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

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, if you would like to review my concept as I described it*, I think you would see that you took away something quite different.

Aside from that, I think, as President Oaks once described (April 2014 General Conference), that: “The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service,” but are not free to alter divinely decreed patterns affecting the exercise of priesthood keys, which is entailed in baptismal approval and performance.

Here we have a policy requiring the exercise of priesthood keys (not building locations and missionary ages), so I think it falls under God’s purview. “Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used.” Where those who have the keys have described the revelation involved with the policy along the way (i.e. how the keys will be used for baptizing children of same-sex couples), and that we have so many precedents in scripture where God has taken a step-wise and testing approach with His people, I find this to be a case where the Lord is behind the policy and its changes.

*

“He acts, waits and sees, and goes to the next step. Some may see that as omniscient and others not. …I’m suggesting He used a graduated approach that involved both revelation and “trial-and-error” (an extremely poor term for what I was describing) on His part, not the prophets’, seers’, and revelators’.

“The Creation scriptures say God saw that the outcome of each day’s command was good, implying both a time of waiting and waiting to find out. Knowing what One wants and how to make it happen is not the same as executing it with partner-servants. But that is not the only way He works. As with the Creation (and we know He must have had some heavenly partners in that), He sometimes knows what He wants, how to make it happen, and executes it in faith, waiting for the desired outcome.

“…in my analysis and experience with this topic, more indicators point to God taking a step-wise revelatory approach (as I described it) than to prophetic error in designing, then making exceptions and changes to this policy.”

This step-wise approach would require that God somehow revealed the first step to them.  But I don't see that in this policy.  So I can't get on board with the step-wise revelatory approach.

I guess you could tell me which step you think God revealed to get them started on this policy.

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I understand you did not have occasion to decide whether to follow the procedures, that your bishopric had no experience with a same-sex couple requesting baptism for their child.

So does someone need to wait until this happens to pray about the policy?  Will we not get an answer if we’re not in the situation you describe?

 

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So does someone need to wait until this happens to pray about the policy?  Will we not get an answer if we’re not in the situation you describe?

 

@CV75 can give his answer but President Nelson certainly suggested that members can pray to know the truth about the policy.  Here's the quote from the end of this BYU devotional of two weeks ago:

"My dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to seek earnestly a confirmation from the Spirit that what I have told you is true and is from the Lord. He has declared that we may seek knowledge from heaven and expect to receive it: “If thou shalt ask,” the Lord promised, “thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge.”[xiii]

Ask your Heavenly Father if we truly are the Lord’s Apostles and prophets. Ask if we have received revelation on this and other matters. Ask if these five truths are—in fact—true."

[kllindley]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

@CV75 can give his answer but President Nelson certainly suggested that members can pray to know the truth about the policy.  Here's the quote from the end of this BYU devotional of two weeks ago:

"My dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to seek earnestly a confirmation from the Spirit that what I have told you is true and is from the Lord. He has declared that we may seek knowledge from heaven and expect to receive it: “If thou shalt ask,” the Lord promised, “thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge.”[xiii]

Ask your Heavenly Father if we truly are the Lord’s Apostles and prophets. Ask if we have received revelation on this and other matters. Ask if these five truths are—in fact—true."

And we have the great wisdom of anonymous men like @rockpond, and @ALarson, to inform us that God has revealed to them that what he taught is not true. But then they adamantly deny that they are not sustaining President Nelson as A prophet, seer, and revelator. 

So, I guess they believe the way God works is to call some men to lead His Church, and then can't even communicate clearly to them His will, but has to rely on random members who are righteous enough to receive the truth that the prophets and apostles can't.  It truly is a foreign way to think about the Church. 

[Jake Starkey]

It's a foreign way to think that God does not love all his creation, particularly the children.

 

[kllindley]

Just now, Jake Starkey said:

It's a foreign way to think that God does not love all his creation, particularly the children.

 

No one here had stated or even suggested that God doesn't love his children. It is disingenuous to suggest that. 

I understand that it is popular to throw out this kind of unsubstantiated accusation. But it seems very hypocritical when it comes from LGBT former members and progressive heterosexual "allies" as though their opinion is supposed to be more value than the perspective of LGBT members. 

 

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, kllindley said:

And we have the great wisdom of anonymous men like @rockpond, and @ALarson, to inform us that God has revealed to them that what he taught is not true. 

All any of us can do here, is be honest (hopefully) and relate our own experience regarding praying about this policy (when discussing it or answering questions).  I believe our leaders are good men who care deeply for their members (and all people).  But they can make mistakes as we all do.  No one (that I've seen) has claimed that they have lied regarding their own experience as this policy has changed, evolved and now been revoked.

18 minutes ago, kllindley said:

But then they adamantly deny that they are not sustaining President Nelson as A prophet, seer, and revelator. 

One can sustain a leader and still respectfully disagree with them.   

18 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, I guess they believe the way God works is to call some men to lead His Church, and then can't even communicate clearly to them His will, but has to rely on random members who are righteous enough to receive the truth that the prophets and apostles can't.  

That's not what I believe....but I'll let rockpond speak for himself  

 

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, kllindley said:

And we have the great wisdom of anonymous men like @rockpond, and @ALarson, to inform us that God has revealed to them that what he taught is not true. But then they adamantly deny that they are not sustaining President Nelson as A prophet, seer, and revelator. 

So, I guess they believe the way God works is to call some men to lead His Church, and then can't even communicate clearly to them His will, but has to rely on random members who are righteous enough to receive the truth that the prophets and apostles can't.  It truly is a foreign way to think about the Church. 

You've given a great example here of the paradox we have in the church.

We profess a belief that our prophets are fallible.  We strongly deny any suggestion that we are blindly following or looking at them or their teachings as infallible.

Our prophet stands in front of an audience of tens of thousands being broadcast to hundreds of thousands and directs us to pray to know if what he has taught is true.  He teaches the truth that we can pray to know what is true and what is not.

So, knowing that prophets are fallible but trusting in the promises of the Lord and the teachings of our prophets that we can pray and seek our own spiritual confirmation, @ALarson and I have done just that.  But when the answer we receive is different, we are criticized.

Serious question @kllindley:  If any answer to prayer that I receive that is NOT aligned with what the prophet has taught is wrong, then why should I follow the prophet's counsel and pray?

Edited September 27, 2019 by rockpond

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You've given a great example here of the paradox we have in the church.

We profess a belief that our prophets are fallible.  We strongly deny any suggestion that we are blindly following or looking at them or their teachings as infallible.

Our prophet stands in front of an audience of tens of thousands being broadcast to hundreds of thousands and directs us to pray to know if what he has taught is true.  He teaches the truth that we can pray to know what is true and what is not.

So, knowing that prophets are fallible but trusting in the promises of the Lord and the teachings of our prophets that we can pray and seek our own spiritual confirmation, @ALarson and I have done just that.  But when the answer we receive is different, we are criticized.

Serious question @kllindley:  If any answer to prayer that I receive that is NOT aligned with what the prophet has taught is wrong, then why should I follow the prophet's counsel and pray?

You might not have noticed that I haven't criticized getting a different answer. It is the public teaching that the Prophet is either lying or unable to know what revelation is that I can't support. 

Honest question for you: Why belong to a Church led by men who so completely fail to discern the will of God? 

With members like that, the Church certainly doesn't need enemies. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 It is the public teaching that the Prophet is either lying or unable to know what revelation is that I can't support. 

Can you quote the post you are referencing here?

I haven't seen anyone make that statement (either/or) or teach that....but I admit I have not read the entire thread.  

Edited September 27, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You might not have noticed that I haven't criticized getting a different answer.

It sure feels that way.

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It is the public teaching that the Prophet is either lying or unable to know what revelation is that I can't support.

Good.  I can't support that either.  Nor have I professed such a teaching here.

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Honest question for you: Why belong to a Church led by men who so completely fail to discern the will of God? 

You are putting words in my mouth.  I didn't say that.

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

With members like that, the Church certainly doesn't need enemies. 

Are you sure you aren't criticizing me?  It still feels that way.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Our prophet stands in front of an audience of tens of thousands being broadcast to hundreds of thousands and directs us to pray to know if what he has taught is true.  He teaches the truth that we can pray to know what is true and what is not.

So, knowing that prophets are fallible but trusting in the promises of the Lord and the teachings of our prophets that we can pray and seek our own spiritual confirmation, @ALarson and I have done just that.  But when the answer we receive is different, we are criticized.

Why think of it as criticism?  Or more to the point, if you say God has told you something and God has told me something different than what you are saying God has told you, what words of comfort would you like me to tell you before I just tell you what God has told me?  Or would you prefer that I simply say that God didn't tell me that without mentioning what it was that God had told me about that?

You're not acting as if we're supposed to just believe whatever you say God told you as if that is what God really said, are you?

On this issue I don't really care either way because I don't have a dog in the hunt on this issue. If it ever really matters to me I'll ask God what he thinks but until then I don't see a good reason to get all worked up about it.

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Can you quote the post you are referencing here?

I haven't seen anyone make that statement (either/or) or teach that....but I admit I have not read the entire thread.  

I am not directly quoting. As far as I can tell, those are the two alternatives being put forward to the policy not being the will of God.  I am more than happy to be corrected. Do you have an alternative? I know you have said the Leaders are well-intentioned, but fallible. When they characterize the policy as revelation is there a third option to 1) them being mistaken (unable to accurately discern what God's will is) or 2) not being honest?

[kllindley]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good.  I can't support that either.  Nor have I professed such a teaching here.

But why won't you answer what the alternative is? When they characterize the policy as revelation is there a third option to 1) them being mistaken (unable to accurately discern what God's will is) or 2) not being honest?

 

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You are putting words in my mouth.  I didn't say that.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth. So you believe they *did* accurately discern the will of God in relation to the 2015 policy? 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

But why won't you answer what the alternative is?

You hadn’t asked. Read on...

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

When they characterize the policy as revelation is there a third option to 1) them being mistaken (unable to accurately discern what God's will is) or 2) not being honest?

Some here have suggested that the revelatory aspect may have been that God simply told them to do something (regarding the legalization of gay marriage).  The policy was what they came up with. 

The binary options you’ve noted here a limiting and don’t reflect the entire spectrum of what could be happening. 

My perspective: the Prophet (President Monson) at the time of the policy, whom President Nelson has quoted as declaring that the policy was the mind and will of the Lord did not ever publicly state that the policy was revealed to him. Perhaps Pres. Nelson was not clear regarding what Pres. Monson was declaring.  I’m not sure.  To my knowledge we only have Pres. Nelson’s statement on this.  Further, Pres. Nelson now seems to be suggesting that they were driven by love (not necessarily a direct “here’s what I want” type of revelation from a God).

Also, we have statements from the Brethren teaching us that when the discuss a matter and reach an accord the mind and will of the Lord has been reached. We’ve been told that they did discuss this issue at length. Maybe that is what Pres. Nelson was referring to. 

In the end, I don’t have a lot of certainty regarding what Pres. Nelson has meant by his statements.  This is why I’ve been asking a lot of questions on the thread. What I am certain of is the spiritual answers I’ve received on this issue - and I need to stay true to those. 

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I don't mean to put words in your mouth. So you believe they *did* accurately discern the will of God in relation to the 2015 policy? 

No. But that is very different than how you characterized it in your previous post. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Also, we have statements from the Brethren teaching us that when the discuss a matter and reach an accord the mind and will of the Lord has been reached.

That's too big an assumption for me.  But I do understand the principle they are following here and I believe it correct.

It's the all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumb example.

I  believe when God speaks to his prophet they will all be able to receive united confirmation.  I don't believe every united decision they come to comes from the Lord.

Edited September 28, 2019 by JLHPROF

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

No. But that is very different than how you characterized it in your previous post. 

So, they did not accurately discern the will of God, but that is very different than saying that they failed to accurately discern the will of God. Are you trying to be funny? Because I don't get the joke. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

56 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, they did not accurately discern the will of God, but that is very different than saying that they failed to accurately discern the will of God. Are you trying to be funny? Because I don't get the joke. 

What exactly does it mean to have a fallible prophet to you? Serious question.

[kllindley]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What exactly does it mean to have a fallible prophet to you? Serious question.

It means that he is capable of making mistakes or being erroneous.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It means that he is capable of making mistakes or being erroneous.

What if their prophesies are incorrect or don't come to pass? Is that a concern, with having a scripture about they're being false prophets if so? I'm not saying this to criticize, I'm very serious. This thought has chipped away at my testimony for a long time.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

So, they did not accurately discern the will of God, but that is very different than saying that they failed to accurately discern the will of God. Are you trying to be funny? Because I don't get the joke. 

You wrote to me:  “Honest question for you: Why belong to a Church led by men who so completely fail to discern the will of God?”

This is a very broad statement that is not consistent with what I’ve written.

Have I accused President Nelson of lying when it comes to his belief that the policy was sourced in revelation?  No.  Do I think that the policy fails to reflect the will of God?  Yes.  Do I think there is a lot of further light and knowledge yet to be received by them regarding greater LGBT issues and doctrine?  Yes. 

Do I believe them to be “men who so completely fail to discern the will of God?”  No. 

Again, I come back to the paradox.  If we believe that our prophets are fallible and we believe that each of us should seek personal spiritual confirmation of their teachings, why would you question my membership in the church because I got an answer that differed from what they taught?  If it is wrong for me to ever get an answer that conflicts with their teachings, than you are, in effect, arguing in favor of prophetic infallibility. 

Edited September 28, 2019 by rockpond

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It means that he is capable of making mistakes or being erroneous.

Does that include his statements regarding this policy?

[kllindley]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You wrote to me:  “Honest question for you: Why belong to a Church led by men who so completely fail to discern the will of God?”

This is a very broad statement that is not consistent with what I’ve written.

Have I accused President Nelson of lying when it comes to his belief that the policy was sourced in revelation?  No.  Do I think that the policy fails to reflect the will of God?  Yes.  Do I think there is a lot of further light and knowledge yet to be received by them regarding greater LGBT issues and doctrine?  Yes. 

Do I believe them to be “men who so completely fail to discern the will of God?”  No. 

Again, I come back to the paradox.  If we believe that our prophets are fallible and we believe that each of us should seek personal spiritual confirmation of their teachings, why would you question my membership in the church because I got an answer that differed from what they taught?  If it is wrong for me to ever get an answer that conflicts with their teachings, than you are, in effect, arguing in favor of prophetic infallibility. 

Why would I question? Because I actually wanted to understand. I couldn't do it. Plain and simple. If I believed that President Nelson was not capable of knowing whether or not he was receiving inspiration, I would absolutely not be able to stay.  For me to believe that the Church was still of God would require a God who wasn't powerful enough to actually lead His Church. 

I actually have a degree of empathy for the position you describe.  For example, I've said before that if ever there comes a time when the leadership of the Church teach that God approves of homosexual relationships, it would trigger extreme internal tension because of what I know to be true and revealed to me from God about gender and marriage.  But that is where you and I differ. If that were to happen, I would know that the Leadership had fallen into apostasy. At that time, my integrity would require that I honor my personal spiritual testimony and I would resign from the Church.  

[kllindley]

52 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Does that include his statements regarding this policy?

Capable of being mistaken or in error? Absolutely.  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

What if their prophesies are incorrect or don't come to pass? Is that a concern, with having a scripture about they're being false prophets if so? I'm not saying this to criticize, I'm very serious. This thought has chipped away at my testimony for a long time.

Of course it is a concern to me. However, I will say that I am much more concerned about my ability to accurately discern what the prophecy actually is rather than what I assume it is. My personal experience has consistently been that when I think that the prophets have been wrong, I later come to understand that it was I who was mistaken and operating under insufficient light or erroneous assumptions.  That process may happen quickly, or it may take years.   

That is why I have learned personally to keep my disagreements relatively private.  I don't want to find out after years of insisting that I know better than the Prophet, that I was the one who is wrong.  How will I explain to the Savior that my arrogance was what damaged another's faith? I can't live with that. If it turns out that I am correct and the Prophet is wrong, I can rest assured that the Lord is capable of correcting him in His own time.  After all, it is His work, isn't it?