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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

Or rather than lying about what he believes, he may be perfectly honest with you and just see it so differently he cannot answer the way you want him to.  Nor should he as in that case it wouldn't be his honest answer.

Just as you apparently can't answer him with an answer he would perceive as correct and instead accuse him of holding back an "honest answer".

Edited September 23, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

Now that I have a transcript I will quote it extensively here and comment on it.

Remember I am the guy who knows that prophets are fallible and that scripture is symbolic and that textual communication is ambiguous in itself by simply being text.  But I honestly think it is crystal clear that the policy has been tweaked and in no sense rescinded.   I suppose in the long run these distinctions do not matter even a little but I will make my case one more time and leave it at that.  Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference that I am making, but I am totally convinced that it is a distinction with great importance IF for some reason people make it so in order to criticize the church.

Prophets in the past of course have made mistakes.   This is not one. 

It is an adjustment in policy, and I think that there are times that one should stand up for the Prophet in the face of overwhelming opposition and apparently this has become that kind of discussion.  I find it a little disgusting frankly that we even have to bring it up or that people here would Trump up reasons to use such a triviality to criticize President Nelson who has done a LOT to move the church forward

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

Quote

 

Though we of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles cannot change the laws of God, we do have the charge to “build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations.”10 Thus, we can adjust policy when the Lord directs us to do so. You have recently seen such examples. Because the Restoration is ongoing, policy changes will surely continue.11

 

The intention here is NOT some kind of doctrinal earth-shaking commandment/ revelation as portrayed by critics.  It is noted that the 15 CANNOT change the laws of God, but what they do is to "REGULATE the affairs" of the church and "adjust policy".  If it has been characterized as a "revelation" fine.  But it was a "revelation" to "adjust policy".   Revelations are not necessarily forever TRUTHS they can be mid-course corrections when one is close to the Lord.  It can be a "revelation" to move your car into the next lane suddenly before a crash- I personally have had those kind of revelations.  Judging what is and what is not a "revelation" is of course subject to the person who receives the revelation/impression and if many receive that and use that word, it is what it is, and no one else can judge another's charaterization of what constitutes a "revelation" as opposed to any other word one picks to describe a religious experience. (William James Varieties)

I have added bolding to the next section

Quote

 

Perhaps I can illustrate this through policy adjustments regarding those who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) and their children. (I realize that other initials could be added to this acronym, but LGBT should suffice for the purposes of this message.)

Consider the policy announced in November 2015 related to the advisability of baptism for the children of LGBT parents. Our concern then, and one we discussed at length and prayed about fervently over a long period of time, was to find a way to reduce friction between gay or lesbian parents and their children.

 

So the GOAL of the POLICY was to REDUCE FRICTION between parents and their children

Has that been rescinded?  Is the church now in favor of friction between LGBT parents and their children?  OBVIOUSLY NOT.  NO REVERSAL as to goals or intent.

Quote

Because parents are the primary exemplars for their children, we did not want to put young children in the position of having to choose between beliefs and behavior they learned at home and what they were taught at Church. We wanted to facilitate harmony in the home and avoid pitting children and parents against each other. Thus in 2015, the policy was made to assist children and their parents in this circumstance, namely that children being raised by LGBT parents would not automatically be eligible for baptism at age eight. Exceptions to this policy would require First Presidency approval.

What exactly has been changed here??

Are children of gay parents now automatically eligible for baptism at age eight?  NO.

Are their children NOW put in a position of having to choose between beliefs and behavior they learned at home and what they were taught at church?  NO!  At least that is not the intention- if it happens that is the decision of the parents. The church has done all they can to assure it does not happen

And why? Because the bishop still has to determine that that is NOT the case- requiring ADDITIONAL counseling and interviews with the parents- presumably.

Quote

 

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have continued to seek the Lord’s guidance and to plead with Him in behalf of His children who were affected by the 2015 policy. We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep—for whatever reasons—we weep. So, our supplications to the Lord continued.

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.

 

Note that "nearly" every exemption was granted.

Does that mean that the exemption happens automatically?   NO!

The "exemption" is still an exemption!  It is not regular practice, it is an exemption.  There is no recision of the policy- all that has been changed is its administration.

Quote

As a result of our continued supplication, we recently felt directed to adjust the policy such that the baptism of children of LGBT parents may be authorized by bishops without First Presidency approval, if the custodial parents request the baptism and understand that a child will be taught about sacred covenants to be made at baptism.

We also determined that LGBT parents may request that a baby be named and blessed by one who worthily holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is important that these parents understand that ward members will contact them periodically, and that when a child who has been blessed reaches eight years of age, local leaders will recommend that the child be baptized.

This turns the judgement around to put it totally on the bishop and "local leaders" including presumably the Stake President, Primary Presidents, ministering brothers and sisters etc. about the PARENTS WHO WILL be contacted periodically

Local leaders- not just the bishop- will make the recommendation that the child will be baptized- and NOT the 15.  Does this rescind the policy that it be REQUESTED by the LGBT parents ? No.  Does it include the provision that the PARENTS UNDERSTAND that a child will be taught about baptism covenants which include discussions of ALL the commandments?

So the parents still have to REQUEST baptism AFTER understanding our views of the commandments and "periodic" contact and "local leaders"- not just the Bishop- will recommend or not recommend that baptism.

Quote

We also determined that LGBT parents may request that a baby be named and blessed by one who worthily holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is important that these parents understand that ward members will contact them periodically, and that when a child who has been blessed reaches eight years of age, local leaders will recommend that the child be baptized.

Finally, we also clarified that homosexual immorality would be treated in the eyes of the Church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality.

That last sentence to me makes it clear that the church WILL see that the parents are committing "sexual immorality" and be subject to discipline by the church.

That to me is the reason for the "additional" requests and scrutiny required by the policy, and makes it automatic that the children are in a home which condones "sexual immorality" and therein lies the conflict now subject to local discipline or not.

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by mfbukowski

[SettingDogStar]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Now that I have a transcript I will quote it extensively here and comment on it.

Remember I am the guy who knows that prophets are fallible and that scripture is symbolic and that textual communication is ambiguous in itself by simply being text.  But I honestly think it is crystal clear that the policy has been tweaked and in no sense rescinded.   I suppose in the long run these distinctions do not matter even a little but I will make my case one more time and leave it at that.  Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference that I am making, but I am totally convinced that it is a distinction with great importance IF for some reason people make it so in order to criticize the church.

Prophets in the past of course have made mistakes.   This is not one. 

It is an adjustment in policy, and I think that there are times that one should stand up for the Prophet in the face of overwhelming opposition and apparently this has become that kind of discussion.  I find it a little disgusting frankly that we even have to bring it up or that people here would Trump up reasons to use such a triviality to criticize President Nelson who has done a LOT to move the church forward

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

The intention here is NOT some kind of doctrinal earth-shaking commandment/ revelation as portrayed by critics.  It is noted that the 15 CANNOT change the laws of God, but what they do is to "REGULATE the affairs" of the church and "adjust policy".  If it has been characterized as a "revelation" fine.  But it was a "revelation" to "adjust policy".   Revelations are not necessarily forever TRUTHS they can be mid-course corrections when one is close to the Lord.  It can be a "revelation" to move your car into the next lane suddenly before a crash- I personally have had those kind of revelations.  Judging what is and what is not a "revelation" is of course subject to the person who receives the revelation/impression and if many receive that and use that word, it is what it is, and no one else can judge another's charaterization of what constitutes a "revelation" as opposed to any other word one picks to describe a religious experience. (William James Varieties)

I have added bolding to the next section

So the GOAL of the POLICY was to REDUCE FRICTION between parents and their children

Has that been rescinded?  Is the church now in favor of friction between LGBT parents and their children?  OBVIOUSLY NOT.  NO REVERSAL as to goals or intent.

What exactly has been changed here??

Are children of gay parents now automatically eligible for baptism at age eight?  NO.

Are their children NOW put in a position of having to choose between beliefs and behavior they learned at home and what they were taught at church?  NO!  At least that is not the intention- if it happens that is the decision of the parents. The church has done all they can to assure it does not happen

And why? Because the bishop still has to determine that that is NOT the case- requiring ADDITIONAL counseling and interviews with the parents- presumably.

Note that "nearly" every exemption was granted.

Does that mean that the exemption happens automatically?   NO!

The "exemption" is still an exemption!  It is not regular practice, it is an exemption.  There is no recision of the policy- all that has been changed is its administration.

This turns the judgement around to put it totally on the bishop and "local leaders" including presumably the Stake President, Primary Presidents, ministering brothers and sisters etc. about the PARENTS WHO WILL be contacted periodically

Local leaders- not just the bishop- will make the recommendation that the child will be baptized- and NOT the 15.  Does this rescind the policy that it be REQUESTED by the LGBT parents ? No.  Does it include the provision that the PARENTS UNDERSTAND that a child will be taught about baptism covenants which include discussions of ALL the commandments?

So the parents still have to REQUEST baptism AFTER understanding our views of the commandments and "periodic" contact and "local leaders"- not just the Bishop- will recommend or not recommend that baptism.

Finally, we also clarified that homosexual immorality would be treated in the eyes of the Church in the same manner as heterosexual immorality.

Though it may not have looked this way to some, the 2015 and 2019 policy adjustments on this matter were both motivated by love—the love of our Heavenly Father for His children and the love of the Brethren for those whom we serve.

Because we feel the depth of God’s love for His children, we care deeply about every child of God, regardless of age, personal circumstances, gender, sexual orientation, or other unique challenges.

I’m still not understanding how this is different then non LGBT parents. My parents had to request for my baptism. Mind you I grew up in a ward so we were already talking about it. Non LGBT parents would also have to understand these same things, views, and doctrines as well and know they’d be  taught to their children.

You can’t just baptize an 8 year old without parental consent and understanding. An 8 year old, no matter the gender of the parents, is not automatically able to be baptized at 8 just because they’re 8. Parental consent is required and in the case of LGBT parents you’d just want to make sure they really knew what they’re kid was being taught. Now that the authority is back with the bishops I see no difference.

Edited September 23, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[sunstoned]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know what POX means.

I see no reversal.  Gay parents still have to petition the Bishop for permission to have their children baptized and agree to things I would never agree to do.  Why on earth would you WANT your child to be taught you are living in sin when your belief is that you have a glorious valid marriage before God??   I don't get it.

Perhaps you did not read the previous posts?

What do you mean by a "revelation"?   Something that cannot be changed?   Was the Old Testament and Mosaic law a "revelation"?

Do you believe prophets are infallible?

POX = policy of exclusion.   It is a total reversal.  The policy is now back where is was before November 2015 "revelation".  As a refresher, and just so we know what was really was walked back, here is how Nelson describe the November event:

Quote

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by sunstoned

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Parental consent is required and in the case of LGBT parents you’d just want to make sure they really knew what they’re kid was being taught. Now that the authority is back with the bishops I see no difference.

Yes that is what is different and what is the same

Now the local authorities need to know the parents really know instead of the first presidency

[BlueDreams]

On 9/21/2019 at 9:42 PM, Daniel2 said:

I tried to quote both Smac's and BlueDream's responses here, but only one saved... my following comments are for portions of both BlueDream’s post and also meant for Smac’s 'review' (and dismissive approach):

I think if I understand part of what you're both saying is that the article's author loses credibility because a) Latter-day Saints would consider her descriptions of the doctrines of the LDS church to be inaccurate and b) she fails to use terminology the Church and it's membership prefer and connect with.   Because members of the LDS church don't see her words as an accurate or honest portrayal of their lives, beliefs, values, and experiences, she's easy to dismiss and disregard as an unreliable source, at least so far as her criticisms are concerned.

I wonder if others can see how that works in reverse just as much, if not more so, when applying that same standard in reverse:

Consider how gay and lesbian couples regard the level of credibility (or lack thereof) that the LDS Church and it's leadership have, with regards to understanding and accurately portraying OUR lives and experiences.  Given that how the Church has historically described--actually, misrepresented, demeaned, devalued, and condemned the LGBT experience, including our families, relationships, and fought against equal rights for those of us that have embraced a 'pro-LGBT' experience, and given how the LDS Church and it's leadership declined to use terminology that was either preferred or even reflective of us, our families, marriages, and our life experiences:

a) how concerned do you think that author feels about making a few minor mistakes in how she describes church doctrines?

b) how much do you think many must regard the credibility of the LDS church to speak authoritatively or even accurately about anything related to the pro-LGBT experience?

Not saying one is right and one is wrong... but it's telling how Mormons dismiss this author for misrepresenting Mormonism, but don't see any issues at all with how LDS leaders distort and misrepresent LGBT relationships and lives.

D

Okay, I finally have a minute to respond, though I have been thinking of what you mentioned. Smac can respond for himself, he likely would have a differing opinion to some extent. 

First off, I do empathize with several of the general themes you mention, being a minority myself (of a different sort, but still). When I was writing, I mentioned near the end that I wasn't 100% sure why I was writing. I would add, I'm not 100% sure why you were sharing the article since there wasn't your own analysis or explanation about it. So it was largely just my reaction to it from my concern. My biggest concern is my own community and how to develop it in such a way that people who may not fit the average "mormon mould" per se can feel they have a place. I also pictured myself and my large and usually very conservative family. Would this article actually help them be more understanding to those not like them or would it be more likely to entrench them in their world view because they felt attacked? For me the answer was the latter. I think of people who are still somewhere in the middle ground....whether that be coming out to their still very LDS family, deciding to stay in the church as an LGBT individual, or even coming to the church as one as well. They're the ones who have the most direct connection to the effects of the church and I wonder if this would really actually validate them or lead them to feel the strain of bridging two communities. I couldn't see how it would really be a source of validation beyond those already disaffected possibly or moving a community forward. 

I view the misrepresentations/inaccuracies in beliefs important considering they're used to support her main point that the church is gaslighting the LGBTQ+ community and have been abusing them collectively. That's a lofty claim and one that could come at a heavy cost for a community that, outside of UT, is a minority religious group. 

I get that the church leaders have been a work in progress, to say the least, on their dialogue and stance towards LGBT people and families. I don't think though it's helpful to give license to others to do likewise to pidgeon a wide group of people who make up the church body as a whole. 

as for your two questions:

a) I have no Idea, but I think overall we would be a better world if we could work to understand and properly represent other groups of people...even if (or maybe especially) it's a group we tend to oppose. 

b.) Outside the community? Not much. Which is fine to me considering the initial address was for those inside it. 

On the last line I bolded, I feel that's definitely putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything of that sort. I've definitely had my concerns with how the LDS church has described LGBT people in the past and I'm pleased when I see a good step forward to find a better ground and space for those who may describe themselves as LGBT or SSA or non-labeled altogether. I don't think it will ever look the way that would satisfy entirely those outside the community....but I hope it will make a better place inside. 

 

Anyways, I'll be paying tomorrow for not getting some rest soon. So I'll end here. 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

POX = policy of exclusion.   It is a total reversal.  The policy is now back where is was before November 2015 "revelation".  As a refresher, and just so we know what was really was walked back, here is how Nelson describe the November event:

 

 

Yeah I know what he said

Neener neener it's not a reversal 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Or rather than lying about what he believes, he may be perfectly honest with you and just see it so differently he cannot answer the way you want him to.  Nor should he as in that case it wouldn't be his honest answer.

Why would answering my question require him to lie about what he believes?

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Just as you apparently can't answer him with an answer he would perceive as correct and instead accuse him of holding back an "honest answer".

I can’t change my understanding of the situation to give him an answer he wants.  Nor would I expect him to do that. 

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes that is what is different and what is the same

Now the local authorities need to know the parents really know instead of the first presidency

I can't tell if you're joking or not?

Do you honestly believe all that has transpired regarding this policy was simply for the purpose that the parents needed to know what the church taught on this issue?  (Something I believe all....or at least almost all....would have already be aware of and if not, most Bishops would have most certainly discussed it with them.) 

I think we need to wait and see what the final published version is (and that may not even be "final" since there have been changes here all along).  But from what I can tell, things are right back to where they were before this new policy was first announced.  The Bishop or local authorities approve the baptisms (for all children).

Edited September 23, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I think we need to wait and see what the final published version is (and that may not even be "final" since there have been changes here all along).  But from what I can tell, things are right back where they were before this new policy was first announced.  

I agree.  They could simply delete the two sections they added in Nov 2015 and, from a policy perspective, they’d have accomplished what they’ve described in the April press release and September devotional. 

But will they change the handbook?  It’s possible they’ll just leave it and add a link to something regarding Pres. Nelson comments from last week (like they did back in Nov 2015). 

[CV75]

On 9/20/2019 at 6:30 AM, california boy said:

So you don't think it came from revelation either?  Just from input on how the Nov policy was affecting the members.  Or does it take a revelation to interpret the feedback and figure out that the policy was not working.

I don't want to put words in your mouth.  But this is what I am getting from your answer.  

I am suggesting that, according to what has been the pattern and the sentiments expressed by our leaders, listening to local questions, members' weeping and members' needs followed by empathetic supplication to the Lord led to revelation. That would be the case for for any change in policy (Nov 15 and temple size). Of course revelation can come out of the blue as well.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am suggesting that, according to what has been the pattern and the sentiments expressed by our leaders, listening to local questions, members' weeping and members' needs followed by empathetic supplication to the Lord led to revelation. That would be the case for for any change in policy (Nov 15 and temple size). Of course revelation can come out of the blue as well.

So, 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.

Did I capture that correctly?

 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, 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.

Did I capture that correctly?

 

For one, making exceptions is not ignoring an inspired/revealed policy. That is how policies are to be wisely used, by design. Your summary seems to be very incomplete, and so on the whole it seems you did not capture "that" correctly.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/21/2019 at 8:42 PM, Daniel2 said:

Consider how gay and lesbian couples regard the level of credibility (or lack thereof) that the LDS Church and it's leadership have, with regards to understanding and accurately portraying OUR lives and experiences.  Given that how the Church has historically described--actually, misrepresented, demeaned, devalued, and condemned the LGBT experience, including our families, relationships, and fought against equal rights for those of us that have embraced a 'pro-LGBT' experience, and given how the LDS Church and it's leadership declined to use terminology that was either preferred or even reflective of us, our families, marriages, and our life experiences:

And yet you want your children raised LDS, and promise there will be no family conflict over it.

I have no clue why, and this is prima facie evidence for the need for a policy and close supervision by local leadership before the baptism can happen

Clear as a bell, and no one will address it here.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet you want your children raised LDS, and promise there will be no family conflict over it.

I have no clue why, and this is prima facie evidence for the need for a policy and close supervision by local leadership before the baptism can happen

Clear as a bell, and no one will address it here.

Is anyone here acquainted with any parents who embrace the LGBT lifestyle and ideology and yet want their children raised as fully believing and functioning members of the Church? I have yet to hear of any. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is anyone here acquainted with any parents who embrace the LGBT lifestyle and ideology and yet want their children raised as fully believing and functioning members of the Church? I have yet to hear of any. 

I have heard/read of such parents but don't know any personally.  And, President Nelson reported that exceptions were made, so apparently such parents do exist.

Edited September 23, 2019 by rockpond

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

For one, making exceptions is not ignoring an inspired/revealed policy. That is how policies are to be wisely used, by design. Your summary seems to be very incomplete, and so on the whole it seems you did not capture "that" correctly.

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.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have heard/read of such parents but don't know any personally.  And, President Nelson reported that exceptions were made, so apparently such parents do exist.

Yeah, I recognize that. It still strikes me as an irreconcilable contradiction, though. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah, I recognize that. It still strikes me as an irreconcilable contradiction, though. 

Yep, I understand why you would see that as an irreconcilable contradiction based on the little that I know about how you see the restored gospel.  But, as you also know, many have differing, yet still faithful, perspectives.  Somehow it works for them but it is tough for me to fully grasp as well.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet you want your children raised LDS, and promise there will be no family conflict over it.

I have no clue why, and this is prima facie evidence for the need for a policy and close supervision by local leadership before the baptism can happen

Clear as a bell, and no one will address it here.

Not specifying this for Daniel but there are gay people that believe the church is true, D. Michael Quinn for one. 

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is anyone here acquainted with any parents who embrace the LGBT lifestyle and ideology and yet want their children raised as fully believing and functioning members of the Church? I have yet to hear of any. 

I think that is why at first the First Presidency wanted to handle it, and at least some requests for exemption must have been turned down. He said" nearly all were approved." That means some were not.

But I am supposing the volume was sufficient to have them turn it over to local authorities instead.

But if I were of that lifestyle,  to me that would almost be child abuse to have my children raised in a way that was so diametrically opposed to my beliefs.

I can't conceive of anyone actually doing that.

And every time this comes up I bring up that point. Who is going to want that to happen?

And I never get an answer.

They are just looking to fight against the church with ridiculous points about the nature of "Revelation" while the alleged problem actually affects virtually no one.

It is not a problem that actually exists, it is all just an opportunity to create rhetoric against the church.

Perhaps the Brethren realized that there were so few parents who actually requested an exemption that having the first presidency handle it was simply creating a public relations problem for what turned out to be a null set of actual "victims", who probably should be handled locally anyway since local people are more likely to be in touch with the actual living conditions of those concerned.

And as far as the public relations problem I think it is all clearly just trumped up.

Those who actually have Revelations know how they work.

Those who do not have them will poke fun regardless of what one says anyway.

Edited September 23, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep, I understand why you would see that as an irreconcilable contradiction based on the little that I know about how you see the restored gospel.  But, as you also know, many have differing, yet still faithful, perspectives.  Somehow it works for them but it is tough for me to fully grasp as well.

I fear that some may not fully realize what it means to be a fully believing and functioning member of the Church and are envisioning their children being, as it were, partway in and partway out. Which makes it absolutely essential that they are given to understand upfront what it will entail to have their children blessed and baptized in the Church. I just hope our bishops are up to the task. 

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep, I understand why you would see that as an irreconcilable contradiction based on the little that I know about how you see the restored gospel.  But, as you also know, many have differing, yet still faithful, perspectives.  Somehow it works for them but it is tough for me to fully grasp as well.

But isn't it funny that no one seems to actually know any people who feel that way?

To me that would be child abuse.

 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But isn't it funny that no one seems to actually know any people who feel that way?

The First Presidency does.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fear that some may not fully realize what it means to be a fully believing and functioning member of the Church and are envisioning their children being, as it were, partway in and partway out. Which makes it absolutely essential that they are given to understand upfront what it will entail to have their children blessed and baptized in the Church. I just hope our bishops are up to the task. 

We have a lot of amazing bishops.  I think they are up to the task.  But by putting this back in the hands of bishops, we won't have a lot of consistency in application unless they rewrite the policy to clarify how to handle such situations.