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

[gopher]

19 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’ve never read a decent refusal that solves the dilemma. I’ve read tons of these threads for a long time and I’ve never come across an example that solves the issue in my head. Are there explanations? Sure, but to me they aren’t that good. maybe you could point me in a better direction? Plenty of faithful and believing members also agree with me as well, so there are good people on both sides. We just disagree.

I'm not sure what you are looking for.   President Nelson actually gave us the reasons for the policy change.  We don't always get that.  I don't have a better direction than what he has offered.  Everything else is just speculation which both sides have done.

[gopher]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So many were hurt, and many members left the church. One of my sons turned anti over it. It affected so many, needlessly.

And many members weren't hurt and didn't leave the church.  What is the difference between the two groups?  I have a member friend with a gay son and she isn't hurt or angry at the church for the policy.  But she also doesn't criticize past/present prophets and apostles, pick fights with believers, or praise dissenters like we see from many who oppose the policy.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

If you heard it here, surely you were also exposed to some of the critical POVs about it at the same time.

I promise you:  my reaction to the policy was my own and not a result of anything critics may have said. My heart hurt when I read that new policy.  And after getting through the initial shock, the spirit still testified to me that this was not the will of the Lord. 

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, gopher said:

Yes, I'm just not convinced that President Nelson and the Brethren are the cause of the heartache, confusion, and tears of members.

The policy was the cause of the heartache and confusion.  Seems to me that President Nelson affirmed that.

The question is:  who authored the policy and was it in line without God’s will for his church or was it just an error on the part of the Brethren?

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If you heard it here, surely you were also exposed to some of the critical POVs about it at the same time.

I honestly believe that everyone had an initial reaction of their own whether it be positive, negative or just confusion or wanting more clarification.

In my experience, I saw more who initially reacted negatively come around to at least half-heartedly accepting or supporting it after they heard other's acceptance and the reasons given for the policy (and then with Elder Nelson's talk, even more became more supportive), than anyone being affected the other way around (initially feeling positive about the policy and then turning to negative).  But that's just my own experience.

Also, I saw more here that staunchly supported it (or strongly supported it), than I saw in real life (with members and family members).  Even those who found ways to not be negative about it, weren't really believers in it being a good policy.  Most I know (including some ward and stake leaders) are thrilled it's been reversed back to how it was before.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by ALarson

[teddyaware]

On 9/24/2019 at 1:59 AM, rockpond said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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?

The Fifteen received a revelation from God that it is his will that the custodial children of cohabiting gay or lesbian parents should not normally be placed in an environment where such children will inevitably learn that the parents are living a sinful life that is most seriously out of harmony with the revealed will of God, possibly causing such children to lose respect for their parents.. So  in accordance to this revelation, the Fifteen set out to formulate a policy that would minimize the possibility that these children would be placed in such potentially detrimental circumstances..

But the Fifteen felt impressed that they should leave the door open to the possibility that there might be some gay or lesbian custodial parents who might insist, for whatever reasons, ion having their children raised in the Church, thereby deliberately placing them in a potentially psychologically detrimental environment. In in the event of such  scenarios, the leaders carefully crafted elements of policy that would minimize the very real possibility that some of these children might grow up to one day bitterly blame the Church for poisoning their innocent minds against their parents. So to prevent this possibility, the original policy was constructed in such a way that the Church could assert that the custodial parents were made fully aware that what they were doing could eventually prove harmful to the parent-child relationship, but in spite of being fully aware of this possibility the parents insisted on having their children raised in the “marriage between man and woman only” environment of the Church.

Further, by causing such children to have to wait till young adulthood to decide of their own fully-informed volition whether or not to be baptized, the Church quite reasonably and compassionately could assert that the reason why such children should not be baptized at 8 Is because placing them under a solemn covenant that requiress the acceptance of living prophets and the divinely revealed doctrines of the Church could be reasonably viewed as an overt attempt to covenantally bind the children to the Church and it’s teachings. thereby placing them in a solemn covenantal obligation that stands in opposition to the lifestyles of their own gay or lesbian custodial parents.

After prayerfully crafting the 2015 policy that it might fully accord with the Lord’s will and intentions, the leaders.no doubt presented the the finished product to the Lord for his final approval, which he granted.

More on the modification of the policy when I return from work.

Edited September 25, 2019 by teddyaware

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I'm not sure what you are looking for.   President Nelson actually gave us the reasons for the policy change.  We don't always get that.  I don't have a better direction than what he has offered.  Everything else is just speculation which both sides have done.

His reasoning doesn’t explain why God changed His mind all of a sudden. It just explains why the brethren changed their mind thought.

The brethren ”weeped” because of the heartbreak so they prayed some more and felt that they could essentially reverse it. That’s not an explanation as to why a supposed revelation from God was repealed. Plenty of Gods commandments have made His children weep and He didn’t reverse them, so why this one? It’s not a good explanation. 

Doctrinally as well the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents. If a child wants to be baptized and the parents are okay with it, even if they aren’t living the standards or willing to teach them, then that child should be allowed to accept that covenant..which the earlier policy did not allow. I suppose it depends on your interpretation, but that’s how I read the scriptures.

[Tacenda]

This!

https://sistersquorum.com/2019/09/25/out-of-love/

SEPTEMBER 25, 2019BY PILAR

Out of Love: A Response to RMN’s BYU Devotional

PILAR: I now live in a very different space from the lonely corner I once occupied. My life isn’t perfect, but there are times when I wince looking back at the domestic abuse I suffered, the hell I went through in counseling with my ecclesiastical leaders, and the constant feeling that I was staggering, limping, or dragging myself to some imaginary finish line. I was determined to find a way to endure to the end because I’d been promised celestial glory for eternity, and I felt that somehow that would make it all worth it in the end.  I try not to dwell on this at all, and usually I don’t. But last week’s BYU devotional by President Russel M. Nelson, with its “five truths,” really struck a sour chord. His messages of worthlessness and shame covered in declarations of love and conditional acceptance were eerily reminiscent of the things I heard on a regular basis from my abuser many years ago. I tried to push it away, but the throbbing and familiar ache returned like trapped, frantic birds tapping against a window, longing to be gathered up and flung into freedom that awaits them in the open air.

“If I don’t punish you, then you won’t take me seriously,” he used to tell me as he gave me weeks of icy silent treatment, denied me grocery money, or came up with a demeaning way to “earn my privileges back.”

“You need to understand that you are morbidly obese. I’m telling you this nicely because I don’t want someone else to be mean to you about your weight issue,” he calmly explained to me as I stood on the scale looking down at the number that read 135.  This was just a few months after I’d had our third child. I was 12 lbs over my pre-pregnancy weight.

“This year’s Thanksgiving dinner was decent,” he said, and then he went through every dish I had made and gave me a score out of 10.  My final averaged score was barely over six.  “I know a few people said they liked your food, but they were just being nice.  You do want me to be honest, and not just lie to spare your feelings, right?”

He could somehow seem loving and demonstrative as he tore me down and wrecked my self-confidence. He convinced me that I deserved his verbal abuse, rechristening it as “constructive criticism.” He had plenty of reading material that proved he was right, such as When Children Invite Abuse and The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. He reasoned with me, “If women and children wanted to be treated well, it must be earned.” He was telling me these things out of love, after all.

If there is one thing I learned from abuse, it’s that I know a lot of things about what love ISN’T.  It isn’t tearing you down and devaluing everything you are so that someone else can define what you should be.  Love isn’t forcing you into the mold of what someone else thinks you should be. Love doesn’t need to rip the flesh off your bones to expose you to the warmth of their fire.  Love isn’t a ravenous wolf that tears you apart.  Love isn’t jealous that you love yourself.  Love doesn’t care if you’re queer or bisexual or gay or trans or cis.  Love doesn’t lie about science that proves gender is not binary.  Love isn’t concerned with insisting that everyone fit into their neat little heterosexual cis boxes labeled Boy and Girl.  Love doesn’t fit in any box.

Here are those five points, improved.

You are Children of God, but don’t be afraid to grow up and be an Adult of God. It’s okay to progress and change. And just in case there was any confusion, there is literally NO LDS song called “I am a cis-gender girl /boy of God.” Nope. Nobody sang that song. Ever. Nice try.

In the immortal words of Regina George, “Stop trying to make ‘truth’ happen- IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.” The truth is, disaffected members may not know everything, but neither does the Church or its hierarchy.  God is the arbiter of truth. The Church is NOT God, nor should it be conflated with Him.  Last time I checked, Church leaders have been having difficulties of their own recognizing “truth.”

God loves us each with a perfect love.  I am reminded of Matthew 7:9: “Or what man is there of you, whom if his son asks bread, will ye give him a stone?  Or if he asks a fish, will he give him a serpent?”  If there is anyone out there struggling to accept this message, I want to tell you right now this truth:  You’ve been handed an enormous box of rocks and snakes.  Go ahead and drop that rubbish into a sink hole.  You don’t need that in your life. God did not send you that box. That wasn’t Him.  God. Is. Not. A. Jerk.

You don’t have to have a prestigious title at Church to share God’s message of love. In fact, the people who seem to be the best at sharing that love are rarely the ones also running around proclaiming “I’m a very important person. God loves you, but only if you do what I say. You can trust me because I’m called to be super important!”

You may know for yourself what is true by going straight to God and asking him yourself. This is how I knew this devotional was wrong when I heard and recognized the patterns of abuse. When I left my own terrible situation, I asked God if I was the worthless, overweight, unattractive, horrible person I’d been told I was for years.  The immediate response took my breath away.  I felt the power of His immense love and can only describe it as a warm, expansive swelling that told me He LOVED me, that I am worthy of love AS I AM, and that I am ENOUGH.  And so are you. Ask Him.

~PILAR~

And here's another post: 

https://sistersquorum.com/2019/04/05/sittingwithmyanger/?fbclid=IwAR171Dk8xh6jX3RFfqSG6hReP1r66lxQ0zmWQEmOhVhJJmE-FbCr1pkQt7I

APRIL 5, 2019BY SISTERLAURASQ

Sitting with My Anger: a Queer Response to the Policy of Exclusion Reversal

LAURA: For three and a half years, queer Mormons in same-sex relationships have been classed as apostates “for purpose of church discipline” and their children excluded from full activity in the church. Yesterday, that policy was reversed during the General Conference Leadership Session.

As a queer woman, I’ve watched the reactions from across the spectrum of Mormondom and I’ve very slowly and carefully made space for my own feelings. What I’ve seen is that most straight Mormons, whether they’re more nuanced and on the fringes or they’re more traditionally believing, are happy. They are celebrating even. Meanwhile most queer Mormons are hesitant, hurting again, fearful of what comes next, and mourning the minimization of three and a half years of brutal pain.

Personally, I’m angry. Furious. The longer I sit with this change, the angrier I am becoming. I was less angry when the policy was leaked than I am today.

Maybe it’s because in the intervening years I have become more connected to the queer community and have embraced my sexual orientation more. Maybe it’s because my relationship with the church and with members of my extended family has been forever altered and no policy reversal can change that. Maybe it’s because I saw so many Mormons justify the policy. They made peace with it, leaving me wondering what gave them that right when they weren’t the ones who had to live with the cost of it. Maybe it’s because even though the policy’s been rolled back, queer Mormons will continue to be marginalized and excommunicated. The church was very clear about that. Maybe it’s because I’ve spent three and a half years living with the pain of it. Maybe it’s because I can count the costs and despite the damage, today’s announcement carried no apology and not even an acknowledgement of pain and harm done.

Most likely it’s some combination of all of these things.

As I sit with this anger, I’m trying to listen to what it might tell me about my boundaries, my pain, and the value and cost of my relationship with an organization that continues, even with this reversal, to minimize my worth. Several of my friends have resigned their memberships today. More than a few have expressed concern that if we (queer Mormons) are anything other than thrilled about this policy, we will be condemned and criticized for it. We will be labeled apostates not by policy but by culture.

I wonder how our faith community drifted so far from the principles of the baptismal charge – to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, to bear one another’s burdens. I wonder how in our zeal for obedience we have lost sight of our compassion and in our commitment to follow the prophet we’ve forgotten that following Jesus means loving one another.

Lest anyone suggests that it’s not loving to queer Mormons to “allow us to sin,” I’d remind you that we’ve yet to have any actual revelation on topics like same sex marriage and transgender-related medical care.

I don’t know a single queer Mormon who felt loved by the church policy any time in the last 3.5 years. Nor do I know any queer Mormons who feel loved in the handling of this reversal. The church leadership has failed in that most basic commandment. As they will sometimes because the church is lead by humans, mostly straight, white men whose bias sometimes prevents them from hearing God. Until the church as a whole can acknowledge that, though, we’re apt to perpetuate pain and giving God the credit (I think that could safely be considered taking God’s name in vain).

However, acknowledging that is going to require a culture shift and that takes time. Since I know that, I tend to want to be compassionate about the mistakes that are made.

On this, though, my anger won’t let me do that easily. First, it asks me to consider all the things this policy reversal is not: it is not acceptance of same-sex couples or queer non-monogamy. It is not acceptance of trans individuals. It is not a promise that queer Mormons won’t be disciplined and even excommunicated. It is not a welcome embrace of LGBTQIA youth or adults into our church. It is not inclusion.

Then my anger asks me to count the costs: the pain of thousands of queer Mormons, the damage to thousands of children of queer Mormons (many of whom are likely straight), the familial relationships permanently damaged or destroyed, the friendships ended, missionary opportunities missed, the loss of diversity in our wards and stakes, and finally, most soberingly, the actual death toll which we may never know for certain.

Only once I acknowledge my privilege to even be alive to feel these feelings will my anger let me consider if extending compassion to church leaders on the handling of this. When I do, I wonder if choosing to do so is actually compassionate or if it is simply enabling abuse.

During General Conference this weekend, I will be watching for signs that it is the former. I’m expecting an apology. I’m also expecting disappointment and with that disappointment, more anger that reminds me to keep my boundaries strong and make space for my grief. And I will likely spend this weekend doing the same thing I did 3.5 years ago: connecting with my queer community and making sure they’re ok. I wish our church leaders would do that. I pray straight Mormons will do that.

My prayers will be prayers of action as hopefully yours will be too.

~Laura~

 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

If God told the prophet not to baptize children of gay parents who are not yet of legal age, but they went ahead and allowed it most of the times that they were asked -- it sounds like they are disregarding the policy.

Not disregarding, but making an exception. From the transcript:

"... 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.

"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."

I'm sure God told the prophet, as a general rule, not to baptize children of gay parents who are not yet of legal age unless otherwise inspired pending individual circumstances. That sounds to me more like how He does things in His earthly kingdom. Then once He saw how things played out in a number of areas for both local leaders and parents, and heard the prayers of the First Presidency and Twelve, He allowed bishops to approve the baptism of children under the guidelines they follow.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The Fifteen received a revelation from God that it is his will that the custodial children of cohabiting gay or lesbian parents should not normally be placed in an environment where such children will inevitably learn that the parents are living a sinful life that is most seriously out of harmony with the revealed will of God, possibly causing such children to lose respect for their parents.. So  in accordance to this revelation, the Fifteen set out to formulate a policy that would minimize the possibility that these children would be placed in such potentially detrimental circumstances..

But the Fifteen felt impressed that they should leave the door open to the possibility that there might be some gay or lesbian custodial parents who might insist, for whatever reasons, ion having their children raised in the Church, thereby deliberately placing them in a potentially psychologically detrimental environment. In in the event of such  scenarios, the leaders carefully crafted elements of policy that would minimize the very real possibility that some of these children might grow up to one day bitterly blame the Church for poisoning their innocent minds against their parents. So to prevent this possibility, the original policy was constructed in such a way that the Church could assert that the custodial parents were made fully aware that what they were doing could eventually prove harmful to the parent-child relationship, but in spite of being fully aware of this possibility the parents insisted on having their children raised in the “marriage between man and woman only” environment of the Church.

Further, by causing such children to have to wait till young adulthood to decide of their own fully-informed volition whether or not to be baptized, the Church quite reasonably and compassionately could assert that the reason why such children should not be baptized at 8 Is because placing them under a solemn covenant that requiress the acceptance of living prophets and the divinely revealed doctrines of the Church could be reasonably viewed as an overt attempt to covenantally bind the children to the Church and it’s teachings. thereby placing them in a solemn covenantal obligation that stands in opposition to the lifestyles of their own gay or lesbian custodial parents.

After prayerfully crafting the 2015 policy that it might fully accord with the Lord’s will and intentions, the leaders.no doubt presented the the finished product to the Lord for his final approval, which he granted.

More on the modification of the policy when I return from work.

I look forward to your thoughts on the modification.

Regarding this, if the Lord approved their final policy in 2015, why did they then grant exceptions to it in "nearly every case" where they were asked?  If not baptizing those children was so important to the Lord, why disregard that instruction?

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I look forward to your thoughts on the modification.

Regarding this, if the Lord approved their final policy in 2015, why did they then grant exceptions to it in "nearly every case" where they were asked?  If not baptizing those children was so important to the Lord, why disregard that instruction?

Maybe the purpose was actually what they claimed: to reduce conflict.  In a case where the parents wanted the exception badly enough to petition the First Presidency,  it seems that they had in that act demonstrated their understanding and consent to the conditions President Nelson identified.  

I think it is at best an uncharitable characterization to say that what was important to the Lord was not baptizing those Children. 

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not disregarding, but making an exception. From the transcript:

"... 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.

"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."

I'm sure God told the prophet, as a general rule, not to baptize children of gay parents who are not yet of legal age unless otherwise inspired pending individual circumstances. That sounds to me more like how He does things in His earthly kingdom. Then once He saw how things played out in a number of areas for both local leaders and parents, and heard the prayers of the First Presidency and Twelve, He allowed bishops to approve the baptism of children under the guidelines they follow.

Two issues with this:

1.  The 2015 policy did not state anything about seeking exceptions for children under legal age.  That was option was not stated for the bishops and stake presidents following the handbook.

2.  "Then once He saw how things played out..."  That is inconsistent with the nature of God.  He already knew how things would play out.  And, our 15 seers also should have known how things would play out.

If members want to cast this policy as well meaning men who responded to the threat of legalized gay marriage with a policy that they felt was the best solution, implemented it, and then modified it based on member feedback as well as their experience in granting exceptions, that is fine with me.  But let's admit what it was.

However, if members are going to insist that this policy and the modification were the product of revelation, than they ought to be able to explain it in a way that consistently fits that context.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Maybe the purpose was actually what they claimed: to reduce conflict.  In a case where the parents wanted the exception badly enough to petition the First Presidency,  it seems that they had in that act demonstrated their understanding and consent to the conditions President Nelson identified.  

I do believe that they wanted to reduce conflict.  And I am fine with them granting exceptions (though parental understanding/consent doesn't solve the problem of reducing conflict with the child).  However, granting exceptions for children under legal age was not something stated as an option in the policy.  

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I think it is at best an uncharitable characterization to say that what was important to the Lord was not baptizing those Children. 

You'll have to take that up with @teddyaware.  I certainly don't believe that the Lord didn't want children baptized.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

  "Then once He saw how things played out..."  That is inconsistent with the nature of God.  He already knew how things would play out.  And, our 15 seers also should have known how things would play out.

I agree that God knew exactly how it would play out.  I disagree that the 15 "should" have had the same knowledge.  I think it would have been arrogant and disrespectful of them to refuse to follow what they obviously believed (as do I) was direction from God in 2015. "We won't do it unless you reveal to us exactly what is going to happen afterward.". That seems I inconsistent with the nature of God. 

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

However, if members are going to insist that this policy and the modification were the product of revelation, than they ought to be able to explain it in a way that consistently fits that context.

If Adam is going to insist that God commanded him to offer sacrifice, then he ought to be able to explain why. Until he can, he ought to assume it was just a well-intentioned delusional experience and admit that he got it wrong. 

[Teancum]

On 9/23/2019 at 11:46 PM, 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.

I believe LDS Prophets are extremely fallible.  In fact it seems to me that they often are fallible as much as anyone and get major things wrong. This recent address by President Nelson illustrates it quite well. I think he would have done better to leave the example of the horrific policy topic alone. Of course he didn't ask my opinion. But if I ever had any doubt the LDS leadership has no more direct guidance or inspiration from God there is none left after this fiasco. Thank you President Nelson for providing confirmation of this for me.

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You'll have to take that up with @teddyaware.  I certainly don't believe that the Lord didn't want children baptized.

As I said, it was at best an uncharitable characterization of what he said. I know you don't believe that, but I believe you know that putting those words in his mouth makes what he actually did say sound contemptible and easier to dismiss. 

[Teancum]

On 9/24/2019 at 10:27 AM, gopher said:

Wait, aren't you a critic?  I don't see many positive posts from you about the church or its leaders, especially on this topic.  So it might make sense if your mom didn't believe the policy as it was explained by you.

It's become a divisive issue, that's for sure.  Four years of arguing about it hasn't brought much resolution for many, it appears.  However, I don't think it's spiritually healthy to continue to criticize the Prophet for doing his job.  I could be wrong, but it's hard to imagine there are many believing members that think that President Nelson is ignoring or disobeying what God is telling him to do.

I agree.  Most believing members think President Nelson is doing what God wants or tells him.  But I would bet after the recent BYU talk a few more non-believing members were created. Just a guess though. 

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

As I said, it was at best an uncharitable characterization of what he said. I know you don't believe that, but I believe you know that putting those words in his mouth makes what he actually did say sound contemptible and easier to dismiss. 

Oh.  You think I’ve uncharitably characterized what @teddyaware wrote?  He said that he believes the Lord revealed the policy that these children shouldn’t be baptized.  How have I been uncharitable in my characterization of what he wrote?  You can’t just say it’s uncharitable because you dislike the way it sounds if what I said was accurate. 

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I agree that God knew exactly how it would play out.  I disagree that the 15 "should" have had the same knowledge.  I think it would have been arrogant and disrespectful of them to refuse to follow what they obviously believed (as do I) was direction from God in 2015. "We won't do it unless you reveal to us exactly what is going to happen afterward.". That seems I inconsistent with the nature of God. 

So God knew how it would play out, that there would be such heartache and confusion that the Brethren would be prompted to pray for the policy to be changed — but God instructed them to do it anyway?

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If Adam is going to insist that God commanded him to offer sacrifice, then he ought to be able to explain why. Until he can, he ought to assume it was just a well-intentioned delusional experience and admit that he got it wrong. 

Adam is allegorical and in the context of the allegory, we know that the purpose of offering sacrifice was to symbolize and look forward to the Savior. 

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Then he's not alone.
I have seen so many people implying that following correct principles means you lack love.
Nobody seems willing to admit God can love us and still impose consequences for our behavior, including permanent removal from his presence.  A loving God would never send us away forever right?
Wrong.
 

You think wrong. You suppose wrong.  You maybe are wrong. God is made in the image of men. Your God is made in the way you imagine God to be. I don't know about you but I would never send one of my children to outer darkness fore ever.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Teancum

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You think wrong. You suppose wrong.  You maybe wrong. God is made in the image of men. Your God is made in the way you imagine God to be.

Well, not really.  There are a number of things that God has apparently done that do not fit with what I "imagine God to be."  This is why I need scriptures like Isaiah 55:8 ("For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord"), and 1 Cor. 13:12 ("For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known") and D&C 19:10 ("For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it!").  Not because I have "made" God.  Not because God conforms to what I "imagine."

So trite turns of phrase like "God is made in the image of men" don't really work for me.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't know about you but I would never send one of my children to outer darkness fore ever.

I understand the sentiment, including that it comes from a blinkered and finite perspective.

Nephi had a greater understanding than you or I do.  He was shown the terrible things that would happen to his descendants:

Quote

3 And after the Messiah shall come there shall be signs given unto my people of his birth, and also of his death and resurrection; and great and terrible shall that day be unto the wicked, for they shall perish; and they perish because they cast out the prophets, and the saints, and stone them, and slay them; wherefore the cry of the blood of the saints shall ascend up to God from the ground against them.

4 Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble.

5 And they that kill the prophets, and the saints, the depths of the earth shall swallow them up, saith the Lord of Hosts; and mountains shall cover them, and whirlwinds shall carry them away, and buildings shall fall upon them and crush them to pieces and grind them to powder.

6 And they shall be visited with thunderings, and lightnings, and earthquakes, and all manner of destructions, for the fire of the anger of the Lord shall be kindled against them, and they shall be as stubble, and the day that cometh shall consume them, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Nephi saw all these things, and was traumatized by them: "7 O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord."

But then something else happened.  I think that along with the terrible knowledge that Nephi was given, he was also given a comforting and vital truth: "{B}ut I must cry unto my God: Thy ways are just."

So it seems that Nephi's perspective was informed in important ways.  He saw and understood and accepted both the "what" and the "why."

I think sometimes we don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You think wrong. You suppose wrong.  You maybe wrong. God is made in the image of men. Your God is made in the way you imagine God to be. I don't know about you but I would never send one of my children to outer darkness fore ever.

I base my idea of God on scripture and man's other recorded dealings with him, not my imaginings.
If those records are in error then I will admit that I can be in error too but my sig line C.S. Lewis quote is there for a reason.

I consider that approach more reliable than creating a God based on my personal feelings, although I'm sure they sneak in too.  But I consider there to be evidence for my beliefs.
Your embracing of the imaginary God seems unwise, but as you said, you think I am doing the same thing.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Two issues with this:

1.  The 2015 policy did not state anything about seeking exceptions for children under legal age.  That was option was not stated for the bishops and stake presidents following the handbook.

2.  "Then once He saw how things played out..."  That is inconsistent with the nature of God.  He already knew how things would play out.  And, our 15 seers also should have known how things would play out.

If members want to cast this policy as well meaning men who responded to the threat of legalized gay marriage with a policy that they felt was the best solution, implemented it, and then modified it based on member feedback as well as their experience in granting exceptions, that is fine with me.  But let's admit what it was.

However, if members are going to insist that this policy and the modification were the product of revelation, than they ought to be able to explain it in a way that consistently fits that context.

1. Doesn’t matter; policies by nature can be excepted though established channels of authority. The scriptures are full of the Spirit telling people to do the unconventional and the counter-intuitive. Bishops and stake presidents will ask if they need an answer.

2. No; it is consistent with His nature and how He deals with us. Abraham 3:25 and Moses 3:19 offer us the basis for a reasonable understanding and expectation of foreknowledge and omniscience. Of course, people have varying understandings and expectations of God and His revelations to His servants, and I suppose this can become an obstacle for some (e.g. “What did He really say to the prophets vs. what the prophets understood and conveyed?”).

Speaking of revelation, why do you characterize members holding the first narrative as “wanting” and those in the second as “insisting”? Why offer only two narratives? The first could well be framed in terms of God responding to a situation, implementing a countermeasure, waiting to see and declare it good (per the Creation story), modifying it as things progress (do a word search for “not expedient” in the D&C); all this working through His servants.

Revelation is still revelation no matter how it comes, and an omniscient God still has the self-control to wait and see what happens, otherwise His work and a glory would not require lesser beings' agency and learning curve to fulfill.

Edited September 25, 2019 by CV75

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I base my idea of God on scripture and man's other recorded dealings with him, not my imaginings.
If those records are in error then I will admit that I can be in error too but my sig line C.S. Lewis quote is there for a reason.

I consider that approach more reliable than creating a God based on my personal feelings, although I'm sure they sneak in too.  But I consider there to be evidence for my beliefs.
Your embracing of the imaginary God seems unwise, but as you said, you think I am doing the same thing.

 

Well I am not sure what God is or if there is one. But sure I imagine if there is a God that this God is much more merciful than some of what self proclaimed human prophets or oracles have said about God.  As for scripture well every word of it is written by a human so you have to trust that they are writing what God really wants said. As I think you know I don't find that method very reliable.

I agree with Lewis. I want God, not my idea or someone else's,  I am waiting for him to speak directly to me about this. No luck so far.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well I am not sure what God is or if there is one. But sure I imagine if there is a God that this God is much more merciful than some of what self proclaimed human prophets or oracles have said about God.  As for scripture well every word of it is written by a human so you have to trust that they are writing what God really wants said. As I think you know I don't find that method very reliable.

I agree with Lewis. I want God, not my idea or someone else's,  I am waiting for him to speak directly to me about this. No luck so far.

There's a big problem with allowing your statement to guide -" As for scripture well every word of it is written by a human so you have to trust that they are writing what God really wants said".

Without it we know absolutely ZERO about God.  Unless we accept God's actions on record or God's words on the record, there is nothing we can state about God.  We might as well worship the flying spaghetti monster.

But that is what faith and testimony is all about right?  I believe in the gospel, and that means the scriptures.  So when scripture says God cast out 1/3 part of his children or will prohibit their return to him AND that God loves all his children infinitely then there has to be a way to reconcile it that we aren't seeing.  And I prefer that to saying "God wouldn't do that" based only on my feelings.

Edited September 25, 2019 by JLHPROF