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

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

Sure.

Send the suggestion to the 15, I am sure they will see the wisdom there and change the temple ceremony instantly.  You know -right- as in "legally and lawfully wed"?  

I will use the church's definitions when speaking from what I take to be the church's point of view. 

 

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 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..

I would be willing to bet you have never served a mission or you would have never made this statement.  This statement is completely untrue.  Children get baptized all the time whose parents are not married.  I knew a family who every child was baptized and the parents were not married.   Some countries it is extremely difficult to get a divorce. So some just choose to live together, never marrying.

‘Parents being married is NOT a requirement for a minor being baptized.  Permission from both parents is required whether the parents are married or not.

[sunstoned]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah I know what he said

Neener neener it's not a reversal 

Okay. We are going to have to just shake hands and leave this be.😊

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

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.

Regardless of how that bishop chooses to implement it there is a difference in terms of church policy.  The handbook differentiates between sins that require formal church discipline and those that do not require it but it may be used. 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.

 

Thank you for your response. I deeply respect your position. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

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

Hmmm... I thought they were.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

The policy did not allow for exceptions for children under the ago of 18.  So, yes, it would be ignoring the policy.

So what did I have incorrect in my summary:

God revealed a new policy in Nov 2015.

The First Presidency then ignored the policy (according to Pres. Nelson, they granted an exception nearly every time they were asked).

And then they prayed to have the policy removed.

And in 2019, God revealed that they could get rid of the policy and return to the process of Bishops (along with the child's parents) making the decisions about baptisms in their ward.

 

All policies by nature allow for exceptions, and hence did this one. The First Presidency, by virtue of the keys it exercises, can especially make exceptions. By referring to exceptions actually regards and acknowledges the policy rather than ignores the policy. So your summary reflects a fundamental understanding of policy, exceptions and the relationship of keys to policy administration, rendering it incomplete and incorrect. But I said that already and all you could do it refute it without justification or insight.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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

Not exactly what I was asking about. If I recall correctly, your children were older and already in the Church before you decided not to continue  your membership therein.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

All policies by nature allow for exceptions, and hence did this one. The First Presidency, by virtue of the keys it exercises, can especially make exceptions. By referring to exceptions actually regards and acknowledges the policy rather than ignores the policy. So your summary reflects a fundamental understanding of policy, exceptions and the relationship of keys to policy administration, rendering it incomplete and incorrect. But I said that already and all you could do it refute it without justification or insight.

Carefully note what the policy states about exceptions:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1.  The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

The policy gives specific qualifications for requesting an exception.  One of them is that the baptismal candidate is NO LONGER a child.

So, while I agree that the First Presidency has the authority to make exceptions, my summary accurately stated that they were ignoring policy (specifically the defined qualifications for exceptions that were given in the policy that reflected the mind and will of God).

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

They are just looking to fight against the church with ridiculous points about the nature of "Revelation"

This statement tells me that you don't really understand the concern that is being expressed by many of us here.

The doctrine of living prophets is at the heart of the restored gospel.  Understanding what they claim to be latter-day revelation is not a "ridiculous point".

 

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

while the alleged problem actually affects virtually no one.

So God revealed a policy that would affect virtually no one but would cause so much heartache and confusion among that Saints that the prophet would weep with us and pray for it to be changed.  Sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Given the way the policy is currently published, there is no hope for consistency even with the amazing bishops in this church.  If consistency is desired from them, the policy needs to be written in a way that will make that possible.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Hmmm... I thought they were.

You thought they were what?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Children get baptized all the time whose parents are not married.  I knew a family who every child was baptized and the parents were not married.   Some countries it is extremely difficult to get a divorce. So some just choose to live together, never marrying.

You know this is a totally different case than what we are talking about.  There are countries where divorce is illegal but the parents would be married if it were legal.

Brazil is one of those countries

What we are talking about is parents living in an immoral situation - according to church standards- and do not desire to change.  Their example will be contrary to church teachings.

On the other hand, couples living together where marriage is illegal are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances.  You should understand that very clearly if no one else does!

Clearly there will be conflict with what the parents are doing and how they are living and church standards which is bound to put pressure on little children or children who finally realize that their parents are not living according to the standards.  

I was a bishop and would not allow that unless I have written evidence that what you are suggesting is church policy in the exact circumstances you are quoting.  If I am mistaken I will be glad to admit it and learn something new.  In that case, I think the church would be wrong to allow that IF indeed they would.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

 

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”?

Is this supposed to be addressed to me?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

This statement tells me that you don't really understand the concern that is being expressed by many of us here.

The doctrine of living prophets is at the heart of the restored gospel.  Understanding what they claim to be latter-day revelation is not a "ridiculous point".

 

So God revealed a policy that would affect virtually no one but would cause so much heartache and confusion among that Saints that the prophet would weep with us and pray for it to be changed.  Sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me.

 

My entire point that it is a grave error to see prophets as infallible,  a doctrine the church does not teach.

Joseph himself taught to the contrary,  Brigham Young did and on and on.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My entire point that it is a grave error to see prophets as infallible,  a doctrine the church does not teach.

Joseph himself taught to the contrary,  Brigham Young did and on and on.

So you think President Nelson was mistaken in calling the Nov 2015 policy the revealed will of the Lord?

[teddyaware]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So you think President Nelson was mistaken in calling the Nov 2015 policy the revealed will of the Lord?

According to President Nelson, at the very heart of the 2015 policy, and today’s iteration of the same policy, is the revelation from God to the Church leaders that it’s unwise for the children of cohabiting gay or lesbian custodial parents to be placed in a situation where the teachings of the Church could potentially cause the children to turn against the parents for living lives in violation of the law of chastity. The policy was designed to discourage gay or lesbian parents from subjecting children to teachings and beliefs that could deeply confuse them, humiliate them, psychologically damage them and undermine respect for parental authority. And remember, all that would be needed to do great damage to the Church is to have just one such child mature to the point where he or she could bitterly declare on the outlets of the mass media that the Church teachings damaged the parent-child relationship and inflicted upon him irreparable emotional harm. 

Both the 2015 policy and in today’s version of the policy, except in the case of rare exceptions, were carefully designed to comply with the Lord’s will to not confuse or psychologically damage the custodial children of cohabiting gay or lesbian parents. Both iterations of the policy accomplish the same thing and both are equally acceptable to the Lord. In today’s version of the policy, the Lord in his mercy allowed for a gentler appearing  presentation so as to be less offensive to those who are weak in the faith and cannot yet abide strong meat.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

According to President Nelson, at the very heart of the 2015 policy, and today’s iteration of the same policy, is the revelation from God to the Church leaders that it’s unwise for the children of cohabiting gay or lesbian custodial parents to be placed in a situation where the teachings of the Church could potentially cause the children to turn against the parents for living lives in violation of the law of chastity.

Wait... that's what God revealed?  When did President Nelson say that?

 

42 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The policy was designed to discourage gay or lesbian parents from subjecting children to teachings and beliefs that could deeply confuse them, humiliate them, psychologically damage them and undermine respect for parental authority.

And yet, didn't President Nelson say that they granted exceptions for most parents that requested it?

 

42 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

And remember, all that would be needed to do great damage to the Church is to have just one such child mature to the point where he or she could bitterly declare on the outlets of the mass media that the Church teachings damaged the parent-child relationship and inflicted upon him irreparable emotional harm.

This makes it sound like it's about protecting the church.

 

42 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Both the 2015 policy and in today’s version of the policy, except in the case of rare exceptions, were carefully designed to comply with the Lord’s will to not confuse or psychologically damage the custodial children of cohabiting gay or lesbian parents.

What about the non-custodial children of a gay parent?  They aren't at any risk of this confusion or psychological damage?

 

42 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Both iterations of the policy accomplish the same thing and both are equally acceptable to the Lord.

So why didn't the Lord or our 15 seers anticipate the heartache and confusion that would ultimately cause them to reverse the 2015 version of the policy?

 

42 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In today’s version of the policy, the Lord in his mercy allowed for a gentler appearing  presentation so as to be less offensive to those who are weak in the faith and cannot yet abide strong meat.

Oh... so the reversal and returning to the way the church used to handle these situations was for the weak in faith?  You realize that is not what President Nelson said, right?  Could you provide a reference for this claim?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So you think President Nelson was mistaken in calling the Nov 2015 policy the revealed will of the Lord?

How did you draw that conclusion from what I said?

What I said was that prophets are fallible.  It is not for me to judge President Nelson or his spiritual experiences to decide if it was a "revelation".  Even if it was a "revelation" that would indicate to me is that God told President Nelson he should make the policy as he did AND the President did what he thought was right, and I respect and admire him for doing so.

In fact I had the same strong sense at the time that the policy was correct for the time and I still do.

That word does not have the connotation of Protestant theology which many here apparently accept as being "God breathed" and therefore infallible.

We don't believe that in this church and I am surprised so many seem unacquainted with that.  We all need to get our own revelations of what is right and wrong.

Not understanding that leads to Jim Jones kind of cults and contrary to many out there, we are nothing like that

I suggest you read up about religious experience perhaps as in William James' ideas about it.  I agree with his assessments 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience

I will be happy to go into these ideas in more detail if you are interested but I have said all these things extensively on this board for several years now.

Note my siggy yet again.  Does this sound like someone who believes that ANY truth is "infallible"?

Quote

 Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

According to President Nelson, at the very heart of the 2015 policy, and today’s iteration of the same policy, is the revelation from God to the Church leaders that it’s unwise for the children of cohabiting gay or lesbian custodial parents to be placed in a situation where the teachings of the Church could potentially cause the children to turn against the parents for living lives in violation of the law of chastity. The policy was designed to discourage gay or lesbian parents from subjecting children to teachings and beliefs that could deeply confuse them, humiliate them, psychologically damage them and undermine respect for parental authority. And remember, all that would be needed to do great damage to the Church is to have just one such child mature to the point where he or she could bitterly declare on the outlets of the mass media that the Church teachings damaged the parent-child relationship and inflicted upon him irreparable emotional harm. 

Both the 2015 policy and in today’s version of the policy, except in the case of rare exceptions, were carefully designed to comply with the Lord’s will to not confuse or psychologically damage the custodial children of cohabiting gay or lesbian parents. Both iterations of the policy accomplish the same thing and both are equally acceptable to the Lord. In today’s version of the policy, the Lord in his mercy allowed for a gentler appearing  presentation so as to be less offensive to those who are weak in the faith and cannot yet abide strong meat.

Agree exactly.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How did you draw that conclusion from what I said?

I didn't draw that conclusion.  I asked a question.

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What I said was that prophets are fallible. 

Yep, I was wondering if this was more of a theoretical statement with no actual application.

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It is not for me to judge President Nelson or his spiritual experiences to decide if it was a "revelation".

I thought that he taught in the devotional that we were to pray to learn if what he taught was true?

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We don't believe that in this church and I am surprised so many seem unacquainted with that.  We all need to get our own revelations of what is right and wrong.

When the policy was released in Nov 2015, I felt strongly that it was wrong.  It took a few years but I guess the prophet and apostles arrived at the same conclusion.

[gopher]

I wonder how much of pain and heartache was caused by agitators inside and outside the church.  The initial shock of the policy was fueled by the reports that it was responsible for 26 (also reported as 32) teen LDS suicides in the few months after it was released.  Opportunists (many now excommunicated or resigned from the church) quickly fanned the flames before the truth came out.  With so many invested in the narrative the church had blood on their hands, I think it was the right move to change the policy.  It's difficult to understand how any believing member of the church would find anything offensive or hurtful in the statements by President Nelson or Elder Christofferson.  How many of those who claim to be hurt were influenced by critics and some in the faith crisis crowd constantly feeding them with negative comments about the church and its leaders?

Edited September 24, 2019 by gopher

[SettingDogStar]

29 minutes ago, gopher said:

I wonder how much of pain and heartache was caused by agitators inside and outside the church.  The initial shock of the policy was fueled by the reports that it was responsible for 26 (also reported as 32) teen LDS suicides in the few months after it was released.  Opportunists (many now excommunicated or resigned from the church) quickly fanned the flames before the truth came out.  With so many invested in the narrative the church had blood on their hands, I think it was the right move to change the policy.  It's difficult to understand how any believing member of the church would find anything offensive or hurtful in the statements by President Nelson or Elder Christofferson.  How many of those who claim to be hurt were influenced by critics and some in the faith crisis crowd constantly feeding them with negative comments about the church and its leaders?

I wasn’t. It hurt a personal family friend of mine. I’m a believing member and I take some offense because I feel it goes against the laws of God, in my opinion. We’ve gone over it many times on this form already, but it seems to me a fickle God who institutes a policy and then essentially reverses it barely three years later. It’s not the God I worship. He may be harsh sometimes, but He does not lay the sins of the parents at the foot of the children. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

I wonder how much of pain and heartache was caused by agitators inside and outside the church.  The initial shock of the policy was fueled by the reports that it was responsible for 26 (also reported as 32) teen LDS suicides in the few months after it was released.  Opportunists (many now excommunicated or resigned from the church) quickly fanned the flames before the truth came out.  With so many invested in the narrative the church had blood on their hands, I think it was the right move to change the policy.  It's difficult to understand how any believing member of the church would find anything offensive or hurtful in the statements by President Nelson or Elder Christofferson.  How many of those who claim to be hurt were influenced by critics and some in the faith crisis crowd constantly feeding them with negative comments about the church and its leaders?

I was extremely upset by the Nov 2015 policy before I had read or listened to critics.  It was the policy on its own that was hurtful to me.

I remember sharing the leaked policy with my mom who is a faithful, orthodox member.  Her initial reaction was that it couldn't possibly be real.  When she learned that it was from the Brethren, she supported and defended it.

What was hurtful or offensive about Elder Christofferson's comments?  For me, the decision to exclude children of gay couples from church meetings and the classification of the marital commitment between two gay people as the apostasy.  (But I don't need the rationale explained to me again, I've heard/read it more times than I can count.)

What was hurtful or offensive about President Nelson's comments from last week?  His placing the blame for all this on God.

[gopher]

2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I wasn’t. It hurt a personal family friend of mine. I’m a believing member and I take some offense because I feel it goes against the laws of God, in my opinion. We’ve gone over it many times on this form already, but it seems to me a fickle God who institutes a policy and then essentially reverses it barely three years later. It’s not the God I worship. He may be harsh sometimes, but He does not lay the sins of the parents at the foot of the children. 

Yes, those are some of the same arguments made by the critics of the church that post here and elsewhere.  Maybe it's possible to come to those conclusions without being influenced by them.  But they been addressed and refuted many times on this forum by thoughtful, believing members who don't agree with your conclusions.  Looks like they've failed to change your mind.

I don't know how your friend was hurt by the policy so can't really respond to that.