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

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

You are at 17 posts, when you get 8 more for 25 you can edit...and get rep points. Though you show 7 rep points already and I am curious as to how you got them. 

One of the mysteries of life, I guess. 

A quick way to up posts is to go to Social Hall and add a few posts to the three word story thread. 

Thanks for the explanation and the tips.  I knew about the 25 post threshold, but I didn't realize that editing of the posts was included with that.

I have no idea how I got 7 rep points or even what that does for me.  But 7 is a good number.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

What was changed in 2015 was the mandate for Church discipline for same-sex couples who become married.  That mandate has not been reversed.  

But a mandate for Church discipline also requires a classification for how the situation is treated.  In the 2015 statement the situation was classified as apostasy, but it has since been reclassified to immoral conduct, the same as it would be in heterosexual or homosexual relationships.    Church disciplinary action for apostasy also dictates how to handle baptisms of children of parents in those situations.  And since the classification as apostasy has been changed to immoral conduct, the requirement regarding the baptism of children has also changed.  I view that as a reclassification, not a "reversal", since the mandate for church discipline has not been reversed.  But I can see how you might view the baptism situation as a reversal.  But that's simply the difference on how the baptism of children is handled under either of those classifications.

 

And then we have the question of what difference it makes if prophets are fallible anyway

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And then we have the question of what difference it makes if prophets are fallible anyway

Brigham felt it made a bigger difference if WE allow ourselves to worry about their fallibility:

"And were I to be asked whether I have any experience in this matter, I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty, and I would be left, as brother Hooper observed, upon the brink of the precipice, ready to plunge into what we may call the gulf of infidelity, ready to believe neither in God nor His servants, and to say that there is no God, or, if there is, we do not know anything about Him;..."

"...Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.  I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called “Mormonism.” He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them. It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still."

Edited September 22, 2019 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

What was changed in 2015 was the mandate for Church discipline for same-sex couples who become married.  That mandate has not been reversed.  

But a mandate for Church discipline also requires a classification for how the situation is treated.  In the 2015 statement the situation was classified as apostasy, but it has since been reclassified to immoral conduct, the same as it would be in heterosexual or homosexual relationships.    Church disciplinary action for apostasy also dictates how to handle baptisms of children of parents in those situations.  And since the classification as apostasy has been changed to immoral conduct, the requirement regarding the baptism of children has also changed.  I view that as a reclassification, not a "reversal", since the mandate for church discipline has not been reversed.  But I can see how you might view the baptism situation as a reversal.  But that's simply the difference on how the baptism of children is handled under either of those classifications.

 

You are obviously not familiar with Handbook 1. 

Apostasy requires formal church discipline.  Immoral conduct (whether heterosexual or homosexual) does not. 

And the section that regarding children of same sex couples is its own section in a different part of the handbook and has nothing to do with apostasy. 

What I wrote earlier is correct.  Based on what has been said in the April press release and the September devotional, the policy has been reversed. 

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You're simply can't slice and dice these terms so fine that it makes sense. Again it could be totally understood as a revelation that a policy was needed.

Clearly it was.

Clearly?  Really?  I disagree.  There's honestly not much regarding this that is clear, IMO (just read the last few pages of this thread 😉)

So you believe a policy was needed four years ago and now it's no longer needed? 

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Clearly?  Really?  I disagree.  There's honestly not much regarding this that is clear, IMO (just read the last few pages of this thread 😉)

So you believe a policy was needed four years ago and now it's no longer needed? 

I have said it many times. Last one.

It still exists. Gay parents still need additional approval to baptize their children, that straight parents do not

Read my previous posts. That's it. 

Done

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have said it many times. Last one.

It still exists. Read previous posts. That's it.

We don't really know what "still exists" since we haven't seen the most recent revisions published (in the handbook).  

From what it seems though, it will be just like any other baptism decision (up to the local leaders).  So IMO, there was no need for a revelation to get here.  But I'm fine if you disagree and do respect your right to believe as you do regarding this.  

It's just a good example of how we each need to pray about everything (even if it's represented as a revelation) and decide for ourselves if we agree it was from God.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

... that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty, and I would be left, as brother Hooper observed, upon the brink of the precipice, ready to plunge into what we may call the gulf of infidelity, ready to believe neither in God nor His servants, and to say that there is no God, or, if there is, we do not know anything about Him;..

You were quoting BY there.

I have never understood that logic, to refuse to look at where an idea leads.

 

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We don't really know what "still exists" since we haven't seen the most recent revisions published (in the handbook).  

From what it seems though, it will be just like any other baptism decision (up to the local leaders).  So IMO, there was no need for a revelation to get here.  But I'm fine if you disagree and do respect your right to believe as you do regarding this.  

It's just a good example of how we each need to pray about everything (even if it's represented as a revelation) and decide for ourselves if we agree it was from God.

To me that's like saying "it's just like any other baptism. They still get immersed in water."

I would never put my child into that kind of position and I don't understand it at all, how anyone would accept someone else telling my child that I was living in sin.

I guess we all have our own interpretations as usual. Thanks for respecting mine.

Edited September 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

To me that's like saying "it's just like any other baptism. They still get immersed in water."

No (that's not what I stated), but the decision whether to approve the baptism is apparently just like other baptismal decisions....up to the local leaders.  That was the point I was making regarding this issue.

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I guess we all have our own interpretations as usual. Thanks for respecting mine.

Of course  

Edited September 22, 2019 by ALarson

[Daniel2]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Hi daniel, i just want to make sure i’m understandIng you. Is the entire post meant to respond to Smac, me, or both of us? 

 

Thanks,

BD

Sorry—I edited the post to make it more clear. Aspects of both your posts. 

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You were quoting BY there.

I have never understood that logic, to refuse to look at where an idea leads.

 

Yes I said I was quoting Brigham.

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with him.

But some trains of thought should be recognized as destructive and so not be followed.

[InCognitus]

14 hours ago, blueglass said:

But you didn't answer why the 2016 talk is missing, and why the 2019 talk showed up right away. 

Why was church discipline obviously necessary? 

Blueglass, I want to apologize for the tone of the post I wrote in response to you last night.  When I woke up this morning and thought about what I had posted the night before, I realized that what I said would come across as very condescending.  It's a struggle for me to convey my thoughts to words, and I tend to type out my entire line of reasoning when I'm writing, and that certainly wasn't necessary in my response to you.   I could have chopped out most of what I said and got to the point quicker, and it wouldn't have sounded so harsh and condescending.  So I apologize for that.   I'll try to improve on that in the future.  

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have said it many times. Last one.

It still exists. Gay parents still need additional approval to baptize their children, that straight parents do not

Read my previous posts. That's it. 

Done

 

 

 

So straight parents can go baptize their child without the bishop’s approval and without the child being interviewed by the bishop?

That’s not correct.  

[blueglass]

33 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Blueglass, I want to apologize for the tone of the post I wrote in response to you last night.  When I woke up this morning and thought about what I had posted the night before, I realized that what I said would come across as very condescending.  It's a struggle for me to convey my thoughts to words, and I tend to type out my entire line of reasoning when I'm writing, and that certainly wasn't necessary in my response to you.   I could have chopped out most of what I said and got to the point quicker, and it wouldn't have sounded so harsh and condescending.  So I apologize for that.   I'll try to improve on that in the future.  

It's alright it was my mistake.  I was looking into it the wrong way.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes I said I was quoting Brigham.

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with him.

But some trains of thought should be recognized as destructive and so not be followed.

In that case I disagree with both of you.

 I could not live in fear of ideas.

They could be true. I can't imagine it

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So straight parents can go baptize their child without the bishop’s approval and without the child being interviewed by the bishop?

That’s not correct.  

"ADDITIONAL" 

As I have already said read what I actually wrote.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"ADDITIONAL" 

Do we know they will need additional approval on top of Bishop or Stake President approval?

[SettingDogStar]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do we know they will need additional approval on top of Bishop or Stake President approval?

From Nelson’s talk he said that they transferred it to the Bishops, so I’m not really sure what more authority they’ll need.

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

From Nelson’s talk he said that they transferred it to the Bishops, so I’m not really sure what more authority they’ll need.

Ok.  Isn’t that how it was before this policy was first announced?

So what has changed or do we just not know yet?

Edited September 23, 2019 by JulieM

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  Isn’t that how it was before this policy was first announced?

So what had changed or do we just don’t know yet?

That’s what I think, sounds like they literally just reversed the policy completely. The power was with the bishops, then the Nov. 2015 policy happened and moved it to the FP, and now it’s back to the bishops. Doesn’t sound like these children need any extra permission anymore.

[blueglass]

26 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

That’s what I think, sounds like they literally just reversed the policy completely. The power was with the bishops, then the Nov. 2015 policy happened and moved it to the FP, and now it’s back to the bishops. Doesn’t sound like these children need any extra permission anymore.

The difference is that now the church software is updated to accept same sex parents on the ordinance records. Hailing all ward membership clerks - please confirm?  First familysearch as a trial run then MLS.

https://www.deseret.com/2018/6/14/20646965/lds-church-s-familysearch-database-to-add-same-sex-families-to-family-tree-feature

[Calm]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, there IS a policy.   They have passed the decision on down to the Bishops.  THAT is the policy. 

LISTEN to what he says.  Punch up the video- start at minute 28 of the video.  By minute 34 or so, it's all over.  So all this takes is about 6 minutes

Here is what he says- essentially- I guess there is a transcript also- but this is my summary

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/

Quote

They were overwhelmed with requests from LGBT couples ALL of which were approved, upon the conditions in the policy originally.  They felt "grieved" that the response was so huge.

I wouldn't say it implied there were an overwhelming amount that applied....technically he could have been talking about three cases of parents asking who agreed (and there may have been parents who applied but did not agree, though I don't see those getting the bishop sending in the application unless the bishop wasn't willing to say "no")...2 of which the exception was granted while 1 case it wasn't, but it sounds like there were more than that.

Quote

We also took note of LGBT parents who sought permission from the First Presidency for their children to be baptized. In nearly every case where the LGBT parents agreed to teach their children about—and be supportive of—the covenant of baptism, the requested exception was granted.

Rereading this again, one of the things that may have made the First Presidency comfortable with giving authority to bishops to determine parents' actual willingness, is there were few applications for exception sent in.  IOW, either bishops appear to have been willing and able to say " no" rather than just pass the decision to reject onto someone else or few gay parents applied who weren't sincere...or both.  I think this would make the First Presidency more comfortable with leaving the decision locally.

Edited September 22, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/love-laws-god/

I wouldn't say it implied there were an overwhelming amount that applied....technically he could have been talking about three cases of parents asking who agreed (and there may have been parents who applied but did not agree, though I don't see those getting the bishop sending in the application unless the bishop wasn't willing to say "no")...2 of which the exception was granted while 1 case it wasn't, but it sounds like there were more than that.

Rereading this again, one of the things that may have made the First Presidency comfortable with giving authority to bishops to determine parents' actual willingness, is there were few applications for exception sent in.  IOW, either bishops appear to have been willing and able to say " no" rather than just pass the decision to reject onto someone else or few gay parents applied who weren't sincere...or both.  I think this would make the First Presidency more comfortable with leaving the decision locally.

Thanks for the link.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"ADDITIONAL" 

As I have already said read what I actually wrote.

Yes, I get that giving me an honest answer to that question puts a gaping whole in your argument.