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

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, knowing they might later adjust it. Not knowing they would later adjust it.

They didn't know that they would pray to adjust it?  They didn't know that it would cause heartache, confusion, and weeping?  What is the point of having 15 Seers?  It sounds like you're claiming that they implemented a policy that was just a response to the Lord's will that they "do something" without knowing the harm it would cause.  And when it caused harm (something many of us could have told them would happen before they implemented it) they then prayed to make a change?

This doesn't sound like revelation.  It sounds like experimentation.

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect the time the policy was in effect may have had some positive effects but that is something I will have to wait for omniscience to find out. As to heartache, confusion, and weeping that is par for living in this world. While I accept the policy caused some pain for some I find it hard to see it as the catastrophe of tears some have portrayed it as.

It's the prophet and apostles that felt that the tears justified a change.

How does this whole experience demonstrate any of the five truths he taught about?  Or was it just an opportunity for him to tell the young people of the church that they love the children regardless of the pain their policies may have caused?

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How would you clarify it?

Perhaps "We may not always tell people what they want to hear. Prophets are rarely popular. But we will always teach the truth insofar as it has been revealed.  And we always seek additional light."

The prophets have often spoken truth that contradicts what previous prophets proclaimed was truth.  To say they always teach the truth implies they always have the truth.
Even the most faithful TBM recognizes that truth taught by some prophets has later shown to not be truth, even if we don't always agree which items weren't truth.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

They were not mistaken what the true mind and will of the Lord was but, did not expect the great outpouring of criticism...

President Nelson has not indicated that the change came because of criticism.  They prayed to change it because of the heartache, confusion, and weeping that it caused.

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

...it would generate regarding how they applied the will of God to the policy. 

According to the prophet, the policy did reflect the will of God.

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The people of Ninevah believed it was from God (Jonah 3:5) and I am sure Jonah did too. (Jonah 3:3)
God did not want to cause heartache, confusion and weeping, He just wanted to let people know how seriously wrong same sex marriage was and how it could negatively affect the children of such couples.

So you're saying that it was God's plan to implement a policy that would cause heartache, confusion, and weeping because that policy would communicate how "seriously wrong same sex marriage was"?  So the policy was the will of God?

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It was the details of how the policy was constructed that caused the heartache, so the Church leaders made some adjustments to it. 

Why not just implement the adjusted policy in the first place?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They didn't know that they would pray to adjust it?

I did not say that.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They didn't know that it would cause heartache, confusion, and weeping? 

Did not say that either.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What is the point of having 15 Seers?

If I continue the mods will have to trigger my shock collar again.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I did not say that.

That's why I asked the question -- to understand what you said.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Did not say that either.

If I continue the mods will have to trigger my shock collar again.

Just trying to understand you.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Quote

Quote

President Nelson in January of 2016 described a situation where there prayers were answered and they were told that the policy reflected the mind and the will of the Lord.

That's not quite what he said.  See here:

Not sure what you are saying. 

I am contesting the accuracy of your paraphrase of then-Elder Nelson.

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Receiving the mind and will of the Lord is NOT having your prayers answered?  What would they have been praying for?

I think the part I had in mind was "and they were told that the policy reflected the mind and the will of the Lord."

Again from his 2016 remarks:

Quote

This prophetic process was followed in ... with 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. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind and will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

I think Elder Bednar's comments (previously summarized here) help provide some framework:

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:

My sense is that the Brethren were not really seeking revelation as to "Doctrines," as the Law of Chastity is already firmly in place.  I really don't think the Brethren needed guidance from on high about whether to radically re-vamp the parameters of acceptable sexual behavior.

Rather, I think the Brethren were seeking guidance for "Principles," since their inquiry was specifically "consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries."  With that in mind, please note again this comment from Elder Bednar: "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."

Th 2015 policy changes appeared to pertain to Applications that "ordinances and administrative duties," as the legalization of same-sex marriage, and its attendant effects on members of the Church (who might choose participate in such a marriage) was probably not something that could/should be left to be "individually personalized" by the rank-and-file.  Polygamy provides a good comparison here.  The legalization and civil sanction of such marriages has grown and evolved over time, but such marriages is not allowed in the Church.  The same can be said of same-sex marriage.  So development of some "Principles" was in order.

From these efforts, I believe the Lord provided guidance as to "Principles."  Did such guidance likewise extend to "Applications" (the specific wording and parameters of the 2015 policies)?  I'm not sure, TBH.

Nevertheless, I believe the Brethren were and are motivated by love and compassion (per then-Elder Nelson in 2016 and now-President Nelson yesterday), and not by narrowminded bigotries and hate (per some of our critics and dissidents).

I don't believe any prophet, past or present, has been perfectly correct in each and every instance of seeking and obtaining and understanding and implementing guidance from God.  However, I do believe in the overarching goodness of President Nelson and the other leaders of the Church.  They are, collectively and individually, overwhelmingly good and decent men. 

I also believe that they have the authority they claim to have.  I also believe they are receiving revelation from God in ways large and small. 

And I believe that we we need to give the Brethren some latitude, some space to sort things out.  And I think we need to refrain from attributing terrible motives to them.  And I think we need to give them credit when they take a position, and then reconsider that position and attempt to do better.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am contesting the accuracy of your paraphrase of then-Elder Nelson.

He was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time.  The title I used was and is correct.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the part I had in mind was "and they were told that the policy reflected the mind and the will of the Lord."

President Nelson stated that President Monson declared that the policy reflected the mind and the will of the Lord.  What are you claiming that I have paraphrased incorrectly?

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again from his 2016 remarks:

I think Elder Bednar's comments (previously summarized here) help provide some framework:

My sense is that the Brethren were not really seeking revelation as to "Doctrines," as the Law of Chastity is already firmly in place.  I really don't think the Brethren needed guidance from on high about whether to radically re-vamp the parameters of acceptable sexual behavior.

Rather, I think the Brethren were seeking guidance for "Principles," since their inquiry was specifically "consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries."  With that in mind, please note again this comment from Elder Bednar: "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."

Th 2015 policy changes appeared to pertain to Applications that "ordinances and administrative duties," as the legalization of same-sex marriage, and its attendant effects on members of the Church (who might choose participate in such a marriage) was probably not something that could/should be left to be "individually personalized" by the rank-and-file.  Polygamy provides a good comparison here.  The legalization and civil sanction of such marriages has grown and evolved over time, but such marriages is not allowed in the Church.  The same can be said of same-sex marriage.  So development of some "Principles" was in order.

From these efforts, I believe the Lord provided guidance as to "Principles."  Did such guidance likewise extend to "Applications" (the specific wording and parameters of the 2015 policies)?  I'm not sure, TBH.

Nevertheless, I believe the Brethren were and are motivated by love and compassion (per then-Elder Nelson in 2016 and now-President Nelson yesterday), and not by narrowminded bigotries and hate (per some of our critics and dissidents).

I don't believe any prophet, past or present, has been perfectly correct in each and every instance of seeking and obtaining and understanding and implementing guidance from God.  However, I do believe in the overarching goodness of President Nelson and the other leaders of the Church.  They are, collectively and individually, overwhelmingly good and decent men. 

I also believe that they have the authority they claim to have.  I also believe they are receiving revelation from God in ways large and small. 

And I believe that we we need to give the Brethren some latitude, some space to sort things out.  And I think we need to refrain from attributing terrible motives to them.  And I think we need to give them credit when they take a position, and then reconsider that position and attempt to do better.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is this long explanation just to say that President Monson could have been wrong in his understanding that the policy reflected the mind and will of the Lord?

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't believe any prophet, past or present, has been perfectly correct in each and every instance of seeking and obtaining and understanding and implementing guidance from God.  However, I do believe in the overarching goodness of President Nelson and the other leaders of the Church.  They are, collectively and individually, overwhelmingly good and decent men. 

I also believe that they have the authority they claim to have.  I also believe they are receiving revelation from God in ways large and small. 

Nobody is claiming they aren't good people.

I believe their chain of authority can be traced back to the restored authority.  So I believe they hold their offices correctly.

As for the revelation, I am less and less convinced each year.  They have the authority to receive revelation, I am no longer as convinced they are getting any.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

President Nelson stated that President Monson declared that the policy reflected the mind and the will of the Lord. 

Well, no.  He said: "And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind and will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation."

What is it, then, that "President Monson declared?"  I don't think that has been publicly disclosed.

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What are you claiming that I have paraphrased incorrectly?

"President Nelson stated that President Monson declared that the policy reflected the mind and the will of the Lord."

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is this long explanation just to say that President Monson could have been wrong in his understanding that the policy reflected the mind and will of the Lord?

No.  It's an explanation to say that your paraphrase is perhaps incorrect.  And that what then-Elder Nelson referenced as "the mind and will of the Lord" declared by Pres. Monson was something broader than the specific wording of the 2015 policies.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody is claiming they aren't good people.

Quite a few people are claiming that.

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe their chain of authority can be traced back to the restored authority.  So I believe they hold their offices correctly.

So do I.

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

As for the revelation, I am less and less convinced each year.  They have the authority to receive revelation, I am no longer as convinced they are getting any.

Funny, that.  I become more and more convinced that they are receiving revelation.

Moreover, they are claiming to be receiving revelation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

President Nelson has not indicated that the change came because of criticism.  They prayed to change it because of the heartache, confusion, and weeping that it caused.

That too.

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

According to the prophet, the policy did reflect the will of God.

In 2015 it did. After more praying and subsequent revelation they received more direction from God about it. 

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So you're saying that it was God's plan to implement a policy that would cause heartache, confusion, and weeping because that policy would communicate how "seriously wrong same sex marriage was"? 

No you are saying that. God's plan was to implement a policy that would protect the children in same sex couple marriages. 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quite a few people are claiming that.

Who?  Seems like a strawman.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  He said: "And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind and will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation."

What is it, then, that "President Monson declared?"  I don't think that has been publicly disclosed.

"President Nelson stated that President Monson declared that the policy reflected the mind and the will of the Lord."

No.  It's an explanation to say that your paraphrase is perhaps incorrect.  And that what then-Elder Nelson referenced as "the mind and will of the Lord" declared by Pres. Monson was something broader than the specific wording of the 2015 policies.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Here's the full paragraph from President Nelson's address in January of 2016:

"This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with 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. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation."

I get what you're saying now.  It wasn't explicitly stated what President Monson was declaring the mind and will of the Lord to be.  To me it seems implied. 

But, if I am understanding you correctly... President Nelson is saying that they considered countless possibilities, fasted, prayed for inspiration, and President Monson declared the mind/will of the Lord but it may not have been that the policy was the Lord's mind/will.  Instead, it might have been the Lord's mind/will regarding something else?

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In 2015 it did. After more praying and subsequent revelation they received more direction from God about it. 

So in 2015 the new policy reflected the mind/will of God.  The changed policy in 2019 also reflects the mind/will of God?  Or it will when it is written?

24 minutes ago, JAHS said:

God's plan was to implement a policy that would protect the children in same sex couple marriages. 

Okay... but God doesn't care whether gay couples are apostate or not?  And, God doesn't care if children of gay couples get blessed/baptized with FP approval or a Bishop's approval?  Either way it's the same to God, is that what you're saying?  Or that He changed his mind between 2015 and 2019?

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I’m pretty sure Nelson claimed prophets always teach the truth in that talk somewheres.  sounds like he disagrees with those who call him fallible. 

Saying “they’re fallible so it’s ok” can only work so long.  At some point you have to stop and ask, how many times shall I resort to such dismissals?  It starts to make the claim of prophets and revelation pointless. 

I think there can be a relatively stable mediation between what a prophet says and what one believes God says, and maybe a restoration of actual common consent could be a part of that.

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Who?  Seems like a strawman.

Yes it seems like a strawman but also reflects a shallow description of human nature. Good people can do bad things and geniuses can make stupid mistakes, even while being convinced otherwise.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Meadowchik

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes it seems like a strawman but also reflects a shallow description of human nature. Good people can do bad things and geniuses can make stupid mistakes, even while being convinced otherwise.

I agree. It's also indicative of one of my struggles with the modern church:  We profess a belief in a fallible prophet and common consent but there doesn't seem to be an acceptable way to actually point out a possible error by a current prophet.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Here's the full paragraph from President Nelson's address in January of 2016:

"This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with 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. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation."

I get what you're saying now.  It wasn't explicitly stated what President Monson was declaring the mind and will of the Lord to be.  To me it seems implied. 

I think that is a reasonable inference.  But it isn't the only reasonable inference out there (hence my references to Elder Bednar's Doctrine/Principle/Application framework).

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, if I am understanding you correctly... President Nelson is saying that they considered countless possibilities, fasted, prayed for inspiration, and President Monson declared the mind/will of the Lord but it may not have been that the policy was the Lord's mind/will. 

I'm saying that the Brethren may have been seeking guidance as to "Principles," which they received. 

As to the "Application" (adopting a policy patterned on the one used since the 1920s vis-à-vis polygamists and their children), I dunno.  There are all sorts of situations where the Lord gives His children leeway to pursue a course of action. 

The Brother of Jared apparently came up with the ideas for the sixteen stones as "Application," having previously received revelation as to "Principle" ("What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.") (Ether 2:23).

The Lord gave Nephi plenary authority over the people in Helaman 10:

Quote

4 Blessed art thou, Nephi, for those things which thou hast done; for I have beheld how thou hast with unwearyingness declared the word, which I have given unto thee, unto this people. And thou hast not feared them, and hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments.
5 And now, because thou hast done this with such unwearyingness, behold, I will bless thee forever; and I will make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works; yea, even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will.
6 Behold, thou art Nephi, and I am God. Behold, I declare it unto thee in the presence of mine angels, that ye shall have power over this people, and shall smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of this people.
7 Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.
8 And thus, if ye shall say unto this temple it shall be rent in twain, it shall be done.
9 And if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou cast down and become smooth, it shall be done.
10 And behold, if ye shall say that God shall smite this people, it shall come to pass.

Stephen Burnett was was authorized, as a missionary, to go and preach the Gospel anywhere, "whether to the north or to the south, to the east or to the west, it mattereth not, for ye cannot go amiss."  (D&C 80:3).

The Word of Wisdom is to be "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints."  (D&C 89:3).

And so on.

Was there a one-to-one correlation between the revelatory experience described by Pres. Nelson in 2016 and the specific verbiage of the 2015 policy changes as were put into in the CHI?  I don't know.  I was not privy to the relevant events.  But the narrative provided seems to allow for varying interpretations across the spectrum, from "The Brethren are good and decent men who are generally, and often but not always specifically, guided by revelation" to "The Brethren just messed up" to "The Brethren are a bunch of old, unenlightened bigots who use claims of 'revelation' as a pretext to hide their hatred for gay people."

I have had many experiences in the Church which attest to its ongoing communion with God.  I remain of the opinion that the leaders of the Church are overwhelmingly good and decent men, and that they are receiving revelations from God.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Instead, it might have been the Lord's mind/will regarding something else?

No, that's not what I am saying.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So in 2015 the new policy reflected the mind/will of God.  The changed policy in 2019 also reflects the mind/will of God?  Or it will when it is written?

Yes

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay... but God doesn't care whether gay couples are apostate or not?  And, God doesn't care if children of gay couples get blessed/baptized with FP approval or a Bishop's approval?  Either way it's the same to God, is that what you're saying?  Or that He changed his mind between 2015 and 2019?

I don't know the mind and will of God as well as the prophets do, but I am sure they know it better than I do. We can only speculate on such questions. 

[Maestrophil]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Except that in this case, President Nelson told us that after considering countless options, President Monson declared this policy reflected the "mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord".  That doesn't sound like it was simply a "command to do something".

That is exactly what it was - in the cased I was mentioning in my personal life - the Lord told me to do something (at least that was how I interpreted it) - so I assumed that thing was the will of the Lord - it definitely was not mine.  

If the Lord inspired Pres Monson to enact the policy, then it would be exactly a "command to do something".

[Maestrophil]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yes

I don't know the mind and will of God as well as the prophets do, but I am sure they know it better than I do. We can only speculate on such questions. 

Exactly - Just because I don't like it, understand it, or think that God would not do things the way I would, or that always make sense to me does not mean it is not His will.  

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that is a reasonable inference.  But it isn't the only reasonable inference out there (hence my references to Elder Bednar's Doctrine/Principle/Application framework).

I'm saying that the Brethren may have been seeking guidance as to "Principles," which they received. 

As to the "Application" (adopting a policy patterned on the one used since the 1920s vis-à-vis polygamists and their children), I dunno.  There are all sorts of situations where the Lord gives His children leeway to pursue a course of action. 

The Brother of Jared apparently came up with the ideas for the sixteen stones as "Application," having previously received revelation as to "Principle" ("What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.") (Ether 2:23).

The Lord gave Nephi plenary authority over the people in Helaman 10:

Stephen Burnett was was authorized, as a missionary, to go and preach the Gospel anywhere, "whether to the north or to the south, to the east or to the west, it mattereth not, for ye cannot go amiss."  (D&C 80:3).

The Word of Wisdom is to be "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints."  (D&C 89:3).

And so on.

Was there a one-to-one correlation between the revelatory experience described by Pres. Nelson in 2016 and the specific verbiage of the 2015 policy changes as were put into in the CHI?  I don't know.  I was not privy to the relevant events.  But the narrative provided seems to allow for varying interpretations across the spectrum, from "The Brethren are good and decent men who are generally, and often but not always specifically, guided by revelation" to "The Brethren just messed up" to "The Brethren are a bunch of old, unenlightened bigots who use claims of 'revelation' as a pretext to hide their hatred for gay people."

I have had many experiences in the Church which attest to its ongoing communion with God.  I remain of the opinion that the leaders of the Church are overwhelmingly good and decent men, and that they are receiving revelations from God.

No, that's not what I am saying.

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay... so you're saying that President Monson's declaration about the mind/will of the Lord might have been just regarding principles?  What principles would those have been if not things in the policy?

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree. It's also indicative of one of my struggles with the modern church:  We profess a belief in a fallible prophet and common consent but there doesn't seem to be an acceptable way to actually point out a possible error by a current prophet.

Right. We can expect such a belief to be visibly practiced if it is consistent. It's akin to a child seeing their parents disagree and work things out openly versus never seeing disagreement, and then when the child disagrees with mom and dad, the child's disagreement never being dignified.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Meadowchik

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

That is exactly what it was - in the cased I was mentioning in my personal life - the Lord told me to do something (at least that was how I interpreted it) - so I assumed that thing was the will of the Lord - it definitely was not mine.  

If the Lord inspired Pres Monson to enact the policy, then it would be exactly a "command to do something".

You just said the the "something" was to enact the policy... that has now been changed.  So did the Lord change His mind?  Or did the prophet misunderstand Him the first time?

Edited September 18, 2019 by rockpond

[Ryan Dahle]

Here is an indirect response to the matter from back in April. It doesn't really add anything substantially new to the conversation, but it is an attempt to articulate the limited ability that we have in determining the genuineness of a revelation, based on our mortal understanding of its context and purpose:

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/does-god-ever-change-his-mind 

It should be noted that this is written for a general, primarily Latter-day Saint audience and therefore necessarily simplifies some issues.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Ryan Dahle