church?  No.  Would it cause a minor from being a member of the Church?  Does that cause all this turmoil that Church leaders used as their excuse for the November policy? I hate to be the one to break it to the Church leaders, but children often have different beliefs than their parents   We all seem to manage those differences and still be good parents.

 

  • Like 2

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...