Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[Bernard Gui]

On August 18, 2016 at 7:22 AM, stemelbow said:

Huh? I thought that's what you said as the type of stuff you won't give up on?  I thought MfBukowski suggested we can't stick with flat earther stuff when it's obvious there's no flat earth, and I thought you responded by suggesting you can't give up the old ways.  Ah well...misunderstanding I guess. 

Well, that's not an answer. I would like some examples of "flat earth" stuff that I am not willing to give up. I have posted the fundamentals as the existence of God, the efficacy of the Atonement, the truth of the Restoration, modern revelation, among others. What old ways are you thinking of?

Edited August 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that's not an answer. I would like some examples of "flat earth" stuff that I am not willing to give up. I have posted the fundamentals as the existence of God, the efficacy of the Atonement, the truth of the Restoration,

modern revelation, among others. What old ways are you thinking of?

I just said, It looks like I misunderstood.  Sorry for that. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The premise of all these laundry lists of things the Church should fix is that by doing so, members will stop leaving, 

sanitized Mormonism will be able to more fully enter the mainstream, and more people will want to join.

members will always leave.  That will never come to a halt.  I question too whether it'll ever be that people will stop joining.  That won't happen either. 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Huh? I thought that's what you said as the type of stuff you won't give up on?  I thought MfBukowski suggested we can't stick with flat earther stuff when it's obvious there's no flat earth, and I thought you responded by suggesting you can't give up the old ways.  Ah well...misunderstanding I guess. 

Wow I totally missed that one ??

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The premise of all these laundry lists of things the Church should fix is that by doing so, members will stop leaving, 

sanitized Mormonism will be able to more fully enter the mainstream, and more people will want to join.

I'll grant that Mason's remarks are directed at giving more room for people to stay. He said nothing about increasing baptismal rates or acquiring public approval, though. I'm not saying those things would not also follow, but they should not be our focus. 

FWIW, I do think that over the long term, apologies, humility, and changing church doctrines to reflect the correct experience of the world will lead to not only more retention, but greater baptisms and approval in the world. Those are good things. In the long term, most all of us go the celestial kingdom. Doing the right thing gets the church there sooner. Maybe we beat "the world," maybe "they" beat us. Doesn't matter. In the end we're unified in Christ.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm one of those old farts who will have to die so the New Dawn can be ushered in. But let me tell you, broski, I won't go down without a fight! {edit:  } I'm having a hard time thinking of something I believed 20, heck 40 years ago, that I don't believe now...and by that I mean anything to which the Spirit has born testimony to me, that and a lot more, too.

Found it!

That was a specific response to DBmormon who we know has gone through belief changes from totally traditional to.......well nearly out the door.

I have myself not really changed my beliefs much since I joined the church either but of course by that time, I was already perfect in every way, except for abusing poor John.

Everyone always has to stick with the spirit or we have no rudder at all.

If the spirit has NOT confirmed it though, I think we need to keep the door open, or keep asking and reformulating until we do get confirmation.   But we Poles have the shining anyway, so we are naturally talented in these matters anyway, not like other mortals.

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The premise of all these laundry lists of things the Church should fix is that by doing so, members will stop leaving, 

sanitized Mormonism will be able to more fully enter the mainstream, and more people will want to join.

I want the church to be the stone cut without hands rolling forth to fill the earth, and I am concerned that it never will be that if we don't get out of this provincial Utah Amish thing. We are becoming a tourist attraction, like animals in the zoo." Let's go see the Mormons. Wasn't Mitt Romney one of those?"

We have to get the word out to the WORLD in terms they will understand 

It is just translating old terminology, not changing the message. It's not even sanitizing, it is speaking in their language game.

It's about "infinite human potential and being all you can be with joy in your life, and understanding your place in the multiverse" instead of the usual jargon.

It's the ultimate human potential movement presented as such.

[mfbukowski]

Bernard

I mean what other country would elect a concert pianist President?

Edited August 18, 2016 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

On 8/17/2016 at 10:58 PM, Bernard Gui said:

How do you square this with Elder Maxwell's prophecy and counsel? 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng

Quote

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions.

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

Those days have arrived far sooner than I ever imagined they would.

If we are to doubt their inspiration and pick and choose the parts we think are inspired, are we not halting between two opinions?

I would not say that we should "doubt their inspiration."  Perhaps a better verb would be "analyze" or "evaluate" or "determine for ourselves" their inspiration.  I think we should operate from a position of faith.  I also think we should give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt.  That is, I think we should generally "decide that you will believe someone, even though you are not sure that what the person is saying is true."  I think such a presumption would a healthy thing.  I also think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  (There are way too many "I thinks" in this paragraph, I think.)

However, this presumption should not be unthinking or devoid of analysis.  To the contrary, we are supposed to examine the words of our leaders.  Consider these remarks by Kent Jackson:

Quote

The more restrictive view of what constitutes scripture would include only what is called "the scriptures"-that is, the four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These constitute the canonized, authoritative corpus of revealed writings against which all else is measured. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve:

Quote

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator — please note that one exception {when he is speaking as the prophet, taught from earlier in the paragraph} — you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard” — it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

And these remarks by President Lee:

Quote

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.  The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard  Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

So my rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it.  

So if I find the statement to be "beyond" what it is the Standard Works, then I generally either reject it or label it in my mind as a personal opinion of the speaker (and hence I am not bound by it).  If I find the statement to contradict the Standard Works, then I reject it altogether.  

Consider, by way of example, Amasa Lyman, who while serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

Imagine the confusion, and perhaps even apostasy, that would be caused if members of the Church today uncritically accepted remarks similar to what Elder Lyman taught.  And then consider the wisdom of the counsel we have received about reliance on "the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."

So the counsel we have given on this point is, I think, sound and reasonable.  I note, however, that it is susceptible to abuse by dissidents and critics, who may seize upon remarks such as those I have quoted above and use them as some sort of carte blanche to publicly disagree and defy the Brethren on any issue they (the critics/dissidents) deem significant, and also to work to persuade members of the Church to listen to them rather than the Brethren.  Hence we end up with substantial disagreements over socially popular themes like same-sex marriage, female ordination, and so on.  And with the advent of the Internet, critics and dissidents have markedly increased opportunities to persuade members of the Church to accept their point of view on such issues, and to ignore or disregard the counsel given to us by the Brethren, and to instead adopt the preferences of the self-selected few who have set themselves up as alternative voices of authority.

I don't think this is what the Lord has in mind for His people.  I don't think the wise words given above were intended to give critics and dissidents leave to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, to set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to the Brethren, or to foment discord and disunity in the Church.

Interestingly, some of the recent remarks made by Patrick Mason come across as wanting to privilege dissidents in the Church from the very type of "self-critique" he things we should undertake:

Quote

The CES Letter {formally, “Letter to a CES Director,” which he cited as one of the online sources he had read} is emblematic of this all-or-nothing approach to religion. . . . The letter is nearly a perfect inverse of the version of Mormonism it is reacting to. Jeremy Runnels may have written the letter, but it was actually an inevitability—someone, sometime, somewhere was going to write that letter, because it was the obvious response to a certain style, tone, and mode of Mormonism that culminated in the highly doctrinaire, no-retreat-no-surrender positions taken by certain church leaders and members especially in the second half of the twentieth century.

...

{F}or too many years we refused to yield to dissenters and critics even an inch of territory—including some pretty rocky, barren outposts that should never have fallen within our borders and definitely weren’t worth defending. This no-retreat-no-surrender mentality has only fueled the CES Letter and other polemics, which have made the claim that a series of apparent infelicities, contradictions, gaps, errors, and transgressions invalidate the entire Mormon system.

I think Bro. Mason is making some points here that merit serious discussion.  And although Bro. Mason does not seem to acknowledge this, I also think the church has made significant strides in improving its messaging, particularly regarding painful and difficult issues like same-sex marriage.  For example, Mormonsandgays.org is, I think, an ongoing exercise in moderating the Church's "highly doctrinaire, no-retreat-no-surrender positions" taken in years past.  The Gospel Topics essays are another example of the Church growing beyond the "style, tone, and mode of Mormonism" he finds problematic.  

However, I think Bro. Mason is overlooking another set of "all-or-nothing . . . highly doctrinaire, no-retreat-no-surrender positions" being manifested in the 21st-century Church: that of the critics and dissidents.  

Look at Kate Kelly and her repeated demand for women to be ordained to the Priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice."  

Look at Wendy Montgomery and her fabricated / exaggerated / unsubstantiated gay teen suicide "statistics," along with her concomitant throwing-everyone-else-but-herself-under-the-bus blame game when those statistics were questioned.

Look at Jeremy Runnells and John Dehlin and the manufactured, Kabuki Theater-style histrionics and melodrama they put on to play up their disciplinary councils.

If these aren't emblematic of a no-retreat-no-surrender mentality, then I don't know what is.  So I will disagree somewhat with Bro. Mason when he says:

Quote

One of the reasons I’m skeptical of blaming outside influences for our troubles—whether it be secularism, or liberalism, or feminism, or marriage equality, or even Satan—is that doing so can prevent us from engaging in self-critique.

I quite agree that we should engage in self-critique.  But Bro. Mason seems to be advocating for something more than that: navel-gazing ("self-indulgent or excessive contemplation of oneself or a single issue, at the expense of a wider view").  In what world does it make sense to ignore or excuse "outside influences" who are undoubtedly contributing to "our troubles?"  I'm not speaking of "blaming" really, but more of examining and evaluating these "outside influences."  I hope Bro. Mason is advocating a "cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye" type of proposal in terms of evaluating the impact of "outside influences" on the Church and its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 23, 2019 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

We have decidedly not been in the last days

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

We've been in the last days forever, and always will be. Saying we're in the last days is basically meaningless.

We have decidedly not been in the last days "forever," nor have we been in the last days for 2,000 years. And the term is not "meaningless."

I don't know where you get this stuff. Surely not from prophecies of the scriptures, for they speak of the last days as being synonymous with the dispensation of the fullness of times, the period from the Restoration of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith on down to today. 

And prophesied events are being fulfilled at the moment more clearly than ever before, as the Church is over almost all the face of the earth and still spreading, but it's numbers are relatively few by reason of the influence of Satan throughout the world. 

The recent redefinition of marriage and the vain efforts by some to get the Church to embrace that redefinition are examples of how some would have the Church surrender its values and standards for the sake of misplaced compassion. It's symptomatic of the "love wins" or "love has no labels" or "all you need is love" mindset that Ralph Hancock spoke of at the FairMormon Conference. 

Well, contrary to what my favorite band sang a generation ago, love is not all you need. You need divine law as well, and obedience to God's commandments and to principles of truth and righteousness. 

I'm not saying anything controversial here from an LDS paradigm. Yet it seems to be growing increasingly unpopular among the younger set in particular. 

Did you say something earlier about "do what is right, let the consequence follow"? You spoke the truth, but maybe not in quite the way you think. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The recent redefinition of marriage and the vain efforts by some to get the Church to embrace that redefinition are examples of how some would have the Church surrender its values and standards for the sake of misplaced compassion. It's symptomatic of the "love wins" or "love has no labels" or "all you need is love" mindset that Ralph Hancock spoke of at the FairMormon Conference. 

Well, contrary to what my favorite band sang a generation ago, love is not all you need. You need divine law as well, and obedience to God's commandments and to principles of truth and righteousness. 

I've long found it interesting that the co-author of "All You Need is Love," John Lennon, was a habitual wife-beater and an "alternately absent, indifferent, drug-addled, and generally unpleasant" father to his son, Julian.  

Rank hypocrisy is a rather common trait amongst our sociopolitical elite.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2016 by smac97

[cinepro]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've long found it interesting that the co-author of "All You Need is Love," John Lennon, was a habitual wife-beater and an "alternately absent, indifferent, drug-addled, and generally unpleasant" father to his son, Julian.  

Rank hypocrisy is a rather common trait amongst our sociopolitical elite.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not to mention that at the time he wrote "Imagine" (including the line "Imagine no possessions..."), he lived in a luxury apartment with an entire refrigerated room just for Yoko Ono's fur coats!

Quote

In 1980, to mark Lennon's 40th birthday, Elton [John] sent him a little verse: 'Imagine six apartments / It isn't hard to do / One is full of fur coats / The other's full of shoes.'

(And "All You Need Is Love" was almost certainly entirely written by Lennon.  McCartney and Lennon still shared songwriting credit even for the many songs they wrote independently)

Edited August 18, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/churchs-doctrine-on-chastity-will-never-change-says-elder-christofferson?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/10/continuous-revelation?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/05/the-unique-message-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/stand-by-my-servant-joseph?lang=eng

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/joseph-fielding-mcconkie_finding-answers/

 

That's a start

I am too tired to continue this exercise

Good resources. Thanks.

So what are some of the things our leaders are at this moment wrong about, and how can we recognize when this is the case?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The recent redefinition of marriage and the vain efforts by some to get the Church to embrace that redefinition are examples of how some would have the Church surrender its values and standards for the sake of misplaced compassion. It's symptomatic of the "love wins" or "love has no labels" or "all you need is love" mindset that Ralph Hancock spoke of at the FairMormon Conference. 

 

I thought they were examples of compassion.  What do you mean by misplaced.  Should we not have compassion for others because in your view all you need is love is not a solution?  Seems odd. 

While I agree with the point both Smac and Cinepro made I would say to suggest

Quote

Well, contrary to what my favorite band sang a generation ago, love is not all you need. You need divine law as well, and obedience to God's commandments and to principles of truth and righteousness. 

Seems to suggest that all we need is love.  Due to love obedience and adherence to divine law bring meaning.  Without love those things mean nothing. 

[Avatar4321]

who? I'm not sure why I should treat this guys opinion as anything other than his opinion

[JulieM]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Good resources. Thanks.

So what are some of the things our leaders are at this moment wrong about, and how can we recognize when this is the case?

That's the catch.  Many say that our Prophets make mistakes, but then they refuse to state what these mistakes are.

The closest I've seen ever done was with the Priesthood ban.

But try getting any statement about what mistakes Joseph Smith made or as you ask, our current Prophet.  Then you'll hear, "I believe they are men who are not infallible and who may make mistakes, but none yet."

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I've long found it interesting that the co-author of "All You Need is Love," John Lennon, was a habitual wife-beater and an "alternately absent, indifferent, drug-addled, and generally unpleasant" father to his son, Julian.  

Rank hypocrisy is a rather common trait amongst our sociopolitical elite.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would also point out that, relevant to this discussion, that song was recently derided in a conference talk by President Monson (quoting a critic of that era):

Quote

I recently read in the Wall Street Journal an article by Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi. Among other things, he writes: “In virtually every Western society in the 1960s there was a moral revolution, an abandonment of its entire traditional ethic of self-restraint. All you need, sang the Beatles, is love. The Judeo-Christian moral code was jettisoned. In its place came [the adage]: [Do] whatever works for you. The Ten Commandments were rewritten as the Ten Creative Suggestions.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/stand-in-holy-places?lang=eng&_r=1

 

I believe that was the most momentous invocation of a pop song in General Conference since President Benson invoked this classic so many years ago...

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Good resources. Thanks.

So what are some of the things our leaders are at this moment wrong about, and how can we recognize when this is the case?

I think that in fact that last quote answers that.

In fact the whole talk is about difficult questions and how to find the answers.  You won't like it, but to me the answer is obvious.   In three words the answer is "Seek the spirit"

I suggest you read the talk and ignore the speaker's name.

Or better yet, THINK that this comes from a McConkie and follow it anyway.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/joseph-fielding-mcconkie_finding-answers/

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I would also point out that, relevant to this discussion, that song was recently derided in a conference talk by President Monson (quoting a critic of that era):

 

 

If someone who will not follow "commandments" WILL follow "creative suggestions" then I am all in favor of changing the semantics

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Not to mention that at the time he wrote "Imagine" (including the line "Imagine no possessions..."), he lived in a luxury apartment with an entire refrigerated room just for Yoko Ono's fur coats!

(And "All You Need Is Love" was almost certainly entirely written by Lennon.  McCartney and Lennon still shared songwriting credit even for the many songs they wrote independently)

And of course the latter has highly complex lyrics.

 

Quote

 

Love, love, love
Love, love, love
Love, love, love

There's nothing you can do that can't be done
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy

Nothing you can make that can't be made
No one you can save that can't be saved
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time
It's easy

All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love, love
Love is all you need

Love, love, love
Love, love, love
Love, love, love

All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love, love
Love is all you need

Nothing you can know that isn't known
Nothing you can see that isn't shown
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
It's easy

All you need is love
All you need is love

 

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lyrics all you need is love

Heavy, dude.

Edited August 18, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course the latter has highly complex lyrics.

 

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lyrics all you need is love

Heavy, dude.

 

Well, as I understand it, the lyrics do become highly complex if one is high. 

[Johnnie Cake]

Buckeye: Well, as I understand it, the lyrics do become highly complex if one is high. 

 

I can confirm that this is true

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So how do you explain Moroni 7?  Why is it so similar to Paul again?

You need to try to focus, Skeptic.  One item at a time.  Your interests are so diffuse that it is no wonder you are unable to settle down, center yourself, and make any sort of inner mental or spiritual progress.  One frequently sees this in little children, who by nature have short interest spans.

As to Moroni 7 and I Cor 13, you may want to note that many scholars find a precursor in ancient Stoic talk of "faith, truth, love, hope," and which shows up in various combinations in I Esdras 4:35-38 (3 Ezra), IV Maccabees 17:2,4 (pistis, elpis, hupomonē), I Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6, Colossians 1:4-5, Hebrews 10:22-24, and I Peter 1:21-22.  The first step is to study the intertextuality.  Top rank scholars see the Three Graces preceding Paul, as with F. F. Bruce, ed., Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, 1982), 45:12, also citing A. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors, 33-35.   

Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament: NRSV (Oxford, 2011), 308n, re I Cor 13:1-13, comment:

Quote

 1. Love (“agapē”) with righteous worship (LXX Ps 30.23; 39.16; 68.35; 96.10; 144.20).  In Isa 56.6, the likely background for Paul’s discussion, this worship includes the Gentiles and Jerusalem’s restoration (1 En. 108.12).
    *    *    *    *
    13. Faith, hope, and love will outlast spiritual gifts, but love is eternal.  In the fulfillment of the kingdom, love will embrace all (see Wis. 3.9; T. Gad 4.7 on love as a gift of the Spirit).  Rabbinic tradition ties faith in God to hope for the world-to-come (Mek. Beshallah 7 on Ex 14.31).

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

In recent General Conference, an apostle said all decisions and policies come from God, I am trying to find it. I can't remember who and I can't remember the exact words, but it will be nice if someone helps me. 

Elder Nelson said the church policy on the children of gay couples comes from God.  

You don't pay close attention:  All direction to the Church from God (all of it) comes through human filters.  None of it comes direct from God.  All of it is interpreted by humans.  Every time.  No exceptions.  Moreover, the Twelve and First Presidency must achieve unanimity in that interpretation before it can be promulgated.  If it is to become part of the scriptural canon, it must also receive the acceptance of the general membership in conference by the Law of Common Consent.  Despite all that, mistakes have been made, and the Brethren are fallible humans, just like you and me.  You have free agency same as they do.

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

.................................

I am asking you to tell me in your own words. I read many church manuals and general conferences talks on that subject, you have no idea what I done for the church all my entire life, I done everything. I am aware of all that, but I would appreciate if you give me something more useful. 

I didn't finish reading Kevin Christensen, I mostly skim-read ,  I will read it when I get the time, I do hope it is useful. 

I expect you to take seriously my advice, and to read the sources I cited.  You have obviously not done that, and have not done everything.  I will add here advice from another source, from a recent master's thesis at Loyola University in Maryland:

Luke presents three methods for knowing that the Lord has actually risen:
1.  Through the witness of the Holy Spirit (“did not our heart burn within us when he spoke to us on the road,” Lk 24:32),
2.  The word of the Scriptures (“when he opened the Scriptures to us?” Lk 24:32),
3.  The Eucharistic meal (“he had made himself known to them in the breaking of the bread,” Lk 32:35) -- Sacrament of the Lord's Supper

Indeed, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts of the Apostles have as their central theme that “the Spirit is the primary means of God’s interacting with the Church, especially to its ordinary members.”  -- citing James D.G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Phila: Westminster, 1975), 3.

This is not just a Mormon thing.  You really need to get that straight.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course the latter has highly complex lyrics.

 

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lyrics all you need is love

Heavy, dude.

Lennon might have been a hypocritical ignoramus when it came to social, moral and economic issues, but you're revealing your own ignorance if you think there is anything about song writing that you know (and he didn't) that would put you in a position to judge anything he ever did from an artistic standpoint.

"All You Need Is Love" was meant to be a worldwide anthem (and was premiered in a worldwide broadcast "music video" which included contributions from 19 nations), and so it had to be easily understood in any culture and language, and it couldn't focus one particular religion or outlook.  So the simplicity and universality are intentional, even if that leads to an oversimplified message that ultimately lacks substance. 

Indeed, for those of you who aren't impressed, find the best songwriter among you, and have him write a "Beatles"-like song.  And if any of you can write a song that is like the Beatles in quality, then you are justified in saying that you don't think it's a great song.

But if you can't make one like it, you are under derision if you don't admit that it's still a great song.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Lennon might have been a hypocritical ignoramus when it came to social, moral and economic issues, but you're revealing your own ignorance if you think there is anything about song writing that you know (and he didn't) that would put you in a position to judge anything he ever did from an artistic standpoint.

"All You Need Is Love" was meant to be a worldwide anthem (and was premiered in a worldwide broadcast "music video" which included contributions from 19 nations), and so it had to be easily understood in any culture and language, and it couldn't focus one particular religion or outlook.  So the simplicity and universality are intentional, even if that leads to an oversimplified message that ultimately lacks substance. 

Indeed, for those of you who aren't impressed, find the best songwriter among you, and have him write a "Beatles"-like song.  And if any of you can write a song that is like the Beatles in quality, then you are justified in saying that you don't think it's a great song.

But if you can't make one like it, you are under derision if you don't admit that it's still a great song.

So good I thumbs'd up and then quoted.