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

[kllindley]

 

This was a powerful talk about Heavenly Father's love for us, truth, and Divine Law.  He also addresses quite openly the Nov. 15th Policy.  This included how and why it was implemented.  He also talked about the events that led up to the change in the policy.  It was clear how much he loves people and how much he seeks to follow Heavenly Father's will.  

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by kllindley
Fixed Link

[Duncan]

i'd be interested to know why they continued to see guidance on the matter when God has already spoken

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know why they continued to see guidance on the matter when God has already spoken

Agreed, seeking further light and knowledge is forbidden completely by the gospel. Once God has spoken once the revelation is DONE!!!! FOREVER!!!!!!!

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know why they continued to see guidance on the matter when God has already spoken

From what he said it sounded to me like they continued to seek guidance in hopes of finding a way to implement it that would cause less pain than the first iteration.  

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know why they continued to see guidance on the matter when God has already spoken

See here:

Quote

The LDS Church’s controversial 2015 LGBT exclusion policy and its 2019 reversal, the faith’s president said Tuesday, were motivated by the same emotion: love.

“We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us,” Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in an address at church-owned Brigham Young University.

“Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep — for whatever reasons — we weep. So, our supplications to the Lord continued.”

I think this works well.  Supplications continued.  Not because of rebellion or anger or malice, but because of the love and concern they have for their brothers and sisters who are struggling.

Quote

In his sermon, the 95-year-old church president described “five truths,” including: that every person is a “son or daughter of God,” “truth is truth,” “God loves everyone...with a perfect love,” “prophets and apostles communicate [God’s] love and teach his laws,” and all people “may know for [themselves] what is true and what is not.”

This story will be updated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See here:

I think this works well.  Supplications continued.  Not because of rebellion or anger or malice, but because of the love and concern they have for their brothers and sisters who are struggling.

Thanks,

-Smac

but wouldn't weeping be the consequences of the policy or the reason for the policy aka homosexuality, like it's against the law to swipe a car but if the criminals are weeping because they got caught or can't do it anymore we don't change the laws to accomodate them

[Meadowchik]

How much healthier it would be to just allow himself to admit that he in his office can get things not quite right or even wrong. I think that admission would open up the windows of inspiration more, and compassion...

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but wouldn't weeping be the consequences of the policy or the reason for the policy aka homosexuality, like it's against the law to swipe a car but if the criminals are weeping because they got caught or can't do it anymore we don't change the laws to accomodate them

No, we can't change "the laws."  God can, but we cannot.  

That said, the Brethren are not bereft of options.  Perhaps an illustration can help: God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

To further illustrate here is  an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

Quote

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40).

I came across the above items in 2016, and I have since kept them in mind.  These ideas help me accommodate changes made by the Brethren, including changes to changes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but wouldn't weeping be the consequences of the policy or the reason for the policy aka homosexuality, like it's against the law to swipe a car but if the criminals are weeping because they got caught or can't do it anymore we don't change the laws to accomodate them

I think two main reasons that analogy doesn't work is that 1) we also don't make the kids pay the consequences for the person stealing the car and 2) the policy was never about consequences for sin but about helping families with LGTBQ parents have harmony and unity.  

So weeping in consequence of a policy meant to promote unity and harmony between kids and LGBTQ parents is different than weeping in consequence of sin.  

[10THAmendment]

President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. 

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think two main reasons that analogy doesn't work is that 1) we also don't make the kids pay the consequences for the person stealing the car and 2) the policy was never about consequences for sin but about helping families with LGTBQ parents have harmony and unity.  

So weeping in consequence of a policy meant to promote unity and harmony between kids and LGBTQ parents is different than weeping in consequence of sin.  

This is certainly how I understood him. 

[kllindley]

Just now, 10THAmendment said:

President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. 

I didn't get that sense at all. Can you point to anything he stated that suggested that the first implementation was personal opinion and not revelation?  Or is that just an inference you are making?

[smac97]

Just now, 10THAmendment said:

President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. 

I don't think the tune is different. Again, the above remarks about Elder Bednar seem apt.  He differentiates between "doctrines" and "principles" and "applications," as follows:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

The Church hasn't changed any "doctrines."  Principles?  Yes.  Applications?  Yes.  Doctrines?  No.  

Did the 2015 policy changes fit within the category of "Doctrines"?  Nope.  They seem to fall within the "Principles" category.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I didn't get that sense at all. Can you point to anything he stated that suggested that the first implementation was personal opinion and not revelation?  Or is that just an inference you are making?

It would not be an unreasonable inference.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know why they continued to see guidance on the matter when God has already spoken

"Seek guidance"?

If I understood you correctly, I assume it was for how they should implement what God spoken the best way....as in speak or publicize it, instructions they pass on, etc.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It would not be an unreasonable inference.

I didn't say that it was unreasonable. I asked whether it could be backed up by any quotes or specific examples.  Are you suggesting that it can't, but is nevertheless reasonable?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It would not be an unreasonable inference.

It would be, based on the wording with which he expressed himself. Such an inference would require an assumption of bad faith and dishonesty on the part of the prophet.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. 

I don't get that from what he said.

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How much healthier it would be to just allow himself to admit that he in his office can get things not quite right or even wrong. I think that admission would open up the windows of inspiration more, and compassion...

Yes, he totally got a revelation wrong, which can happen.

[kllindley]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How much healthier it would be to just allow himself to admit that he in his office can get things not quite right or even wrong. I think that admission would open up the windows of inspiration more, and compassion...

Are you asserting that he is being dishonest about what actually happened and that you are privy to that knowledge? 

Or are you just saying he should "admit" it regardless of whether that is what actually happened? 

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I didn't say that it was unreasonable. I asked whether it could be backed up by any quotes or specific examples.  Are you suggesting that it can't, but is nevertheless reasonable?

Just that even is it weren't explicitly stated, it can be inferred.

[stemelbow]

Interesting speech.  I gave it a listen.  Of course I'm not on board with all that he said (what would we all expect?).  

I"m surprised he addressed this as he did, in a sense.  I mean if he was going to address it I don't know that there would be any other course to take, reasonably (well I'll get back to that).  Apparently God said, knowing full well it would hurt people, "don't let these kids coming unto me get baptized, lest their parents get offended and the kids and parents oppose each other."  The brethren apparently after much permutations and possible scenarios didn't realize it would hurt as bad as it did.  So after it was established as coming from God for a short time, they saw the hurt and plead with God to change it back.  He apparently suffered it to be so now.  

I remember the story of Joseph lamenting for his loss of soul when he kept pleading after God made his call, and the result of a loss of the 116 pages.  Joseph apparently learned a lesson not to doubt God, and learn to trust him.  I wonder if this whole event will produce the same for Nelson.  He suffers it to be so because he needs to teach his leader a lesson that he should have trusted him and not kept pleading.

But in the end, Meadowchik is right.  In truth it would be far more reasonable for him to come out and admit mistakes are made.  leaders don't always teach truth, as he said.  Sometimes they are wrong.  It happens.  He should admit that, I'd think.  

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It would not be an unreasonable inference.

Both you and 10th don't see Pres. Nelson or previous prophets as actually talking to God, at least in any unique way compared to the rest of humanity.  Both of you see the policy as purely 'manmade', an error.

Am I correct?

If so, that both of you see what you believe happened (opinion, not inspiration driven) as a reasonable inference of what Pres. Nelson said may be more a result of projecting your own ideas onto his words than what he was saying.

[kllindley]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Yes, he totally got a revelation wrong, which can happen.

Of course it can happen. 🙂. I think the more important question is whether he did get it wrong.  Would you care to explain how you know what revelation he received and how he got it wrong?

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Just that even is it weren't explicitly stated, it can be inferred.

Pretty much anything can be inferred.  Now whether something is implied....