Meadowchik Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 1 minute ago, kllindley said: Are you asserting that he is being dishonest about what actually happened and that you are privy to that knowledge? Or are you just saying he should "admit" it regardless of whether that is what actually happened? Neither.
kllindley Posted September 17, 2019 Author Posted September 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Just that even is it weren't explicitly stated, it can be inferred. A person can infer basically anything from anything. So without some sense of the basis from which a thing is inferred, such a statement is essentially meaningless. 4
Popular Post bluebell Posted September 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted September 17, 2019 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: How much healthier it would be to just allow himself to admit that he in his office can get things not quite right or even wrong. I think that admission would open up the windows of inspiration more, and compassion... While I agree with this thought in general, if you are saying this in regards to the policy change, I think you'd first have to show that God did not condone the Nov. 2015 policy before being able to make such a statement of fact. Edited September 17, 2019 by bluebell 7
Meadowchik Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It would be based on the wording with which he expressed himself. Such an inference would require an assumption of bad faith and dishonesty on the part of the prophet. Not necessarily. 2 minutes ago, Calm said: Both you and 10th don't see Pres. Nelson or previous prophets as actually talking to God, at least in any unique way compared to the rest of humanity. Both of you see the policy as purely 'manmade', an error. Am I correct? If so, that both of you see what you believe happened (opinion, not inspiration driven) as a reasonable inference of what Pres. Nelson said may be more a result of projecting your own ideas onto his words than what he was saying. Sure. We all bring in our own bias, including you and other believers. The LDS tradition pretty consistently resists the concept of prophetic fallibility, though. I don't think prophetic infallibility is a morally or spiritually sound concept, and, conceptually, it seems to be derived more from loyalty to group than faith.
kllindley Posted September 17, 2019 Author Posted September 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Neither. Alrighty then 👍.
bluebell Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 23 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said: President Nelson is singing a slightly different tune than he was at the last BYU devotional when he unequivocally stated that the policy change was as a result of direct divine revelation to the living prophet. He’s now making it seem like it was driven more by their personal opinions as policy makers. I did not get that from what he said. 2
Tacenda Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 1 minute ago, kllindley said: Of course it can happen. 🙂. I think the more important question is whether he did get it wrong. Would you care to explain how you know what revelation he received and how he got it wrong? 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.
Meadowchik Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 Just now, bluebell said: While I agree with this thought in general, if you are saying this in regards to the policy change, I don't think you'd first have to show that God did not condone the Nov. 2015 policy before being able to make such a statement of fact. That's a good point. 1
Raingirl Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Yes, he totally got a revelation wrong, which can happen. 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’. 2
kllindley Posted September 17, 2019 Author Posted September 17, 2019 1 minute 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. I take it you didn't listen to the devotional? 1
Popular Post JAHS Posted September 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted September 17, 2019 One thing he did say is that with the first issuing of the policy about children of gay parents getting baptized, each situation was considered on a case by case basis and if a gay couple wanted to have their child baptized they could get permission from the First presidency, which was almost always allowed if the parents agreed to support the covenant of baptism. The recent change involved only needing to get permission from the local Bishop instead of First Presidency approval. So it's not like it could not have happened at all with the 2015 policy. 5
Tacenda Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 Just now, kllindley said: I take it you didn't listen to the devotional? I listened to every minute of it. Why did I miss something, or what in my post made you think I didn't listen?
bluebell Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The LDS tradition pretty consistently resists the concept of prophetic fallibility, though. I don't think prophetic infallibility is a morally or spiritually sound concept, and, conceptually, it seems to be derived more from loyalty to group than faith. Your beliefs pretty consistently resist the concept of a prophet actually having authority and speaking for an actual God. Such a bias would seem to make it fairly impossible to gauge when a prophet is making a mistake and when he actually is doing what God wants. 4
Meadowchik Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, kllindley said: A person can infer basically anything from anything. So without some sense of the basis from which a thing is inferred, such a statement is essentially meaningless. I don't think "inference" infers, or even literally means, that
bluebell Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 3 minutes 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. What was rescinded though? In the Nov. policy, a child with LGBTQ parents could only get baptized with permission from the First presidency, and almost without exception, when such was sought, and the parents agreed to support the child and understood what the child would be taught, the child was given permission to be baptized. The change in the policy was that such permission was now to be granted by the bishop instead of the First Presidency. What revelation was rescinded? Was it revelation that the First President was the only group who could give permission for such a child to be baptized? That was never my understanding of what the revelation was. 3
Tacenda Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 2 minutes 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’. So God is that wishy washy, but should have said IMO, I'll take it back then. Plus, I'm using what I think to be just common sense, when you look at how long the quorum of the twelve took to change the blacks in the PH revelation. Don't you think sometimes people think that they're getting a revelation and it's just in their minds. Again, the prophet could have been speaking as a man. I feel that if this were someone faithful in the church saying that, you might not be so quick to judge my words.
Tacenda Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Your beliefs pretty consistently resist the concept of a prophet actually having authority and speaking for an actual God. Such a bias would seem to make it fairly impossible to gauge when a prophet is making a mistake and when he actually is doing what God wants. Bingo! Which makes it very difficult to have a lot of faith in their words. It's a trust problem, I guess.
Tacenda Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: What was rescinded though? In the Nov. policy, a child with LGBTQ parents could only get baptized with permission from the First presidency, and almost without exception, when such was sought, and the parents agreed to support the child and understood what the child would be taught, the child was given permission to be baptized. The change in the policy was that such permission was now to be granted by the bishop instead of the First Presidency. What revelation was rescinded? Was it revelation that the First President was the only group who could give permission for such a child to be baptized? That was never my understanding of what the revelation was. I guess this article vs. today's devotional, has a difference. Maybe I just need to put that out of my mind and have new eyes. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng Edited September 17, 2019 by Tacenda
Meadowchik Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: Your beliefs pretty consistently resist the concept of a prophet actually having authority and speaking for an actual God. Such a bias would seem to make it fairly impossible to gauge when a prophet is making a mistake and when he actually is doing what God wants. Resisting the idea of a spokesman for God does not mean one cannot recognize God. 1
kllindley Posted September 17, 2019 Author Posted September 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I listened to every minute of it. Why did I miss something, or what in my post made you think I didn't listen? 11 minutes ago, Tacenda said: And if it's a revelation, how can they turn around and rescind it that quickly. He explained how. He also explained that it wasn't nearly as much rescinding the policy as changing who had the authority to offer exceptions to the policy. 4
bluebell Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 Just now, Tacenda said: Bingo! Which makes it very difficult to have a lot of faith in their words. It's a trust problem, I guess. Exactly. Our beliefs and perspectives make such a huge difference with these issues, and if we don't even know if there is a God or not, we are not in a good position to expound on doctrines or principals that require a belief in God. Line upon line and all of that. You can't argue proofs in calculus if you don't yet understand or have faith in the rules of addition and subtraction (I had a math teacher in high school that made us do proofs for weeks and as much as I hated it, it was an eye opening experience). 1
bluebell Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Don't you think sometimes people think that they're getting a revelation and it's just in their minds. Again, the prophet could have been speaking as a man. Definitely. That's one reason I think that the system that God set up with the First president and Quorum of the 12 apostles works so well. It's fairly easy for one person to get a revelation that is wrong. But it's much harder (much much harder) for 15 sincere people, all seeking to do God's will, to all get the same wrong revelation. It's still possible but the odds are against it happening very often. 2
Tacenda Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: He explained how. He also explained that it wasn't nearly as much rescinding the policy as changing who had the authority to offer exceptions to the policy. You're right, I jump too fast when posting. Edited September 17, 2019 by Tacenda
Calm Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The LDS tradition pretty consistently resists the concept of prophetic fallibility, though. I don't think prophetic infallibility is a morally or spiritually sound concept, and, conceptually, it seems to be derived more from loyalty to group than faith. The issue for me is not loyalty, but is who gets to decide what fallibility is there. Given I am as human as the prophets and much less informed about their inspired experiences, why should I assume I know better than they what is and isn't a mistake? Edited September 17, 2019 by Calm 4
bluebell Posted September 17, 2019 Posted September 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Resisting the idea of a spokesman for God does not mean one cannot recognize God. But if I remember correctly, you don't just resist the idea of a spokesman for God, you probably don't believe that God exists. Believing He doesn't exist does make it difficult to judge when a prophet is speaking with authority from God and when he isn't. If LDS belief makes it difficult for members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to judge prophet fallibility, then your belief, as a probable atheist, would seem to make it even more difficult still to judge such things.
Recommended Posts