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

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Seriously?  What was rescinded?  The entire policy.  As it stands now, everything is back to what church policy was before the November "revelation".  I would ask you.  What is different now with this latest announcement than what was in place before the November policy was announced?

Experience and understanding among local leadership (and I would add general membership who attend to this sort of thing) that did not exist in 2015. The ordinances are available for all who yearn for them on conditions set by the Lord.

The same with building temples that don't need to be large or "ostentatious" in that they grieved, wept and supplicated for the weeping sons and daughters of God who yearned for these ordinances.

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No change about that. He did say the law of chastity still applies to both heterosexual immorality  as well as homosexual immorality.  

So all gay parents are still considered apostates?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the law of chastity has changed.

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Experience and understanding among local leadership (and I would add general membership who attend to this sort of thing) that did not exist in 2015. The ordinances are available for all who yearn for them on conditions set by the Lord.

The same with building temples that don't need to be large or "ostentatious" in that they grieved, wept and supplicated for the weeping sons and daughters of God who yearned for these ordinances.

You are going to have to explain what you mean.  What experience and understanding was changed?

I don't see how building temples has to do with this discussion.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Sigh.  I sincerely hope you find what you're looking for. 

My questions have nothing to do with what I am looking for.  That I have already found. And it is pretty clear the decisions I have made are the correct decisions for me.  Would you rather I not as questions on this board?  Do you not think my questions weren't sincere in trying to understand how members deal with this issue?  Should I not be posting here because you don't think I provide any value to the discussion?  

Yes I am interested in how members of the Church deal with some of these issues.  I try and ask questions that help me and hopefully others understand some of the policies the church has especially towards the LGBT community.  Does it seem wrong to you for me to try and understand them better?

This may surprise you, but I find some of the answers I get from this site to be quite helpful.  I have gay friends that know I used to be a member of the Church.  Sometimes they are quite hostile towards the Church because of past actions the Church as taken towards the LGBT community.  They come to me for answers because they think I might understand the Church and it's positions better.  When I can understand the reasons behind some of those actions, even when I might disagree with them, then I am in a better position to help them also understand.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by california boy

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

So all gay parents are still considered apostates?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the law of chastity has changed.

Gay married parents is still considered apostasy.  It's item # 4 under the list for what constitutes Apostasy in the Church Handbook  6.7.3.4

 

[The Nehor]

It is difficult to say whether the policy has been completely rescinded. The handbook has not yet been updated. There may be cautions and warnings associated with such a baptism and the bishop will possibly be given more discretion to deny the ordinance depending on the situation. They have always had that ability but the handbook may give extra latitude.

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

So all gay parents are still considered apostates?

Only if they are married.

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Gay married parents is still considered apostasy.  It's item # 4 under the list for what constitutes Apostasy in the Church Handbook  6.7.3.4

 

Good to know.  I have been telling my gay friends that the latest announcement quit calling married gays apostates.  I will correct that and telll them they would still be considered apostates.

On a side note, my partner and I are not married even though we have been together for over 10 years.  My sister, who is a faithful member asked me why we didn't marry.  I told her, the church views gay couples that marry as being in a worse position.  That didn't really make sense to her, but she understood why we are not married.  

The truth is, I don't really care one way or the other about being married.  Neither does my partner.  So if it helps my Mormon family somehow feel better about our relationship, then it is an easy thing to do for them.

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

My questions have nothing to do with what I am looking for.  That I have already found.  Would you rather I not as questions on this board?  Do you not think my questions weren't sincere in trying to understand how members deal with this issue?  Should I not be posting here because you don't think I provide any value to the discussion?  

I don't have any problem with you asking questions.  I absolutely do believe that you provide value to the discussion.  I honestly did not read those questions as sincere.  Using quotation marks around [revelation] does not really scream sincerity or respect.   "And what about the whole. . . ." seemed like an attempt to pile-on as that has been discussed here previously.  And asking those questions in a post quoting my answer made them seem directly asked of me rather than of the board generally.  So given my later explanation of what I understood President Nelson to be saying and some of my personal speculation, the questions did not seem especially sincere.  

But I am willing to be wrong.  I am happy to hear that you were sincere in trying to understand.  I will be happy to answer your questions.  

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes I am interested in how members of the Church deal with some of these issues.  I try and ask questions that help me and hopefully others understand some of the policies the church has especially towards the LGBT community.  Does it seem wrong to you for me to try and understand them better?

It does not seem wrong. I am willing to be wrong.  I am happy to hear that you were sincere in trying to understand.  I will be happy to answer your questions.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

This may surprise you, but I find some of the answers I get from this site to be quite helpful.  I have gay friends that know I used to be a member of the Church.  Sometimes they are quite hostile towards the Church because of past actions the Church as taken towards the LGBT community.  They come to me for answers because they think I might understand the Church and it's positions better.  When I can understand the reasons behind some of those actions, even when I might disagree with them, then I am in a better position to help them also understand.

 

I am willing to be wrong.  I am happy to hear that you were sincere in trying to understand.  I will be happy to answer your questions.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Haven't bishops ALWAYS had the right to refuse a baptism if they felt like it would be inappropriate?  I don't think a bishop automatically gives approval for baptizing a child when the parents aren't married for example.  Why weren't unmarried parents included in the first "revelation"?  And didn't the "revelation" take away that right from the bishop by requiring First Presidency approval?  That is a huge change and a departure for how baptisms have been handled for a very long time.

Yes, Bishops have previously had that responsibility.  In light of recent discussions here about how many Bishops fail in implementing policies generally, I can see that requiring the First Presidency's approval prevented biased and bigoted Bishops from imposing their own will in preventing specific individuals from being baptized.  I do not agree that this represents a "huge change and a departure" from how baptisms have been handled in every circumstance.  First Presidency approval has been required for decades for children of polygamous relationships.  

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And what about the whole all gay couples are apostates?  Are they still apostates or did that change?

The handbook still identifies entering a same-sex marriage as an act of apostasy.  However, the statement by President Oaks and the subsequent letter of instruction sent to bishops states that this is no longer to be considered automatically a matter of apostasy.  

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Good to know.  I have been telling my gay friends that the latest announcement quit calling married gays apostates.  I will correct that and telll them they would still be considered apostates.

On a side note, my partner and I are not married even though we have been together for over 10 years.  My sister, who is a faithful member asked me why we didn't marry.  I told her, the church views gay couples that marry as being in a worse position.  That didn't really make sense to her, but she understood why we are not married.  

The truth is, I don't really care one way or the other about being married.  Neither does my partner.  So if it helps my Mormon family somehow feel better about our relationship, then it is an easy thing to do for them.

It is worth noting that it may change in the next edition since the change was announced. I have no idea if it will have any practical effect. The handbook defines certain things as apostasy to classify them in terms of requirements for church discipline. They probably just put it there to avoid having to create another category. They could just put it in its own category under the same heading.

I personally would expect it to shift out of the mandatory discipline section in the next major revision and put it as required only if they are active.

As currently written there are certain situations that require a disciplinary council in almost all cases:

Murder (with provisos for accidents, self-defense, and police and military service), Child Abuse (specifically sexual or physical), incest (defined as parent and child or siblings), apostasy (defying or teaching against church leaders after correction, joining apostate sect, formally joining another church and advocating for it, and same sex marriage), serious transgression while in prominent church position (70, Mission President, Temple President, Stake President, Bishop, patriarch), transgressor is a predator, transgressor demonstrates a pattern of transgression, or serious transgression that is widely known.

It would be easy to shift same sex marriage into its own position and leave it there. Or they can move it into the “may be necessary” to hold a council section.

This post is meant to be informative and not offensive and I have no agenda nor am I advocating for anything through it.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

told her, the church views gay couples that marry as being in a worse position.  

Different rather than worse imo.

For example, child abuse is not considered apostasy, but if asked if it was worse than apostasy I bet almost every leader would say it was.

Apostasy is a different category of sin, not a higher quantity or quality of the same sin as fornication.

PS:  I think we may have to come up with a new category where the marriage is legal and partners are monogamous/sexually limited to marriage partners, but they would still not be allowed to be baptized or temple married even if they were fulfilling all other requirements.  Besides gay marriage, there is polygamous marriage in countries it is legal that currently fall into this category.  If someone was not a member when they became married in these ways, they cannot be viewed as apostates who are rejecting doctrinal teachings by being married.  Nor should they be viewed as fornicating or adulterous in my view because they are legally married.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Seriously?  What was rescinded?  The entire policy.  As it stands now, everything is back to what church policy was before the November "revelation".  I would ask you.  What is different now with this latest announcement than what was in place before the November policy was announced?

The old policy was that children of LGTBQ parents could be baptized with First Presidency permission.  The new policy is that children of LGBTQ can be baptized with bishop's permission.  The difference is that First Presidency permission is no longer required. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So all gay parents are still considered apostates?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the law of chastity has changed.

This is what it says on lds.org about it-

"While Church leaders still consider a same-gender marriage by a member to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead the “immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationship will be treated in the same way."

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is what it says on lds.org about it-

"While Church leaders still consider a same-gender marriage by a member to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead the “immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationship will be treated in the same way."

That would put it in the “may require church discipline” unless of course it involved incest, predatory behavior, was done by prominent leader, etc.

[Avatar4321]

First, that was an epic talk. If you havent heard it, listen to it. I haven't heard one bring so much light, clarity, and love in a while. He brought down heaven today.

Second, if this is at all a preview for Conference we are going to have a spiritual feast.

Third, I'm so glad we have a prophet

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just as what has been mentioned, that at the first devotional he said it was revelation. And if it's a revelation, how can they turn around and rescind it that quickly. How many years did it take a prophet to change the blacks getting the PH. Now how many months did it take for Pres. Nelson to rescind the Nov. '15 policy. I'll do the math, 3 months! Now compare that to approx. 134 years!  I just think he got it wrong, since prophets are also men that aren't perfect.

Have you read the doctrine and covenants? The Lord provided several revelations in Kirtland and then revoked and issued new ones, sometimes within a year.

Why can't God revoke whatever command He wants?

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So you're saying that our leaders are pretending to be led by God?

If that's what you're saying that sounds like a pretty serious charge to be leveling by one who wasn't a participant or witness to the events.

No.  I'm saying that having fallible leaders means having leaders that sometimes honestly believe they are being led by God, but are mistaken.

And believing that leaders are fallible means being able to identify something as a probable mistake without impugning their integrity or character.

This is only a problem if someone believes the leaders are infallible.  Of course I've been told for decades that this would never be the case in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to test whether that is true or not.

Edited September 18, 2019 by cinepro

[JAHS]

33 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just as what has been mentioned, that at the first devotional he said it was revelation. And if it's a revelation, how can they turn around and rescind it that quickly. How many years did it take a prophet to change the blacks getting the PH. Now how many months did it take for Pres. Nelson to rescind the Nov. '15 policy. I'll do the math, 3 months! Now compare that to approx. 134 years!  I just think he got it wrong, since prophets are also men that aren't perfect.

Have you read the doctrine and covenants? The Lord provided several revelations in Kirtland and then revoked and issued new ones, sometimes within a year.

Why can't God revoke whatever command He wants?

Doctrine and Covenants 56: 4 says, "Wherefore I, the Lord command and revoke, as it seemeth me good"

Jonah is a good example of God changing His mind. He prophesied that the people of Ninevah would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3) - no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them.  In our day when people use their agency to change things or ask for changes, God can change His mind regarding things He tells us if it is for our good.

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, cinepro said:

No.  I'm saying that having fallible leaders means having leaders that sometimes honestly believe they are being led by God, but are mistaken.

And believing that leaders are fallible means being able to identify something as a probable mistake without impugning their integrity or character.

This is only a problem if someone believes the leaders are infallible.  Of course I've been told for decades that this would never be the case in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to test whether that is true or not.

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. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by stemelbow

[JAHS]

28 minutes 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. 

He defined the truths that prophets always teach as being the divine laws of God which are always true. Policies are not divine laws of God and therefore can change. 

[sunstoned]

6 hours 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.  

QFT.  The original "policy" (which was later promoted to a "revelation") was in direct violation of our Savior's teachings.  It was a big mistake.  It was a big mistake that thankfully was reversed three years later.   It is clear it wasn't a revelation, so why can't the leaders acknowledge they acted too quickly and made a mistake, like all of us do.  It is doubtful that anyone would think less of them for admitting they are human.  Something every thinking adult already knows.

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Raingirl said:

CFR that President Nelson got this revelation wrong. Surely you must have some special inside information that allows you to make such a statement of ‘fact’. 

How about CFR that he got it right.  If he got it right, then how come they are walking it back three years later?  

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Seriously?  What was rescinded?  The entire policy.  As it stands now, everything is back to what church policy was before the November "revelation".  I would ask you.  What is different now with this latest announcement than what was in place before the November policy was announced?

Yes, it was a total rewind.  So if we don't want to accept fallibility in our leaders, which apparently many TBM won't do, then we are left with the idea that God, the creator of the universe gave a revelation to his prophet, then completely changed his mind three years later and did a 180.

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Yes, it was a total rewind.  So if we don't want to accept fallibility in our leaders, which apparently many TBM won't do, then we are left with the idea that God, the creator of the universe gave a revelation to his prophet, then completely changed his mind three years later and did a 180.

God can change His mind on some things if His children are not ready to accept something in its initial form. 
"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good;"  (D&C 56: 4)
This is not a divine law of God which is always true; it's just a policy which can change as needed.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

QFT.  The original "policy" (which was later promoted to a "revelation") was in direct violation of our Savior's teachings.  It was a big mistake.  It was a big mistake that thankfully was reversed three years later.   It is clear it wasn't a revelation, so why can't the leaders acknowledge they acted too quickly and made a mistake, like all of us do.  It is doubtful that anyone would think less of them for admitting they are human.  Something every thinking adult already knows.

Well, Pres. Oaks said they don't apologize. And maybe if they did, there would be more lawsuits for those that possibly lost loved ones to suicide over the policy.

Plus, these statements by Pres. Nelson during the devotional are going viral as you're probably aware, but not in the positive vein that many on this thread feel happened today. I often wonder if the church needs to be so vocal over SSM etc. I don't think it does well for the numbers out there that may have been interested in joining until they viewed the church's stance. But then again, there are a lot that would join for the conservative aspects.

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Tacenda

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, Pres. Oaks said they don't apologize. And maybe if they did, there would be more lawsuits for those that possibly lost loved ones to suicide over the policy.

Plus, these statements by Pres. Nelson during the devotional is going viral as you're probably aware, but not in the positive vein that many on this thread feel happened today. I often wonder if the church needs to be so vocal over SSM etc. I don't think it does well for the numbers out there that may have been interested in joining until they viewed the church's stance. But then again, there are a lot that would join for the conservative aspects.

 

President Nelson
"Sometimes we as leaders of the Church are criticized for holding firm to the laws of God, 
defending the Savior's doctrine and resisting the social pressures of our day. 
We proclaim His truth. We may not always tell people what they want to hear.
Prophets are rarely popular."